Window on Washington
News, analysis, color and photography from Cox Newspapers' Washington BureauRSS feed
What's on this page →
All the entries posted in June.
Categories
| RSS | |
| RSS | |
| RSS | |
| RSS | |
| RSS | |
| RSS | |
| RSS |
Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. M-F
Recent entries
Home > Window on Washington > Archives > 2007 > June
June 2007
Fashion Flip-Flop in Seersucker Saga
Ten months after President Bush gave a dashing reporter (see above) a hard time for wearing a seersucker suit to a White House news conference, the president seems to have changed his mind about the comfortable summer garb.
“That’s not a seersucker suit, is it?” Bush said in acknowledging the attire of a questioner at his speech today at the Naval War College in Rhode Island. “It’s coming back, yes. They’re coming back.”
Permalink | |
South Lawn Tee Ball
That’s President Bush taking a hands on approach as he tries to get Eliza Griffith of Cumberland, Md., going in the right direction during the have-your-picture-taken-with-the-president photo session after today’s South Lawn tee ball game at the White House.
As usual, a good time was had by all. As usual, the score was not kept.
Today’s match-up featured the Bobcats of Allegheny County, Md., against the Red Wings of Luray, Va.
Permalink | |
The Kennebunkport Summit: Try The Lobster
Sounds like the White House is trying to tamp down expectations about this weekend’s Kennebunkport meeting between Presidents Bush and Putin (shown above in St. Petersburg in 2006 as the Russian leader showed off his first car).
From Tony Snow this morning, “President Putin is going to come for a meeting with the president. They are obviously going to have an opportunity to talk about a lot of things. It’s about all I can give you.”
“If you’re looking for some grand announcement, I recommend the lobster roll,” Snow said. “But on the other hand it’s important to continue the personal relationship between the two leaders, which, as we’ve said, despite the differences is always frank. The two men certainly respect and appreciate one another. It’s important that they have an opportunity to talk and talk confidentially, and they will do that.”
No word on whether Bush plans to show Putin his first boat.
Permalink | |
The Money Game
As the end of the fundraising period approaches this week, Democrats have found two men they believe can inspire fellow Democrats to reach into their pockets and come up with cash for the 2008 congressional races.
They are President Bush and his longtime adviser/buddy Karl Rove.
“Karl Rove understands that elections can’t be won in 2007, but they can be lost,” Democratic consultant James Carville wrote in an e-mail to Democrats. “In fact, Karl Rove & Co. is already out training a new crop of Republican lemmings to run for office, teaching pages out of their GOP playbook on how to lie, cheat, steal and plot a Republican takeover. There is nothing Republicans want more than to avenge last November’s loss.”
Former Veep Al Gore’s fundraising e-mail keyed on Bush.
“For too long the Bush administration has allowed the truth to be outsourced,” Gore wrote. “Six years of George W. Bush governing by fear, isolation and intimidation have taken a tremendous toll on our environment, our families and our democracy. We can’t stop global warming, end the war in Iraq or even thrive as a democracy if we refuse to base our policy debates on facts and throughtful principled discourse.”
Permalink | |
Liberty and Justice For All. Refreshments for Some.
GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul, his campaign says, will be in Iowa on Saturday to “celebrate life and liberty” at a Des Moines rally. The event follows a candidates forum sponsored by the Iowans for Tax Relief and the Iowa Christian Alliance.
Paul, a Texas congressman, will “share his message of freedom, peace and prosperity,” according to the campaign.
And he will share refreshments with some.
“Food and beverage will be provided to the first 500 people who arrive,” the campaign said in announcing the rally.
Maybe Mrs. Paul can whip up some fish sticks for the overflow.
The Post and The Veep
Not much official White House reaction today to The Washington Post’s exhaustive and unflattering series on Vice President Cheney. (Headline on today’s installment: “The Unseen Path to Cruelty”)
“I just hope (Post reporters Barton) Gellman and (Jo) Becker are getting paid by the word,” said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.
Asked if the series, in the works for more than a year, paints an accurate portrait of Cheney, Frato said, “I’m not going to answer an overall question.”
“The vice president’s role is to advise the president,” Fratto said.
And when Cheney took the job, Fratto said, he was not interested in “running for president or being a media star.”
Anything in the series, which has two parts to come, provide a source of heartburn for the administration?
“I haven’t seen anything that’s given me heartburn,” said Fratto.
National Association of Railroad Passengers Proposes Doubling of Rail Infrastructure Over 40 Years
 Amtrak’s current system map (PDF) |
 NARP’s proposed system map (PDF) |
The plan adds new new east-west connections from the east coast, north-south connections throughout the west, and new connections to many major metropolitan centers that are currently either under-served by Amtrak or not served at all.
Of note to Cox-owned papers, the following new connections are being proposed:
Atlanta:
- Atlanta to Macon to Savannah
- Atlanta to Macon to Jacksonville
- Atlanta to Augusta to Columbia to Charleston
- Atlanta to Chattanooga
- Atlanta to Opelika to Montgomery
Palm Beach:
- West Palm Beach to Ft. Pierce to Melbourne to Daytona to Jacksonville
Dayton:
- Dayton to Cincinnati
- Dayton to Columbus to Pittsburgh
- Dayton to Lima to Toledo
Austin:
- Austin to San Antonio to Laredo
- Austin to San Antonio to Corpus Christi
Longview:
- Longview to Houston to Victoria to Brownsville
According to NARP, the goal “is to have a nationwide ‘grid and gateway’ system fully in place in the next 40 years, which can be achieved by utilizing existing resources.”
Ross Capon, NARP’s Executive Director says that the next step for NARP will be to approach lawmakers to encourage adoption of the plan.
Two Presidents
While the protests continued outside the White House, Presidents Bush and Vietnamese President Nguyen Minh Triet made brief comments to the press after their Oval Office meeting and before their lunch in the old family dining room.
Bush sandwiched a human rights comment in with happy talk about his recent trip to Vietnam and the burgeoning trade relations between the two nations. The two presidents had engaged in the proverbial “frank and candid discussion,” said the American one.
“I also made it very clear that in order for relations to grow deeper that it’s important for our friends to have a strong commitment to human rights and freedom and democracy,” Bush said. “I explained my strong belief that societies are enriched when people are allowed to express themselves freely or worship freely.”
Said Triet, through a translator: “Mr. President and I also had direct and open exchange of views on a matter that we may (differ), especially on matters related to religion and human rights. And our approach is that we would increase our dialogue in order to have a better understanding of each other. And we are also determined not to let those differences afflict our overall, larger interest.”
And he wants Americans to know that Vietnam is “a stable, peaceful and friendly country.”
Permalink | |
Bush: Human Rights Hero
A ‘Cheney’ Branch of Goverment?
In view of Vice President Dick Cheney’s claim that he is not subject to executive orders on handling classified information because he’s actually a legislative official, a liberal watchdog group Friday suggested he was setting up a fourth branch of government.
