Blogstream   -   Create a Blog!   -   Login Chat   -   Options   -   Clean   -   Flag   -   Family Filter: Off   -   Recent   -   Rndm >>    

Blogstream  >  Anything  >  Blog  >  Page #33
 
allil

Archive for 200803     ( return to current blog )


 Suicide car bomb kills 8 Afghans near Kabul airport
 

Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:45am EDT
Photo

KABUL (Reuters) - A suicide car bomber killed six Afghan civilians in an attack on U.S. troops near the airport in Afghanistan's capital on Thursday, officials said.

Thirteen more civilians were wounded, but the four soldiers suffered only minor cuts and bruises in the attack, close to Kabul international airport during the morning rush-hour.

"Six civilians have been killed in the attack and the bomber used a car," Deputy Interior Minister Munir Mangal told Reuters near the scene.

A bomber in a black car struck the convoy, wounding four soldiers and heavily damaging one vehicle, said a spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

The soldiers were not members of the 42,000-strong ISAF force, but part of a smaller unit which trains the Afghan army and police, a spokesman for that force said.

The Taliban claimed responsibility.

"The foreign occupying forces and their Afghan slaves should get ready for the mujahideen's suicide and guerrilla attacks this summer. This new year will be bloodiest," spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said by telephone from an unknown location.

The Taliban have threatened to target the capital Kabul with more suicide bombings this year in their campaign to topple the pro-Western Afghan government and eject foreign troops.

The hardline Islamist movement carried out around 140 suicide bombings across the country in 2007, but foreign forces have become better at avoiding casualties and most of those killed were Afghan civilians and members of the Afghan security forces.

A roadside bomb killed three Afghan police officers and wounded four more in Wardak province, just southwest of Kabul, on Thursday, a provincial intelligence official said.

(Reporting by Kabul newsroom and Saeed Ali Achakzai in Spin Boldak; Writing by Sayed Salahuddin; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani)

Posted by alfred at 7:58 AM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
 Rocket Attack Kills 3 U.S. Soldiers in Iraq
 

New Account Emerges of Fatal Bus Blast Tuesday; Driver, Passenger Blame Americans

Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, March 13, 2008; Page A12

BAGHDAD, March 12 -- A barrage of rockets targeting an American military base in southern Iraq on Wednesday morning killed three U.S. soldiers, bringing to 12 the number of Americans killed in Iraq in the past three days.

This Story
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story

Just after 6 a.m., about four rockets crashed down on Combat Outpost Adder in an attack that also wounded two U.S. soldiers and one civilian, said Navy Lt. Patrick Evans, a U.S. military spokesman.

The military reported that another soldier died and two more were wounded Tuesday near the southern city of Diwaniyah when a roadside bomb exploded during a combat patrol. The dozen military deaths are an unusually high figure for recent months, when American fatalities in Iraq have been dropping.

The deaths came the day after an explosion killed 16 passengers on a bus traveling near Nasiriyah, about 45 miles from Basra. Conflicting accounts emerged Wednesday about the incident, with the bus driver and a passenger asserting that passing American soldiers opened fire on them, an allegation that U.S. military officials denied.

The bus was carrying about 60 people, all but five of them women and children, who were traveling home to Basra after attending a memorial service, as an American military supply convoy drove past them in the northbound lane, according to passengers. About 1:40 p.m., an explosion tore into the driver's side of the bus and blew out the other side, filling the vehicle with black smoke and the screams of the passengers, witnesses said.

The U.S. military said in a statement that a lethal roadside bomb known as an explosively formed penetrator, or EFP, slammed into the bus and also blasted the passing convoy, wounding a U.S. soldier and a civilian traveling in the convoy. The bomb, which shoots heated copper slugs, was similar to EFPs that American military officials say are manufactured in Iran.

But the driver, Zeki Abdul Qader, and a passenger, Qasim Salih Jubur, said they believed the U.S. soldiers opened fire on the bus after it had already safely passed what they were later told was a spot where a roadside bomb had exploded. They said their bus was struck with bullets seconds before they were hit with the explosion, which they believed was some sort of rocket or grenade fired from the U.S. convoy.

