Friday, February 02, 2007

Panel Issues Bleak Report on Climate Change

The panel said there was no solid scientific understanding of how rapidly the
vast stores of ice in Greenland and other polar regions will begin to erode.


Published: February 2, 2007
The New York Times

PARIS, Feb. 2 — In a bleak and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate change scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is "unequivocal" and that human activity is the main driver, "very likely" causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.


They said the world is already committed to centuries of warming, shifting weather patterns and rising seas, resulting from the buildup of gases in the atmosphere that trap heat. But the warming can be substantially blunted by prompt action, the panel of scientists said in a report released here today.

The report summarized the fourth assessment since 1990 by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations, sizing up the causes and consequences of climate change. But it is the first in which the group asserts with near certainty — more than 90 percent confidence — that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases from human activities have been the main causes of warming since 1950.

In its last report, in 2001, the panel, consisting of hundreds of scientists and reviewers, put the confidence level at between 66 and 90 percent. Both reports are online at http://www.ipcc.ch.

If carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reach twice their pre-industrial levels, the report said, the global climate will probably warm by 3.5 to 8 degrees. But there would be more than a 1-in-10 chance of much greater warming, a situation many earth scientists say poses an unacceptable risk.

Many energy and environment experts see such a doubling as a foregone conclusion sometime after midcentury unless there is a prompt and sustained shift away from the 20th-century pattern of unfettered burning of coal and oil, the main sources of carbon dioxide, and an aggressive quest for expanded and improved nonpolluting energy options.

Even an increased level of warming that falls in the middle of the group’s range of projections would likely cause significant stress to ecosystems and alter longstanding climate patterns that shape water supplies and agricultural production, according to many climate experts and biologists.

While the new report projected a modest rise in seas by 2100 — between 7 and 23 inches — it also concluded that seas would continue to rise, and crowded coasts retreat, for at least 1,000 years to come. By comparison, seas rose about 6 to 9 inches in the 20th century.

John P. Holdren, an energy and climate expert at Harvard University, said that the “report powerfully underscores the need for a massive effort to slow the pace of global climatic disruption before intolerable consequences become inevitable.” [Read a report by Mr. Holdren. (PDF format)]

“Since 2001 there has been a torrent of new scientific evidence on the magnitude, human origins and growing impacts of the climatic changes that are underway,” said Mr. Holdren, who is the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “In overwhelming proportions, this evidence has been in the direction of showing faster change, more danger and greater confidence about the dominant role of fossil fuel burning and tropical deforestation in causing the changes that are being observed.”

The conclusions came after a three-year review of hundreds of studies of clues illuminating past climate shifts, observations of retreating ice, warming and rising seas, and other shifts around the planet, and a greatly expanded suite of supercomputer simulations used to test how earth will respond to a building blanket of gases that hold heat in the atmosphere.

The section released today was a 20-page summary for policymakers, which was approved early this morning by teams of officials from more than 100 countries after three days and nights of wrangling over wording with the lead authors, all of whom are scientists.

It described far-flung ramifications for both humans and nature.

“It is very likely that hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation events will continue to become more frequent,” said the summary.

Generally, the scientists said, more precipitation will fall at higher latitudes, which are likely also to see lengthened growing seasons, while semi-arid, subtropical regions already chronically beset by drought could see a further 20-percent drop in rainfall under the midrange scenario for increases in the greenhouse gases.

The summary added a new chemical consequence of the buildup of carbon dioxide to the list of mainly climatic and biological impacts foreseen in its previous reports: a drop in the pH of seawater as oceans absorb billions of tons of carbon dioxide, which forms carbonic acid when partly dissolved. Marine biologists have said that could imperil some kinds of corals and plankton.

A vast improvement in the science of climatology — including “larges amounts of new and more comprehensive data” — has allowed the group to become far more confident and specific in its predictions, compared with its previous assessment in 2001, the authors said.

The report essentially caps a half-century-long effort to discern whether humans, through the buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases released mainly by burning fuels and forests, could influence the earth’s climate system in potentially momentous ways.

The group operates under the aegis of the United Nations and was chartered in 1988 — a year of record heat, burning forests, and the first big headlines about global warming — to provide regular reviews of climate science to governments to inform policy choices.

Government officials are involved in shaping the summary of each report, but the scientist-authors, who are unpaid, have the final say over the thousands of pages in four underlying technical reports that will be completed and published later this year.

Big questions remain about the speed and extent of some impending changes, both because of uncertainty about future population and pollution trends and the complex interrelationships of the greenhouse emissions, clouds, dusty kinds of pollution, the oceans and earth’s veneer of life, which both emits and soaks up carbon dioxide and other such gases.

But a broad array of scientists, including authors of the report and independent experts, said the latest analysis was the most sobering view yet of a century of transition — after thousands of years of relatively stable climate conditions — to a new norm of continual change.

Should greenhouse gases continue to accumulate in the atmosphere at even a moderate pace, average temperatures by the end of the century could match those last seen 125,000 years ago, in the previous warm spell between ice ages, the report said.

At that time, the panel said, sea levels were 12 to 20 feet higher than they are now. Muych of that extra water is now trapped in the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, which are eroding in some places.

The panel said there was no solid scientific understanding of how rapidly the vast stores of ice in polar regions will melt, so their estimates on new sea levels were based mainly on how much the warmed oceans will expand, and not on contributions from the melting of ice now on land.

Other scientists have recently reported evidence that the glaciers and ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic could flow seaward far more quickly than estimated in the past, and they have proposed that the risks to coastal areas could be much more imminent. But the I.P.C.C. is proscribed by its charter from entering into speculation, and so could not include such possible instabilities in its assessment.

Michel Jarraud, the secretary general of the United Nations World Meteorological Organization, said the lack of clarity should offer no one comfort. “The speed with which melting ice sheets are raising sea levels is uncertain, but the report makes clear that sea levels will rise inexorably over the coming centuries,” he said. “It is a question of when and how much, and not if,” he said, adding: “While the conclusions are disturbing, decision makers are now armed with the latest facts and will be better able to respond to these realities.”

Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Program, which oversees the I.P.C.C. along with the meteorological group, said society now had plenty of information on which to act.

“The implications of global warming over the coming decades for our industrial economy, water supplies, agriculture, biological diversity and even geopolitics are massive,” he said. “This new report should spur policymakers to get off the fence and put strong and effective policies in place to tackle greenhouse gas emissions.”

