Step by Step, Inch by Inch, Bush Moves Closer to War in Iran

With the nation's attention fixed on the wildfires ravaging California, Bush submits a massive supplemental request for more money, but not for any weapons necessary for fighting in Iraq.

The most recent previous step along Bush's plan to go to war in Iran was getting a unit of Iran's military designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. Senate. That secured, and under cover of California's catastrophic fires, Bush submitted a supplemental appropriations bill and used his bully pulpit to turn up the pressure on Congress to pass it, when there is no immediate need to do so. Congressional Quarterly reports:

Some Democrats are worried that President Bush’s funding request to enable B-2 “stealth” bombers to carry a new 30,000-pound “bunker buster” bomb is a sign of plans for an attack on Iran.

Buried in the $196.4 billion supplemental war spending proposal that Bush submitted to Congress on Oct. 22 is a request for $88 million to modify B-2 bombers so they can drop a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP, a conventional bomb still in development that is the most powerful weapon designed to destroy targets deep underground.

A White House summary accompanying the supplemental spending proposal said the request for money to modify B-2s to carry the bombs came in response to “an urgent operational need from theater commanders.” The summary provided no further details. The White House and the Air Force, in response to queries, did not provide additional clarification.

Previous statements by the Defense Department and the program’s contractors, along with interviews with military experts, suggest the weapon is meant for the kind of hardened targets found chiefly in Iran, which Bush suspects of developing nuclear weapons capability, and North Korea, which already has tested a nuclear device.

Bush has said repeatedly that he prefers to use diplomacy to resolve tensions with Iran over its nuclear program. But his request for funding to deliver the new bunker buster comes amid a sharp escalation of tough White House rhetoric about Iran’s nuclear program in recent days.

On Oct. 18, Bush said a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III.” Three days later, Vice President Dick Cheney warned of “serious consequences” if Tehran continued to enrich uranium.

Against that backdrop, the proposed funding for bunker busters has some in Congress worried.

James P. Moran, D-Va., a senior member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, said he did not believe the MOP could be used in Iraq or Afghanistan and cited Iran as the potential target for the bomb. He said he would oppose the funding.

“That’s a clear red flag,” Moran said.

Jim McDermott, D-Wash., an outspoken critic of Bush’s war policies, said the funding request was the latest of many signs that indicated Bush was contemplating an attack on Iran. McDermott said such a scenario was his “biggest fear between now and the election.”

“We are not authorizing Bush to use a 30,000-pound bunker buster,” he said. “They’ve been banging the drums the same way as they did in 2002 with Iraq.”

Stealth Delivery

The Boeing Co., in conjunction with Elgin Air Force Base in Florida, has been developing the Massive Ordnance Penetrator for several years and first tested the bomb in March. The 15-ton bomb would be dropped by B-52 or B-2 bombers.

In June, the Northrop Grumman Corp., maker of the B-2, won a $2.5 million contract from the Air Force to retro fit the bat-winged, stealth bombers so they could drop the new weapon. The new funding, if approved, would significantly expand that initiative.

The B-2 made its battlefield debut during the Kosovo War in 1999. It is optimal for use against sophisticated enemy air defenses because its radar-evading surface is difficult to detect.

In interviews Tuesday, military experts said the new weapon was not designed for the kind of counterinsurgency campaign being conducted by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. They said the MOP could prove useful against other targets, notably underground Iranian facilities that are said to be producing nuclear weapons materials.

“A weapon like this is designed to deal with extremely hard and buried targets such as you would find in Iran or North Korea,” said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the conservative military think tank the Lexington Institute, who is also a consultant for some defense contractors.

“Clearly, in the case of North Korea, the likelihood of military action is receding as the Pyongyang government becomes more tractable,” said Thompson, referring to recent progress in diplomatic efforts to persuade North Korea to dismantle its nuclear programs.

John Pike, an expert on defense and intelligence policy with Globalsecurity.org, said the MOP could be used against Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility at Natanz.

“It’ll go through it like a hot knife through butter,” Pike said. He noted that the B-2 would be the best aircraft to deliver the bomb “if you want it to be a surprise party.”

It is not clear how quickly the new weapon could be ready for delivery by a B-2 if the $88 million were enacted. A spokesman for Northrop Grumman declined to provide a time frame.

Not all Democratic lawmakers oppose the weapon. Non-nuclear bunker busters have emerged in recent years as favorites of Democrats concerned about Bush administration’s earlier plans to conduct research on nuclear models.

“We need to have this as a conventional weapon,” said Norm Dicks, D-Wash., a member of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. “It adds to our deterrent.”

Debate on Troop Withdrawals Put on Hold

The Associated Press reports:

Congressional Democrats have put on the back burner legislation ordering troops home from Iraq and turned their attention to war-related proposals that Republicans are finding hard to reject.

The legislative agenda marks a dramatic shift for party leaders who vowed repeated votes to end combat and predicted Republicans would eventually join them. But with Democrats still lacking enough votes to bring troops home, the party runs the risk of concluding its first year in control of Congress with little to show for its tough anti-war rhetoric.

"We can no longer approach the discussion on Iraq as a partisan issue," said Rep. John Tanner, a conservative Democrat from Tennessee. "Our soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen and Guardsmen aren't fighting as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans."

In the past week, the House passed two bills intended to curb misconduct by contractors in Iraq and one proposal by Tanner and Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, that requires updates on the Bush administration's plans for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. combat forces.

Following last week's rejection of a proposal by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., to cut off money for combat, the Senate is expected to follow suit with similar bipartisan measures.

Delayed until early next year is debate on the $190 billion the military says it needs to fund the war through September 2008.

There is little doubt that Democrats are biding their time and deliberating their next step. Democrats are divided on whether to continue paying for a war they oppose, or cut off the money and be attacked politically for refusing to support the troops.

There's a third option: The electorate cuts off money to their campaigns, and sends them into retirement for failing to follow through on their 2006 campaign promises.

They also hope that Republicans will grow increasingly nervous about the war's effect on the 2008 elections. Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who chairs the panel that oversees military funding, predicted last month that GOP lawmakers will jump ship after the primaries end.

"I see what happens to a Republican when they say we ought to start to get out," Murtha said. "They bash them. I mean they attack them viscerally and of course they're the ones that nominate them. Until that plays out we're going to have a problem."

This is, again, Democrats capitulating to Republicans. Allowing Republicans to avoid what is unpopular in their districts so that they can win their primaries, and then perhaps they will deliver on what they'd told Murtha, and vote with the Democrats. It's a fantasy, because once the primaries are over, Bush and Cheney (and the GOP strategists behind this oil war) will launch a new campaign to keep the war going, most likely, expanding the 'war on terror' to include Iran and Syria.

But, no matter what it is, Democrats choose to let Republicans take the lead, and remain at the effect of Republicans.

Democrats calculate that the Pentagon has enough money for the war, through February or March, by borrowing against its annual budget. Military officials warn that doing so can disrupt vital programs, such as base support and training exercises, and cost more money in the long run.

Democrats say they are still challenging President Bush on the war. The House on Tuesday passed legislation by Abercrombie intended to make it easier to convict private contractors of fraud.

The bill, approved by a 375-3 vote, would create a federal criminal statute banning contracting abuse associated with military operations and reconstruction efforts. It also would ensure federal courts have jurisdiction in all cases, closing what Abercrombie says is a loophole in existing law that has let many contractors off the hook.