If the vice president, who is the constiutionally designated president of the Senate, is actually in the legislature, then he should be subject to Senate rules of conduct, argued Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Only problem is, the Senate ethics manual on page 25 states that the vice president “is not a Member, officer, or employee of the Senate” and thus not subject to Senate ethics codes—making the Cheney branch of government an oversight-free zone.
Permalink | |
“Fire The Liar”
Even before Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty got the chance today to describe his role in last year’s firing of nine U.S. attorneys, protesters dressed in pink took over the House Judiciary Committee room.
The protesters, wearing signs with “Fire the Liar” emblazoned across their backs, demanded that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales be removed from office for not telling Congress the truth about why the prosecutors were fired.
One woman, dressed in an orange jump suit like the detainees at Guatanamo, asked if there were “any lawyers in the room” to preserve their right to protest Gonzales.
Numbering fewer than a dozen, the protesters didn’t get very far. Police officers carted them away.
Gonzales has asserted in testimony before Congress that he mishandled the dismissals, but has done nothing improper in firing the prosecutors.
Permalink | |
Shhh: ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Might Be On Its Way Out
For more than a decade, the Clinton-era “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy has left gays in the military to navigate a murky netherworld: able to serve only so long as they keep their sexual orientation secret.
Now a move is gathering in Congress to rescind that policy and replace it with a clear statement that gays and lesbians are welcome to wear the uniform.
A bill to do just that is being championed by Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Calif., who takes over once original sponsor Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., leaves the House in July.
With 126 cosponsors, the legislation picked up backing earlier this month from one of the most conservative voices in American politics: former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Barr said ”don’t ask, don’t tell” is an invasion of privacy that is hurting the military’s ability to recruit, at a time when forces are stretched thin by war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By one estimate, there are 65,000 gays and lesbians in active and reserve military units. Barr wrote that more than 11,000 have been fired under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” including more than 1,000 service members with critical skills like the ability to speak Arabic.
Tauscher hopes to begin hearings on the matter in the fall.
“We realize that things like this take time,” said Tauscher’s spokesman, Kevin Lawlor. “It’s not going to come to the floor anytime soon.”
Advocates for gays and lesbians, however, were heartened by Barr’s endorsement of the legislation.
“When you get Bob Barr with you on a lesbian/gay issue, you’re come a long, long way,” said Steve Ralls, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a Washington-based advocacy group pushing for the legislation. Its passage, he said, would mean that “lesbian and gay service members will not have to hide;” new doors would open for gays and lesbians in the military; and the fear many live with of having their careers ended by the revelation of their sexual preferences would come to an end.
By one estimate, there are 65,000 gays and lesbians in active and reserve military units.
Barr wrote that more than 11,000 have been fired under “don’t ask, don’t tell,” including more than 1,000 service members with critical skills like the ability to speak Arabic.
Tauscher hopes to begin hearings on the matter in the fall.
“We realize that things like this take time,” said Tauscher’s spokesman, Kevin Lawlor. “It’s not going to come to the floor anytime soon.”
Advocates for gays and lesbians, however, were heartened by Barr’s endorsement of the legislation.
“When you get Bob Barr with you on a lesbian/gay issue, you’re come a long, long way,” said Steve Ralls, spokesman for the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, a Washington-based advocacy group pushing for the legislation.
Its passage, he said, would mean that “lesbian and gay service members will not have to hide;” new doors would open for gays and lesbians in the military; and the fear many live with of having their careers ended by the revelation of their sexual preferences would come to an end.
Permalink | |
The President and Stem Cells
Here’s the “fact sheet” distributed by the White House in conjunction with President Bush’s veto today of a stem-cell research bill:
Advancing Stem Cell Research While Respecting Moral Boundaries President Bush Takes Action To Support Ethical Research, Vetoes Bill Overturning Balanced Stem Cell Policy
Today, President Bush Signed An Executive Order To Strengthen Our Nation’s Commitment To Research On Pluripotent Stem Cells. Scientists have recently shown they have the ingenuity and skill to pursue the potential benefits of pluripotent stem cell research п research on cells that have the potential to develop into nearly all the cell types and tissues in the body п without endangering human life in the process. By expanding support for non-destructive research methods, this Executive Order will make it more likely that these exciting advances continue to unfold.
President Bush Also Vetoed A Bill That Would Overturn His Careful, Ethical Approach To Stem Cell Research. If this legislation became law, it would compel American taxpayers п for the first time in our history п to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos. The President has made it clear to Congress and the American people that he will not allow the Nation to cross this moral line.
In August 2001, President Bush Announced A Policy To Advance Stem Cell Research In A Way That Is Ambitious, Ethical, And Effective. President Bush was the first president to make Federal funds available for human embryonic stem cell research п and his policy did this in ways that would not encourage the destruction of embryos.
The President Believes We Must Pursue The Possibilities Of Science In A Manner That Respects Human Dignity And Upholds Our Moral Values. Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical, and it is not the only option before us. Technical innovation in this difficult area is opening up new possibilities for progress without conflict or ethical controversy.
The President’s Careful Approach Is Producing Results. Since 2001, the Administration has made $130 million dollars available for research on stem cell lines derived from embryos that had already been destroyed before the President’s policy was announced. It has also provided more than $3 billion in Federal funding for research on all forms of stem cells, including those from adult and other non-embryonic sources. This funding has contributed to proven therapeutic treatments in thousands of patients with many different diseases, and it is opening the prospect of new treatments and cures that could transform countless lives.
Recent Scientific Breakthroughs Are Showing Stem Cell Science Can Progress While Respecting Moral Boundaries
There Have Been Advances In Therapies That Use Stem Cells Drawn From Adults, Children, And The Blood From Umbilical Cords п With No Harm To The Donor.
Researchers Are Now Developing Promising New Techniques That Offer The Potential To Produce Pluripotent Stem Cells п Without Having To Destroy Human Life.
This month, several new studies showed the potential of reprogramming adult cells, such as skin cells, to make them function like embryonic stem cells.
In January 2007, scientists discovered that cells extracted from amniotic fluid and placentas could also provide stem cells that seem to do what embryonic stem cells can п without creating or destroying embryos.
The Administration Is Taking Immediate Action To Increase Our Support For These Researchers In Their Vital Work
Today, President Bush Issued An Executive Order To Strengthen Our Nation’s Commitment To Research On Pluripotent Stem Cells.
The Order:
Directs the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health to ensure that any human pluripotent stem cell lines produced in ways that do not create, destroy, or harm human embryos will be eligible for federal funding.
Expands the NIH’s Embryonic Stem Cell registry to include all types of ethically produced human pluripotent stem cells.
Renames the registry the Pluripotent Stem Cell Registry п so that it reflects what the stem cells can do, instead of where they come from.
Invites scientists to work with the NIH, so we can add new ethically derived stem cell lines to the list of those eligible for Federal funding.
President Bush Calls On Congress To Pass Legislation That Would Authorize Additional Funds For Ethical Stem Cell Research So He Can Sign It Into Law. The Senate recently passed a bill that would authorize additional Federal funding for alternative stem cell research, and the President calls on the House to pass similar legislation.