The warming and other climate shifts will be highly variable around the world, with the Arctic particularly seeing much higher temperatures, said Susan Solomon, the co-leader of the team writing the summary and the section of the I.P.C.C. report on basic science. She is an atmospheric scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

The kinds of vulnerabilities are very much dependent on where you are, Dr. Solomon said in a telephone interview. “If you’re living in parts of tropics and they’re getting drier and you’re a farmer there are some very acute issues associated with even small changes in rainfall — changes we’re already seeing are significant,” she said. “If you are an Inuit and you’re seeing your sea ice retreating already that’s affecting your lifestyle and culture.”

The 20-page summary is a sketch of the findings that are most germane to the public and world leaders.

The full I.P.C.C. report, thousands of pages of technical background, will be released in four sections through the year — the first on basic science, then sections on impacts and options for limiting emissions and limiting inevitable harms, and finally a synthesis of all of the findings near year’s end.

In a news conference in Paris, Dr. Solomon declined to provide her own views on how society should respond to the momentous changes projected in the study.

“I honestly believe that it would be a much better service for me to keep my personal opinions separate than what I can actually offer the world as a scientist,” she said. “My stepson, who is 29, has an utterly different view of risks than I do. People are going to have to make their own judgments.”

Some authors of the report said that no one could honestly point to any remaining uncertainties as justification for further delay.

“Policy makers paid us to do good science, and now we have high very scientific confidence in this work — this is real, this is real, this is real,” said Richard B. Alley, one of the lead authors and a professor at Penn State University. “So now act, the ball’s back in your court.”


Elisabeth Rosenthal reported from Paris, and Andrew C. Revkin from New York.

Read full post and comments:
"Panel Issues Bleak Report on Climate Change" >>


Thursday, February 01, 2007

CBO: Iraq surge could actually total 50,000

By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Feb 1, 2007 18:47:29 EST
The Air Force Times

A new congressional report says the increase of 21,500 combat troops for Iraq proposed by the Bush administration could result in up to 50,000 troops actually being deployed to the region.

The report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office bases that projection on the fact that the Bush plan is unclear about whether the 21,500 troops needed to quell violence are all combat troops or if that number already includes support forces.

“Over the past few years, DoD’s practice has been to deploy a total of about 9,500 per combat brigade to the Iraq theater, including about 4,000 combat troops and about 5,500 supporting troops,” says the five-page report requested by Rep. John Spratt, D-S.C., the House Budget Committee chairman, and Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the House Armed Services Committee chairman.

Spratt, the budget committee chairman and the second-ranking Democrat on the armed services committee, notes that about $379 billion already has been spent on the war in Iraq and a request for an additional $100 billion is expected next week.

“An average of 170,000 military personnel has been maintained in the Iraq theater of operations, and this high deployment level has taken a toll,” he said, noting that last year, the Defense Department cut troops’ time at home between deployments from two years to one so it could have enough people to deploy.

Spratt said the report raises the question of whether even one year at home between deployments can be guaranteed. “The Pentagon will probably have to relax ‘dwell-time’ standards even more,” Spratt said, using the military phrase to describe time at home between deployments.

Skelton said the report “appears to conflict with the estimate given by the chief of staff of the Army in his testimony. We will want to carefully investigate just how big the president's troop increase really is. Is it 21,500 troops, or is it really closer to 33,000 or 43,000?”

At a Jan. 23 hearing, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker said he believed the 21,500 increase included four support battalions. “Right now, we do not anticipate there will be increased combat service support requirements over what is now embedded inside of the brigade combat teams we have,” Schoomaker said.

Army spokesman Lt. Col. Gary Kolb said Schoomaker’s Jan. 23 comments before members of the House Armed Services Committee are “still accurate.”

The support needs of the additional five brigade combat teams will be satisfied by the current support network in Iraq and the support units embedded within those teams, Kolb said Feb. 1.

But the additional support troops included in the budget office estimates are based on the possibility that Schoomaker is wrong, an armed services committee aide said. “While Schoomaker initially said it wouldn’t take extra support troops, CBO doesn’t believe that is possible,” said an aide to Skelton.

The key point of the report is to try to determine how much the new Iraq strategy might cost. The report estimates it would cost $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and $20 billion to $27 billion for a one-year deployment of the additional 21,500 troops. Those expenses would be on top of the $8 billion to $13 billion a month for the current force of about 135,000 deployed in Iraq.

The report says the Pentagon “has identified only combat units for deployment” and has not yet indicated which support units will be deployed.

“Army and DoD officials have indicated that it will be both possible and desirable to deploy fewer additional support units than historical practice would indicate,” the report says. “Even if the additional brigades required fewer support units than historical practice suggests, those units would still represent a significant additional number of military personnel.”

Under the administration’s plan, the force increase — already under way — will reach its peak in May. The plan calls for a three-month buildup with a similarly gradual decline when the mission is done. The report does not try to estimate how long the mission might last, looking at only the cost to sustain it for various lengths of time.

Skelton said in a statement that cost is a major issue. “We were concerned that the full financial cost of the escalation would never be made clear to the American people,” he said.

“What the CBO found concerns me,” Skelton said. Part of his worry is based on Schoomaker’s assertion that additional support troops are not needed. Skelton worries combat troops might not have the combat support and combat service support needed if the administration tries to hold down the number of deployed troops.

Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., chairman of the House Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations that has launched a review of Iraq-related costs, said he also is concerned. “I am disturbed that the administration's figures may not be fully accounting for what a true force increase will entail; if combat troops are deployed, their support needs must not be shortchanged,” Meehan said in a statement.

Staff writer Matthew Cox contributed to this story.

Related reading:

Senators join forces in opposing Bush surge

Read full post and comments:
"CBO: Iraq surge could actually total 50,000" >>


Senators agree on how to oppose surge

The Associated Press
Posted : Thursday Feb 1, 2007 12:17:32 EST
The Air Force Times

Two senators leading separate efforts to put Congress on record against President Bush’s troop buildup in Iraq joined forces Wednesday, agreeing on a nonbinding resolution that would criticize the plan.

Sens. John Warner, R-Va., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., had been sponsoring competing measures opposing Bush’s strategy of sending 21,500 more U.S. troops to the war zone, with Warner’s less harshly worded version attracting more Republican interest. The new resolution would vow to protect funding for troops while keeping Warner’s original language expressing the Senate’s opposition to the troop buildup.