"The Americans shot us," Jubur said. "One hundred percent it was the Americans."

"We absolutely did not fire on the bus," said Maj. Brad Leighton, a U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad. "Absolutely not."

The passengers on the bus left Basra on Sunday to visit holy Shiite shrines in Karbala and Najaf, and to attend the commemoration for a woman from their tribe who had died 40 days earlier. The bus was passing through a desert area when the explosion occurred.

Qader, the driver, said he was reaching the tail end of a long military convoy when he heard gunfire and the sound of bullets striking his bus.

"They shot me with small arms from the beginning of the bus to the end, the whole side, then they shot this rocket," Qader, 58, said in a telephone interview. The explosion tore through three rows near the middle of the bus -- four passengers per row--killing 12 people almost instantly, he said. Four others on the bus were also killed, he said.

"The bus turned to all black smoke, you could see nothing, and all the windows blew out except one or two," he said. "The bus went off the road and I tried hard to keep it from flipping over."

After the bus stopped, U.S. soldiers cordoned off the surrounding area and Iraqi forces arrived at the scene. Qader and Jubur said they themselves did not see American soldiers firing but heard the gunfire and were told by the Iraqi soldiers that the American troops had fired.

Abbas al-Khafaji, director of the funeral home in Najaf where the bodies were taken for burial preparation, said one infant and at least four women had bullet holes in their bodies in addition to shrapnel wounds. Ali Hussein, 37, the uncle of the slain 6-month-old, Abbas Jihad, confirmed that the boy had two bullet wounds in the chest.

Sarhan reported from Najaf. Special correspondent Naseer Nouri in Baghdad contributed to this report.

Posted by alfred at 7:49 AM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
 NRCC Treasurer Under Scrutiny Was Thought of as 'Gold Standard'
 

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 13, 2008; Page A01

The quiet workaholic is listed as treasurer for 83 GOP fundraising committees over the past eight years, according to Federal Election Commission records. In the past five years alone, he oversaw the accounting for committees that raised more than $400 million, $368 million of it at the National Republican Congressional Committee, according to a Washington Post review of those records.

But in late January, Ward, 39, was dismissed as the NRCC announced that it had found financial "irregularities" that "may include fraud." The FBI is investigating what appears to be "a significant amount of money" missing from the House Republican fundraising arm, according to a law enforcement official.

Now the dozens of GOP lawmakers who had clamored for Ward's help are apprehensively poring over his work along with FBI investigators, trying to learn more about the finances he oversaw. Several lawmakers have told Rep. K. Michael Conaway (Tex.), head of the NRCC's auditing subcommittee, that they think money may be missing from their political committees, as well.

Officials told The Post that the NRCC's problems may be more extensive. Republican lawmakers and former committee staff members now allege that Ward fabricated audits and other financial documents for 2003 to 2006, some of which were turned over to a Wachovia Bank branch in McLean in October 2006, when the NRCC borrowed $8 million in last-minute money for congressional campaigns.

Concerned that they could be investigated for possible violations of bank fraud laws, NRCC officials quickly called in the FBI, according to lawmakers and officials with knowledge of the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Wachovia spokeswoman Carrie Ruddy declined to comment. An official at the Federal Election Commission, which could fine the committee if it misstated the NRCC's financial position in monthly reports, also declined to comment.

What may set this investigation apart from previous confirmed cases of political embezzlement is the sheer number of clients Ward served. Drawing on at least 15 years of experience in the complexities of campaign finance laws, he built a reservoir of trust among House Republicans.

"We were told he was the guy that handled all the campaign committees, he was the best," said Rep. Peter T. King (N.Y.).

But King said in an interview that he has discovered that Ward paid himself $6,000 in consulting fees from King's political action committee in 2007 -- though King believed that he had shuttered the committee early last year. Upon learning of the NRCC investigation, King said he found that his PAC remained open all of last year. Ward paid himself the fees from King's PAC, which received just three contributions and dispensed one check in 2007, FEC records show.

