Big Brass Balls

Big Surprise: Someone In GOP Indicted

2005-10-27T23:47:00.000-05:00

From MSNBC:

A coin dealer and major GOP donor at the center of a scandal in Ohio state government was charged Thursday with illegally funneling $45,400 in contributions to President Bush’s re-election campaign.

Thomas Noe was accused in a federal indictment of giving money directly or indirectly to 24 friends and associates, who then made the campaign contributions in their own names. In that way, he skirted the $2,000 limit on individual contributions, prosecutors said.

“It’s one of the most blatant and excessive finance schemes we have encountered,” said Noel Hillman, section chief of the Department of Justice’s public integrity section.

Calls to the White House and Noe’s attorneys were not immediately returned. Prosecutors said the Bush campaign has cooperated with their investigation.

Noe also is under investigation over an ill-fated $50 million investment in rare coins he managed for the state workers’ compensation fund. Noe has acknowledged that up to $13 million is missing, and Ohio’s attorney general has accused him of stealing as much as $6 million. No charges have been filed in that case, though state officials say they plan to file charges.

Prosecutors would not reveal the names of the people to whom Noe gave money to contribute or say if any of them would be charged. The indictment said Noe and those who gave his money to Bush had conspired together to violate the contribution limits.

Two people who received just over $20,000 from Noe recruited others who then gave money in their own names, the indictment said.

The coin dealer personally contributed more than $105,000 to Republicans, including Bush and Gov. Bob Taft, during the last campaign.

An investigation into Noe’s coin investments led to ethics charges against Taft for failing to report golf outings and other gifts. The governor pleaded no contest in August and was fined $4,000.

U.S. Attorney Gregory White said prosecutors were negotiating Noe’s surrender with his lawyer.

Noe’s attorney, Bill Wilkinson, said in a statement that Noe’s surrender was complicated by the fact that Noe was in South Florida and that many courthouses there were still closed because of Hurricane Wilma.

If convicted, Noe faces up to 15 years in prison and fines up to $950,000.

Quote Of The Day

2005-10-26T16:42:00.000-05:00

To you I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.
--Woody Allen

Wingnut Alert: Fred Phelps

2005-10-25T12:34:00.000-05:00

From Sky News:

The Sky Report has secretly filmed one of America's most controversial Christian ministers praising the London bombings.

Fred Phelps says that terrorist outrages and natural disasters such as Hurricane Rita are examples of God's wrath against countries such as America and Britain for tolerating homosexuals and homosexuality.

Fred Phelps, who set up the controversial Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, told our undercover reporter about the attacks, which killed 52 people:

"Oh I am so thankful that happened. My only regret is that they didn't kill about million of them. England deserves that kind of punishment, as does this country (America)".

The church, which has 150 followers, recently started picketing funerals including those of American soldiers killed in Iraq, waving banners such as "Thank God 9/11", "God Hates Fags" and "Aids Cures Fags".

The Sky Report investigation includes secret filming inside the church's fortified compound during a weekly service in which Fred Phelps also denounced the Roman Catholic Church as the "biggest paedophile organisation in the history of the world".

Phelps made news just last month when the Daily Telegraph reported that the Swedish royal family were consulting lawyers after discovering that he had made outrageous claims about their sexuality on the internet.

Several members of the Westboro Baptist Church congregation were planning to visit Sweden - placards in hand - ready to spread their message that Sweden is, "a land of sodomy, bestiality and incest''.

Quote Of The Day

2005-10-21T12:45:00.000-05:00

All men dream, but not equally.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds
wake in the day to find that it was vanity:
but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men,
for they may act their dream with open eyes,
to make it possible.

--T.E. Lawrence
Seven Pillars of Wisdom

DeLay Requests New Judge

2005-10-21T11:55:00.000-05:00

From Yahoo! News:

Rep. Tom DeLay appeared in court Friday for the first time since his indictment, but his arraignment on conspiracy and money laundering charges was delayed pending a hearing on his request for a new judge in the politically charged case.

DeLay, who has stepped aside at least for the time being as House majority leader, did not speak during the brief court session, and was not called on to make a plea. But at a news conference shortly afterward, he attacked the prosecutor in the case as politically motivated, and said, "I will absolutely be exonerated."

Inside the courtroom, Judge Bob Perkins told defense lawyer Dick DeGuerin that "the best way for me to handle" the request for a new judge would be to defer further proceedings.

That set the stage for a pointed exchange between the two men that seemed as much a campaign debate as a courtroom exchange.

In respectful tones, DeGuerin noted that Perkins had donated money to MoveOn.org, a liberal organization that he said has been "selling T-shirts with Mr. DeLay's mug shot on it."

"Let me just say I haven't ever seen that T-shirt, number one. Number two, I haven't bought it. Number three, the last time I contributed to MoveOn that I know of was prior to the November election last year, when they were primarily helping Sen. Kerry," responded the judge.

MoveOn.org denied it was selling any such shirts, and issued a statement that said, "DeGuerin has either bad information or lied in court."

"All we want is a fair trial and a fair tribunal," DeGuerin told reporters outside the courthouse.
Prosecutor Ronnie Earle signaled he intends to contest the request for a new judge.
"What this means is if a judge had contributed to Crime Stoppers that judge could not hear a burglary case," Earle said. "Carried to its extreme, that is what I think this motion means and I think that's absurd."

"We don't live in a country where political party determines the measure of justice," Earle said, adding that he though DeLay could get a fair trial in the state's capital.

Administrative Judge B.B. Schraub will hold a hearing on whether Perkins should step aside. Schraub is based outside of Austin in the nearby town of Seguin, has been the administrative judge for the region since 1990 and is a Republican. Three Republicans and one Democratic governor have appointed or reappointed him to his job, his assistant said.

It was not clear how much the motion would lengthen proceedings in the case. The Texas congressman has said he wants a speedy trial.

DeLay appeared relaxed as he sat next to his wife, Christine, in the courtroom for what turned out to be a session of roughly four minutes. Earlier, he had entered the courthouse through a side door to avoid the cameras.

DeLay and two political associates are charged in an alleged scheme to funnel corporate donations to GOP candidates for the Texas Legislature. State law prohibits use of corporate donations to elect or defeat state candidates. All three deny wrongdoing.

The case has had a political cast from the outset. The charges arise from a campaign in which Republicans gained control of the legislature, then used their new majority to force through a redistricting plan that netted the GOP additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

DeLay's indictment has roiled Republican politics in Washington, where he was forced to step aside as the No. 2 House Republican. With an eye on the 2006 elections, Democrats have sought to turn him into a symbol of what they depict as an ethically-challenged Republican majority.

But apart from giving up his leadership post — as required under GOP rules — DeLay has been nothing but defiant.
He retains a powerful influence in the House GOP high command, has repeatedly attacked Earle and now seeks to force the removal of the judge, who has donated to the organization that DeLay's lawyer described as antithetical to GOP fortunes.

"I will not let a prosecutor who pursues his political enemies by abusing the law and manufacturing baseless charges wreck our justice system," DeLay said at his news conference.

Apart from seeking a new judge, the congressman's lawyers are asking to have the case moved out of Austin, one of the state's most liberal areas.

DeLay turned himself in to the Harris County sheriff's office in Houston on Thursday, avoiding hordes of reporters waiting for him in nearby Fort Bend County, where he lives.

He smiled broadly in a mug shot that was publicly released. DeLay also was fingerprinted, went before a judge and was released on $10,000 bail.

DeLay's co-defendants are John Colyandro of Dallas, who was executive director of a Texas political action committee founded by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, a paid adviser who also runs DeLay's national fundraising committee. They also face conspiracy and money laundering charges, but their attorneys asked that their cases be separated from DeLay's proceedings.

UN Report Implicates Syria

2005-10-21T11:40:00.000-05:00

From The Washington Post:
A U.N. investigation has implicated senior Syrian and Lebanese officials in the assassination of Lebanon's leading reformer in a move that U.S. and European officials expect will generate new international pressure on the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad.

In blunt language, the report by German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis concluded that the Valentine's Day bombing of former prime minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others "could not have been taken without the approval of top-ranked Syrian security officials and could not have been further organized without the collusion of their counterparts in the Lebanese security forces."

The report faulted Damascus for failing to fully cooperate with the probe and cited several officials, including Foreign Minister Farouk Charaa for attempting to mislead the investigation by providing false or inaccurate statements. Nevertheless, Mehlis said many leads now point directly to Syrian security officials.

The findings have been eagerly awaited by U.S. and European officials. Along with a second U.N. report on Lebanon due in days, key members of the Security Council hope to use the findings to increase pressure on the Assad government to end years of meddling in Lebanon and to generally change its behavior both at home and throughout the region, including ending support for extremist groups.

Mehlis concluded that the complex assassination plot involved several months of preparation and was conducted by a sophisticated group with "considerable resources and capabilities." Although the primary motive was political, some of the perpetrators may have been motivated by issues involving fraud, corruption and money laundering, he added.

Syrian officials have repeatedly denied any role in Hariri's slaying. Earlier this week, Syrian Ambassador Imad Moustapha said, "We are absolutely categoric in saying we had nothing to do with Hariri." Messages to Syrian officials in Washington and at the United Nations were not returned last night.

But Mehlis said the slaying followed a "growing conflict" between Hariri and senior Syrian officials, including Assad. Tensions came to a head during a 10-to-15-minute meeting between the two men on Aug. 26, 2004. The Syrian leader informed Hariri that he wanted to extend for three years the term of Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, a close ally of Damascus, in defiance of the Lebanese constitution -- a move Hariri firmly opposed.

Mehlis's report included excerpts of interviews and statements about the meeting, including several by Hariri's associates and his son, alleging that the Syrian president threatened Hariri if he opposed the plan. Saad Hariri said his father told him that Assad said: "This extension is to happen, or else I will break Lebanon over your head."

In a conversation between Hariri and a Syrian deputy foreign minister tape-recorded on Feb. 1, the former prime minister recalled the meeting with Assad as "the worst day of my life." Hariri then told the Syrian official that Lebanon would no longer be ruled from Syria.

Walid Mouallem, the Syrian official and a former ambassador to Washington, warned Hariri that Syrian security services had him cornered and not to "take things lightly," according testimony given to the commission. Two weeks later, Hariri was dead.

When the commission tried to follow up these leads, Syria refused to provide substantive information, Mehlis reported. Assad refused to be interviewed. And interviews conducted last month produced "uniform answers" that contradicted the weight of evidence, he added.

The commission cited one witness's testimony that a white Mitsubishi with a tarpaulin over its flatbed was used as the bomb carrier and crossed into Lebanon from Syria three weeks before the attack. It was driven by a Syrian army colonel, the report said. The day before the bombing, the same witness said he drove a Syrian officer to the St. George area of Beirut on a "reconnaissance exercise" -- in the area where the assassination took place.

The report listed several officials who witnesses alleged knew about or played an advance role in the assassination. They included Gen. Jamil Sayyed, Gen. Mustapha Hamdan, Gen. Raymond Azar -- senior Lebanese officials who have been arrested -- and Gen. Rustum Ghazali, Syria's most recent intelligence chief in Lebanon. The day before the assassination, the report said, witnesses allege that Ghazali met with the head of Hariri's protection detail, emerging "badly shaken."

Another witness said Hamdan had accused Hariri of being pro-Israeli and had said, "We are going to send him on a trip, bye, bye Hariri." After Hariri's assassination, the witness was "strongly reminded not to discuss the conversation with anyone," the report said.

The report also cited an allegation by one witness against Assad's brother-in-law, Maj. Gen. Asef Shawkat. The unidentified witness told the commission that Shawkat forced an Islamic militant, Abu Adass, to record a tape claiming responsibility for the bombing two weeks before it occurred, to create the misimpression that the attack was the act of a lone suicide bomber.

Peppered with riveting detail, the report said Syrian and Lebanese intelligence officials wiretapped Hariri's phone.
But the 54-page report said the full picture would require a more extensive investigation, and called for the international community to help Lebanese authorities continue the probe. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan announced late yesterday that he will extend the Mehlis mandate to Dec. 15.

The Bush administration said it would not immediately comment. "We intend to read and study it tonight very carefully and decide tomorrow in consultations with other interested governments what the next steps will be," said U.S. Ambassador John R. Bolton. Diplomats expect the report to lead the Security Council to consider action, however.

A second U.N. report on Lebanon is expected next week. It will focus on the implementation of Resolution 1559, which calls for the end of Syria's meddling in Lebanon and the disbanding of armed groups that are tied to Syria.

To follow up on both reports, the United States and other nations have been discussing language for two resolutions that could be introduced as soon as next week to hold the perpetrators to account and add new pressure on Syria, according to U.S. and U.N. officials.

Mehlis's probe included more than 400 interviews and reviews of more than 16,000 pages of documents. Among those interviewed was Ghazi Kanaan, the former Syrian intelligence chief in Lebanon, who committed suicide last week.

Mehlis warned that many Lebanese fear the international community may not follow through, leaving them vulnerable to the return of Syrian military and intelligence services and a revenge campaign. Recent bombings and assassinations have been carried out "with impunity," deterring potential witnesses from testifying, he said.

More GOP Indictments?

2005-10-20T15:00:00.000-05:00

From The Hill:
House Resources Chairman Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) may have violated tax laws by accepting international trips paid for by a private foundation, according to a report out yesterday.

The Center for Public Integrity, which co-wrote the report with American Public Media’s “Marketplace” radio news show, alleges that the International Foundation for the Conservation of Natural Resources (IFCNR) funded trips to New Zealand and Japan in 2000 and 2002, respectively.

The trips cost a total of $23,000. Pombo’s wife accompanied the congressman on the first trip; a staff member went along on the second.

The IFCNR is apparently funded in part by donations from Darden Restaurants, the parent of the Red Lobster and Olive Garden chains. The Foundation also has received money from the National Trappers Association and the International Fur Trade Association.

Pombo’s Resources Committee has partial jurisdiction over federal environmental policy such as the Endangered Species Act, which Pombo and others have sought this year to rewrite. Environmental groups have argued that the changes would gut protections.

Justice Department and congressional investigations into the actions of former lobbyist Jack Abramoff have drawn increased scrutiny to congressional travel. Among the allegations facing Abramoff is that he personally paid for some member travel, a violation of House rules.

The potential problem with Pombo’s trips, according to the report, is that the Internal Revenue Service precludes private, nonprofit foundations from funding international travel by government officials.

The report says Pombo could have to reimburse the foundations for the costs of the trip or face what it describes as a stiff fine.

The foundation should have also paid taxes on the trip, but the report alleges that it did not. It could also have to pay a penalty.

Pombo told the Center and Marketplace that he had not been aware that the Foundation was private and that it was governed by different tax rules than trade associations, interest groups, think tanks and other nonprofit groups that routinely pay for congressional travel.

Pombo said he would have his accountant look into the allegations made in the report.
Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for the Resources Committee, said that if the review shows that Pombo owes money “he will make good on his debt.”

Foundation President Emeritus Stephen Boynton told investigators for the Center of Public Integrity and “Marketplace” that the foundation asked both Pombo and the House ethics committee if it could pay for the trips and received the OK.

The report also notes that Pombo served as the chairman of the Sustainable Use Parliamentarians Union (SUPU), a subsidiary to the IFCNR that was involved with the trips.

Pombo allegedly served in that capacity from 2000 to July 2004. Rep. Dennis Rehberg, a Republican from Montana, is the current chairman of the group.

Pombo said that he had not had contact with the IFNCR or SUPU for several years. SUPU has only had two meetings, Boynton said.

Quote Of The Day

2005-10-20T12:21:00.000-05:00

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

GOP: Big Business Over Average Citizens (Again)

2005-10-20T12:17:00.000-05:00

From News Day:

In a move that should come as no surprise, the GOP once again placed the needs of huge cash rich corporations (i.e. large corporate donors) above the needs of average American citizens. This is just another sickening example of the Republican's selling out to corporate America. Americans should be unnerved by this unabashed corporate partisanship.

Congress gave the gun lobby its top legislative priority Thursday, passing a bill that would protect the firearms industry from massive lawsuits brought by crime victims. The White House says President Bush will sign it into law.

The House voted 283-144 to send the bill to the president after supporters, led by the National Rifle Association, proclaimed it vital to protect the industry from being bankrupted by huge jury awards. Opponents, waging a tough battle against growing public support for the legislation, called it proof of the gun lobby's power over the Republican-controlled Congress.

"This legislation will make the unregulated gun industry the most pampered industry in America," said Kristen Rand, director of the Violence Policy Center.

Under the measure, about 20 pending lawsuits by local governments against the industry would be dismissed. The Senate passed the bill in July.

The bill's passage was the NRA's top legislative priority and would give Bush and his Republican allies on Capitol Hill a rare victory at a time when some top GOP leaders are under indictment or investigation.

"Lawsuits seeking to hold the firearms industry responsible for the criminal and unlawful use of its products are brazen attempts to accomplish through litigation what has not been achieved by legislation and the democratic process," House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., told his colleagues.

Propelled by GOP election gains and the incidents of lawlessness associated with the passing of Hurricane Katrina, support for the bill has grown since a similar measure passed the House last year and was killed in the Senate.

Horrific images of people without the protection of public safety in New Orleans made a particular impression on viewers who had never before felt unsafe, according to the gun lobby.

"Americans saw a complete collapse of the government's ability to protect them," said Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president.

"That burnt in, those pictures of people standing there defending their lives and defending their property and their family," he added, "where the one source of comfort was a firearm."

With support from four new Republicans this session of Congress, the bill passed the Senate for the first time in July. House passage never was in doubt because it had 257 co-sponsors, far more than the 218 needed to pass.

The bill's authors say it still would allow civil suits against individual parties who have been found guilty of criminal wrongdoing by the courts.

Opponents say the strength of the bill's support is testament to the influence of the gun lobby. If the bill had been law when the relatives of six victims of convicted Washington-area snipers John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo sued the gun dealer from which they obtained their rifle, the dealer would not have agreed to pay the families and victims $2.5 million.

"It is shameful that Republicans in Congress are pushing legislation that guarantees their gun-dealing cronies receive special treatment and are above the law," said Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Calif.

Bush has said he supports the bill, which would prohibit lawsuits against the firearms industry for damages resulting from the unlawful use of a firearm or ammunition. Gun makers and dealers still would be subject to product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits, the bill's authors say.

Democrats and Republicans alike court the NRA at election time, and the bill has garnered bipartisan support. But the firearms industry still gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle.

Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats that cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

------

The bill is S. 397.

Freedom Is Not Free

2005-10-18T11:42:00.000-05:00

Quote Of The Day

2005-10-18T10:59:00.000-05:00

Naturally, the common people don't want war,
but they can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
Tell them they are being attacked,
and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and endangering the country.
It works the same in every country.

--Herman Goering

DeLay Turned Down Deal

2005-10-18T10:54:00.000-05:00

From CNN:
A Texas prosecutor tried to persuade Rep. Tom DeLay to plead guilty to a misdemeanor and save his job as majority leader but DeLay refused, the congressman's attorney said Monday.

Dick DeGuerin described such an effort in a letter to the prosecutor in the case, Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle.

DeLay has been indicted on conspiracy and money laundering charges in a Texas campaign finance investigation, both felonies. He was obligated to step aside under House Republican rules.

"Before the first indictment you tried to coerce a guilty plea from Tom DeLay for a misdemeanor, stating the alternative was indictment for a felony which would require his stepping down as majority leader of the United States House of Representatives," DeGuerin wrote.

"He turned you down flat so you had him indicted, in spite of advice from others in your office that Tom DeLay had not committed any crime," the lawyer contended.

Earle had no immediate comment.
In a series of filings prior to DeLay's first scheduled court appearance Friday, DeGuerin asked for:
A speedy trial, because the indictments "have already had adverse collateral consequences including the temporary loss of Tom DeLay's leadership position in the United States Congress and an unknown effect on the upcoming (March 2006) primary election."

Dismissal of the indictments because, he contended, they failed to allege any act or omission by DeLay and improperly joined two offenses.

Separation of DeLay's case from that of two political associates, because DeLay wants a speedy trial while the associates are pursuing appeals that would delay their cases.

DeLay To Be Booked This Week

2005-10-18T10:50:00.000-05:00

From My Way:

Rep. Tom DeLay will likely be booked in a Texas county jail this week despite attempts by his attorneys to bypass the fingerprinting and mug shot process.

The former House majority leader was forced to step down from the post last month when he was indicted by a Texas grand jury. DeLay initially was charged with conspiracy to violate the election code and days later was indicted on charges of money laundering and conspiracy to launder money in an alleged illegal scheme to funnel corporate money to Republican Texas legislative candidates.

DeLay's arraignment is set for Friday before state district Judge Bob Perkins in Travis County, Texas.
"Perkins believes that if God was charged with a felony, he would have to go through the booking process, too," said D'Ann Underwood, court coordinator for the judge.

Before Friday, DeLay, a Republican from Sugar Land, Texas, will likely spend about an hour being fingerprinted and photographed, she said. He'll also be required to state his attorneys for the record.

Travis County allows some defendants to do a "walkthrough" booking process, in which the defendant is photographed and fingerprinted. But DeLay's bond amount would be preset so he could immediately pay it and avoid a stay in jail.

DeLay also could waive going before a magistrate to have his rights and charges read to him.
At Friday's court appearance, Perkins has the discretion to rule on motions to dismiss the charges, as requested by defense attorneys, but may elect to do so at a later date. The hearing will likely take less than 20 minutes, Underwood said.

Quote Of The Day

2005-10-14T12:03:00.000-05:00

The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants,
and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.

-- Albert Camus

House of Saud Still Full of BS

2005-10-14T11:48:00.000-05:00

It’s interesting that the United States continues to fund both sides of the “War on Terrorism”.

One the one side, we send large amounts of military hardware to Saudi Arabia to prop up a regime that continues to turn out citizens whose sole purpose ends up being the destruction of our way of life. Despite what the House of Saud might say publicly, it is well documented that their country is one of the largest terrorist creating machines in the world. It also directly and indirectly (many times by simply turning a blind eye) bankrolls organizations opposed to the United States on an unprecedented scale.

On the other side of the coin the United States government pours billions of dollars annually into fighting the very terrorists created by the government of Saudi Arabia, which as I stated before, we help prop up.

It’s a great racket. Sell billions of dollars of military hardware to the government that supports your vowed enemy. Then, buy billions of dollars of hardware for your own military from huge defense contractors to fight the very enemy you are indirectly creating.

It’s the perfect circle. A self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak.

From Breitbart:

The king of Saudi Arabia says women may eventually be allowed to drive in the kingdom.

Saudi Arabia will fight the "madness" of Islamic terrorism for 30 years if necessary, but it will expand the rights of women and eventually allow them to drive, Saudi King Abdullah has told an American TV channel.

In an interview with ABC's Barbara Walters, the king denied assertions that his government finances schools that teach a fundamentalist philosophy of Islam which can lead to militancy.

Saudi Arabia "will fight the terrorists, and those who support them or condone their actions, for 10, 20 or 30 years if we have to, until we eliminate this scourge," the king said, according to an ABC report of the interview which is due to be broadcast on Friday night.

When asked why groups such as al-Qaida, the terror network led by the Saudi-born Osama bin Laden, had taken root in the kingdom, the king replied: "Madness and evil, it is the work of the devil."

Foreign observers and liberal Saudis have long contended that the way Islam is taught in Saudi schools encourages attitudes that may lead students to become terrorists later.

"For those who level these charges against us, I say provide us with the evidence that this is happening and we will deal with it," the king said. "It is not logical or rational for us to be supporting it.

"We have also regulated our charities and we have closed offices around the world, and we have withdrawn support for institutions that we found to be extremist," he added.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, the kingdom took steps to prevent money collected by Islamic charities from being diverted to terrorist groups.

The kingdom was initially faulted for being slow to clamp down on militants and their financing, but it drastically stepped up its measures after al-Qaida-linked groups launched a series of terror attacks on Saudi soil in May 2003.

Abdullah, who became king on the death of his half-brother Fahd in August, told ABC that he was committed to increasing the rights of Saudi women, who are currently not permitted to drive cars and who need a male relative's permission to travel abroad or attend university.

"I believe the day will come when women drive," he said. "In fact, if you look at the areas in Saudi Arabia, the deserts and in the rural areas, you will find that women do drive.

Driving licenses for women "will require patience. In time, I believe it will be possible," the king said in the ABC report, which was posted on the Internet.

But when pressed on whether he would legalize female driving, Abdullah indicated Saudi men were too conservative for such a step any time soon.

"I value and take care of my people as I would my eyes ... I respect my people," he said.

Bush's "Impromptu" Teleconference

2005-10-13T13:07:00.000-05:00

From Think Progress:

Earlier today, President Bush held an “impromptu” public teleconference with a group of U.S. soldiers based in Tikrit, Iraq.

Pentagon communications aide Allison Barber “insisted the questions were not rehearsed. The military had been told ahead of time only about topics the president might want to talk about, not specific questions. ‘We just knew broad themes,’ Barber said.”

Yet reporters could clearly hear White House handlers, including Barber herself, prepping the troops for President Bush’s photo-op:

WH Pooler Geoff Earle of the New York Post writes of the teleconference: “The soldiers, nine U.S. men and one U.S. woman, plus an Iraqi, had been tipped off in advance about the questions in the highly scripted event. Allison Barber, deputy assistant to the Secretary of Defense for internal communication, could be heard asking one soldier before the start of the event, “Who are we going to give that [question] to?”

Also, Hotline (sub. req’d) has published this transcript of pool footage featuring a Bush aide “who was, in her own words, ’scripting’ the soldiers shortly before their ‘conversation’ with Bush”:

WH aide: “Capt. Kennedy are you ready?”
Kennedy: “I am ready, ma’am.”
WH aide: “Okay this is for the money. We are going to time this and remember that if the president cuts it short, if he asks more questions, if you have the microphone and he follows up with a question to you, no matter who has it, Captain Pratt if you have the microphone and the president hears something and he wants more information, you just keep that microphone and talk to the president.”
Kennedy: “Okay.”
WH aide: “But if he gives us a question that is not something that we have scripted Captain Kennedy you are going to have the mic and that’s your chance to impress us all.”
Kennedy: “Okay.”
WH aide: “Which won’t be a problem for you.”

SEC Subpoenas Frist

2005-10-13T12:42:00.000-05:00

From The Washington Post:

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has been subpoenaed to turn over personal records and documents as federal authorities step up a probe of his July sales of HCA Inc. stock, according to sources familiar with the investigation.

The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the subpoena within the past two weeks, after initial reports that Frist, the Senate's top Republican official, was under scrutiny by the agency and the Justice Department for possible violations of insider trading laws.

Frist aides previously said he had been contacted by regulators but did not mention that the lawmaker had received a formal request for documents. The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the investigation, said Frist is expected to testify under oath about what he knew about the company's health in the weeks before he sold stock. Frist has told reporters that he did nothing wrong and that he directed the sale to eliminate potential conflicts as he considered a 2008 presidential bid.

The formal request for documents usually presages an acceleration of a federal probe. In Frist's case, regulators had to proceed with caution due to his status in Congress and their mutual desire to avoid triggering constitutional objections to the release of documents. The disclosure of the subpoena comes as Democrats blasted Frist anew for his financial and personal ties to Hospital Corporation of America, a Nashville chain founded in 1968 by his father and his brother, Thomas Frist Jr. Critics yesterday seized on a report that Frist held a substantial amount of his family's hospital stock outside of blind trusts between 1998 and 2002 -- a time when he asserted he did not know how much of the stock he owned.

The Associated Press reported on Tuesday that Frist earned tens of thousands of dollars from HCA stock in a partnership controlled by his brother, outside of the blind trusts he created to avoid a conflict of interest.

"It seems that for years, Frist may have misled his constituents and the American people about his health care industry stock holdings and the conflict of interest they created as he drafted our nation's health care policy," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. "This deal raises even more questions about the Republican culture of corruption in Washington, D.C."