A similar measure by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., was approved in April by the Senate Judiciary Committee. A spokesman for Leahy said Republican objections have prevented it from getting a quick floor vote.

Democrats in Congress are weak and ineffectual. Leahy should be out in front of the cameras exposing Republicans for their protection of war profiteers. Democrats should be constantly on the offensive, continually reintroducing the bill to withdraw the troops, focusing on the worsening conditions in Iraq. But they're not, and it can only be because they're not on board themselves with ending the war.

Moving The Goal Posts Again . . . .

. . . . Only now, it's the U.S. Congress playing armchair quarterback, trying its hand at "re-doing the war"

And the Iraqi Prime Minister and Vice-President don't like it any better. The Associated Press reports:

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Friday rejected a Senate proposal calling for the decentralization of Iraq's government and giving more control to the country's ethnically divided regions, calling it a "catastrophe."

The measure, whose primary sponsors included presidential hopeful Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., calls for Iraq to be divided into federal regions for the country's Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish communities in a power-sharing agreement similar to Bosnia in the 1990s.

In his first comments since the measure passed Wednesday, al-Maliki strongly rejected the idea, echoing the earlier sentiments of his vice president.

"It is an Iraqi affair dealing with Iraqis," he told The Associated Press while on a return flight to Baghdad after appearing at the U.N. General Assembly in New York. "Iraqis are eager for Iraq's unity. ... Dividing Iraq is a problem and a decision like that would be a catastrophe."

Iraq's constitution lays down a federal system, allowing Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north to set up regions with considerable autonomous powers. But Iraq's turmoil has been fueled by the deep divisions among politicians over the details of how it work, including the division of lucrative oil resources.

Many Shiite and Kurdish leaders are eager to implement the provisions. But the Sunni Arab minority fears being left in an impoverished central zone without resources. Others fear a sectarian split-up would harden the violent divisions among Iraq's fractious ethnic and religious groups.

On Thursday, Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi said decisions about Iraq must remain in the hands of its citizens and the spokesman for the supporters of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed.

"We demand the Iraqi government to stand against such project and to condemn it officially," Liwa Semeism told the AP. "Such a decision does not represent the aspirations of all Iraqi people and it is considered an interference in Iraq's internal affairs."

A spokesman for Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the Shiite spiritual leader, dismissed the proposal during Friday prayers in Karbala.

"The division plan is against Iraqi's interests and against peaceful living in one united Iraq," Sheik Abdul Mahdi al Karbalaei told worshippers. "Any neighboring country supporting this project will pay the price of instability in the region."

Al-Maliki said he discussed the role of U.S. troops and private security contractors in the country, stressing that Iraq is a sovereign nation and it should have control over its own security.

Security "is something related to Iraq's sovereignty and its independence and it should not be violated," he said.

Al-Maliki's comments follow a Sept. 16 shooting in central Baghdad that killed 11 Iraqi civilians allegedly at the hands of Blackwater USA guards providing security for U.S. diplomats.

The Moyock, N.C.-based company said its employees were acting in self-defense against an attack by armed insurgents. Iraqi officials and witnesses have said the guards opened fire randomly, killing a woman and an infant along with nine other people, but details have widely diverged.

The Washington Post reported Friday that a preliminary U.S. Embassy report found the shooting involved three Blackwater teams.

It said one was ambushed near a traffic circle and returned fire before fleeing the scene, another was surrounded by Iraqis when it went to the intersection and had to be extracted by the U.S. military and a third came under fire from eight to 10 people in multiple locations.

The report said the three teams had been trying to escort a senior U.S. official who had been visiting a "financial compound" back to the U.S.-protected Green Zone when a car bomb struck about 25 yards outside the entrance. The official was unharmed, it said.

An unidentified State Department official described the report to the newspaper and stressed it was only an initial account.

The New York Times also reported Friday that the shootings occurred as Blackwater was trying to evacuate senior U.S. officials with the United States Agency for International Development after an explosion occurred near the guarded compound where they were meeting.

Participants in the operation said at least one guard continued firing on civilians while colleagues called for the shooting to stop, according to the newspaper's account, which cited American officials who have been briefed on the investigation.

It also said those involved have told U.S. investigators they believed they were firing in response to enemy gunfire but at least one guard also drew a weapon on a colleague who did not stop shooting.

American officials have publicly remained mum on their findings pending the results of a series of investigations.

Also Friday, U.S. Army Spc. Jorge G. Sandoval was acquitted of charges he killed two unarmed Iraqis. He was convicted of a lesser charge of planting evidence on one of the bodies to cover up the crime. Sandoval, 22, of Laredo, Texas, was expected to be sentenced Saturday.

In other violence, 10 civilians were killed and 12 others were wounded Friday in an attack on an apartment complex in a primarily Sunni neighborhood in southern Baghdad. And north of Baghdad, at least six people were killed in a busy cafe late Thursday and people celebrated the end of the dawn-to-dusk fast during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

Australia, meanwhile, said it has taken command of the multinational naval task force guarding Iraq's two oil terminals in southern Iraq for the third time. The job protecting the vital facilities rotates between Australia, Britain and the United States.

Iraq is a sovereign nation. I know this is so, because Bush and everyone in his administration told me so:

“Iraq is a sovereign nation which is conducting its own foreign policy,” Bush said in November, 2006.

“Iraq is a sovereign nation, and we stay because they have asked us to be there,” Condoleezza Rice said in October, 2006.

“It’s a sovereign nation; it’s their system, they make those decisions,” Major General William B. Caldwell IV, the U.S. command’s chief spokesman in Iraq, said in January, 2007.

Did the Iraqis get their fingers all purpley for nothing?

Zogby Poll: 54% Lack Confidence in Bush's Ability As Commander-in-Chief

Survey shows just 3% of Americans approve of how Congress is handling the war in Iraq; 24% say the same for the President



Zogby International latest polling numbers:

A majority of American adults (54%) lack confidence in President Bush’s ability as Commander in Chief of the U.S. military, a new UPI/Zogby Interactive poll shows. A majority (60%) said they do not trust the president’s judgment when it comes to the war, while 38% say they have faith in his military decisions.

Just 24% give the president favorable ratings of his performance in handling the war in Iraq, but confidence in Congress is significantly worse – only 3% give Congress positive marks for how it has handled the war. This lack of confidence in Congress cuts across all ideologies. Democrats – some of whom had hoped the now Democrat-led Congress would bring an end to the war in Iraq – expressed overwhelming displeasure with how Congress has handled the war, with 94% giving Congress a negative rating in its handling specifically of that issue.

The online survey was conducted July 13–16, 2007, and included 7,590 respondents. It carries a margin of error of +/– 1.1 percentage points.

To best show support for the troops, 42% believe Congress should fully fund the war in Iraq to maintain current troop levels, while 34% would favor attaching requirements for phased withdrawal to Iraq war funding. Just 18% said cutting all funding for the war in Iraq to bring troops home would be the best showing of Congressional support. Congress has proposed a bill continuing funding the war in Iraq, but that would require the withdrawal of the majority of troops there by Spring of 2008 – a plan favored by 49% of Americans. But nearly as many (45%) are opposed to this plan.

Slightly more than half (54%) believe the U.S. should set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and 55% believe the U.S. should begin the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. President Bush has threatened to veto any bill that funds the war in Iraq that also sets a date to begin withdrawing U.S. troops, but 52% would disagree with a presidential veto, while 44% would approve.

