Politics Blog

Define Yourself in 25 Questions

2009-07-27T05:32:00.000-07:00

It's mainly for chicks, but hell, I take the quizzes in Mrs Cosmo, so why not this? You might get to know me better with this.

Forthwith:

1. Do you have a personal hero? If so, who is it?

My old man. Korean war vet, accomplished CPA, faithful husband and father, self educated philosopher, pillar of the community, conservative activist in his younger days, Eagle Scout, and when he died, dozens of people at his funeral and visiting hours told me the same thing: "he was an honorable man, and there are very few people you can say that about." Yeah, he had feet of clay, but even so, he jumped pretty high. I hope that when I die, people say the same thing about me.

2. What is your favorite book of all time and what made it so fucking good?

Moby Dick. The opening paragraph just kills me.

Call me Ishmael. Some years ago -- never mind how long precisely -- having little or no money in my purse, and nothing particular to interest me on shore, I thought I would sail about a little and see the watery part of the world. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen, and regulating the ciruclation. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the mouth; whenever it is a damp, drizzly November in my soul; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before coffin warehouses, and bringing up the rear of every funeral I meet; and especially whenever my hypos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately stepping into the street, and methodically knocking people's hats off -- then, I account it high time to get to sea as soon as I can.

Damn. That is just so good. It's the best thing ever written, with the possible exception of Genesis 1:1, and for fuck's sake, God himself wrote that.

As a runner up, Hayek's "Road to Serfdom", without which we would undoubtedly be a socialist nation; Ken Heller's Catch-22, in which irony was born; Conrad's "Heart of Darkness", and the Haynes manual for the Honda VTR 1000 twin, a mechanical thing of beauty. And anything by Milton, A.E. Housman, Joyce, Mencken, T.S. Eliot, or Ezra Pound (especially Personae. And Penthouse Letters isn't bad.

3. What does “diversity” mean to you?

It means accepting the fact that not everyone is the same; trying to treat everyone the same in my interactions with them, and trying to make sure (as a lawyer) that they get equal treatment under the law. It does not mean equality of results...

4. What is the wildest thing you’ve ever done?

Hah. Yeah right. I have a security clearance, you know. Kinda depends - with our without clothes? When I was a soldier, I was a wild man. Completely fearless, anti-social, and oversexed.

Man, even I didn't like me back then. But I sure had fun.

5. Do you regret doing it?

Hell no! None of it. That's why we're young.

6. Can you drive a stick shift?

I can drive stick, manual, control yoke, joy stick, or differential on a tracked vehicle. You name it. Just don't ask me to drive a golf ball; I almost never go lower than a 3 wood.

7. What’s the highest speed you ever traveled in a car?

Only about 170 or so, in a buddy's '85 Mustang. He had a hopped up 351 in it. He let me drive - but I didn't break 160 in it. I did used to go around 180 on the autobahn on my Yamaha FZR 1000 (a big motorcycle) pretty regularly. And me & the Missus used to tour around Europe doing 140, two up...

8. Were you driving, or riding at the time?

Riding in the car, operating the bike.

9. Which is better: snakes or spiders?

Spiders. You can tie a rope around them, and make them fight similarly harnessed scorpions and small rats and so forth.

10. What is the most disgusting thing you ever ate?

Dog. Although it was only mentally disgusting. It tasted like... well, like wet dog. I like wet dogs, grew up with labs, huskies and shepards, and all of them swam... so wet dog is a pleasant smell.

The most disgusting thing in terms of taste and texture, was curdled goats blood, which is evidently a bedouin delicacy. In addition to the bad taste, I wound up with a six week long bout of dysentary -- two weeks longer than the dysentary I got from eating the VietNamese dog. So yeah, it was more disgusting in a number of ways. I've eaten butterflies and worms and grubs too... don't ask. They were funny tasting, but when you are hungry, you are hungry. I'll leave it at that.

11. Have you ever shit your pants? Be HONEST!

Not today.

12. Was losing your virginity an enjoyable experience?

Yeah. What was that country song -- "Older Women Make Beautiful Lovers"...

13. Should oral sex be outlawed or encouraged?

Should be compulsory. And graded. The only problem is, the Russians would always come out on top, because they'd bribe the French judges...

14. Name one man with a fine ass.

Eeeeeeekkk. Whaddya think I am... gay? Well, okay. Any big league baseball player, other than David Wells. That's what my wife says, anyhow. And she says David Wells has other charms.

15. Do you watch golf on television? If not, will you iron my shirts?

Yes. No. Get a Korean laundress, asshole. Extra starch on the collar for you.

16. Who is Martha Burk?

More importantly, who cares?

17. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

I'd be kinder, gentler, more caring, and a better human being.

Oh, who am I kidding. I'd swap out my hands for giant killer robot death ray guns.

18. Do you eat raw oysters?

Is this related to number 13? Yes, I eat raw oysters. I eat the shit out of them. As doctor Suess might say:

I do so like oysters and beer,
I like them there, I like them here.
I them in a plane or train;
In the sun, or in the rain.

I like oysters with red sauce;
With my wife, or with my boss.
I will eat them with white wine;
I suck 'em down, they are so fine.

But best of all is with horse radish;
nothing rhymes, with horse radish.
But one thing is so very clear;
They do taste better with good beer.

Cross Street Market in Baltimore. That's where I eat raw oysters by the bucket, and swill huge $4 craft brew beers. You can't beat eating oysters and getting faced, while sitting at the exact same spot, in the exact same bar, where H.L. Mencken used to sit, eat oysters and get faced.

19. Are you claustrophobic?

No. What are you, blind?

Oh, you can't see the black leather bondage hood I have on right now...

20. If you rode a motorcycle, would you wear a helmet even if the law said you didn‘t have to?

Yeah. The Hurt Report (really, that's the name, go look it up) pretty conclusively demonstrated that the benefits of wearing a helmet outweighed the minimally increased risk due to added weight on the neck, loss of some hearing. The anti-helmet folks really play up the advantages of being able to hear surrounding traffic, and the increased risk of whiplash injury from the helmet -- but Harry Hurt's exhaustive study shows it just ain't so. Howcome? Because most multiple vehicle motorcycle accidents happen in front of the biker, with a car turning in front of the bike, or running a light in front of the bike. It doesn't matter what you can hear, or whether there's a risk of whiplash, because you wind up T-boning the car, or getting T-boned, flying and skidding on your face. (If you, God willing, clear the cage).

If that doesn't sell ya (and that means you, Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury), then exhibit #1 for the defense is Gary Busey. If you can look at him, and decide that you would rather ride without your brain bucket, you are either incredibly dumb, or incredibly brave.*

That said, I support people's right to go without a helmet, insofar as they support my right to not pay insurance to subsidize the brain injuries that flow naturally from riding without one.

*This does not include slow cruising on warm summer nights, with a little hottie on the back of the bike. That simply must be done without a helmet. At least if I wind up a vegetable, my last memories will be happy happy happy.

21. Name five great Presidents.

Washington (no brainer), Sam Adams (brewer, patriot, president), Teddy Roosevelt (bully; American triumphalism), Cal Coolidge (most problems will just roll into the ditch, if you just do nothing), Reagan (America's back... and its pissed)

22. Name three shitty Presidents.

Most of the rest. Clinton and Andrew Jackson especially; Nixon the same, only less so. (Clinton and Nixon get asterisks -- decent public policy wonks who brought shame and bitterness on the office and on the country).

23. Now call me fanny and slap my ass. Just kidding.

I hope so.

24. This is the 4th of July. Did you set off any fireworks?

Yup.

25. If you could have dinner and conversation with anyone in the history of the planet, who would you choose?

Jesus, for a lot of reasons. First of all, there's the whole philosophy thing. He's more influential than anyone other than Marcuse, or maybe Nietsche among college sophomores. Then there's the food and booze - you'll never run out, as long as you have at least one fish, one piece of bread and some water. And finally, if you eat dinner with him at the right time and place, you are saved forever, hallelujah. It's win/win.

Either him, or Oliver Reed. If you have to ask why Oliver Reed, then you aren't much of a drinking man, and I don't want to know you anyhow.

Historic vote could remove California's governor from his job

2003-08-06T21:39:00.000-07:00

A prominent California Democrat said on Wednesday, August 6 that she would not square off against her state's Democratic governor in an upcoming recall election. The announcement by Sen. Dianne Feinstein comes as Gov. Gray Davis faces a kind of political confrontation that no governor in the U.S. has faced in more than 80 years.

The Republican-led effort to remove Davis from his job has been fueled by dissatisfaction over an ongoing energy crisis in California and by a $38 billion budget deficit, which occurs when a government has spent more money than it has earned. A petition containing 897,158 signatures - or 12 percent of the total votes cast for governor in 2002 - was required to trigger the recall election. Officials from California's 58 counties reported that more than 1.3 million valid signatures were gathered.

Feinstein called the effort to remove Davis a "terrible mistake" and said that "attention should be focused on working in a bipartisan manner" to solve the state's problems. She also said that a recall would increase instability and uncertainty in California and would hamper efforts to help the state get back on its feet.

An election on Oct. 7 will determine whether or not Davis is actually recalled. The election will have two parts. First, voters will be asked whether to recall Davis. Then, they will get to choose from a list of possible successors. If voters decide in the first part of the election to remove Davis, the candidate who wins the most votes in the second question will become California's new governor.

Davis has called the recall effort "a hostile takeover" by Republicans. He added, "The voters have a right to have another election, and I will present my credentials. But I think at the end of the day, (the voters) will allow the state to go in the direction that I'm trying to lead it, not to slam it into reverse."

Davis contends that a recall election in October would cost the state about $35 million to conduct. He says that if the ballot were to be held at the same time as the March 2 presidential primary, the state could save that money.

However, U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, a Republican who is challenging Davis in the recall vote, said that he "wanted this race as soon as possible because the people of California know that Gray Davis created the (budget) deficit; Gray Davis tried to cover it up - successfully covered it up in the last election - now that they know he lied, they also have begun to realize that he has no fix for the problem. So if you create a problem, lie about a problem, and have no fix for a problem, it's time for you to go as soon as possible."

Issa has spent $1.5 million of his own money to fund the recall - a move questioned by many Democrats. Feinstein said the recall "demonstrates that virtually anyone with $1.5 million can hire professional petition gatherers to produce enough signatures to force a recall of any state-elected officials. This sets a terrible precedent which ought to cause us all to think very carefully."

Now that the vote is scheduled, several other candidates besides Issa have been working to get on the ballot by Saturday, August 9 - the deadline for gubernatorial hopefuls to file their paperwork. In order to get on the recall ballot, a candidate needs to pay a $3,500 fee and obtain 65 signatures of his or her supporters. Among those planning to run are a model, a charity volunteer, and a teacher who says he wants his students to have a first-hand example of politics at work.

The state's major Democratic officeholders, including Feinstein, are not among those planning to put their names on the ballot. Strategists from both parties believe that Davis would be more likely to keep his job if there are no Democratic alternatives.

If Davis were to be ousted, he would be the second governor in U.S. history to be recalled from office. The first was North Dakota Gov. Lynn J. Frazier in 1921.

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2003/fyi/news/08/06/davis.recall/

Pre-Sept. 11 Intelligence Failures Added Up

2003-07-25T10:33:00.000-07:00

WASHINGTON — U.S. Naval ships were in position in the North Arabian sea ready to attack Usama bin Laden between 1999 and 2001, but no spies were close enough to the terrorist leader to help us target him, Sen. Bob Graham (search), D-Fla., said Thursday.

Last year Graham served as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (search), which researched intelligence failures before Sept. 11. The report on those failures was released Thursday.

Congressional Reports: Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001

"The attacks of Sept. 11 could have been prevented if the right combination of skill, cooperation, creativity and some good luck had been brought to task," Graham told a news conference.

The report describes a series of missed opportunities and government gaffes going as far back as 1998, when the intelligence community first heard that bin Laden was plotting an attack in the United States.

The report finds that in 1998, CIA Director George Tenet declared war on bin Laden, but the FBI, Defense Department and others were not aware of Tenet's declaration.

The Pentagon and CIA, the report says, were at odds over what to do about Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

"Senior U.S. military officials were reluctant to use U.S. military assets to conduct offensive counterterrorism efforts" partly because they believed "the intelligence community was unable to provide the intelligence needed to support military operations," the report states.

A Series of Missteps

The declassified report, over 800 pages in length, concludes that no single bit of information could have prevented the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, even though U.S. intelligence agencies failed to communicate with each other or stop Al Qaeda's buildup in the country.

"Our work started with the recognition of a sobering fact: Al Qaeda was better at planning the attacks and keeping their plans secret than the United States government was at uncovering them," said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., ex-officio member of the committee.

While the authors look at problems within other agencies, including the CIA and National Security Agency (search), the report is particularly harsh on the FBI, noting a series of missteps.

For example, the CIA and the FBI were aware in early 2000 that two of the hijackers, Khalid Al-Mihdhar and Nawaf Al-Hazmi, had ties to Al Qaeda and had made calls to the Middle East while living in San Diego. The two were later found to have been on the plane that crashed into the Pentagon.

In early 2000, the CIA had learned independently of the Al Qaeda connections of Al-Mihdhar and Al-Hazmi, but they failed to put the two on terrorism watch lists that might have prevented their entry into the United States.

The two also lived in the home of a longtime FBI informant who was never made aware of who they were. That same informant may also have had contacts with a third hijacker, Hani Hanjour.

In that case, the FBI's San Diego field office did not get enough information from the CIA and FBI headquarters about the search for the hijackers. "As a result, the FBI missed the opportunity to task a uniquely well-positioned informant — who denies having any advance knowledge of the plot — to collect information about the hijackers and their plans in the United States," the report notes.

An agent from the San Diego office told the committee, "It would have made a huge difference'' if they had been privy to the intelligence.

Also, as far back as 1998, the intelligence community received reports that a member of Al Qaeda was planning operations on U.S. targets, including a scheme to hijack U.S. planes. In fact, two individuals "successfully evaded" checkpoints in a dry run at a New York airport, according to a December 1998 intelligence report cited by the joint committee.

A fall 1998 intelligence report says that Al Qaeda was considering a new attack using biological toxins in food, water or ventilation systems of U.S. embassies. And a spring 1999 intelligence report stated that bin Laden's supporters in Afghanistan were experimenting with enhancing conventional explosives with radioactive material, the report notes.

The report criticizes the FBI in particular for failing to devote resources to counterterrorism and failing to locate Al Qaeda cells in the United States. It also points at a larger, government-wide failure to take the threat of terrorism seriously.

"The criticism regarding the FBI's limited attention to the dangers at home ... reflects a large gap in the nation's counterterrorism structure ... a failure to focus on how an international group might target the United States itself," the report says. "No agency appears to have been responsible ... for regularly assessing the threat in the homeland."

Among the more troubling findings:

— The NSA had intercepted "some communications that indicated possible impending terrorist activity" between Sept. 8 and Sept. 10, but these were not translated or disseminated until after the attacks.

— The CIA had received unconfirmed intelligence before the attacks that suspected Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed had been in the United States as recently as May 2001, possibly to meet with recruits and colleagues already in the country. Mohammed, Al Qaeda's director of operations, is now in U.S. custody.

— The Sept. 11 hijackers had substantial contacts around the world and were not isolated cells.

But even with all the failures, no "smoking gun" has emerged to suggest the government could have stopped the Sept. 11 attacks that killed more than 3,000 people in New York, Washington, D.C., and Pennsylvania.

"While the intelligence community had amassed a great deal of valuable intelligence regarding Usama bin Laden and his terrorist activities, none of it identified the time, place and specific nature of the attacks that were planned for Sept. 11, 2001,'' the report notes.

"There is no question there were some lapses of intelligence, failures of communication," said Sen. Trent Lott (search), R- Miss., who added that for 20 years the intelligence community had been ignored and had failed to modernize to change with the times.

"I think since then they have made and they are making efforts to do a better job, to exchange information, to communicate. Still, I think they have more they need to do, but this report will show that there were some things that should have been picked up on that could have been picked up on, that were not. I don't think there's any one defining moment that you can point to," Lott told Fox News.

Referring to the creation of a Homeland Security Department (search), improved information sharing between government agencies and efforts to freeze terrorist assets, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the report "confirms the importance of the strong, aggressive stance we have already taken to better protect the American people at home and abroad."

Saudi Connection?

Parts of the report will remain classified, including a section that reportedly discusses whether there was any support for the hijackers from Saudi Arabia.

However, the report notes that the lack of Saudi cooperation may have contributed to the attacks.

"A high-level U.S. government officer cited greater Saudi cooperation when asked how the Sept. 11 attacks might have been prevented,'' the report notes.

For example, a Saudi individual may have been aware in May 2001 of an "upcoming al Qaeda operation'' but the Saudi government did not cooperate with the intelligence community both before and after the Sept. 11 attacks, the report notes.

Further, there are suggestions that the hijackers may have received "foreign support,'' but much of the information that could implicate the Saudi government remains classified.

"Through its investigation, the Joint Inquiry developed information suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States,'' the report states. "The Joint Inquiry's review confirmed that the Intelligence Community also has information, much of which has yet to independently verified, concerning these potential sources of support.''

In July 2002, a CIA officer sent a cable expressing his concerns that "persons associated with a foreign government may have provided financial support to some of the Sept. 11 hijackers while they were living in the United States," the report notes.

An FBI agent based in San Diego ended up with a copy of the cable, but never sent it on to FBI headquarters. It should be noted that the joint committee did not talk to any Saudi government officials during its investigation.

McClellan said "80 percent" of the report is being made public, with only the most sensitive national security sections — for instance, sources' names — under wraps.

But Pelosi, who was ranking member on the House intelligence panel when the investigation began, decried the report as "overclassified" and said the administration's "obsession with secrecy does not serve the nation well."

"The administration's failure to cooperate fully with the joint inquiry showed an unwillingness to exhaust every effort to discover information that might assist in better protecting the American people," she said.

Fox News' Anna Stolley, Julie Asher, Malini Bawa and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Bush, Blair defend Iraq intelligence

2003-07-18T16:40:00.000-07:00

By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush, standing shoulder to shoulder with British Prime Minister Tony Blair in the White House, yesterday said U.S. and British intelligence on weapons of mass destruction "made a clear and compelling case that Saddam Hussein was a threat to security and peace."

"I strongly believe he was trying to reconstitute his nuclear-weapons program," Mr. Bush said at a joint press conference, adding that after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, "it became clear that Saddam Hussein was much closer to developing nuclear weapons than anybody ever imagined."