During his decade in the Senate, Frist has been active in shaping health care policy, including creation of a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Republican ethics lawyer Jan W. Baran also scored Frist for his handling of his trusts. "This shows Senator Frist's capacity for clumsiness and bad timing," Baran said. "He was trying to insulate himself from political charges and now finds himself trying to defend himself because of the transparency of his holdings."

The subpoena for documents related to the July stock sales was written carefully to avoid asking for documents related directly to Frist's legislative actions, according to sources. By keeping the request focused on his personal activities, experts said, the SEC avoided raising objections from Senate lawyers who might otherwise have fought the request on the grounds of constitutional separation of powers.

The wording in the subpoena also ensured that Frist did not have to tell colleagues about the document request or to otherwise involve them in the investigation, congressional aides said.

The executive branch is prohibited from seeking documents or testimony that relate to "legislative acts and the motivation for the performance of legislative acts," said Kenneth Gross of Skadden Arps, an ethics law expert. The ban is part of what is called the Constitution's "speech and debate" clause, which insulates Congress from unwarranted intrusions by the executive branch of government. Writing a subpoena that does not run afoul of the clause -- and also possibly trigger a public disclosure of the subpoena -- required careful work.

"There are some gray areas, clearly, and it could be tricky," said Baran, of Wiley Rein & Fielding. Members of the House of Representatives must disclose to the full House when they are subpoenaed. The Senate has its own rules that sometimes require the body to deal with subpoenas, experts say, but the Frist subpoena apparently has not triggered any of them.

A spokesman for Frist said yesterday: "As we have indicated, Senator Frist has been fully cooperating with the authorities conducting the inquiries and will continue to do so, including keeping our public comments to a minimum. The issuance of a subpoena would be an expected and normal part of that process."

Within days of Frist's July stock sale, HCA warned investors about weaker-than-expected financial performance, which sent the stock price spiraling downward by 9 percent in one day. Frist may have begun the process of selling the stock April 29, months before the company's troubles were clear, according to e-mail messages between the Tennessee Republican, his chief counsel and his personal accountant that were reviewed by The Washington Post.

Former SEC enforcement chief and retired federal judge Stanley Sporkin said the agency has a "rich history" of probing officials at the highest level -- from Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas to Carter administration budget chief Bert Lance.

SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, a former House GOP member from California, has removed himself from hearing evidence on or voting on the case, citing his ties to Frist.

Islamic Somalia?

2005-10-13T12:27:00.000-05:00

From The Seattle PI:

An influential religious leader and alleged al-Qaida collaborator vowed in an interview Wednesday to establish an Islamic state in Somalia, a lawless Horn of Africa nation the United States fears could grow into a major base for Islamic terrorists.

"The Western world should respect our own ideas in choosing the way we want to govern our country, the way we want to go about our own business. That is our right," said Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys, a key figure in a growing religious camp vying with secular factions for control of Somalia.

Despite peace talks and the formation last year of a transitional government, Somalia remains a patchwork of heavily armed clan fiefdoms - with no government to provide such basics as schools, hospitals, phone service, even traffic lights.

Earlier this year, the parliament and Cabinet split into two factions. As a result, fundamentalists offering Islam as a solution have drawn support in Somalia, and there are concerns that Awey's followers poses a military threat to the transitional government.

The United States linked Aweys to al-Qaida shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Last week, the United Nations reported that he was arming hundreds of men to keep the Western-backed transitional government from taking power after years of clan fighting.

U.S. officials have repeatedly expressed concern that Somalia, which has not had a central government since warlords ousted dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1992, could become an Islamic terrorist haven. Investigations have shown that terrorist attacks on Kenyan soil in 1998 and 2002 were launched from Somalia.

In a report earlier this year, the International Crisis Group, a Belgian-based think tank, said the threat of terrorism inspired by an extremist interpretation of Islam "in and from Somalia is real" and identified Aweys as an important Islamist leader.

Speaking by telephone from a mosque in northern Mogadishu, Somalia's capital, Aweys told The Associated Press Wednesday that his enemies invented allegations he is a terrorist and that non-Muslims too often think that all fundamentalist Muslims are terrorists.

"I would advise the Western world to change their mind, because all of the time they call the Islamic countries, the Islamic people, terrorists, which is not true," he said. "That is one of the things that has been pulling Islamists and the Western world apart.

He said he and his followers, who include armed militiamen, would not rest until they had established an Islamic government in Somalia. He said he opposed efforts to install a Western-style democracy and called for the international community to leave Somalis alone to choose their own future.

Aweys said he would wage holy war on any foreign forces that enter Somalia and that he plans to have an important role in the country's future.

"I can influence all of my people with the faith and our religion," Aweys said. "The existing government is not an Islamic one and we will be having our own Islamic faith and we will be very strong in influencing our people."

Aweys did not answer directly when asked whether he has ever had contact with al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden or whether he has been accepting funding and weapons from Eritrea, neighboring Ethiopia's longtime rival. But he said he has the right to make contact with and have relations with anyone he wants.

Aweys co-founded the Islamic group al-Itihaad al-Islamiya in the early 1990s. The United States alleges that during this time Aweys made contact with bin Laden, then living in Sudan.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, an old enemy of Aweys, sent troops into Somalia to stop al-Itihaad. Al-Itihaad's armed wing was destroyed, but the group's founders continued to lead mosques and teach in religious schools.

Aweys said al-Itihaad doesn't exist anymore and he now leads a political party, the Somali Salvation and Unity Council. In recent years, Aweys said he has helped form Islamic courts to provide security for civilians and to sort out disputes in the absence of a government.

These courts have recently begun using armed militias to enforce their rulings and Aweys has become an important religious and political leader.

In September, U.N. experts monitoring an arms embargo on Somalia reported that Islamic hard-liners, including Aweys, were importing high explosives, mines, hand and rifle-fired grenades, anti-tank weapons and ammunition and anti-aircraft guns and ammunition.

Senator Luger Screws Bloggers

2005-10-12T16:46:00.000-05:00

From ars technica:

Senator Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.) recently revealed that so-called bloggers would "probably not" be considered journalists by the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, which will include provisions detailing "shield law" protections for journalists. In effect, this could mean that it will be open season on those pesky bloggers once this bill passes.

According to the first draft of the Free Flow of Information Act of 2005, the "covered person" protected by the bill's terms includes "any entity that disseminates information by print, broadcast, cable, satellite, mechanical, photographic, electronic, or other means and that publishes a newspaper, book, magazine, or other periodical in print or electronic form; operates a radio or television station (or network of such stations), cable system, or satellite carrier, or channel or programming service for any such station, network, system, or carrier; or operates a news agency or wire service." The legislation also covers employees, contractors or other persons who "gathers, edits, photographs, records, prepares, or disseminates news or information for any such entity."

Lugar did say that he expects plenty of debate on the matter, but added "Are bloggers journalists or some of the commercial businesses that you here would probably not consider real journalists? Probably not, but how do you determine who will be included in this bill?"

The debate is nothing new; I raised this issue back in April with regards to the definition of "blog," although some "bloggers" took offense at my suggestion that it was not clear just what a blog is. Make no mistake about it: in Big Media circles, confusion reigns supreme.

How can that be, you ask? It's simple. There is no "journalist certification," no "entrance exam," no "licensing test"—in short, there's no true definition. It's not like real estate, where one is either a realtor or one is not. One could point to collegiate "journalism" or "communications" degrees, but then a problem arises when so many journalists—some would say the majority—lack such a degrees. It doesn't help that at many schools, the degrees are fluff: at a certain unnamed school, "communications" is just a synonym for "what the athletes study." I've heard it's like this at more than one school, too.

And I have to ask: why does, for example, someone writing for CNet deserve protection while a "blogger" does not? Take this rather sensationalizing article at CNet. They saw a private Intel roadmap and spun it into a story about "golly gee that's a lot of chips!". Were Intel to object, they'd likely be safe. But what about Fred's Page of CPU Madness (hypothetical site)? Why does a private roadmap in the hands of one "journalist" rate as OK, while in the hands of a blogger, it's not?

Lest I fall into the trap of demagoguery, there is a difference to contemplate. How are we to know, in our hypothetical example, if Fred's Page of CPU Madness isn't run by an Intel employee or partner with direct access to the information in question? I don't think this is a "screw the Man" scenario; there are real, tangible concerns when it comes to issues of propriety. Still, I don't think professional journalism conquers these issues by design. Rather, most media shops have a least a decent understanding of their writers' backgrounds, which in theory normally precludes Joe Journalist from having a secret job with Intel, for instance (of course, this doesn't speak to the issue of leaks, sources, etc., but the point should be clear enough).

The reason all of this matters, of course, is because it is essential that journalists receive special protections to ensure them freedom of the press. The case of ThinkSecret et alia comes to mind (although that problem largely looks solved now, as TS has managed to report several conflicting rumors relating to today's big Apple event in the span of a week—one could say that they give all insanity equal billing).

Sayeth Dick Lugar:

"I think, very frankly, you can make a case that this is a special boon for reporters, and certainly for their role in freedom of the press," he said. "At the end of the day what we will come out with says there is something privileged about being a reporter, and being able to report on something without being thrown into jail."

In all of this talk of privilege, there is a mounting fear in some journalism circles that the federal government may want to leverage this "privilege" with a federal licensing program of sorts, which is enough to make some people twitch. How else will this dilemma be solved? And two demerits to the person who pops up and says, "false dilemma!"

Highlights of Captured Al-Qaida Letter

2005-10-12T16:02:00.000-05:00

From Bretibart:

In a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, al-Qaida's No. 2 leader said the United States "ran and left their agents" in Vietnam and the jihadists must have a plan ready to fill the void if the Americans suddenly leave Iraq.

"Things may develop faster than we imagine," Ayman al-Zawahri wrote in a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam _ and how they ran and left their agents _ is noteworthy. ... We must be ready starting now."

Senior U.S. military commanders have said that Iraqi security forces are improving significantly and some U.S. forces could return home early next year. Yet skeptics have raised concerns about whether such statements simply let the insurgency know how long they must wait for the U.S. to leave.

In a letter taking up 13 typed pages in its English translation, al- Zawahri also recommended a four-stage expansion of the war that would take the fighting to neighboring Muslim countries.

"It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established ... in the heart of the Islamic world," al-Zawahri wrote.

The letter laid out his long-term plan: expel the Americans from Iraq, establish an Islamic authority and take the war to Iraq's secular neighbors, including Lebanon, Jordan and Syria.

The final stage, al-Zawahri wrote, would be a clash with Israel, which he said was established to challenge "any new Islamic entity."

The letter is dated July 9, and was acquired during U.S. operations in Iraq. It was written in Arabic and translated by the U.S. government. The Pentagon briefed reporters last week on portions of the document, but the full text was not available until Tuesday.

In a statement, the National Intelligence Director's office said the letter "has not been edited in any way" and its contents were released only after it was clear no military or intelligence operations would be compromised.

House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., said his committee is reviewing the letter, but he cautioned "against reading too much into a single source of intelligence."

In his letter, al-Zawahri, a Sunni, devoted significant attention to al-Zarqawi's attempts to start a civil war with the rival Muslim Shiite sect, the majority that now dominates the new Iraqi government. Ultimately, al-Zawahri concluded that violence, particularly against Shiite mosques, only raises questions among Muslims.

"This matter won't be acceptable to the Muslim populace however much you have tried to explain it, and aversion to this will continue," he wrote.

Al-Zawahri was also critical of the Taliban, which was toppled in the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, because, he said, they did not have the representation of the Afghan people. He said students of the Taliban retreated to their tribes.

"Even the devout ones took the stance of spectator," al-Zawahri wrote.

Contrasting that, he saw fearlessness in battles waged in the Iraqi cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Al Qaim.

At times, the letter got personal. Al-Zawahri said he tasted the bitterness of America's brutality, noting that his "favorite wife's chest was crushed by a concrete ceiling" during an apparent U.S. attack. His daughter died of a cerebral hemorrhage.

To this day, he wrote, he did not know the location of their graves.

The letter then switches to the court of public opinion.

"More than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media," he wrote. "We are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our umma," or community of Muslims, he wrote.

The line is an apparent reference to a phrase _ "hearts and minds" _ often used by President Bush.

___

On the Net:

Read the full letter in English or Arabic on the national intelligence director's Web site: http://www.dni.gov/release_letter_101105.html

Bush Nominee Chosen On Basis of Religion

2005-10-12T15:52:00.000-05:00

Gee, here is a news flash I never saw coming. Thank you Captain Obvious.

From CNN:

President Bush said Wednesday his advisers were telling conservatives about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' religious beliefs because they are interested in her background and "part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination "just to explain the facts."

He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee's religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove.

Continuing controversy

Not even a congressional recess nor Bush's preoccupation with hurricane recovery and affairs of state have shrouded the continuing controversy surrounding his selection of Miers to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Debate about Miers' credentials was prominent on the Sunday television talk shows and has continued to occupy considerable attention on the Internet.

Some of Bush's conservative critics say Miers has no judicial record that proves she will strictly interpret the Constitution and not -- as Bush says -- "legislate from the bench." They argue that Bush passed up other more qualified candidates to nominate someone from his inner circle.

Miers is Bush's second pick for the court. He chose John Roberts for the bench, initially to succeed O'Connor but then gave Roberts the nod for chief justice when William H. Rehnquist died. Roberts was confirmed by the Senate on a vote of 78-22.

Dobson: No assurances

On a radio show being broadcast Wednesday, Dobson said he discussed Miers with Rove on October 1, two days before her nomination was announced. Dobson said Rove told him "she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life," but denied he had gotten any assurances from the White House that she would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said: "The rest of America, including the Senate, deserves to know what he and the White House know."

"We don't confirm justices of the Supreme Court on a wink and a nod. And a litmus test is no less a litmus test by using whispers and signals," the Vermont senator said. "No political faction should be given a monopoly of relevant knowledge about a nomination, just as no faction should be permitted to hound a nominee to withdraw, before the hearing process has even begun."

Earlier Wednesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asserted that Miers would bring "a unique brand of experience" to the high court and that the concerns of critics would be eased once more is known about her.

Gonzales, himself once considered a leading candidate for a Supreme Court vacancy, said there is "nothing unique or earth shattering" about Miers' nomination and said people should give her time to say who she is and what she believes.

Prospective nominees withdraw

Also, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan acknowledged there were some prospective candidates who told the White House they preferred not to be considered, citing the ordeal of the confirmation process.

"Washington scares people away? Is that new?" McClellan asked. "There are plenty of good people willing to be considered. The president found the best person."

McClellan later said that "it was just a couple of people" who asked that their names be withdrawn, and it happened when the field of candidates was "in the double digits." He declined to say whether "a couple" meant just two -- or more.

Asked why Rove would have discussed Miers' religious views if the president ascribes to a conservative judicial philosophy that backs a strict interpretation of the Constitution regardless of one's views on various issues, McClellan said it was just part of an "outreach" to help people get to know Miers.

"What we have seen so far," Leahy said, "is more of a commentary on the litmus tests and narrow motivations of vocal factions on the Republican right than it is a commentary on the qualifications of Harriet Miers."

DeLay Attempts To Turn The Tables

2005-10-12T14:19:00.000-05:00

From CNN:

Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay's attorneys are trying to compel testimony by prosecutors on their contacts with grand jurors, sending subpoenas to the Texas district attorney who normally issues them.

DeLay's defense team reversed the normal direction of subpoenas in their strategy to have the charges dismissed before trial. The lawyers contend that the Travis County district attorney, Ronnie Earle, acted improperly with two grand juries that filed charges and one that refused to do so.

DeLay, R-Texas, was obligated to temporarily step aside as House majority leader when charged with conspiracy and money laundering in a state campaign finance investigation led by Earle. DeLay has denied any wrongdoing.

Defense attorney Dick DeGuerin said that Earle refused the subpoena delivered to his office on Tuesday, when he declined to sign a paper acknowledging its delivery. Earle countered that he voluntarily accepted it.

DeGuerin wants Earle and two of his assistants to testify, and said he would redeliver subpoenas Wednesday. Earle responded that redelivery wasn't necessary.

"It was not a properly prepared subpoena but we accepted service voluntarily anyway," the prosecutor said. He refused to say whether he would file a motion to have his subpoena dismissed.

DeGuerin also asked that grand jurors be released from their secrecy oath so they could answer questions about the prosecutor's conduct.

Earle's office said in a written statement, "Because of laws protecting grand jury secrecy, there are limitations to what we can say at this time, but we fully expect to prevail in this matter."

Focus on conversation

DeGuerin wants Earle to answer 12 questions about conversations he had with grand jurors, including whether the prosecutor became angry when a grand jury decided against an indictment of DeLay and why that decision was not publicly released.

He also wants to know the details of Earle's conversation with William Gibson, foreman of a grand jury that indicted DeLay on conspiracy charges, whose term has since ended.

"If you did nothing improper, you should not be concerned about answering these questions," DeGuerin said in his letter to Earle.

The first of three grand juries said DeLay and two political associates conspired to violate Texas election laws; the second declined to indict, and the third accused DeLay of money laundering.

All the charges were related to allegations that corporate money was funneled to Texas legislative candidates in violation of state law. The donations helped Republicans capture the Texas legislature, redraw congressional districts with DeLay's help and take control of the state's congressional delegation.

In a motion filed last week, the defense team said that from September 29 through October 3, Earle and his staff "unlawfully participated in grand jury deliberations and attempted to browbeat and coerce" the grand jury that refused to indict DeLay.

Foreman 'incited'

The motion said Earle then attempted to cover up and delay public disclosure of the refusal, and also "incited" the foreman of the first grand jury to violate grand jury secrecy by talking publicly about the case -- in an effort to influence grand jurors still sitting.

The foreman, William Gibson, gave media interviews after the grand jury finished its work but told The Associated Press that Earle did not ask him to discuss the case.

"That's a bunch of (expletive) there," Gibson said. "That man did not talk to me."

He said Earle advised him and other grand jurors to keep an open mind as they considered evidence and cautioned them, "What goes on behind closed doors is secret."

The lawyers said Earle then spoke about the case with members of the first grand jury, whose work was finished, to get their opinion of what they might have done if they had known their conspiracy indictment was flawed -- as defense attorneys alleged.

Earle then submitted the grand jury opinions to the third grand jury to persuade it to hand down the money laundering indictment, the defense team contended.

Georgia Tech Bombing Follow-up

2005-10-12T13:18:00.000-05:00

From SeattlePI:

A Georgia Tech freshman has been arrested after confessing to making a bottle bomb that exploded in a campus courtyard and led to the evacuation of two dormitories, authorities said.

Theodore Hollot, 18, came forward Tuesday and told police that he had made several bombs in his room and tossed them into a courtyard near his dorm.

The engineering major was charged with possession of destructive devices and reckless conduct, said Amelia Gambino, a spokeswoman for university police.

Hollot was placed on interim suspension and faces a disciplinary hearing, Gambino said.

About 100 students were evacuated from two residence halls Monday morning after a janitor picking up trash in the courtyard pulled out a bottle from the bushes and it exploded. The janitor was taken to a medical clinic for evaluation but suffered no serious injuries, Gambino said.

Two more bottles were found and detonated by Atlanta police. Gambino said Hollot told police that he threw as many as 12 from his room but retrieved the others after the commotion caused Monday, when he was in class.

Gambino said investigators were still trying to determine what made the bottle explode.

Remembering the USS Cole

2005-10-12T12:34:00.000-05:00

Today is the fifth anniversary of the attack on the USS Cole (DDG-67). I think it is important for everyone to reflect on that day, and give thanks to the 17 sailors who lost their lives that day. As a former sailor, being reminded of this hits me preatty hard today. Let us resolve to never forget these fallen heros, and their sacrafice. Chief Petty Officer Richard Costelow, Morrisville, Pennsylvania. Signalman Seaman Recruit Cheron Luis Gunn, Rex, Georgia. Seaman James Rodrick McDaniels, Norfolk, Virginia. Seaman Recruit Lakiba Nicole Palmer, San Diego, California. Operations Specialist 2nd Class Timothy Lamont Saunders, Ringgold, Virginia. Ensign Andrew Triplett, Macon, Mississippi. Seaman Apprentice Craig Bryan Wibberley, Williamsport, Maryland. Hull Maintenance Technician 3rd Class, Kenneth Eugene Clodfelter, Mechanicsville, Virginia. Mess Management Specialist Seaman Lakeina Monique Francis, Woodleaf, North Carolina. Information Systems Technician Seaman Timothy Lee Gauna, Rice, Texas Engineman 2nd Class Mark Ian Nieto, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. Electronics Warfare Technician 3rd Class Ronald Scott Owens, Vero Beach, Florida. Engineman Fireman Joshua Langdon Parlett, Churchville, Maryland. Fireman Apprentice Patrick Howard Roy, Cornwall on Hudson, New York. Electronics Warfare Technician 2nd Class Kevin Shawn Rux, Portland, North Dakota. Mess Management Specialist 3rd Class Ronchester Mananga Santiago, Kingsville, Texas Fireman Gary Graham Swenchonis Jr., Rockport, Texas

Plamegate Leak Investigation Broadens?

2005-10-12T12:19:00.000-05:00

From Think Progress:

The WSJ reports that Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation has zeroed in on the White House Iraq Group (WHIG):

Mr. Fitzgerald’s pursuit now suggests he might be investigating not a narrow case on the leaking of the agent’s name, but perhaps a broader conspiracy…Lawyers familiar with the investigation believe that at least part of the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group. Formed in August 2002, the group, which included Messrs. Rove and Libby, worked on setting strategy for selling the war in Iraq to the public in the months leading up to the March 2003 invasion. The group likely would have played a significant role in responding to Mr. Wilson’s claims.

It sounds plausible, especially considering how much we already know about the involvements of members of WHIG:

Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney Scooter Libby: Visited the CIA to press them for information about uranium sales to Iraq. Helped prepare CIA director George Tenet’s response to criticism about faulty intelligence included in the President’s State of the Union address. Spoke with Time reporter Matt Cooper and New York Times reporter Judith Miller about Valerie Wilson’s role at the CIA. Testified before the grand jury. [Link]
National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley: Received an email from Rove about his conversation with Matt Cooper. Was warned by the CIA not the cite uranium evidence. Helped prepare CIA director George Tenet’s response to criticism about faulty intelligence included in the President’s State of the Union address. Believed to have been questioned by special prosecutor. [Link]
Chief of Staff Andrew Card: Received 12-hour head start on Justice Department investigation. Was on Air Force one with State Department memo describing Valerie Wilson’s role at CIA. Initiated conversation between Tenet and Bush about investigation. Believed to have been questioned by special prosecutor. [Link]

Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove: Spoke with Time reporter Matt Cooper and columnist Robert Novak about Valerie Wilson’s role at the CIA. Helped prepare CIA director George Tenet’s response to criticism about faulty intelligence included in the President’s State of the Union address. Testified before the grand jury. [Link]
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: In July 2003 received a briefing book that may have contained a State Department memo discussing Valerie Wilson’s role at the CIA. Appeared on Sunday shows to “protect Cheney by explaining that he had had nothing to do with sending Wilson to Niger, and dismiss the yellowcake issue.” Questioned by special prosecutor. [Link]
Senior Advisor Mary Matalin: Worked closely with Vice-President Cheney. Testified before grand jury. [Link]
Communications Director Dan Bartlett: Was on Air Force one with State Department memo describing Valerie Wilson’s role at CIA. Longstanding ties to Rove. Offered contradictory explanation of infamous “16 words.” [Link]
White House Aide Karen Hughes: Denied Rove’s involvement in leak. Helped draft State of the Union Addess with false uranium claim. Interviewed with Fitzgerald. [Link]

Much more in our leak scandal cast of characters.

Dobson, Rove, Miers: Lying Evangelical Holy Trinity

2005-10-12T11:57:00.000-05:00

Evangelical wingnut James Dobson denies that evangelical wingnut Karl Rove provided him inside information of the anti-abortion position of evangelical wingnut Harriet Miers.

From The Denver Post:

A tough-talking James Dobson, answering calls that he break his silence about a private conversation with White House political strategist Karl Rove, said in a radio broadcast airing today that he received no assurances on how Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers would rule on abortion rights.

The influential founder of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family also dared U.S. senators who have threatened to call him before the Judiciary Committee to "just go do it. ... I have nothing to hide."

Dobson suggested the senators would be disappointed because most of what Rove told him two days before the announcement of Miers' nomination is widely known.

Although specific court cases were not addressed, Rove underscored Miers' anti-abortion credentials, according to Dobson. Rove described Miers as an evangelical Christian who came from a church that is "almost universally pro-life" and said she was a member of Texas Right to Life, among other things, Dobson said. Dobson said he also was told President Bush believes she will stand true to Bush's judicial philosophy, broadly stated as interpreting law rather than setting social policy from the bench.

According to Dobson, Rove shared one detail that has not been made public: Several other finalists for the court took themselves off the shortlist because "the process has become so vicious and vitriolic and so bitter."

Dobson said he could speak freely about the conversation because Rove had given him permission. He said he simply couldn't reveal all the details when pressed last week because they had not been made public.

The evangelical Christian ministry on Tuesday released a transcript of the broadcast, which reaches an estimated 7 million to 8 million listeners daily.

Dobson's initial unwillingness to talk about what Rove told him became a flashpoint in the debate about Miers' nomination shortly after Dobson endorsed her in the midst of serious reservations expressed by other conservatives.

"When you know some of the things I know - that I probably shouldn't know, that would take me in this direction - you would understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice," Dobson said on his radio show last week.

The hint about inside information set off several U.S. senators, including Colorado Democrat Ken Salazar, who called Dobson's comments troublesome.

The controversy escalated over the weekend when three members of the Senate Judiciary Committee went on Sunday morning talk shows and took umbrage with Dobson being more in the loop than senators voting on the nomination. Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee's Republican chairman, decried the possibility of "backroom deals" and said he might call Dobson as a witness.

Specter said Tuesday that he wants to start the hearings in late October or early November and conclude them before Thanksgiving. He reiterated he is looking into claims made by Dobson and said it is possible he or the Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, could call Dobson to testify.

New York Democrat Charles Schumer said he, too, believes Dobson should be called to testify about what Schumer termed the "wink and whisper." Schumer said Rove also should answer questions about what he shared. Salazar also said the burden of disclosure lies with the White House and Rove.

Dobson's description of the conversation meshes with the White House version. The White House has said that in marshaling support from Dobson and others, Rove spoke about Miers' credentials and judicial philosophy but did not offer insights on how Miers might rule on any case that might come before the Supreme Court.

When Rove talked to Dobson, Bush had not asked Miers to be the nominee. According to Dobson, Rove told him Bush wanted to nominate a woman. But according to Dobson, the landmark Supreme Court case that legalized abortion never came up.

"We did not discuss Roe vs. Wade in any context or any other pending issue that will be considered by the court," Dobson said. "I did not ask the question. You know, to be honest, I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe vs. Wade. ... That's the most incendiary information that's out there, and it was never part of our discussion."

Dobson reserved his harshest language for Democratic senators who have called him out, including Salazar. Salazar did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

If Dobson is called before the committee, he lacks the legal standing to keep the information private, said Georgetown University professor Mark Tushnett. Conversations between lawyers and clients, and preachers and parishioners are protected by privilege, but political strategy is not, he said.

Tushnett said the likelihood of Rove's testifying is low, although executive privilege should not come into play because it largely covers national security issues.

"If we knew more about (Miers') views, this wouldn't be a big deal," Tushnett said. "But when you deal with a base of information that is very thin, then anybody who wants information will be looking for a source for it."

Frist's Trust Not So Blind After All

2005-10-12T11:47:00.000-05:00

From Yahoo! News:

Outside the blind trusts he created to avoid a conflict of interest, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist earned tens of thousands of dollars from stock in a family-founded hospital chain largely controlled by his brother, documents show.

The Tennessee Republican, whose sale this summer of HCA Inc. stock is under federal investigation, has long maintained he could own HCA shares and still vote on health care legislation without a conflict because he had placed the stock in blind trusts approved by the Senate.

However, ethics experts say a partnership arrangement shown in documents obtained by The Associated Press raises serious doubts about whether the senator truly avoided a conflict.