The resolution could well gain more support from members of both parties than Levin’s and Warner’s separate versions had been attracting. It lacks Levin’s language saying the troop increase is against the national interest, and it drops an earlier provision by Warner suggesting Senate support for some additional troops.

“It’s been a hard work in progress,” Warner said of his resolution, which has been struggling to win support of 60 senators so as to prevent a filibuster.

The agreement comes as several leading Republicans who support the troop buildup said they will give the administration and the Iraqis about six months to show significant improvement. Many other Republicans say they are deeply skeptical additional troops in Iraq, rather than a political settlement, would help calm the sectarian violence.

The widely unpopular war has led to the deaths of more than 3,000 U.S. troops and is blamed for GOP losses in the Nov. 7 elections.

Read full post and comments:
"Senators agree on how to oppose surge" >>


Air Force tops EPA’s clean energy list

Staff report
Posted : Thursday Feb 1, 2007 9:46:58 EST
The Air Force Times

The Air Force is once again at the top of the Environmental Protection Agency’s list of green power purchasers in the federal government, the Air Force announced Wednesday.

This is the third year in a row the Air Force heads the list.

The service in calendar year 2006 purchased 457,500 megawatt-hours of green power, about 4 percent of its annual electricity usage.

Green power includes electricity partially or entirely generated from clean sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, biogas, biomass and hydro. It is considered cleaner than conventional sources of electricity and emits less carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas linked to global warming.

“Purchasing of green power … helps improve our environmental performance, increases demand for renewable resources and it lowers our dependency on fossil fuels and imported energy sources,” Jim Snook, the Air Force’s renewable energy program manager, said in a press release.

The Air Force also was ranked third on the EPA’s Green Power Partnership’s Top 25 Partners, a group that includes government, private industry, trade associations and colleges and universities.

The Air Force has in recent years placed increasing emphasis on purchasing clean power at its bases.

Thirty-seven bases participated in a renewable power purchase program in fiscal year 2006, and three bases purchased 100 percent of their electricity from renewable sources.

Read full post and comments:
"Air Force tops EPA’s clean energy list" >>


U.S. delays report on Iranian role in Iraq

By Paul Richter,
Times Staff Writer
February 1, 2007
The Los Angeles Times


WASHINGTON — The Bush administration has postponed plans to offer public details of its charges of Iranian meddling inside Iraq amid internal divisions over the strength of the evidence, U.S. officials said.

U.S. officials promised last week to provide evidence of Iranian activities that led President Bush to announce Jan. 10 that U.S. forces would begin taking the offensive against Iranian agents who threatened Americans.

But some officials in Washington are concerned that some of the material may be inconclusive and that other data cannot be released without jeopardizing intelligence sources and methods. They want to avoid repeating the embarrassment that followed the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, when it became clear that information the administration cited to justify the war was incorrect, said the officials, who described the internal discussions on condition of anonymity.

"We don't want a repeat of the situation we had when [then-Secretary of State] Colin L. Powell went before the United Nations," said one U.S. official, referring to Powell's 2003 presentation on then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's unconventional weapons program that relied on evidence later found to be false. "People are going to be skeptical."

The current debate pits some U.S. diplomatic and military officials in Iraq, who are seeking to compile an aggressive case on Iran, against other officials in Washington, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who are urging greater caution, according to the officials, who spoke in the last several days.

The Bush administration has charged repeatedly that Iranian agents and military personnel have been bringing in explosives and other weaponry for use in Iraq by Shiite Muslim militants. U.S. intelligence and military officials have said they have substantial evidence of Iranian involvement, but have not made it public.

The mounting U.S. charges against Iran have been accompanied by the movement of American warships into the Persian Gulf, giving rise to fears of a possible U.S. attack.

U.S. forces arrested a group of Iranians in Baghdad in December and are holding five Iranian officials who were detained Jan. 11 in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil. At the same time, the administration has shunned a proposal by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group to open direct talks with Iran and Syria as part of a plan to quell the violence in Iraq.

The U.S. claims led Tehran's ambassador to Iraq, Hassan Kazemi-Qomi, to challenge American officials last month to show "any shred of evidence" of Iranian meddling.

The U.S. ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, promised last week to do so, and American officials initially planned to release their dossier Tuesday.

But the release was delayed, and Sean McCormack, the chief State Department spokesman, declined Wednesday to predict when the report would be issued.

"We'll do this on our own timeline," he told reporters. "And we're going to do it in such a way that it is properly presented, it is clear, and that it is done in such a way that … we don't in any way jeopardize [U.S. officials'] ability to further collect information about these networks."

This week, McCormack denied that U.S. intelligence failures and erroneous pre-Iraq war claims had made the job of preparing the new dossier more difficult.

The administration's quandary is one more indication of the difficulties the United States faces in Iraq as it tries to limit the influence of the Iranians, whom it increasingly views as its chief regional rival. There are thousands of Iranians in Iraq. Some of them have strong ties to the U.S.-backed government.

One former senior U.S. defense official said that preparing such a case would involve trying to cull sensitive data for presentation to a skeptical American public.

"It's a losing proposition for the administration," said the former official, who declined to be identified when addressing intelligence issues.

U.S. military and embassy officials in Baghdad have been trying to build a case with a variety of evidence, according to officials.

But officials involved in interagency meetings on the issue in Washington, including some in the State Department and intelligence agencies, believe that some of the material overstates murky evidence and casts a negative light on Iranians who may not be guilty.

Another difficulty is that if some of the most sensitive information is withdrawn to protect intelligence sources, the result could be a weak and unconvincing report, the officials said.

The American official who requested anonymity said that although there were differences over the evidence, there was wide agreement within the U.S. government that Iran's actions were a threat and that the United States, while avoiding war, should be more aggressive in confronting Iran in Iraq.

"But that doesn't mean you want to go overboard," the official added. "Everyone at the Iranian Embassy isn't some kind of spy or revolutionary."

The official said that Rice, despite strongly agreeing that the United States should take a more aggressive approach, was urging caution on the tone of the report.

U.S. military officials in Iraq long have been concerned that Iranian Revolutionary Guards and other military and intelligence personnel are present in Iraq, and have been urging a stronger stance against the Iranians. On several occasions, they have requested broader authority to engage the Iranians, the U.S. official said.

This week the No. 2 U.S. military commander in Iraq, Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, said in an interview with USA Today that Iranians were supplying Iraqis with truck-mounted Katyusha rockets, armor-piercing rocket-propelled grenades and armor-piercing roadside bombs.

Odierno said serial numbers linked the rockets to Iran.