The British prime minister was equally strong in backing British intelligence that charged Saddam had sought to obtain uranium from Niger — a claim that U.S. intelligence agencies now believe was probably erroneous.

He said U.S. and British forces were not deployed to Iraq "on the basis of some speculative intelligence."

"We based our decisions on good, sound intelligence. And ... our people are going to find out the truth. And the truth will say that this intelligence was good intelligence," Mr. Blair said at the White House, shortly after telling the U.S. Congress that Saddam's brutality and the enormous risks of being wrong about his weapons mean the war was morally justified, regardless of intelligence details.

Under fire from Democrats on Capitol Hill for citing British intelligence about the Niger uranium in his January State of the Union address, the president said, "I take responsibility for putting our troops into action.

"The regime of Saddam Hussein was a grave and growing threat. Given Saddam's history of violence and aggression, it would have been reckless to place our trust in his sanity or his restraint. As long as I hold this office, I will never risk the lives of American citizens by assuming the good will of dangerous enemies," Mr. Bush said.

While the validity of a British intelligence report charging that Iraq had sought to buy nuclear material from Niger has been questioned, Mr. Blair stood by other intelligence that Saddam was attempting to restart his atomic-weapons program.

"The British intelligence that we have, we believe is genuine. We stand by that intelligence," Mr. Blair said. "And one interesting fact I think people don't generally know, in case people should think that the whole idea of a link between Iraq and Niger was some invention, in the 1980s we know for sure that Iraq purchased ... about 270 tons of uranium from Niger. So I think we should just factor that into our thinking there."

Mr. Bush also said that enemies of the United States are seeking to undermine efforts to bring democracy to Iraq.
"We are being tested in Iraq. Our enemies are looking for signs of hesitation. They're looking for weakness. They will find none," the president said.

The two leaders made clear that removing Saddam from power ends a clear and present threat of terrorism and advances the effort to squash terror cells across the world.

"The removal of Saddam Hussein is an integral part of winning the war against terror," Mr. Bush said. "A free Iraq will make it much less likely that we'll find violence in that immediate neighborhood. A free Iraq will make it more likely we'll get a Middle Eastern peace. A free Iraq will have incredible influence on the states that could potentially unleash terrorist activities on us."

Both leaders also said that while no mass-destruction weapons have yet been found in Iraq, they have no doubt that Saddam's weapons will be eventually discovered.

"I believe that we will find the truth, and the truth is, he was developing a program for weapons of mass destruction," Mr. Bush said.

"Now, you say, 'Why didn't it happen all of a sudden?' Well, there was a lot of chaos in the country, one. Two, Saddam Hussein has spent over a decade hiding weapons and hiding materials. Three, we're just beginning to get some cooperation from some of the high-level officials in that administration, or that regime," he said.

Mr. Blair took up the Bush administration's argument that the recent criticisms leveled by the president's detractors — who have been emboldened by the claims of erroneous British intelligence — does not match their words over the 12-year period that Saddam defied weapons inspectors and the United Nations repeatedly sought to check the Iraqi dictator.

"In the debate in the past few weeks, it's as if prior to the early part of this year the issue of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction was some sort of unknown quantity, and on the basis of some speculative intelligence, we go off and take action," Mr. Blair said.

"The history of Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction is a 12-year history, and is a history of him using the weapons, and developing the weapons, and concealing the weapons, and not complying with the United Nations inspectors who were trying to shut down his programs," he said.

"The proposition that actually he was not developing such weapons and such programs rests on this rather extraordinary proposition: that having for years obstructed the United Nations inspectors and concealed his programs, having finally effectively gotten rid of them in December 1998, he then took all the problems and sanctions and action upon himself, voluntarily destroyed them, but just didn't tell anyone," Mr. Blair added.

"I don't think that's very likely as a proposition," he said

Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair departed from the White House together last night, with the president heading for his ranch in Crawford, Texas, and the prime minister going to Japan on a trade mission.

Bush Unsure Ban on Gay Unions Is Needed

2003-07-03T15:43:00.000-07:00

Backing Standard Marriage, President Sidesteps Question
By David Von Drehle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 3, 2003; Page A02

President Bush yesterday reaffirmed his belief that "marriage is between a man and a woman," but he sidestepped the question of a constitutional amendment to prohibit gay unions -- reflecting the cautious approach the White House is taking to a potentially explosive public debate.

Last week's Supreme Court decision to strike down the nation's remaining anti-sodomy laws has left some conservatives convinced that so-called "defense of marriage" laws prohibiting gay marriage cannot survive future court challenges. As a result, a move to amend the Constitution to define marriage as applying only to male-female couples has rapidly picked up strength. Last Sunday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said he supports such an amendment.

In an exchange with reporters, Bush said he is waiting for a legal analysis of the court's decision. "I don't know if it's necessary yet," he said of a constitutional amendment. "Let's let the lawyers look at the full ramifications of the recent Supreme Court hearing. What I do support is the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman."

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer echoed that position in his daily briefing. "This is a matter for lawyers to assess," he said, "and I don't know that there is any clear assessment that anybody has at this point about the legal ramifications of a just-made decision."

Bush is stepping gingerly on an issue that could inflame his conservative base if he equivocates, or turn off live-and-let-live swing voters if he takes a stand that smacks of intolerance. He is also aware, one adviser said, that a constitutional amendment is extremely hard to win -- it must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress and ratified by three-quarters of the states.

As one Capitol Hill Republican described it: "Bush is trying to defend the traditional idea of marriage without getting into the realm of gay-bashing."

Inside Bush's campaign strategy meetings, the sudden emergence of the issue has been surprising and unwelcome, one participant said. Although Bush would have a hard time winning an election in the gay community, his administration has taken steps to avoid being seen as antagonistic of gays. Vice President Cheney and his wife, Lynne Cheney, who have a lesbian daughter, have expressed support for equal rights for gays. Without fanfare, the administration has appointed about 20 openly gay officials to government positions, according to the Texas Triangle, a gay newspaper.

Republicans have been thinking for some time that the gay marriage issue would enter the 2004 presidential election from stage left, through the rising prominence in the Democratic field of former Vermont governor Howard Dean. He signed the country's first law legalizing "civil unions" for gays, and it shows signs of becoming a for-or-against issue in the Democratic primaries. GOP strategists believe Democrats will alienate moderate voters if their nominee is supportive of gay marriage.

Having the issue boil up on the right, however, could be a problem for Bush.

"The president does not want to go back to the culture wars of the 1980s and early 1990s," one Republican strategist said. "He remembers what happened to his father in 1992," when Patrick J. Buchanan set the tone of the GOP convention by declaring "there is a religious war going on in our country," and urging Republicans to fight it "block by block . . . [to] take back our culture, and take back our country."

Instead, the strategist said, Bush would prefer to "culturally marginalize the Democrats, without reopening the culture war."

A longtime Bush friend was more forceful. "This is just not an issue we want to talk about," he said. "It plays to a negative stereotype of Republicans as sex-obsessed and narrow-minded. Swing voters -- and the libertarian elements in the Republican Party -- will not enjoy a debate about a constitutional amendment on gay marriage."

But some leading social conservatives believe the issue cannot be dodged. Gary Bauer, who ran for president in 2000 on a religious conservative platform, said in an interview yesterday: "Unless the president's lawyers are from Mars, they will tell him that there is no longer a legislative bar to same-sex marriage. At that point, it will not be possible for the administration to remain neutral as this debate heats up. I don't think they should even try to be cute about it."

The president of the conservative Family Research Council, Ken Connor, was less categorical. He said Bush's position so far is "prudential." But he too predicted that Bush will have to take sides. "All elected officials . . . are going to be forced to express their viewpoints on the meaning of marriage and the role of heterosexual marriage in our society," Connor said.

CIA finds papers, parts in Iraq for enriching uranium

2003-06-25T15:48:00.000-07:00

By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The CIA has uncovered components of a gas centrifuge used to enrich weapons-grade uranium, and a stack of nuclear arms documents in the back yard of an Iraqi scientist, an indication Baghdad was hiding its arms program for future use, a U.S. intelligence official said yesterday.

Iraqi scientist Mahdi Shukur Obeidi, who came forward with the documents and components in late May, hid the items in his back yard under a rosebush 12 years ago, said an official familiar with details of the discovery. Officials confirmed the discovery after it was first reported by CNN.

"These documents and components were deliberately hidden at the direction of Iraq's senior leadership with the aim of preserving the regime's capacity to resume construction of a centrifuge that at some point could be used to enrich uranium for a nuclear device," the intelligence official said.

The official said that the discovery was "not a smoking gun" indicating that Iraq had nuclear weapons, only that it planned to develop them once United Nations sanctions barring Iraq from operating a nuclear-weapons program were lifted. The sanctions were imposed after the Persian Gulf war.

"Their existence validates our long-standing view that Iraq had hidden nuclear technology," the official said. "And this new evidence indicates that the Iraqis concealed proscribed documents and examples of critical centrifuge components, some of them extremely difficult to manufacture, in contravention of U.N. Security Council resolutions."

David Kay, a former U.N. weapons inspector now working as an adviser to the CIA, said the finding in Iraq "begins to tell us how huge our job is."

"Remember his material was buried in a barrel behind his house in a rose garden," Mr. Kay told CNN. "There's no way that that would have been discovered by normal international inspections. I couldn't have done it. My successors couldn't have done it."

The centrifuge components were part of Iraq's pre-1991 uranium-enrichment program, the official said.

"Doctor Obeidi told us [the documents] represent a complete set of what would be needed to rebuild a uranium-enrichment program," the official said.

The scientist also disclosed to U.S. intelligence that the concealment of the components and documents were "part of a secret high-level plan to reconstitute the nuclear weapons program once sanctions ended," the official said.

The components include some of the most difficult parts of a centrifuge to produce. Centrifuges require high-strength steel and special bearings because of the high speeds involved in the spinning process.

The disclosure comes as U.S. intelligence agencies are under fire from critics in Congress who said intelligence on Iraq's hidden weapons of mass destruction were exaggerated to support the policy of going to war.

So far, no hidden stocks of weapons have been found, but two mobile vans were found. U.S. intelligence analysts believe the vans were part of Iraq's hidden biological-weapons program.

"I don't want this to proliferate because of the potential consequences if it falls in the hands of tyrants and the hands of dictators or of terrorists," Mr. Obeidi told CNN.

Officials said Mr. Obeidi and his family were relocated out of Iraq to a third country.

Iraq secretly developed a gas-centrifuge program in the early 1990s that was kept secret from U.S. intelligence until shortly before the start of the 1991 Persian Gulf war. The disclosure showed that before that war, Iraq was close to producing a nuclear bomb.

Gas centrifuges are used to spin gaseous uranium hexafluoride that is enriched into the fuel of a nuclear bomb.

Centrifuges were used to make the first U.S. atomic bombs and the technology is considered the earliest method of making the fissionable material for a bomb. The centrifuges have no other purpose but uranium enrichment.

Army Lt. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the nominee to be the next commander of the U.S. Central Command, said during his Senate confirmation yesterday he believes Iraq's weapons eventually will be found.

Gen. Abizaid told the Armed Services Committee that he is confident that evidence "at some point ... will lead us to actual weapons of mass destruction."

The general told senators that at one point recently he called his top staff together and asked if anyone believed no weapons would be found. "And to a man and to a woman, they all said we would find it," he said. "So the confidence of the intelligence professionals and my confidence in them was high, and actually it remains high."

U.N. faults Iran's nuclear program

2003-06-06T17:52:00.000-07:00

By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

A U.N. watchdog agency accused Iran yesterday of failing to abide by international safeguards on its nuclear program, bringing an immediate U.S. demand that Tehran disclose all aspects of its nuclear activities.

"Iran has failed to meet its obligation ... with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, the subsequent processing and use of that material and the declaration of facilities where the material was stored and processed," the Vienna, Austria-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) concluded in a hard-hitting report distributed to member states yesterday.

But the agency added that Iran is beginning to correct this problem.

"While these failures are in the process of being rectified by Iran, the process of verifying the correctness and completeness of the Iranian declarations is still ongoing," said the report, according to Agence France-Presse. AFP said the conclusions were made available to the news agency by a diplomat.

The report is likely to be seen as a vindication of U.S. efforts to pressure other governments to halt aid to Iran's nuclear programs.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said, "We think the report, and Iran's programs themselves, are deeply troubling and need to be studied carefully by all members."

"Iran's clandestine nuclear program represents a serious challenge to regional stability, the entire international community, and the global nonproliferation regime. The U.S. will work with other members of the IAEA to ensure proper response," the department said in a statement.

The IAEA noted that Iran has said it will address the problems pointed to in the report, while officials in Tehran defended their country's record.

"We have answers for all the points mentioned," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi told the Reuters news agency. "We have done nothing which violates our commitments."

IAEA "safeguard agreements" are designed to ensure that countries that are a party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) do not divert materials or use facilities to develop covert nuclear-weapons programs.

A U.S. official familiar with the process said the Bush administration was studying the report carefully and would be discussing it at length at the IAEA board of governors' meeting in Vienna on June 16.

President Bush has included Iran in his "axis of evil" that also includes Iraq and North Korea, and some in the Bush administration have pushed for a hard line against Tehran and its military programs in the wake of the Iraq war.

But "this was not a shot across the bow," said Rachel Bronson, director of Middle East studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Given the fact that Iran is in violation, you could have had a much more gloating, aggressive stance by the administration."

The United States has complained that a nuclear complex near the Iranian town of Natanz involved a uranium-enrichment plant, belying Iran's assertions that its nuclear program was for electricity production and strictly civilian.

"They don't need nuclear energy to produce energy in their country. They have sufficient energy from fossil-fuel sources, from gas and from oil. So that raises a concern," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer insisted late last month.

As an IAEA member, Iran is obliged to state whether it is involved in any activity in violation of the atomic energy agency's safeguards, including whether there is a processing plant that could be used in the development of nuclear weapons.

The report is the result of a round of comprehensive inspections and a tour of Iran's nuclear sites in February by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei.

Rep. Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Democrat, co-chairman of the congressional Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation, said the report reinforced his call for international nuclear inspections in Iran conducted without warning and without interference from officials in Tehran.

"Iran is violating the NPT by building nuclear facilities that could lead to the development and production of nuclear weapons," he said.

"Iran has denied this for some time, but it has been obvious to anyone who has paid attention, and now, finally, the IAEA has confirmed Iran's violations of their safeguards agreement for the rest of the world."

"We need to end the proliferation of nuclear weapons in Iran before they get much further down that path," Mr. Markey said.

According to the report, the IAEA is seeking more information about the role of uranium metal in Iran's nuclear-fuel cycle, as well as answers to questions relating to the use of heavy water, including heavy-water production and heavy-water reactor design and construction, the official said.

"The Natanz program was much more advanced than anyone had anticipated," said Miss Bronson.

The Bush administration has criticized Russia's decision to help build Iran's first reactor at Bushehr. But Moscow has dismissed charges it is helping Tehran develop nuclear weapons, insisting that any spent fuel would be returned to Russia.

"All we are doing within the framework of this cooperation is absolutely in all details in compliance" with the NPT, said Russian Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Georgy Mamedov in an interview with the Russian newspaper Vremya Novostei, published yesterday.

Mr. Mamedov also discounted accusations that Iran was possibly working on a nuclear-weapons program.

"There are no evidences of the existence of that program, we believe. I stress the IAEA so far has identified no violations by Iran of the NPT."

Snow Favors Tax Cut For 'Soggy' Economy

2003-05-12T17:57:00.000-07:00

Treasury Chief Discounts Deficits
By Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 12, 2003; Page A04

As the Senate prepares to debate a tax cut proposal considerably less than is being sought by President Bush, Treasury Secretary John W. Snow yesterday dismissed Democratic concerns about mounting deficits and said the administration's plan is just what is needed to fix a "soggy" economy.

Snow, making the rounds of the Sunday TV talk shows, told Fox News, "The president wants to create jobs now, and the best way to do that is to reduce taxes now, taxes for households and taxes for small businesses that are the engines of creating jobs."

Asked whether the administration would settle for less than the $550 billion package passed by the House, Snow replied, "We're not going to be satisfied unless we have the biggest number we can get that creates the most jobs. That's what we're going for."

The Republican-controlled House on Friday pushed through an 11-year, $550 billion tax cut that includes big reductions for corporate dividends and capital gains, setting the stage for a difficult and uncertain fight in the Senate over the president's top domestic priority.

The Senate is scheduled to begin debate today on a GOP-backed $421 billion tax cut proposal with offsets to bring it down to the Senate's self-imposed $350 billion ceiling for the package. Several Senate Republicans have described the bill as essentially a bargaining chip, although many Democrats say they support no more than $150 billion in tax relief.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) said that proposals for reviving a stagnant economy need to go another way and that the Republicans' continued reliance on "trickle-down" economics, providing the wealthiest Americans with the biggest tax break, is "hogwash."

"We tried that and it didn't work," Landrieu said on ABC's "This Week" program. "Americans want a president that will focus on tax relief as well as focusing on keeping America strong in the long run by keeping Social Security and education investments."

"Our mayors and governors, regardless of whether they're Democrats or Republicans, are hurting," she added. "They're going to have to raise taxes at a local level unless the president changes his direction."

Snow argued that the best tonic for a weak economy, high unemployment and a slumping stock market is a massive tax cut. Bush originally proposed a $726 billion 10-year tax reduction. During an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," Snow described current conditions this way: "The economy is in a recovery, but it's not a robust recovery. It is a sort of weak -- soggy is a word I sometimes use -- recovery. Growth rates last quarter, 1.6 percent. You know, we should be growing at 3.5 to 4 percent."

Pressed to justify administration proposals for the third tax reduction in as many years while the budget has gone from a $281 billion surplus to a $246 billion deficit, Snow replied: "Deficits are not all equal. We need to distinguish here. . . . Today we have underemployment" and a greater need for deficit spending.

Associate of Al Qaeda-Linked Fugitive Caught in Baghdad

2003-04-30T18:48:00.000-07:00

Wednesday, April 30, 2003

An associate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been captured in the Baghdad area, a defense official confirmed to Fox News on Tuesday.

The name of the associate was not released but he was described as a midlevel terrorist operative.

Zarqawi, who is still at large, and his group have been linked to Al Qaeda by the United States -- Zarqawi himself a senior associate of Usama bin Laden.

Zarqawi is believed to have traveled through Iran to Iraq in May and June of 2002 for medical treatment following the collapse of Al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan.

Administration sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he had his leg amputated.

The capture of Zarqawi's associate occurred this week, a counterterrorism official said. Zarqawi is among the administration's most-wanted Al Qaeda figures.