Permalink | |
Moving Day Approaches
That’s President Bush kind of waving good-bye last August on the day the White House Briefing Room and adjoining press area were shut down for a massive and overdue renovation project.
The project’s almost done but photos of the refurbished digs in the West Wing have been placed off limits by White House officials concerned about security. Some photographers - nosy types that they are - have snapped a photo or two when the doors were opened.
This is bad, says the White House, which has embargoed publication of any photos of the new briefing room until July 9, which is sort of the official grand opening.
Here’s today’s e-mail of warning from White House aide Josh Deckard:
“Press are NOT allowed to photograph the brief room during this transition-they aren’t even supposed to be in there. Press took pictures this morning and got very rude w/ the workers when they asked them to stop. Please make sure those pictures don’t run. If anyone breaks this rule from here on out they will lose their pass.”
Photographers? Rude?
The White House Correspondents Association is trying to get the White House to allow publication of the photos sometime prior to July 9.
Late update: There’s a minor crisis of sorts in the press work area. Seems a mismeasurement caused a walkway to be narrower than planned, which - due to fire regulations - has required a reconfiguring of some work spaces.
The short version is some of the work spaces for reporters might require some reporters to adopt a weight-loss regimen in order to fit into their work spaces. Potential remedies are being mulled.
And, while we cannot show photos, suffice it to say that two handsome columns will flank the rostrum where briefers will brief and use fancy new video screens to make their points.
Permalink | |
The Republican National Committee Responds To E-mail Report
The Republican National Committee has a few things to say about a new congressional report alleging that White House officials may have violated federal law by using e-mail accounts tied to the RNC and the Bush-Cheney campaign for official White House communication.
“It is troubling that Henry Waxman’s committee jumped the gun and appears to be representing Democrats’ partisan spin as ‘fact,’” said Tracey Schmitt, spokesperson for the RNC, referring to Rep. Henry A. Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Reform and Oversight Committee.
“Not only have we been clear that we are continuing our efforts to search for e-mails, but there is no basis for an assumption that any e-mail not already found would be of an official nature,” Schmitt said.
And this from Eric A. Kuwana, counsel to the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign, about the new report, which we wrote about yesterday:
“In an effort to cooperate with the committee, counsel for BC ‘04 engaged in substantial written and verbal communications with committee staff for more than a month to try to reach an agreement on exactly what, when and how any appropriate information would be produced to the committee,” Kuwana said.
The campaign documents and information are from a limited time serveral years ago, Kuwana said. They have “no articulated connection to the investigations of the committee, and very well may be the type and nature of political documents that are specifically exempt from the Presidential Records Act,” he said.
Scott Stanzel, a White House spokesperson, takes issue with the congressional report. No one is trying to hide communication by using their political accounts, he said. Rather, it is practical for certain White House officials to use e-mail accounts tied to the Republican party when they deal with political issues.
“This is an attempt make old news new again,” Stanzel said. The White House has rewritten its rules for using outside accounts since the uproar over White House officials communicating about fired U.S. attorneys on outside accounts.
“What Rep. Waxman tried to do was to make premature conclusions based on incomplete information in an effort to grab headlines,” Stanzel said.
“The policy is clear now,” Stanzel said.
The Presidential Records Act requires the president to “take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented … and maintained as Presidential records.”
To comply with the law, the White House counsel’s office instructed White House staff six years ago to refrain from using any other e-mail account for official business other than the White House system.
The evidence obtained by the committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC e-mail accounts “in a manner that circumvented these requirements,” according to the report.
“Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC e-mail accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing e-mails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive,” the committee report states.
To see specifics from the report look at yesterday’s blog item.
Permalink | | Categories: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Washington
Cornyn, Costco and Booze
In addition to being a member of the U.S. Senate, one of the world’s great debating societies, John Cornyn is a member of Costco, one of the world’s great shopping societies.
And, we learn from The Reliable Source column in The Washington Post, Costco seems to be the place where Cornyn stocks up on adult beverages. A Cornyn trip to Costco was among three Texas-related items in today’s column under the “Hey, Isn’t That…?” section.
The Texas senator and wife Sandy were seen “loading up on Amstel Light and wine at the Pentagon City Costco Friday afternoon, the Texas Republican wearing - whoo hoo! - a Hawaiian print shirt. What was the occasion? Just a rare summer weekend in D.C., said his rep.”
Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was seen “squeezing into one of those Southwest seats on a BWI-St. Louis flight yesterday. Must be a drag after the years on Air Force One.”
The final Texas-related note reported that Lynda Bird Johnson Robb and one of her daughters were seen “laughing through the ribald ‘The Witches of Eastwick’ at Signature Theatre in Arlington Sunday afternoon. The former Va. first lady wore a very classic white sweater and is apparently a series subscriber.”
Permalink | |
White House Disclosures
Here are the kinds of tidbits you pick up thanks to the required financial disclosures that top White House aides file. The reports were released Monday.
Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten has a Key West vacation home worth between a half-million and a million dollars. Something listed as his “second home” is in Great Falls, Virginia and valued at between $1 million and $5 million. He’s got 30-year mortgages on each.
GOP political consultant Alex Castellanos let Sara Taylor (until recently the White House political director) use his house in the Virgin Islands for a week. She listed him as “personal friend” and valued the week at $1,000.
Joe Hagin, an assistant to the president, owns a “rental house” in Cincinnati valued between $1 million and $5 million. It generated between $50,001 and $100,000 last year.
Last year’s wedding gifts for Joel Kaplan, deputy chief of staff for policy, included, among other things, a platter and bowl set ($318), a pewter candelabra ($315), a platter ($450) and a 20-piece dinner set ($340). And isn’t it special when federal law requires you to ask the cost of wedding gifts?
Ed Gillespie, recently named counselor to the president, gave Kaplan two crystal wine glasses ($370). High-dollar gift on the list came from Mr. and Mrs. Arnold Rubin, friends from Boston, who shelled out $770 for a five-piece setting of sterling.
Political guru Karl Rove listed his Rosemary Beach, Florida home (valued between $1 million and $5 million) and an Ingram, Texas rental home (valued between $100,001 and $250,000).
Anita McBride, chief of staff for Laura Bush, ran up a $10,001-$15,000 total on her Neiman Marcus card, at a 21 percent interest rate.
And maybe the best tidbit of all involves Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto.
Real name? Salvatore A. Fratto.
Permalink | |
House Oversight Committee Report Alleges Abuse Of E-mails
The House Government Reform and Oversight Committee issues a new report today on its investigation into whether White House officials violated federal law by using e-mail accounts tied to the Republican National Committee and the last presidential campaign for official White House communication.
The Presidential Records Act requires the president to “take all such steps as may be necessary to assure that the activities, deliberations, decisions, and policies that reflect the performance of his constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties are adequately documented ./././ and maintained as Presidential records.”
To comply with the law, the White House Counsel’s office instructed White House staff six years ago to refrain from using any other e-mail account for official business other than the White House system.