More than half (55%) believe if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq that it will be considered a defeat, while 41% disagree.

Half of Americans (51%) believe the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq incites anti-U.S. sentiment and creates a greater likelihood of a terrorist attack within the United States. But 44% believe the U.S. troops in Iraq are fighting terrorists within Iraq so that the U.S. does not have to fight terrorists here at home.

Overall, slightly more than half (55%) said they oppose the war while 44% say they support it. While the vast majority of Democrats are in opposition to the war (93%), slightly more than half of independents (55%) and just 14% of Republicans take the same stance. Self-described conservatives (87%) and very conservatives (93%) show strong support for the war, but support among moderates (25%) is significantly less.

Dissatisfaction with how the war in Iraq is being handled is also considerable among past or current members of the military and their families – nearly three in four (71%) give the president negative ratings on his handling of the war and than half (54%) said they don’t trust the President’s judgment when it comes to the Iraq war. Nearly half (47%) say they lack confidence in Bush’s ability as Commander in Chief – 41% said they have no confidence in him at all. The vast majority (96%) also have a negative view of how Congress has handled the war, but there is disagreement about what Congress should do to support the troops. While half said Congress should fully fund the war in Iraq to maintain current troop levels, 29% would favor attaching requirements for phased withdrawal to Iraq war funding and 16% believe Congress should cut all funding for the war in Iraq and bring the troops home.

Those with military ties are split over setting a timeline for withdrawal – 48% would favor withdrawal but 50% would oppose such a plan. There is a similar split when asked if the U.S. should begin the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of the year – 50% agree while 46% disagree. Slightly more than half (57%) believe withdrawal from Iraq would be considered a defeat, but 38% disagree with that perspective. Two in five (40%) favor a proposal by Congress to continue finding the war in Iraq, but that would require the withdrawal of the majority of troops by the spring of 2008. Half (51%) would support a Presidential veto of a bill that funds the war by sets a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops, although nearly as many (46%) would oppose a veto.

Those with military ties mirror the feelings of Americans overall. While half (51%) believe U.S. troops in Iraq are fighting terrorists within Iraq so that the U.S. does not have to fight the terrorists domestically, nearly as many (45%) believe the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq incites anti-U.S. sentiment and creates a greater likelihood of a terrorist attack here at home.

Bush also gets low ratings in dealing with veterans – two-thirds (67%) give Bush negative ratings for his performance in providing adequate health care for the veterans who have returned home from the ward in Afghanistan and Iraq. Among those who have or are currently serving in the military and their families, nearly as many agree (62%), while just 30% believe Bush has done a favorable job of providing health care for veterans.

For a complete methodological statement and a list of the questions asked on this survey, please visit: http://www.zogby.com/methodology/readmeth.dbm?ID=1203

What are the odds this will make any difference to Congress, and that now it will do everything it can to block Bush's legislation, override his vetoes, cut off funding for the war?

Dial 1-202-456-1414

UPDATE: Forget about calling the White House. Call these folks:



It was phone calls overloading and breaking down the switchboards at the U.S. Capitol that ended the immigration legislation debate last week. When Americans realize the power they have and the changes that their involvement in government can bring, the whole world will look bright again.

Call your senators and representatives, and tell them to investigate whether Bush is himself a participant in the obstruction of justice. Now.

[Find your representative's number here, and your senators' phone numbers here. If you aren't sure who represents you (and we're going to have a serious heart-to-heart about that one day soon), go here and type in your zip code. Double-click on the 'info'-link under your representatives' photos for their phone numbers.]

Earmarks Gone Wild!

Two Coast Guard cutters were gifted to a Christian missionary group, which then resold them and deposited the money in its general revenue account which supports the group's evangelical activities.

The White Holly cutter approaching the Golden Gate Bridge.

The New York Times reports:

In theory, it was simple: Congress gave two decommissioned Coast Guard cutters to a faith-based group in California, directing that the ships be used only to provide medical services to islands in the South Pacific.

Coast Guard records show that the ships have been providing those services in the South Pacific since the medical mission took possession of them in 1999.

In reality, the ships never got any closer to the South Pacific islands than the San Francisco Bay. The mission group quickly sold one to a maritime equipment company, which sold it for substantially more to a pig farmer who uses it as a commercial ferry off Nicaragua. The group sold the other ship to a Bay Area couple who rent it for eco-tours and marine research.

The gift of the two cutters was one of almost 900 grants Congress has made to faith-based organizations since 1987 through the use of provisions, called earmarks, that are tucked into bills to bypass normal government review and bidding procedures.

Skipping those safeguards can generate more than accusations of political favoritism. As the case of the Coast Guard cutters shows, it also can give rise to grants that never achieve their intended purpose, with the government never even realizing it.

Canvasback Missions, in Benicia, Calif., took ownership of the cutters, the White Sage and the White Holly, in Baltimore in September 1999. This was the first time such ships had been given away through an earmark, the Coast Guard said.

Pressed for cash, Canvasback sold the White Sage a few months later for about $85,000. Two years later, the struggling mission sold the White Holly to the Bay Area couple for $330,000. The mission did not inform the Coast Guard property office about the sales.

Typically, decommissioned Coast Guard vessels are sold at auction, are included in foreign aid packages or are added to the nation’s mothball fleet.

If the two cutters had been sold at auction, the General Services Administration would have monitored their use for five years. But the Canvasback earmark required no such monitoring, and Coast Guard officials said they did not know about the sales until The New York Times asked about them.

The fate of the White Holly and the White Sage comes as a surprise to people who supported the Canvasback earmark.

Former Representative Frank D. Riggs, Republican of California, whose staff drafted the earmark, said it “would raise concerns” if the ships were “not used as intended.”Former California Congressman Frank Riggs

Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, was also credited by Canvasback with working on the earmark. But David Snepp, Ms. Snowe’s spokesman, said she had merely voted for it. Mr. Snepp called Canvasback’s actions troubling and said the senator had asked her staff to research what is now a gray area: whether selling the two ships was legal.

Maine Senator Olympia Snowe

“If they were not used in Micronesia, they were definitely not used in the spirit of the way this was written,” Mr. Snepp said. The text of the earmark gave the government the right to reclaim the ships, he added. While that was perhaps unlikely, he continued: “They were supposed to retain the vessels in case the Coast Guard needed them back. The charity does not have the option to sell.”

A harsher assessment came from Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group that opposes earmarks, and a former Coast Guard officer. “They are flipping the property,” Mr. Ellis said.

Jamie W. Spence, president and founder of Canvasback Missions, said all the sales proceeds supported the organization’s work in the Marshall Islands, where it has provided eye and dental care and counseling on diabetes prevention to thousands of people since it was founded in 1981.

Jacque Spence, left, and her husband, Jamie, at their Canvasback Missions office in Benicia, Calif.

“We did everything in our power to put these ships into service,” Mr. Spence said. But when the group could not raise the money to repair and maintain the vessels, it sold them instead, using the proceeds to cope with its financial difficulties, he said.

Mr. Spence said he had consulted with Canvasback’s legal advisers and was confident the sales were ethical and legal.

Coast Guard officials were surprised at the cutters’ fate. “The White Holly and the White Sage are in the South Pacific,” Lynn Brown, the personal property manager in the decommissioning office, said in March. She affirmed recently that her office had not known that Canvasback sold the ships.