Zarqawi ran a training camp in Afghanistan for poisons, and has been linked to efforts in northern Iraq and Europe to produce and employ the biotoxin ricin.

The United States has accused Zarqawi, a Jordanian, of having been the mastermind behind the assassination of American diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman last October.

Before the military action in Iraq began, Secretary of State Colin Powell suggested that Zarqawi's activities were evidence of ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Powell also said that Zarqawi's Al Qaeda-linked group was operating inside Baghdad.

In February, Powell testified before the U.N. Security Council that as Baghdad harbored Zarqawi, several of his underlings set up operations in the Iraqi capital to help shift money, supplies and personnel around the country.

Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations before the fall of Saddam's regime, Mohamed Al-Douri (search), denied all of Powell's accusations.

Powell charged that after Al Qaeda and Taliban forces were defeated by U.S. troops in Afghanistan, Zarqawi founded the camp in northern Iraq to train terrorists in the use of poisons and explosives.

Powell also said in his testimony before the United Nations that Washington, through an intermediary, supplied Baghdad with enough information to shut Zarqawi's operation down multiple times -- but "Zarqawi still remains at large to come and go."

During Zarqawi's stay in Baghdad, several of his associates, affiliated with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, joined him in the city. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad is considered merged with Al Qaeda.

GOP Leaders Pondering a Smaller Tax Cut

2003-04-07T16:54:00.000-07:00

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, April 7, 2003; Page A13

Top GOP congressional leaders have privately discussed shopping a tax cut of roughly $350 billion to members this week, after two Republican senators informed President Bush and Vice President Cheney they will not sign off on a bigger tax cut, according to party officials.

Bush had called for a $726 billion tax cut package, which the House accepted. But the Senate first whittled it to $626 billion, then $613.2 billion. As the costs involved in the war with Iraq became clearer, the Democrats succeeded in whacking the cut to $350 billion. Now the tax cut goes to conference, with the two chambers struggling to reach an agreement over its size.

While Republicans continue to fight for a tax cut of $500 billion or larger, a key House GOP leadership aide said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) may be forced to talk to House conservatives about a much smaller one. GOP leaders are scrambling to find spending offsets to justify a bigger tax cut, but "we might not be able to pull it off," the aide said, basing his comments on conversations among the speaker's staff late last week.

This pessimistic assessment follows an unpublicized meeting at the White House last Thursday. As budget talks hit a fevered pitch, Bush and Cheney took a break from the war and called over Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) to discuss the tax cut with Sens. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) and Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), two key holdouts.

Voinovich and Snowe made it clear they would not support a tax cut bigger than $350 billion or any budget resolution that calls for one, according to sources familiar with the meeting -- unless the White House comes up with hard-to-find offsets. White House officials and House GOP leaders thought Snowe might bend to pressure, but two Senate sources said Frist has been telling them for weeks she would not. In the meeting, she refused to back down, the sources said.

In the Senate, where Republicans hold a 51-49 majority, Voinovich and Snowe have the power together to bring down the GOP budget if they oppose the tax cut amount because Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) are against it, too. Bush continues to demand his $726 billion plan, including elimination of the tax on stock dividends. Hastert and Frist are pushing a cut around $550 billion, allowing for a scaled-back version of the Bush dividends plan.

Voinovich "has been very insistent that he wants a tax cut of $350 billion," said his spokesman, Scott Milburn. "He thinks it's a reasonable number and provides a good stimulus." Milburn said Voinovich has no plans of backing down.

So, Republicans could be headed for a budget train wreck. A top House GOP aide said several dozen House conservatives have said privately they will vote against any budget that calls for a tax cut under $500 billion. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has raised the possibility of delaying the adoption of a budget resolution until after the spring recess to allow cooler heads to prevail.

"The speaker . . . does not believe we could pass a tax cut as low as $350 billion," said Hastert spokesman John Feehery.

FOOD BREAK: The bill had everything its sponsors could want: broad support, powerful sponsors, no apparent opposition and a politically appealing message. But it kept getting delayed, sidetracked or trampled by controversial causes. Now its backers are gearing up again -- and hoping for better luck.

The initiative, sponsored by Sens. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) and Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), would increase the tax deduction for corporations when they donate food for the needy and extend the deduction to unincorporated businesses -- farmers, restaurants and others -- that do not now qualify for the tax break. The idea is to cover the cost of packaging and distributing the food, thereby encouraging donation instead of destruction.

The bill was passed by the Senate in 2000, only to be wrapped into a broader tax bill and then stripped out as extraneous. Over the next two years, sponsors tried to hitch it to other tax, farm and charity bills, without success.

Now the charity bill is back before the Senate, shorn of "faith-based" provisions that stymied it in the last Congress, and headed for passage. House leaders have indicated support.

THE WEEK AHEAD: The hottest action on the Hill this week will take place behind closed doors, when congressional leaders hash out a final budget resolution and a supplemental bill to fund the Iraq war. The House and Senate are expected to quickly approve about $80 billion for the war, homeland defense and aid to U.S. allies. Bush wants the bill on his desk by Friday. Staff writer Helen Dewar contributed to this column.

Allies Close In on Baghdad; U.S. Black Hawk Shot Down

2003-04-02T15:56:00.000-08:00

Wednesday, April 02, 2003

As ground fighting intensified on the road to Baghdad early Thursday, a U.S. Army helicopter was shot down in southern Iraq, killing seven of the 11 soldiers onboard.

Pentagon officials said the chopper was downed by small-arms fire near Karbala, the site of fierce fighting between the Army's 3rd Infantry Division and Iraqi troops, including Republican Guard forces.

The other four soldiers on the Black Hawk were wounded and rescued, officials said.

• Map: The War in Iraq

The Black Hawk was the second U.S. helicopter to go down in combat. An Army Apache assault helicopter went down March 24 during an assault on Republican Guard forces; its two pilots were captured by Iraqis.

The UH-60 Black Hawk is one of the Army's main utility and troop transport helicopters.

Meanwhile, ground forces closed in on the Iraqi capital, with some American units reportedly just 15 miles away and others about 30 miles out. U.S. forces wiped out one Republican Guard division and nearly destroyed another as they geared up for an all-out assault on the Iraqi capital.

"Our guys are able to see the skyline. That's how close we've gotten," a senior military official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Also Thursday morning, a huge explosion was reported again in the capital; a pair of explosions was heard by witnesses after nightfall Wednesday.

Thousands of Marines who had protected the U.S. Army's eastern flank along the Euphrates River turned sharply east, joining other Marine forces moving quickly along the Tigris River southeast of Baghdad.

At the same time, Army troops southwest of Baghdad moved to within 20 miles of the city, said a senior military official in Washington.

Along the way, some Iraqi soldiers shed their uniforms for plain robes, and smiling civilians proffered the troops Iraqi-brand cigarettes.

"It feels better going north," said Marine Cpl. John Edwards of Clovis, N.M. "The sooner we do it, the sooner we go home."

The Baghdad division of Saddam Hussein's vaunted Republican Guard has been wiped out, and senior Defense officials told Fox News that the Medina Division was "almost completely destroyed as well."

"The Medina and Baghdad divisions are no longer credible forces," Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal said at the Pentagon. "There's clearly command and control evident," but "effective command and control and effective maneuvers are not as evident."

Food, fuel and medicine for exhausted U.S. troops arrived in northern Iraq from Turkey.

The Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera announced early Thursday that Iraq was expelling one of its reporters from Baghdad and barring another from reporting. In protest, the station suspended "the work of all its correspondents in Baghdad, Basra and Mosul, while maintaining the broadcasting of live and recorded images received from its office in Baghdad," an Al-Jazeera statement said.

Late Wednesday night, rescued American prisoner of war Jessica Lynch, a 19-year-old Army supply clerk, arrived at a U.S. air base in southwestern Germany on a C-17 transport plane for treatment at a U.S. military medical center. Her condition was not disclosed, but U.S. officials in Kuwait said she was believed to have broken legs, a broken arm and at least one gunshot wound.

The Defense Department announced that 11 bodies were found during the special forces rescue operation in Nasiriyah. DNA tests are being conducted to determine if any were Americans.

Meanwhile, ground forces from the Army's 3rd Infantry Division and the First Marine Expeditionary Corps penetrated the Iraqi capital's "red zone," destroying the Baghdad division as they crossed the Tigris River. The "red zone" is where U.S. officials say Iraqi resistance will be most tenacious, and where Saddam has reportedly authorized his troops to use chemical weapons.

Lead U.S. infantry units donned their chemical suits after capturing a bridge 40 miles southwest of Baghdad. Some Marines began adding their protective boots to the suits they already wear, and Marine helicopter pilots were advised for the first time to be ready to don chemical suits at a moment's notice.

U.S. officials warned that a cornered Saddam might resort to unleashing his worst weapons. "There may be a trigger line where the regime deems [a] sufficient threat to use weapons of mass destruction," said U.S. Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks.

McChrystal warned that it would be a "grave mistake" for Iraqi troops to use chemical weapons.

Evidence was found in the Kurdish-controlled regions of northern Iraq that the Islamic militant group Ansar Al Islam was working on three types of chlorine gas and ricin and has ties to Al Qaeda, U.S. officials told Fox News.

Officials said that between 75 and 150 Al Qaeda members have been captured or killed in northern Iraq in recent days.

U.S. sources told Fox News that documents and equipment were found in the rubble of an Ansar facility that had been built into a cliff near Sargat. The material was described as "a cookbook and kitchen" for chemical weapons. Other items included latex gloves, ampules of penicillin, a freezer and lab equipment. Sources said additional tests are planned.

Two suspected Al Qaeda members escaped into Iran, according to officials, but surrendered to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Iran has said it will hand over captured Ansar members.

'The Dagger Is Clearly Pointed'

The battering of the Republican Guard's Medina division is significant because that unit is an armored division; the Baghdad division didn't have such armor. One senior official described this as "the first step in taking down defenses outside Baghdad."

"We managed to take the divisions south of Baghdad from 50 percent to 20 percent of their original strength," the official said, adding that happened before the attack on the Medina division.

Still posing a threat is the Adnan division, a mechanized armor division, which has moved to the west side of Baghdad. Adnan is still believed to be above 50 percent of its original strength, but coalition airstrikes took out a brigade of its armor Tuesday night.

Another division, the armored al Nida division, which is located southeast of Baghdad, also is getting "hit hard … a heavy pounding," the official said. U.S. Marines heading north could encounter al Nida fighters, but U.S. officials believe their constant air campaign should further soften the resistance.

The Baghdad Division was destroyed while trying to guard the city of Kut.

"They're in trouble … they're under serious attack right now," Brooks said during a U.S. Central Command briefing in Doha, Qatar.

"The dagger is clearly pointed at the heart of the regime right now and it will remain there until it's [the regime] gone," Brooks said. "That dagger does remain pointed and it remains further in our control."

En route to Baghdad, U.S. forces seized a bridge over the Tigris and swept past battered Republican Guard units in Karbala. Marine helicopter pilots were advised to be ready to don chemical suits quickly if needed after crossing the Tigris.

The Army's 3rd Infantry Division seized a bridge over the Euphrates River at Mussayib, about 40 miles southeast of Baghdad, as it advanced through the Karbala Gap. The bridge, taken with little or no resistance from Iraqi forces, had been rigged with explosives, but engineers defused them.

American troops took a key bridge in the town of Numaniyah without a fight. Many Iraqi soldiers surrendered and others traded their Iraqi army uniforms for civilian clothes. U.S. Marines recovered Iraqi gas masks, mortar ammunition and rifles.

U.S. B-52s dropped six 1,000-pound cluster bombs on an Iraqi tank column moving toward American troops in central Iraq. It marked the first time in combat history that the armor-busting, sensor-fused CBU-105 Wind Corrected Munitions Dispensers were used in an attack.

"This is certainly a decisive engagement in which we are now just beginning with the Republican Guard," said British Air Marshal Brian Burridge.

Working Toward a Synchronized Attack

Eventually, the U.S.-led forces intend to launch a synchronized attack on Baghdad with the infantry, the Marines and the Air Force.

"Synchronicity is a very strong doctrine of the United States Army," said Central Command spokesman Navy Capt. Frank Thorp. "To synchronize the different battles on the field provides that tactical surprise."

Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed al-Sahhaf said reports of a coalition breakthrough on that front are "illusions."

Brooks said two other Republican Guard divisions were engaged around Karbala and that coalition forces had seized control of a dam on Lake al-Milh.

U.S. forces also fought the Republican Guard's Medina and Nebuchadnezzar divisions, and attacked positions north of Karbala, where 2,000 fedayeen loyalists and Baath Party members were reportedly hunkered down.

At least 20 Iraqis were reported killed and an unknown number taken prisoner.

"The battle is being waged and we are doing well," Thorp said. "We have moved beyond where the Republican Guard is and beyond where the popularly known red line is."

Farther south, the northbound highway out of Nasiriyah was full of coalition military convoys. Marines staged a nighttime raid there earlier and found Iraqis had abandoned a huge, walled police compound.

"The noose is starting to tighten around Baghdad," said Sgt. Jeff Lanter.

Coalition officials said more Iraqi civilians are helping allied forces.

An "increasing numbers of the Iraqi people are aware of what's going on," Clark said. "I think they're getting a better sense that this regime is coming closer to an end."

POW Rescued

Lynch was freed after nine days in Iraqi hands when U.S. commandoes stormed the hospital in Nasiriyah where she was being held. She was listed as missing March 23 along with 11 other U.S. soldiers from the 507th Maintenance Company, based at Fort Bliss, Texas, after an ambush near Nasiriyah.

Following an intelligence tip about Lynch's whereabouts, U.S. special operations forces made their way behind Iraqi lines and seized Lynch from the Saddam Hospital under cover of darkness late Tuesday, American officials said.

Two of the 11 bodies found in the hospital during the rescue were in a morgue, while the nine others were in a grave area in the community, Brooks said. U.S. forces were led to the graves by someone taken into custody.

Brooks said ammunition, mortars, maps and a terrain model were found at the hospital, along with "other things that made it very clear it was being used as a military command post."

Separately, the Navy said two pilots were rescued after their F-14 Tomcat crashed in southern Iraq.

The International Red Cross said some its staff members saw the bodies of dozens of people at a town south of Baghdad where Iraqi officials claim U.S. helicopters attacked a residential neighborhood. At least 280 injured people were being treated at a hospital in Hillah.

Central Command is looking into an allegation that coalition aircraft mistakenly bombed a Red Crescent maternity hospital in Baghdad.

Fox News' Bret Baier, Carl Cameron, Major Garrett and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

'Huge' Suspected Chemical Weapons Plant Found in Iraq

2003-03-24T14:59:00.000-08:00

Monday, March 24, 2003

Coalition forces discovered Monday a "huge" suspected chemical weapons factory near the Iraqi city of Najaf, some 90 miles south of Baghdad, a senior Pentagon official confirmed to Fox News.

Coalition troops are holding two Iraqi generals said to be in charge of the facility. Defense officials told Fox News that the officers are providing "good information" that could be crucial to searching out and dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program.

U.S. Central Command, which oversees the war in Iraq, said in a statement that troops were examining several "sites of interest," but said it was premature to call the Najaf site a chemical weapons factory.

The Jerusalem Post ran a story earlier Sunday that was written by a journalist on-hand with the U.S. unit -- the 1st Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division -- that took the plant.

The article states that one soldier was lightly wounded when a booby-trapped explosive was triggered as he was "clearing the sheet metal-lined chemical weapons production facility."

The chemical plant is described as a "100-acre complex," surrounded by an electrical fence. The plant was also apparently camouflaged to avoid aerial photos being taken.

It is not yet known what chemicals were being produced at the plant.

Asked at a news conference in Qatar Sunday about reports of the chemical plant, Lt. Gen. John Abizaid of U.S. Central Command declined comment. He said top Iraqi officers have been questioned about chemical weapons.

"We have an Iraqi general officer, two Iraqi general officers that we have taken prisoner, and they are providing us with information," Abizaid said.

The Jerusalem Post report also states that immediately following coalition entry into the camp, at least 30 Iraqi soldiers and their commanding officer fully obeyed instructions given by U.S. soldiers by lying down and surrendering.

U.S. forces are checking other sites based on leads from captured Iraqis and documents -- but officials cautioned it was premature to conclude any forbidden weapons had been located.

American special operations forces found documents in western Iraq that also could lead to chemical or biological weapons facilities, said Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Myers said U.S. commandos found the papers along with a cache of millions of rounds of ammunition after a firefight on Saturday, and the discovery "might save thousands of lives if we can find out exactly where and what they have."

"I just know that they have some papers that they want to exploit as quickly as possible, and we're going to do that, of course," Myers said.

President Bush and other U.S. officials say ridding Saddam's regime of chemical and biological weapons is the main objective of the war. Finding such weapons would be a huge boost for Bush, since much of the international criticism of the U.S.-led war has focused on the fact that United Nations inspectors had not found any banned weapons in Iraq.

Iraqi officials have insisted that they destroyed all of the chemical and biological weapons they made after the 1991 Persian Gulf War -- a claim U.N. weapons inspectors have questioned.

U.N. weapons inspectors are not aware of any large-scale chemical sites which could be used to make chemical weapons in Najaf, said Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for the inspectors. However, there are many such dual-use sites in other parts of the country because of Iraq's petrochemical industry.

U.N. inspectors visited a cement plant in the Najaf area earlier this year to check on its explosives cache but did not report finding anything improper. A team of biological weapons inspectors also visited a university and school in Kufa, a few miles north of Najaf.

Fox News' Bret Baier, Ian McCaleb and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

7 in 10 Americans Back Decision to Go to War

2003-03-21T19:34:00.000-08:00

Poll Finds Public Divided on Hussein's Fate as a Measure of Success
By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, March 21, 2003; Page A25

A substantial majority of Americans support the war with Iraq, but the public is divided over whether Iraqi President Saddam Hussein must be killed, captured or merely removed from power for the United States and its allies to be successful, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

More than seven in 10 endorsed the decision of President Bush to wage war on Iraq. A similar proportion expressed confidence that the United States and its allies are right to use military force to topple Hussein and rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. And two out of three said they believe Bush had worked hard enough to try to find a diplomatic solution before ordering the attack.

"I didn't vote for George Bush, but I strongly support him, and if anything I think he should have acted sooner," said Rick Jackson, 31, a manager at an engineering company in Bradenton, Fla. "I think he exhausted all channels to appease those who don't agree with us."

But one in four Americans disagree, including Julie Fanselow, 41, a travel writer in Twin Falls, Idaho, who attended an antiwar vigil yesterday evening. "I would rank this as among the saddest days of my life. . . . The whole idea of striking at another country that has not attacked us, and the idea of waging a war that we don't even know the cost of, at a time when we're facing such economic distress here at home -- it all pains me, it really does."