The evidence obtained by the committee indicates that White House officials used their RNC e-mail accounts “in a manner that circumvented these requirements,” according to the report.
“Given the heavy reliance by White House officials on RNC e-mail accounts, the high rank of the White House officials involved, and the large quantity of missing e-mails, the potential violation of the Presidential Records Act may be extensive,” the committee report states.
The White House has not responded to a request for an interview to respond to the report.
The report found:
*The number of White House officials given RNC e-mail accounts is higher than previously disclosed. In March 2007, White House spokesperson Dana Perino said that only a “handful of officials” had RNC e-mail accounts. In later statements, her estimate rose to “50 over the course of the administration.”
In fact, the Committee has learned from the RNC that at least 88 White House officials had RNC e-mail accounts. The officials with RNC e-mail accounts include Karl Rove, the president’s senior adviser; Andrew Card, the former White House chief of staff; Ken Mehlman, the former White House director of political affairs; and many other officials in the office of political affairs, the office of communications, and the office of the vice president.
*White House officials extensively used their RNC e-mail accounts. The RNC has preserved 140,216 e-mails sent or received by Rove. Over half of these e-mails (75,374) were sent to or received from individuals using official “.gov” e-mail accounts. Other heavy users of RNC e-mail accounts include former White House Director of Political Affairs Sara Taylor (66,018 e-mails) and Deputy Director of Political Affairs Scott Jennings (35,198 e-mails). These e-mail accounts were used by White House officials for official purposes, such as communicating with federal agencies about federal appointments and policies.
*There has been extensive destruction of the e-mails of White House officials by the RNC. The RNC has not preserved e-mails for 51 out of the 88 officials with such e-mail accounts.
*There is evidence that the Office of White House Counsel under Alberto Gonzales may have known that White House officials were using RNC e-mail accounts for official business, but took no action to preserve these presidential records.
Permalink | |
By Invitation Only
Provocative filmmaker Michael Moore has come up with a sure-to-create controversy way of promoting “SiCKO,” his new documentary about the health care industry.
Over the next five days, Moore will run an ad in some Washington area newspapers that include an invitation to all registered health care lobbyists to attend a special screening of his movie.
The ad lists all the names of the lobbyists and features rows of tombstones, reflecting the central theme of the movie - that the health care industry is dangerous to the health of Americans.
Moore also plans to set up a real-time webcam at the screening Wednesday afternoon to keep track of the lobbyists who actually accept the invitation, then convert it to a YouTube posting on the SiCKO YouTube channel.
“We’re hopeful that some health care lobbyists show up and that they are able to see the real life consequence of a broken health care system,” Moore spokesperson Jesse Derris said.
Permalink | |
Hold That Bill
Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has placed a hold on a measure that would undo President Bush’s 2001 executive order that gave presidents and former presidents increased authority to block the release of White House records.
Coburn’s move came a day after a Senate committee advanced the measure, which had won overwhelming House approval in March and seemed headed for Senate approval.
Coburn’s staff had no immediate comment on Thursday, but a spokeswoman for Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said Coburn is not convinced lawmakers can overturn a presidential executive order. Maria Najera said the matter is being researched.
Bush’s order allowed presidents and ex-presidents to challenge the release of White House records at any time. His order erased a 1978 law that said that authority expired 12 years after an administration ends.
The White House has said Bush would veto the bill if approved by lawmakers.
Under Senate practice, a “hold” allows any member to stall action on a bill until he or she is consulted.
Permalink | |
The President at War
The White House today equated President Bush’s role in the war with that of front-line troops. The comments came in answers from Press Secretary Tony Snow. The questions came from columnist Helen Thomas during today’s White House briefing.
“How many more Americans is he willing to sacrifice to keep this war going?” Thomas asked about Bush, who in a speech earlier today renewed his prediction of increasing U.S. casualties in Iraq in weeks and months to come.
Snow talked about the dedication of the troops who “feel that they’re part of something very special.”
“The president wishes that nobody had to die. This is something that is deeply personal. He quite often meets with families of those who have been wounded and killed,” Snow said, adding that “many, many more people will be washed away in needless bloodshed” if the U.S. does not complete the mission.
Said Thomas: “I have one follow-up. … Are there any members of the Bush family or this administration in this war?”
“Yes,” said Snow, “the president. The president is in the war every day.”
Thomas said that wasn’t her question. She said she meant “on the front lines.”
“The president,” Snow said.
Permalink | |
Angelou Endorses Clinton Presidential Bid
Writer Maya Angelou, who was the featured poet at Bill Clinton’s 1993 inauguration, endorsed Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid Monday.
In a video released by the Clinton campaign, Angelou said of the New York senator: “I would encourage her to be a long-distance runner. Be in this thing to win.
She added: “You’ve got a lot of help and a lot of people care for you - not just admire you, but really have profound affection for you.”
Angelou, nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in 1993, read her poem “On the Pulse of Morning” at the presidential inauguration that same year.
Dinner with the President
Both major parties seem happy about the $15.4 million raised for the National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee at a Wednesday night dinner featuring President Bush.
“I’m pleased with the success we’ve achieved through tonight’s dinner,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and chairman of the annual event known as the President’s Dinner.
Matthew Miller, spokesman for the rival Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, was similarly pleased by the number. He noted the $15.4 million is the least the GOPers have raised at a President’s Dinner featuring Bush.
“Another day, another disappointing result for George Bush and the NRSC. Republican Senate candidates have been afraid to be seen in public with the president since last year. But they could at least always count on him to raise unprecedented amounts of money for their campaigns. Now he’s not even good for that,” said Miller.
Here’s the bottom-line stats, courtesy of the Democrats, on how much Bush raised for the GOP at previous President’s Dinners: 2006, $27 million; 2005, $23 million; 2004, $23 million; 2003, $22 million; 2002, $30 million; 2001, $20 million.
And here’s Bush’s assessment of the event, as included in his remarks to the crowd at the Washington Convention Center: “The only way to call this dinner is an unqualified success.”
Permalink | |
Pocketed Watch, Part 2
A day after the buzz about whether President Bush’s watch was stolen while he was greeted by enthusiastic supporters in Albania, the president today went out of his way to display his time piece to reporters in the Oval Office when he announced his pick of Ed Gillespie as his new counselor.
“I have never seen such a ludicrous story,” Bush said. “Unbelievable.”
Spokesman Tony Snow insisted the watch Bush wore today (see AP photo above) was the same one he had on in Albania. Snow previously said the watch disappeared from Bush’s wrist because he put it in his pocket.
It is, says Snow, a Timex.
Permalink | |
Bush’s New Counselor
In the Oval Office at about 12:45 p.m. today President Bush will introduce former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie as his new counselor, replacing longtime aide Dan Bartlett, who recently announced his resignation.
The selection was confirmed this morning by a top Bush aide.
Gillespie is a longtime GOP strategist and has worked closely with the White House, including shepherding Supreme Court nominees Samuel Alito and John Roberts through the Senate confirmation process. Gillespie is now a lobbyist, and worked in Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign and the Florida recount that followed it.