In an election year that holds dismal prospects for congressional Republicans, possible financial problems at the cash-strapped NRCC are the last thing the GOP needs.

The first inkling of trouble came when Conaway took over the NRCC's auditing subcommittee in early 2007. A certified public accountant himself, Conaway said in interviews that he asked for something considered routine in the corporate world: an audit of NRCC books for the previous year by an outside firm and a meeting with the auditors.

"My expectation was that that frank meeting would take three minutes," Conaway said.

Instead, Ward kept putting him off, he said. "Okay, we'll get it for the next meeting, we'll get it for you," Ward said, according to Conaway, who became suspicious of what he described as Ward's "passive aggressive" behavior.

He said Ward avoided the issue for months, until January, when Ward told Conaway that he and GOP lawmakers would meet with auditors. But Ward canceled the meeting 30 minutes before it was scheduled to begin.

Republicans called the outside firm and found out that no audits had been done since 2003. After looking at the documents Ward had given them for each year, they determined that he had fabricated them, according to Davis and other officials with knowledge of the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Davis, who now chairs an executive committee that serves as the NRCC board, said that for several years, Ward turned over documents to lawmakers that appeared to be legitimate reviews by an outside firm. They showed accurate balance sheets.

"This guy produced audits, and they looked fine," he said.

In retrospect, Conaway said he wishes he had pushed Ward harder, but added that Ward had become such a trusted presence that he never doubted him or thought to examine his background.

"Like a lot of folks, he had grown into the job, had grown into the trust," Conaway said. "It would have been pretty weird if we had said, 'Let's do a background check.' "

But now the committee is working with the FBI, which it called in as soon as officials realized that the audits may have been faked and that they may have violated bank fraud laws. The NRCC has hired an auditor to review its books and a law firm to oversee an internal investigation.

"Any material misstatement on a bank application is a federal crime," said Stanley Brand, a Washington defense lawyer. He said the committee probably contacted the FBI in an attempt to portray itself as the victim of a crime -- punishable by as much as $1 million in fines and 30 years in prison -- and to inoculate NRCC officials from prosecution.

"They blew the whistle on themselves, which is what you'd do to protect yourself," he said.

Research director Lucy Shackelford and staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.

Posted by alfred at 7:43 AM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
 Carlyle Fund's Assets Seized
 

Leaders Fail to Stop Securities Sell-Off

Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 13, 2008; Page D01

A publicly traded affiliate of the Carlyle Group said yesterday that lenders were seizing its assets, sending the fund, Carlyle Capital, into insolvency.

The collapse of Carlyle Capital is the first time a Carlyle Group fund has failed and is a stinging embarrassment for the District private-equity powerhouse, which has built an international reputation with a client list that reaches around the world.

The high-profile downfall, part of the broad turmoil in credit markets worldwide, followed a week of frantic negotiations between the Carlyle Group and a number of lenders. Carlyle Group's three founders as recently as Monday were considering injecting cash into the fund as a way to usher it through the credit crisis.

By yesterday the fund had defaulted on $16.6 billion of debt and said it expected to default soon on its remaining debt. The fund's $21.7 billion in assets were exclusively in AAA mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, traditionally considered secure and conservative investments, which it was using as collateral against its loans.

In a statement, Carlyle Capital said that it had been unable to meet margin calls in excess of $400 million over the past week and that it expected its lenders to take control of its remaining assets. The lenders, headed by Deutsche Bank and J.P. Morgan Chase, began selling the securities last night, according to a report on the Wall Street Journal's Web site.

The problems at Carlyle Capital have preoccupied the top leaders at Carlyle Group. The firm's founders, David M. Rubenstein, William E. Conway Jr. and Daniel D'Aniello, had been in meetings with lenders in an effort to resolve Carlyle Capital's problems, not only to protect their own investment and that of employees who have put millions of dollars into the company, but also to preserve Carlyle's Midas-touch reputation.