The survey also found that about half of those interviewed said Hussein must be captured or killed for the war to be declared a success, while more than four in 10 said it would be sufficient if the Iraqi leader were removed from power. "I feel he has to be captured or killed," said Ross Bethard, 60, a Ford Motor Co. employee who lives outside Cleveland and is cautiously supportive of the Iraq invasion. "I feel that he is going to reappear someplace else if they don't capture him."

A slight majority -- 53 percent -- said the war would be justified even if troops failed to uncover weapons of mass destruction -- Bush's major rationale for the war. But more than a third said the United States and its allies need to find banned weapons to validate the decision to use force against Iraq.

"They need to find them. If they came out and showed us that he had all these weapons, then I could say to myself that we were justified going to war," said Charlene Boudreau, 65, a retired receiving clerk in Enfield, Conn., who said she is opposed to Bush's decision to go to war.

A total of 506 randomly selected adults were interviewed last night. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus 5 percentage points.

Bush's overall job approval rating got a modest boost as Americans once again joined ranks around their leader at a time of national crisis. Sixty-seven percent said they approved of the job that Bush was doing as president, up from 62 percent less than three weeks ago. About two in three said they approved of the way Bush was handling the situation in Iraq, unchanged since the president's speech on Monday giving Hussein 48 hours to go into exile.

Most Americans expect that the duration of the war will be measured in months, not days or weeks, the poll found. More than half said the fighting would last at least several months, and about one in five predicted that it would last a year or longer. About six in 10 said the United States is right to attack Iraq now, while one in four said the allies should have waited longer.

The first full day of fighting seemed to calm the nation's earlier fears about casualties, as the proportion fearing "significant" numbers of U.S. military casualties dropped to 37 percent from 62 percent two weeks ago.

Americans were divided over whether the United States should strike Iraqi military targets even if they are located in areas where civilians might be killed. About half said the United States should do so, and nearly as many disagreed.

"I really think it's horrible that Saddam has to place his military weapons in situations that would endanger his own people; it shows what type of a person he is," said Damian Telencio, 26, a trainer for Blue Cross/Blue Shield in Columbia, SC. "I hate to see civilians die. But on September 11 we saw a lot of our own civilians die. It's war. It does happen," Telencio said.

Three in four said they were either "very confident" or "somewhat confident" that the United States and the allied countries that form Bush's "coalition of the willing" were doing the right thing in waging war against Iraq -- virtually identical to the proportion of Americans who supported the decision to attack Iraq in 1991, when the United States had the endorsement of the United Nations.

Two in three said that Bush has done a good job of explaining his reasons for going to war. And an equally large majority -- 67 percent -- agreed that U.S. vital interests are at stake in the confrontation with Iraq.

The public rallied in a similar manner after the start of the Persian Gulf War in January 1991. A poll conducted the night after the first airstrikes found that three in four Americans approved of the decision to go to war, approved of the assault's timing and said the United States had done all it could diplomatically.

Bush Sets Goals for Road Map to Mideast Peace

2003-03-15T11:41:00.000-08:00

Saturday, March 15, 2003

WASHINGTON — Once a new Palestinian prime minister is appointed to a position of "real authority" and Israelis end their settlement activity in occupied territories, the United States is prepared to implement a road map to peace that has been in the works for nearly a year, President Bush said Friday.

"The new Palestinian prime minister must hold a position of real authority; we expect that such a Palestinian prime minister will be confirmed soon. Immediately upon confirmation, the road map for peace will be given to the Palestinians and Israelis," Bush said in a Rose Garden announcement.

Refusing questions from reporters, the president's brief message was meant not only to set up objectives for the parties in the Mideast to meet but to appease other nations critical of an impending war against Iraq.

At the United Nations, France in particular has been extremely critical of the Bush administration's policy on Iraq, claiming that the Israel-Palestinian issue is more dangerous than Iraq.

"The time has come to move beyond entrenched positions and to take concrete actions to achieve peace," Bush said, adding that he is personally committed to implementing the road map.

"There is no new ground here, but it is, in effect, a diplomatic outreach to the Europeans as well as to the Arab states on the eve of war," said Marc Ginsberg, a former U.S. ambassador to Morocco.

Ginsberg said that the president's setting down a marker on the prime minister's appointment and sending a signal to Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat accomplishes several functions.

"Just this last week when the Palestinian legislative council designated an office of the prime minister, it was quite clear that the White House sent signals that unless Arafat was willing to cede powers of security and foreign policy, this prime minister [post] was worth nothing more than the paper it was printed on," Ginsberg said.

Last month, Arafat reluctantly agreed to name his longtime aide Mahmoud Abbas to the post --but he vowed to retain control of Palestinian security services, and a final say on peace talks. Earlier this week, Arafat delayed putting his signature to the bill creating the prime minister's office.

While the Palestinian legislative council make gestures, Ginsberg said the president's comments are also significant because they are timed to push Security Council members who have expressed misgivings about the delay in implementing the road map laid out by the president last June and being worked on by Russia, members of the European Union and the United Nations.

Ginsberg said the remarks also send a signal to Arab states that want the United States to push Israel to stop settlement activity in the occupied territories.

Addressing whether the timing of the remarks will be taken with incredulity by the Arab nations, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said after Bush's comments that he thinks the Arab states should take them very seriously.

"I think it's precisely now, when we do have all this focus on weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein, that we say to the Arab and Muslim world that we except the obligation of even-handedness -- that the issue of peace between the Palestinians and Israelis is as important as any other issue," Blair said.

In an effort to appease Arab nations, Bush specifically mentioned the cessation of settlements as a precursor to implementing the road map.

"The government of Israel, as the terror threat is removed and security improves, must take concrete steps to support the emergence of a viable and credible Palestinian state and to work as quickly as possible toward a final status agreement. As progress is made toward peace, settlement activity in the occupied territories must end," Bush said.

Secretary of State Colin Powell joined Bush by his side during the comments. Powell has been working to develop the formula for peace, which includes the creation of a Palestinian state by the year 2005, carved out of land that Israel has held for more than 35 years.

Fox News' Teri Schultz contributed to this report.

2nd Key Al Qaeda Suspect Identified

2003-03-05T11:23:00.000-08:00

Raid in Pakistan Also Yielded the Man Who Allegedly Paid Hijackers
By Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 5, 2003; Page A01

One of the men captured in the raid last weekend in Pakistan that netted al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Sheik Mohammed allegedly served as paymaster to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists and has been named in several other federal investigations linked to that plot, authorities said yesterday.

In the tumult of the raid Saturday morning, U.S. and Pakistani authorities did not immediately realize that they had apprehended Mustafa Ahmed Hawsawi, a Saudi native who allegedly oversaw the hijacking plot's finances through bank accounts in the United Arab Emirates.

Hawsawi also has been named in two terrorism-related indictments in this country. He is listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the case against Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person facing trial in the United States as part of the Sept. 11 plot. And Hawsawi is named in a false-statements case against Ali S. Marri, a Qatari man who the FBI contends gathered information in his Peoria, Ill., apartment about dangerous chemicals and U.S. infrastructure targets.

When Pakistani authorities rousted a sleeping Mohammed and two companions in a house in Rawalpindi early Saturday, Hawsawi sought to hide his identity, claiming he was a Somali. It took some time before the Pakistani officials and CIA agents figured out that they had apprehended a man who on any other day would have been considered a big catch in the war on terror.

"It wasn't immediately apparent who he was or how important he was," a senior government official said yesterday. "It doesn't reach the level of excitement of [Khalid Sheik Mohammed], but it's an extra added attraction."

Officials have called the capture of Mohammed a major blow against al Qaeda. He was a top lieutenant in the terrorist network and had been planning more attacks on U.S. interests, they say.

Hawsawi was allegedly the paymaster for the Sept. 11 plot in the months leading up to the attacks, when he established bank and credit card accounts used by the hijackers, according to testimony from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III to Congress last fall.

Hawsawi opened accounts at Standard Chartered Bank in Dubai in June 2001. He wired money to bank accounts opened by the hijackers in this country, and sent at least one of them a credit card drawn on a UAE account. Just before the Sept. 11 attacks, some hijackers sent or wired their remaining funds back to the Hawsawi account.

Mueller said that Mohammed also had a credit card drawn on a Hawsawi account. Federal officials said the remaining money in the account was withdrawn from the account in Karachi, Pakistan, in the days after the attacks.

In the case against Marri, prosecutors contend that participants in the hijacking plot, including Mohamed Atta and self-described coordinator Ramzi Binalshibh, are tied to a phone number that belonged to Hawsawi in the United Arab Emirates. Atta called the number, according to prosecutors, and Hawsawi used it while making a wire transfer of funds to Binalshibh on Sept. 3, 2001, the government alleges.

Marri, who is being held without bail in New York, is accused of lying to the FBI about calls the government says he made to Hawsawi's phone number in the two months after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Marri, who is also charged with credit card fraud, has denied making calls to the number or knowing Hawsawi. The government contends that he placed calls from various phones using a calling card.

The FBI is continuing its investigation of Marri's activities and contacts in this country. Marri, who was born in Saudi Arabia, arrived in the United States with his wife and five children on Sept. 10, 2001, and immediately sought to register for computer science classes that had begun weeks earlier at Bradley University in Peoria.

He was detained as a material witness in December 2001 and charged in the false-statements case in December 2002. His wife, a Saudi citizen, was subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury, but returned to Saudi Arabia with her children in November, after the Saudi Embassy provided her with travel documents and transportation, angering State Department and law enforcement officials. The FBI had confiscated Maha Hafeez Marri's passport.

U.S. authorities are seeking to learn more about Marri's intentions and his contacts in this country. Hawsawi might be in a position to explain why Marri would have called his number.

In a search of Marri's apartment, the FBI said in a complaint, agents found computer files containing lectures by Osama bin Laden, as well as files about hazardous chemicals "immediately dangerous to life or health" and Web sites related to weapons and satellite equipment. Agents also found an almanac bookmarked for information about U.S. dams, waterways and railroads.

Hawsawi has been taken to an undisclosed location outside Pakistan for interrogation. An intelligence source said he is believed to have contacts with al Qaeda financial networks in Europe and will be interrogated about those ties as well.

Federal officials have said Hawsawi transferred money to the hijackers to pay for living expenses, flight training and airline tickets.

Research editor Margot Williams contributed to this report.

Professor Indicted as Terrorist Leader

2003-02-17T11:48:00.000-08:00

By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, February 21, 2003; Page A01

The Justice Department yesterday accused a former Florida university professor of conspiracy to commit murder via suicide attacks in Israel and the Palestinian territories, saying he has secretly been a top leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization for years.

In a 50-count indictment unsealed yesterday in Tampa, Sami Al-Arian and seven other people, including three Muslim activists arrested yesterday in this country and several top officials of Islamic Jihad still at large abroad, also were charged with crimes ranging from racketeering to money laundering. Al-Arian was arrested at his suburban Tampa home yesterday.

Among those charged were Ramadan Abdullah Shallah, a close associate of Al-Arian's in Tampa during the 1990s who now heads Palestinian Islamic Jihad from Syria; and Abd Al Aziz Awda, a founder and spiritual leader of Islamic Jihad.

Federal agents have spent a decade developing a case against Al-Arian, who was relieved of his duties as a computer engineering professor at the University of South Florida in Tampa in 2001. His case is one of the longest-running probes into alleged terrorist activities in U.S. history.

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said at a news conference yesterday that changes in U.S. law under the USA Patriot Act -- anti-terrorism legislation enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks -- allowed authorities to make the criminal case against Al-Arian. That law removed longstanding legal barriers to bringing information gathered in classified national security investigations into criminal courts.

The 120-page indictment relies heavily on dozens of telephone calls and faxes between Al-Arian and other alleged Islamic Jihad officials that were intercepted in investigations secretly approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court, officials said.

"The new provisions in the USA Patriot Act proved to be the critical factor in putting together this case," said Matthew Levitt, a former FBI counterterrorism analyst and now a researcher with the private Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "The quality and quantity of the government's evidence shows that Al-Arian was deeply involved in terrorist activity, and that this is not a case of the government silencing an academic it disagrees with, as he has claimed."

Emerging from a preliminary court hearing in federal court in Tampa yesterday, Al-Arian's lawyer, Nicholas Matassini, said, "He's a political prisoner right now as we speak." Matassini added that the indictment is "a work of fiction."

Al-Arian and his many supporters in the Muslim and civil liberties communities have strenuously asserted his innocence for years, saying investigators were carrying out an anti-Islamic agenda that targeted a critic of U.S. policy in Israel.

Al-Arian has consistently denied any substantive tie to Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which was designated a terrorist group by the U.S. government in 1995. Some supporters say his ouster from the University of South Florida violated academic freedoms.

Shallah, interviewed in Damascus yesterday by the Qatar-based satellite television station al-Jazeera, contended that Al-Arian "is not a member of the Islamic Jihad . . . and there is no relation between him and us."

David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor who for years represented Al-Arian's brother-in-law in a case closely related to Al-Arian's, said that while the indictment "contains a tremendous amount of information showing Al-Arian" was involved in Islamic Jihad finances, "he was doing so at a time when it was perfectly legal'' -- before 1995. That was when Congress passed a law prohibiting Americans from fundraising for designated terrorist groups.

"After 1995, the evidence looks rather sparse," Cole said. "It doesn't say Sami Al-Arian directed specific terrorist activities."

Legal experts said the prosecutors' use of the racketeering law allowed them to cite actions Al-Arian and his co-defendants allegedly engaged in well before 1995 -- in this case back to 1984 -- because racketeering cases allow authorities to sweep in any activities related to a core criminal undertaking.

The indictment contends that al-Arian has been one of the leading officials of Islamic Jihad since the 1980s, and has served as secretary of its "Shura Council," or top governing body.

Citing the intercepted phone calls and faxes, as well as documents seized from offices of Al-Arian and his associates in Tampa in a court-authorized search eight years ago, the indictment outlines alleged activities over many years. These include managing Islamic Jihad's worldwide finances, dispatching funds to the terrorist group and relaying messages among its top leaders, according to the indictment.

In some of the conversations and faxes, Al-Arian also allegedly praised a number of Islamic Jihad's suicide bombings, kidnappings, drive-by shootings and other operations.

In November 1994, the same day an explosives-carrying Palestinian youth blew himself up in Gaza -- killing three Israeli soldiers and wounding six members of a Palestinian family -- Al-Arian "asked that God bless the efforts of the PIJ and accept their 'martyrs,' and urged PIJ members to be cautious and alert," the indictment said.

Most of the victims were Israelis. But two U.S. citizens were killed in the Islamic Jihad suicide bombings: Alisa Flatow, 20, and Shoshana Ben-Yishai, 16.

Flatow, then a junior at Brandeis University, died in a 1995 bus bombing in the Gaza Strip. Her father, Stephen Flatow of West Orange, N.J., told the Associated Press yesterday that "this demonstrates the old saw about the wheels of justice -- they grind slow, but they grind exceedingly fine."

Al-Arian and the other defendants also raised and sent money to support the families of Islamic Jihad "martyrs" who committed suicide bombings, the indictment said. Federal officials also charge that the defendants disseminated a number of Islamic Jihad's claims of responsibility for terrorist attacks on Israelis, and raised funds in the United States for "violent jihad."

The indictment also quotes from conversations and faxes during the mid-1990s in which al-Arian tries to settle squabbles among top Islamic Jihad officials over who controlled the group's finances. U.S. officials have said for years that Iran is Islamic Jihad's main financier, and the indictment describes how Iranian officials were upset by Islamic Jihad operatives' apparent failure to account for much of the money.

"The government basically makes the case that Al-Arian was the chief financial officer of PIJ worldwide," said researcher Steven Emerson, who has tracked Al-Arian for a decade.

A written Islamic Jihad "manifesto" seized by federal agents in 1995 from the campus offices of an anti-Israel activist group run by Al-Arian said the group's bedrock principles included "the rejection of any peaceful solution for the Palestinian cause, and the affirmation of the Jihad solution and the martyrdom style as the only choice for liberation," the indictment said.

"The Manifesto further stated that one of the PIJ's specific goals was to create a situation of terror, instability and panic," the indictment continued.

Other documents removed from the offices of two groups run by Al-Arian -- the World and Islam Studies Enterprise, and the Islamic Committee for Palestine -- included the wills of three Islamic Jihad members who died committing a terrorist act, the indictment said. The wills indicated that the men intended to commit a violent suicide act for the Islamic Jihad, it added.

Al-Arian's case has been linked for years with the government's long-running investigation of his brother-in-law, Mazen Al-Najjar, who was jailed for three years on evidence not made available to him or his attorney. Al-Najjar was deported to Lebanon last year.

House Passes New Welfare Reforms

2003-02-14T09:50:00.000-08:00

WASHINGTON — Keeping a pledge to require more work from welfare recipients, House Republicans passed a plan Thursday that would also give hundreds of millions of dollars to programs promoting marriage.

The Republican plan, passed on a 230-192 vote, mirrors a plan first put forth by President Bush as an improvement to the 1996 law deemed a success by both parties.

"A check in the mail every month won't teach responsibility. It won't build confidence," said Rep. Deborah Pryce, R-Ohio.

But Democrats say the new rules, including one that requires 70 percent of recipients to work 40 hours a week by 2007, demand too much from the poorest Americans.

"Too many people are drowning in a sea of poverty," said Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. "Welfare, to work, should not merely toss the poorest Americans a life preserver to help them float along."

The bill keeps certain provisions of the 1996 welfare overhaul, including limiting people to five years of benefits over their lifetimes and banning aid programs for legal immigrants.

It also continues to give states $16.5 billion each year for welfare-to-work programs and increases spending on child care.

But unlike the earlier bill, recipients who work three days a week in regular jobs or government-created workfare positions and train or receive counseling during the other two days will no longer be allowed to use the time for vocational education classes.

Studies find that most people who have left welfare are working, earning more than they received from the government but not enough to escape poverty. Democrats say that with the struggling economy, people need more help in training and child care, and legal immigrants should be entitled to some of the aid.

The bill includes up to $300 million per year for experiments promoting marriage, as well as another $50 million for programs that promote abstinence from sex until marriage and don't discuss contraception.

Both programs have attracted strong opposition, with opponents saying neither has been proven effective. Some worry the marriage program could push people into bad marriages.

House Democrats, who unsuccessfully tried to stop the bill from moving to a floor vote without a committee vote, voiced few complaints about the marriage and abstinence programs, instead concentrating on the central issues of welfare. Two Democratic alternatives failed and Democrats offered few amendments.