He chaired the Republican National Committee from 2003-2005 and now serves as Virginia GOP chairman.
As counselor, Gillespie will inherit Bartlett’s role as a top adviser on communications strategy.
Permalink | |
House and Senate Issue Subpoenas in U.S. Attorney Probe
The House and Senate Judiciary committees plan to issue a host of subpoenas today in their investigations into the questionable firing of nine U.S. attorneys last year, Cox Newspapers has learned.
A House Judiciary Committee source told Cox that the House panel would compel the testimony of former White House Counsel Harriet Miers. The Senate panel plans to force Sara Taylor, the former top aide of presidential adviser Karl Rove, to appear.
In addition, both committees are demanding all relevant documents in their investigation, which examines whether the federal prosecutors were fired to squelch public corruption investigations of Republicans or to hasten voter fraud investigations against Democratic leaning groups.
To date, the White House has not turned over a single document. Lawmakers, the source said, are beyond frustration and want answers now.
The White House has offered former and current officials to testify behind closed doors. The lawmakers no longer believe that offer suffices, the source said.
The White House has not responded yet.
Former Justice Official Opens Up About FOIA
As efforts to overhaul the beleaguered 41-year-old Freedom of Information Act stall on Capitol Hill, the former head of the government office overseeing the law gave Cox Newspapers his views on the measure.
Daniel J. Metcalfe founded the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy with his colleague Richard Huff in 1981 with the goal of encouraging “responsible disclosure of government information.”
Metcalfe, 55, retired in January after nearly two years of dealing with Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales. To read our related story from June 10, click here.
Metcalfe is becoming a professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and executive director of a new Center on Government Secrecy being established there next month.
Here are excerpts from his interview with Cox Newspapers:
QUESTION: As the Justice Department’s former leading official on the Freedom of Information Act, do you believe President Bush’s December 2005 executive order changed the way agencies respond to FOIA requests? If so, how? Open government advocates say the backlogs are just as long as ever.
METCALFE:
Yes, that December 2005 FOIA Executive Order has had a considerable impact on the way in which FOIA requests are handled at federal agencies; one need only look at the extensive FOIA improvement plans developed by agencies in mid-2006, as reflected both in my testimony before Congress last July and in the Justice Department’s executive order report of last October, to see that.
Throughout the government, under the Justice Department’s leadership, as much was done as was possible during the Executive Order’s first year of implementation, doubtless much more than was ever envisioned in the White House.
But it now appears that all of those efforts have had little effect on either the public’s perception of the Act’s administration or, most significantly, on the view of such administrative improvements by Congress.
This appears to be the case largely due to two things that I found quite shocking in early 2007. First, despite OIP’s very extensive efforts during 2006 to get agencies ready to file their annual FOIA reports on time in 2007, there was little or no Justice Department follow-through on this after I retired on January 3, resulting in extremely poor government-wide compliance with the February reporting deadline.
Even among cabinet agencies, fewer than half of them had filed their 2007 reports (which included the details of their initial backlog-reduction successes and other FOIA improvements) by the time the deadline was already more than a month past.
What this said to Congress, of course, is that agencies couldn’t even manage to be timely when reporting their efforts to improve their timeliness.
Second, there is the sad fact that the Justice Department itself suddenly prepared a report that included dozens of Executive Order deficiencies, more than those of any other agency by far, with little evident regard for its significance, after I left.
The timing on this was horrendous. And not surprisingly, this sent the message that even the lead agency on the FOIA could no longer be relied upon to fulfill that role, and it was not long before FOIA-amendment legislation began moving quickly through Congress despite the FOIA Executive Order.
QUESTION:
Why do agencies have such a tough time administering FOIA within the 20-day time period required by law? It can’t just be staffing and funding issues when you have FOIA requests languishing for as many as 15 years.
METCALFE:
There are almost as many causes of this intractable problem as there are federal agencies, not the least of which is that in some cases the FOIA’s time deadlines just cannot possibly be met.
The number one cause of FOIA backlogs, of course, is limited agency resources — both in general and in relation to the resource demands of incoming FOIA requests at an agency during a particular time period. At bottom, the basic laws of supply and demand have as much to do with an agency’s FOIA timeliness as anything else. But beyond that, there is the simple fact that many FOIA requests, especially those received by law enforcement, diplomatic, and intelligence agencies, seek records that are of such complexity that it can take more than 20 working days to conduct a proper record search and then finish all record “processing” for public disclosure.
And that’s not even taking into account that many such requests require multiple-agency involvement before they can be completed. Plus, consider this: Any agency that receives so few FOIA requests and/or has so many resources to bring to bear on them that it has no backlog whatsoever nevertheless will surely find itself with a backlog once it receives a single new request that is of such volume or complexity that it could not humanly be handled within 20 working days. Yes, this sometimes happens, and the legislative notion that an agency should be “penalized” in such a situation is ridiculous.
Now, do reasons such as these justify all of the delays that FOIA requesters have experienced, let alone a delay of several years? No, certainly not.
But I can assure you that career FOIA personnel are with limited exception (such as at the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and the Executive Office of the President’s own Office of Management and Budget) doing their level best to make the process as timely as possible at their agencies and that they can be almost as frustrated as FOIA requesters are by this longstanding problem.
And I’m afraid that the public perception that this problem can be “solved” was grossly heightened when the FOIA Executive Order explicitly spoke of backlog “elimination or reduction,” and in that very sequence. Frankly, I failed in repeated attempts to realistically eliminate the word “elimination” there and had to settle for making many other revisions of the order as it was being drafted.
Now, with Congress poised to impose some punitive “penalty” on agencies that fail to meet its timing standards, perhaps we’ll soon see backlog problems reach a new boiling point at many agencies, not to mention at OMB.
QUESTION: What do you think about the Leahy-Cornyn bill (Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. and John Cornyn, R-Texas), which would overhaul FOIA? Now that you have left office, can you spell out how the law should be changed so that it is most effective?
METCALFE:
I think many things about this legislative proposal, some of which I’ll briefly mention here.
First, there is the remarkable fact that from the moment that this bi-partisan legislation was introduced in the first session of the last Congress early in 2005 (and even as it was being drafted beforehand, for that matter), the executive branch took no step to take an official position on it in any respect. No formal discussions, no official statement of views, no testimony, no negotiations, nothing. As someone who was heavily involved in FOIA amendment legislation going back as far as the late 1970s, I’ve viewed this as remarkably dangerous for federal agencies in general and for anyone who cares about having reality-checked FOIA legislation in particular.
Second, and closely connected, is the fact that all of the legislative proposals on the FOIA during the past two years have been entirely one-sided — that is, they address concerns raised by the FOIA-requester community, quite understandably so, but do not seek to remedy anything at all from the agencies’ perspective. In the past — and by that I mean the processes leading up to both the FOIA Reform Amendments of 1986 and the Electronic FOIA Amendments of 1996, for which I was responsible — neither of these two circumstances would have come even close to being so. And I dare say that only in a Gonzales Justice Department could one even imagine it to be possible.