Mr. Spence acknowledged that he did not give notice to Ms. Brown’s office. But he said he told Coast Guard employees in the Bay Area about the White Holly sale and mentioned the White Sage sale to the Coast Guard officer in charge of the Baltimore yard before the deal and to civilian Coast Guard officials afterward. He did not respond to requests to identify those people.

While all earmarks are troublesome to critics like Mr. Ellis, who called the Canvasback gift an “utter indictment of earmarks,” those made for faith-based groups involve special questions about the constitutional borders between church and state.

Vince Backen with students and teachers after giving them a cruise on the White Holly, a former Coast Guard cutter sold to him by Canvasback Missions.
_{[photo: Jim Wilson/NYT]}

The Coast Guard ships were given to Canvasback for a secular purpose, providing medical services. But Mr. Spence said Canvasback did not isolate the sales proceeds; instead it mingled them with its general revenues, which also cover activities that include evangelism. And under most court decisions, evangelism cannot be paid for with federal grants.

Mr. Spence said no constitutional violations occurred. “I’m very certain that the proceeds were used for supporting our medical program,” he said, “and I’m absolutely sure they were not used for evangelism.” He said Canvasback, a nondenominational Christian mission, raises donations separately for its evangelism activities, which included donating Bibles translated into local languages and constructing a chapel.

Mr. Spence and his wife, Jacque, established their medical mission 26 years ago, using a 71-foot catamaran, the Canvasback, to navigate the shallow coasts of the poorer, more remote islands of Micronesia. As the ministry grew, it mobilized medical professionals to volunteer for short stints in the islands and delivered donated medical equipment and supplies.

When they sought the Congressional earmark, the Spences were hoping the two cutters would allow them to expand their medical ministry, Mr. Spence said. But the mission acquired and then sold those vessels, and a third vessel that was privately donated, because Canvasback determined that maintaining and operating the ships was too big a financial burden, he explained. But few of these details can be found in the annual statements Canvasback files with the Internal Revenue Service. Two leading nonprofit accounting experts examined the statements and found them to be incomplete and internally inconsistent.

“There is no clear audit trail for the boats,” said Julie L. Floch of Eisner L.L.P. in Manhattan, a member of the I.R.S.’s national advisory panel on nonprofits. Her view was echoed by Jody Blazek of Blazek & Vetterling L.L.P. in Houston, the author of six books on nonprofit tax law and accounting.

William J. MacLean, the accountant in Seaside, Ore., who prepared the filings, declined to comment.



These days, Canvasback has redirected its efforts from ship-based medical care in the remote islands to land-based clinics on the more populated islands, Mr. Spence said.

That work has won praise from health officials in the Marshall Islands — and fresh support from Congress. The tiny mission is now the lead contractor on a diabetes research program being financed through two $1 million Defense Department contracts. Those grants were directed to Canvasback by Congress through a pair of earmarks.

See the NYTimes video report:

What Congress Really Approved: Benchmark No. 1: Privatizing Iraq's Oil for US Companies

Ann Wright served 29 years in the US Army and US Army Reserves and retired as a colonel. She served 16 years in the US diplomatic corps in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Micronesia and Mongolia. She resigned from the US Department of State in March, 2003 in opposition to the war on Iraq.

For Truthout, Ann Wright writes:
On Thursday, May 24, the US Congress voted to continue the war in Iraq. The members called it "supporting the troops." I call it stealing Iraq's oil - the second largest reserves in the world. The "benchmark," or goal, the Bush administration has been working on furiously since the US invaded Iraq is privatization of Iraq's oil. Now they have Congress blackmailing the Iraqi Parliament and the Iraqi people: no privatization of Iraqi oil, no reconstruction funds.
This threat could not be clearer. If the Iraqi Parliament refuses to pass the privatization legislation, Congress will withhold US reconstruction funds that were promised to the Iraqis to rebuild what the United States has destroyed there. The privatization law, written by American oil company consultants hired by the Bush administration, would leave control with the Iraq National Oil Company for only 17 of the 80 known oil fields. The remainder (two-thirds) of known oil fields, and all yet undiscovered ones, would be up for grabs by the private oil companies of the world (but guess how many would go to United States firms - given to them by the compliant Iraqi government.)

No other nation in the Middle East has privatized its oil. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Iran give only limited usage contracts to international oil companies for one or two years. The $12 billion dollar "Support the Troops" legislation passed by Congress requires Iraq, in order to get reconstruction funds from the United States, to privatize its oil resources and put them up for long term (20- to 30-year) contracts.

What does this "Support the Troops" legislation mean for the United States military? Supporting our troops has nothing to do with this bill, other than keeping them there for another 30 years to protect US oil interests. It means that every military service member will need Arabic language training. It means that every soldier and Marine would spend most of his or her career in Iraq. It means that the fourteen permanent bases will get new Taco Bells and Burger Kings! Why? Because the US military will be protecting the US corporate oilfields leased to US companies by the compliant Iraqi government. Our troops will be the guardians of US corporate interests in Iraq for the life of the contracts - for the next thirty years.

With the Bush administration's "Support the Troops" bill and its benchmarks, primarily Benchmark No. 1, we finally have the reason for the US invasion of Iraq: to get easily accessible, cheap, high-grade Iraq oil for US corporations.

Now the choice is for US military personnel and their families to decide whether they want their loved ones to be physically and emotionally injured to protect not our national security, but the financial security of the biggest corporate barons left in our country - the oil companies.

It's a choice for only our military families, because most non-military Americans do not really care whether our volunteer military spends its time protecting corporate oil to fuel our one-person cars. Of course, when a tornado, hurricane, flood or other natural disaster hits in our hometown, we want our National Guard unit back. But on a normal day, who remembers the 180,000 US military or the 150,000 US private contractors in Iraq?

Since the "Surge" began in January, over 500 Americans and 15,000 Iraqis have been killed. By the time September 2007 rolls around for the administration's review of the "surge" plan, another 400 Americans will be dead, as well as another 12,000 Iraqis.

How much more can our military and their families take?

Bush: "Senate's No-Confidence-Vote on Gonzales is 'Pure Political Theater'"

The Constitution never anticipated a bunch like the neocons and Bush.

Subtlety, protocol, respect for tradition and past practice mean nothing to them. It's hard enough to get them to abide by the law and not circumnavigate around it with signing statements and inventing new powers for the Executive. Democrats and moderate Republicans are bending over backwards to avoid their responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution and impeach this criminal president and vice-president, and expect Bush to 'take a hint' from the no-confidence vote, and fire Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. What Democrats (and moderate Republicans) don't seem to understand is that Bush and Cheney know very well that their policies are unpopular - They just don't care.

Sending Bush a no-confidence resolution on Gonzales (and anything else short of impeaching Gonzales), and expecting him to do what he should do (as all previous executive branch officeholders have done) is a waste of valuable time.


^{[To see hidden image, click here]}

Bloomberg.com reports:
President George W. Bush said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales continues to have his full support and called an attempt by Senate Democrats to hold a no-confidence vote on the embattled Justice Department chief "pure political theater."

"He has got my confidence, he has done nothing wrong," Bush said today in response to a question during a news conference at his Texas ranch. "I stand by Al Gonzales."