In that case, the HCA stock was accumulated by a family investment partnership started by the senator's late parents and later overseen by his brother, Thomas Frist. The brother served as president of the partnership's management company and as a top officer of HCA. Sen. Frist holds no position with the company.

The senator's share of the partnership was placed in a Tennessee blind trust between 1998 and 2002 that was separate from those governed by Senate ethics rules. Frist reported Bowling Avenue Partners, made up mostly of non-public HCA stock, earned him $265,495 in dividends and other income over the four years.

Edmond M. Ianni, a former Wilmington, Del., bank executive who established blind trusts for corporate executives, questioned why the senator's brother was able to manage assets "when the whole purpose of a blind trust is to ensure lack of not only conflict of interest — but appearance of conflict of interest?"

Kathleen Clark, a government ethics expert at the Washington University in St. Louis School of Law, said she doesn't believe the Senate trusts or the Tennessee trust insulated Frist from a conflict because the senator or his brother were advised of transactions and could influence decisions.

"What I find most appalling is the Senate calls it a qualified blind trust when it's not blind," Clark said. "Since the Senate says it's OK, the Senate has made it a political question. It's up to the voter. But there's no doubt it's a conflict of interest."

Frist's interest in Bowling Avenue Partners and the Tennessee blind trust were listed on the annual disclosure reports he filed with the Senate. Thomas Frist's ability to influence HCA stock decisions in the partnership was detailed in separate trust and partnership documents obtained by the AP.

Those documents show Thomas Frist was listed as the "general partner" and "registered agent" of Bowling Avenue Partners. He also was listed as president of the partnership's management company.

Thomas Frist founded HCA, the nation's largest for-profit hospital chain, with his and the senator's father. He currently is the company's chairman emeritus.

Frist advisers confirmed the senator's brother could influence investment decisions in the Bowling Avenue partnership and said the partnership was placed in a Tennessee trust because Senate ethics rules didn't allow the non-public HCA shares to be included in Senate-approved trusts.

"His interests in the family partnership were not held by his Senate blind trusts because Senate rules did not permit it. Senator Frist did not control the assets in this partnership and he annually disclosed his interests to the public as required," Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson said.

Thomas Frist did not return repeated phone calls to his office at HCA seeking comment.

Bowling Avenue Partners' HCA shares became marketable securities when the estate of Frist's mother was settled in probate. Frist then began transferring those shares in stages from the Tennessee blind trust to the Senate-approved trusts in 2001 and 2002.

The value of all the transferred shares, calculated on the dates they went into the Senate trusts, was between $775,000 and $1.57 million, according to letters the trustees sent to Frist and the Senate. That stock was on top of millions of dollars in various investments Frist already owned in the Senate blind trusts.

With his background as a heart surgeon as well as majority leader, Frist has been at the forefront of legislation that would affect the hospital chain. Among the issues: a Medicare prescription drug benefit and limits on medical malpractice lawsuits.

Frist kept HCA stock in Bowling Avenue Partners and the Tennessee blind trust — but outside the Senate-approved trusts — between 1998 and 2002.

His investments in Nashville-based HCA are being investigated by federal prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission after an AP report that the senator had asked administrators of his Senate blind trusts to sell his HCA holdings.

Frist ordered the stock sold June 13 and all sales were completed by July 1. HCA stock peaked on June 22 and then gradually declined. On July 13, it dropped 9 percent.

Reports to the SEC showed insiders sold about 2.3 million shares of HCA stock worth at least $112 million from January through June 2005.

Frist has denied having insider company information when he ordered the stock sold in June. The profit the senator made from the sales is not known.

The Bowling Avenue name came from the street of the Frist family home in Nashville.

State Department Report: The World Now Hates the U.S.

2005-10-12T11:12:00.000-05:00

From The Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy :

(full report here: http://www.uiowa.edu/~ournews/2005/september/091505Cultural-Diplomacy-Report.pdf)

Cultural diplomacy is the linchpin of public diplomacy; for it is in cultural activities that a nation's idea of itself is best represented. And cultural diplomacy can enhance our national security in subtle, wide-ranging, and sustainable ways. Indeed history may record that America's cultural riches played no less a role than military action in shaping our international leadership, including the war on terror. For the values embedded in our artistic and intellectual traditions form a bulwark against the forces of darkness.

The ideals of the Founding Fathers, enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Bill of Rights, take on new life in the vibrant traditions of American art, dance, film, jazz, and literature, which continue to inspire people the world over despite our political differences. But in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, and the controversy over the handling of detainees at Bagram and Guant�namo Bay, America is viewed in much of the world less as a beacon of hope than as a dangerous force to be countered. This view diminishes our ability to champion freedom, democracy, and individual dignity - ideas that continue to fuel hope for oppressed peoples everywhere. The erosion of our trust and credibility within the international community must be reversed if we hope to use more than our military and economic might in the shaping of world opinion. Culture matters.

The erosion of our trust and credibility within the international community must be reversed if we hope to use more than our military and economic might in the shaping of world opinion. Culture matters.

Cultural diplomacy reveals the soul of a nation, which may explain its complicated history in American political life: when our nation is at war, every tool in the diplomatic kit bag is employed, including the promotion of cultural activities. But when peace returns, culture gets short shrift, because of our traditional lack of public support for the arts. Now that we are at war again, interest in cultural diplomacy is on the rise. Perhaps this time we can create enduring structures within which to practice effective cultural diplomacy and articulate a sustaining vision of the role that culture can play in enhancing the security of this country. And if, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggests, America�s involvement in Iraq requires "a generational commitment," then our cultural diplomacy efforts require a similar commitment of funds, expertise, courage, and time.

Cultural diplomacy:

Helps create "a foundation of trust" with other peoples, which policy makers can build on to reach political, economic, and military agreements;
Encourages other peoples to give the United States the benefit of the doubt on specific policy issues or requests for collaboration, since there is a presumption of shared interests;
Demonstrates our values, and our interest in values, and combats the popular notion that Americans are shallow, violent, and godless;
Affirms that we have such values as family, faith, and the desire for education in common with others;
Creates relationships with peoples, which endure beyond changes in government;
Can reach influential members of foreign societies, who cannot be reached through traditional embassy functions;
Provides a positive agenda for cooperation in spite of policy differences;
Creates a neutral platform for people-to-people contact;
Serves as a flexible, universally acceptable vehicle for rapprochement with countries where diplomatic relations have been strained or are absent; Is uniquely able to reach out to young people, to non-elites, to broad audiences with a much reduced language barrier;
Fosters the growth of civil society;
Educates Americans on the values and sensitivities of other societies, helping us to avoid gaffes and missteps;
Counterbalances misunderstanding, hatred, and terrorism;
Can leaven foreign internal cultural debates on the side of openness and tolerance.

The Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy urges the Secretary of State to consider the following recommendations:

To increase funding and staffing for cultural diplomacy and, in a larger sense, for public diplomacy.
To provide advanced training and professional development opportunities for FSOs, who are public affairs officers and have responsibility for public diplomacy and cultural diplomacy throughout their careers, with particular attention to research, polling, and the uses of new media.
To create an independent clearinghouse, in the manner of the British Council, to promote the national interest; support missions in their efforts to bring the best artists, writers, and other cultural figures to their audiences; develop publicprivate partnerships; and raise funds, with separate housing from the embassies so that cultural events can attract wider audiences.
To set aside funds for translation projects, into and out of English, of the most important literary, intellectual, philosophical, political, and spiritual works from this and other countries.
To streamline visa issues, particularly for international students. To implement the recommendations issued by the Center for Arts and Culture in Cultural Diplomacy: Recommendations and Research (www.culturalpolicy.org).
To revamp Al Hurra, the Arabic-language television station, in keeping with the highest traditions of American broadcasting.
To expand international cultural exchange programs, inviting more Arab and Muslim artists, performers, and writers to the United States, and sending their American counterparts to the Islamic world.

Effective cultural diplomacy requires a long-term commitment to winning the hearts and minds of reasonable people everywhere. Now is the time to create a cultural diplomacy infrastructure and policy for the twenty-first century.

RIAA Seeks To Control Your Radio

2005-10-11T16:33:00.000-05:00

From The Electronic Frontier Foundation:

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has seen the future of radio. And it would prefer to live in the past.

Digital broadcast radio is a standard for transmitting digital stations on existing analog radio bands. Known somewhat misleadingly as "HD radio" (the audio quality is about the same as analog FM), its adoption is giving tech companies a chance to experiment and innovate in the world of consumer radio.

TiVo-like functionality could be built into your digital receiver, letting you automatically build playlists and skip across channels based on your personal tastes. Computer-operated radio cards could be enhanced with new features using the standard's metadata. Tomorrow's tinkerers could give us new ways to enjoy radio, just as the engineers who brought us VCRs helped transform the way we watch TV.

As Mitch Bainwol, chairman of RIAA says, radio has a chance to become active, not passive, entertainment.

But when he and the RIAA say that, they don't say it like it's a good thing.

Last week, with a coalition of copyright holders, the RIAA sent messages to members of Congress requesting that the FCC be given new powers to hobble digital radios so they perform worse than the analog radios of yesteryear.

According to the RIAA, you should be able to record off the radio, but only subject to their "usage rules":

recordings must be for no less than 30 minutes;
recordings cannot be divided into individual songs, nor will you be allowed to jump between songs;
recordings must be encrypted and locked to the individual recording device (no transfers to your iPod!);
recordings can only be triggered by a human pressing a "record" button or by pre-programmed date-and-time (like your old VCR!), which means no smart metadata driven features like TiVo's "Wishlist."

In other words, the RIAA wants to micromanage how you record off the radio!

The most amazing thing about this? There is nothing illegal about recording from digital radio. Congress specifically gave radio fans the right to record off the radio (including digital radio) in the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA).

That law also gave innovators the right to build digital radio recorders (including smart digital radio recorders) without fear of copyright liability. There is nothing in that law that says the recorders have to be made artificially stupid by FCC regulation.

Don't let Congress turn back the dial on digital radio. Write now, and let your representative know that the RIAA is out of line.

RIAA/MPAA Attempt Take Over of Your Television

2005-10-11T16:18:00.000-05:00

From The Electronic Frontier Foundation:

Not long ago we updated you on the MPAA and RIAA's shenanigans to smuggle the Broadcast Flag through the United States Senate. Those who paid attention during "Schoolhouse Rock" will realize that's only half of the duo's burden. To make the Flag law, they must march it past the House of Representatives, too.

Now the second shoe has dropped: 20 members of the House sent an open letter to Congressman Fred Upton, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet (part of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce), and its ranking member, Edward J. Markey. All 20 pledged their allegiance to the Broadcast Flag.

The letter is short, with a single substantive talking point. If Congress doesn't deliver a Broadcast Flag pronto, warns the letter, content producers will abandon free, over-the-air broadcast TV.

To pound home this dire threat, the phrase "free, over-the-air television" is repeated no fewer than eight times - with four repetitions in four consecutive sentences. It's a little like the local racketeer rustling up extra protection money by emphasizing over and over how beautiful your precious Ming vase is, and what a tragedy it would be if anything were to happen to it.

But no matter how many times this threat is repeated, it's not even close to credible. The corporations that make up the MPAA have been threatening to boycott digital TV for years, without ever actually managing to stop broadcasting. Of course, Mr. Upton doesn't really need convincing, anyway. He's already gone on record as supporting the Broadcast Flag.

So why are 20 House representatives writing him a public letter? Because Mr. Upton is the one who needs a show of support.

You see, it appears that the MPAA and RIAA may have a problem with the House of Representatives.

The driver of digital TV legislation in the House is Joe Barton, Chairman of the Commerce Committee. And if what we hear through beltway back channels is true, Barton wants a deal. He believes that if the MPAA wants the Broadcast Flag in his bill so badly, it should be willing to compromise.

But the MPAA is in no mood for discussion. It wants to ram this bill through as quickly as possible, and it's leaning on Upton to stay the course. The letter is a way of saying that Upton isn't alone.

Fortunately for us, the fact that 20 out of 57 committee members support the Flag sends a message the MPAA doesn't want anyone to hear: the Broadcast Flag is controversial. If it wasn't, no one would be writing open letters to anyone else. And that means this committee has a duty to engage in serious, careful, comprehensive discussion and debate before the Flag legislation goes anywhere.

The Hollywood lobbyists are tallying their support, but they don't have the majority of the committee convinced. Do your part: tell your representative that you and your fellow constituents won't stand for the Broadcast Flag, especially without a hearing showing evidence that anyone but the MPAA and RIAA supports it.

Follow-up On The Oklahoma University Terrorist Attack

2005-10-11T14:19:00.000-05:00

From Accuracy In Media:

If you happened to be browsing the Internet last weekend, the headline, "Suicide bombing in Oklahoma" just might have caught your attention. After all, it's not every day that there's a terrorist attack on U.S. soil and supposedly there hasn't been one since 9/11.

But that's exactly what happened outside a packed football stadium at the University of Oklahoma in Norman, Oklahoma on Saturday night (10/1). 21-year-old engineering student Joel Henry Hinrichs III of Colorado Springs detonated a bomb near the stadium, killing himself in the process. The explosion was so powerful that people up to four miles away reported hearing it and windows in the George L. Cross building 100 yards away shattered. One of the drivers of several buses parked in a nearby lot was taken to the hospital after being knocked over by the blast

No one else was injured and 84,000 fans left the stadium, mostly unaware of the magnitude of what occurred outside. Some reported hearing the explosion and seeing rising smoke, as did a few people living in the area. There was a brief delay following the game during which crowds were kept inside while authorities combed the area for evidence and other potential threats. According to Douglas Hagmann, Director of the Northeast Intelligence Network, an anonymous official later confirmed that "other un-detonated explosive devices were found in the area cordoned off by police and federal officials" and were brought in for further testing.

No sooner had the dust settled when officials tried to play the bombing off as the act of yet another crazed "lone gunman" type. Oklahoma University (OU) President David Boren, no doubt trying to protect the university's reputation, eagerly opined on Hinrich's supposed history of mental instability. "We know that he has had what I would call emotional difficulties in the past," he said. "There is certainly no evidence at this point which points to any other kind of motivation other than his personal problems."

Law enforcement officials offered a similarly watered down version of events. The FBI's Oklahoma bureau chief, Salvador Hernandez, U.S. Attorney John Richter and OU Police Chief Elizabeth Woolen, in a joint statement, said, "At this point, we have no information that suggests that there is any additional threat posed by others related to this incident." Not once was the word "terrorism" used by any official involved in the case.

The mainstream media wasn't exactly forthcoming either. Those seeking information immediately following the bombing were hard pressed to find it as there appeared to be a virtual media blackout. None of the cable news networks, including Fox News, referred to the incident and the major wire services, newspapers and websites skipped it entirely. Once again it was left up to bloggers like Mark Tapscott, Michelle Malkin, Wizbang, Gateway Pundit, The Jawa Report and Zombie (photojournalist for Little Green Footballs), as well as the "Freepers" of FreeRepublic.com, to pull together first hand accounts and links to the miniscule amount of news coverage available at the time.

Not only was the story essentially buried when it first broke, but the major media outlets have still not seen fit to address it. But thanks to the investigative efforts of Oklahoma photojournalist Lan Lamphere (whose blog features a firsthand account and video), World Net Daily and the Northeast Intelligence Network (cited above), the evidence points to the likelihood that the incident was indeed a botched terrorist attack.

The first clue was that authorities might have had knowledge beforehand there was a threat to the stadium. Witnesses reported heavy security at the entrance and the office of OU President David Boren put out a press release stating that, "Prior to the game, the entire stadium was swept by the expert bomb teams with the help of dogs." Since this occurred before the game even started, authorities likely received either a bomb threat or intelligence pointing to one. According to the Northeast Intelligence Network, initial information "suggested that that the so-called 'suicide-bomber' was attempting to attach bombs to the buses parked in the area when one of the bombs detonated prematurely." Witnesses also described seeing a second device being detonated by robot.

That someone would choose to blow himself up as a means of purely committing suicide also seemed suspicious. In fact, far from simply committing suicide, it appears Hinrichs planned to take quite a few innocent civilians with him. Whether or not the targets were bus passengers or the crowds leaving the stadium, the explosives later found at the scene were intended to inflict massive carnage. The Northeast Intelligence Network reports that "the bomb was detonated prematurely when the suspect was either arming a bomb vest or backpack, which contained TATP, a homemade explosive. TATP (triacetone triperoxide) is a very potent but relatively easily manufactured explosive compound that was used in the July London bombings." TATP was also used by attempted "shoe bomber" Richard Reid to try and blow up an American Airlines flight in 2001.

The possible connection to Islamic terrorism doesn't end there. Law enforcement sources indicate that Hinrich had a roommate of Pakistani descent who may also have been an OU student. Hinrich's apartment in the Park View Apartments complex on campus was very close to the Islamic Society of Norman, OK and witnesses now report seeing him visit the center on more than one occasion. According to Oklahoma City's KWTV-News 9, Zacharias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker on 9/11, used to attend the same mosque.

Authorities later searched Hinrich's apartment where they found what's being described as a "huge cache" of TATP explosives, bomb-making manuals, and a "significant amount" of Jihad literature both in his home and on his computer. Even more damning, KWTV-News 9 reports that Hinrichs tried to buy large quantities of ammonium nitrate (used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing) from a Norman feed store four days before the bombing.

One doesn't have to be an intelligence expert to conclude that Hinrichs could have been a convert to Islam who became involved in terrorist activities. Like fellow converts Richard Reid (the shoe bomber), John Walker Lindh (who joined the Taliban in Afghanistan), Kevin James, Levar Haney Washington and Gregory Vernon Patterson (all charged this year in a Los Angeles terrorist plot), his Western lineage would have come in handy for avoiding official scrutiny.

But if Hinrichs was a convert, members of the Triangle Fraternity (consisting of engineers, architects and scientists) to which he belonged were not aware of it. In a message of condolence on the fraternity's website, members claim to be "as stunned as anyone else on campus." Hinrich did not live in the fraternity house and considering his profile as a quiet type who mostly kept to himself (much like other Western youths turned terrorists), their lack of awareness is unsurprising. Further adding to the impression that Hinrichs was a convert, a Colorado Springs Gazette photo posted at the Northeast Intelligence Network website shows him with a beard too similar to those worn by newly observant Muslim men to be a mere coincidence.

Assuming this incident did involve terrorism, it certainly wasn't a first for Oklahoma. As detailed by the Northeast Intelligence Network, the state has a long history of such activity. As recently as August 2005 another UO student, Charles Alfred Dreyling Jr., was arrested at the Will Rogers World Airport after security personnel found what was essentially a pipe bomb in his carry on bag. Dreyling pleaded guilty last month to a misdemeanor charge in federal court in Oklahoma City.

The Airman Flight School of Norman appears to have been a popular destination for several of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers, as well as Zacharias Moussaoui. Indeed, Moussaoui conducted much of his business in Norman, including opening a bank account into which he deposited $32,000 in cash. The improbable interaction between Moussaoui and Nicholas Berg, the American man who was beheaded by terrorists in Iraq last year, also occurred in Oklahoma. Both men were on the same bus traveling to the University of Oklahoma, when Berg allegedly allowed Moussaoui to use his laptop and gave him his computer password to do so. Yet another 9/11 hijacker purchased his ticket from a computer terminal at Oklahoma University and depending on what version of the story one subscribes to, the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City may have involved Islamic terrorism as well.

When all of the evidence is brought to light, authorities may just uncover a terrorist plot that, had it succeeded, could have killed thousands. The fact that law enforcement and the media are downplaying that reality points to a disturbing trend. Both seem to have a habit of dismissing terrorist angles from the get-go and then minimizing them when they arise.

When it comes to the Hinrichs bombing, it doesn't take a tinfoil hat to wonder whether there's a cover-up in progress and why. It may simply be that investigators don't want to jeopardize the case by giving away too much information or maybe they don't want to alarm the public needlessly. But doesn't an attempted terrorist attack that could have killed countless civilians warrant some concern? We have a color coded alert system that's been activated any number of times for reasons mostly unknown to the public. Yet whenever a suspicious incident occurs in this country the first thing the media and law enforcement do is try to keep it quiet.

Perhaps both sides are pandering to political-correctness and if so, it's got to stop. The American people deserve to know what they're up against and not doing so will only result in further bloodshed. Becoming complacent is what led to the attacks of 9/11. Can we really afford to go down that road again? The fact is, the country is not at war just with terrorism, but with Islamic terrorism. This may make some American Muslims uncomfortable, but we cannot deny reality simply to assuage their delicacies.

In closing, it may be instructive to listen to the warnings of a law enforcement official quoted by the Northeast Intelligence Network:

"At the end of the day, enough evidence will be collected to prove that this was a terrorist bombing that went wrong and Islamic men with terrorist beliefs were also involved. Whether that fact will ever come out, like ten years ago, [Murrah building blast on 19 April 1995 that killed 171 souls] remains to be seen. If you could have seen the people walking out of the stadium [Saturday night], you would have thought nothing happened at all. No one seems to believe that it will ever happen again, ever happen to them. It almost did. I feel like everyone is living in a fantasyland."

The question is, if a terrorist attack in America's heartland doesn't jolt the country out of this fantasyland, what will?

U.N. To Investigate the U.S.

2005-10-10T23:27:00.000-05:00

From The Global Policy Forum:

The U.N. Human Rights Committee, scheduled to meet in Geneva next month, has written to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) calling for any available evidence of human rights abuses by the United States -- particularly in the aftermath of its global war on terrorism.

The 18-member committee, comprising of independent human rights experts, will take up "issues of specific concerns relating to the effect of measures taken (by the administration of President George W. Bush) in the fight against terrorism following the events of 11 September 2001," the day the United States was subject to terrorist attacks.

The primary focus will be "on the implications of the USA Patriot Act on nationals and non-nationals, as well as problems relating to the legal status and treatment of persons detained in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, Iraq and other places of detention outside the USA."

The U.S. Congress adopted the USA Patriot Act in October 2001 in order to provide "appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism." But virtually all human rights organisations, both domestic and international, have criticised the Act as seriously threatening civil liberties and freedoms in the United States. "The USA Patriot Act was destined to foster abuses, as it weakened the system of checks and balances on law enforcement while setting aside due process safeguards under the law," says Jumana Musa, advocacy director at Amnesty International USA.

Alarmingly, Musa added, the Patriot Act has inspired a proliferation of copycat laws worldwide, prompting abuses that the United States has officially pledged to counter. "The boast that the United States is now the world's only superpower has a grim undertow in the area of human rights; no one can tell Washington what to do or not do, no matter how egregious its cruelties," says Norman Solomon, executive director of the Washington-based Institute for Public Accuracy.

"Most governments deserve to be censured by a human rights committee. The United States, far from being an exception, is among the most culpable -- in particular because of its large-scale foreign policy efforts pursued under the rubric of a 'war on terrorism' over the last four years," Solomon told IPS. The rhetorical use of "human rights" as a political football has mired its transcendent importance in the muck of self-serving hypocrisies based on the tacit precept that might makes right, he added.

"The character of the Bush administration is such that the U.S. delegation to the United Nations will -- in practice -- indignantly refuse to recognise a single standard of human rights whenever such a standard would put the U.S. record in a negative light," said Solomon, author of the recently-released book 'War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.'

The U.S.-based Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute at the University of California in Berkeley has detailed some 180 alleged human rights violations by the United States, including 11 types of violations of individual rights and 19 types of violations of government duties. These violations include enforcement of the Patriot Act, and also allegations of killings, torture, detentions and other "inhuman treatment" in Afghanistan and Iraq, and at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad and the U.S. detention centre in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Last July, the Berkeley City Council submitted to the Human Rights Committee a report prepared by the Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute, titled "Challenging U.S. Human Rights Violations Since 9/11". In June, four independent experts of the U.N. Commission on Human Rights expressed "deep regrets" that "the Government of the United States has still not invited us to visit those persons arrested, detained or tried on grounds of alleged terrorism or other violations in Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Guantanamo Bay naval base".

The Bush administration has also turned down a similar request from the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, and a joint request by the U.N. Special Rapporteurs on torture and health. "Such requests were based on information, from reliable sources, of serious allegations of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees, arbitrary detention, violations of their right to health and their due process rights," the four experts said in a statement released in June.

They also said that many of the allegations have come to light through declassified government documents. "The purpose of the visit would be to examine objectively the allegations first-hand and ascertain whether international human rights standards that are applicable in these particular circumstances are being upheld with respect to those detained persons," the experts added.

When the Human Rights Committee meets in Geneva from Oct. 17 to Nov. 3, it is expected to discuss the submissions made by the Bush administration. These submissions include Washington's periodic reports on how it has helped enforce the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The committee was established to specifically monitor the implementation of the Covenant and the Protocols to the Covenant in the territory of States parties. The committee convenes three times a year for sessions of three weeks' duration. Under article 40 of the Covenant, States parties must submit reports every five years on the measures they have adopted which give effect to the rights recognised in the Covenant and on the progress made in the enjoyment of those rights.

The United States will be appearing before the committee for the first time in the post-Sep. 11 period.

Although only members of the committee and representatives of the relevant state party may take part in the dialogue, NGOs are encouraged to submit written information or reports to the committee. Solomon of the Institute for Public Accuracy pointed out that for a long time, officials in Washington have been dismissive of the human rights pretensions of regimes that clearly are human rights violators, while much of what Washington does to violate human rights is "coated with a veneer of righteousness".

A multi-track monologue discourse from Washington -- in tandem with tremendous economic, political, diplomatic and military power -- can be bought to bear on the United Nations, he said. "A superpower that is striving to remake the 60-year-old world body in its own image can hardly be expected to submit to institutional scrutiny of its actual human rights record. The self-designated role of Uncle Sam at the United Nations is to preach and teach without reflecting or learning," he argued.

A harsh truth is that a pronounced form of jingoism is at the core of the Bush administrations approach to the United Nations, Solomon added. "Human rights violations come in many shapes, styles and sizes. The United States, like many other countries, has a government well-practiced at dodging accountability and proclaiming its own virtues," he said.

"But the U.S. record, as assessed by independent organisations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, is reprehensible," Solomon noted.

More on the GOP's Appalling Ethics Situation

2005-10-10T23:22:00.000-05:00

From The Yakima Herald:

It's good that 4th District Congressman Doc Hastings has set the record straight on an incident that had all the appearances of "say what I meant, not what I said."
Pasco Republican Doc Hastings told our reporter last week that he hopes former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay will receive a speedy trial, but quoted the embattled Texas congressman when asked about DeLay's most recent indictment-of-the-week.

"The majority leader has said this is a political vendetta," Hastings told our reporter during a Yakima visit.

The remark from Hastings, who is chairman of the House Ethics Committee, was quickly criticized in many quarters as compromising his objectivity prior to any DeLay ethics issues coming before that panel.

And there are issues. The Texas Republican stepped down as majority leader recently after being indicted for allegedly conspiring to violate Texas campaign finance laws. Last week, he was indicted again on a charge of money laundering.

After quoting DeLay, Hastings added during the Herald-Republic interview that Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has a history of pursuing Republicans and conservative Democrats in attempts to advance interests of the Democratic party in Texas.

Perhaps the interview was one of those rare times when "no comment" would have been more appropriate. He could have taken a cue from Supreme Court nominees of late who are quick to say they can't comment on something that might come before the court.

Hastings subsequently moved to say what he meant, clarifying what he said.

"Anyone suggesting that I have publicly defended Rep. Tom DeLay, expressed any personal opinion on the substance of charges pending against him in Texas, or indicated the slightest reluctance to investigate fully — at the appropriate time and in the appropriate way — any matter properly before the Ethics Committee is utterly mistaken. I have absolutely no predisposition concerning this case. I can't say it any more plainly than that," Hastings said in a follow-up statement issued by his office.

It's understandable that the ethics panel will not conduct parallel investigations with the Texas judiciary and will wait until that process is completed and produces a record.

DeLay will get his day in Texas courts. That's proper because an indictment is not a conviction.

But once that process is finished, he must then get his due before the Ethics Committee. If you buy into the old saying that "where there's smoke, there's fire," in DeLay's case we should be thinking Five-Alarm.