One bill that Republicans defeated would have restored benefits to legal immigrants and allowed more education, training and child care benefits. Another version -- offered in memory of the late Rep. Patsy Mink, D-Hawaii -- would have offered even more cash to those programs and more money for states. It also would have let states continue to pay benefits to people beyond the five-year limit as long as they were complying with welfare rules.

Since peaking in 1994, the number of families receiving monthly welfare checks has fallen by nearly 60 percent. The Bush administration said Thursday that the national total continued to fall through September, albeit by a tiny amount.

At the same time, the rolls are rising in more than half the states. And data released this week found that after several years on the rise, the portion of poor children with working parents fell in 2001.

The GOP bill matches one approved by the House last year, but which died in the Senate. The 1996 law, which expired last fall, has been extended several times to give Congress more time to act. The Senate has not yet touched welfare reform legislation.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

U.S. May Seek Wider Anti-Terror Powers

2003-02-08T09:06:00.000-08:00

By Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, February 8, 2003; Page A01

The Justice Department is considering legislative proposals that would significantly expand the federal government's power to investigate, detain and punish suspected terrorists in secret and without court supervision, according to a preliminary draft of the bill disclosed yesterday.

The draft, a potential successor to the Patriot Act that passed Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, would authorize the Justice Department to conduct clandestine searches or eavesdrop on any suspected terrorist or foreign agent for 15 days after the beginning of a military conflict or "national emergency," rather than after a formal declaration of war, as current law provides. It would also permit wiretaps of U.S. citizens in terrorism cases for longer periods and with less court oversight than now permitted; and allow the department to collect a DNA-sample database from both convicted and suspected terrorists.

Under the draft, the government could declare individuals, not just groups, "foreign powers" subject to clandestine surveillance under looser standards than would apply in criminal cases, and it would permit such surveillance against a U.S. citizen suspected of spying for a foreign power, even if the alleged suspicious conduct was not itself criminal.

Taken as a whole, the proposals would constitute a far-reaching invitation to Congress to ratify the Bush administration's get-tough legal approach to the war on terrorism. The Jan. 9 document, labeled "confidential -- not for distribution" and titled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, was posted on the Internet by the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based nonprofit organization.

Civil liberties advocates immediately expressed alarm about the draft.

"There are some truly breathtaking provisions here. In some respects it is bolder even than the Patriot Act," said Jim Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit organization based in Washington.

"It raises a wide range of very troubling questions that deserve a lot of thoughtful debate and attention," said David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor.

The Justice Department declined to comment specifically on the proposals, but did not dispute the authenticity of the draft, which is being developed in the Office of Legal Policy.

"We are continually considering anti-terrorism measures and would be derelict if we were not doing so," Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock said in a statement. "The Department's deliberations are always undertaken with the strongest commitment to our Constitution and civil liberties.

"During our internal deliberations, many ideas are considered, some are discarded and new ideas emerge in the process along with numerous discussion drafts. Department staff have not presented any final proposals to either the Attorney General or the White House. It would be premature to speculate on any future decisions, particularly ideas or proposals that are still being discussed at staff levels."

Democratic aides in Congress grumbled privately that the Bush administration's proposals are timed to take advantage of the Republican takeover of the Senate, and that the administration has brushed aside inquiries about its deliberations until now.

At an Oct. 9 hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) asked Justice Department official Alice Fisher to "describe what efforts are being made within the department to broaden the powers of the USA Patriot Act."

Fisher replied that officials "are still studying that."

The Center for Public Integrity's Web site suggests that a routing slip attached to the proposal indicates that it was sent to Vice President Cheney and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) on Jan. 10.

Comstock said that neither man had been sent the document.

The proposal also contains language that would specifically exempt the names of persons who are detained in connection with terrorism investigations from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, a position similar to what the Bush administration has asserted in several court cases challenging its policy of closing immigration hearings for terror suspects.

And the proposal would make it easier for the government to strip U.S. citizens of their citizenship if they serve in a foreign enemy army or terrorist group. Under current law, such service must be done with clear intent to renounce U.S. citizenship. The proposal would make service in a foreign army or terrorist group, such as John Walker Lindh's assistance to the Taliban, evidence of intent to renounce U.S. citizenship that the citizen would then have to rebut.

Iraq to Chair U.N. Disarmament Panel

2003-01-30T10:32:00.000-08:00

Thursday, January 30, 2003
By Liza Porteus
NEW YORK — While the United States leads the charge in making sure Iraq owns up to its promises of complete disarmament, Saddam Hussein's country will head an international disarmament conference and will steer the course of the U.N. disarmament agenda this spring.

The irony has more than a few U.S. lawmakers up in arms.

"With the consideration of Iraq to head the Conference on Disarmament, the U.N. now becomes worse than any off, off, off-Broadway show. It becomes the theater of the absurd," said Republican Rep. J.D. Hayworth of Arizona, who joined Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y., Wednesday in a news conference denouncing Iraq's taking the rotating chair.

"This is ridiculous. It's like the fox watching over the hen house," Fossella said. "Iraq has zero credibility to disarm any nation when it stands in violation of U.N. resolutions because it continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. This decision will leave a permanent stain on the conference, undermine its credibility and threaten its mission to disarm nations that possess nuclear weapons."

In May, Iraq will take the helm of the U.N. Committee on Disarmament and will hold that position for one month. The co-chair will be Iran. The presidency rotates in alphabetical order.

The latest conference on disarmament — to be held in Geneva, Switzerland during Iraq's presidency — will host 66 countries, and is being billed by the United Nations as the "world's sole forum for [nuclear] disarmament."

Iraq's presidency, set to begin May 27, could follow a war in Iraq sparked by Saddam's refusal to disarm. President Bush and U.S. allies are pressuring Iraq to give up all of its weapons of mass destruction and the White House maintains every day it gets more information proving Saddam possesses banned weapons and is linked to terrorists groups like Al Qaeda.

State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher said Wednesday that the U.S. is looking at its options, and called it ridiculous that Iraq could be heading a commission on disarmament.

"Iraq has, for more than 12 years, defied numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions to manning this disarmament and remains under Article 7 sanctions. Under these conditions, the United States believes it's unacceptable for Iraq to assume the presidency of the international community's main multilateral disarmament negotiating forum," Boucher said.

However, Boucher said the United States may have no options in allowing the conference to be headed by Iraq. The leadership rotates monthly in an alphabetical order, and there is no way to remove Iraq from the alphabet or the lineup.

Hayworth said that when a public official is under indictment or investigation, he or she steps aside. That same thing should happen at the United Nations.

"A modicum of common sense and international diplomacy should not be mutually exclusive," Hayworth said.

The Conference on Disarmament, established in 1979, deals with practically all multilateral arms control and disarmament problems, according to their Web site.

The conference's focus is currently on the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament; prevention of nuclear war; arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon states don't use or threaten the use of nuclear weapons; and prohibition of new types of weapons of mass destruction and systems for using such weapons, including radiological weapons.

Previous conferences have resulted in major arms limitation and disarmament agreements, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and two conventions to prohibit the production, development, and stockpiling of biological and chemical weapons.

Iraq's impending presidency is just the latest controversy surrounding U.N. panels.

The U.N. Human Rights Commission human rights watchdog elected Libyan ambassador Najat Al-Hajjaji last week as its president for this year, despite concern from the United States about the country's poor record on civil liberties and its alleged role in sponsoring terrorism.

The United States had forced the unprecedented vote in the 53-nation panel after Libya was nominated by African countries, who hold the rotating chair this year. The president had been chosen by consensus in previous years. The 33-3-17 election outcome was seen as an embarrassment for the United States.

"How can Libya have the moral authority to expand human rights when it has a long and sordid history of human rights abuses and state-sponsored acts of terrorism?" Fossella asked last week, again blasting the United Nations for allowing it.

A Libyan government agent was convicted in 2001 for his role in the 1988 terrorist bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, which left 270 people dead. Libyan government officials were also found by German officials to have orchestrated the 1986 bombing of a dance club in West Berlin, which wounded more than 200 people and killed two U.S. servicemen.

Fox News' Teri Schultz contributed to this report.

Congress Briefed on Iraq's Links to Al Qaeda

2003-01-23T11:33:00.000-08:00

Thursday, January 23, 2003
By Bret Baier

WASHINGTON — More than 50 senators Thursday received a closed-door briefing on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and ties to Al Qaeda from Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, senior defense officials told Fox News.

A large part of the discussion was what evidence should come forward or can come forward without jeopardizing current operations or future military options on the ground, one defense source said.

The defense official would not get into specifics, but said the briefing did.

Senators said later Thursday the Bush administration needs to convince the American people and U.S. allies that war may be needed against Iraq.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said the secretaries weren't notifying Congress of a decision to use military force in Iraq. The administration said that has not been determined.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., said Rumsfeld and Powell laid out a stronger case than the administration had before about why force might be needed to stop Saddam. But he said the information would not be strong enough to persuade reluctant allies, like France -- and did not convince him that the United States should act against Iraq without more support.

"It would seem to me to be by far the better part of wisdom to have an aggressive inspections regime buttressed by our intelligence, so that we are providing them cues on where to go," he said.

The top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin of Michigan, said the United States has just begun to share information with the U.N. inspectors. "And my view is that there is a significant way to go before we share the information," he said.

Rumsfeld told reporters as he left the Capitol "the inspectors are being provided with an enormous amount of information already."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he agrees with President Bush's handling of Iraq, but believes the president needs to explain to the American people "why we as Americans should shoulder the burden -- the money burden, the human sacrifice."

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said she was concerned about opposition from U.S. allies. "I think it would be very difficult for us to pursue this without military and monetary support," she said.

The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., said Powell will continue working with France and other countries on the U.N. Security Council after Monday's report by chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Inspectors Find Empty Chemical Warheads in Iraq

2003-01-17T08:35:00.000-08:00

Friday, January 17, 2003

BAGHDAD, Iraq — U.N. weapons inspectors uncovered 11 empty chemical warheads in "excellent" condition in Iraq on Thursday -- materials the U.N. said were not included on a "complete" list of weapons Baghdad previously said it had in its possession.

Iraq insisted that it had reported the rockets, which it said were old and never used for chemical weapons.

Also Thursday, inspectors searched the homes of two Iraqi scientists in Baghdad for the first time. One of the them, a physicist, left with inspectors, but it was unclear if there was any connection between the home search and the discovery of the munitions.

Debate immediately began about whether the warheads constituted a material breach under U.N. Resolution 1441.

The Bush administration insisted that Iraq was violating the resolution regardless of whether the warheads are in violation.

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said the inspectors themselves have indicated that Iraq has failed in a number of areas to cooperate fully with U.N. Security Council requirements.

"There's no point in continuing forever, going on, if Iraq is not cooperating," Boucher said.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the administration was assessing the warhead discovery and would be deliberate about reacting to it.

The resolution stipulates Iraq must declare any banned weapons, their locations and related materials. Any false statements or the failure to cooperate "shall constitute a material breach," which could be a trigger for war.

U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the discovery may not amount to a "smoking gun" unless some sort of chemical agent is also detected. Key questions about the find are whether any chemical weapons were ever loaded into the ordnance, and, if so, when, officials said. Serial numbers on the rockets should tell inspectors where and when they were made.

The 122 mm warheads were found in bunkers built in the late 1990s at the Ukhaider Ammunition Storage Area, 75 miles south of Baghdad, Hiro Ueki, the inspectors' spokesman in Baghdad, said in a statement. The team examined one of the warheads with X-ray equipment and took away samples for chemical testing, the statement added.

Ueki told The Associated Press the shells were not accounted for in Iraq's declaration. "It was a discovery. They were not declared." He also said a 12th warhead was also found that needed further evaluation.

But Lt. Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin, the chief Iraqi liaison officer to the inspection teams, said they were short-range shells imported in 1988 and mentioned in Iraq's report. He expressed "astonishment" over what he called "no more than a storm in a teacup."

Amin said the inspectors found the munitions in a sealed box that had never been opened and was covered by dust and bird droppings.

"When these boxes were opened, they found 122 mm rockets with empty warheads. No chemical or biological warheads. Just empty rockets which are expired and imported in 1988," Amin told reporters, adding similar ordnance was found by U.N. inspectors in 1997.

David Albright, a former nuclear weapons inspector in Iraq, said the discovery would represent a violation "if Iraq knew that these warheads existed and they are for chemical weapons."

Another former inspector said that at one time, Iraq had thousands of warheads filled with chemical agents.

"Trained chemical inspectors should be able to tell pretty easily whether the rockets discovered on Thursday are designed to be filled with chemical agents," said Terry Taylor, who heads the Washington office of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

On Dec. 7, a chemical team secured a dozen artillery shells filled with mustard gas that had first been inventoried by earlier inspectors in the 1990s. Those were the first weapons of mass destruction brought under inspectors' control in the current search, which began in November.

Chief inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei have said Iraq's weapons declaration is incomplete -- failing in particular to support its claims to have destroyed missiles, warheads and chemical agents such as VX nerve gas.

The United States, which has begun a heavy military buildup in the Persian Gulf, has threatened war on Iraq if it is found to be hiding banned weapons programs. The Iraqi government says it no longer has any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons and submitted a 12,000-page declaration to the United Nations last month that it said proved its case.

During the search at the Iraqi scientists' homes, the inspectors escorted one of them to a field to examine what appeared to be a man-made mound of earth. The scientist, who carried a box of documents as he left his house, was then taken to the inspectors' hotel along with the documents and Iraqi officials.

Amin said the inspectors also asked to speak privately at their hotel with two other scientists linked to Iraq's weapons programs Thursday, but the scientists refused to be interviewed without Iraqi officials present. The inspectors did not interview the two scientists, whom Amin did not identify.

Blix and ElBaradei have stepped up demands that Iraqi improve its cooperation. Iraqis "need to be more active ... to convince the Security Council that they do not have weapons of mass destruction," Blix said, adding that the alternative is "the other avenue ... we have seen taking shape in the form of military action."

The homes searched Thursday were those of physicist Faleh Hassan and his next-door neighbor, nuclear scientist Shaker el-Jibouri, in the Baghdad neighborhood of al-Ghazalia.

It was the first time the inspectors have searched private home since they resumed their work. The team searched the homes for six hours, with experts seen going through documents at a table set up near Hassan's front door and having an animated discussion with Iraqi liaison officials.

Afterward, Hassan -- who is director of al-Razi, a military installation that specializes in laser development -- drove with the inspectors and Iraqi officials about 10 miles west of Baghdad to an agricultural area known as al-Salamiyat. There, Hassan, two inspectors and a liaison officer walked to a bare field and examined the mound of earth for about five minutes.

Inspectors did not speak to journalists and it was not clear why they were interested in the mound. An Iraqi official later said the field was a farm that Hassan sold in 1996.

After the visit, a visibly angry el-Jibouri told reporters the inspectors spent two hours in his home -- and cordoned it off for much longer -- looking into everything, "including beds and clothes."

"This is a provocative operation," he said. "They did not take away any documents but they looked at personal research papers."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Iraq in 'Material Breach,' U.N. Ambassador Says

2003-01-09T09:51:00.000-08:00

Thursday, January 09, 2003

UNITED NATIONS — Iraq is engaged in a "deliberate attempt to deceive" the world and is in "material breach" of the U.N. mandate that it disarm, U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte said Thursday.

Negroponte spoke at a press briefing after U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix said Iraq had violated U.N. sanctions by importing missile engines and raw material for the production of solid missile fuel.

Earlier, Blix told reporters that the inspectors have found "no smoking guns" in Iraq, but Baghdad's arms declaration to the Security Council "failed to answer a great many questions."

The Bush administration warned that Saddam Hussein is hiding evidence and will face serious consequences if he doesn't disarm.

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said in Washington.

Briefing the Security Council ahead of their trip to Baghdad next week, Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said they were investigating illegal Iraqi imports of parts for its missile program and the fate of 32 tons of HMX high explosive that Iraq says was used for industrial purposes but which can also be used to detonate nuclear weapons.

Blix and ElBaradei said their teams need more time and more intelligence from U.N. members to help aid them in a search which has already taken inspectors to more than 300 sites in the past two months.

For much of the Security Council, evidence of clandestine Iraqi weapons programs would be crucial for support of any military action and members left Thursday's briefing determined to give inspectors the time they needed to get the job done.

"We're asking [the inspectors] to step up the intensity of what they're doing. But they've got to do it professionally, and they need time," British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock told reporters. German Ambassador Gunter Pleuger went a step further, saying he saw "no grounds for military action."

In a sharply-worded assessment, Blix said Iraq's 12,000-page weapons declaration was "rich in volume but poor in new information," and he told the council bluntly that "Iraq must present credible evidence," to support claims that it long ago dismantled illicit weapons programs.

"The absence of a smoking gun and the prompt access which we have had so far ... is no guarantee that prohibited stocks or activities could not exist at other sites, whether above ground, underground or in mobile units," Blix told the council.

Negroponte said cooperation needed to be about more than just "opening doors" and he said it was time for Baghdad to admit it still had such weapons of mass destruction.

"Anything less is not cooperation and will constitute further material breach," Negroponte said, using diplomatic language that could pave the way for war. The United States, backed by Britain, has threatened military action against Iraq if it does not comply with the United Nations.

Weapons inspections resumed Nov. 27 under a toughened U.N. resolution that, among other measures, allows inspectors to interview Iraqi scientists in private or even abroad, in a bid to encourage them to expose hidden programs.

ElBaradei complained Thursday that inspectors haven't been able to talk to scientists without Iraqi officials being present. "That does not show the proactive cooperation we seek," he said.

Blix said the Iraqis had failed to provide his office with a complete list of scientists he wanted interviewed. "We do not feel that the Iraqi side has made a serious effort to respond to the request that we made. The lists do not even comprise all those who have been previously listed," in past declarations, Blix said.

The inspectors noted inconsistencies throughout Iraq's declaration, in areas ranging from the fate of VX nerve gas it produced to the production and destruction of anthrax.

In Iraq, Lt. Gen. Hossam Mohammed Amin rejected charges that its weapons declaration was incomplete, and he vowed to lodge an official complaint with Blix about "dubious" questions posed by members of his team during visits to suspected weapons sites.

Amin, the chief Iraqi liaison officer to the inspection teams, said that a U.N. inspector had raised the possibility of taking Iraqi scientists to Cyprus for questioning. He said scientists could decide for themselves whether to go but that they were expected to refuse.

Blix told reporters earlier that he hadn't heard of such a request but planned to conduct interviews in Baghdad next week.