Forbes magazine last year estimated Carlyle's three founders to each be worth about $2.5 billion.

Carlyle Capital is incorporated on Guernsey, an island in the English Channel, and is traded on Amsterdam's Euronext exchange.

The fund was set up in August 2006 with roughly $670 million in cash from Carlyle's owners and other investors, and about $300 million in additional capital raised from a public stock sale.

The capital allowed the fund to go to banks and borrow far more, leveraging its cash investment some 20 times into the portfolio.

Carlyle Capital's prospects were dimmed by the same doubts that have upended securities linked to riskier subprime mortgages, namely whether the underlying assets were losing value and whether the homeowners would continue to make their payments.

As the market value of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities has dropped, Carlyle Capital's lenders asked it to increase its cash equity from what was 1 percent to as much as 5 percent. An increase of that amount on $20 billion in loans amounts to several hundred million dollars.

The Carlyle Group last summer loaned Carlyle Capital $150 million to cover debt obligations.

Conway and Rubenstein were in New York much of this week, accompanied by a team of Carlyle Group insiders, including the company's chief financial officer, negotiating a "standstill" agreement with lenders as they tried to work out a financial solution.

The agreement would have stopped lenders from foreclosing on loans they made to Carlyle Capital.

Carlyle Capital stock closed at $2.80 in Amsterdam yesterday before the announcement, off 89 percent from its peak.

Posted by alfred at 7:37 AM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 

 Are We Closer to War?
 

Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, March 12, 2008; 11:51 AM

The abrupt resignation yesterday of the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, Admiral William J. "Fox" Fallon, has sparked a new round of speculation that President Bush and Vice President Cheney have some sort of plan in the works to attack Iran before their time is up.

Fallon's resignation -- or firing -- was apparently precipitated in part by a recent Esquire profile that depicted him as brazenly pushing back against the White House hawks eager to launch another war.

Now it turns out that what Thomas P.M. Barnett, a former Naval War College professor, wrote in that profile was eerily prescient: "How does Fallon get away with so brazenly challenging his commander in chief?

"The answer is that he might not get away with it for much longer. President Bush is not accustomed to a subordinate who speaks his mind as freely as Fallon does, and the president may have had enough.

"Just as Fallon took over Centcom last spring, the White House was putting itself on a war footing with Iran. Almost instantly, Fallon began to calmly push back against what he saw as an ill-advised action. Over the course of 2007, Fallon's statements in the press grew increasingly dismissive of the possibility of war, creating serious friction with the White House.

"Last December, when the National Intelligence Estimate downgraded the immediate nuclear threat from Iran, it seemed as if Fallon's caution was justified. But still, well-placed observers now say that it will come as no surprise if Fallon is relieved of his command before his time is up next spring, maybe as early as this summer, in favor of a commander the White House considers to be more pliable. If that were to happen, it may well mean that the president and vice-president intend to take military action against Iran before the end of this year and don't want a commander standing in their way.

"And so Fallon, the good cop, may soon be unemployed because he's doing what a generation of young officers in the U. S. military are now openly complaining that their leaders didn't do on their behalf in the run-up to the war in Iraq: He's standing up to the commander in chief, whom he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war."

Thom Shanker writes in the New York Times: "Admiral Fallon had rankled senior officials of the Bush administration in recent months with comments that emphasized diplomacy over conflict in dealing with Iran, that endorsed further troop withdrawals from Iraq beyond those already under way and that suggested the United States had taken its eye off the military mission in Afghanistan.

"A senior administration official said that, taken together, the comments 'left the perception he had a different foreign policy than the president.' . . .

"The White House issued a statement from President Bush that, while complimentary, was pale by comparison to other messages of farewell for senior officials with whom Mr. Bush has worked more closely. . . .

"[T]here was no question that the admiral's premature departure stemmed from what were perceived to be policy differences with the administration on Iran and Iraq, where his views competed with those of Gen. David H. Petraeus, the American commander in Iraq, who is a favorite of the White House. . . .