What this has meant is that this bi-partisan legislation was gathering steam throughout two sessions of the last Congress and the early months of this Congress, with an abrupt boost of FOIA Executive Order noncompliance added in early 2007, before federal agencies addressed the likely impact of its provisions, letalone were heard on any items of FOIA reform for which they could make a sound case. And when the administration finally spoke out against the legislation, suddenly opposing almost all of its provisions, by then that was taken as too little and too late.
So I see no basis for optimism on this from the standpoint of federal agencies now. There is every reason to be concerned, for example, that agencies will be subjected to a new statutory “penalty” for untimely responses that will prove, in my estimation, to be an enormous administrative burden and thereby actually be counterproductive in large measure. What’s more, both the House and the Senate now seem poised to enact major FOIA amendments that are not the least bit comprehensive in their scope, for the first time ever.
Given that Congress historically has put viable FOIA amendment packages together only once per decade, almost like clockwork, I see it as a shame that this current process is unfolding as it is.
QUESTION: The Department of Justice has objected to an attorneys’ fee provision in the bill. Under the legal case known as Buckhannon, it is nearly impossible for a FOIA requester to obtain attorneys’ fees if a case is settled or the government voluntarily provides documents after suit is filed. Could the Buckhannon rule be abused by a government attorney, by stringing out litigation and then providing records only after the FOIA requester made a substantial investment in litigating? How does the proposed amendment work? Would the government be harmed by the proposed amendment? Why is the government objecting to the amendment?
METCALFE:
In my opinion, the “Buckhannon fix” ought to be one of the least controversial provisions of the current FOIA bills. It’s in there because several years ago, in a case by that name, the Supreme Court modified the general rules for the recovery of attorney fees under what are known as “fee-shifting” statutes so as to require a plaintiff to succeed by obtaining an order that, generally speaking, alters the relationship between the parties before that plaintiff can qualify for attorney fee reimbursement.
Not long ago, this new rule was applied to FOIA cases, by and large, and became a new threshold barrier to the award of attorney fees to FOIA plaintiffs. Naturally, this did not sit well with the FOIA-requester community, especially when it considered that, conceivably, any agency with a willing counsel could hold onto requested records until theoretically the very last minute in the midst of litigation and then disclose them belatedly without pain, in a calculated “abuse” of the Buckhannon rule, not to mention of the FOIA itself.
Based on my experience, I truly doubt that the Buckhannon rule actually has caused or would cause so much of a problem for FOIA requesters. But I see it as only fair for FOIA requesters and openness-in-government advocates to be concerned about even the potential for such abusive agency behavior, just as FOIA agencies never cease to be concerned about how FOIA requesters might “abuse” their own rights under the act.
Plus, on this issue I for one keep remembering the fact that for several decades FOIA requesters were able to obtain attorney fees (or not) under the pre-Buckhannon rules, and neither government agencies in general nor the Justice Department in particular felt disadvantaged by that state of the law during all that time.
Simply put, I think this issue matters far more to FOIA requesters in one direction than it should matter to agencies in the other. So I suggest that those in the Justice Department, OMB, and the White House who are so opposed to this provision today ought to just take a deep breath, consider this opposition for what it’s truly worth, and move on to more important things.
One last thing: In the spirit of full disclosure, I should acknowledge that once I join the law school faculty at American University next month I myself could very conceivably develop more than an academic interest in this particular issue — but I would hold and express the same opinion in any event.
Pocketed Watch
Despite what your eyes might tell you while viewing the above You Tube video, the White House assures us that President Bush did not have his watch stolen from his wrist while he greeted exuberant Albanians during his just-ended European trip.
Take a close look as the countdown clock hits the 3:15 mark. Now you see it, now you don’t.
Turns out, according to Tony Snow, Bush is a wily veteran who knows when his personal possessions might be in jeopardy.
Q: Was the president’s watch lifted in Albania off his wrist?
Snow: No, it was not. It was placed in his pocket. And I believe your network has actually looked through the tape carefully and has ascertained the same. But, no, the president put it in his pocket and it returned safely home.
Permalink | |
Mall Rally Opposes Israeli Occupation
The visage of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat stared down from a sea of placards, Palestinian flags and keffiyehs as several hundred protestors gathered on the West Lawn of the Capitol on Sunday at a rally sponsored by the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation and United for Peace and Justice.
According to organizers, this was the largest-ever national demonstration in Washington against the Israeli occupation.
The rally, which featured speakers such as the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization mission to the United States, Afif Safieh, and Rabbi Jeremy Milgrom of Clergy for Peace, was staged to mark the 40th anniversary of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem.
The mood of the protestors was generally festive as families lounged on the grass to listen to the speeches and enjoy a hip-hop performance onstage.
“It’s injustice what they’re doing to the Palestinians, and nobody is doing anything,” said 11-year-old Omar Ahmad.
While many who attended the rally were of Arab descent, there were also many other protestors of varying ethnicities, including some Jews who turned up to show their solidarity with the Palestinian cause.
One of them was 25-year-old Eli, who did not give his last name. He sported a sticker on the back of his shirt that read, “Another Jew Against the Israeli Occupation.”
“We’re just here to give a Jewish voice for peace,” he said.
A counter-demonstration drew several dozen pro-Israel demonstrators who stood across the road from the rally and waved Israeli flags and signs, prompting several tense stand-offs and verbal exchanges between the rival sets of supporters.
“This is America, and everyone has a right to their opinion,” said college student Jonahthan Benedek, a pro-Israel supporter. “They have a right to be here, and I hope they respect that I have a right as well to be out here.”
Benedek, who said he spent a year living in Israel, said he felt that the protestors were portraying Israel unfairly.
“Everybody hopes for peace,” said Benedek. “The question is whether Hamas will be willing to accept peace with the state of Israel. That’s why peace is impossible with the Palestinians.”
“We’re pro-Israel, we’re not anti-anything, like they are,” said student Nora Stark. “We have a God-given right to the land. We value peace, and we value life.”
“Israel has the right to defend itself against suicide bombers,” said her friend, Lerone Beroukhim. “The Palestinian government right now, Hamas, is a terrorist organization, and they come into our country with their suicide bombings. I have family in Israel who is affected by the bombings.”
After the rally, the anti-occupation protestors marched from the Capitol to the Ellipse near the White House. The opposing protestors taunted them, causing tensions to escalate.
A line of riot police kept both camps separated for part of the route. However, supporters from the two camps nearly came to blows on several occasions, only for any potential altercation to be swiftly defused by the watchful marshals shepherding the crowd along.
A spokesman for the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Samir Moukaddam, said he considered the rally a success despite the frayed tempers.
“They tried to engage our emotions, but we did our best to avoid being sucked in by their methods and their anger,” said Moukaddam. “We showed our diversity and raised our voices against the support that our government gives the Israeli occupation.”
“Our biggest message is to influence U.S. policy and specifically end the support of the Israeli occupation of Palestine,” he added. “Forty years is more than enough, and it’s time to end it.”