Negroponte said the United States wanted inspectors "to begin out-of-country interviews."

"The burden remains on Iraq to demonstrate compliance," Negroponte said, adding that inspectors are there to "verify Iraqi disarmament, not to serve as detectives working to overcome elaborate concealment mechanisms."

The inspectors are to give a formal report on Iraq's compliance on Jan. 27. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said that date should not be seen as a deadline for conflict.

"We are in the middle of a process. The U.N. inspectors have just, at the beginning of the year, got their full complement of inspectors there," Blair told government ministers in London on Thursday, according to his spokesman.

The United States and Britain have said they have intelligence showing that Baghdad has banned weapons, and Blix has previously asked for any information to help the search.

Asked whether inspectors were getting significant intelligence from the United States, Blix said: "Well, we are getting intelligence from several sources ... it's clear that this will be helpful in the future to us."

"As more intelligence comes in, there will be more sites visited. I'm confident that we will get more intelligence," he said.

French President Jacques Chirac, two days after telling his armed forces to be ready "for all eventualities," said Thursday he hoped the Iraq crisis would be resolved peacefully, with military action only as a last resort.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

North Korea To Expel U.N. Inspectors

2002-12-28T09:54:00.000-08:00

Vow to Reopen Nuclear Plant Escalates Confrontation
By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, December 28, 2002; Page A01

SEOUL, Dec. 27 -- North Korea today announced its intention to expel U.N. inspectors from its Yongbyon nuclear reactor complex and said it would reopen a factory that extracts weapons-grade plutonium, sharply escalating its confrontation with the United States while leaving the world guessing about events in the reclusive Communist country.

In a letter sent to the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, North Korea said that because "our freeze on nuclear facilities has been lifted, the mission of IAEA inspectors has naturally drawn to an end," according to North Korea's official press. "Our government has decided to send them out."

The letter added that North Korea plans to reopen its plutonium extraction factory to provide "safe storage" for spent fuel rods taken from the reactor. Those fuel rods contain plutonium that, once it is extracted, can be used to make nuclear weapons.

In a swift reply, also by letter, the U.N. body insisted that the inspectors remain in the country to ensure that North Korea complies with its 1994 agreement with the United States that it would not develop nuclear weapons. The agency's director general asked the North Korean government to "inform him immediately should they have a contrary view, so that, if necessary, arrangements for the departure of IAEA inspectors can be made," the IAEA said in a statement.

The White House denounced the planned expulsions and urged the North to end its nuclear weapons program. "We will not respond to threats or broken commitments," said spokesman Scott McClellan in Crawford, Tex.

North Korea's latest moves were seen by arms control experts as predictable if alarming steps in its path of escalation with the Bush administration, a tactic aimed at forcing the United States to resume aid and pursue diplomatic relations. But if North Korea follows through on restarting its reprocessing plant -- the factory where plutonium is extracted from fuel rods -- that would be interpreted by its neighbors and the United States as a far more serious threat than any so far, South Korean and Western officials said. Though the United States has insisted that diplomacy is its favored means of resolving the crisis, a contrary course by North Korea would increase pressure on the Bush administration to consider a military response or at least threaten one, these sources said.

Extracting plutonium "really is crossing the red line," said Han Sung Joo, who served as South Korea's foreign minister during the outbreak of nuclear brinkmanship on the Korean Peninsula eight years ago. "If they go ahead and do that, that's really playing with fire."

Some 8,000 spent fuel rods are being stored in a cooling pond adjacent to the reactor, according to the IAEA. They contain enough plutonium to produce three to six nuclear weapons, said Shin Sung Taek, a nuclear expert at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses, a research group in Seoul affiliated with the Defense Ministry. If North Korea restarted the reprocessing plant and began extracting plutonium from the fuel rods, it could manufacture those weapons in as little as five to nine months, Shin said.

The Yongbyon complex is 55 miles north of the North Korean capital, Pyongyang.

"This puts Washington at a crossroads," said Kim Tae Woo, an arms control expert at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses. "They either need to heighten their level of threat to North Korea or come down to the table. This situation cannot be left to go on endlessly."

Given that South Korea and perhaps Japan fear they could be devastated by counterstrikes in any U.S. attack on North Korea, analysts have generally ruled out that option. But today's actions appear to have escalated the crisis. "The tension has risen to the degree where a military attack by the U.S. would not be inconceivable," said Tsutomu Nishioka, an analyst at the Modern Korea Institute in Tokyo.

The United States had assumed that North Korea would eventually resume its reprocessing operation, according to a Western diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity. "All the signs are that they are moving beyond merely powering up and putting in good order" the reactor, "and they are in fact focusing on all the facilities at Yongbyon," the diplomat said today, before North Korea's announcements.

Still, he added that reviving the reprocessing plant would amount to "a very serious, serious development -- the most serious in a series of developments. Reprocessing is, in a certain sense, in a realm by itself. It is a step above and beyond." He declined to predict how the United States would respond to such an eventuality.

Arms control experts said such a course would almost certainly prompt the IAEA to file a complaint with the U.N. Security Council asserting that North Korea has violated its commitments under its agreement with the Clinton administration to abandon the development of nuclear weapons. The Security Council could then issue a warning or impose consequences ranging from economic sanctions to military force. An IAEA spokesman said the decision to take a complaint to the Security Council would be up to the agency's board of governors.

In a sign of the region's growing unease, South Korea's president-elect, Roh Moo Hyun, assailed North Korea's continued defiance, saying it jeopardized his ability to continue his country's "sunshine policy" of engagement after he takes office in February. Roh was elected on the strength of his calls to continue South Korea's moves toward reconciliation with North Korea.

"Whatever North Korea's rationale is in taking such actions, they are not beneficial to peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in Northeast Asia, nor are they helpful for its own safety and prosperity," Roh said in a statement.

Japan's foreign minister, Yoriko Kawaguchi, assailed North Korea's decision to expel the U.N. inspectors, saying it violated international agreements and raised "grave concerns" about nuclear nonproliferation. Japan's deputy cabinet secretary, Shinzo Abe, said North Korea "is playing an extremely dangerous game."

Today's actions were the latest outgrowth of the unraveling of the deal that settled the previous nuclear standoff on the Korean Peninsula. Under its terms, North Korea would abandon its nuclear aspirations and submit to continuous inspections in exchange for shipments of fuel from the United States and its allies. But following disclosures in October that North Korea had secretly pursued production of uranium-enriched nuclear weapons at another site, the Bush administration halted the aid. In response, North Korea began reactivating Yongbyon.

President Bush has flatly ruled out any dialogue unless North Korea first abandons its pursuit of nuclear weapons, not only at Yongbyon but also at the uranium-enrichment site. North Korea has refused such demands, saying it would consider such a step only if the United States proffers a guarantee of nonaggression.

Last weekend, North Korea began to resume activity at the reactor complex. First, it dismantled U.N. surveillance cameras while removing seals that had validated the continued closure of the facilities. Later, it said it would revive the reactor -- not to make weapons, it emphasized, but to produce electricity. That claim was pilloried by South Korea and the United States, which argue that weapons production is the only purpose of the reactor complex.

On Thursday, North Korea moved fuel rods into the area of the 5-megawatt reactor, the heart of the Yongbyon complex, in preparation for restarting it. And today it took steps to ensure that the world can no longer see what it is doing there.

While most continue to interpret these actions to be levers being pulled in a negotiation, some call that view naïve, noting that North Korea has genuine fears about U.S. intentions, particularly after Bush labeled it part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq.

"North Korea is intent on succeeding in making nuclear weapons," said Satoshi Morimoto, a national security expert at Takushoku University in Tokyo and a former Defense Agency official. "It's not just their diplomatic card. Once North Korea has nuclear weapons, or makes others believe that it does, the U.S. cannot attack."

North Korea's neighbors continue to try to persuade it to pull back from its nuclear brinkmanship, according to foreign diplomats. South Korea has been engaging the North through a series of such informal channels as an economic cooperation committee. Britain has communicated with North Korea through its embassy in Pyongyang, according to a British diplomat. China and Russia say they have been holding discussions as well.

Even the United States has been maintaining a "New York channel" with North Korea, according to a Western diplomat. North Korea's deputy ambassador to the United Nations holds regular conversations with the State Department's country director for Korea affairs, the diplomat said.

The United States has counted on other governments to pressure North Korea to pull back. The Bush administration views China as central to this effort. "The Chinese, in a certain sense, are the only game in town," said the Western diplomat. "They are the North Koreans' lifeline for food and fuel."

But today came the latest signs that the United States may not enjoy the support it needs. In Beijing, the official China Daily lashed out at Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for comments this week in which he asserted the United States was prepared to wage successful wars in both Iraq and North Korea if necessary.

"This is a hawkish and dangerous warning," the English-language newspaper said. "It will poison the warming relations between the two sides on the Korean Peninsula."

Meanwhile, Russia accused the United States of sparking the crisis by halting fuel shipments to North Korea.

Special correspondents Sachiko Sachimaki and Akiko Kashiwagi in Tokyo contributed to this report.

Bush Nominates Snow As Treasury Secretary

2002-12-10T09:56:00.000-08:00

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 10, 2002; Page A01

President Bush tried for a fresh start on a listless economy yesterday by nominating railroad executive John W. Snow for treasury secretary, with the mission of selling new tax cuts to voters and lawmakers.

The president nominated Snow, chairman and president of CSX Corp. of Richmond, three days after firing Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill to make way for a more polished spokesman for measures designed to promote growth before the 2004 presidential campaign gets hot.

Bush hopes Snow, a Transportation Department official during the Ford administration who has spent the past 25 years in industry, will inspire confidence at a time when unemployment has risen and the value of stock portfolios has fallen. White House officials said they believe Snow, athletic and amiable, will be as disciplined as O'Neill was erratic in making Bush's case to Wall Street and Capitol Hill.

Bush had hoped to use yesterday's ceremony to present successors to both O'Neill and economic adviser Lawrence B. Lindsey, who also was forced out Friday. Lindsey's planned replacement, investment banker Stephen Friedman, has run into complications in the review of his financial holdings, and his nomination has been delayed.

Friedman, former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs, was supposed to be at Bush's side yesterday. But an official who last week put the chance of Friedman's nomination at 95 percent said yesterday it was 75 percent. "That situation is fluid," one aide said. A senior official said that scattered expressions of discontent from conservatives, who fear Friedman is not a sufficiently devout disciple of tax cuts, are not part of his problem.

Reflecting their view that Bush's handling of the economy is one of his vulnerabilities, Democrats made it clear they plan to give Snow no honeymoon and said they will use his Senate confirmation hearings to promote debate about Bush's stewardship of the economy in general and his tax cuts in particular.

Democratic strategists said they see the Finance Committee hearings as a chance to challenge Bush on the economy more clearly than they did during last month's elections. "They're plunging us back into deficits and dramatically increasing the national debt, and their only answer is to dig the hole deeper," said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), a Finance Committee member and outgoing chairman of the Budget Committee.

Democrats, casting Snow as a new face promoting an old policy, said they would closely examine Snow's CSX compensation, about $20 million last year. "These are the kinds of things that can be said about any modern CEO," said Peter G. Peterson, who is chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and co-chairs with Snow a Conference Board commission examining corporate governance. "He's a decent, straightforward person, and if any CEO can get through the process today, he can."

Republicans said they will begin confirmation hearings shortly after the Senate convenes on Jan. 7, and said the hearings should take a few days. Snow will have to remain silent on administration policy until then. He made more than 20 courtesy calls to lawmakers yesterday.

Snow, 63, tried to dispatch one controversy right away by saying he would resign his membership in the Augusta National Golf Club, which does not admit women. Snow made the decision even though White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush "does not judge that to be a disqualifying factor" for a Cabinet nominee.

A White House official said Bush will try to preempt criticism of Snow with a series of events designed to build support for a new economic stimulus package in the weeks before the State of the Union address in late January. "We have the bigger microphone," the official said.

Aides said that shortly after Jan. 1, Bush will announce proposals that could cost at least $300 billion over 10 years. Components are likely to include an extension and acceleration of last year's $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut, plus new incentives for investors, such as reducing the tax on dividends. Bush said he will be "proposing specific steps to increase the momentum of our economic recovery, and the Treasury secretary will be at the center of this effort."

"John returns to public service at an important moment for our economy," Bush said. "This economy is strong, and we can make it stronger. I'm eager for the task, and so is our next secretary of the Treasury."

Bush declared that many Americans "have very little money left over after taxes" and that some parts of the nation "are experiencing persistent unemployment."

"Some struggle under a weight of debt that makes it difficult to save for retirement," he said. "Investor confidence needs to be strengthened in practical ways."

That was an unusually bleak description for Bush, who usually emphasizes bright spots in statistics while acknowledging that the recovery could be steadier. But aides said the overhaul of Bush's economic team was designed to show he recognizes problems and is determined to be as aggressive in handling the economy as he has been in running the war on terrorism.

Snow, who in the past has emphasized balancing the budget instead of cutting taxes, took the microphone and said he shares Bush's view, often expressed in campaign speeches, "that we cannot be satisfied until everyone -- every single person who is unemployed and seeking a job -- has an opportunity to work."

Mentioning an aspect of the job that Bush omitted, Snow said he understands "the importance of working closely with other countries to build and maintain a prosperous, growing and stable global economy as we successfully prosecute the war on terror."

"I pledge to you to use all my talents, my power, my energy and my ability to strengthen the current economic recovery and create an environment where millions of job creators . . . will grow and prosper," Snow said.

White House officials said they approached Snow several weeks ago as a possible successor to Harvey L. Pitt as chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Members of Bush's inner circle, including Vice President Cheney, liked Snow so much that they decided to make him the leader of the economic team. The deal was sealed with a call from Bush on Friday night, after O'Neill angrily tendered his resignation.

O'Neill is the first member of Bush's Cabinet to be replaced. He was in his office next to the White House yesterday, but was conspicuously absent from the ceremony, where Bush said O'Neill and Lindsey "share credit for an historic tax relief and other economic policies that moved our economy from recession to growth."

Lindsey sat in the front row, next to Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans. Asked if O'Neill had been invited, a White House official said, "Secretary O'Neill was told of the event well before it took place and he did not express an interest in attending."

Kerry Blasts Bush's Tax Cuts, Offers Own Plan

2002-12-04T09:57:00.000-08:00

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 4, 2002; Page A04

Likely Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry yesterday slammed President Bush's tax cuts as "unfair, unaffordable and unquestionably ineffective" and said the best way to stimulate the sluggish economy is by shelving most future installments of the president's plan in favor of immediate payroll tax relief for all working Americans.

The Massachusetts senator, in a speech at the City Club of Cleveland, charged that Bush's economic priorities represent "tax giveaways that reward" wealthy Americans and big corporations at the expense of middle-class workers and small businesses. "The hard fact is that the new tax cuts proposed by the president don't make economic sense, and they're not fair," Kerry said, according to the text that was released in Washington.

In the speech, Kerry sketched out a broad economic blueprint for the country that calls for a series of short-term actions to invigorate the economy and longer-term measures, including tax simplification and closing corporate tax loopholes, that he said will restore fairness to the system.

Arguing that Bush's policies have turned "fiscal responsibility on its head," Kerry said the return of deficit spending in Washington means that "the largest cost of the Bush tax giveaway . . . will be paid for by our children" because of the need to borrow from Social Security and Medicare to pay the government's bills.

Although Democratic leaders avoided the issue of Bush's tax cuts during the midterm elections, a number of the party's prospective presidential candidates are on record opposing full implementation of that plan, particularly the income tax rate cuts aimed at the wealthiest taxpayers and the repeal of the estate tax.

But Kerry is the first of the presidential field to call for payroll tax relief, an idea both Robert Reich, the liberal former labor secretary in the Clinton administration, and the Business Roundtable have recently embraced.

Kerry called for a one-year holiday on payroll tax payments for the first $10,000 in income, which he said would mean a $765 tax cut for every worker, or $1,530 for a two-income family. Spokesman David Wade estimated the cost of the tax relief at $100 billion and said Kerry would pay for it from general revenue, not Social Security funds.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan tried to brush aside Kerry's criticisms of the administration, saying Democrats are "trying to resolve differences within their own party" on tax policy. He would not address Kerry's argument that payroll tax relief would provide quicker stimulus and more equitable distribution of future cuts than the remaining installments in the president's plan.

Other Kerry proposals for short-term stimulus include an extension of unemployment benefits due to run out at the end of the year for 820,000 families, an increase in the minimum wage and an expansion of the earned income tax credit for low-income working families. Kerry also recommended a tax credit to reward job creation, the elimination of capital gains taxes for what he called "investments in critical technology companies" and elimination of double taxation on dividends.

Longer term, Kerry said that eliminating offshore tax havens, corporate tax shelters and "corporate welfare" will ensure a tax code that is fair to all Americans. He also said he supports job training assistance for dislocated workers and "empowerment accounts" for low-income Americans.

Kerry's proposed tax cuts and criticism of wasteful corporate subsidies appeared to be an effort to head off Republican criticism that Democrats opposed to future phases of Bush's tax cuts actually favor raising taxes.

On Sunday, Kerry announced that he will file a presidential exploratory committee this week, with a formal declaration of candidacy likely in the coming months. He became the second Democrat, after Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, to take a formal step toward running in 2004.

Former vice president Al Gore, outgoing House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.), Senate Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.) and John Edwards (N.C.) are expected to make decisions about whether to run by early in the new year. Civil rights activist Al Sharpton of New York also has said he will seek the Democratic nomination.

Bush Administration Eases Clean Air Rules

2002-11-22T10:01:00.000-08:00

Friday, November 22, 2002

WASHINGTON — The debate over whether more energy creates more pollution came to a head Friday when the Environmental Protection Agency exempted old energy-producing plants from anti-pollution retro-fitting.

The decision is a throwback to the Clinton administration rule that required old power plants to modernize in order to boost energy production. To do so required spending millions on new anti-pollution devices, an expense that power plants said prevented them from producing more energy.

Environmentalists called the Friday turnaround a gift to polluters that is sure to result in dirtier air.

"We have nothing against increased production, but it's often increased production that results in additional pollution. And if there's increased pollution, we feel that needs to be controlled by the industries that are generating it," said Ed Hopkins, Director of the Environmental Quality Program at the Sierra Club.

Free market analysts, on the other hand, have long objected to the Clinton rule, saying it doesn't make sense.

"What we're doing is taking older equipment and making it [more] efficient, and saying the old must apply to the rules of the new one. That just doesn't make sense," said Pat Michaels of the Cato Institute. "It's kind of like if I take my old beater car and get a new carburetor put on it, then all of a sudden my old beater car has to correspond to all the new emissions controls."