The growing hostility is angering Iraqi leaders, who have begun speaking out against the prospect of conflict between the United States and Iran in their country.

Read full post and comments:
"U.S. delays report on Iranian role in Iraq" >>


Molly Ivins, Populist Texas Columnist, Dies at 62

Molly Ivins speaks to an audience of students at a
University of Texas symposium in 2006


By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Published: January 31, 2007
The New York Times


Molly Ivins, the liberal newspaper columnist who delighted in skewering politicians and interpreting, and mocking, her Texas culture, died today at her home in Austin. She was 62.

Her death, after a long fight with breast cancer, was confirmed by her personal assistant, Betsy Moon.

In her syndicated column, which appeared in about 350 newspapers, Ms. Ivins cultivated the voice of a folksy populist who derided those who acted too big for their britches. She was rowdy and profane, but she could filet her ideological opponents with droll precision.

After Patrick J. Buchanan, as a conservative candidate for president, declared at the 1992 Republican National Convention that America was engaged in a cultural war, she said his speech “probably sounded better in the original German.”

“There are two kinds of humor,” she told People magazine. One was the kind “that makes us chuckle about our foibles and our shared humanity,” she said. “The other kind holds people up to public contempt and ridicule. That’s what I do.”

Hers was a feisty voice that she developed in the early 1970s at The Texas Observer, the muckraking biweekly that would become her spiritual home for life.

Her subject was Texas. To her, the Great State, as she called it, was “reactionary, cantankerous and hilarious,” and its legislature was “reporter heaven.” When the legislature was set to convene, she warned her readers: “Every village is about to lose its idiot.”

Her Texas upbringing made her something of an expert on the Bush family. She viewed President George H.W. Bush benignly. (“Real Texans do not use the word ‘summer’ as a verb,” she wrote.)

But she derided President George W. Bush, whom she first knew in high school. She called him Shrub and Dubya. With the Texas journalist Lou Dubose, she wrote two best-selling books about Mr. Bush: “Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush” (2000) and “Bushwhacked” (2003).

In 2004 she campaigned against Mr. Bush’s re-election, and as the war in Iraq continued, she called for his impeachment. In her last column, earlier this month, she urged readers to “raise hell” against the war.

Mary Tyler Ivins was born on Aug. 30, 1944 in California and grew up in the affluent Houston suburb of River Oaks. Her father, James, a conservative Republican, was general counsel and later president of Tenneco Corporation, an oil and gas company.

As a student at private school, Ms. Ivins was tall and big-boned and often felt out of place. “I spent my girlhood as a Clydesdale among thoroughbreds,” she said.

She developed her liberal views partly from reading The Texas Observer at a friend’s house. Those views led to fierce arguments with her father about civil rights and the Vietnam War.

“I’ve always had trouble with male authority figures because my father was such a martinet,” she told The Texas Monthly.

After her father developed advanced cancer and shot himself to death in 1998, she wrote: “I believe that all the strength I have comes from learning how to stand up to him.”

Like her mother, Margot, and grandmother, Ms. Ivins went to Smith College in Massachusetts. Graduating in 1966, she also studied at the Institute of Political Science in Paris and earned her master’s degree at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

Her first newspaper jobs were at The Houston Chronicle and The Minneapolis Tribune, now The Star Tribune. In 1970, she jumped at the chance to move to Austin, where she became co-editor of The Observer.

Covering the statehouse, she found characters whose fatuousness helped focus her calling and define her persona, which her friends saw as populist and her detractors saw as manufactured cornpone. Even her friends marveled at how quickly she could drop her Texas voice for what they called her Smith voice. Sometimes she combined the two, as in: “The sine qua non, as we say in Amarillo.”

Ronnie Dugger, the former publisher of The Observer, said the political circus in Texas inspired her. “It was like somebody snapped the football to her and said, ‘All the rules are off, this is the football field named Texas, and it’s wide open,”’ he said.

In 1976, her writing, which she said was often fueled by “truly impressive amounts of beer,” landed her a job at The New York Times. She cut an unusual figure in The Times newsroom, wearing blue jeans, going barefoot and bringing in her dog, whose name was an expletive.

While she drew important writing assignments, like covering the Son of Sam killings and Elvis Presley’s death, she sensed she did not fit in and complained that Times editors drained the life from her prose. “Naturally, I was miserable, at five times my previous salary,” she later wrote. “The New York Times is a great newspaper: it is also No Fun.”

After a stint in Albany, she was transferred to Denver to cover the Rocky Mountain states, where she continued to challenge her editors’ capacity for prankish writing.


Covering an annual chicken slaughter in New Mexico in 1980, she used a sexually suggestive phrase, which her editors deleted from the final article. But her attempt to use it angered the executive editor, A.M. Rosenthal, who ordered her back to New York and assigned her to City Hall, where she covered routine matters with little flair.

She quit The Times in 1982 after The Dallas Times Herald offered to make her a columnist. She took the job even though she loathed Dallas, once describing it as the kind of town “that would have rooted for Goliath to beat David.”

But the paper, she said, promised to let her write whatever she wanted. When she declared of a congressman, “If his I.Q. slips any lower, we’ll have to water him twice a day,” many readers were appalled, and several advertisers boycotted the paper. In her defense, her editors rented billboards that read: “Molly Ivins Can’t Say That, Can She?” The slogan became the title of the first of her six books.

After The Times Herald folded in 1991, she wrote for The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, until 2001, when her column was syndicated by Creators Syndicate.

Ms. Ivins, who never married, is survived by a brother, Andy, of London, Tex., and a sister, Sara Ivins Maley, of Albuquerque, N.M. One of her closest friends was Ann Richards, the former Texas governor, who died last year. The two shared an irreverence for power and a love of the Texas wilds.

“Molly is a great raconteur, with a long memory,” Ms. Richards said, “and she’s the best person in the world to take on a camping trip because she’s full of good-ol-boy stories.”

Ms. Ivins worked at a breakneck pace, adding television appearances, book tours, lectures and fund-raising to a crammed writing schedule. She also wrote for Esquire, the Atlantic Monthly and The Nation.

An article about her in 1996 in The Star-Telegram suggested that her work overload may have caused an increase in factual errors in her columns. (She eventually hired a fact-checker.) And in 1995, the writer Florence King accused Ms. Ivins of lifting passages from Ms. King’ for an article that Ms. Ivins had written in Mother Jones in 1988. Ms. Ivins had credited Ms. King six times in the article but not in two lengthy sentences, and she apologized to Ms. King.