Former Justice Official Blasts Gonzales
As Senate Democrats press Republicans to support a no-confidence resolution against Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tomorrow, a former senior Justice Department official says the attorney general ran the department like “a political arm of the White House.”
Daniel J. Metcalfe, the former director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy, said he resigned in January because he could no longer tolerate the “sheer political expediency, avoidance of individual responsibility, defensive personal aggrandizement, irresponsible ‘consensus’ decisionmaking (and) disregard for longstanding practices and principles.”
And that was before the controversy erupted over the firing of nine U.S. attorneys last year.
Metcalfe, who worked for the department during the the Nixon administration’s infamous “Saturday night massacre,” said the dismissals had been handled like nothing he has ever seen before.
“I think the way in which the firings themselves were handled was abominable, the way in which the ensuing controversy was handled was abysmal, and the way in which Gonzales has handled himself is absolutely appalling,” Metcalfe said. “As a long-term Justice Department official, I am embarrassed and increasingly incensed that he is still in there.”
Extensive excerpts from the interview are available at www.coxwashington.com
McKinnon Likes Obama
Political media maven Mark McKinnon, a Bush campaign veteran now advising GOP Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign, says he would quit the McCain campaign if the Arizona senator winds up in a general election race against Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.
In a question-and-answer exchange with Cox Newspapers Washington Bureau, McKinnon said he’d vote for McCain over Obama, but “I just don’t want to work against an Obama candidacy” and that a President Obama “would send a great message to the country and the world.”
McKinnon, who worked only for Democratic candidates before signing on with Bush in 1997, confirmed a Newsweek report that he notified the McCain campaign around January about his decision not to work against Obama.
Click Continue Reading to see the q-and-a.
Q: Why do you believe John McCain is the right person to lead the United States at this crucial point in the nation’s history? McKinnon: I believe John McCain is best suited to be president today because in these very dangerous times, he has the most experience on matters of national defense and has the stiffest backbone in terms of supporting unpopular issues like the Iraq surge strategy and immigration reform. McCain is a maverick and doesn’t always toe the party line - stem cell research, campaign finance reform, global warming - which I like, but of courses creates challenges for him in primary elections.
Q: What does McCain have to do to convince voters that his strategy in Iraq will lead to a satisfactory outcome? McKinnon: Because of his own military experience, McCain is very credible voice on Iraq and I believe voters trust him on issues of national defense.
Q: Are you committed to working for and supporting McCain no matter who the Democratic nominee is? McKinnon: If the Democratic nominee is Barack Obama, I will not work in the general election. I will, however, still support and vote for John McCain. I just don’t want to work against an Obama candidacy. I think a McCain vs. Obama race would be a great choice for the country.
Q: Have you decided to back Sen. Obama if he is the Democratic nominee? McKinnon: Not if John McCain is the nominee. (McKinnon said it is “too hypothetical” to say whether he would vote for Obama over a GOP nominee other than McCain.)
Q: What is it about Obama that attracts you? McKinnon: I don’t think Barack Obama needs the mirror of politics to reflect who is. I think he has deep character and good judgment. I also think he’s wrong on some fundamental issues. But, I believe he is honest and independent and if he were elected, I think it would send a great message to the country and the world. (McKinnon said Obama is “wrong on Iraq and pulling out troops too early.”)
Q: How does Obama’s race impact his chances of becoming president? McKinnon: I think Obama’s race could actually make it more likely he could be president. I think Americans would vote for an African-American in a heartbeat. Had Colin Powell run, I think he would have been president.
Q: If President Bush were eligible for a third term would you vote for him? McKinnon: There’s a reason why presidents are limited to two terms. But my support for president bush has never flagged. And if he could run again. I’d support him.
Q: Please identify some issue or policy areas in which you differ from the president? McKinnon: I made it my policy from the beginning that I would keep my disagreements with the president private
Q: Eight years after then-Gov. Bush formally kicked off his presidential campaign, are you surprised at how unpopular he has become? McKinnon: I’m not surprised that this or any other president is unpopular in the middle of a war
Q: How will history treat President Bush? McKinnon: I think history will judge President Bush much better than he is judged today
Q: Do you have any regrets about helping Bush become president? McKinnon: George Bush has supported me and my family through some difficult times. He has been a good friend. I have no regrets. It’s been a privilege and an honor to work for him.
Q: Who’s a stronger mountain bike rider, you or the president? McKinnon: Over the years, there have been times that one of us is in better shape than the other. But usually he’s the one punishing me.
Permalink | |
It’s Raining Subpoenas
The House Judiciary Committee will “more than likely” issue subpoenas to unearth the secrets behind President Bush’s secret domestic terrorist surveillance program, Rep. Jerrold D. Nadler, D-N.Y., said today.
Nadler made the comments following a House Judiciary Committee hearing where he said a senior Justice Department official evaded repeated questions about how the National Security Agency has eavesdropped on Americans over the past six years.
“We want to know what they were doing,” said Nadler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee’s panel on the constitution, civil rights and liberties. “We are determined to get to the bottom of it.”
A vote of two-thirds of the full House Judiciary Committee is required before subpoenas can be issued.
But a confident Nadler said Republicans would surely join Democrats in demanding answers after learning of the “evasive” testimony today from Steven G. Bradbury, principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.
Bradbury refused to answer repeated questions about the program’s operations other than to say the president authorized it some 45 times before it went under the jurisdiction of the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court—where Democrats and Republicans assert it should have been to begin with.
The program is no longer operational, he said.
Rep. Melvin Watt, D-N.C., asked Bradbury about what Attorney General John Ashcroft thought of the program and why he refused to authorize it.
Watt was building upon testimony from former Deputy Attorney General James Comey, who told the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that he was prepared to resign, along with other high ranking Justice Department officials, over the program because it was deemed illegal by the department.
Alberto Gonzales, acting as White House counsel at the time, visited Ashcroft in an intensive care unit of a local hospital in the hopes of getting him to approve the program over Comey’s objections. But Ashcroft sided with Comey and refused.
Bradbury would only repeat what Ashcroft has said publicly: that there were concerns but those concerns have been addressed.
Democrats on the panel were frustrated by Bradbury’s reluctance to discuss particulars about the program because the committee is responsible for overseeing the constitutional right that protects the public against eavesdropping without a warrant.
Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., defended the secrecy surrounding the president’s program, saying it was necessary to protect the country against another terrorist attack.
Lee A. Casey, a Washington lawyer with Baker Hostetler, agreed with Franks.
“The president’s critics have variously described the NSA program as “widespread,” “domestic,” and “illegal,’” Casey said. “It is none of these things. Rather, the program is limited, targeted on international communications of individuals engaged in armed conflict with the United States.”
But Bruce Fein, a conservative and former Justice Department official during the Reagan administration, urged Congress to get answers.
Fein told the panel that it was their duty to inform the public about the program, which circumvented the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
Jameel Jaffer, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s national security project, agreed with Fein.