The new Environmental Protection Agency regulation will allow industry to:

—Set higher limits for the amount of pollution that can be released by calculating emissions on a plant-wide basis rather than for individual pieces of equipment.

—Rely on the highest historical pollution levels during the past decade when figuring whether a facility's overall pollution increase requires new controls.

—Avoid having to update pollution controls if there has already been a government review of existing ones within the past 10 years.

—Exempt increased output of secondary contaminants that result from new pollution controls for other emissions.

It also will allow power plants to have an annual "allowance" for maintenance. Only when expenditures rise above that allowance would an owner or operator have to install new pollution control equipment. Replacement of existing equipment would be considered maintenance.

The administration said the new maintenance treatment "will offer facilities greater flexibility to improve and modernize their operations in ways that will reduce energy use and air pollution."

In changing the rule, the Environmental Protection Agency said it will speed up plant modernization, reduce air pollution, increase energy output and eliminate lawsuits.

"The steps we are taking today recognize that some aspects of the NSR program have deterred companies from implementing projects that would increase energy efficiency and decrease air pollution," EPA administrator Christine Todd Whitman said in a statement about the new rule, called the New Source Review.

Hopkins said the rule will increase air pollution.

"The Bush administration has opened up a series of loopholes in the Clean Air Act that will result in more soot, smog, and toxic chemical pollution. And right now about 165 million Americans live in areas where the air is unhealthy and this is going to increase that problem," Hopkins said.

Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., outgoing chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Clean Air Subcommittee, has called for Whitman's resignation over the rules, saying she has been compromised in her position.

"Gov. Whitman has a good record and good intentions, but on her watch this administration has undertaken the biggest rollback in Clean Air Act history and scaled back countless other environmental protections," Lieberman said. "Time and again, her advice has been overruled by a White House determined to gut commonsense environmental standards. Out of principle and protest, she should step down."

New York and Connecticut have already promised to sue to block the new EPA rules. Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states have long argued that older power plants belch tons of noxious fumes in the air, aggravating the problem of acid rain.

"The Bush administration is again putting the financial interests of the oil, gas and coal companies above the public's right to breathe clean air," said New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer.

The new rules only protect from litigation companies that modernize in the future, keeping in place a Clinton-era lawsuit against utilities and 51 power plants who circumventing the Clean Air rules.

Fox News' Major Garrett and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

States Agree to Simpler Sales Tax System

2002-11-15T10:02:00.000-08:00

Friday, November 15, 2002
By Liza Porteus

NEW YORK — In a controversial decision that may leave Web-based and mail-order retailers in a tizzy, 31 states this week decided to simplify their sales tax structures so that Internet and Main Street retailers would be on the same page when it comes to collecting sales taxes.

The plan is, in part, a move to get the OK from Congress to have a nationwide mandatory online sales tax collection system. Traditional, brick-and-mortar retailers have demanded such a move since the catalog-sales business took off in the 1980s, followed by the Internet retailing boom in the late 1990s.

"Basically it's to treat the transaction or the sale of items the same way no matter how they buy it for purposes of sales tax … so that what something means in one state means the same in another state," whether it be online or in a store, said Neal Osten of the National Conference of State Legislatures, which has been leading states' efforts.

At present, only mail-order or Web customers who live in states in which vendors have a physical presence have to pay sales tax. In other words, Washington state residents, but few others, pay that extra bit for books bought on Washington-based Amazon.com, and only Maine dwellers do so for L.L. Bean hunting boots.

Not only do states have different collection rates and rules, but more than 7,000 local jurisdictions do as well. Meanwhile, the entire states of New Hampshire, Delaware, Montana, Oregon and Alaska don't have any sales taxes at all.

"The states' sales tax systems are nearly as complicated as the IRS tax code," said Maureen Riehl, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, a trade group that represents nearly 1.4 million stores that supports tax simplification. "This is a nightmare for retailers doing business in multiple states and for consumers who travel from state to state."

During the boom years of the late '90s, states were flush with income-tax cash and some legislators were reluctant to kill the Internet golden goose, but with the economy in a downturn, the states collectively face a $50 billion budget deficit for the current fiscal year.

The states' decision doesn't mean that sales taxes will begin to be collected tomorrow. Rather, it's the first step in complying with a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled that sales-tax laws needed to be coordinated before out-of-state revenue could be collected.

As a result of that ruling, the Streamlined Sales Tax Project was set up. When at least 10 states representing 20 percent of the U.S. population have joined, those states involved will ask Congress to make the system mandatory as of 2006. On Tuesday, thirty-one states said they would begin to implement the program.

The plan would maintain a single statewide tax rate for each category of product, such as clothing or food. The way things are now, for example, marshmallow may be defined as a food in one state, but as a candy in another.

But there's still a question as to how the plan will garner the support of online and catalog retailers.

Many states sales-tax reporting laws are hard to enforce, so states hope to convince out-of-state vendors to collect sales taxes voluntarily by sharing the tax revenues they remit. About one-third of all states share sales tax revenues with online retailers now.

Osten said another way states may try to entice businesses to volunteer in the sales-tax plan is to give amnesty to those businesses who may have been faulty in collecting and remitting sales taxes in the past.

Internet and mail-order businesses of all sizes aren't likely to warm to the idea that even if they only have a physical presence in a few states but serve customers throughout the country, they still have to pay the price of collecting sales taxes.

This may harm small businesses, which may have a harder time paying for the technology needed to calculate the taxes.

"When the economy is already sagging and times are tough, to add another brand new tax out there is foolish and about the most destructive tax policy I can imagine," said Darrell McKigney, president of the Washington-based Small Business Survival Committee, a lobbying group that represents small business interests. "It's government greed at its worst."

Other critics say the tax plan just another way to tax the Internet.

"It's going to inhibit interstate commerce," said Grover Norquist, president of the Washington-based Americans for Tax Reform, which opposes any sort of tax hikes. "You have taxation without representation. ... It's very dangerous to allow people to tax people outside of their jurisdiction."

State lawmakers are simply "desperate to come up with a blame for someone for overspending," Norquist said.

GOP Gains Control of Congress

2002-11-06T10:03:00.000-08:00

Republicans Keep Reins in the House, Recapture Majority in the Senate
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 6, 2002; Page A01

Republicans captured control of Congress last night, regaining power in the Senate and expanded their majority in the House as GOP candidates rode the slipstream of President Bush's popularity and turned a competitive midterm campaign into an election that defied the odds of history.

The last piece in the battle for control of Congress fell into place shortly before 2 a.m. today when Sen. Jean Carnahan (D-Mo.) telephoned former representative Jim Talent (R) and conceded defeat. Talent's victory secured GOP control in the Senate, an outcome that had appeared almost out of reach to party leaders only a day earlier and that left Democrats dispirited and looking for scapegoats.

In an era in which presidents are not supposed to have coattails, particularly in their first midterm election, Bush provided the energy and message that produced a surge of Republican votes in crucial battlegrounds. The GOP held all but one of their endangered seats and defeated at least two Democratic incumbents.

In addition to Talent's victory, Rep. Saxby Chambliss (R) beat Sen. Max Cleland (D) in Georgia, a state that proved particularly disappointing to the Democrats. The lone bright spot for the Democrats came in Arkansas, where attorney general Mark Pryor (D) beat Sen. Tim Hutchinson, long seen as the GOP's most vulnerable senator, but Democrats could not win any of the other Republican-held seats that were within their grasp in the final days of the campaign. With several races still undecided, the Republicans will have at least 50 seats in the Senate and Vice President Cheney to cast the tie-breaking vote.

Talent's victory also means that Republicans will be in the majority when Congress returns this month for a lame-duck session. Carnahan was filling the unexpired term of her husband, former governor Mel Carnahan, who was killed in a plane crash but remained on the 2000 ballot. Under Missouri law, Talent can be sworn into office immediately.

The GOP performance in the House was equally impressive. The party that controls the White House almost always loses House seats in the first midterm election of a new president, but House Republicans were on track to add a few seats to the 223-seat majority they hold in the current Congress. No Republican president had seen his party gain House seats in a midterm election.

"President Bush and the Republican Party have made history," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said.

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence McAuliffe told the Associated Press that Bush was the critical factor in the Democratic losses. "I pin a lot of it on that this is a president who has had very high approval ratings," he said. "He's had the longest sustained approval ratings of any president in modern history."

In gubernatorial races, Democrats claimed three big prizes by winning in Pennsylvania, Illinois and Michigan. But they were struggling to win an absolute majority among the governorships, which they had set as their goal for the year.

Republicans retained power in Florida, where Gov. Jeb Bush easily defeated Democrat Bill McBride in a race that echoed with the bitter memories of the Florida recount battle two years ago. The GOP also pulled off the biggest surprise of the night by ousting Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes (D), who was seen as coasting toward a second term not long ago.

Republicans turned history on its head last night, thanks to an aggressive White House strategy to put the president into the most competitive House and Senate races in the final weeks of the campaign, superior financial resources in the battleground contests and, apparently to a revamped GOP voter turnout operation.

GOP senatorial victories early in the night put Democrats on the defensive. In North Carolina, Elizabeth Dole (R) held off a late challenge from former Clinton White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles. The GOP fended off another strong Democratic challenge in New Hampshire, where Rep. John Sununu stopped Gov. Jeanne Shaheen (D).

With Cleland's defeat, Democratic hopes of holding their Senate majority hinged on races in Minnesota, Missouri, South Dakota, Colorado, Texas and Louisiana.

In Colorado, however, Sen. Wayne Allard (R) defeated former U.S. attorney Tom Strickland, and in Texas, attorney general John Cornyn (R) beat former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk (D), who was bidding to become the first African American from Texas elected to the Senate since Reconstruction.

Still undecided early this morning were the races in South Dakota and Minnesota, both seats controlled by Democrats. In South Dakota, Sen. Tim Johnson had a tiny lead against Rep. John Thune (R) in what had been seen as the closest race in the country on election eve.

In Minnesota, where counting was slow because of paper ballots, former vice president Walter F. Mondale (D) was running behind former St. Paul mayor Norm Coleman (R) on a night when Republicans ran well in other races in the state. Mondale replaced Sen. Paul D. Wellstone (D) on the ballot after Wellstone was killed in a plane crash.

Democrats have one other seat in jeopardy. Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu (D) led a field that included three Republicans, but she fell short of the necessary 50 percent and was thrown into a Dec. 7 runoff against election commissioner Suzanne Haik Terrell (R).

Veteran senators in both parties easily won reelection. Democratic Sens. Joseph R. Biden (Del.), Richard Durbin (Ill.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), John Kerry (Mass.), Carl Levin (Mich.), Max Baucus (Mont), Jack Reed (R.I.) and John D. Rockefeller IV (W. Va.) were returned to office.

Republicans who were reelected included Sens. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Ted Stevens (Alaska), Larry Craig (Idaho), Pat Roberts (Kan.), Mitch McConnell (Ky.), Susan Collins (Maine), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Pete Domenici (N.M.), James Inhofe (Okla.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), John Warner (Virginia) and Mike Enzi (Wyo.).

In New Jersey, former senator Frank Lautenberg (D) defeated business executive Doug Forrester (R). Lautenberg was put on the ballot after Sen. Robert G. Torricelli (D) quit when polls showed he was likely to lose the race because of ethics problems.

Republicans held on to open seats in Tennessee and South Carolina, as expected. In Tennessee, former governor Lamar Alexander (R) easily defeated Rep. Bob Clement (D), while in South Carolina, Rep. Lindsey Graham (R) defeated former college president Alex Sanders (D).

In House races, Republicans sought to add to their majority, after suffering losses in the last three elections. Rep. Anne M. Northup (Ky.), a key target of Democrats, won, and in Indiana, Republican Chris Chocola defeated representative Jill Long Thompson to capture an open seat held by Democrats.

In Florida, Rep. Karen Thurman (D), a top GOP target, lost. Three Democratic incumbents paired against Republican incumbents also lost. Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) defeated Rep. James Maloney (D-Conn.). Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) beat Rep. Dave Phelps (D-Ill.). Rep. Charles Pickering (R-Miss.) stopped Rep. Ronnie Shows (D-Miss.).

But Democrats knocked off one prominent GOP incumbent in Maryland, where state Sen. Christopher Van Hollen defeated Rep. Constance A. Morella, and in Pennsylvania, Rep. Tim Holden (D) beat Rep. George Gekas.

Democrats had anticipated a good night in the gubernatorial races. Former Philadelphia mayor Ed Rendell (D) defeated attorney general Mike Fisher (R) in Pennsylvania, and Rep. Rod Blagojevich (D) beat attorney general Jim Ryan (R) in Illinois. In Michigan, attorney general Jennifer Granholm defeated Lt. Gov. Dick Posthumus. In Wisconsin, attorney general Jim Doyle (D) defeated Gov. Scott McCallum (R).

But Republicans took several important Democratic-held statehouses. In Maryland, Rep. Robert Ehrlich upset Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend (D). In South Carolina, former representative Mark Sanford upended Gov. Jim Hodges. In New Hampshire, business executive Craig Benson defeated Mark Fernald (D). In another big surprise, state Sen. Brad Henry (D) upset heavily favored former representative Steve Largent (R).

Gubernatorial races proved extraordinarily volatile. Republicans won Northeast seats targeted by Democrats. In Massachusetts, business executive Mitt Romney (R) defeated state treasurer Shannon O'Brien. In Rhode Island, business executive Donald L. Carcieri (R) defeated Myrth York (D), who lost her third straight race for governor. But Democrats picked up Kansas, where insurance commissioner Kathleen Sebelius defeated state treasurer Timothy Shallenburger (R).

Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman (D) survived a scare from Rep. Bob Riley (R), while Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) beat back a challenge from Republican Doug Gross. In Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) fended off a challenge from state treasurer Jimmie Lou Fisher. Alaska changed hands when Sen. Frank Murkowski (R) defeated Lt. Gov. Fran Ulmer (D).

New York Gov. George Pataki (R), Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R), Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn, Nebraska Gov. Mike Johanns, Ohio Gov. Bob Taft and Colorado Gov. Bill Owens all coasted to victory. In California, Gov. Gray Davis (D) defeated business executive Bll Simon (R).

Democrats picked up the governorship in New Mexico, when former Clinton Cabinet official Bill Richardson (D) beat Republican John Sanchez, and in Tennessee, where former Nashville mayor Phil Bredesen beat Rep. Van Hilleary (R).

In Arizona, state attorney general Janet Napolitano (D) and former representative Matt Salmon were in a tight race. The race in Oregon between Ted Kulongowski (D) and Kevin Mannix (R) was also close.

In two states controlled by independent governors, the parties split. State House Majority Leader Tim Pawlenty (R) won in Minnesota and Rep. David Baldacci (D) captured the governorship in Maine.

Going into yesterday's elections, the Senate was evenly split, with 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans and two independents. In the House, Republicans had 223 seats to 208 for the Democrats, with one independent (who votes with the Democrats) and three vacancies. The GOP had 27 of the 50 governorships to 21 for the Democrats, with two states led by independents.

No matter the outcome, one party was destined to make history. The party that holds the White House normally loses House seats in the first midterm election of a new president's first time, with the only exception being the election of 1934, during President Franklin D. Roosevelt's first term, when Democrats gained seats.

Democrats were running up against another historical oddity, which is that only once in his century has a party gained seats in four consecutive elections. After their shellacking in 1994, when they lost 52 seats and control of the House, Democrats picked up seats in the past three elections. A net gain in this election would go against history's trends.

First midterm elections are often a referendum on a new president's performance, but this year Bush was hardly an issue, creating an environment far more favorable than normal for GOP candidates. Bush's approval rating, which stands somewhere between the low and high sixties, makes him the most popular midterm president at least since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Although the president's ratings have slid significantly since he hit about 90 percent approval after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, they remained high enough to make him an unattractive target to many Democratic candidates. In some states, Democratic challengers embraced the president's tax cut in their own elections.

Unlike some presidents, Bush did not shrink from risking his political capital in the elections. He proved to be the most prodigious fundraiser in the history of politics, raising more than $140 million on behalf of GOP candidates and state parties around the country this year. Even more significant, however, was the commitment he made in the last weeks to campaign in the most competitive races. Bush's last swing alone took him to 15 states in five days. .

Through much of the year, Democrats saw the weak economy as their most powerful weapon, but were constantly frustrated by their inability to turn the election into a clear referendum on that issue.

Some Democrats complained that the decision by Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) and House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) to take the issue of Bush's tax cut off the table, and the failure of Democratic leaders to articulate a strong economic message in contrast to Bush's, cost Democratic candidates in their races.

Staff researcher Lucy Shackelford contributed to this report.

Torricelli Won't Talk About Funds

2002-10-23T16:09:00.000-07:00

By Christine Haughney
Wednesday, October 23, 2002; Page A10

Two weeks shy of Election Day, Sen. Robert G. Torricelli (D-N.J.) has not said how much of his $5.1 million in campaign funds he will give to Frank R. Lautenberg. But Democratic Party insiders say that Torricelli, who dropped out on Sept. 30 after an ethics scandal, will leave little for his replacement in the race after he pays legal bills and sets up a political action committee.

"It's just completely up in the air," one adviser close to the negotiations said yesterday. "It's not going to be the whole chunk of change."

Sources close to Torricelli told the Bergen Record the senator will spend more than $3 million on campaign expenses and legal bills and more than $1 million to start a PAC. The remaining money will go to the Lautenberg campaign.

"The senator has said he wants to be as helpful as possible," Debra DeShong, a Torricelli spokesperson, said in an interview. After leaving the race, Torricelli spoke once with Lautenberg about how he would help his campaign. But they did not discuss amounts, DeShong said.

Some Democrats have deplored the delay, blaming Lautenberg's and Torricelli's stormy relationship when they both were senators.

Lautenberg still can rely on money Torricelli had helped raise for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "The DSCC will be spending a considerable amount of money on the New Jersey Senate race," said Tovah Ravitz-Meehan, DSCC spokesperson.

Still, Lautenberg seems to be doing all right without the money. A Quinnipiac University poll showed him leading Republican Doug Forrester 52 percent to 43 percent. A similar poll gave Lautenberg a 4-percentage point advantage on Oct. 7.

A poll by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University showed Lautenberg leading 47 percent to 39 percent.

Mont. Senate Hopeful Rejoins Race

Mike Taylor is back. Sort of.

The erstwhile Republican Senate candidate, who abandoned his long-shot bid to unseat Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) after Democrats aired a controversial ad against him, announced yesterday that he is getting back in the race.