The Senate and House Judiciary committees are investigating whether the firings of eight federal prosecutors last year were the result of improper political influence. At least six Republicans have joined with Democrats in calling for Gonzales to step down because of the way the situation was handled.

Democratic Senators Charles Schumer of New York and Dianne Feinstein of California are proposing the Senate vote on a no- confidence resolution as soon as this week.

"It is this kind of political theater that has caused the American people to lose confidence in how Washington operates," Bush said today. He didn't directly address a question about whether he wants Gonzales to stay through the end of his term.

Schumer, responding to Bush's comments, said Gonzales should be replaced to restore the public's faith in the Justice Department.

"The president should understand that while he has confidence in Attorney General Gonzales, very few others do," Schumer said in a statement.

While a largely symbolic gesture, a vote of no confidence would add to the political pressure on Gonzales, 51, a longtime adviser to Bush who the president appointed as attorney general in 2005.

Senator Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said yesterday that Gonzales may resign rather than face a "very substantial" no-confidence vote. Specter is among the Republicans who have questioned whether Gonzales can continue to be effective in his job as the nation's chief law enforcement officer.

Why Has Google Replaced Post-Katrina Photos With Pre-Katrina Photos on Its Map Portal?

House subcommittee blasts Google over pre-Katrina map images.



"If we assume that the purpose of the government is to serve and improve the welfare of the entire body of citizens, the Bush administration has clearly been a major failure. It has served a minority, and the majority have not only failed to share in the gains yielded, they have suffered from reduced rights, freedoms, greater economic instability and stress, and a diminution of expectations and sense of hope for the future."

The AP reports:

Google's replacement of post-Hurricane Katrina satellite imagery on its map portal with images of the region before the storm does a "great injustice" to the storm's victims, a congressional subcommittee said.

The House Committee on Science and Technology's subcommittee on investigations and oversight on Friday asked Google Inc. Chairman and CEO Eric Schmidt to explain why his company is using the outdated imagery.

The subcommittee cited an Associated Press report on the images.

"Google's use of old imagery appears to be doing the victims of Hurricane Katrina a great injustice by airbrushing history," subcommittee chairman Brad Miller, D-N.C., wrote in a letter to Schmidt.

Swapping the post-Katrina images and the ruin they revealed for others showing an idyllic city dumbfounded many locals and even sparked suspicions that the company and civic leaders were conspiring to portray the area's recovery progressing better than it is.

Andrew Kovacs, a Google spokesman, said the company had received the letter but Schmidt had no immediate response.

After Katrina, Google's satellite images were in high demand among exiles and hurricane victims anxious to see whether their homes were damaged.

Now, though, a virtual trip through New Orleans is a surreal experience of scrolling across a landscape of packed parking lots and marinas full of boats.

Reality, of course, is very different: Entire neighborhoods are now slab mosaics where houses once stood and shopping malls, churches and marinas are empty of life, many gone altogether.

John Hanke, Google's director for maps and satellite imagery, said "a combination of factors including imagery date, resolution, and clarity" go into deciding what imagery to provide.

"The latest update from one of our information providers substantially improved the imagery detail of the New Orleans area," Hanke said in a news release about the switch.

Kovacs said efforts are under way to use more current imagery.

It was not clear when the current images replaced views of the city taken after Katrina struck Aug. 29, 2005, flooding an estimated 80 percent of New Orleans.

Miller asked Google to brief his staff by April 6 on who made the decision to replace the imagery with pre-Katrina images, and to disclose if Google was contacted by the city, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey or any other government entity about changing the imagery.

"To use older, pre-Katrina imagery when more recent images are available without some explanation as to why appears to be fundamentally dishonest," Miller said.

Edith Holleman, staff counsel for the House subcommittee, said it would be useful to understand how Google acquires and manages its imagery because "people see Google and other Internet engines and it's almost like the official word."

Google does provide imagery of New Orleans and the region following Katrina through its more specialized service called Google Earth.

Out of sight, out of mind.

That's the innocent explanation. Even if whomever did it had the best of intentions, or no conscious intention at all. Even if it was just an impulse to put New Orleans' best foot forward for the Google-camera - a knee-jerk reaction to an internal sense of discomfort over a situation that resists solution.

Just as dysfunctional families set aside their differences, smile and say "cheese" for the annual Christmas photograph, we tend to forget that it's people making decisions at corporations. They bring to the job the same coping mechanisms they've developed in problematic personal relationships.

Unfortunately, it's what those who are in powerful positions to make change happen, those who are charged with fixing it, who agreed to take on the job of fixing it and aren't (for whatever reason), are counting on . . . . When they can no longer count on the public's apathy.

"Each day that passes without an impeachment inquiry into the Bush administration, Americans' standards lower, expectations of government's responsibility and action by elected officials extinguish. Democracy ceases, and along with it, respect for rule of law."

Democrats Drop Iran War Authority Provision

The Associated Press reports:

Top House Democrats retreated Monday from an attempt to limit President Bush's authority for taking military action against Iran as the leadership concentrated on a looming confrontation with the White House over the Iraq war.

Officials said Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other members of the leadership had decided to strip from a major military spending bill a requirement for Bush to gain approval from Congress before moving against Iran.

Conservative Democrats as well as lawmakers concerned about the possible impact on Israel had argued for the change in strategy.

The developments occurred as Democrats pointed toward an initial test vote in the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday on the overall bill, which would require the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by Sept. 1, 2008, if not earlier. The measure provides nearly $100 billion to pay for fighting in two wars, and includes more money than the president requested for operations in Afghanistan and what Democrats called training and equipment shortages.

The White House has issued a veto threat against the bill, and Vice President Dick Cheney attacked its supporters in a speech, declaring they "are telling the enemy simply to watch the clock and wait us out."

House GOP Leader John Boehner of Ohio issued a statement that said Democrats shouldn't count on any help passing their legislation.

"Republicans will continue to stand united in this debate, and will oppose efforts by Democrats to undermine the ability of General Petraeus and our troops to achieve victory in the Global War on Terror," he said.

Top Democrats had a different perspective.

Pelosi issued a written statement that said the vice president's remarks prove that "the administration's answer to continuing violence in Iraq is more troops and more treasure from the American people."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a statement that America was less safe today because of the war. The president "must change course, and it's time for the Senate to demand he do it," he added.

The Iran-related proposal stemmed from a desire to make sure Bush did not launch an attack without going to Congress for approval, but drew opposition from numerous members of the rank and file in a series of closed-door sessions last week.

Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in an interview there is widespread fear in Israel about Iran, which is believed to be seeking nuclear weapons and has expressed unremitting hostility about the Jewish state.

"It would take away perhaps the most important negotiating tool that the U.S. has when it comes to Iran," she said of the now-abandoned provision.

Widespread fear in...Israel? Representative Berkley seems confused about who voted for her and whom she represents: She isn't a member of the Knesset, but a member of the United States Congress.

Whatever delusions Shelley Berkley is suffering from, apparently she's not the only one:

"I didn't think it was a very wise idea to take things off the table if you're trying to get people to modify their behavior and normalize it in a civilized way," said Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York.

Several officials said there was widespread opposition to the proposal at a closed-door meeting last week of conservative and moderate Democrats, who said they feared tying the hands of the administration when dealing with an unpredictable and potentially hostile regime in Tehran.

Public opinion has swung the way of Democrats on the issue of the war. More than six in 10 Americans think the conflict was a mistake — the largest number yet found in AP-Ipsos polling.