As we said in this column before, DeLay is at least an ethical embarrassment and has come to epitomize everything that's wrong with politics and many politicians. His brand of hardball, sleazy politics doesn't belong in Congress, certainly not as a leader.

DeLay was admonished three times last year by the Ethics Committee while Hastings was a member of the panel but before he was named chairman in February. Now come the two indictments on felonies that could result in prison time and fines.

DeLay remains defiant even in the wake of the new indictments in Texas. Obviously he is neither going to change his ways nor leave Congress on his own.

Once he's settled with Texas courts, and if he's still a member of Congress, DeLay's case should be brought before the ethics panel headed by Hastings, who has now assured the public that he has "absolutely no predisposition" concerning this case.

However it happens, let's hope that the final solution is DeLay's exit from Congress

Congress: GOP Politics Continues to Trump GOP Ethics

2005-10-10T23:18:00.000-05:00

From The New York Times:

One of Washington's more amusingly titled institutions - the House ethics committee - is at it again, which is to say not at it again. The panel is a stunning still-life study in Capitol casuistry and partisan standoff. It is dedicatedly not shining a light on complaints pending against a half-dozen members, resolutely holding just one meeting for this entire year, and wallowing in the stagnation that Tom DeLay, the indicted, deposed majority leader, engineered when he purged the committee's chairman and watered down its rules.

Mr. DeLay now faces criminal charges in Texas for allegedly violating campaign laws, but taxpayers should still not expect much of a stir by the House's moral arbiters. The new committee chairman, Doc Hastings, a Republican from Washington State, made that clear last week when he stoutly defended the innocence of Mr. DeLay, his political mentor, while insisting that the House ethics committee would continue to shy from its own inquiry. "We don't have the resources," Mr. Hastings told The Yakima Herald-Republic, even though the committee received a 40 percent budget increase this year.

The Republican majority is in dire need of a sense of shame. Speaker Dennis Hastert should prod something better from Mr. Hastings. The committee also needs a nonpartisan staff with credible bipartisan rules and an agenda that dares to come to life.

What are the people's lawmakers afraid of finding out about themselves?

Indiana Republican Drops Anti-Gay Pregnancy Law

2005-10-10T23:09:00.000-05:00

From 365Gay:

A proposed bill that would prohibit gays, lesbians and single people in Indiana from using medical science to assist them in having a child has been dropped by its legislative sponsor.

State Sen. Patricia Miller, R-Indianapolis, issued a one-sentence statement late Wednesday about her decision to drop the proposal.

"The issue has become more complex than anticipated and will be withdrawn from consideration by the Health Finance Commission," she said.

Miller said earlier this week that state law does not have regulations on assisted reproduction and should have similar requirements to adoption in Indiana. (story)

But Betty Cockrum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana called it government intrusion.

"It feels pretty chilling," Cockrum said.

Miller acknowledged when she proposed it that the legislation would be "enormously controversial."

Miller is chairwoman of the Health Finance Commission, a panel of lawmakers that was to vote Oct. 20 on whether to recommend the legislation to the full General Assembly.

The bill defined assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.

It then required "intended parents" to be married to each other and says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

A doctor could not begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child being born until the intended parents have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill. The assessment is similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.

The required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans and criminal history checks. Description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents also is required, including participation in faith-based or church activities.

Terrorists in California?

2005-10-10T22:10:00.000-05:00

From They Daily Bruin:

A calm and quiet Westwood was briefly disrupted Friday afternoon when the Los Angeles Police Department bomb squad inspected and detonated an explosive device found within the Midvale Plaza apartment complex on the 500 block of Midvale Avenue.

After responding to a call made at 11:13 a.m., the bomb squad arrived at 527 Midvale Ave. to find "an improvised explosive device" in the building's open-air courtyard, said Grace Brady, a spokeswoman for the LAPD.

No injuries were reported, but authorities have been slow to release details about the incident and the device.

Residents said they first heard a small explosion sometime between 5 a.m. and 8 a.m. Friday, but most said they went back to sleep. It was not until a resident found an explosive device later that morning that the police were called.

Police cars, FBI vehicles, ambulances, fire trucks and parking-enforcement vehicles blocked access to the street, and police officers restricted nearby pedestrian traffic while the bomb squad inspected the device. About 15 people waited at the corner of Midvale Avenue and Ophir Drive until they were allowed to return to their apartments near where the explosive was found.

Neither the apartment building nor nearby buildings were evacuated, but Paul Robi, a detective with the FBI bomb squad, said the squad executed "a moderate evacuation," which amounted to telling residents to stay off their balconies and in their apartments. Curious onlookers who stepped onto their balconies said they were immediately told to go back into their apartments.

Shortly after 1 p.m., the bomb squad remotely detonated the device. A low boom was audible for about a one-block radius, and several people who live across the street said they felt their apartments shake.

Beau Gillman, a second-year business economics student who lives across the street, said he heard shouts of "fire in the hole" before he heard and felt the explosion.

About five minutes later, police reopened the street to vehicles and pedestrians.

Most of the residents interviewed said they were aware of the situation, but they did not feel afraid or threatened. Most were surprised that someone would put an explosive in a Westwood apartment building.

Several residents said their apartments were briefly searched after the incident, but they said the searches did not appear to specifically target any residents. They also said it appeared to be apartment management who conducted the searches, though Midvale Plaza managers refused to comment.

Nancy Greenstein, director of the UCPD community services division, said UCPD officers were not on the scene Friday, but they routinely investigate suspicious packages. None of the recent calls to the department have revealed actual explosive devices, she said.

Terrorist At Georgia Tech?

2005-10-10T21:16:00.000-05:00

From 11 Alive Atlanta:

Three explosive devices found in a courtyard between two Georgia Tech dormitories on the East Campus Monday morning were part of a "terrorist act," an Atlanta police official said.

One of the devices exploded, injuring the custodian who found them inside a plastic bag. Two others were detonated by a bomb squad.

The custodian suffered ringing to the ears and was treated at a local hospital. The events led to a temporary evacuation Monday morning.

"It is a terrorist act at this point and depending on the outcome of the investigation it potentially could become a federal violation as well," said Major C.W. Moss of the Atlanta Police Department.

Under Georgia state law, a terroristic act is described as the release of a "hazardous substance," specifically for "the purpose of causing the evacuation of a building" with "reckless disregard of the risk of causing such terror."

The custodian found the three devices about 9 a.m. in a plastic-type garbage bag, Moss said. When he picked up the bag, one exploded, as it was designed to do when handled. The explosives were made up of chemicals placed inside plastic bottles and could have seriously injured someone, officials said. Numerous agencies were on the Georgia Tech campus to search for suspects.

"It will be a joint investigation between the Atlanta Police Department, the Georgia Tech Police Department, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the FBI and the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Every possible lead will be followed," said Major Moss.

About 100 students were evacuated from the Cloudman and Glenn dormitories, according to school spokeswoman Amelia Gambino.

Pat Robertson: God's Meteorologist

2005-10-10T00:17:00.000-05:00

From WorldNetDaily:

This weekend's catastrophic earthquake in South Asia in the wake of recent U.S. hurricanes and December's tsunami is catching the eye of televangelist Pat Robertson, who says we "might be" in the End Times described in the Bible.

"These things are starting to hit with amazing regularity," Robertson said on CNN's "Late Edition."

Robertson, a former GOP presidential candidate and host of the "700 Club" daily Christian TV show, noted, "If you read back in the Bible, the letter of the apostle Paul to the church of Thessalonia, he said that in the latter days before the end of the age that the Earth would be caught up in what he called the birth pangs of a new order. And for anybody who knows what it's like to have a wife going into labor, you know how these labor pains begin to hit. I don't have any special word that says this is that, but it could be suspiciously like that."

"What was called the blessed hope of the Bible is that one day Jesus Christ would come back again, start a whole new era, that this world order that we know would change into something that would be wonderful that we'd call the millennium," he continued. "And before that good time comes there will be some difficult days and there will be likened to what a woman goes through in labor just before she brings forth a child."

When asked if the world was approaching that moment, Robertson said, "It's possible. I don't have any special revelation to say it is but the Bible does indicate such a time will happen in the end of time. And could this be it? It might be."

Hurricane Katrina left more than 1,200 people dead in the Gulf Coast region of the U.S., while the rising death toll from this weekend's earthquake in Pakistan, Afghanistan and India is in the 30,000 range. Dec. 26, some 275,000 people lost their lives from a tsunami sparked by an undersea earthquake in the Indian Ocean.

Some New Testament verses often cited by Christians regarding signs of the end of this present age before the return of Jesus to Earth include:

"For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows." (Matthew 24:7-8)

"And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea and the waves roaring;" (Luke 21:25).

Robertson isn't the only one raising the End Times issue, as author and WorldNetDaily columnist Hal Lindsey has weighed in on the issue.

"It seems clear that the prophetic times I have been expecting for decades have finally arrived. And even worse, it appears that the judgment of America has begun," Lindsey said on the Sept. 9 broadcast of the "International Intelligence Briefing" on the Trinity Broadcasting Network. "I warn continually that the last days lineup of world powers does not include anything resembling the United States of America. Instead, a revived Roman Empire in Europe is to rule the West, and then the world. "

As WND reported last month, Robertson suggested the assassination of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," he said, but later backed away from the suggestion of assassination after an uproar of criticism.

But he revisited his concerns about Chavez today, telling CNN, "The truth is, this man is setting up a Marxist-type dictatorship in Venezuela, he's trying to spread Marxism throughout South America, he's negotiating with the Iranians to get nuclear material and he also sent 1.2 million dollars in cash to Osama bin Laden right after 9-11."

"I apologized and I said I will be praying for him, but one day we will be staring nuclear weapons and it won't be [Hurricane] Katrina facing New Orleans, it's going to be a Venezuelan nuke," Robertson said.

When asked where he got the information about cash going from Chavez to bin Laden, Robertson said it was from "sources."

"That's what I was told. And I know he sent a warm, congratulatory letter to Carlos the Jackal. He's a friend of Moammar Gadhafi. He's made common cause with these people who are considered terrorists."

Quote of the Day

2005-10-09T22:10:00.000-05:00

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Plamegate, A Case of Treason

2005-10-06T12:55:00.000-05:00

From Tom Paine:

A Case Of Treason

Larry Johnson

October 06, 2005

Larry Johnson worked as a CIA intelligence analyst and State Department counter-terrorism official. He is a member of the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

The investigation into who in the Bush administration leaked the fact that Valerie Plame, wife of former US Ambassador Joseph Wilson, was a CIA undercover operative, is nearing completion. Virtually lost in the recent spurt of press reporting is the fact that the compromise of Ms. Plame (and, as night follows the day her carefully cultivated network of spies) was unconscionable. Ms. Plame, a very gifted case officer, was a close colleague of mine at CIA. Her dedication and courage were clear in her willingness to assume the risks of an agent under non-official cover—meaning that if you get caught, too bad, you’re on your own; the US government never heard of you.

The supreme irony is that Plame’s network was reporting on the priority-one issue—weapons of mass destruction. Thus, it was made abundantly clear to all, including potential intelligence sources abroad, that even when priority-one intelligence targets are involved, Bush administration officials will not shrink from exposing such sources for petty political purpose. The harm to CIA and its efforts to recruit spies willing to take risks to provide intelligence information is immense.

Shortly after the invasion of Iraq, Ambassador Wilson publicly exposed an important lie, and the president as liar, when he debunked the report that Iraq was seeking uranium in the African country of Niger. Still, as Wilson himself has suggested, the primary objective of leaking his wife’s employment at CIA was not to retaliate against him personally, but rather to issue a stark warning to others privy to administration lies on the war not to speak out. Administration officials felt they needed to provide an object lesson of what truth tellers can expect in the way of swift retaliation.

All Based On A Forgery

Indictments or no, the mainstream media will continue to play down this key aspect of the story, and—equally important—prescind completely from the event that started the whole business—the forging of documents to feed the spurious report that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger for its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program. Together with other circumstantial evidence, the neuralgic reaction of Vice President Dick Cheney to press reports that he was point man for promoting the bogus report suggests that he may also have been its founding father, so to speak. We do not rule out the possibility that he and his chief of staff Lewis Libby may have had a hand in commissioning the forgery, as a way to come up with an “intelligence report” with “mushroom cloud” written all over it, in order to deceive Congress into approving an unnecessary war.

These are the key neglected issues underneath the superficial who-said-what-to-whom-when press reportage. Small wonder that many of those following this story are missing the forest for the trees. It is important that a fuller story be available to citizens of this country, to enable us all to judge the enormity and significance of what happened. Accordingly, my Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) colleagues and I thought it would be useful to boil down some key facts in digestible form:

Feb. 13, 2002: According to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s “Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq” of July 2004 (pp 38-39), Vice President Cheney asked his CIA morning briefer for the Agency’s analysis of a report he had seen in a Defense Intelligence Agency publication that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium from Niger. In response, the Director of Central Intelligence's Center for Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control (WINPAC) issued an intelligence assessment with limited distribution. It said, “Information on the alleged uranium contract between Iraq and Niger comes exclusively from a foreign government service report that lacks crucial details, and we are working to clarify the information and to determine whether it can be corroborated.” The assessment also noted, “Some of the information in the report contradicts reporting from the U.S. Embassy in Niamey. U.S. diplomats say the French Government-led consortium that operates Niger's two uranium mines maintains complete control over uranium mining and yellowcake production." The CIA sent a separate version of the assessment to the Vice President’s office, which differed only in that it named the foreign government service. Officials from the CIA's Directorate of Operations (DO) told the Senate Intelligence Committee that, in response to questions from the Vice President's Office and also the Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, all were told that the Agency would look into it further.
Feb. 19: CIA operations managers—not Valerie Plame—decide to send Joseph Wilson to Niger to make immediate inquiries, according to CIA officials. Wilson, who was acting ambassador in Baghdad when the 1991 Gulf War began, had also served in Niger before becoming ambassador to Gabon. After meeting with DO managers and other intelligence community officials at CIA headquarters on Feb. 19, Wilson was commissioned to go to Niger and investigate.
Feb. 26: Ambassador Wilson arrives in Niger. He determined during the course of his visit that there was no substance to the allegation that Iraq was trying to procure uranium in Niger. The U.S. Ambassador to Niger told the Senate Committee that Ambassador Wilson’s conclusion was the same as that reached earlier by the U.S. embassy in Niger.
Early March: Vice President Cheney asks his CIA briefer for an update on the Niger issue: According to the Senate report on intelligence prewar performance, Cheney had not forgotten his original request. And so CIA officers immediately debriefed Ambassador Wilson on the results of his trip, wrote up his report, and disseminated the report on 8 March (p. 42 of the Senate report).
Fall of 2002: CIA officials repeatedly warn Administration and Congressional officials not to accept as fact the claim that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium: According to the Senate report (p. 54), the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency told Senator Kyl that the CIA did not agree with the British view that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium. On Oct. 6, 2002, CIA Director Tenet called Deputy National Security Advisor Hadley and warned him not to use the information in a presidential speech the next day (three days before Congress voted to authorize war). Hadley removed the passage from the speech (p. 56).
Jan. 28, 2003: In his State of the Union Address, the President includes the (in)famous bogus “16 words.” The President says, “The British government has learned (sic) that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
May 23: Vice President Cheney’s office reacts neurologically to May 23 report by New York Times columnist Nick Kristof regarding the mission of a “former US ambassador” to Niger, and in particular to Kristof’s assertion that the Vice President had instigated the trip: According to former senior CIA officials, Cheney’s aides were ”very uptight about the vice president being tagged that way.”
June: The White House, with the participation of Karl Rove and Lewis Libby (and, according to one recent report, of the president and vice president themselves), conceives and then executes a plan to discredit Ambassador Wilson. A variety of reports from journalists and others show that as early as the end of May, White House officials were trying to dig up dirt on Ambassador Wilson. And the State Department reportedly drafted a top-secret memorandum that identified Valerie Plame by her maiden name and made the connection.
July 13 : Robert Novak, citing two Administration sources, identified Valerie Plame by name as a CIA operative. Plame was still undercover when Novak published her name and thus compromised not only Plame, but also the many agents she had recruited—to provide information on weapons of mass destruction, for example. She had conducted several overseas missions as part of her cover job.

Betrayal. There is no other word for it. Except, some might call it treason.

God Orders Bush To Go To War

2005-10-06T12:33:00.000-05:00

From The BBC:

President George W. Bush told Palestinian ministers that God had told him to invade Afghanistan and Iraq - and create a Palestinian State, a new BBC series reveals.

In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO, Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.

Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Abu Mazen was at the same meeting and recounts how President Bush told him: "I have a moral and religious obligation. So I will get you a Palestinian state."

DeLay Diverted Money To Blunt...

2005-10-06T12:30:00.000-05:00

…then Blunt took DeLay’s job when DeLay was forced to step down over his felony indictment. The wheels are definitely coming off the illegal GOP money machine.

From Yahoo! News:

Tom DeLay deliberately raised more money than he needed to throw parties at the 2000 presidential convention, then diverted some of the excess to longtime ally Roy Blunt through a series of donations that benefited both men's causes.

When the financial carousel stopped, DeLay's private charity, the consulting firm that employed DeLay's wife and the Missouri campaign of Blunt's son all ended up with money, according to campaign documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist recently charged in an ongoing federal corruption and fraud investigation, and Jim Ellis, the DeLay fundraiser indicted with his boss last week in Texas, also came into the picture.

The complicated transactions are drawing scrutiny in legal and political circles after a grand jury indicted DeLay on charges of violating Texas law with a scheme to launder illegal corporate donations to state candidates.

Blunt last week temporarily replaced DeLay as House majority leader, and Blunt's son, Matt, has now risen to Missouri's governor.

The government's former chief election enforcement lawyer said the Blunt and DeLay transactions are similar to the Texas case and raise questions that should be investigated regarding whether donors were deceived or the true destination of their money was concealed.

"These people clearly like using middlemen for their transactions," said Lawrence Noble. "It seems to be a pattern with DeLay funneling money to different groups, at least to obscure, if not cover, the original source," said Noble, who was the Federal Election Commission's chief lawyer for 13 years, including in 2000 when the transactions occurred.

None of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations DeLay collected for the 2000 convention were ever disclosed to federal regulators because the type of group DeLay used wasn't governed by federal law at the time.

DeLay has temporarily stepped aside as majority leader after being indicted by a Texas prosecutor.

Spokesmen for the two Republican leaders say they disclosed what was required by law at the time and believe all their transactions were legal, though donors might not always have know where their money was headed.

"It illustrates what others have said, that money gets transferred all the time. This was disclosed to the extent required to be disclosed by applicable law," said Don McGahn, a lawyer for DeLay. "It just shows that donors don't control funds once they're given."

Blunt and DeLay planned all along to raise more money than was needed for the convention parties and then route some of that to other causes, such as supporting state candidates, said longtime Blunt aide Gregg Hartley.

"We put together a budget for what we thought we would raise and spend on the convention and whatever was left over we were going to use to support candidates," said Hartley, Blunt's former chief of staff who answered AP's questions on behalf of Blunt.

Hartley said he saw no similarity to the Texas case. The fact that DeLay's charity, Christine DeLay's consulting firm and Blunt's son were beneficiaries was a coincidence, Hartley said.

Much of the money — including one donation to Blunt from an Abramoff client accused of running a "sweatshop" garment factory in the Northern Mariana Islands — changed hands in the spring of 2000, a period of keen interest to federal prosecutors.

During that same time, Abramoff arranged for DeLay to use a concert skybox for donors and to take a golfing trip to Scotland and England that was partly underwritten by some of the lobbyist's clients. Prosecutors are investigating whether the source of some of the money was disguised, and whether some of DeLay's expenses were originally put on the lobbyist's credit card in violation of House rules.

Both DeLay and Blunt and their aides also met with Abramoff's lobbying team several times in 2000 and 2001 on the Marianas issues, according to law firm billing records obtained by AP under an open records request. DeLay was instrumental in blocking legislation opposed by some of Abramoff's clients.

Noble said investigators should examine whether the pattern of disguising the original source of money might have been an effort to hide the leaders' simultaneous financial and legislative dealings with Abramoff and his clients.

"You see Abramoff involved and see the meetings that were held and one gets the sense Abramoff is helping this along in order to get access and push his clients' interest," he said. "And at the same time, you see Delay and Blunt trying to hide the root of their funding.

"All of these transactions may have strings attached to them. ... I think you would want to look, if you aren't already looking, at the question of a quid pro quo," Noble said.

Blunt and DeLay have long been political allies. The 2000 transactions occurred as President Bush was marching toward his first election to the White House, DeLay was positioning himself to be House majority leader and Blunt was lining up to succeed DeLay as majority whip, the third-ranking position in the House.

The entities Blunt and DeLay formed allowed them to collect donations of any size and any U.S. source with little chance of federal scrutiny.

DeLay's convention fundraising arm, part of his Americans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee (ARMPAC), collected large corporate donations to help wine and dine Republican VIPs during the presidential nominating convention in Philadelphia in late summer 2000. DeLay's group has declined to identify any of the donors.

Blunt's group, a nonfederal wing of his Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, eventually registered its activities in Missouri but paid a $3,000 fine for improperly concealing its fundraising in 1999 and spring 2000, according to Missouri Ethics Commission records.

Both groups — DeLay's and Blunt's — were simultaneously paying Ellis, the longtime DeLay fundraiser who was indicted along with his boss in Texas in the alleged money laundering scheme.

The DeLay group began transferring money to Blunt's group in two checks totaling $150,000 in the spring of 2000, well before Republicans actually met in Philadelphia for the convention. The transfers accounted for most of money Blunt's group received during that period.

DeLay's convention arm sent $50,000 on March 31, 2000. Eight days later, the Blunt group made a $10,000 donation to DeLay's private charity for children on April 7, 2000, and began the first of several payments totaling $40,000 to a northern Virginia-based political consulting firm formed by DeLay's former chief of staff, Ed Buckham.

That consulting firm at the time also employed DeLay's wife, Christine, according to DeLay's ethics disclosure report to Congress.

Hartley said Blunt was unaware that Mrs. DeLay worked at the firm when he made the payments, and that she had nothing to do with Blunt's group.

On April 14, 2000, Concorde Garment Manufacturing, based in the Northern Marianas Islands that was part of Abramoff's lobbying coalition, contributed $3,000 to Blunt's group.

Hartley said the donation was delivered during a weekend of fundraising activities by Blunt and DeLay but his boss did not know who solicited it.

Concorde, derided for years in lawsuits as a Pacific island sweatshop, paid a $9 million penalty to the U.S. government in the 1990s for failing to pay workers' overtime. The company was visited by DeLay.

The company was a key member of the Marianas garment industry that the islands' government was trying to protect when it hired Abramoff to lobby DeLay, Blunt and others to keep Congress from imposing tougher wage and tax standards on the islands.

After the November 2000 election, Abramoff's firm billed its Mariana Islands clients for at least one meeting with Blunt and three meetings with Blunt's staff, billing records show. Abramoff's team also reported several meetings with DeLay and his staff on the issue, including one during the presidential convention.

On May 24, 2000 — just before DeLay left with Abramoff for the Scottish golfing trip — DeLay's convention fundraising group transferred $100,000 more to Blunt's group. Within three weeks, Blunt turned around and donated the same amount to the Missouri Republican Party.

The next month, the state GOP began spending large amounts of money to help Blunt's son, Matt, in his successful campaign to become Missouri secretary of state. On July 25, 2000, the state GOP made its first expenditure for the younger Blunt, totaling just over $11,000. By election day, that figure had grown to more than $160,000.

Hartley said Blunt always liked to help the state party and the fact that his son got party help after his donation was a coincidence. "They are unrelated activities," he said.

Exchanges of donations occurred again in the fall. Just a few days before the November election, DeLay's ARMPAC gave $50,000 to the Missouri GOP. A month later, the Missouri GOP sent $50,000 to DeLay's group.

GOP Cuts Funds To The Poor

2005-10-06T12:04:00.000-05:00

From The Democratic Daily:

So much for the poverty debate that some thought might happen in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. On Thursday, the Senate Agriculture Committee led by Saxby Chambliss is scheduled to vote on slashes to “food programs for the poor by $574 million and subsidies and conservation programs by $1 billion each.”

The plan by Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., would reduce farmers’ payments by 2.5 percent across the board, slashing spending by $1.145 billion over five years. That’s half the 5 percent the Bush administration sought earlier this year.

The $574 million cut in food stamps would come from restricting access to this benefit for certain families that receive other government assistance. The restriction would shut an estimated 300,000 people out of the program.
The conservation cuts would curb the number of acres that can be enrolled in the biggest of the programs, the Conservation Reserve Program, and limit spending on two others, the Conservation Security Program and Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

The culture of the Bush administration has never been about compassion. These latest cuts to government assistance for the poor, will serve only to add more of the struggling masses to the growing below the poverty level rolls in this country.

The thought of more hungry children in America is astounding. Meanwhile, “Bush’s conservative allies in Congress hope his vow to use some of his political capital pushing for more budget cuts will persuade lawmakers to help pay for hurricane relief without bloating the deficit. But they are hungry for more than just promises.”

The GOP gives no thought or care to those hungry for food and sustenance, they care only for the cuts to the budget. Congress is also “on track to consider later this month legislation to impose curbs on the Medicaid program for the poor and disabled, student loan subsidies for banks.”

Bush Call For Own Impeachment?

2005-10-06T11:33:00.000-05:00

Another great post from Horses Ass:

From President Bush’s speech today before the National Endowment for Democracy:

“Evil men obsessed with ambition and unburdened by conscience must be taken very seriously, and we must stop them before their crimes can multiply.”

Amen.

A Perfect Example of GOP Corruption

2005-10-06T11:31:00.000-05:00

Great commentary on the corrupt GOP political machine from Horses Ass:

Indicted Rep. Tom DeLay is once again getting his money’s worth from the man he installed as chairman of the House Ethics Committee. In an interview published today in The Yakima Herald, Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Pasco) responded to questions about DeLay’s indictment on conspiracy charges, by actually quoting the disgraced, former House Majority Leader:

“The majority leader has said this is a political vendetta […] if you look at Ronnie Earle’s background, he’s done these things.”

Uh-huh.

The normally low-profile Hastings’ – who has pocketed $5,930 of ARMPAC cash, and who has his own potential ethics problems – was best known for accomplishing little if anything in office… a track record of non-accomplishment and inaction that made him perfectly suited to chairing an Ethics Committee the GOP leadership would prefer remain marginalized by partisan bickering. All DeLay demanded in return for the plum assignment was absolute loyalty, and that’s exactly what Hastings plans to deliver.

Whatever the ethics panel does with DeLay, it will not pursue the same line of inquiry as the Texas district attorney, Hastings said.
“We don’t have the resources,” he said, adding that historically, panels have not tried to duplicate outside investigations.
As he has done consistently, Hastings declined to comment on anything the committee might be considering with regards to DeLay, citing House rules.

Yeah, that’s right… Hastings declined to comment on what the Committee might do in regards to DeLay… except to say that DeLay is a victim of a “political vendetta", that Ronnie Earle has a history of blatant partisanship, and that the committee doesn’t plan to investigate the conspiracy charges.

Hey Doc… ever hear of the phrase “No comment"…?

What we have under Hastings and Republican control, is a House Ethics Committee that has totally abdicated it’s responsibility to monitor and regulate the ethics of House members. Given his prior statements, it is hard not to be cynical when Hastings tells the Herald:

“All of us are aware we have to do what is ethically right.”

The question is whether Hastings and his colleagues will actually do what they know to be ethically right? And Hastings’ answer to the Herald was apparently, “No.”

GOP Splits on Miers

2005-10-06T10:44:00.000-05:00

From the Los Angeles Times:

President Bush faced a growing Republican backlash Wednesday over the nomination of Harriet E. Miers to the Supreme Court, with several GOP senators threatening to oppose her confirmation and top conservative activists questioning her qualifications during a tense confrontation with White House advisors.