"But many said they agreed that once it became clear he had lost the confidence of his civilian bosses, it was the responsibility of the four-star admiral to retire. That was especially so, they said, as it became obvious that no great effort was being made by civilian leaders to persuade him to remain in command.

"At the same time, some younger officers who have been critical of senior commanders for not speaking up about the risks of invading Iraq now see a senior officer who did speak his mind publicly being prompted to choose early retirement."

Yochi J. Dreazen writes in the Wall Street Journal (subscription required) that Fallon's departure "could make it easier for the Bush administration to maintain troop levels in Iraq and adopt a tougher approach to Iran.

"Adm. Fallon had favored a significant withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, arguing that the open-ended deployment of 140,000 military personnel there was causing growing manpower strains throughout the armed forces. That position sparked tensions with Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq and a White House favorite.

"Adm. Fallon has also long appeared to question the administration's Iran policy, arguing publicly that the White House's hard-line rhetoric and implied threats of military force against Iran were dangerous and unproductive. In interviews with a variety of media outlets in recent months, Adm. Fallon played down the possibility of an American strike on Iran and indicated that he thought such an attack would be a mistake.

"The resignation made Adm. Fallon one of the first high-ranking military officers to leave active duty amid tensions with the White House since President Harry Truman fired Gen. Douglas MacArthur at the height of the Korean War. . . .

"The Esquire profile was published on the Internet last week and sparked an immediate furor within the White House and the Pentagon. Senior Bush administration officials saw the article as a sign that Adm. Fallon was trying to publicly undercut Mr. Bush and limit the president's hand, according to two White House aides familiar with the internal discussions.

"'It was seen as a form of insubordination,' one of the White House officials said."

On the NBC Nightly News, Jim Miklaszewski reported: "Sources say that, in the end, under pressure from the White House, Defense Secretary Gates refused to take Fallon's calls, making it clear he had to go."

Thomas E. Ricks writes in The Washington Post: "Fallon is expected to step down at the end of the month, after barely a year in his position, and just eight days before Petraeus is scheduled to testify before Congress about conditions in Iraq. . . .

"Several Democrats were quick to accuse the administration of not tolerating dissent. 'It's distressing that Admiral Fallon feels he had to step down,' said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.). 'President Bush's oft-repeated claim that he follows the advice of his commanders on the ground rings hollow if our commanders don't feel free to disagree with the president.' Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) asked whether Fallon's resignation is a reflection that the administration is hostile to 'the frank, open airing of experts' views.'"

"Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, a U.S. senator from New York, called Fallon a 'sensible voice' that supported 'engaging Iran.' She urged her colleagues to back a bill requiring Bush to get congressional approval before taking any military action against Iran.

"Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska lamented Fallon's departure, saying in an interview with Bloomberg Television that he was 'very concerned to see him go.'"

On the CBS Evening News, David Martin narrated Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates's unscheduled news conference, where Fallon's resignation was announced

Martin: "Secretary Gates insisted Fallon had not been pressured to resign."

Gates: "Admiral Fallon reached this difficult decision entirely on his own."

Martin: "He also insisted Fallon was not the odd man out when it came to war with Iran."

Gates: "We've all talked about all options being on the table, but we've also focused on the importance of pursuing economic and diplomatic pressures against Iran. So I don't think that there really were differences at all."

Martin: "Gates has made no secret he, too, is opposed to war with Iran. But Fallon all but ruled it out, telling Al-Jazeera, 'I expect there will be no war.' So does Fallon's departure clear the decks for another war?"

Gates: "The notion that this decision portends anything in terms of a change in Iran policy is . . . ridiculous."

Martin concludes: "Virtually every senior military officer is opposed to war with Iran. But from now on they might be more cautious about how they say it."

Terry Atlas blogs for U.S. News and World Report with "6 Signs the U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran." They are: Fallon's resignation, Cheney's trip to the Middle East, the Israeli airstrike on Syria, U.S. warships off Lebanon, Israeli comments and Israel's war with Hezbollah.