But Democrats have struggled to find a compromise that can satisfy both liberals who oppose any funding for the military effort and conservatives who do not want to unduly restrict the commander in chief.

"This supplemental should be about supporting the troops and providing what they need," said Rep. Dan Boren, D-Okla., on Monday upon returning from a trip to Iraq. Boren said he plans to oppose any legislation setting a clear deadline for troops to leave.

In his speech, Cheney chided lawmakers who are pressing for tougher action on Iran to oppose the president on the Iraq War.

"It is simply not consistent for anyone to demand aggressive action against the menace posed by the Iranian regime while at the same time acquiescing in a retreat from Iraq that would leave our worst enemies dramatically emboldened and Israel's best friend, the United States, dangerously weakened," he said.

I think this story may just put the romance that the media has for reporting every few months that "Cheney is losing influence with Bush" to rest once and for all.

Cheney's got 'em (our Democratic representatives in Congress) right where he wants 'em. And unless we replace the dead wood Democrats in the 2008 elections (along with Republicans) we're going to be in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Iran (and probably Syria, too, before long) for years and years and years to come.

TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES - A little firewall problem, YouTube tells me. I'm working on it now, and hope to have it fixed shortly. In the meantime, this is a transcript of the video, Chris Matthews interview with Tina Roberts, activist and mother of a U.S. soldier about to return to Iraq for a third tour of duty:

MATTHEWS: Tempers flared during an argument between House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey of Wisconsin and a woman whose son is a Marine. It was all caught on videotape. Here‘s an excerpt of what happened outside the congressman‘s Capitol Hill office.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

REP. DAVID OBEY (D-WI), APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN:

(INAUDIBLE) understand (INAUDIBLE) difference between defunding the troops and ending the war. I hate the war. I voted against it to start with. I was the first guy in Congress to call for Rumsfeld‘s resignation. But we don‘t have the votes to defund the war, and we shouldn‘t because that also means defunding everything (INAUDIBLE) guys who are victims of the war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTHEWS: Well, Tina Richards of Grassroots America is the woman in that videotape, as you can see, and she‘s right here with us this evening. Thank you for coming on. You‘ve earned your spurs. You took on David Obey, chairman of the Appropriations Committee. What did you make of his response to your concern about ending the war?

TINA RICHARDS, GRASSROOTS AMERICA: Well, one thing that I found is that there‘s a lot of frustration on Capitol Hill about how to end the war in Iraq. The one thing that I‘ve heard that really concerns me, though, since I‘ve started from January 29, when I found out my son was being recalled by the Marine mobilization unit to be possibly redeployed for his third tour in Iraq, was that the staffers and aides—when I hear them talking, I listen in to what they‘re saying and I overhear them. They seem to be more concerned about what is going to guarantee a presidential election and an expanse of their majority than they are about the lives that are being lost every day over in Iraq.

MATTHEWS: How do you figure that out? I mean, that‘s a legitimate concern, obviously, that they‘re playing politics. But how can you tell? There‘s Obey. He said—I watched that tape two or three times (INAUDIBLE) out there and he said he voted against the resolution for war back in 2002. He said he‘s trying to pass a supplemental appropriation with language in it which cuts off this war next year sometime. What do you make of his position? Do you think he‘s not telling the truth or what?

RICHARDS: No. There are some really sincere people on that Hill. That I do not doubt. John Murtha—I met with him for over an hour. He is the most sincere man. We really disagree on how we‘re going to get out of Iraq, but he is absolutely very sincere. Lynn Woolsey (ph), Jan Schakowsky (ph) -- I could name...

MATTHEWS: What‘s your position on...

RICHARDS: ... John Conyers...

MATTHEWS: ... how we should get out?

RICHARDS: Well, truly, when it goes back, that the power of the purse is what Congress has. That is the one thing that they do have, is to stop the funding for the war. I was listening to hearings...

MATTHEWS: That means cutting off the money, period.

RICHARDS: That means cutting off the money, which the generals have testified on the Hill, which—I‘ve been personally at those hearings where they said that they would have to reduce forward combat operations.

It does not mean that our troops and our—will not have their armor or not have their bullets or not have their food. It means that they‘ll have to cease forward combat operations, which means that it will then start to we can start the withdrawal. And there‘s...

MATTHEWS: If you had a son in the field right now, would you want to hear that Congress had cut off some of the funding for the war?

RICHARDS: My son...

MATTHEWS: While he‘s in the field.

RICHARDS: My son may be in the field...

MATTHEWS: No, but if he‘s in that field, would you have the same point of view.

RICHARDS: Yes. Absolutely. My son—March 24, he has to report in, and he may very well be over there when this goes through. Yes, absolutely, I am saying that. We have to stop funding this war. I keep hearing politicians saying that they‘re against the war, that they originally voted against it, yet year after year, they will continue to fund this war, to...

MATTHEWS: You know why, though. Tell me why. Why do you think?

RICHARDS: I think a lot...

MATTHEWS: You‘re smart. You‘re lobbying this issue. Why do you think a guy like Obey—he said it to you. I heard him say that. I watched the tape two or three times. He said, We can‘t cut off the funding because if we cut off the funding, we will be accused of cutting off armor and equipment for the soldiers fighting in the field.

RICHARDS: Exactly. And then he says that we can‘t get the votes. Yet you have the leadership of the Democratic Party, you have Nancy Pelosi, you have Steny Hoyer, you have Chris Van Holland (ph) all saying that, We can‘t get the votes, and then they use the Republican talking points as to what is happening if they do stop the funding. And it makes no sense. If they...

MATTHEWS: Well, they‘re saying two things. They‘re saying they don‘t have the 218 to pass the majority, and then they‘re saying, But if we do pass the majority, they‘ll kill us politically by saying, They‘ve cut off reinforcements to our troops in the field. You know that‘s what they‘re going to say.

RICHARDS: You know what? Yes. And I understand that the Republican talking points are exactly that. And the point is, is that our sons and daughters are dying over there every day. By the tens of thousands they‘re coming back, and they‘re not getting their treatment. The VA has been horrible towards the treatment of my son. You saw Walter Reed recently...

MATTHEWS: Obey said that they put an extra billion in, in this appropriation, the supplemental, to make sure the medical treatment of people like your son is better. He says you have to fund this military in order to get better treatment for the wounded. What do you make of that?

RICHARDS: Well, the point is, is that they said that—the generals have testified that they‘ll have to reduce their forward combat operations, and that‘s what‘s going to change if they don‘t do the supplemental. The extra money is something that they can appropriate through this next coming budget or appropriate from somewhere else, but I just don‘t see that as an alternative to justify...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: How do you think...

RICHARDS: ... justify maybe treating a few soldiers better, but at the same time, they‘re going to have three soldiers a day dying over in Iraq.

MATTHEWS: How do we—how do you achieve your goal of ending this war in Iraq? How do you do it?

RICHARDS: There is the Lee amendment that asked for the fully funded withdrawal of the troops, which Obey had responded as a dismissal, not even to consider it, that I didn‘t know what I was talking about, without even looking...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: ... Barbara Lee of Oakland and Berkeley, yes.

RICHARDS: Yes. And he didn‘t even want to discuss that. And that was partly why I‘ve been on the Hill every single day...

MATTHEWS: But how many votes...

RICHARDS: ... trying to lobby Congress.