Ms. Ivins learned she had breast cancer in 1999 and was typically unvarnished in describing her treatments. “First they mutilate you; then they poison you; then they burn you,” she wrote. “I have been on blind dates better than that.”

But she continued to write her columns and continued to write and raise money for The Observer.

Indeed, rarely has a reporter so embodied the ethos of her publication. On the paper’s 50th anniversary in 2004, she wrote: “This is where you can tell the truth without the bark on it, laugh at anyone who is ridiculous, and go after the bad guys with all the energy you have.”

Read full post and comments:
"Molly Ivins, Populist Texas Columnist, Dies at 62" >>


A Death in Destrehan


Published: February 1, 2007
The New York Times


Destrehan, La. On the afternoon of Oct. 7, 1974, a mob of 200 enraged whites, many of them students, closed in on a bus filled with black students that was trying to pull away from the local high school. The people in the mob were in a high-pitched frenzy. They screamed racial epithets and bombarded the bus with rocks and bottles. The students on the bus were terrified.

When a shot was heard, the kids on the bus dived for cover. But it was a 13-year-old white boy standing near the bus, not far from his mother, who toppled to the ground with a bullet wound in his head. The boy, a freshman named Timothy Weber, died a few hours later.

That single shot in this rural town about 25 miles up the Mississippi River from New Orleans set in motion a tale of appalling injustice that has lasted to the present day.

Destrehan was in turmoil in 1974 over school integration. The Supreme Court’s historic desegregation ruling was already 20 years old — time enough, the courts said, for Destrehan and the surrounding area to comply. But the Ku Klux Klan was still welcome in Destrehan in those days, and David Duke, its one-time imperial wizard, was an admired figure. White families in the region wanted no part of integration.

When black students were admitted to Destrehan High, they were greeted with taunts, various forms of humiliation and violence. Some of the black students fought back, and in the period leading up to the shooting there had been racial fights at a football game and inside the school.

While the Weber boy was being taken to a hospital, authorities ordered the black students off the bus and searched each one. The bus was also thoroughly searched. No weapon was found, and there was no evidence to indicate that the shot had come from the bus. The bus driver insisted it had not come from the bus, but from someone firing at the bus.

One of the black youngsters, a 16-year-old named Gary Tyler, was arrested for disturbing the peace after he talked back to a sheriff’s deputy — one of the few deputies in St. Charles Parish who was black. It may have been young Tyler’s impudence that doomed him. He was branded on the spot as the designated killer.

(Later, at a trial, the deputy, Nelson Coleman, was asked whose peace had been disturbed by Mr. Tyler’s comments. “Mine,” he replied.)

Matters moved amazingly fast after the shooting. Racial tension gave way to racial hysteria. A white boy had been killed and some black had to pay. Mr. Tyler, as good a black as any, was taken to a sheriff’s substation where he was beaten unmercifully amid shouted commands that he confess. He would not.

It didn’t matter. In just a little over a year he would be tried, convicted by an all-white jury and sentenced to death by electrocution.

The efficiency of the process was chilling. Evidence began to miraculously appear. Investigators “found” a .45-caliber pistol. Never mind that there were no fingerprints on it and it turned out to have been stolen from a firing range used by the sheriff’s deputies. (Or that it subsequently disappeared as conveniently as it was found.) The authorities said they found the gun on the bus, despite the fact that the initial search had turned up nothing.

The authorities found witnesses who said that Mr. Tyler had been the gunman. Never mind that the main witness, a former girlfriend of Mr. Tyler’s, was a troubled youngster who had been under the care of a psychiatrist and had a history of reporting phony crimes to the police, including a false report of a kidnapping. She and every other witness who fingered Mr. Tyler would later recant, charging that they had been terrorized into testifying falsely by the police.

A sworn affidavit from Larry Dabney, who was seated by Mr. Tyler on the bus, was typical. He said his treatment by the police was the “scariest thing” he’d ever experienced. “They didn’t even ask me what I saw,” he said. “They told me flat out that I was going to be their key witness. ... They told me I was going to testify that I saw Gary with a gun right after I heard the shot and that a few minutes later I had seen him hide it in a slit in the seat. That was not true. I didn’t see Gary or anybody else in that bus with a gun.”

Mr. Tyler was spared electrocution when the Supreme Court declared Louisiana’s death penalty unconstitutional. But in many ways he has in fact paid with his life. He’ll turn 50 this year in the state penitentiary at Angola, where he is serving out his sentence of life without parole for the murder of Timothy Weber

Read full post and comments:
"A Death in Destrehan" >>


Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor

Published: January 31, 2007
The New York Times

The American Jewish Committee, an ardent defender of Israel, is known for speaking out against anti-Semitism, but this conservative advocacy group has recently stirred up a bitter and emotional debate with a new target: liberal Jews.

An essay the committee features on its Web site, ajc.org, titled “ ‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism,” says a number of Jews, through their speaking and writing, are feeding a rise in virulent anti-Semitism by questioning whether Israel should even exist.

In an introduction to the essay, David A. Harris, the executive director of the committee, writes, “Perhaps the most surprising — and distressing — feature of this new trend is the very public participation of some Jews in the verbal onslaught against Zionism and the Jewish State.” Those who oppose Israel’s basic right to exist, he continues, “whether Jew or gentile, must be confronted.”

The essay comes at a time of high anxiety among many Jews, who are seeing not only a surge in attacks from familiar antagonists, but also gloves-off condemnations of Israel from onetime allies and respected figures, like former President Jimmy Carter, who titled his new book on the Mideast “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.” By spotlighting the touchy issue of whether Jews are contributing to anti-Semitism, both admirers and detractors of the essay agree that it aggravates an already heated dispute over where legitimate criticism of Israel and its defenders ends and anti-Semitic statements begin.

The essay, written by Alvin H. Rosenfeld, an English professor and the director of the Institute for Jewish Culture and the Arts at Indiana University in Bloomington, castigates a number of people by name, including the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Tony Kushner, the historian Tony Judt, the poet Adrienne Rich and the Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, in addition to a number of academics.

Mr. Judt, whose views on Israel and the American Jewish lobby have frequently drawn fire, is chastised for what Mr. Rosenfeld calls “a series of increasingly bitter articles” that have “called Israel everything from arrogant, aggressive, anachronistic, and infantile to dysfunctional, immoral, and a primary cause of present-day anti-Semitism.”