In an effort to quell the discontent, administration aides and allies were dispatched to plead with lawmakers and party activists to give Miers — a longtime Bush friend and lawyer — a chance to prove herself.

But on Capitol Hill, some GOP senators made it clear that they were not now in Miers' corner. And at a weekly meeting in Washington of leading conservatives, many in the crowd berated Ed Gillespie, the White House point man on judicial nominations, over the president's choice.

"With this nomination, we have ratified the strategy of the left and they have won," said Richard Lessner, former executive director of the American Conservative Union. "With this pick, the White House has ratified what the left did to Bork."

He was referring to Robert H. Bork, President Reagan's conservative nominee for the court who was rejected by the Senate after liberals challenged his well-documented views.

Many conservatives are complaining that they don't know enough about Miers, who has never served as a judge or argued a case before the Supreme Court, to know whether she would support their causes.

The swelling doubts about her contrasted with the early reaction to Bush's previous Supreme Court nominee, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who won near-unanimous accolades from Republicans for his intellect and qualifications before winning easy Senate confirmation.

As of now, the conservative doubts about Miers do not seem likely to derail her nomination. But her confirmation might come at a price for Republicans.

With the GOP bedeviled by questions about the administration's response to Hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq and ethics questions facing congressional leaders, the party's base could become demoralized, undermining Republicans in next year's midterm elections.

On Wednesday, skepticism about Miers' nomination came from some GOP senators who normally are party loyalists.

"There are a lot more people — men, women and minorities — that are more qualified in my opinion by their experience than she is," Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) said in a television interview. "I don't just automatically salute or take a deep bow anytime a nominee is sent [to the Senate]…. I have to find out who these people are, and right now, I'm not satisfied with what I know."

Lott's sentiments echoed those of a number of fellow conservative Republican senators, including John Thune of South Dakota, George Allen of Virginia and Sam Brownback of Kansas — all of whom are thought to harbor presidential aspirations.

"The jury is out," Thune told reporters. "It's still an open question [whether he would support Miers]. And I think there are folks who are keeping their powder dry until we learn more."

More moderate senators, however, were warm — even effusive — as Miers continued making the rounds on Capitol Hill to introduce herself to the lawmakers.

"Anyone who sits down with her for an extended period of time will feel very comfortable with her," said Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio), a member of the Judiciary Committee, which will conduct hearings on Miers.

"I expect her to be confirmed," DeWine added. "I see no reason I would not vote for her. The only reason I'm not announcing it today is that I think you ought to have hearings first."

The mood was quite different at the meeting of about 200 conservatives held by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, a key White House ally.

Many expressed feelings of anger and betrayal to Gillespie, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, and others sent to the gathering by the White House.

"Trust has been broken," said one attendee who asked to not be named. The meeting participant told Gillespie that efforts to reassure conservatives "won't work," adding, "You can't unbreak an egg."

The crowd applauded as one speaker after another peppered Gillespie with questions regarding Miers' past political contributions to Democrats, her votes as a member of the Dallas City Council and whether her nomination smacked of cronyism, according to meeting participants.

Some told Gillespie that Bush's personal assurances about her commitment to conservative causes were not sufficient, given the lack of any written evidence of Miers' views.

Lessner said in an interview later that Bush should have picked from the long list of qualified "conservative heroes."

He added that Miers' nomination sent a message from Bush "that a jurist with established conservative credentials cannot be confirmed for the Supreme Court. He has capitulated to that view, and that's why this is a major loss for the conservative movement."

David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, said he planned "to sit on the sidelines and wait" for proof that Miers was someone who deserved "enthusiastic support."

Norquist stayed above the fray. "We trust the president's instincts," he said after the gathering.

Gillespie, after later attending a weekly Senate policy luncheon, insisted that the discontent among some conservatives was "a natural part of the process."

He added: "I think she will draw strong bipartisan support in the end."

At a meeting on Capitol Hill of the so-called Gang of 14 — the centrist senators from both parties who have a pact to head off filibusters of judicial nominees — Democrats and Republicans emerged saying that Miers appeared to be a promising nominee.

"It's still early in the process, but there's nothing at the present time that would disqualify her or trigger" a filibuster, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said.

Still, the White House faced a growing chorus of caustic comments from conservative opinion leaders, including syndicated columnist George Will. He wrote that the Senate should reject Miers, lest lawmakers allow Bush to turn the Supreme Court into a "private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends."

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh, despite entreaties Tuesday by Vice President Dick Cheney, told Fox News on Wednesday that the Miers nomination marked a "squandered opportunity" to further deplete the power of Democrats in Washington and ensure a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

"People have been working for this for 30, 40 years … and that's why this is such a letdown to so many people," Limbaugh said.

Republican and Democratic senators said Miers had an obligation to detail her views during her confirmation hearings, expected to begin in early November.

"I think that for conservatives out there, she is going to have to be very forthcoming in front of the committee to give them the comfort level they need … to feel confident that she is truly in the mold that the president indicated," Thune said.

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), the Judiciary Committee's top Democrat, said, "I think because the Supreme Court has become so pivotal in our life, and is such a deeply divided court, that it's more and more important that [nominees] answer as many questions as possible" during hearings.

Several Democrats complained during Roberts' confirmation hearings last month that he avoided answering questions about his views on contemporary issues, such as abortion rights. Roberts said he did not want to prejudge matters likely to come before the court.

Leahy also criticized Bush for saying he would refuse to release any of the documents relating to work Miers had done in the White House, where she has served as the president's legal counselor since early this year. Previously, she was a White House aide.

"The president said she's the most qualified person in America to have this job. I'd like to see some of what that is based on," Leahy said after meeting with Miers for an hour.

Intelligent Design Supporters Up In Arms

2005-10-06T10:10:00.000-05:00

The evangelical wingnuts at Focus On The Family are up in arms that liberals don’t want “Intelligent Design” taught in schools. As numerous people have pointed out, Intelligent Design is just a new name for creationism, and has no place being taught as science in our schools.

From Focus On The Family:

Critics say the new group reflects the hysteria of supporters of evolution.

A few of the nation's leading scientists, legal scholars and clergy announced last week the formation of an online "grass-roots" movement to combat what they called the threat posed by intelligent design to public education and science.

The Campaign to Defend the Constitution, euphemistically called "DefCon," declared its first order of business would be to write a letter to the nation's governors asking them to oppose intelligent design curricula in public schools.

Ira Glasser, former executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the group will provide an important service.

"This campaign will provide a voice for Americans who believe in both a free church and a free state," Glasser said. "We want religious liberty free from interference from the government and a free government that does not become an instrument for imposing religious beliefs on people who do not share them. That is what the Founders of America meant to insure when they separated church from state."

Mark Hartwig, Ph.D., religion and society analyst for Focus on the Family Action and an expert on intelligent design, called Glasser's claims "sheer hysteria."

"Intelligent design is nothing more than a mathematical restatement of what we do every day when we distinguish between things that 'just happen' and those that 'happen on purpose,' " he said. "Archaeologists make these kinds of inferences as a matter of course, distinguishing between mere rocks, shells and fallen trees and jewelry, implements and shelters.

"It doesn't take a genius, for example, to know that the big mountain with the presidents' faces carved on it is the result of an intelligent cause—in this case, humans. Likewise, we don't wait for a Nobel-ist to tell us that a tree canopy shaped like a bust of Mickey Mouse is a human artifact."

Hartwig said intelligent design is not about the supernatural, it's about intelligence.

"You and I are engaged in generating and exchanging highly complex, highly specific information," he said, referring to his e-mail interview with CitizenLink. "Chance factors and natural law could not have produced this in a billion years. But we are not thereby performing any miracles. We're simply corresponding."

Religion As Science

2005-10-05T11:11:00.000-05:00

This is one of the best essays I have read on the “religion as science” movement.

From Online Journal:

Who’d have thought that in the early twenty-first century so many supposedly educated Americans would be turning off their brains and embracing Jerry Falwell’s notion that “The Bible is the inerrant . . . word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.”

On September 25, The Washington Post ran a story entitled “In Evolution Debate, Creationists Are Breaking New Ground: Museum Dedicated to Biblical Interpretation Of the World Is Being Built Near Cincinnati.” The opening lines of the piece acknowledged the radical rewriting of history, biology, anthropology and archeology the museum represents:

The guide, a soft-spoken fellow with a scholarly aspect, walks through the halls of this handsome, half-finished museum and points to the sculpture of a young velociraptor.

“We’re placing this one in the hall that explains the post-Flood world,” explains the guide. “When dinosaurs lived with man.”

“Velociraptor” refers to a genus of theropod dinosaurs that thrived in the Late Cretaceous period, 95–65 million years ago. The period is called the “heyday” of dinosaurs. It ended with their mass extinction 65 million years ago. That’s at least 64,000,000-plus years before homo sapiens appeared on planet earth. The oldest fossil evidence for anatomically modern humans is about 130,000 years old.

But the “science” offered by the museum dedicated to Young Earth Creationism—which holds that the world and the universe are but 6,000 years old and that baby dinosaurs rode in Noah’s ark—gets even more bizarre.

In referring to a replica of a Tyrannosaurus rex “with its three-inch teeth and carnivore’s grin,” museum guide and vice president Mark Looy said “We call him our ‘missionary lizard.’ . . . When people realize the T. rex lived in Eden, it will lead us to a discussion of the gospel. The T. rex once was a vegetarian, too.”

Eden? T. rex a vegetarian with razor-sharp teeth and a carnivore’s jaw capable only of rip, tear and swallow actions, not the chewing, grinding motion of herbivores? But then again, the Young Earth Creationist museum also features a display of “sauropods playing with [human] children” in Eden.

Kenneth Ham, president of Answers in Genesis-USA, the organization building the 50,000 square-foot museum, issued the call to a new Dark Ages: “Evolutionary Darwinists need to understand we are taking the dinosaurs back. This is a battle cry to recognize the science in the revealed truth of God.” Mr. Ham’s view of “science” is immune from common sense and reality, as Michael Powell noted in his Washington Post article:

Ask Ham if he could accept evidence that conflicts with his reading of Genesis—proof, say, that a fossil is more than 6,000 years old—and he shakes his head.

Creationists believe man became mortal when God cast Adam and Eve out of Eden 6,000 years ago. Death did not exist before that.

“We admit we have an axiom: We have a book and it’s the Bible and it’s revealed history,” says Ham. “Where the Bible teaches on science, we can trust it as the word of God.”

For Ham and Young Earth Creationists, death came into existence about 6,000 years ago. So all the fossils of once living creatures that have been discovered throughout the world and that are clearly more than 6,000 years old must be fake. And they actually want this nonsense taught as science in public schools?

Fanatics and religion have always gone hand-in-hand. But what’s truly disturbing is how many Americans seem to be heeding Ham’s battle cry and call to a newer, even darker Dark Ages. Conducted by Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, the July 2005 poll found that: "48 percent [of the 2,000 respondents] said they believed that humans had evolved over time. But of those, 18 percent said that evolution was 'guided by a supreme being,' and 26 percent said that evolution occurred through natural selection. In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism." (Italics mine)

As disturbing as these results were, the “interpretations” offered by commentators reported in The New York Times were even more so. John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said, “It’s like they’re [respondents] saying, ‘Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.’”

Aren’t students in science classes there to learn what science is, not define it as they see fit? Using the science-is-whatever-you-think-it-is model, perhaps public schools should teach alchemy alongside chemistry and astrology alongside astronomy, and then let the students decide which is “science.” Should that science-is-whatever-you-think-it-is mentality be carried into higher education, and beyond? How about into medical school? Instead of using the latest medical science to treat epilepsy, your physician would write you a prescription for an exorcism.

Even the reaction of Eugenie C. Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education and a prominent defender of evolution, was troubling. He reportedly was not surprised by the findings because “Americans react very positively to the fairness or equal time kind of argument.”

Really? Tell that to same-sex couples who can’t enter into civil marriage or secure family health benefits for their children because of biblical edicts politically applied to secular, real-world realities. “Science” is also a secular, real-world reality. “Creationism” is religious dogma. It is not science and it does not belong in public school science classes. Period. But those intent on teaching religious dogma as science in the public schools have a stealth weapon: “intelligent design.”

Just days after Pennsylvania was in the news because of the 418-page grand jury report exposing decades of horrific child abuse by Catholic priests and equally horrific decades of cover-up by two Philadelphia cardinals, the state again made headlines, this time in relation to a school district that requires ninth-graders be taught “intelligent design” in biology and science classes.

The Thomas More Law Center is defending the Dover school district in its quest for “science.” In the “about us” on its web site, the Thomas More Law Center describes itself as “the sword and shield for people of faith” and explains that: "Our ministry was inspired by the recognition that the issues of the cultural war being waged across America, issues such as abortion, pornography, school prayer, and the removal of the Ten Commandments from municipal and school buildings, are not being decided by elected legislatures, but by the courts." (Italics mine)

“Ministry”?

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, claimed that “all the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community.” While the Thomas More Law Center Ministry may perceive a boiling controversy, there is none in the scientific community, only in the politically motivated religious ones. Those are the same politically motivated religious communities that have been trying since the Scopes Monkey Trial to return Genesis to public school science classes.

In previous statements, Eugenie Scott had been more direct, more scientific: “The bitter truth is that there is no argument going on in the scientific community about whether evolution took place.” Correctly, Mr. Scott also noted that intelligent design supporters “seem to have shifted virtually entirely to political and rhetorical efforts to sway the general public.” That’s the nature and way of “ministry,” not science.

The attempts by religious fanatics and their various social and political organizations to replace science with Ham’s and Looy’s laughable notions of “sauropods playing with children” in Eden and T. rex on Noah’s ark, or to cloak such “thinking” in the guise of intelligent design have as much scientific credibility as the religion-based ethics of one of the Christian Right’s beloved politicians, the recently indicted Tom DeLay.

Who Is Harriet Miers?

2005-10-05T10:10:00.000-05:00

Great write up over at The Left Coaster on Harriet Miers. Definitely worth the read…

Dumbing Down the US Army

2005-10-05T09:56:00.000-05:00

From Slate Magazine:

Further evidence that the war in Iraq is wrecking the U.S. Army: Recruiters, having failed to meet their enlistment targets, are now being authorized to pursue high-school dropouts and (not to mince words) stupid people.

This year the Army set a goal of recruiting 80,000 active-duty soldiers, but it wound up with just 73,000—almost 10 percent short. As a result, the Army Times reported this week, the Pentagon has decided to make up the difference by expanding the pool—by letting up to 10 percent of new recruits be young men and women who have neither graduated high school nor earned a General Equivalency Diploma.

More than that, the Los Angeles Times reports today that 4 percent of recruits will be allowed to score as low as in the 16th to 30th percentile—a grouping known as "Category IV"—on the U.S. Armed Forces' mental-aptitude exam.

As of 2003 (the last year for which official data are available), just 6 percent of active-duty Army soldiers lacked a high-school diploma or a GED. Just 1 percent scored in Category IV on the aptitude test.

Not since the mid-1980s—when the military brass first decided to reject low-scoring applicants—have the all-volunteer Army's standards been allowed to dip so steeply.

[Remainder Snipped]

DeLay - Thatcher, The Noose Tightens

2005-10-05T09:51:00.000-05:00

From Find Law:

Prosecutors investigating corruption allegations against U.S. Congressman Tom DeLay have asked former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher for details of a meeting between the two politicians, Thatcher's spokesman confirmed Tuesday.

Lord Bell said police had contacted Thatcher's office to clarify details of a meeting with DeLay in May 2000. He said DeLay had paid the former leader a courtesy call while he was on a visit to Britain and that Thatcher had not been involved in wrongdoing.

"Lady Thatcher is visited by many politicians and political figures from around the world," Bell said. "It was not a business meeting."

The Daily Mirror newspaper reported Monday that a leaked government document said the request was part of an inquiry by the U.S. Justice Department into allegations that congressmen received free foreign holidays in return for seeking to influence legislation.

The newspaper quoted the Home Office document as saying the investigation centered on the activities of Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist with close ties to DeLay.

"U.S. officials are investigating whether Abramoff was involved in obtaining legislative assistance from public officials in exchange for arranging and underwriting trips to the U.K.," the document said.

"It is alleged that Abramoff arranged for his clients to pay for the trips to the U.K. on the basis that Congressman DeLay would support favorable legislation if they paid for the trip," it added, according to the Mirror.

The document reportedly noted that there would be "considerable interest in this case if it were to become public knowledge" and said police had been asked to keep the request for information about Thatcher's meeting confidential.

The Home Office said it could neither confirm nor deny the authenticity of the document.

DeLay, 58, stepped down as Republican leader in the House of Representatives after being charged with conspiracy to violate campaign-finance laws. On Monday, a Texas grand jury indicted him on money-laundering charges.

Bush Working To Ban Abortion

2005-10-05T09:47:00.000-05:00

From Find Law:

The Bush administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a federal appeals court decision holding that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act imposes an undue burden upon a woman's right to an abortion.

This summer the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled that the controversial act, which was signed into law by President Bush in 2003, is unconstitutional because it does not contain an exception for the health of the woman.

But in a brief filed with the nation's highest court, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales argues that the appellate court erred by holding that an abortion statute that lacked a health exception was "facially invalid" if the regulated procedure was necessary to preserve the health of the mother only in some instances.

Such a standard, Gonzales argues, "presumably would lead to the invalidation of a statute that was constitutional in a large fraction of its applications, based on the possibility of a few unconstitutional applications."

The Law

The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly approved the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in October 2003. The 64-33 vote marked the first federal ban on a specific abortion procedure and was considered a triumph for congressional Republicans and Bush, who signed the bill into law days after its passage.

The legislation targets a procedure in which the fetus is killed after the entire fetal head is outside the mother's body, or in the case of a breech position, "any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother."

The operation requires doctors to conduct a "partial evacuation of the intracranial contents of the fetus to effect vaginal delivery of a dead but otherwise intact fetus," according to the American Medical Association.

Doctors who perform the procedure could face up to two years in prison, according to the legislation.

But the Center for Reproductive Rights, American Civil Liberties Union, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and other abortion-rights groups say the act represents an unconstitutional ban that contains no health exception and imposes a burden on a woman's right to choose abortion. The groups also argue that substantial medical authority supports the necessity of the procedure in some instances.

In the Courts

Striking down the ban, U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf of the District of Nebraska issued a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the act, ruling that the statute as a whole cannot be sustained because of its lack of a health exception for the mother. Federal judges in both New York and San Francisco also declared the ban unconstitutional in 2004.

This past July the 8th Circuit agreed with Judge Kopf's findings.

"We believe when a lack of consensus exists in the medical community, the Constitution requires legislatures to err on the side of protecting women's health by including a health exception," the unanimous court said.

The Bush administration, however, argues that the 8th Circuit should have given "substantial deference" to Congress' finding that the procedure is medically unnecessary. Gonzales says that in reviewing the constitutionality of a statute, "courts must accord substantial deference to the predictive judgments" of Congress.

"[T]he sole obligation of reviewing courts is to assure that, in formulating its judgments, Congress had drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence," Gonzales says in the government's petition.

Gonzales also maintains that the Center for Reproductive Rights and other plaintiffs in the case failed to show that the act's prohibition of the abortion procedure would affect the health of the mother in more than "a small fraction of the cases to which the act applies."

The CRR said in a statement that it plans to file a legal brief with the Supreme Court by the end of the month urging the justices not to review the case.

"Congress claimed to be safeguarding a woman's health, but, in fact, wrote and passed a law that does the exact opposite," CRR President Nancy Northup said on the group's Web site. "Since Roe v. Wade, the high court has been consistent and clear in its decision: a woman's health and safety must remain a doctor's paramount concern."

Afghanistan: New Dog, Same Old Tricks

2005-10-05T09:33:00.000-05:00

As an avid reader of JihadWatch.org, one of the things I have learned about Islam is that it is not open to interpretation. Islam is not Christianity, which seems to continue to grow over the course of history. This is main stream Islam, not “radical” Islam. The very fact that a journalist was arrested for questioning the punishment of 100 lashes for adultery underscores this fact. Arguing that giving up Islam is not a crime, is a crime. It’s also interesting to note that there are a “group of clerics which advise the court”. This is not the United States. Freedom of speech does not exist in Islam. Freedom of the press does not exist in Islam. Freedom of religion does not exist in Islam.

From Fox News:

The editor of an Afghan women's rights magazine was jailed after a presidential adviser accused him of publishing un-Islamic material — including an article critical of the practice of punishing adultery with 100 lashes, officials said Friday.

Minority Shiite Muslim clerics in Kabul objected to that article and another in the monthly Haqooq-i-Zan — or Women's Rights — that argued that giving up Islam was not a crime, Police arrested the magazine's editor, Ali Mohaqiq Nasab, on Saturday.

Late last week, the clerics approached Mohaiuddin Baluch, religious adviser to President Hamid Karzai, who said he forwarded the magazines to the Supreme Court.

"I took the two magazines and spoke to Supreme Court chief, who wrote to attorney general to investigate," Baluch told The Associated Press. Baluch said the articles were directly against the principles of the Koran.

Mohammed Karim, an official at the secretariat of the Supreme Court, said that the attorney general had ordered Nasab's arrest, and that a group of clerics which advises the court was reviewing the case.

The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists called for the immediate release of Nasab, who was visited by an official of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission in Kabul's Central Jail on Monday.

Afghanistan is a conservative Islamic country. Under a revised March 2004 media law signed by Karzai, content deemed insulting to Islam is banned. Criminal penalties were left vaguely worded, leaving open the possibility of punishment in accordance with Shariah, or Islamic law.

The rights group said when the law was signed, government officials said that journalists could only be detained with the approval of a 17-member commission of government officials and journalists.

Bush/Miers, Evangelical Dynamic Duo

2005-10-05T09:17:00.000-05:00

Pat Robertson is excited about Ms. Miers being appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States. This should worry liberals.

From The New York Times:

By 1979, Harriet E. Miers, then in her mid-30's, had accomplished what some people take a lifetime to achieve. She was a partner at Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, one of the most prestigious law firms in the South, with an office on the 35th floor of the Republic National Bank Tower in downtown Dallas.

But she still felt something was missing in her life, and it was after a series of long discussions - rambling conversations about family and religion and other matters that typically stretched from early evening into the night - with Nathan L. Hecht, a junior colleague at the law firm, that she made a decision that many of the people around her say changed her life.

"She decided that she wanted faith to be a bigger part of her life," Justice Hecht, who now serves on the Texas Supreme Court, said in an interview. "One evening she called me to her office and said she was ready to make a commitment" to accept Jesus Christ as her savior and be born again, he said. He walked down the hallway from his office to hers, and there amid the legal briefs and court papers, Ms. Miers and Justice Hecht "prayed and talked," he said.

She was baptized not long after that, at the Valley View Christian Church.

It was a pivotal personal transformation for the woman now named for a seat on the United States Supreme Court, not entirely unlike that experienced by President Bush and others in the Texas political and business establishment of that time.

Ms. Miers, born Roman Catholic, became an evangelical Christian and began identifying more with Republicans than with the Democrats who had long held sway over Texas politics. She joined the missions committee of her church, which is against legalized abortion, and friends and colleagues say she rarely looked back at her past as a Democrat.

"There weren't that many Republicans in Texas in those days," said Merrie Spaeth, a director of media relations at the White House under Ronald Reagan who met Ms. Miers after moving to Dallas in 1985. "Harriet is what you would call a Southern lady. It is marvelous to watch her in meetings with huge egos, where she allows people to think good results are the product of their own ideas."

To persuade the right to embrace Ms. Miers's selection despite her lack of a clear record on social issues, representatives of the White House put Justice Hecht on at least one conference call with influential social conservative organizers on Monday to talk about her faith and character.

Some evangelical Protestants were heralding the possibility that one of their own would have a seat on the court after decades of complaining that their brand of Christianity met condescension and exclusion from the American establishment.

In an interview Tuesday on the televangelist Pat Robertson's "700 Club," Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the Christian conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said Ms. Miers would be the first evangelical Protestant on the court since the 1930's. "So this is a big opportunity for those of us who have a conviction, that share an evangelical faith in Christianity, to see someone with our positions put on the court," Mr. Sekulow said.

But other conservatives were unappeased, looking for someone with clearly stated public commitments on social issues like abortion.

While Ms. Miers rarely wore her religious thinking on her sleeve, her gradual tilt toward conservative views resulted in some uneasy moments when she took a break from a lucrative law practice and delved into politics with a campaign for the Dallas City Council in 1989, running for a nonpartisan post. She appeared as a candidate at the Dallas Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, but even though she said gays should have the same civil rights as others in society, she stopped short of endorsing a repeal of a Texas law criminalizing gay sexual activity.

Religion appears to have influenced her views on certain subjects. In a discussion with her campaign manager in 1989, Ms. Miers said she had been in favor in her younger years of a woman's right to have an abortion, but her views evolved against abortion, influenced largely by her born-again religious beliefs, said Lorlee Bartos, a Democratic campaign consultant in Dallas who managed Ms. Miers's City Council campaign.

"She was someone whose view had shifted, and she explained that to me," Ms. Bartos said.

[Remainder Snipped]

Poor Poor Clear Channel (Boo Hoo!)

2005-10-04T12:47:00.000-05:00

There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit.
--Robert Heinlein
"Life-Line"

Poor Clear Channel Communications, who according to Yahoo! Finance:

As of December 31, 2004, the company owned 1,189 domestic radio stations and a national radio network; owned or operated 151,603 domestic outdoor advertising display faces and 671,977 international outdoor advertising display faces; owned or operated 75 live entertainment venues domestically and 29 live entertainment venues internationally; and owned or programmed 40 television stations.

Additionally, according to Yahoo! Finance:

Had a yearly income in FY2004 of $9,418,459 US Dollars (as compared with 8,930,899 in FY 2003, or a 5% increase).

From their form 10–K:

“ Our consolidated revenue grew $487.6 million during 2004 as compared to 2003 led by a $272.4 million increase in revenues from our outdoor advertising business. Domestic outdoor revenue growth occurred across the vast majority of our markets, with both poster and bulletin revenues up for the year. International outdoor revenue grew on higher street furniture sales, driven by an increase in average revenue per display for 2004 as compared to 2003. International outdoor revenues also benefited from $128.6 million in foreign exchange fluctuations. Our live entertainment business contributed $101.6 million to our revenue growth, primarily from sponsorships and ancillary revenues at our amphitheater events, as well as $74.3 million from foreign exchange fluctuations. Our radio business contributed $59.4 million to our revenue growth, primarily from our mid to small size markets (those markets outside our top 25), which benefited from higher local advertising revenues during 2004 as compared to 2003. The remainder of the growth in revenues during 2004 was primarily driven by our television business, which benefited from political and Olympic advertising. “

Well today, this sad multinational communications conglomerate called for “relaxed ownership regulations and steps toward restrictions on satellite rivals.”

They want new regulations to help save their increasing share of a decreasing market. My advise would be to launch some satellites and go into direct competition with Sirius and XM.

More information on Clear Channel Communications here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel_communications
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/clearchannel.asp

Delay Reindicted On Technicality

2005-10-04T10:17:00.000-05:00

From Fox News:

A Texas grand jury on Monday re-indicted Rep. Tom DeLay on charges of conspiring to launder money and money laundering after the former majority leader attacked last week's indictment on technical grounds.

The new indictment, handed up by a grand jury seated Monday, contained two counts. The money laundering charge carries a penalty of up to life in prison. Last week, DeLay was charged with conspiracy to violate campaign-finance laws.

Defense lawyers asked a judge Monday to throw out the first indictment, arguing that the charge of conspiring to violate campaign finance laws was based on a statute that did not take effect until 2003 — a year after the alleged acts.

The new indictment from District Attorney Ronnie Earle, coming just hours after the new grand jurors were sworn in, outraged DeLay.

"Ronnie Earle has stooped to a new low with his brand of prosecutorial abuse," DeLay said in a statement. "He is trying to pull the legal equivalent of a 'do-over' since he knows very well that the charges he brought against me last week are totally manufactured and illegitimate. This is an abomination of justice."