Cheney leaves Sunday for a trip to the Middle East. In yesterday's column, I suggested that reporters try to find out what he tells the Israelis about Iran. That's even more important today.

The conventional wisdom in Washington is that, ever since December's National Intelligence Estimate threw cold water on Bush and Cheney's insistence that Iran was on the brink of nuclear weapons development, a preventative attack on Iran was no longer in the cards. But Bush has repeatedly brushed off the NIE's findings. Administration pronouncements blaming Iran for fomenting attacks in Iraq are on the upswing again. And now Cheney's on his way to Israel.

It's still not really beyond Bush and Cheney to order a full-scale preemptive attack on Iran. But the more likely scenario is that there will be an asymmetrical U.S. response to a (possibly trumped up) Iranian provocation. And the most likely scenario is that the U.S. will encourage (or certainly not oppose) an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities -- which in turn would lead the U.S. to come to Israel's defense should Iran strike back.

That's been a favorite Cheney scenario for more than a year. See, for instance, this Steve Clemons blog post from last May, later corroborated by the New York Times. And see my June 4 column, Cheney, By Proxy.

No Torture Override

Thomas Ferraro writes for Reuters: "President George W. Bush's fellow Republicans in Congress on Tuesday upheld his veto of a bill to ban the CIA from subjecting enemy detainees to interrogation methods denounced by critics as torture.

"A largely party-line vote of 225-188 in the Democratic-led House of Representatives fell short of the needed two-thirds majority to override the president."

Seeking Clarity From the CIA

I had a not particularly fruitful conversation yesterday with CIA Director of Public Affairs Mark Mansfield. I was trying to get a bit more clarity about his letter to the editor in the Sunday New York Times, in which he appeared to suggest that the interrogation measures banned by the Army Field Manual are now banned by the CIA, as well. That sounded to me like a big concession -- and big news.

Mansfield wrote his letter in response to a March 2 Times editorial, which listed the field manual's eight specifically prohibited practices:

* Forcing a prisoner to be naked, perform sexual acts or pose in a sexual manner.

* Placing hoods or sacks over the head of a prisoner, and using duct tape over the eyes.

* Applying beatings, electric shocks, burns or other forms of physical pain.

* Using military working dogs.

* Inducing hypothermia or heat injury.

* Conducting mock executions.

* Depriving a prisoner of necessary food, water or medical care.

Mansfield, who in his letter mentioned only three of the prohibitions -- forcing prisoners to perform sexual acts, applying electric shocks and conducting mock executions -- wrote: "The implication [of the editorial] is that those measures would be used by the Central Intelligence Agency or other intelligence services if the intelligence authorization bill is vetoed by the president. They would not. The C.I.A. neither conducts nor condones torture."

My first question: Was Mansfield limiting his statement to the three practices he mentioned -- or was he including all eight listed in the manual, including waterboarding? He told me he meant all of them. "None of them would be used," he said. "They're not part of the CIA's program."

Waterboarding, for instance, "is not a technique that is part of the CIA's current program. It hasn't been used in five years, and it was used on a total of three hardened terrorists."

But when I asked him if that meant these practices were now officially banned by the CIA -- a statement that I think would be widely welcomed in this country and across the world -- Mansfield wouldn't say.

He repeated his language about the practices not being in the current program, and referred me to CIA Director Michael Hayden's statement last week that "the Army Field Manual does not exhaust the universe of lawful interrogation techniques."

Was Mansfield making some sort of distinction between a practice that is not currently part of the program and one that is prohibited? And if so, why? He wouldn't say.

So does that mean they could be part of the program later? It certainly sounded to me like Mansfield was keeping that possibility open.

I also asked him if there were any other restrictions in the manual that troubled the CIA -- for instance, the requirement that any technique an interrogator is considering using should pass the following, common-sense test: "If the proposed approach technique were used by the enemy against one of your fellow soldiers, would you believe the soldier had been abused?"

Mansfield wouldn't say.