A historian at New York University, Mr. Judt said in a telephone interview that he believed the real purpose of outspoken denunciations of him and others was to stifle harsh criticism of Israel. “The link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism is newly created,” he said, adding that he fears “the two will have become so conflated in the minds of the world” that references to anti-Semitism and the Holocaust will come to be seen as “just a political defense of Israeli policy.”

The essay also takes to task “Wrestling With Zion: Progressive Jewish-American Responses to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict” (Grove Press), a 2003 collection of essays edited by Mr. Kushner and Alisa Solomon. Mr. Kushner said that he and Ms. Solomon took great care to include a wide range of voices in their collection, including those of Ms. Rich, the playwright Arthur Miller and various rabbis.

“Most Jews like me find this a very painful subject,” Mr. Kushner said, and are aware of the rise in vicious anti-Semitism around the world but feel “it’s morally incumbent upon us to articulate questions and reservations.”

Over the telephone, the dinner table and the Internet, people who follow Jewish issues have been buzzing over Mr. Rosenfeld’s article. Alan Wolfe, a political scientist and the director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, said, “I’m almost in a state of shock” at the verbal assaults directed at liberal Jews.

On H-Antisemitism (h-net.org), an Internet forum for scholarly discussions of the subject, Michael Posluns, a political scientist at the University of Toronto, wrote, “Sad and misbegotten missives of the sort below make me wonder if it is not the purpose of mainstream Jewish organizations to foster anti-Jewishness by calling down all who take from their Jewish experience and Jewish thought a different ethos and different ways of being as feeding anti-Semitism.”

Others have praised Mr. Rosenfeld’s indictment and joined the fray. Shulamit Reinharz, a sociologist who is also the wife of Jehuda Reinharz, the president of Brandeis University, wrote in a column for The Jewish Advocate in Boston: “Most would say that they are simply anti-Zionists, not anti-Semites. But I disagree, because in a world where there is only one Jewish state, to oppose it vehemently is to endanger Jews.”

Although many of the responses to the essay have referred to its subject as “Jewish anti-Semitism,” Mr. Rosenfeld said in a telephone interview that he was very careful not to use that phrase. But whatever it is called, he said, “I wanted to show that in an age when anti-Semitism is resurgent, Jews thinking the way they’re thinking is feeding into a very nasty cause.”

In his essay he says that “one of the most distressing features of the new anti-Semitism” is “the participation of Jews alongside it.” Like others, Mr. Cohen of The Washington Post complained that the essay cherry-picked quotations. “He mischaracterized what I wrote,” he said. “I’ve been critical of Israel at times, but I’ve always been a defender of Israel.” He did add, however, that a wide range of writers were named, some of whom have written inflammatory words about Israel. “He has me in a very strange neighborhood,” Mr. Cohen said.

The dispute goes beyond the familiar family squabbling among Jews that is characterized by the old joke about two Jews having three opinions on a single subject. Bitter debates over anti-Israel statements and anti-Semitism have entangled government officials, academics, opinion-makers and others over the past year, particularly since fervent supporters and tough critics of Israel can be found on the right and the left.

Mr. Wolfe, who has written about a recent rise in what he calls “Jewish illiberalism,” traces the heated language to increasing opposition to the Iraq war and President Bush’s policy in the Middle East, which he said had spurred liberal Jews to become more outspoken about Israel.

“Events in the world have sharpened a sense of what’s at stake,” he said. “Israel is more isolated than ever,” causing American Jewish defenders of Israel to become more aggressive.

On this point Mr. Rosenfeld and Mr. Wolfe are in agreement. “It’s going up a notch or four or five,” Mr. Rosenfeld said in an interview. “One of the things that is clear,” he said of anti-Semitic and anti-Israel attacks, “is that what used to be on the margin and not very serious is becoming more and more mainstream.”

Mr. Rosenfeld, who has written and edited more than half a dozen books as well as other publications for the committee, emphasized that policy disagreements were natural and expected. Opposing Israel’s settlement of the West Bank or treatment of Palestinians “is, in itself, not anti-Semitic,” he writes; it is questioning Israel’s right to exist that crosses the line.

But Mr. Judt said, “I don’t know anyone in a respectable range of opinion who thinks Israel shouldn’t exist.” (Mr. Judt advocates a binational state that is not exclusively Jewish, something that many Jews see as equivalent to dissolving Israel). He contends that harsh complaints about Israel’s treatment of Palestinians are the real target.

Last year Mr. Judt came to the defense of two prominent political scientists, Stephen M. Walt at Harvard and John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, after they were besieged for publishing a paper that baldly stated (among other things) that anyone critical of Israel or the American Jewish lobby “stands a good chance of being labeled an anti-Semite.”

David Singer, the committee’s director of research, said the attention Mr. Rosenfeld’s essay had drawn was not unexpected. “We certainly thought that it would raise eyebrows in some quarters,” he said.

“I think it’s an act of courage” on the part of the American Jewish Committee and the author, he added. “It obviously deals with matters of great sensitivity.”

[Essay From the American Jewish Committee Web Site: ‘Progressive’ Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism (pdf)]

Read full post and comments:
"Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor" >>


White House to Release Details on Eavesdropping

Published: January 31, 2007
The New York Times




WASHINGTON, Jan. 31— Bowing to bipartisan pressure from lawmakers, the Justice Department announced today that it was turning over to select members of Congress secret documents detailing the National Security Agency’s domestic eavesdropping program.

The decision came two weeks after Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales faced withering questions from senators about why the Bush Administration had refused to provide details on the legal underpinnings of the N.S.A. program.

Mr. Gonzales appeared on Capitol Hill the day after the Bush administration announced it had agreed to put the N.S.A. program under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, and that the secret court had on Jan. 10 approved a Justice Department request for a wiretap.

The decision to hand over the documents, which Mr. Gonzales confirmed to reporters today, will allow members of the House and Senate intelligence committees -- as well as select congressional leaders -- to review that court order.

The package of documents the Bush administration is giving to lawmakers is also expected to include Justice Department applications for surveillance approvals and the legal briefs submitted to the FISA court.

Lawmakers from both parties applauded the decision, and pledged that the new congress will closely scrutinize the legality of the N.S.A. program.

“Only with an understanding of the contours of the wiretapping program and the scope of the court’s orders can the Judiciary Committee determine whether the administration has reached the proper balance to protect Americans while following the law,” said Vermont Democrat Patrick J. Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Administration officials cautioned today that lawmakers would only receive documents related to the most recent FISA court orders, and should not expect documentation related to future wiretap requests.