Earle's office did not return repeated phone calls from The Associated Press.

In a written statement, the office outlined the new charges and possible punishments, but did not address criticism from DeLay's attorneys.

Delay, 58, is the highest-ranking member of Congress to face criminal prosecution. House Republican rules forced him to temporarily step aside as majority leader while he fights the charges.

DeLay and two political associates are accused of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington. The RNC then sent back like amounts to distribute to Texas candidates in 2002, the indictment alleges.

DeLay attorney Dick DeGuerin said the money spent on Texas candidates was "lawfully collected from individuals who knew what they were contributing to."

The indictment alleges that DeLay knowingly aided the transfer of the corporate money to help the GOP win a majority in the Texas Legislature.

Once the Republicans had secured control of the Legislature, state lawmakers adopted a DeLay-engineered congressional redistricting plan that gave the GOP a stronger grasp on Congress as well.

It was unclear when Delay would appear in court to face the new charges. No arraignment date had been set.

DeLay's associates, John Colyandro of Austin and Jim Ellis of Washington, were each previously indicted on charges of conspiracy to violate campaign finance laws and money laundering.

The judge who will preside in DeLay's case is out of the country on vacation and could not rule on the defense motion. Other state district judges declined to rule on the motion in his place.

Two other members of Congress have been indicted since 1996.

Former Rep. William Janklow, R-S.D., was convicted of vehicular homicide and sentenced to 100 days in prison after his car struck and killed a motorcyclist in 2003. Former Rep. James Traficant, D-Ohio, was sentenced to eight years in prison after being convicted on charges from a 2001 indictment accusing him of racketeering and accepting bribes.

Bush's Stealth Nominee

2005-10-03T22:09:00.000-05:00

To be honest, I am not sure what to make of this. I’m quite sure that Miers is an evangelical, and this puts Roe v. Wade in jepordy. However, give the fact that she is a female, all bets are off. She has never been a judge. If she were not a friend (and the President’s personal lawyer, as well as his Deputy Chief of Staff), no one would have ever heard of her, and this nomination would have never happened. Conservatives appear to be split on her, as do liberals. I think most of all, regardless of her politics, this represents another bad choice (in a long string of bad choices) for the Bush Administration. Was there no one in the entire country, perhaps someone with some judicial expereience that was better qualified. If she were not a friend of the President’s she would be just another lawyer, with a great resume…. If nothing else, it is going to make for interesting times. Imagine Democrats and Republicans joining together on both side of the vote.

From The Washington Post:

President Bush nominated Harriet Ellan Miers, his White House counsel and former personal attorney, to the Supreme Court yesterday, choosing a woman who broke barriers in the male-dominated Texas legal world but brings no judicial experience or constitutional background to her new assignment.

Bush announced his choice for the nation's 110th justice from the Oval Office shortly before the court opened its new term under newly installed Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. In Bush's nationally televised statement, he simultaneously introduced Miers and defended her legal r�sum�, which came under immediate attack from some conservative groups.

In succeeding Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, one of the court's swing voters, Miers would be in a position to move it decisively to the right. Bush said she would bring a distinctive perspective to the high court while strictly interpreting the Constitution and not legislating from the bench.

"In selecting a nominee, I've sought to find an American of grace, judgment and unwavering devotion to the Constitution and laws of our country. Harriet Miers is just such a person," Bush said. "I've known Harriet for more than a decade. I know her heart. I know her character."

The White House appeared to be seeking a smooth confirmation process, bypassing candidates with more established conservative bona fides at a time when Bush is beset with political problems including the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina. Based on advance soundings with Senate Democratic leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and conservative leader James C. Dobson, the White House calculated that Miers would draw broad support.

But yesterday's response to the nominee left that open to doubt. There was widespread dissent among Bush's usual allies on the right, who questioned whether the 60-year-old former corporate lawyer possessed the distinguished qualifications and conservative credentials they are looking for in a court nominee. "It could well be that she is in the tradition of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, as the president has promised," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of Concerned Women for America. "The problem is that those of us who were looking for some tangible evidence of that have none, and we can't come out of the box supporting her."

Advocates on the left and their allies in the Senate also urged caution, pronouncing Miers's judicial philosophy and constitutional views a mystery. "We know next to nothing about the legal philosophy of the person President Bush has selected to replace Justice O'Connor casting the deciding votes on the most difficult issues confronting our nation," said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "America can't afford a replay of the unrevealing confirmation process that preceded Chief Justice Roberts's confirmation."

White House officials yesterday were emphasizing previous praise Miers had won from Democrats. As part of a bipartisan delegation of Senate leaders at the White House on Sept. 21, Reid told Bush that Miers "is worthy of consideration," according to aides of people at the meeting, and the senator spoke warmly of her yesterday -- though without making any specific commitment to support her. Some Senate Democrats privately expressed dismay that Reid had given the White House cover for a nominee they expect to oppose.

Bush described Miers, who if confirmed would be the third women to sit on the Supreme Court, as a legal pioneer who repeatedly overcame gender barriers to reach the highest levels of her profession. Before being named White House counsel last year, she served as White House deputy chief of staff as well as staff secretary, a job in which she reviewed virtually every document that went before the president.

Before joining the Bush administration, Miers was Bush's personal attorney in Texas and served as general counsel of his gubernatorial campaign committee. As governor, Bush appointed Miers chairman of the scandal-plagued Texas Lottery Commission, where she earned a reputation as a tough manager after firing two executive directors.

Outside her political work for Bush, Miers was a partner at the Texas law firm of Locke Liddell & Sapp, served two years on the Dallas City Council and was the first women to be head of the Texas Bar Association.

"One of the things that I believe the president admires about Harriet is that she has spent her entire career breaking through glass ceilings," said James B. Francis Jr., who heads a Dallas investment firm and introduced Miers to Bush in 1993.

While Miers is a churchgoer who once made a small contribution to an antiabortion organization, some conservative activists were openly questioning whether Bush had lived up to his promise to appoint a nominee of the same judicial and ideological stripe as justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. The skeptics questioned her past donations to the Democratic National Committee, to former Texas senator Lloyd M. Bentsen (D) and the 1988 presidential campaign of Al Gore (D), they also bemoaned her lack of judicial experience.

"The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas, who had been the president's lawyer," said Manuel Miranda, chairman of the Third Branch Conference. "The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it. However, the president deserves the benefit of a doubt, the nominee deserves the benefit of hearings, and every nominee deserves an up-or-down vote."

Amid so much uncertainty among the president's own allies, Vice President Cheney was dispatched to interviews with such conservative commentators as Rush Limbaugh, who made plain his skepticism. "I'm confident that she has a conservative judicial philosophy that you'd be comfortable with, Rush," Cheney said. He added: "This president will have done more to change the court and, in fact, put on it individuals who share his judicial philosophy than any of his predecessors in modern times."

The White House could take reassurance that no Republican senators came out against Miers, and some conservative advocates said they were confident she would be a reliable supporter on the bench. They cited her support of an unsuccessful effort to reverse an American Bar Association endorsement of Roe v. Wade , the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing the right to abortion. "I don't know what her view is on overturning Roe , but she is well regarded by many antiabortion Texans," said Leonard A. Leo of the Federalist Society.

In a short statement after Bush announced her nomination and before she made her first round of courtesy calls on Senate leaders, Miers indicated that she has a modest view of the duty of justices. "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the Founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society," Miers said. "If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong, and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution."

If confirmed, Miers will become the first Supreme Court justice in more than three decades with no experience as a judge at any level. Among the non-judges appointed in modern history are the late William H. Rehnquist, who was a top Justice Department official in the Nixon administration, and Fortas, an influential Washington lawyer and close adviser to Lyndon B. Johnson, who nominated him to the high court in 1965. The talking points of White House aides said the closest analogy was Lewis F. Powell Jr., who served as head of the Virginia Bar Association and the Richmond school board before being sent to the court by Richard M. Nixon.

Bush chose Miers after seriously considering as many as 15 candidates for the post, at least six of whom were women, according to White House spokesman Scott McClellan. He said Bush met with Miers three times since Sept. 21 to discuss her possible nomination. Bush formally offered Miers the job Sunday night during dinner in the White House residence with first lady Laura Bush.

Miers, who as White House counsel was part of the team that vetted potential court nominees, was not publicly mentioned as a potential candidate until last week, and most speculation had centered on younger contenders, as well as the prospect that Bush would want to name the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court. But, in a signature of his management style, Bush turned to an adviser in whom he felt personal trust.

Through a spokesman, Majority Leader Bill Frist (D-Tenn.) said he would like to have Miers's confirmation hearings start in time for a vote before the Senate leaves for its Thanksgiving recess. Senate Democrats, however, were calling for a thorough examination of her views and for a release of her records as White House counsel -- a request sure to cause a confrontation with the White House.

"The record we have so far is simply insufficient to assess the qualifications of this nominee," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass).

More Charges For DeLay

2005-10-03T21:36:00.000-05:00

From CNN:

A Texas grand jury brought a charge of money laundering Monday against Rep. Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader indicted last week on conspiracy charges stemming from a campaign finance probe.

DeLay and two associates are now also charged with conspiring to illegally steer $190,000 in corporate donations to state legislative candidates in 2002 and to disguise its source by sending it through national Republican campaign committees.

In a written statement, the congressman called the indictment another example of "prosecutorial abuse" by District Attorney Ronnie Earle. (See video on DeLay's legal troubles -- 2:16)

"He is trying to pull the legal equivalent of a 'do-over,' since he knows very well that the charges he brought against me last week are totally manufactured and illegitimate," said the Texas Republican. "This is an abomination of justice."

DeLay's lawyer, Dick DeGuerin, said the new indictment came as a result of a motion he filed to dismiss the conspiracy charge brought Wednesday. DeGuerin argued that the state's conspiracy statute did not apply to the state election code.

"Faced with the fact that the indictment he returned against Mr. DeLay last week does not even state a crime, he went back before a grand jury -- who, by the way, was only empaneled today at noon -- and got this new indictment," he said.

He said DeLay, a 20-year veteran of Congress, is "ready for the fight." But he said Monday's developments indicate that process will take time.

"I thought that this would be resolved quickly, and Congressman Delay can get back to Washington and resume his post," DeGuerin said. "But obviously, the game here is to keep Congressman Delay out of his leadership post in the Congress."

DeLay, 58, has represented a suburban Houston district in Congress since 1985. In 2002, he became House majority leader -- a post he held until Wednesday's charge.

The rules of the GOP conference call for members to give up leadership posts if they are indicted -- a requirement DeLay's allies reversed last year, only to restore it after a storm of criticism.

House Republicans selected Majority Whip Roy Blunt of Missouri as their acting leader, with Reps. Eric Cantor of Virginia and David Dreier of California also taking on additional duties.

DeLay has accused Earle, a Democrat, of launching a partisan vendetta against him after the 2002 elections, which saw Republicans take control of both houses of the Texas legislature.

Lawmakers then passed a hotly contested, DeLay-engineered plan to redraw Texas' congressional districts, which resulted in the GOP picking up House seats in redrawn districts in 2004.

Earle denied a political motive, saying 12 of the 15 officials he has prosecuted on corruption charges have been Democrats.

The Travis County grand jury indicted DeLay and the same two associates, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, on conspiracy charges stemming from the same allegations last week.

Prosecutors say the three men agreed to violate campaign finance laws by sending corporate donations given a state political action committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, to the national Republican Party.

The national GOP in turn is alleged to have distributed the same amount of funds to Republican legislative candidates in Texas.

Corporations cannot donate to candidates in Texas elections.

DeGuerin said last week that the donations to TRMPAC went to states where corporate money could be lawfully donated, and the money that was sent to Texas candidates came from individuals.

"No corporate money came to any candidate in Texas," he said.

DeGuerin said Monday he still believes a judge will dismiss the charges against his client -- "but if we go to trial, I'm confident that a fair jury will say Tom DeLay did not do anything wrong."

Money laundering is punishable by five years to life in prison under Texas law, with fines up to $10,000. The conspiracy charge carried a penalty of up to two years in prison and fines up to $10,000.

DeLay said Sunday he thinks he will return to his leadership post after the case is resolved.

"I think it will be over and be over very, very soon. And I think I will go back to be majority leader," he told "Fox News Sunday." "I'm still a member of Congress. I'm going to be working on the agenda and doing everything I can to make good things happen."

Nicknamed "The Hammer" during his tenure as GOP whip, DeLay was admonished by the House ethics committee three times in 2004 over separate issues.

Rep. Christopher Shays has been calling for DeLay's resignation.

On CNN's "Late Edition" Sunday, the Connecticut Republican reiterated that call, citing "continual acts that border and go sometimes beyond the ethical edge."

Rove/Libby Plamegate Update

2005-10-02T18:46:00.000-05:00

From The Washington Post

As the CIA leak investigation heads toward its expected conclusion this month, it has become increasingly clear that two of the most powerful men in the Bush administration were more involved in the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame than the White House originally indicated.

With New York Times reporter Judith Miller's release from jail Thursday and testimony Friday before a federal grand jury, the role of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, came into clearer focus. Libby, a central figure in the probe since its earliest days and the vice president's main counselor, discussed Plame with at least two reporters but testified that he never mentioned her name or her covert status at the CIA, according to lawyers in the case.

His story is similar to that of Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser. Rove, who was not an initial focus of the investigation, testified that he, too, talked with two reporters about Plame but never supplied her name or CIA role.

Their testimony seems to contradict what the White House was saying a few months after Plame's CIA job became public.

In October 2003, White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that he personally asked Libby and Rove whether they were involved, "so I could come back to you and say they were not involved." Asked if that was a categorical denial of their involvement, he said, "That is correct."

What remains a central mystery in the case is whether special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has accumulated evidence during his two-year investigation that any crime was committed. His investigation has White House aides and congressional Republicans on edge as they await Fitzgerald's announcement of an indictment or the conclusion of the probe with no charges. The grand jury is scheduled to expire Oct. 28, and lawyers in the case expect Fitzgerald to signal his intentions as early as this week.

Fitzgerald is investigating whether anyone illegally disclosed Plame's name or undercover CIA job in retaliation against her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. In the summer of 2003, Wilson, a former diplomat, accused the White House of using "twisted" intelligence to justify the invasion of Iraq.

He claimed firsthand evidence: At the behest of the CIA, he had flown to Niger in February 2002 to investigate the administration's assertion that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium in the African nation for use in its nuclear weapons program. Wilson returned unconvinced the assertion was true. However, Bush himself made the charge in his 2003 State of the Union address, prompting Wilson to spread word throughout the government and eventually make public his rebuttal.

Many lawyers in the case have been skeptical that Fitzgerald has the evidence to prove a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which is the complicated crime he first set out to investigate, and which requires showing that government officials knew an operative had covert status and intentionally leaked the operative's identity.

But a new theory about Fitzgerald's aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose.

Lawyers involved in the case interviewed for this report agreed to talk only if their names were not used, citing Fitzgerald's request for secrecy.

One source briefed on Miller's account of conversations with Libby said it is doubtful her testimony would on its own lead to charges against any government officials. But, the source said, her account could establish a piece of a web of actions taken by officials that had an underlying criminal purpose.

Conspiracy cases are viewed by criminal prosecutors as simpler to bring than more straightforward criminal charges, but also trickier to sell to juries. "That would arguably be a close call for a prosecutor, but it could be tried," a veteran Washington criminal attorney with longtime experience in national security cases said yesterday.

Other lawyers in the case surmise Fitzgerald does not have evidence of any crime at all and put Miller in jail simply to get her testimony and finalize the investigation. "Even assuming . . . that somebody decided to answer back a critic, that is politics, not criminal behavior," said one lawyer in the case. This lawyer said the most benign outcome would be Fitzgerald announcing that he completed a thorough investigation, concluded no crime was committed and would not issue a report.

The campaign to discredit Wilson's accusations came at a critical moment in the Bush presidency. It occurred a few months after the United States invaded Iraq and at a time when Bush, Cheney and the entire administration were under extraordinary pressure to back up their prewar allegations that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and was working on a nuclear weapons program.

The Niger claim was central to the White House's rationale for war, and Wilson was on a one-man crusade to disprove it. Early on, his actions caught the eye of the vice president's office, which was often the emotional and intellectual force pushing the United States to war based on fears of potential weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Cheney and Libby were intimately involved in building the case for the war, which included warnings that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing nuclear weapons.

Cheney's staff was looking into Wilson as early as May 2003, nearly two months before columnist Robert D. Novak identified Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, according to administration sources familiar with the effort. What stirred the interest of the vice president's office was a May 6 New York Times column by Nicholas D. Kristof in which the mission to Niger was described without using Wilson's name. Kristof's column said Cheney had authorized the trip.

According to former senior CIA officials, the vice president's office pressed the CIA to find out how the trip was arranged, because Cheney did not know that a query he made much earlier to a CIA briefer about a report alleging Iraq was seeking Niger uranium had triggered Wilson's trip. "They were very uptight about the vice president being tagged that way," a former senior CIA official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. "They asked questions that set [off] a chain of inquiries."

By early June, several weeks before Libby is said to have known Plame's name, the State Department had prepared a memo on the Niger case that contained information on Plame in a section marked "(S)" for secret. Around that time, Libby knew about the trip's origins, though in an interview with The Washington Post at the time, he did not mention any role played by Wilson's wife.

By July 12, however, both Rove and Libby and perhaps other senior White House officials knew about Wilson's wife's position at the CIA and, according to lawyers familiar with testimony in the probe, used that information with reporters to undermine the significance of Wilson's trip.

Closing in on DeLay

2005-10-02T18:43:00.000-05:00

From Time Magazine:

The news that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay had been dreading for months was brought by an aide, who interrupted DeLay's weekly lunch with Dennis Hastert in the House Speaker's office. DeLay absorbed it, and then the man widely called "the Hammer" on Capitol Hill (though rarely to his face) did what he does best: he hit back. "All right," DeLay replied. "Let's go. Let's go fight." Less than three hours later, before a roomful of reporters, DeLay addressed a Texas grand jury's charge that he and two political associates conspired to funnel $155,000 in illegal corporate campaign contributions into Texas legislative races. He called it "one of the weakest, most baseless indictments in American history" and the prosecutor who brought the case "a partisan fanatic." That night, anxious to show he's not a recluse, he introduced Rudy Giuliani at a Friends of Israel banquet. DeLay even made an uncharacteristic round of the cable shows, hinting darkly on cnn that he would soon produce "very good evidence" that his nemesis, Travis County district attorney Ronnie Earle, had engaged in a conspiracy of his own--"with the Democratic leadership here in Washington."

Combativeness has seen Tom DeLay through near-death experiences before, but on the Hill late last week, it was hard to miss the signs that his foot soldiers and allies had begun positioning themselves in anticipation of his demise. G.O.P. rules require that DeLay, 58, majority leader since 2003, relinquish his post while he fights the conspiracy charge, and speculation is rife that even if he is acquitted his days as one of the most powerful men in the House could be over. "You leave a job like this, there is no coming back," says a top Republican official who likes DeLay and thinks he will be cleared. "Politics abhors a vacuum more than anything else, and it's going to move past him too quickly."

Almost immediately, it did. A plan engineered by DeLay and Hastert to install complaisant Rules Committee chairman David Dreier as temporary majority leader was nixed by conservatives who dislike Dreier's moderate positions on stem-cell research and gay marriage. Instead the brain trust installed ambitious whip Roy Blunt, who will share some of the majority leader's duties with Dreier. The setup is so shaky that some House Republicans are pressing for the election of a new leadership team as early as January.

Meanwhile, lobbying shops that had traded on the access to DeLay were desperately dialing House aides to forge new relationships. Those not tied to DeLay were calling the same staff members to gloat. "There's millions of dollars on the table," said an aide who had heard from both camps. "These guys are going to slaughter each other." What's left of the G.O.P. leadership, already beset by a raft of other political problems, was trying to figure out how to salvage the ambitious legislative agenda of more tax cuts, hurricane help and gas-price relief that they want to carry them to next year's midterm elections--a more difficult challenge with the sidelining of the man who had so determinedly pulled off many of their close victories.

DeLay may not have seen the worst of it yet. Sources tell TIME that while Earle was closing in on DeLay from Austin, Texas, a federal investigation into the spreading scandal around disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, accused with Michael Scanlon (a former press secretary of DeLay's) of bilking their Indian-tribe clients out of $66 million, has begun lapping at the edges of the former majority leader's operation. A former Abramoff associate who was questioned by the FBI in August says, "They had a lot of e-mails, a lot of traffic between our office and DeLay's office." Many of those exchanges involved lavish travel by DeLay arranged by the lobbyist but requested, the e-mails suggest, by aides in DeLay's office. (House members are allowed to accept gifts under limited circumstances but not to solicit them.) Says the source: "There was nothing I saw that hit DeLay personally, but there was a lot of questionable stuff that was going on with his staff. 'Tom wants this. Tom wants that.' Was it really him or just the staff that was being aggressive?" DeLay's office wouldn't comment on the Justice Department investigation, and neither would the FBI.

Republicans had plenty of problems even before the latest blow to DeLay. Voters are angry about gas prices, the war in Iraq and the botched response to Hurricane Katrina. Polls show President George W. Bush at or near the lowest public-approval ratings of his presidency. On the other side of the Capitol, Senate majority leader Bill Frist faces an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission into the circumstances surrounding his decision to sell all of his stock in the hospital chain founded by his family, Hospital Corporation of America, in June, just before the share price dropped following a bad earnings report.

So dispirited are Republicans that some worry about losing control of the House--a danger that once seemed remote. "We're looking in the crystal ball. We're moving into an area where we don't know what will happen," says deputy whip Tom Cole, a conservative from Oklahoma. With a switch of only 15 seats required to end their majority, Cole is anxious that the party may have to contest as many as 100 tight races if the winds arraying against it turn into a national backlash like the one that ended the Democrats' 40-year reign in 1994. Having seen how the Democrats failed to galvanize their voters in that campaign, Republicans say the chief goal in rewriting their strategy for the fall will be to re-energize their base. The plan taking shape calls for a robust conservative agenda through next spring, including a tax-reform package. That move would allow Republicans to pivot back to issues like education tax credits that would appeal more to moderates as the elections approach.

As for DeLay, his struggles appear likely to consume him for many months. He has launched what amounts to a major political campaign to convince supporters that the indictment is flimsy and he is a victim of a political smear. DeLay pointed to Democrats' vow to use G.O.P. ethics as a campaign issue, and supporters noted criticism of Earle in Texas for speaking in May to a $100,000 fund raiser for a Democratic political action committee (PAC). But DeLay has produced no evidence Earle conspired with Democrats in Washington.

While it's true that Earle and DeLay have been locked in a complicated war of Texas-size egos for years, the charges against DeLay are fairly simple. During the 2002 elections, a committee DeLay founded to support conservative politicians--Texans for a Republican Majority, or TRMPAC--allegedly accepted $155,000 in corporate donations and then included that in a check for $190,000 to the Republican National Committee, which then routed a similar amount to seven Texas legislative candidates. DeLay's lawyers say the transactions were separate and that the PAC accepted money from both individuals and corporations. The contribution helped produce six wins that were crucial to DeLay's political ambitions in Washington because they resulted in a Republican majority in the state legislature, which redrew congressional district lines and helped add five more Republicans to the state's congressional delegation. If convicted, DeLay faces up to two years in prison and a maximum fine of $100,000.

DeLay has done his best to paint the D.A. as a Democratic loose cannon. But Earle, 63, points out that of the 15 public officials he has prosecuted, 12 have been fellow Democrats. "Texas law makes it a felony for corporations and labor unions to contribute money to political campaigns," Earle tells TIME. "My job is to prosecute felonies. I'm doing my job." The grand jury foreman, William Gibson, 76, insists that "this was not one of those rubber-stamp deals. Ronnie Earle did not indict Mr. DeLay. Twelve people on that grand jury voted to indict."

If DeLay has cause for hope, it may be that Earle has been more successful convicting minor figures than major ones. The majority leader has put together a legal team headed by Dick DeGuerin, who handed Earle the most spectacular failure of his career: a 1994 misconduct case against former state treasurer Kay Bailey Hutchison that Earle was forced to drop on the first day of trial. Hutchison is now the state's senior Senator.

There are those who predict that DeLay will be able to balance mounting a defense with pulling strings behind the scenes in the House. But whereas he had been accustomed to just stepping downstairs to the majority leader's spacious suite of Capitol offices after a House vote, dusk last Thursday afternoon found DeLay outside on the Capitol Plaza, waiting at a traffic light to return to his office in the Cannon House Office Building across the street. Just like any other Congressman.

GOP Illegally Buys Education Propoganda

2005-10-02T18:38:00.000-05:00

From the New York Times:

Federal auditors said today that the Bush administration had violated the law by purchasing favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.

In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" inside the United States, in violation of a longstanding, explicit statutory ban.

The contract with Mr. Williams and the general contours of the administration's public relations campaign had been known for months. The report today provided the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.

Lawyers from the G.A.O., an independent nonpartisan arm of Congress, found that the Bush administration had systematically analyzed news articles to see if they carried the message, "The Bush administration/the G.O.P. is committed to education."

The auditors declared: "We see no use for such information except for partisan political purposes. Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds."

The G.A.O. also assailed the Education Department for telling Ketchum Inc., a large public relations company, to pay Mr. Williams for newspaper columns and television appearances praising Mr. Bush's education initiative, the No Child Left Behind Act.

When that arrangement became publicly known, it set off widespread criticism. At a news conference in January, Mr. Bush said: "We will not be paying commentators to advance our agenda. Our agenda ought to be able to stand on its own two feet."

But more recently the Education Department defended its payments to Mr. Williams, saying his commentaries were "no more than the legitimate dissemination of information to the public."

The G.A.O. said the Education Department had no money or authority to "procure favorable commentary in violation of the publicity or propaganda prohibition" in federal law.

In the course of its work, the accountability office discovered a previously undisclosed instance in which the Education Department had commissioned a newspaper article. The article, on the "declining science literacy of students," was distributed by the North American Precis Syndicate and appeared in numerous small newspapers around the country. Readers were not informed of the government's role in writing of the article.

The auditors also denounced a prepackaged television news story disseminated by the Education Department. The news segment, a "video news release" narrated by a woman named Karen Ryan, said that President Bush's program for providing remedial instruction and tutoring to children "gets an A-plus."

Ms. Ryan also narrated two videos praising the new Medicare drug benefit last year. In those segments, as in the education video, the narrator ended by saying, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."

The prepackaged television news segments on education and on Medicare did not inform the audience that they had been prepared and distributed by the government.

The public relations efforts by the Education Department came to light a few weeks before Margaret Spellings was sworn in as secretary in January. SA spokeswoman for the secretary, Susan Aspey, said Ms. Spellings regarded the efforts as "stupid, wrong and ill-advised." She said Ms. Spellings had adopted procedures "to ensure these types of missteps don't happen again."

The investigation by the Government Accountability Office was requested by Senators Frank R. Lautenberg of New Jersey and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, both Democrats.

Mr. Lautenberg expressed concern about a section of the G.A.O. report in which federal investigators said they could not find records to confirm that Mr. Williams had performed all the activities for which he billed the government.

The Education Department said it had paid Ketchum $186,000 for services performed by Mr. Williams's company. But it could not provide transcripts of speeches, copies of articles or records of other services performed by Mr. Williams, the G.A.O. said.

In March, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel said that federal agencies did not have to acknowledge their role in producing television news segments if they were purely factual. The inspector general of the Education Department reiterated that position earlier this month.

But the Government Accountability Office said today: "The failure of an agency to identify itself as the source of a prepackaged news story misleads the viewing public by encouraging the audience to believe that the broadcasting news organization developed the information. The prepackaged news stories are purposefully designed to be indistinguishable from news segments broadcast to the public. When the television viewing public does not know that the stories they watched on television news programs about the government were in fact prepared by the government, the stories are, in this sense, no longer purely factual. The essential fact of attribution is missing."