“The NSA’s warrantless surveillance activities violate the law,” Jaffer said. “Unchecked and judicially unsupervised surveillance by the NSA presents a serious threat to American Democracy.”
Jaffer urged the committee to subpoena all documents relating to the controversial program dating back to 2001.
Voter Supression?
The Bush administration engaged in a three-year effort to suppress likely Democratic votes, a new report from the New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice and the Lawyer’s Committee for Civil Rights Under the Law found.
The liberal-leaning non-profit groups reported that 55 percent of career prosecutors have left the Justice Department’s voting section. They were driven away by a partisan hiring process, altered evaluations and political retaliation on the job, according to their report and interviews with Joseph Rich, the former head of the section.
And the groups state that the so-called “hotbeds” of voter fraud in Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Washington and Wisconsin are non-existent.
The report comes as the House and Senate Judiciary panels are investigating the questionable dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys last year. A central point in the investigation is whether some of the prosecutors were fired for failing to investigate allegations of voter fraud against Democratic-leaning groups.
The administration has strongly denied that the prosecutors were fired for improper reasons.
Bradley J. Schlozman, the U.S. attorney for Kansas City last fall, indicted four workers for a Democratic-leaning voter registration organization, just days before last fall’s historic congressional election that put the Democrats back in charge of Congress.
The action violates the Justice Department’s rules governing election conduct. Schlozman, now a senior department official in Washington, said he did not think it would impact the election.
Schlozman’s actions starkly contrast with how other Justice Department officials handled voter fraud cases right before the election.
Matthew W. Friedrich, a top Justice Department official, told committee investigators that he declined to pursue allegations of voter fraud just before the election because it would be in violation of the department’s rules.
Friedrich gave a sworn statement to the committee that Kyle Sampson, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ former chief of staff, hand-delivered a packet of information about voter fraud cases around the country. The packet, he said in the statement, came from either presidential adviser Karl Rove or his office.
“They wanted us to take a look at it,” Friedrich told the committee investigators. Committee staff asked Friedrich what he did with the packet.
“Not a darn thing,” Friedrich told the committee investigators. “I did not copy it or communicate it down the chain of command in substance or in form.”
Permalink | |
Worst President?
He’s ranked as one of the nation’s worst presidents. He pursued policies that some say led to a bloody and possibly avoidable war that killed many Americans. His tenure cost him support of many in his own political party.
He’s not George W. Bush.
He’s Franklin Pierce, and an upcoming biography will make the case that Pierce, according to a promotional pitch from the publisher, “made the best possible decision considering the alternatives,” when he backed the Kansas-Nebraska Act that fueled the slavery debate and helped ignite the Civil War.
Peter A. Wallner’s “Franklin Pierce: Martyr for The Union: is due out next month. It’s his second volume on Pierce, who served as president from 1853-1857 and remains the only president denied renomination by his own party.
Says a release from Plaidswede Publishing: “Wallner concludes that the life of Franklin Pierce is relevant today as he confronted many issues that still resonate, including proposed restrictions on open immigration, the imposition of religious agendas into the political process, threats to individual liberties and the Bill of Rights, and the unchecked growth of presidential power particularly in time of war.”
Permalink | |
Step One
Here comes another effort to move an issue to the 2008 front burner.
Two former Senate majority leaders, one from each party, will launch the ONE Vote ‘08 campaign on Monday. Ex-Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota and ex-GOP Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee are co-chairs of what the group pitches as an “unprecedented, bipartisan, high-tech, high-energy campaign to mobilize voters and engage U.S. presidential candidates to make the fight against global poverty and disease a key foreign policy and security issue at the 2008 ballot box.”
Formal launch will be Monday in Washington. The former leaders will be joined at the event by actress Ashley Judd, GOP strategist Jack Oliver, retired Marine Gen. James L. Jones and others.
The group claims the backing of “over 100 of the nation’s leading relief, humanitarian, religious and advocacy organizations.”
Permalink | |
Debate Sights and Sounds
Yes, it’s way too early for presidential debates. Yes, it makes you wonder about the state of our democracy. But it’s events like tonight’s GOP debate at Saint Anselm College (keep reading for school rules) that remind you that the 2008 presidential campaign is in full swing.
Above we see a bus. Actually we see two buses stuck together in something perhaps best described as an inverted missionary position. It was in the parking lot outside the debate and it makes a point. Go to prioritiesnh.org for more about the point.
Other tidbits you would see if you were here (instead of leading a normal life):
Man carrying a sign that says, “Entering New Hampshire. World leader in psychiatric drugging of kids. #1 Ritalin. #10 Dexedrine. #12 Adderall”
The usual demonstration area with presidential candidate supporters who believe the race goes to the loudest. Hard to top the “Ron Paul Rules” chant from the supporters of the Texas congressman.
Unofficial guesstimate makes Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo the winner in the most-campaign-signs-along-the-road-leading-to-the-debate-site category. Very impressive.
And now the school rules, courtesy of a little card handed out by Saint Anselm College. This may or may not be on the mid-term.
“Please DO pronounce our name correctly : Saint AN-selm College.”
“Please DO spell our name correctly: Saint Anselm College.”
“Please DON’T do the following: St. Anslem’s College.” (Yes, they did spell it as “Anslem’s.”)
And, to clear up some confusion, the school is in both Goffstown, N.H. and Manchester, N.H. That’s why you may see some newspaper stories with a Manchester dateline and some with a Goffstown dateline.
Permalink | |
Putnam for Thompson
Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, the third-ranking Republican in the House leadership, has endorsed the nascent presidential campaign of former Sen. Fred Thompson of Tennessee.
Putnam, chairman of the Republican Conference in the House, called Thompson a “consistent conservative who has a clear view for the future for America,” according to the congressman’s spokesman, Keith Rupp.
Putnam compared Thompson, an actor with a lengthy record of television and movie credits — most notably recently as the district attorney on “Law and Order” — to another former actor who became president: Ronald Reagan.
Putnam said Thompson, like Reagan, had the ability to “unite Republicans and attract Reagan Democrats,” the term given to conservative Democrats who voted for the former president.
Thompson has not formally announced his candidacy, but has indicated he’s seriously planning a run.
Permalink | |
FCC Fights Fire with Fire
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is proving that TV networks aren’t the only ones who can use colorful language.
Responding to a New York court ruling against an FCC policy restricting indecent language on broadcast TV, the Republican indecency foe issued an at times angry two-page statement that repeatedly cites (in quotations) uncensored four-letter curse words beginning with “S” and “F” — seven times in the first five paragraphs.
Those two words, which are central to the case, also pepper the court ruling.
While the FCC regularly cites vulgarity in legal documents related to decency complaints, agency-watchers agree it is a bit unusual for an FCC chairman to include such language in a public written statement to such a degree and to such eye-popping effect.
The Parents Television Council decency watchdog group’s own statement condemning the court decision prefers “F-word” and “S-word.”
Telecom analyst Blair Levin joked: “Obviously he did not write the press release with the hope that broadcast TV and radio stations would read his press release.”