So I guess all we really know is that at this particular moment -- during which, I should note, there is some reason to believe the CIA interrogation program is dormant -- practices such as sexually humiliating, waterboarding or starving detainees are not being used. But there are apparently no guarantees, should circumstances change, going forward.

More Torture Editorials

The researchers in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office did a much better job than I did yesterday of finding editorial expressions of outrage over Bush's veto. Here are editorials from the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Orlando Sentinel, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Tampa Tribune, the Austin American-Statesman, the Waco Tribune, the Barre Montpelier (Vt.) Times Argus, the Fort Wayne (Ind.) Journal-Gazette, the Pocono (Pa.) Record and the Watertown (N.Y.) Daily Times.

FISA Watch

Ellen Nakashima writes in The Washington Post: "House Democratic leaders announced yesterday their support for providing some relief to phone companies that have been sued for assisting the Bush administration's warrantless surveillance program but reaffirmed their opposition to the legal immunity sought by the administration. The proposal would allow the companies, which face nearly 40 civil lawsuits in a federal court in San Francisco, to defend themselves in secret, in front of a judge but without the plaintiffs. Leaders intend to organize a floor vote on it tomorrow. . . .

"The decision not to budge on the immunity issue reflects an apparent calculation by the Democrats that they can continue to defy the White House on a security concern in an election year. . . .

"White House press secretary Dana Perino said the House Democrats' bill is 'dead on arrival' for several reasons, including its failure to provide the liability protection that is in the Senate bill. 'It is clear that House Democratic leaders have once again bowed to the demands of class-action trial lawyers, MoveOn.org, and Code Pink and put their ideological interests ahead of the national interest,' Perino said in a statement. She criticized the provision calling for the creation of a bipartisan commission to examine the administration's warrantless surveillance activities. 'We can only draw one conclusion from this -- House leaders are more interested in playing politics with past efforts to protect the country than they are in preventing terrorist attacks in the future.'"

Does that kind of language stiffen Democrats' spines? Or does it frighten them into submission? Stay tuned.

Iraq Watch

Sheryl Gay Stolberg writes in the New York Times: "President Bush delivered a rousing defense of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on Tuesday, mixing faith and foreign policy as he told a group of Christian broadcasters that his policies in the region were predicated on the beliefs that freedom was a God-given right and 'every human being bears the image of our maker.' . . .

"The speech, coming a week before the fifth anniversary of the American invasion of Iraq, is the first of three talks on terrorism and war policy that Mr. Bush will give before next month's Congressional testimony by the top American military commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and the senior diplomat there, Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker."

Michael Abramowitz writes in The Washington Post: "Over the next several months, Bush must decide how many troops in the two major theaters of U.S. military operations to leave his successor, a decision that could influence the fall elections and help shape his legacy. On Iraq, Bush indicated Tuesday, he will be guided solely by his determination of the troop strength necessary to maintain stability.

"'The politics of 2008 is not going to enter into my calculation. It is the peace of the years to come that will enter into my calculation,' Bush told a friendly audience of religious radio and television broadcasters. . . .

"The president showed little self-doubt about the crucial choices he has made over the past five years, especially the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein. He has made this point before, but on Tuesday he appeared especially animated in declaring: 'The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency; it is the right decision at this point in my presidency; and it will forever be the right decision.'"

Meanwhile, James Glanz and Eric Schmitt write in the New York Times: "Newly declassified statistics on the frequency of insurgent attacks in Iraq suggest that after major security gains last fall in the wake of an American troop increase, the conflict has drifted into a stalemate, with levels of violence remaining stubbornly constant from November 2007 through early 2008."

About Billy Graham

In his speech to the religious broadcasters, Bush paid homage to Billy Graham: "[E]ach of us has had doors opened to us by the same man. He led the way for America's religious broadcasters. He brought the Gospel to millions, and many years ago he helped me change my life. And today this good man is recovering from surgery in North Carolina -- and please join me in sending our love and prayers to Billy Graham."