The G.A.O. said that Mr. Williams's work for the government resulted from a written proposal that he submitted to the Education Department in March 2003. The department directed Ketchum to use Mr. Williams as a regular commentator on Mr. Bush's education policies. Ketchum had a federal contract to help publicize the law, signed by Mr. Bush in 2002.

The Education Department flouted the law by telling Ketchum to use Mr. Williams to "convey a message to the public on behalf of the government, without disclosing to the public that the messengers were acting on the government's behalf and in return for the payment of public funds," the G.A.O. said.

The Education Department spent $38,421 for production and distribution of the video news release and $96,850 for the evaluation of newspaper articles and radio and television programs. Ketchum assigned a score to each article, indicating how frequently and favorably it mentioned specific features of the new education law.

Congress tried to clarify the ban on "covert propaganda" in a spending bill signed by Mr. Bush in May. The law says that no federal money can be used to produce or distribute a prepackaged news story unless the government's role is openly acknowledged. Congress said the law "confirms the opinion of the G.A.O." on this issue.

Blogs For Bush Bitch Slapped

2005-09-30T13:06:00.000-05:00

It all started with this post by Mark Noonan on Blogs For Bush, which calls itsself the "White House of the Blogsphere":

As our Sister Toldjah noted earlier, the "indictment" of Tom Delay is entirely bogus - from what I've read, Tom Delay didn't know about the perfectly legal transaction he is accused of conspiring to make. We have now left entirely the field of normal political conflict and entered a twilight world where fantasy is presented as fact and the only standard of conduct is "will it work?". This is not the actions of a political Party engaged in seeking a majority - it is the action of a Party determined to destroy its opponents entirely and sieze all power for itself...it is, in short, the stuff from which civil wars are made...

I really do urge our Democrats to step back from the edge - you are sitting in a lake of gasoline and you are playing with fire. We on our side will only put up with so much before we start to pay back with usury what we have received. If you can't defeat Tom Delay in the electoral field, then you will simply have to accept him as Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives - and you'd better start accepting political reality before things get really bad.

And then came the retort (actually a smackdown) from the Daily Kos, perhaps one of the best blogged responses I have ever read…

Mark... may I call you Mark? I feel when someone has shown me the insides of their own rectum, we're pretty much on a first name basis... I have some words for you.

Whitewater. Rush Limbaugh. "Drug Dealer" Bill Clinton. Swift Boats.
Vince Fucking Foster.
Playing with fire, you say? Because the indictments ringing Tom DeLay finally reached up that one, final step from his ring of closest advisers to DeLay himself? Because the SEC has launched a formal investigation into the same behaviors by Bill Frist that put Martha Stewart recently in prison? Because one of the single most visible, highest profile Republican money men has been indicted for fraud, is being investigated for client shakedowns, and has his close business associates being investigated for a mob-connected murder?

What utter cowardice. What pathetic anti-American pedantry. What laughable protestation. The crimes of campaign money laundering, of fraud, of conspiracy, the violation of the laws of the nation, to be answered with stern visions of potential gunfire if Democrats have the audacity to pursue it.

This is the world of the Republican Party, split open like a rotting pumpkin. Crime after crime after crime being investigated, all revolving around the Republican money machine. Every seed connected by the strands of money they share between them. Barely-laundered campaign money passed in the palm of every flabby handshake. Every player in boldface, underlined print in the Rolodex of every other.

And still, this same bottom-tier world of flag-waving supporters still obsessed over an extramarital sex act, but offended to the point of sad, blustering threats at the notion that crimes by gilded and worshipped Republicans are really still crimes.

Your party has set aflame the entire political landscape, and now, once burned, you warn sternly from the branches of a burnt-out tree about "playing with fire". You used the ashes of one of the great liberal cities of America, New York City, as war paint for your own sick, racist dreams. You shudder at a burning flag, yet are willing to snip-and-cut basic tenets of the Constitution as needed or convenient.

And now, you're outraged, not by any of the rest of it, not by anything that has come before, but because a few prominent Republican faces have -- shock of shocks -- been indicted in probes that have spanned years of investigation, and interrogation, and deposition. That, you say, represents the underpinnings of a civil war.

You poor, hollow, blood-painted clowns. Cheering the trials and failures of your country with the same pennants and giant foam hands that you wave at your favorite sports teams. Willing to accept the most outrageous of lies, if they are spoken from your favorite talking heads, and soothe your own notions of America for you, and only for you.

And as for the audacity of Democrats speaking up during this process... the redfaced, flatulent fury with which you declare Republicans off-limits to that which you so gleefully hurl yourself...

Welcome to the world of the politics of personal destruction, you tubthumping, chin-jutting, Bush humping gits. Welcome to the nasty and partisan world that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Hugh Hewitt, Grover Norquist, Newt Gingrich, Tom DeLay, and a legion of insignificant lowest-rung toadies like yourselves nurtured into fruition daily with eager, grubby hands, and now look upon with dull-faced faux horror.

I know you hate me, and anyone else who dares disturb the thin strands of alternate reality in which George W. Bush is an intellectual giant, Saddam really was responsible for 9/11, the economy is getting better by the minute, and we capture the most very important members of al Qaeda on a weekly basis.

But here's some advice. You'd better start hating me more. This is the world you forged and, unfortunately for you, I'm beginning to take a fancy for it. Welcome to the politics of your own party, finally sprouting from the ground on which you planted the seeds and shat upon them.

Step back from the edge? You poor boy, asleep in the back of the car the whole trip, finally waking up and wondering where you're at.

Swift boats. Aluminum tubes. Niger uranium. "Mushroom clouds". Whitewater.
Vince Fucking Foster.
You can't even see the edge from here. You left it behind a hundred miles back.
So don't give me chest-thumping crap about civil wars, if your politicians are indicted. Don't give me visions of a lake of fire, if all those who find you loathsome refuse to suck at your teats of scientific ignorance in the name of religion, racism in the name of freedom, and corruption in the name of the New World Order.

Get used to the world you have created, and the stench your worshipped heroes have unleashed.

Bush Crony, and Mega Polluter, Appointed Secretary of Energy

2005-09-30T11:03:00.000-05:00

From Huff Po:

Here's another scandal straight outta' Texas that's fallen off the radar.

Earlier this year, President Bush appointed 66-year-old Sam Bodman to serve as Secretary of Energy, a guy who for more than a decade ran a Texas-based chemical company that spent years on the top-five lists of the country's worst polluters.

It's not just a few clouds of smoke emanating from an oil refinery or a power plant that got Bodman's old company, Boston-based Cabot Corporation, those accolades.

It was the 54,000 tons of toxic emissions that his company's refineries released into the air in the Lone Star state in 1997 alone that made Cabot the fourth-largest source of toxic emissions -- which scientists say causes Global Warming -- in Texas. Cabot is the world's largest producer of industrial carbon black, a byproduct of the oil refinery process.

In 2000, the year Bodman left Cabot to join the Bush administration as Deputy Commerce Secretary, Cabot accounted for 60,000 of the more than half a million tons of toxic emissions released into the Texas air, according to report by the Texas State Summary of Emissions.

A loophole created in the 1972 Texas Clean Air Act exempted or "grandfathered" industrial plants built before 1971 from new, stricter pollution control rules. But in the mid-1990s companies such as Cabot were supposed to curb the pollution coming from its refineries. Environmentalists demanded that then-Gov. Bush rein in the polluters and close the so-called grandfather loophole as the air in Texas became smoggier.

Instead, in 1997, Bush asked two oil company executives to outline a voluntary program that allowed the grandfathered polluters to decide on their own exactly how much to cut the pollution at their plants. The oil execs summoned a meeting of two dozen industry reps at Exxon offices in Houston and presented them with the program.

In a memo obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, one executive wrote that "clearly the insiders from oil and gas believe that the Governor's office will 'persuade' the (Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission) to accept what program is developed between the industry group and the Governor's Office."

"And they did. And two years later this joke of a program was enacted into law by a bill written by the general counsel for the Texas Chemical Council who also lobbies for energy and utility companies. The bill was denounced by newspapers across the state," according to a March 5, 2000 report in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

According to people familiar with the legislation, Sam Bodman was part of the original working group that drafted legislation that Gov. Bush signed into law that basically permitted Cabot and other companies to continue to emit the same level --and in some cases more -- toxic emissions as they had been years earlier without so much as receiving a slap-on-the-wrist by Bush.

Bodman personally contributed $1,000 to Bush's presidential campaign and $20,000 to Republican committees in the 2000 election. Bodman is the wealthiest member of the Bush administration. His net worth is estimated to be between $42 million and $164 million, the bulk of it in Cabot stock, deferred compensation and other benefits.

Bodman shoddy environmental record aside, he may also be complicit in one of Africa's deadliest wars.

In October 2002, Bodman's former company came under fire when a United Nations Panel of Experts produced a report accusing the company, along with several other US corporations, of helping to fuel the wars in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) while he ran Cabot by purchasing coltan from Congo during the conflict and illegally plundering the country's vast natural resources.

Cabot has publicly denied the allegations in the UN report, but a report by the Belgian Senate states that Eagle Wings Resources International had a longterm contract to supply Cabot with coltan, which it too purchased from Congo during the war. Eagle Wings was also identified in the UN report as contributing to the war.

In response, environmental Friend of the Earth United States (FOE) and the UK-based human rights group Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) filed a complaint with the US State Department last August against Cabot and several other western corporations for its role in aiding the rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo by conducting business there, essentially inadvertently aiding a violent conflict that contributed to widespread human rights abuses.

RAID an FOE filed a complaint with the U.S. State Department last August claiming Cabot and other western corporations having violated the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) "Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises," a set of international standards for responsible corporate behavior.

The UN panel said in its report that a "three-year investigation found that sophisticated 'elite networks' of highlevel political, military and businesspersons, in collaboration with various rebel groups, intentionally fueled the conflict in order to retain control over the country's vast natural resources. The Panel implicated many Western companies for directly or indirectly helping to fuel the war."

The State Department is the agency in charge of deciding whether US companies breach the OECD guidelines. Despite the allegations included in the UN report and the complaint filed by the two activist groups, the State Department has refused to launch an independent investigation into whether Cabot, under Bodman's leadership, and the other US companies might have contributed to the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

According to the UN report, an increase in the export of columbo tantalite, otherwise known as coltan from which the metal tantalum is extracted, in 1999 and 2000 resulted in "a sharp increase in the world prices of tantalum...leading to a large increase in coltan production in eastern DRC...While the processors of coltan and other Congolese minerals in Asia, Europe and North America may not have been aware of what was happening in the DRC, the Panel's investigations uncovered such serious concerns that it was decided to raise the international business community's awareness..."

Cabot is the world's largest refiner of coltan. The other US corporations identified in the UN report, Kemet and Vishay, both purchase processed tantalum from Cabot. Under Bodman's leadership an unknown amount of the coltan Cabot Corporation was purchasing could have originated from the DRC. Cabot Corporation has stated publicly that "to the best of its knowledge none [of its coltan came] from environmentally sensitive areas in Africa, but it can't be sure."

As Energy Secretary, Bodman will no doubt be looking out for the energy behemoths he used to commiserate with while he was chairman and chief executive of Cabot. Forget about the environment. It's doomed.

SEC Opens Official Investigation of Frist

2005-09-30T10:55:00.000-05:00

From Reuters, Via Yahoo!:

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has given subpoena power to investigators looking into the stock sales by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, said sources familiar with the matter on Wednesday.

Moving to protect the Frist inquiry from any future criticism for not being thorough, the SEC changed its status to formal from informal and gave investigators subpoena power to force individuals to talk or to produce documents or e-mails.

An SEC spokesman declined to comment.
Federal authorities are looking into Frist's recent sale of shares in HCA Inc., a hospital company co-founded by the Tennessee Republican's father and brother -- completed days before its stock price fell on a disappointing profit outlook issued on July 13.

The company said last week it had gotten a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, seeking documents believed to be related to the Frist matter. HCA also said the SEC had sought similar information.

Frist -- viewed widely as a potential 2008 presidential candidate -- said on Monday he had no inside information about the coming profit forecast when he began taking steps in April that led to the HCA stock sale being completed July 8.

He said he would cooperate with investigators and forecast that an examination of the facts would show he acted properly.

The SEC has conducted many probes of this sort and will likely be looking for "phone records, trading records, bank records and other records that might have authorized the trading at issue," said Mark Braswell, a partner at the law firm of Venable LLP and a former SEC enforcement attorney.

SEC Chairman Christopher Cox -- who took over the investor protection agency last month and was formerly a Republican congressman from California -- on Monday recused himself from the investigation of Frist, a former colleague in Congress.

Securities lawyer Stanley Brand, of the firm of Brand and Frulla, said SEC investigators likely would not be deterred by Frist's high political profile in pursuing the case.

"They've run a thousand insider trading investigations for people ranging from Martha Stewart to captains of industry on Wall Street," said Brand, also a former SEC staff attorney.

"They'll do their thing," Brand said. "They have a reputation for tenacity and not fearing anyone ... I can't imagine there will be an issue with Frist."

New Majority Leader Has His Own Skeletons

2005-09-29T22:14:00.000-05:00

From Media Matters:

… Blunt has faced significant ethics charges of his own.

Many of the ethics charges against Blunt concern his dubious efforts to use his position to benefit members of his family. For example, in 2003 Blunt sought a provision to Homeland Security legislation that would have benefited a company that had contributed approximately $150,000 to his campaign committees and that employed his son and future wife as lobbyists. As Knight Ridder reported on September 28, the provision aimed at "crack[ing] down on illegal and Internet-based cigarette sales," which was eventually removed from the bill by other House leaders, would have been a "huge boon to Altria, parent of cigarette maker Philip Morris." At the time, Blunt had a "personal relationship" with Altria lobbyist Abigail Perlman, according to a September 29 Associated Press report; Blunt and Perlman later married.

Blunt's lobbyist son, Andrew, also represents the United Parcel Service, which benefited from an amendment inserted at Roy Blunt's behest into an Iraq spending bill in 2002, according to a September 29 Associated Press report.

Other ethics charges have focused on Blunt's other son, Matt, who was elected Missouri governor in 2004. For example, the Springfield (Missouri) News-Leader reported on August 10, 2003, about a "series of transactions in which a campaign committee controlled by the congressman [Roy Blunt] had contributed $50,000 to a state 7th District Congressional Republican Committee, which then gave $40,000 to Matt Blunt's campaign eight days later." The News-Leader also documented that "[a]nother committee controlled by the congressman, called Rely On Your Beliefs, or ROY B., also gave money to the 7th District Congressional Republican committee," and was "eventually fined $3,000 for improperly giving money to state candidates in Missouri, according to a consent order between the committee's treasurer and the state Ethics Commission."

Further, The Washington Post reported on May 17 that Matt Blunt "awarded one of the few remaining patronage plums in the state" (franchises to collect fees for driver's license renewals, tax payments for new cars and processing motor vehicle titles and registrations that can provide recipients with as much as $1 million over four years) to the wife and brother-in-law of U.S. Attorney Todd P. Graves, whose office has jurisdiction over Roy Blunt's congressional district. The Post noted that, in response to Democratic complaints, the associate deputy attorney general determined that there was "no existing conflict of interest that requires further action at this time."

As with DeLay, there is evidence that Roy Blunt is connected to Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is currently the subject of a criminal investigation led by the Justice Department. As The Washington Post documented on March 13, Blunt joined DeLay and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) in signing a letter threatening to hold Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton accountable if she failed to benefit Abramoff's client, the Louisiana Coushatta tribe, by blocking a bid by another Native American tribe to develop a casino in Louisiana.

Blunt also has ties to one of the consultants currently under indictment with DeLay. The Associated Press reported on September 29 that Federal Election Commission records show that Blunt's political committee, the Rely on Your Beliefs Fund, has paid "roughly $88,000 in fees" to Jim Ellis, head of DeLay's national political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority (ARMPAC).

Roberts Confirmed

2005-09-29T11:52:00.000-05:00

From Breitbart:

John Glover Roberts Jr. won confirmation as the 17th chief justice of the United States Thursday, overwhelmingly approved by the Senate as the jurist to lead the Supreme Court through turbulent social issues for generations to come.

The Senate voted 78-22 to confirm Roberts _ a 50-year-old U.S. Appeals judge from the Washington suburb of Chevy Chase, Md. _ as the successor to the late William H. Rehnquist, who died earlier this month.

All of the Senate's majority Republicans, and about half of the Democrats, voted for Roberts.
Underscoring the rarity of a chief justice's confirmation, senators answered the roll by standing one by one at their desks as their names were called, instead of voting and leaving the chamber.

Roberts is the first new Supreme Court justice since 1994. Before becoming a federal judge, Roberts was one of the nation's best appellate lawyers, arguing 39 cases _ many in front of the same eight justices he will now lead as chief justice.

He won 25 of those cases.
Roberts watched the Senate vote on television from the White House's Roosevelt Room.
He and his wife Jane, were to have lunch with President Bush and first lady Laura Bush, followed by a swearing-in ceremony with the president at the White House, so Roberts could take his seat in time for the new court session Monday. Justice John Paul Stevens was administering the oath.

Under Roberts, justices will tackle issues like assisted suicide, campaign finance law and abortion this year, with questions about religion, same-sex marriage, the government's war on terrorism and human cloning looming in the future.

"With the confirmation of John Roberts, the Supreme Court will embark upon a new era in its history, the Roberts era," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., whose 55 GOP members unanimously voted for the multimillionaire judge. "And for many years to come, long after many of us have left public service, the Roberts court will be deliberating on some of the most difficult and fundamental questions of U.S. law."

Twenty-two Democrats opposed Roberts, saying he could turn out to be as conservative as justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court anchors on the right.

"At the end of the day, I have too many unanswered questions about the nominee to justify confirming him to this lifetime seat," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

Anti-abortion and abortion rights activists both have their hopes pinned on Roberts, a former government lawyer in the Reagan and first Bush administrations. While Roberts is solidly conservative and his wife, Jane, volunteers for Feminists for Life, both sides were eager to see how he will vote on abortion cases.

Roberts told senators during his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings that past Supreme Court rulings carry weight, including the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in 1973. He also said he agreed with the 1965 Supreme Court ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut that established the right of privacy in the sale and use of contraceptives.

But he tempered that by saying Supreme Court justices can overturn rulings.
During four days of sometimes testy questioning by Democrats, Roberts refused to hint how he would rule on cases.
"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."

Over and over, he has assured lawmakers his rulings would be guided by his understanding of the facts of cases, the law and the Constitution, not by his personal views. "My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role," said Roberts, who is Catholic.

Roberts' confirmation brings the number of Catholics on the court to a historic high of four. The Roman Catholic Church strongly opposes abortion.

Democrats, even as they complained about his Reagan-era opinions and the White House's refusal to release his paperwork from the George H.W. Bush administration, acknowledged his brilliance and judicial demeanor.

"I've taken him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda and he will be his own man as chief justice ," said Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary.

Republicans showered praise on Roberts, and said the justices on the court like him too. "There have already been indications from members of the court about their liking the fact that Judge Roberts is going to be the new chief justice," said Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who shepherded the nomination out of his committee on a 13-5 vote.

Roberts has the potential of leading the Supreme Court for decades. Not since John Marshall, confirmed in 1801 at 45, has there been a younger chief justice.

Roberts also will hold a record of sorts _ nominated to succeed two different Supreme Court justices within seven weeks. Bush originally named him to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in July. Rehnquist's death led to the second nomination on Sept. 6, and Roberts now will be confirmed as chief justice while O'Connor remains on the court until the president selects a new replacement.

Democrats already were warning the White House not to nominate a conservative ideologue to replace O'Connor. Bush was expected to announce the nominee soon.

"While this nomination did not warrant an attempt to block the nominee on the floor of the Senate, the next one might," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said.

Roberts is married to lawyer Jane Sullivan Roberts, and has two adopted children, ages 4 and 5.
He grew up in Long Beach, Ind., working summers in the same steel mill where his father was an electrical engineer. After graduating with honors from Harvard University _ both as an undergraduate and in law school _ he clerked for Rehnquist on the Supreme Court.

Ronnie Earle's Record

2005-09-29T11:49:00.000-05:00

From Think Progress:

EARLE HAS PROSECUTED FOUR TIMES AS MANY DEMOCRATS AS REPUBLICANS: “Over Earle’s 27-year tenure, his Public Integrity Unit has prosecuted 15 elected officials, including 12 Democrats.” [Los Angeles Times, 5/15/05]

EARLE PROSECUTED DEMOCRATS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF STATE GOVERNMENT: “Some of the Democrats prosecuted by Earle and his Public Integrity Unit are former Texas House Speaker Gib Lewis, former Texas Attorney General Jim Mattox, former State Treasurer Warren Harding and former Texas Supreme Court Justice Don Yarbrough.” [AP, 12/12/04]

EARLE AIDES WENT ON TO RUN FOR OFFICE AS REPUBLICANS: “Some of his top assistants have been with him for decades. A few have gone on to run for elected office as Republicans.” [Los Angeles Times, 5/15/05]

FRIEND OF OFFICIAL TARGETED BY EARLE CALLED HIM A ‘BOY SCOUT’: “Democrats, for their part, are still upset over the prosecution of Attorney General Jim Mattox for bribery in 1985. … He was acquitted and years later, Jim Marston, a civil lawyer in Austin and friend of Mr. Mattox, asked Earle why he went ahead with the questionable case. “I said, ‘Ronnie, how can it be an abuse of power to threaten a lawyer? We threaten each other all the time.’ He told me that elected officials are held to a higher standard. They are supposed to be [above suspicion] like Caesar’s wife.’ It was then that Mr. Marston realized how deep Earle’s principles run. ‘Ronnie Earle is a Boy Scout who is offended by wrongdoings, chief among them, public officials’ abuse of power.’ [Christian Science Monitor, 12/03/04]

EARLE HAS REPUTATION AS PRINCIPLED, ‘OVERLY CAUTIOUS’: “Deliberate in the capital cases he sends to juries, Earle is well known for examining an issue from all angles before acting. ‘If I have any complaint about Ronnie, it’s that he is overly cautious about who he prosecutes,’ says Marston. ‘The fact that it has taken two years to investigate Tom DeLay is a sign not of partisanship, but of being completely careful.’” [Christian Science Monitor, 12/03/04]

EARLE HAS REPUTATION FOR ‘STRONG MORAL STREAK’: “[T]o those who know him, Earle has always exhibited a strong moral streak - from his formative years growing up in a small town outside Fort Worth, to his time on the Austin night court, to his political service in the state legislature. But they contend his morality is tempered by his compassion. ‘Ronnie is very principled and will do the right thing even if it isn’t the smartest political thing to do,’ says Ellen Halbert, a victim’s rights advocate.” [Christian Science Monitor, 12/03/04]

EARLE HAS REPUTATION FOR RESPECTING THE RULES: “‘One of the things I admired most about Ronnie was his indefatigable ability to go and meet with groups all over town all the time–right-wing groups, left-wing groups, the Rotary,’ says Bill Reid, an attorney who retired from Earle’s office in 1997. ‘He’s not a bloodthirsty prosecutor who wanted to get notches on his gun. There are some who have a reputation for walking close to the line in terms of evidence and rights, but there was never a push or inclination from him that we ought to bend the rules. Working for him, I was doing what I wanted to do, and I could go home and sleep at night.’” [Los Angeles Times, 5/15/05]

HOUSTON CHRONICLE: ALLEGATIONS OF PARTISANSHIP NOT SUPPORTED BY FACTS: Chronicle editorial: “The record does not support allegations that Earle is prone to partisan witch hunts.” [3/17/03]

DeLay Lies On Hardball

2005-09-29T11:02:00.000-05:00

Tom Delay was on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night. A partial transcript is below with my comments.

[Start Transcript]
MATTHEWS: …A Texas grand jury indicted House majority leader Tom DeLay Wednesday on charges of conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, forcing the Republican to temporarily leave his post.

REP. TOM DELAY (R-TX), MAJORITY LEADER: I don't know. It is not in the indictment. I don't know what he's charging me with.

So let me get this straight. The most powerful Republican in the United States has no idea what he is being charged with? Right from the start, this seems impossible. Does he not have a television, a newspaper, or the internet. Or for that matter, a lawyer?

[Part of transcript snipped, mostly crosstalk...]

MATTHEWS: "Texans for a Republican Majority did tender cause to be delivered and delivered to the Republican National Committee a check in the amount of $190,000, the check being for the same bank..."

DELAY: Wait. Wait. Chris, Chris, that's TRMPAC. That's not me.
He makes a good point here, he and TRMPAC are separate entities.
MATTHEWS: OK. So, that's it.
DELAY: TRMPAC is a separate entity. I had no fiduciary responsibilities. I had no managerial responsibilities. I had nothing to do with the day-to-day operation. I was simply, along with four other elected officials, on an advisory board. They used my name as headliners for fund-raisers.

[Another good point. He is not running the day to day operations of the PAC, and has no control of the money. However, any person with any sort of intelligence would have to imagine that if TRMPAC was using DeLay's name for fund-raising, he would have some idea of how the PAC was run. Certainly he would not lend his name to a corrupt organization? Certainly he, or someone else, would be monitoring the PAC to ensure that there was no corruption in the organization, which could tarnish his name?]

MATTHEWS: Right.
DELAY: And I had no idea what they were doing.
[Now DeLay says that he has no idea what the PAC was doing at all. Are we expected to believe that he leant his name to an organization and then just walked away from it? He never checked up on TRMPAC to ensure it was run in a upstanding and legal manor? Who in their right mind would do this? Certainly not a powerful, veteran politician. This is where the lies begin.]

MATTHEWS: So, if corporate money was laundered through the Republican National Committee, you had nothing to do with it?

DELAY: That's exactly right. But that's not what they did. And they did it all within the law. They did what they did — and I know what they did now.

[Now we start to get into the double-speak. Previously he said "I had no idea what they were doing". Now DeLay says that even thought I had no idea what they were doing, and I have no idea what I am being charged with, I have done some checking with TRMPAC and they have told me that what they were doing was legal. It's interesting that if he has no idea what he is being charged with, how would he know what questions to ask TRMPAC? If he is not aware of the charges against him, how can he possible seek to clarify the legality of the issues with the PAC?]

MATTHEWS: Right.
DELAY: They did it completely within the law. The Democrat parties and the Republican parties do the same thing over and over again. You take soft money. Those were the days of soft and hard money.

MATTHEWS: Sure.
DELAY: You take soft money and use it for legal stuff. If you have more than you need, you send it to one of your friends. It's like your brother-in-law sending you money to pay your rent. And then you send back hard money that can be used in the races. It is not a quid pro quo. In fact, the amount of money you're talking about is different.

MATTHEWS: Yes.
Well, let me ask you this. Let me ask — because Tom Davis is going to be on this show. And the argument we're getting from other people is that there's nothing wrong with you urging some corp or anybody that your former PAC — putting the PAC you're on the board of — to give, say, give a bunch of money to the RNC. They need money. It's a good Republican
cause, and then calling up the Republican National Committee and say, why don't you give some money to these legislative candidates? We'd like them to win down there.

That's legal.
DELAY: Yes. It's totally legal.
MATTHEWS: So, what is illegal here?
DELAY: Everything TRMPAC did — and I insisted on — to even be on their board of advisers.
Now, TRMPAC was my idea. I wanted the Texas House to be a Republican majority. And I went down there and worked with them to do that. We were successful. From that, we redistricted Texas. And the Republican Party better represented the values of the people of Texas, because we gained five seats.

[So now DeLay is saying that, in fact, TRMPAC was his idea. He came up with this idea, and apparently called some friends to put the idea in motion. They ran with the idea, and got it moving forward. They made it successful. However, with absolutely no oversight (he previously insisted that "he did not know what they were doing", but with an insistence on the PAC being within the law, DeLay adds his name to the advisory board of the organization. They use his name to raise funds, he advises them on some sort of regular/irregular basis (he is a member of the advisory board), but he still has no idea "what they were doing"? The BS is starting to get deep.]

MATTHEWS: You're a Texan. Texas law says corporations can't give to legislative candidates.
DELAY: That's true.
MATTHEWS: If anybody, not you or anybody — just, if anybody sends money, says, give the corporate maybe to the RNC or the DNC and, by the way, send some of that money back and pay for these races down there, that would maybe be legal. Would that break the spirit of the law, which is no corporate contributions?