MATTHEWS: ... do you think Barbara Lee‘s proposal would do, where it says, We‘ll spend enough money to bring the troops home but not to keep them there? How many votes do you think that would get in the Congress?

RICHARDS: I think that if Nancy Pelosi...

MATTHEWS: Fifty?

RICHARDS: ... and Steny Hoyer and the Democrat leadership stopped exerting pressure to hush everybody that is coming out against it and started to support it, I think that they would have the votes to pass it.

MATTHEWS: But they don‘t think so.

RICHARDS: Because they‘re not trying. They‘re using the Republican talking points. As long as they‘re using the Republican talking points...

MATTHEWS: Are you saying that they‘re really for the war?

RICHARDS: I‘m saying that they‘re trying to do what‘s politically savvy and not what‘s best for our troops.

MATTHEWS: How do you think they can actually get the 218 votes that are necessary to pass a majority and cut off the money?

RICHARDS: Well, I think...

MATTHEWS: They say they can‘t find those votes. I heard Obey yelling at you. He got overwrought there. You got him excited.

RICHARDS: I was hearing that, and then...

MATTHEWS: And he was saying, We just—I don‘t have a magic wand. He opened up his coat like this, he says, I don‘t have a magic wand in here. Where‘s my 218 votes? Could you help him do it? Would you have—do you have enough power in your group, or anybody in the anti-war forces, to get 218 Democrats to end this war?

MATTHEWS: I‘m just one person. I‘m a mother.

MATTHEWS: I know. You got...

RICHARDS: And I spoke with Reverend Nearwood (ph) the other day, and he said the power of a mother‘s love can bring down nations.

MATTHEWS: But can it get 218 votes in the House of Representatives?

RICHARDS: I think if Nancy Pelosi would actually start listening to the people and to the public—I mean, the nation has been against this war. The nation did not vote for a new direction, the nation voted for us to get out of Iraq. And they need to catch up with what the American public wants, which is to get us out of Iraq, to get our soldiers out of the middle of a civil war. There is no “winning” something when you‘re in a civil war, in an occupation.

We won the war. We won the war back in the very first few months of the war. It‘s time to take our sons and daughters out of Iraq and return them home. And if they start working together, instead of using their leadership powers to hush everybody and to quiet the anti-war and started working with us and figuring out a way, they would have the votes.

MATTHEWS: Good luck.

RICHARDS: Thank you very much.

MATTHEWS: I think you‘re going to need it, though. Thank you very much, Tina Richards, fighting very much against this war in Iraq.

If Democrats can't do it, can't get legislation through Congress to end the war in Iraq now when they have a certain majority, they won't do it later when they have either won the White House in 2008 and more seats in Congress, or they haven't won the White House and more seats.

In the case of the former, if they aren't taking the chance now, why would they after having failed to deliver on the mandate they got from the 2006 elections (to end the Iraq war)? And if it's the latter (if they lose control over Congress and fail to take the White House), they won't get the opportunity to end the war - Republicans will control business on the floor of both houses, they'll keep the war going and clamp down further on any dissent and opposition to their money-making (for them, the Halliburton class) cash-cow.

This is the time to shut this war operation down, turn our attention to Afghanistan and push a sane foreign policy that treats all people equitably and distributes the wealth.

To Bush-Cheney, Republican-Loyalty Is A One-Way Street . . . .

. . . . All Republicans are to bow, scrape and cave-in to the Neo-Cons.

The Bush administration won't oppose rescinding U.S. attorney hiring changes slipped into the Patriot Act Reauthorization bill passed last year, but first the legislation has to reach his desk, and certain Senate Republicans are blocking the way.

On Wednesday's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, Alison Stewart talks with George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley about yet another crisis the Bush administration has created in government. Turley had some choice words about the provision that enabled Bush to bypass oversight and our elected officials who let them get away with it:

The AP's report:

The Bush administration, bowing to an uproar over its firing of eight federal prosecutors, won't oppose legislation changing the rules for replacing them, senators said Thursday.

"The administration would not object to the bill," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., referring to legislation to remove the administration's power to fill the vacancies without Senate confirmation. He spoke with reporters after a meeting involving Judiciary Committee senators and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Schumer, Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, the panel's senior Republican, said Gonzales also agreed to let five of his top aides involved in the firings talk with the committee.

The committee was prepared to authorize subpoenas for the officials.
Six of the eight ousted prosecutors told House and Senate committees on Tuesday they were dismissed without explanation. Some said the dismissals followed calls from members of Congress concerning sensitive political corruption investigations.

Others said they feared the Justice Department would retaliate against them for talking with reporters and giving lawmakers information about their dismissals.

The meeting with Gonzales occurred a few hours after Leahy's committee agreed to postpone a vote on subpoenas that would have compelled five of Gonzales' aides who were involved in the firings to testify about the details, publicly and under oath.

Tuesday's eight hours of hearings by the Senate panel and the House Judiciary Committee turned into a display of mudslinging. The fired prosecutors insisted they had stellar records and didn't deserve the Justice Department saying most of them were replaced for poor performance.

At the House hearing, a Justice Department official recited before TV cameras the shortcomings of each of the ousted U.S. attorneys.

Gonzales came under harsh criticism during Thursday's Senate committee meeting, even from senators of his own party. Specter suggested Gonzales might suffer a similar professional fate as the fired prosecutors.

"One day there will be a new attorney general, maybe sooner rather than later," Specter said.

In private, Specter offered Gonzales some stiff advice: Acknowledge that the matter is serious.

"And that he take the next step and realize that there is a significant blemish on the records of these individuals," Specter told reporters, referring to the prosecutors. Further, "That he acknowledge that the problem arose because he failed to state the reasons why these people were asked to resign."

Gonzales refused to comment as he exited the private meeting.

Democrats felt the administration had taken advantage of a change in the Patriot Act that took effect a year ago, which lets the attorney general appoint federal prosecutors indefinitely, without Senate confirmation.

Gonzales has denied that was his intent and said he will submit the names of all appointees to the Senate approval process.

Nonetheless, he told senators at Thursday's meeting that the administration would not try to block legislation designed to reverse the change in the law. Sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the bill would impose a 120-day deadline on attorneys general for the nomination and Senate confirmation of appointees to any of the nation's 94 federal prosecutors' posts. After 120 days, appointment authority would go to federal district courts.

Previously, the administration said 120 was an unreasonably short time.

Apparently, it's not as done a deal as the AP is reporting.

The Washington Post reports:

Under the previous system, the local federal district court would appoint a temporary replacement until a permanent candidate was named and confirmed by the Senate.

Democrats and some Republicans said they were concerned the Justice Department was attempting to use the new provision to appoint political cronies without Senate oversight and that the firings were a means to that end. Gonzales and other Justice officials have argued that the old replacement system was inefficient and unconstitutional.

Democrats have attempted to attach to several pieces of legislation language to remove the provision, but they have been blocked repeatedly by Kyl. Senate aides cautioned that Gonzales's assertion that the administration will stand down did not guarantee passage, as Senate Republicans could still block the measure.

But after their meeting, Leahy said Gonzales assured him Bush will sign the bill if it reaches his desk. "My understanding is the president would," Leahy said.