Jacob Weisberg, in a Slate excerpt from his book, writes that Bush's famous story about "a soul-searching conversation with the Rev. Billy Graham that prompted him to re-evaluate his life, accept Jesus, and give up drinking" does not appear to be precisely true. "[O]n closer examination, this story too turns out to be a parable, crafted to convey an idea about the subject rather than to relate the literal truth of what happened. Like almost every other detail about his spiritual life that Bush has chosen to reveal, it shows evidence of being shaped and packaged."

Signing Statements Watch

One of the most underexplored aspects of Bush's unprecedented use of signing statements has been the practical consequences.

A year ago, the Government Accountability Office found that, indeed, federal officials had not complied with at least some of the provisions that Bush objected to in signing statements.

In testimony to a House committee yesterday, GAO general counsel Gary L. Kepplinger announced the results of another study, this one of provisions in the 2008 defense authorization, which found more of the same. The GAO examined how 21 agencies executed 29 different provisions of the law that Bush asserted his right not to follow -- and found that in nine cases "the agencies had not executed the provisions as written."

As with the earlier study, the specific examples are less than compelling -- the investigation, for instance, avoided "a close examination of provisions involving national security, intelligence, or foreign relations matters, because of our limited access to such information and the time constraints on our work."

Nevertheless, it does seem like there's some fire under the smoke. And Kepplinger recommended "careful" Congression oversight of the provisions to which Bush has objected.

What was the response from the Bush administration at yesterday's hearing? There wasn't any.

Megan Scully wrote in CongressDaily yesterday that senior Bush administration officials "refused invitations to testify Tuesday during a House Armed Services Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing examining President Bush's signing statement on the fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill."

Star Wars Watch

Tom Raum writes for the Associated Press: "Borrowing a theme from the presidential contest, Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that the possibility of a 3 a.m. emergency call to the White House is all the more reason for the next commander in chief to follow through on President Bush's plans for a national missile defense.

"'It's plain to see that the world around us gives ample reason to continue working on missile defense,' Cheney told the conservative Heritage Foundation at a dinner recognizing the 25th anniversary of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, a proposed network of rockets capable of shooting down incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles."

A Cheney Deposition?

George Merrit writes from Denver for the Associated Press: "A federal magistrate indicated Tuesday he will order Vice President Dick Cheney to give sworn testimony in a lawsuit by a man who claims he was wrongly arrested after approaching Cheney.

"Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer did not issue an order but said Cheney is a key witness whose deposition appears to be crucial to the case."

Bush on Tape

Finally, there's audio of Bush's off-tune singing performance at the Gridiron Club dinner on Saturday.

Blogger dday approvingly quotes MSNBC's Chris Matthews, who said last night of Bush's performance: "Well, that was quite a hoot. All that joking from the President about Brownie, that guy in charge of the New Orleans disaster, and of course Scooter Libby, the guy involved in the CIA coverup. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's reporters, the best of them, laughing at events and political acts that warrant anything, I mean, anything but laughter. There is nothing, nothing funny about Bush's reference to Brownie, that disastrous appointment followed by that catastrophic handling of the Katrina horror in New Orleans. Nothing funny about a war fought for bad intelligence, and a top aide, Scooter Libby, who committed perjury and obstruction of justice to cover it up. Nothing funny about a President, who commuted that sentence to keep the coverup protected. Otherwise, I'm sure it was an enjoyable get-together between journalists and the people they're charged with covering."

Posted by alfred at 10:19 PM - No Comments   Add a Comment  
 
Pages:   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218
   
  About Me
Author: alfred
From USA
 
My: Profile  Guestbook 
 
Bookmark   History

  Blogstream Sponsors
Have you checked out the new Blogstream site,

Question Stream.com?

Many Blogstream members are there already! Quotes from members: "It's like blog lite!" -- "I like the instant gratification!" -- "Stop spectating, get in the game!"

If you have not joined in, you are really missing out!

Send Free
Just Saying Hi
Greeting Cards
at

Greeting Cards.com


Good Morning


  Recent Posts

  Blogs I Like

  Archives

3240 Visitors