DELAY: No, it wouldn't, because, in Texas, you can raise corporate and union money for administrative purposes, to pay your rent, to pay your salaries and that kind of stuff.

You just can't take that money and put it in somebody else's campaign. Everything TRMPAC did, they did it with lawyers' blessings and accountants' blessing. This is not anything to do with money laundering.

[So he has no idea what the PAC is doing, but now speculates (?) that there were raising money for administrative purposes only?]

MATTHEWS: OK.
DELAY: This has everything to do with indicting me, so I have to step aside momentarily for...
MATTHEWS: That could be the motive. But let me ask you. He does, in fact, in the indictment here he brought before the grand jury identified Todd Baxter, Dwayne Bohac, Glenda Dawson, Dan Flynn, Rick Green, Jack Stick and Larry Taylor as recipients of this corporate money as it went through Washington back....

DELAY: And I know very few of those people.
[Hold the phone. DeLay is one of the most powerful Republicans in America. Next to the President, he may be the most powerful Republican in Texas. He has no idea who these people are, who are running on the Republican ticket in his home state of Texas? Not likely.]

MATTHEWS: But they're legislative candidates.
DELAY: They're actually state reps now.
MATTHEWS: Right. They were elected.
DELAY: We won.
MATTHEWS: Well, you won. These candidates benefited from money that came from the RNC. The RNC benefited from corporate money coming from Texas.

DELAY: That's right.
MATTHEWS: Isn't that just a laundering process?
DELAY: No. Democrats do it. Republicans do it, have done it for years. Lawyers — it has been tested in the courts.
MATTHEWS: Oh, I see.
DELAY: Lawyers have been doing this for — I mean, have said we can do this forever and ever and ever.

[Transcript snipped. Much Ronnie Earle bashing going on here]

MATTHEWS: Do they think this is sleazy, this indictment?
DELAY: Yes. They finally get it. You know, this has been going on for 10 years. I got my first ethics charges in 1993, then again in 1995. Then they filed a racketeering suit against me. And then they filed two more sets of ethics charges, all dismissed, all dismissed, but time, so that they dragged me through the mud. They can't get me on via the election. And so they're trying to get me by making me step down...

MATTHEWS: Are they using the old trick of throwing everything they can against the wall and seeing what sticks?
DELAY: Oh, yes. And they have announced it. I mean, the DCCC...
MATTHEWS: Here's your toughest charge. Mr. Leader, your toughest charge tonight — and everybody is still going to keep calling you Mr. Leader, I'm sure.

The toughest charge, they coordinated an attack on you. Who did the prosecutor, Ronnie Earle, coordinate with to nail you today in that grand jury?

DELAY: Oh, Democrat leaders.
MATTHEWS: In the state or up here?
DELAY: Both.
MATTHEWS: Who is involved up here?
DELAY: You need to ask him that question.
MATTHEWS: No, but you have said that there's a coordinated attack on you involving the leadership of the House on the Democratic side now. Is Pelosi involved?

DELAY: Yes.
MATTHEWS: What's her role in this?
DELAY: I don't know. Ask her. But they announced it. It is on their Web site that they were going to come after me. And they — and it is in all their fund-raising mails, of how they're going to...

MATTHEWS: Oh, I know you're a target of all the fund-raising. You're like Ted Kennedy from the other side. They go after you.

DELAY: I'm not complaining. I'm just saying, this is what they're doing. I guarantee you, people like Martin Frost, Lloyd Doggett...

MATTHEWS: They're still mad at you, aren't they?
DELAY: Pete Laney, the former speaker of the...
MATTHEWS: These are the losers in your campaign to rebuild the Republican Party of Texas.
DELAY: That's exactly — exactly right.
MATTHEWS: And those guys are those guys who all lost their seats because you managed to win the redistricting in the Texas legislature, because you managed to get so many Republicans elected in the legislature. They're all out to get you.

DELAY: That is right.
MATTHEWS: And this is part of it.
DELAY: This is the punishment for winning the Texas House and redistricting Texas.

MATTHEWS: Do you think there were meetings involving Nancy Pelosi or anyone else in the House leadership or these guys you mentioned who lost their seats and put together this charge against you; they cooked it up?

DELAY: Yes, I think so, but I...
MATTHEWS: It wasn't just his eager beaver prosecutors helping Ronnie Earle? It was people from outside who involved themselves in this?

DELAY: I think so. yes.
MATTHEWS: Is Ronnie Earle a straight prosecutor?
DELAY: Absolutely not. He doesn't even go to his office. He only goes to his office to hold press conferences.
MATTHEWS: What, is he a no-show?
DELAY: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Is that legal, to be a no-show in Texas?
DELAY: I guess it is. He does it. He's done it almost his entire
career.
MATTHEWS: Well, how does he get reelected?
DELAY: He's a political animal.
MATTHEWS: So, he's good at the electoral process, but not the process
of prosecuting?
DELAY: Absolutely.
MATTHEWS: And you believe that this is a political vendetta?
DELAY: Oh, I know it is.
MATTHEWS: A coordinated vendetta by the House Democratic leadership here in Washington?
DELAY: And Democrat leadership in Texas and Ronnie Earle and, absolutely.
MATTHEWS: Do you believe that there was a heads-up to people like Nancy Pelosi before this thing today?
DELAY: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Do you believe that Nancy Pelosi and all the Democrats are keeping quiet today in order to let the focus be completely on you?

[It's the giant left wing conspiracy rearing it's ugly head again]
[Remainder of interview snipped...]

Roberts Vote Today

2005-09-29T09:17:00.000-05:00

From CNN:

In a vote packed with more historical significance than any real suspense, the Senate is expected to easily confirm Judge John Roberts as the nation's new chief justice Thursday.

Senate approval will cap a two-month process surprisingly free of the partisan rancor widely expected when President Bush nominated Roberts in July.

However, with Bush poised to fill a second Supreme Court vacancy -- possibly within a day of the Roberts vote -- the question on Capitol Hill will be how long the era of good feelings might last. (View a gallery of possible Supreme Court nominees)

"While this nomination did not warrant an attempt to block this nominee on the floor of the Senate, the next one might," warned Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, in a speech Wednesday. "I hope and pray the president chooses to unite, rather than divide -- that he chooses consensus over confrontation."

Next nominee
At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan called on the Senate to treat Bush's next nominee in the same "civil and dignified way" Roberts was treated.

"The president will nominate someone that all Americans can be proud of, someone who is highly qualified to serve on the highest court in our land," McClellan said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, said Wednesday that at least 18 Democrats are on board in support of Roberts, 50, a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

With none of the Senate's 55 Republicans expected to oppose him, Roberts' vote total will likely top 70 votes.
Roberts originally was nominated in July to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. But after Chief Justice William Rehnquist died September 3, Bush picked him instead to be the nation's 17th chief justice.

Roberts sailed largely unscathed through his confirmation hearings, with even critics on the Judiciary Committee praising his intellect and legal knowledge.

Democrats express concern
However, some Democrats complained that he did not adequately answer their questions, after Roberts repeatedly deflected inquiries by insisting he could not comment on issues that might come before the high court.

Because O'Connor has been a moderate swing vote on the closely divided court, the battle over her replacement could prove more contentious than the comparatively mild tussle over Roberts' confirmation.

Bush administration officials close to the selection process have told CNN that Bush will announce his nominee to replace O'Connor as soon as Friday.

The focus of the search process has been on women and minority candidates, Bush sources confirm, although White House advisers are holding their cards close to the vest.

Roberts, a native of Buffalo, New York, grew up in Indiana before going east to Harvard for undergraduate studies and law school. A Roman Catholic, he is married with two small children.

Solicitor general's office
Roberts was principal deputy solicitor general during the administration of Bush's father, former President George H.W. Bush, presenting the administration's arguments before the high court.

His boss at the time was Kenneth Starr, who later became the Whitewater special prosecutor involved in former President Bill Clinton's impeachment case.

Roberts also served in the Reagan administration, first as special assistant to Attorney General William French Smith and then as associate White House counsel. He also was a law clerk for Rehnquist.

Roberts was confirmed in 2003 to the D.C. Circuit, considered the most influential federal court outside of the Supreme Court. However, approval of his nomination was delayed two years by Senate Democrats when they gained control of the chamber after Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont quit the Republican Party.

All told, Roberts waited 11 years to get confirmed to the federal appellate bench. He had been nominated to the same court by the elder President Bush in 1992, but his nomination did not come up for a vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate before the White House changed hands in January 1993.

GOP Takes Control of CPB

2005-09-28T12:45:00.000-05:00

Two more bad appointees from the Bush Administration. We now have a real estate developer and an interior decorator running Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Next we will have someone from the International Arabian Horse Association running FEMA. Oh wait...

From The Washington Post:

A leading Republican donor and fundraiser was elected chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting yesterday, tightening conservative control over the agency that oversees National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service.

Cheryl F. Halpern, a New Jersey lawyer and real estate developer, won approval from the CPB's board. She succeeds a close board ally, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who stirred controversy earlier this year by contending that public broadcasting favors liberal views. Tomlinson's term as chairman had expired, but he will remain a member of the board.

The board also elected another conservative, Gay Hart Gaines, as its vice chairman. Gaines, an interior decorator by training, was a charter member and a chairman of GOPAC, a Republican fundraising group that then-Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) used to engineer the GOP takeover of the House in 1994.

With the changes, conservatives with close ties to the Bush administration have assumed control of every important position at the agency, which distributes about $400 million in federal funds to noncommercial radio and TV stations and is supposed to act as a buffer against outside political influence.

Gaines succeeds the CPB's highest-ranking Democrat, Frank Cruz. Her election came after the agency's board, which is dominated by Republicans, rejected a bid for the vice chairmanship by its lone independent member, Beth Courtney.

In June, the board named former Republican National Committee co-chairman Patricia Harrison as the CPB's president and chief executive, angering Democrats.

"It's mind-boggling," Ernest J. Wilson II, one of two Democrats on the eight-member board, said in an interview. "They had an opportunity to send a bipartisan signal. They took the opportunity to send a very different kind of signal."

Halpern and her husband, Fred, have for years been financial supporters of Republican candidates, including President Bush and Republican Sens. Trent Lott (Miss.), Sam Brownback (Kan.), Conrad Burns (Mont.) and Christopher Bond (Mo.). Mother Jones magazine ranked the Halperns among the nation's top 100 "hard" money donors (contributions made directly to candidates, not party organizations) during the 2004 election cycle, estimating their contributions at $81,800.

She has in the past been critical of NPR's reporting on the Middle East, particularly its coverage of the Israeli government. During her confirmation hearings for a seat on the CPB board in 2003, Halpern suggested that CPB members should have the authority to penalize public broadcasting journalists who air biased programs. When she was a member of the federal agency that oversees Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, she said during her confirmation hearing, "We were able to remove physically somebody who had engaged in editorialization of the news."

In a brief interview yesterday, Halpern declined to express her personal views about bias in public broadcasting. But she said, "We will not be intervening in programming." Allegations of slanted programming, she said, will be referred to the CPB's ombudsmen for review.

In contrast to Tomlinson, CPB's two ombudsmen, Ken Bode and William Schulz, have found no evidence of liberal bias after five months on the job. Instead, they have mostly offered praise in the few reports each has issued since Tomlinson created their positions, which pay each of them $50,000 a year for part-time work. In a report issued Sept. 1, for example, Bode observed: "My own conclusion is no different than my perception of PBS and NPR when I accepted the position of ombudsman in April -- that considerations of fair and balanced is not as big a problem here as elsewhere. This is not Fox News."

DeLay Indicted!

2005-09-28T12:18:00.000-05:00

From CNN:
A Texas grand jury on Wednesday charged Rep. Tom DeLay and two political associates with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, forcing the House majority leader to temporarily relinquish his post.

DeLay's attorney Steve Brittain said DeLay was accused of a criminal conspiracy along with two associates, John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, who heads DeLay's national political committee.

"I have notified the speaker that I will temporarily step aside from my position as majority leader pursuant to rules of the House Republican Conference and the actions of the Travis County district attorney today," DeLay said.

GOP congressional officials said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., will recommend that Rep. David Dreier of California step into those duties. Some of the duties may go to the GOP whip, Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri. The Republican rank and file may meet as early as Wednesday night to act on Hastert's recommendation.

The charge carries a potential two-year sentence, which forces DeLay to step down under House Republican rules.
"The defendants entered into an agreement with each other or with TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee) to make a political contribution in violation of the Texas election code," says the four-page indictment. "The contribution was made directly to the Republican National Committee within 60 days of a general election."

The indictment against the second-ranking, and most assertive Republican leader came on the final day of the grand jury's term. It followed earlier indictments of a state political action committee founded by DeLay and three of his political associates.

The grand jury action is expected to have immediate consequences in the House, where DeLay is largely responsible for winning passage of the Republican legislative program. House Republican Party rules require leaders who are indicted to temporarily step aside from their leadership posts.

However, DeLay retains his seat representing Texas' 22nd congressional district, suburbs southwest of Houston.
DeLay has denied committing any crime and accused the Democratic district attorney leading the investigation, Ronnie Earle, of pursuing the case for political motives.

Democrats have kept up a crescendo of criticism of DeLay's ethics, citing three times last year that the House ethics committee admonished DeLay for his conduct.

Earlier, DeLay attorney Bill White told reporters, "It's a skunky indictment if they have one."
As a sign of loyalty to DeLay after the grand jury returned indictments against three of his associates, House Republicans last November repealed a rule requiring any of their leaders to step aside if indicted. The rule was reinstituted in January after lawmakers returned to Washington from the holidays fearing the repeal might create a backlash from voters.

DeLay, 58, also is the center of an ethics swirl in Washington. The 11-term congressman was admonished last year by the House ethics committee on three separate issues and is the center of a political storm this year over lobbyists paying his and other lawmakers' tabs for expensive travel abroad.

Wednesday's indictment stems from a plan DeLay helped set in motion in 2001 to help Republicans win control of the Texas House in the 2002 elections for the first time since Reconstruction.

A state political action committee he created, Texans for a Republican Majority, was indicted earlier this month on charges of accepting corporate contributions for use in state legislative races. Texas law prohibits corporate money from being used to advocate the election or defeat of candidates; it is allowed only for administrative expenses.

With GOP control of the Texas legislature, DeLay then engineered a redistricting plan that enabled the GOP take six Texas seats in the U.S. House away from Democrats -- including one lawmaker switching parties -- in 2004 and build its majority in Congress.

DeLay Indictment Pending?

2005-09-28T11:11:00.000-05:00

Delay. Frist. Abramoff. It's a veritable trifecta of conservative Christians. It's the old "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. It's also a rare view of the seedy underbelly of the Republican party. Slush funds. PACs. Backroom dirty deals. It personifies everything that is wrong with Republicans. Running the government has become a big business to these guys. They have gotten rich off of it. The important thing to remember is that this is not something new to the GOP. This has been going on for a LONG time. The word "hypocritical" comes to mind. WWJD?

From MSNBC:

A Texas grand jury’s recent interest in conspiracy charges could lead to last-minute criminal indictments — possibly against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay — as it wraps up its investigation Wednesday into DeLay’s state political organization, according to lawyers with knowledge of the case.

Conspiracy counts against two DeLay associates this month raised concerns with DeLay’s lawyers, who fear the chances are greater that the majority leader could be charged with being part of the conspiracy. Before these counts, the investigation was more narrowly focused on the state election code.

By expanding the charges to include conspiracy, prosecutors made it possible for the Travis County grand jury to bring charges against DeLay. Otherwise, the grand jury would have lacked jurisdiction under state laws.

Prosecutors interview DeLay
The Associated Press spoke to several lawyers familiar with the case, all of whom requested anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly. DeLay, R-Texas, said Tuesday that prosecutors have interviewed him. He has insisted he committed no crimes and says Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, is pursuing the case for political reasons.

The disclosure came as congressional officials said top House Republicans were quietly considering how to respond if an indictment were issued.

House GOP rules require any member of the elected leadership to step down temporarily if indicted, and it would be up to the rank and file to select an interim replacement. Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., could make a recommendation, whether choosing to elevate another member of the leadership or tapping an alternative to reduce the possibility of a struggle if DeLay were cleared and then sought to reclaim his post.

Asked what he had heard of any late developments, DeLay said Tuesday, “Not a word.”
He also said he earlier “had an interview” with prosecutors, adding, “everybody knows that.”
Ethics panel admonishes DeLay three times
The 11-term congressman has served as No. 2 in the House GOP leadership for three years, credited with maintaining iron discipline within the party and keeping Republicans in control of the chamber. He has retained the loyalty of most party members despite running into ethical problems last year. In a rare rebuke of a House leader, the ethics committee admonished DeLay three times for pressuring a fellow congressman, involving the Federal Aviation Administration in a political dispute and discussing energy legislation with lobbyists at a golf outing.

The grand jury’s finale coincides with a wide swath of political trouble for the GOP. Ethical questions have been raised about stock sales by the Republican leader of the Senate, Bill Frist, R-Tenn. And President Bush, an uneasy ally of DeLay, faces the lowest approval ratings of his presidency.

The Texas grand jury has charged that corporate donations given to Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee — formed by DeLay — were used to support state candidates in violation of state law. Texas law prohibits corporate money to be used to advocate the election or defeat of candidates; it is allowed only for administrative expenses.

Once DeLay helped Republicans win control of the state Legislature in 2002, the majority leader engineered a Republican redistricting plan that gave the state’s U.S. House delegation a 21-11 majority in the current Congress. The effort helped Republicans increase their House margin by five seats this year.

Associates already indicted
Three of DeLay’s political associates, the PAC itself, several corporate donors and a Texas business organization have been indicted so far — but not DeLay himself.

On Sept. 13, the grand jury re-indicted two of the associates, Jim Ellis and John Colyandro. The new charges included the criminal conspiracy counts.

The legal sources said that if the case had remained solely under the state election code, DeLay could only be indicted in his home county, Fort Bend.

The grand jury has charged that Texans for a Republican Majority and the Texas Association of Business worked together to circumvent the election code and funnel “massive amounts of secret corporate wealth” into campaigns, said Earle, the Travis County prosecutor.

The conspiracy charges were brought against Jim Ellis, who heads DeLay’s national political committee — Americans for a Republican Majority — and John Colyandro, former executive director of Texans for a Republican Majority. They had previously been indicted on charges of laundering $190,000 in corporate donations.

Wingnut Science (Intelligent Design/Creationism) On Trial

2005-09-27T23:48:00.000-05:00

Calling Intelligent Design “science” would be like calling these evangelical wingnuts from Dover “liberal”. Please, keep your religion to yourself, and out of our school systems. Shouldn’t you people be out protesting the removal of the Ten Commandments from some piece of state owned property?

From MSNBC:

The Dover school board showed a clear bias against teaching Darwinian evolution before it voted to require students to be exposed to “intelligent design” in science class, a former board member testified Tuesday.

The testimony about the school board's intentions came on the second day of a trial over whether the intelligent-design concept has a place in public schools.

Aralene “Barrie” Callahan, who was once on the board of the Dover Area School District and is now among its challengers, said she believed the intelligent-design mandate was religion-based.

Callahan testified that board member Alan Bonsell — during a retreat in 2003 — “expressed he did not believe in evolution and if evolution was part of the biology curriculum, creationism had to be shared 50-50.”

At a school board meeting in June 2004, when she was no longer on the board, Callahan recalled board member Bill Buckingham complaining that a biology book recommended by the administration was “laced with Darwinism.”

“They were pretty much downplaying evolution as something that was credible,” she said.

In the lawsuit challenging the intelligent design policy, Buckingham was further quoted as saying: “This country was founded on Christianity and our students should be taught as such.”

Proponents of intelligent design hold that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection cannot adequately explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

In October 2004, the Dover board voted 6-3 to require teachers to read a brief statement about intelligent design to students before classes on evolution. The statement says Darwin’s theory is “not a fact” and has inexplicable “gaps,” and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.

Eight families sued, saying that the policy promotes the Bible’s view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state. The school district, which is believed to be the nation's first to impose such a requirement, argues that it is merely letting students know there are differences of opinion about evolution and not endorsing any religious view.

In a separate development Tuesday, two freelance newspaper reporters who covered the school board in June 2004 both invoked their First Amendment rights and declined to provide a deposition to lawyers for the school district.

Both are expected in court Wednesday to respond to a subpoena to testify at trial, said Niles Benn, a lawyer for the papers.

Lawyers for the school district have questioned the accuracy of articles in which the reporters wrote that board members discussed creationism during public meetings. Patrick Gillen, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, said the defense would ask U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III on Wednesday to issue a contempt citation.

In other testimony Tuesday, plaintiff Tammy Kitzmiller said that in January, her younger daughter chose not to hear the intelligent-design statement — an option given all students — putting her in an awkward position.

“My 14-year-old daughter had to make the choice between staying in the classroom and being confused ... or she had to be singled out and face the possible ridicule of her friends and classmates,” she said.

Earlier in the day, Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, who testified on Monday that intelligent design was not accepted by scientists, was asked by a school attorney whether faith and reason are compatible.

“I believe not only that they are compatible but that they are complementary,” said Miller, who earlier told the court he was a practicing Roman Catholic.

Miller also backed off a statement in a 1995 biology textbook he co-wrote that said evolution was “random and undirected.” Miller said he missed that reference by a co-author and that he did not believe evolution was random and undirected.

On Monday, Miller said the policy undermines scientific education by wrongly raising doubts about evolutionary theory. “It’s the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the scientific process,” he said.

The Dover lawsuit is the latest chapter in a history of evolution litigation dating to the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee nearly 80 years ago. In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public schools must not balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism, on the grounds that such moves would represent state establishment of religion.

FEMA Pays $236M For Cruise Ships!

2005-09-27T23:41:00.000-05:00

From MSNBC:

On Sept. 1, as tens of thousands of desperate Louisianans packed the New Orleans Superdome and convention center, the Federal Emergency Management Agency pleaded with the U.S. Military Sealift Command: The government needed 10,000 berths on full-service cruise ships, FEMA said, and it needed the deal done by noon the next day.

The hasty appeal yielded one of the most controversial contracts of the Hurricane Katrina relief operation, a $236 million agreement with Carnival Cruise Lines for three ships that now bob more than half empty in the Mississippi River and Mobile Bay. The six-month contract -- staunchly defended by Carnival but castigated by politicians from both parties -- has come to exemplify the cost of haste that followed Katrina's strike and FEMA's lack of preparation.

To critics, the price is exorbitant. If the ships were at capacity, with 7,116 evacuees, for six months, the price per evacuee would total $1,275 a week, according to calculations by aides to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.). A seven-day western Caribbean cruise out of Galveston can be had for $599 a person -- and that would include entertainment and the cost of actually making the ship move.

"When the federal government would actually save millions of dollars by forgoing the status quo and actually sending evacuees on a luxurious six-month cruise it is time to rethink how we are conducting oversight. A short-term temporary solution has turned into a long-term, grossly overpriced sweetheart deal for a cruise line," said Coburn and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in a joint statement yesterday calling for a chief financial officer to oversee Katrina spending.

Carnival's bid totaled $192 million over six months, plus $44 million in reimbursable expenses, such as port charges, fuel, food and docking costs. To Carnival executives, the contract will ensure only that the company breaks even when it pulls three ships from holiday operations. About 100,000 passengers had their vacations canceled to accommodate the government's needs, said J. Michael Crye, president of the International Council of Cruise Lines, who has been answering questions about the deal for Carnival.

"In the end, we will make no additional money on this deal versus what we would have made by keeping these ships in service," said Jennifer de la Cruz, a Carnival spokeswoman. "That has been our position from the outset, and it has not changed."

‘Pretty good value’
Government contracting officials defended the deal. "They were the market," Capt. Joe Manna, director of contracts at the Sealift Command, said of Carnival. "Under the circumstances, I'd say we're getting a pretty good value."

Coburn and Obama disagreed. "Finding out after the fact that we're spending taxpayer money on no-bid contracts and sweetheart deals for cruise lines is no way to run a recovery effort," they said in the statement.

The Carnival deal is only one of several instances in which a lack of FEMA preparation may have left federal taxpayers with an outsized bill. Despite its experiences with last year's busy hurricane season, FEMA found itself without standing contracts for standard relief items such as blue tarps to cover damaged roofs, according to Thomas A. Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste.

"It is ridiculous that they can't have the supply on hand for these basics that you know you'll need in every instance," Schatz said.

But the Carnival deal has come under particular scrutiny. Not only are questions being raised over the contract's cost, but congressional investigators are examining the company's tax status. Carnival, which is headquartered in Miami but incorporated for tax purposes in Panama, paid just $3 million in income tax benefits on $1.9 billion in pretax income last year, according to company documents. "That's not even a tip," said Robert S. McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice. U.S. companies in general pay an effective income tax rate of about 25 percent, analysts say. That would have left Carnival with a $475 million tax bill.

Carnival's public records boast "that substantially all of our income in fiscal 2004, 2003 and 2002 . . . is exempt from U.S. federal income taxes," largely because it maintains that its operations are not in the United States but on the high seas.

‘Special treatment’
Carnival does not want to see that tax status jeopardized just because three major ships are clearly operating in the United States. After it won the FEMA bid, Carnival appealed to Treasury Secretary John W. Snow for a waiver of U.S. taxes. "We do not want to jeopardize our tax exemption, nor do we want to interrupt our relief efforts for failure to secure this assurance from the Treasury Department," wrote Howard Frank, Carnival's chief operating officer.

Cruise line council President Crye said the company will reduce its billings under the contract by the amount of income taxes forgiven. The waiver would spare Carnival and its employees the paperwork of filing tax returns.

But critics say Carnival deserves to be treated no differently than a hotel housing relief workers under a FEMA contract. "Carnival should be contributing to the relief effort just like all other taxpayers are," McIntyre said. "Why should they be singled out for special treatment, just because they've been so good at tax avoidance in the past?"

Treasury spokesman Taylor Griffin said the matter is under review.

But Congress's main focus remains on cost and how the Carnival contract came to pass. After a one-day competition, Sealift Command had bids from 13 ships, but only four met FEMA's requirements, which included full meal service, between-meal snacks, linen and maid service, medical support, even prescription refills. Four ships -- the Ecstasy, Sensation and Holiday, all owned by Carnival, as well as the ferry the Scotia Prince -- landed the contracts.

More than half empty
The ships are not holding nearly the number of people FEMA had expected. Many evacuees said they saw the ships as a dead end, far away from any job or potential new life. The Ecstasy and Sensation have become the homes of New Orleans first responders who have stayed at their posts, said FEMA spokesman James McIntyre. At the peak, the ships did house around 2,000 such workers and their families.

The Ecstasy and Sensation had to set sail for safer seas as Hurricane Rita rolled in. They re-docked Monday. By Tuesday morning, 625 were aboard the Ecstasy, a fraction of the 2,544 passengers once registered. An additional 820 were aboard the Sensation, down from 2,579.

And those ships have fared better than the Holiday, docked in Mobile, Ala., with 342 on board. FEMA had hoped for 1,800. McIntyre said the ship has been waiting for repairs to the Mississippi port of Pascagoula, where more evacuees are expected to board. FEMA expects the Holiday to steam for Pascagoula this week, McIntyre said.

More London Bombing Arrests

2005-09-27T23:38:00.000-05:00

From Fox News:

A 36-year-old man was arrested in London Tuesday in connection with the attempted July 21 terror bombings in London, FOX News has confirmed.

A little after noon EDT, the man was arrested by officers from the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch on suspicion of assisting an offender and alleged immigration offenses.

The man was taken to a central London police station, where he remained in custody and was to be interviewed, Sky News reported.

The suspect is being held under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which is a different law than Britain's Terrorism Act. Forty people are being held in connection with the July 7 and July 21 terror attacks in London under the Terrorism Act.

Since all four of the July 7 bombers are dead and the July 21 bombing suspects are in jail, questions remain over what sort of network these terrorists had.