“This shouldn’t be construed as any kind of precedent-setting act,” said one Bush administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the documents.

“It was made clear to members of Congress that this was viewed as a very unique circumstance,” the official added.

Since Mr. Gonzales appeared on Capitol Hill two weeks ago, Justice Department officials have negotiated privately with lawmakers to arrange the terms of the document release.

At this point, only members of the intelligence committees and certain members of the House and Senate leadership have been briefed on the highly classified N.S.A. program. The Bush administration official said that a special provision would be made to allow the top members of the judiciary committees — who have not been given the classified briefings -- to review the FISA court documents.

Read full post and comments:
"White House to Release Details on Eavesdropping" >>


Libby’s Lawyers Question Reporter’s Memory

Published: January 31, 2007
The New York Times




WASHINGTON, Jan. 31 – A lawyer for I. Lewis Libby Jr. tried to portray a former New York Times reporter today as having a “fuzzy” memory of her conversations with Mr. Libby about a C.I.A. agent whose husband was a critic of the Bush administration.

The lawyer, William Jeffress Jr., brought up several occasions in which the reporter, Judith Miller, acknowledged a weak memory and seemed not entirely certain of the notes she made after meeting with Mr. Libby, once the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Ms. Miller’s credibility is crucial, because her testimony contradicts the account Mr. Libby gave to a grand jury about when and how he first learned of the agent’s identity.

She has testified that Mr. Libby discussed the C.I.A. agent, Valerie Wilson, and her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, in two meetings in 2003, on June 23 and July 8 of that year. Mr. Libby testified before the grand jury that he first learned of Mrs. Wilson’s identity no earlier than July 10, from reporters.

He is charged with perjury and trying to obstruct an investigation into the leak of Mrs. Wilson’s identity not long after her husband, a former diplomat, criticized the administration’s Iraq policy.

In the courtroom today, Mr. Jeffress again and again elicited replies from Ms. Miller that, “I have no recollection,” or, “I can’t be certain,” or words to that effect. He was trying to persuade a Federal Court jury that Ms. Miller’s account of her meetings with Mr. Libby in the summer of 2003 are not necessarily to be believed.

Ms. Miller’s several pages of notes about the June 23 meeting refer, among other things, to Mr. Libby’s comments about whether Iraq was seeking to obtain uranium from Niger to further its nuclear-weapons programs, an issue that Mr. Wilson had gone to Africa to investigate. He then wrote an Op-Ed article in The New York Times questioning the might of Iraq’s arsenal, and therefore the administration’s rationale for going to war.

Another reporter, Matthew Cooper, then a Washington correspondent for Time magazine, testified that on July 11, 2003, he was told by Karl Rove, a top political adviser to President Bush, that he should not rely too much on Mr. Wilson’s assessment.

Mr. Cooper, who also resisted Mr. Fitzgerald subpoena for a time, said he had three sources for his knowledge that Ms. Wilson worked for the C.I.A. He said they were Mr. Rove; John Dickerson, a reporter for Time, “and Scooter Libby would be third.” Scooter has been Mr. Libby’s nickname since childhood.

Mr. Libby told a grand jury he did not discuss Mr. Wilson and his wife with reporters, so Mr. Cooper’s recollection of his exchanges with Mr. Libby could be damaging, even though there was no suggestion today that Mr. Libby mentioned the Wilsons to Mr. Cooper earlier than July 11.

Mr. Jeffress took Mr. Cooper through a deposition he gave under oath in a lawyer’s office, when he was asked if Mr. Libby had been the first source for the information about the Wilsons.

“You told them ‘no,’ right?” Mr. Jeffress said.

“Yes,” Mr. Cooper said.

In cross-examining Ms. Miller, Mr. Jeffress zeroed in on one of Ms. Miller’s notations about the June 23 meeting: “Wife works in bureau?”

“Is your memory fuzzy about that entry and where it came from?” he asked.

Ms. Miller replied that her memory was “fuzzy” about the question mark: whether she used it to indicate her uncertainty about Ms. Wilson’s status at some “bureau,” or whether she used it because she was puzzled that Mr. Libby would bring up such a thing.

Ms. Miller testified on Tuesday that Mr. Libby told her at the June 23 meeting that Mr. Wilson’s wife worked at “the bureau,” a reference she first thought was to the Federal Bureau of Investigation but which she soon realized meant a division of the Central Intelligence Agency.

So, Mr. Jeffress said, Ms. Miller could not really be sure that she did not know about Ms. Wilson’s C.I.A. status before June 23, 2003, could she?

“I just have no recollection,” Ms. Miller said. But she insisted she was “confident” that she did not know before June 23.

At one point, Mr. Jeffress replayed a videotape, first shown on Tuesday, in which Ms. Miller comments to an interviewer that she had talked to various government officials (“senior and not-so-senior”) about Mr. Wilson’s July 6, 2003, article in The Times.

“I can’t remember with whom I had those conversations,” Ms. Miller said in reply to a question from Mr. Jeffress. When the lawyer persisted, Ms. Miller said, “I don’t remember their names. I don’t know what you want me to say beyond that.”

Later on, Ms. Miller insisted that Mr. Libby had indeed used the word “bureau” in the June 23 meeting, that it had “leaped out at her” as she was going over her notes later.

“O.K.,” Mr. Jeffress said, after more back-and-forth. “So you have a memory.”

In one exchange, Mr. Jeffress alluded to “Valerie Flame,” capitalizing on an erroneous spelling in Ms. Miller’s notes of Mrs. Wilson’s maiden name, Valerie Plame.

“Excuse me,” he said with a chuckle, “Valerie Plame.”

Ms. Miller, who left The Times in 2005, spent 85 days in jail after refusing to buckle to demands of the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, that she discuss her confidential conversations with news sources. She relented after obtaining what she has called a “personal” and unambiguous waiver from Mr. Libby.

Judge Reggie B. Walton told Ms. Miller a juror wanted to know why she had not contacted Mr. Libby earlier, rather than stay in jail. Because she was afraid of “a fishing expedition” by Mr. Fitzgerald, she answered.

“I did not want to stay in jail,” she said, explaining that she did so that people who come to her with information can “trust me, that I would protect them.”Judge Walton announced today that another of the panel of 16 jurors (12 regular members and four alternates) had been excused for an employment-related issue. “That’s unfortunate,” he said.

Mr. Fitzgerald said he expected the prosecution to complete presenting its case by early next week.