But he won't be running any television commercials. Or issuing any news releases. And he isn't even all that concerned with winning. Rather, Taylor is hoping to help increase turnout for other GOP candidates and to help draw attention to the evils of political mudslinging. "I want to save democracy from the smear campaigns," Taylor said.

The Republican quit the race two weeks ago, after state Democrats aired a television ad that suggested he was corrupt and, his supporters say, gay. Taylor had lagged badly behind in the polls and in fundraising -- the ad, presumably, was the last straw.

But his name was never stricken from the ballot, since he quit after the state deadline for changing the ticket. There was speculation that his party might attempt to replace him, as the Democrats replaced Sen. Robert G. Torricelli in New Jersey. But no other candidate stepped forward, leaving Taylor to reclaim his candidacy and his newfound cause.

"This is not about the Senate seat, this is about all the different races down the ballot where these kind of tactics are coming into play," his spokesman said.

Pa. Candidate Passes on Money

It's been a cash-poor campaign for Betsy Helsel, a registered Republican and the Democratic candidate for the Pennsylvania state house's 143rd District.

But she has not asked for and has not received any money from the Democrats. "We're really raising all of our money from the community," she said. "I wouldn't take it from the Republican Party either, until we have some substantial campaign finance reform."

Helsel, a second-term Plumstead township supervisor, lost the GOP primary to the incumbent, state Rep. Chuck McIlhinney. But she won a write-in campaign designed by the district's Democrats. She said, however, she would remain a Republican.

"I'm a very independent Republican and people know I how I deal with the issues," she said, noting her positions on the environment and women's issues mirror Democratic views.

Democrats have included Helsel in get-out-the-vote efforts, handing out her campaign fliers and mentioning her name during phone drives. "They're giving people resources, which is the best thing we can get," said Helsel.

Staff researcher Brian Faler contributed to this report.

Ex-Cons Say They Want to Vote

2002-10-01T16:14:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, October 01, 2002

WASHINGTON — Ex-convicts in the United States are fighting state restrictions that will effectively prevent 3.9 million people with a felony conviction from casting a vote in the November elections.

Several states have made recent changes to their laws that make it easier for ex-cons to vote. Connecticut, Texas, New Mexico, Maryland and Delaware will allow nearly 500,000 felons to vote this November.

But former inmates said that varying laws in each state could end up taking away restored rights.

Speaking at the National Symposium for Felony Disenfranchisement Monday, Thomas Johnson said his voting rights were restored in one state following his imprisonment, but denied to him when he moved to another state.

"I've changed my life and I'm a productive citizen, yet I feel that I'm without citizenship," said Johnson, 54, who served time in New York for selling crack cocaine and carrying a loaded handgun. His rights were restored in New York, but when he moved to Florida and tried to vote, he was told he would have to apply for clemency if he wanted to cast a ballot.

"I said, 'What for? I've never committed a crime in Florida,'" said Johnson, who is now the executive director of House of Hope, a program helping ex-cons get housing, jobs and counseling in Gainesville.

Each state makes its own laws regarding voting privileges for inmates and for those who have already served their time in prison.

Only Maine and Vermont allow inmates convicted of a felony offense to vote. Eighteen states take away voting rights for inmates convicted of any crime. States' laws regarding whether inmates get their rights back after serving time run the gamut.

A felony crime includes murder, rape, larceny and drug offenses.

Not everyone believes that states should be attacked for allowing those convicted of these crimes to participate in the process. Todd Gaziano, director of the Heritage Foundation legal and judicial studies department, said allowing inmates and felons to vote dilutes the vote of law-abiding citizens.

"It helps prevent dilution of the vote of law-abiding citizens who are in high-crime neighborhoods where law enforcement issues are of a particular importance," he said. "It's part of the original punishment. It's not arbitrary. It's on the books."

Attorney General Pushes for Estrada Confirmation

2002-09-24T16:11:00.000-07:00

Tuesday, September 24, 2002

WASHINGTON — Attorney General John Ashcroft "strongly urged" the Senate to confirm the nomination of Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals.

"Miguel Estrada's nomination is a testament to his talent, his perseverance and his intelligence. He is superbly qualified. He has been praised by a broad range of supporters, including prominent Democrats," Ashcroft said Tuesday after emerging from a meeting with federal judiciary officials assembled at the Supreme Court. "I strongly urge the Senate to confirm Miguel Estrada to be the first Hispanic-American to sit on the D.C. Court of Appeals."

The Senate is expected to take up the Estrada nomination on Thursday. He was nominated 506 days ago, in May 2001, along with 10 other nominees.

A confirmation could put Estrada, an American of Honduran descent, in position to become the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice. The District Court is known as a stepping stone for Supreme Court justices. Three current justices -- Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- sat on that appeals court.

But Democrats plan to stand in Estrada's way. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., one of the leading opponents to Bush's drive to put conservatives on the federal bench, scheduled a hearing Tuesday on the D.C. Circuit and the importance of "ideological balance" on what is called the nation's second highest court.

Democrats accused Republicans of stalling former President Clinton's nominees for the D.C. appeals court in hopes of putting conservatives in those slots. No one has been confirmed for the court in five years.

Ashcroft called the vacancy rate in the judiciary an alarming crisis, adding "it is simply imperative that our third branch of government -- the judiciary -- be fully staffed to operate at maximum efficiency."

Seventy-seven vacancies exist in the courts, 10 more than when the 106th Congress adjourned before the 2000 election. Ashcroft said 13 of those vacancies are emergencies, and need to be filled immediately. There are seven vacancies out of 16 seats in the 6th Circuit Court that covers Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee.

But whether Estrada will be the next Appeals Court justice in the District remains to be seen. Already Democrats have twice used their one-member majority to defeat Bush nominees on party-line votes.

Estrada, by all accounts, has a brilliant legal mind. The American Bar Association calls him well-qualified, having argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court, and winning 10 of them.

A partner in the law firm that helped win the presidency for Bush during the Florida election recount, Estrada came to the United States at age 17 from the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa. He quickly learned English and ultimately graduated from Harvard Law School in 1986.

"It's amazing what he's been able to accomplish," said Solicitor General Ted Olson, Estrada's former law partner.

To his critics, Estrada, a naturalized citizen, did not suffer the same struggles as many immigrants. The son of a lawyer and bank president, Estrada lived a life of privilege in Honduras, according to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.

"Mr. Estrada has not lived the educationally or economically disadvantaged life his proponents would have others believe," said Juan Figueroa, the group's president. "Nor have Mr. Estrada's life experiences resembled or been shared with those of Latinos who have experienced discrimination or struggled with poverty, indifference or unfairness."

At his nomination hearing Thursday, Estrada, like all of Bush's appeals court nominees, will be asked if he can keep his personal views on issues apart from his duties as a judge. Estrada has said that he can judge without favor to any side.

"In my view, federal judges may decide only concrete cases or controversies that properly come to them," he said in response to a questionnaire from the Senate committee. "They may not 'make law' or reach beyond the facts and circumstances of the particular case they must decide."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Newest liability victims: West Virginia emergency patients

2002-09-14T16:15:00.000-07:00

Hospitals nationwide are scrambling to find the subspecialists needed to keep emergency departments running 24/7.
By Tanya Albert, AMNews staff. Sept. 16, 2002.

A West Virginia hospital that struggled over the past year to keep its Level I trauma center adequately staffed has lost its fight.

The West Virginia Emergency Medical Services office in August downgraded the Charleston Area Medical Center to a Level III trauma center, down from a Level I center equipped to handle serious injuries 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

CAMC didn't have enough orthopedic surgeons to cover the hospital. Sky-high medical liability rates and physicians' inability to find affordable insurance helped lead to the shortage.

The hospital -- which also had been struggling to keep its neurosurgeons and plastic surgeons -- saw the number of orthopedic surgeons available for call shrink to five, less than half the number covering the emergency department two years ago.

"We already know that people will have poorer outcomes," said David Kappel, MD, state chair for West Virginia's committee on trauma for the American College of Surgeons.

An estimated 800 to 1,000 patients -- about 40% of the people who came into the emergency department every year -- are expected to go elsewhere, according to a CAMC spokesman.

40% of emergency patients will need to go to other hospitals.
But hospitals that can treat severe trauma patients are few and far between in West Virginia. The downgrade leaves just one Level I trauma center in the state -- about three hours north in Morgantown -- and only one Level II center in Huntington, about 45 minutes west of Charleston.

"This is a major, major blow to the patients of this state," said Ahmed D. Faheem, MD, past president of the West Virginia State Medical Assn.

"It's a serious problem," added William D. Ramsey, MD, medical director for the West Virginia Emergency Medical Services office.

In the past year, emergency departments across the country have had to divert patients because they didn't have the doctors they needed.

Trauma centers from Florida to Pennsylvania have been at risk of not being able to treat patients because a group of neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons or other high-risk group hasn't been able to find affordable insurance.

And as regulatory agencies in various states evaluate hospitals, there could be other downgrades in the future, said Seattle emergency physician Matthew Rice, MD, chair for the American College of Emergency Physicians' professional liability task force.

"Every day, emergency departments struggle to find physicians to take call," he said.

System already strained
The medical liability problems come at a time when emergency departments already were dealing with other pressures that have mounted over the past decade, said Dr. Rice, who also has a law degree and is a vice president for Team Health West, an emergency department management company.

Between 1997 and 2000, emergency departments saw a 14% increase in visits, up to 108 million in 2000 versus 94.9 million in 1997, according to the ACEP. During that same time, the number of hospital emergency departments decreased to 3,934 from 4,005.

Low managed care reimbursement rates, physicians less willing to open themselves up to high-risk cases that could lead to lawsuits and a desire to work fewer night and weekend hours also have steered physicians away from taking patients on call.

"But the true crisis right now is trying to sort through the medical liability insurance issue," Dr. Rice said. "It can only be resolved at the federal level."

Legislation that the American Medical Association supports has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate that is based on reforms enacted in California more than two decades ago. The bills include a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases and a limit on the number of years patients would have to file a lawsuit.

"Why should West Virginia patients or patients in any other state be put at increased risk all because lawmakers refuse to enact proven reforms?" asked AMA President-elect Donald J. Palmisano, MD. "It is an emergency situation when a city loses a Level I trauma center because of the medical liability crisis."

Improving conditions
In an ideal world, it would take about six months for the Charleston Area Medical Center to reopen its doors, but realistically it could take up to two years to recruit the physicians needed to keep the center staffed at Level I status.

"We're continuing our efforts to recruit physicians, but it's been an uphill battle," said Andy Wessels, CAMC spokesman. "We want to get the designation back, and we will do everything we can."

EDs nationwide dropped from 4,005 in 1997 to 3,934 in 2000.
West Virginia hospitals and physicians believe that state tort reform could go a long way toward solving the recruiting problem and other problems associated with medical liability insurance.

The WVSMA supports medical liability reforms on the state level, including a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, Dr. Faheem said. For the past two years, physicians have called on the Legislature for medical liability reforms, but they haven't gotten too far. With the downgrading of the Level I trauma center in the state capital, however, things could be different this time.

"I'm pretty sure it was a wake-up call," Dr. Faheem said. He noted that for the first time since West Virginia started experiencing problems, editorials in local newspapers have joined the call for the state Legislature to do something.

West Virginia lawmakers go back in session in January 2003.

"I hope everyone involved appreciates the seriousness of the situation," Dr. Ramsey said.

Democrats Kill Owen Nomination

2002-09-05T16:20:00.000-07:00

Thursday, September 05, 2002
By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos

WASHINGTON — In an action Republican members said was "crossing a threshold" of congressional irresponsibility, Senate Democrats effectively killed President Bush's nomination of Texas Supreme Court Judge Priscilla Owen Thursday.

After a series of statements condemning the judge for what they said was her conservative activism on the bench, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee rejected her nomination to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a strict 10 to nine party line vote.

This was the second Bush nominee to be rejected on a party line basis, the first being Judge Charles W. Pickering. Republicans charged that Owen had been consistently endorsed as a well-qualified justice with an unblemished record, and that Democrats for the first time had rejected a nominee based solely on the fact that she did not pass their own ideological litmus test.

"Today my colleagues are set to reject a nominee that is unblemished in every respect," said Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, a ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Calling the rejection of Owen an "injustice," Hatch said, "today is a day that we will long regret, on both sides of the aisle."

Hatch said he was informed going in to today's vote that Democrats had decided long before today to reject the judge who has been walloped by criticism from liberal special interest groups, many of whom had helped to kill Pickering's nomination earlier this congressional session.

Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the committee, and Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., who led Owen's nomination hearing in July, opened the Democratic charge against the judge Thursday by calling her a conservative extremist who worked to place barriers to a woman's right to choose an abortion on numerous cases in Texas.

Leahy said a major problem with Owen was "her extremism even in the conservative region of the Supreme Court of Texas."

He and Owen's critics, led by groups like People for the American Way and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights League, centered their attacks on a 1999 opinion Owen wrote against an exemption for a 17-year-old girl who wanted to get an abortion without parental notification.

Her opinion at the time was criticized by Judge Alberto Gonzalez, who served with her on the court and is now White House Counsel. He has since softened his tone, though her critics have used his words more than once to emphasize their arguments against her.

Feinstein said Owen has been led by her ideology, rather than the law, and that the appellate court in New Orleans, for which she has been nominated, would suffer for that.

"Not only does this appellate court represent many people who are poor, many people who are minority, many people who depend on the court for a fair and impartial shake," she said. But the court needs a judge that rules "based on the law, not on the basis of the justice's beliefs."

Hatch reminded the committee that as recently as last year, Owen received the gold standard seal of approval from the American Bar Association, the endorsement of 23 major newspapers and the support of Texas' two Senators.

He balked at charges that Owen had overstepped her judicial boundaries, pointing out that it was the Texas legislature that passed the parental notification law for minors seeking abortions and that she only dissented three times out of 12 in such cases before the Texas court. He said her rejection would have a "chilling effect," not only on conservative female judges, but on the legal and political systems.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he was "angry" with what he saw as the slander of a well-qualified jurist.

"It's hard not to be angry. We're passing some kind of threshold today," he said. "We are going too far."

Bush Seeks Secrecy For Pardon Discussions

2002-08-27T16:21:00.000-07:00

By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 27, 2002; Page A01

President Bush's lawyers are trying to keep secret the inside stories of President Bill Clinton's last-day pardons by invoking a claim of executive privilege that extends far beyond the White House.

In pleadings filed in U.S. District Court here this month, including affidavits from White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and Deputy Attorney General Larry D. Thompson, the Bush administration contends that the privilege covers not only advice given to a president about individual pardons, but also government papers he has never seen and officials he has never talked to, such as the sentencing judge in a particular case.

The stance, taken in opposition to a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit group Judicial Watch for access to Clinton pardon records, represents a hard line that the government has never taken. In the past, executive privilege has been recognized for advisers who operate within the White House. Bush's lawyers say it covers officials in any part of the government who are asked for input about pardon requests.

The pardon is "a core Presidential power exclusively entrusted to, and exercised by, the President himself, and the documents generated in the process of developing and providing advice to him are squarely subject to the privilege," Assistant Attorney General Robert D. McCallum Jr. wrote in an Aug. 12 memo seeking summary dismissal of the Judicial Watch case.

A legal watchdog group that has challenged both Republican and Democratic administrations, Judicial Watch sued the Justice Department under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) last year for records concerning pardons granted or "considered" by Clinton in January 2001. The 177 pardons and commutations that he approved on his last day in office kicked up a storm, especially over the clemency he bestowed on fugitive financier Marc Rich, a man prominently listed on the government's international "lookout" list, and his business partner, Pincus Green.

"It's a bad-faith argument," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said of the government's position. "The courts have already said that executive privilege does not exist outside the White House. The Bush administration is now covering up for Bill Clinton, Marc Rich and Pinky Green."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said: "The president has always been entitled to receive confidential advice and candid assessments from attorneys in the federal government. . . . To release such documents would have a chilling effect on the deliberative process."

In the past, even pardon recommendations sent directly to the president from the Justice Department have been routinely made public by government archivists after several years. But in response to other recent requests for historical files, separate from the Judicial Watch suit, the Justice Department under Bush is asserting the same privilege to maintain the secrecy of pardon records as far back as 75 years ago. One set being withheld on instructions from the White House deals with the clemency granted Marcus Garvey, leader of the back-to-Africa movement, who was released from prison in 1927 after his conviction for stock fraud.

Bush, himself, has yet to invoke executive privilege in the Judicial Watch case, a Justice Department spokeswoman confirmed. In the past, the courts have said he must invoke the privilege personally, but the government's pleadings do not indicate whether he intends to do so.

Thousands of documents about Clinton's final pardons are at issue in the litigation, including many "authored or solicited or received by [Justice] Department officials in the course of preparing and providing information to assist the President in the exercise of his constitutional pardon power," McCallum wrote. These would include records showing whether a government prosecutor, sentencing judge or prison warden thought clemency was warranted and what the FBI found in background investigations that are normally conducted in response to clemency applications.

McCallum invoked a broad "presidential communications privilege" for all documents. He said many of the records are also exempt under the FOIA because they are protected by a narrower subset of executive privilege, the "deliberative process" privilege, in that they reveal "advice, deliberations and recommendations comprising part of the process by which Justice Department officials assisted and advised the President in the exercise of his clemency powers."

Clinton repeatedly short-circuited the pardon process, which requires applications to the U.S. pardon attorney at the Justice Department; investigation by the FBI; consultation with interested parties, from the sentencing judge to the victim; and a report and recommendation by the pardon attorney to the president, after a review by the deputy attorney general.

In his affidavit, Thompson, the deputy attorney general, said his office was withholding from Judicial Watch documents "that are subject to executive privilege," such as memos and e-mails between his staff and the pardon attorney's office; requests for information; and summaries of selected cases, including some with handwritten notes reflecting the deputy attorney general's viewpoint. This appeared to be a reference to Clinton's deputy attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr.

Thompson said his ability to advise the president about pardons would be "greatly impaired" if these records were "subject to public disclosure."

White House counsel Gonzales said in his affidavit that he is "aware" that Justice is withholding internal documents prepared "in the course of performing their responsibility" to the president. He said the assistance of officials and staff at Justice is "critical" to the president's exclusive authority to grant pardons.

In seeking dismissal of the case, McCallum also sought to head off congressional interest in the records. "Congress," he wrote, "has no constitutional authority to exercise oversight over the President's pardon power, or, therefore, to compel public production of records relating to the President's exercise of his pardon power."

Bush has granted no pardons or commutations since taking office. As of July 31, he had denied 508 pardon petitions and 1,346 commutation requests.