For the next two years of the Bush administration and the upcoming elections, we can expect all Republicans to fight tooth-and-nail against everything and anything that they think could be perceived as favoring Democrats. Republicans have been successful at getting everything that they've gone after by overreaching and never backing down. By wearing down all opposition, which hasn't been all that much when it's been from the Democrats, who play by Queensbury rules.

Democrats have got to push for the rescission of the entire Patriot Act, and every last anti-populist piece of legislation that Bush and the GOP has gotten passed these last years. Canada has rescinded their version of the Patriot Act, enacted in the days after 9/11/01, but our abominable assault on civil rights and our Constitution remains. Democrats enable Bush and Republicans to remain in power when they allow the fear-mongering that has paralyzed Americans' good sense. Democrats have got to learn 21st century street-fighting, how to stir more than one pot at a time, and start putting in more than 3 days a week working.

Canada Scraps Anti-Terror Laws

Reuter's reports:

Canada's Parliament scrapped two contentious anti-terror measures on Tuesday, angering the minority Conservative government, which accuses opposition legislators of being soft on terror.

The House of Commons voted 159-124 not to renew the provisions -- which expire on March 1 -- on the grounds that they had never been used.

One provision allows police to arrest people suspected of planning an imminent terrorist attack and hold them for three days without charge. The other provides for investigative hearings in which a judge can compel witnesses to testify about alleged terrorist activities.

The measures were introduced by the then-Liberal government after the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide attacks on the United States. In a bid to allay fears over human rights, Ottawa agreed the provisions would expire after five years.

The Conservative government controls just 125 of the 308 seats in the House and did not have the votes to extend the measures.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, whose Conservatives won power in January 2006 on a platform that promised to crack down on crime, says the Liberals of Stephane Dion are soft on terror and cannot be trusted to keep Canadians safe.

"It is time the leader of the Liberal Party acted like Canadians should trust his judgment on national security issues," he told Parliament on Tuesday.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said Canada was sending the wrong message to allies and potential terrorists. "You say you're backing off. That, frankly, is not a message that I want going out there," Day told CTV television a few minutes before the vote.

The Liberals will be the main threat to the Conservatives in elections that some political observers expect this year.

Dion rejects the charges, saying Harper is using fears of terrorism and crime in a bid to win votes.

"Soft on terrorism? That's awful. It will not stop me from finding the best solutions. I will not be intimidated by these bullying strategies," he told Reuters on Monday.

"I know very well how important it is to protect Canadians against terrorism ... I came to the conclusion with my caucus that the two provisions we are speaking about are not helpful and represent a risk to individual rights."

Some government officials suggested a compromise on Monday whereby the measures would be extended by six months to give a special parliamentary committee time to review the matter further. Dion said the offer had been made far too late.

The vote was the second time in a week that elements of Canada's anti-terror legislation had been eliminated.

Last Friday, the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed foreign suspects to be detained indefinitely without trial on the basis of secret evidence.

"Now we see that a nation can regain its senses after calm reflection and begin to rein back such excesses," the New York Times said in its main editorial on Tuesday, calling on the administration of President George W. Bush to take similar steps in the United States.

Is Canada now a nation of sitting ducks, ripe for a "terror attack" to change their minds? Or is Canada well-positioned and in the driver's seat for a lucrative deal with the U.S. in exchange for resurrecting these anti-terror laws?

I can't imagine any scenario whereby the Bush-Cheney administration will tolerate our closest neighbors bailing out on their war on terror. Because if Canada can hold human and civil rights paramount, could a Democratically-controlled U.S. Congress be far behind in overturning the Patriot Act and last year's Torture Bill (Military Commissions Act of 2006)?

We can only hope.

Meet The New Republicans in Congress

This one isn't exactly new, exchanging his House seat for a Senate seat.



USA Today reports:

Around his hometown of Muskogee, Oklahoma's new senator is best known for delivering more than 3,000 little Okies as a family doctor.

But in Washington, Tom Coburn's former colleagues in the House of Representatives remember a maverick conservative who in 1999 almost single-handedly forced Congress to cut nearly $1 billion in spending. The Republican vows to be just as tight with taxpayers' money when he returns to Capitol Hill as a senator in January.

Coburn, 56, earned a bachelor's degree in accounting from Oklahoma State University and worked in his family's optical business for almost a decade. When the business was sold, he enrolled at the University of Oklahoma Medical School and, at age 35, became a doctor.

It's not clear whether Coburn will continue to practice one day a week, as he did while in the House, after he replaces retiring 24-year Republican Sen. Don Nickles.

Coburn initially wasn't interested in running for the Senate seat. He had just survived colon cancer and had left Washington in 2001 after a self-imposed limit of three terms in the House. Brad Carson, the Democrat he defeated Tuesday, replaced him in Oklahoma's 2nd Congressional District.

But then conservatives, including the anti-tax Club for Growth, urged him to oppose former Oklahoma City mayor Kirk Humphreys in the GOP primary. Humphreys was the choice of party leaders. Coburn couldn't resist sticking it to the establishment and ran. To the dismay of many Republicans, he won.

Coburn then bested Carson, 37, by painting the moderate Democrat as a liberal who would align himself in the Senate with Edward Kennedy and Hillary Rodham Clinton. Conservative Oklahomans opted for Coburn, a budget hawk who still talks about the need for a balanced budget, even if many of his fellow Republicans don't. He also appealed to religious conservatives with his stands against abortion and gay marriage.

But Coburn's candidacy was almost sunk by controversies of his own making.

He caused a stir when he said he favored the death penalty for "abortionists and other people who take life." He called the race with Carson a choice between "good and evil." Most damaging, he was forced to respond when reports surfaced about an old lawsuit against him by a woman who said he sterilized her without written permission.

Coburn and his wife, Carolyn, have three children.

Coburn is one of those short-sighted, fiscally-conservative, solidly-votes-with-his-fellow-Republicans-overwhelmingly kind of guy who goes to Congress to not vote. Whether it's a Defense Authorization Act, or for hydroelectric plants around the nation, or for cleaning up the nation's water supply (or locating new sources for water), Coburn takes the "not voting" route about 10% of the time. Even on legislation that has negligible financial impact, such as H CON RES 282 (Declaring the “Person of the Century” for the 20th Century to Have Been the American G.I.) and H R 3591, which would have provided for the award of a gold medal on behalf of the Congress to former President Ronald Reagan and his wife Nancy Reagan "in recognition of their service to the nation."

Some of Coburn's "not voting" calls into question his committment to his alternative profession, medicine. I mean, how can a physician not vote on H CON RES 76: Recognizing the Social Problem of Child Abuse and Neglect, and Supporting Efforts to Enhance Public Awareness of It, H CON RES 247: Expressing the Sense of Congress Regarding the Importance of Organ, Tissue, Bone Marrow, and Blood Donation and Supporting National Donor Day, S 632: Poison Control Center Enhancement and Awarenesss Act. How does a man who runs as a "good Christian" justify not voting at all on H R 2130: Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Prevention Drug Act of 1999, or H RES 423: War on Drugs to Protect Children, or H CON RES 107: Expressing the Sense of Congress Concerning the Sexual Relationships Between Adults and Children?

According to Project Vote Smart, Coburn rates 100% with the National Right to Life Committee, 0% with Planned Parenthood, high with business groups and low with human rights groups. The Christian Coalition gives him 100%, the National PTA gives him 14%. On environmental issues, the League of Conservation Voters gives him 13%, and American Land Rights organization loves him with 93%.