Read full post and comments:
"Libby’s Lawyers Question Reporter’s Memory" >>


German Court Seeks Arrest of 13 C.I.A. Agents

Published: January 31, 2007
The New York Times



FRANKFURT, Jan. 31 — In the most serious legal challenge yet to the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret transfers of terrorism suspects, a German court has issued an arrest warrant for 13 people in connection with the mistaken kidnapping and jailing of a German citizen of Lebanese descent.

Prosecutors in Munich said the suspects, whom they did not name, were part of a C.I.A. “abduction team” that seized the man, Khaled el-Masri, in Macedonia in late 2003 and flew him to Afghanistan. He was imprisoned there for five months, and has said he was shackled, beaten, and interrogated about his alleged ties to Al Qaeda, before being released without charges.

His ordeal is the most documented case of the C.I.A.’s practice of “extraordinary rendition,” in which suspected terrorists are seized and sent for interrogation to countries where torture is practiced.

“This is a very consequential step,” August Stern, the deputy prosecutor in Munich, said in a telephone interview. “It is a necessary step before bringing a criminal case against these people.”

The Central Intelligence Agency has never acknowledged any role in Mr. Masri’s detention, and a C.I.A. spokesman declined to comment today. The German government said it would not comment on the case, except to affirm the independence of the public prosecutor.

Mr. Stern said investigators would seek to establish the true identities of the 13 people, most of whom are believed to use aliases. They include the four-member crew of the Boeing 737 that picked up Mr. Masri, a mechanic, and several other C.I.A. operatives in Macedonia, people familiar with the case said.

The issuing of an arrest warrant represents a major expansion of the legal assault on the C.I.A.’s rendition program in Europe. Italian prosecutors are seeking indictments against 25 C.I.A. operatives, as well as Italy’s former intelligence chief, for the kidnapping of a militant Egyptian cleric in 2003.

But the German case carries more weight, according to legal experts, because of the reputation of the courts here for painstaking deliberation, as well as the strong diplomatic ties between Germany and the United States.

It comes at a delicate time for both countries. The Bush administration has faced a drumbeat of criticism over its anti-terrorism policies since the Sept. 11 attacks, while the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has been eager to heal rifts in the trans-Atlantic alliance over the Iraq war.

“It is unique that a German court would issue warrants against 13 C.I.A. agents,” said Hans-Christian Ströbele, a Green Party member of a German parliamentary committee which is investigating the flights.

The case also has political implications within Germany, where the role of the German government in tolerating — or even facilitating — C.I.A. flights has come under increased scrutiny. Frankfurt Airport was used for many of the flights, as was the American air base at Ramstein.

Unlike Italy, Germany does not permit trials in absentia. And as a practical matter, it is unlikely that the Bush administration would acquiesce in the extradition to Germany of the 13 people covered by the arrest warrant. Still, the indictment could hinder the defendants’ ability to move around Europe.

A German radio station, NDR, published what it said were the names of the 13 people today, listing 11 men and two women. Mr. Stern declined to discuss the names, which have been picked up in other German news media.

The whereabouts of all 13 people is unknown, though a German television program, Panorama, tracked down three of them in North Carolina last September. They declined to comment to the program on their activities.

For Mr. Masri, who has had to overcome a tide of public skepticism about his account since it was first reported in The New York Times in early 2005, the court’s action is a significant reinforcement of the credibility of his claims, according to his lawyer, Manfred Gnjidic.

“This is unbelievably important for our case,” Mr. Gnjidic said in an interview. “It’s the first direct sign of the German government against the C.I.A. that they did the wrong thing.”

Mr. Masri, who is unemployed, lives in Neu-Ulm in southern Germany. Mr. Gnjidic said he had been buoyed by a statement of support from the former German interior minister, Otto Schily.

Mr. Masri has petitioned an American federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., to reinstate a lawsuit he filed against the C.I.A. Last May, a federal judge threw out the suit, accepting the government’s contention that it would impossible to try the case without revealing state secrets.

The Justice Department has declined to help the German prosecutors in their investigation, citing pending legal cases in the United States. This has made the Germans dependent on information from other sources, including journalists investigating the C.I.A. rendition program.

Mr. Stern, the prosecutor, said that a major break came from a Spanish reporter, who compiled a list of the names of people involved Mr. Masri’s abduction from sources in the Civil Guard, a Spanish paramilitary unit. The C.I.A. used the Spanish island of Majorca as a logistics center for its flights, Mr. Gnjidic said, and authorities found the names of members of the rendition team on hotel logs there.

Mr. Stern also credited tips from prosecutors in Milan and from Dick Marty, a Swiss senator who conducted an inquiry into the rendition program on behalf of the Council of Europe.

The nature of Germany’s role in Mr. Masri’s case, and in other C.I.A. flights, remains murky. Mr. Masri has claimed that when he was imprisoned in Kabul, he was interrogated three times by a German who identified himself as Sam.

Germany’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, has said he was not told of Mr. Masri’s abduction until June 2004, after Mr. Masri had been released in Albania. As chief of staff to the former chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, Mr. Steinmeier oversaw all German intelligence services.

Mr. Steinmeier is facing questions about his role in another case, involving a German-born Turkish man who was imprisoned for more than four years at the American military jail in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The man, Murat Kurnaz, was released by the United States last August after lengthy negotiations between Berlin and Washington. But internal German intelligence documents say that the Germans turned down an offer by the Americans to send Mr. Kurnaz home as early as 2002.

Mr. Steinmeier has insisted that the Americans never made an “official” offer to release Mr. Kurnaz. He has also noted that worries about security were running high in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks.

German newspapers have been full of speculation recently about whether the affair will cost Mr. Steinmeier his job.

Read full post and comments:
"German Court Seeks Arrest of 13 C.I.A. Agents" >>


Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Iraq’s Refugees

Editorial: The New York Times
Published: January 31, 2007

To calculate the price that Iraqis have paid for the American misadventure in their country, you have to deal in big, round, horrifying numbers. Civilians killed last year: 34,000. Driven from their homes within Iraq: 1.8 million. Fled to other countries: an additional 2 million, and growing. The number of Iraqis who have found refuge in the United States is easier to pin down. This country has admitted a grand total of 466 Iraqi refugees since 2003.

However President Bush tries to manage the endgame of his dismal war, America has an obligation to the Iraqis whose lives it has upended. It owes a particular debt to those who have faced incredible dangers working with American forces as interpreters, guides and contractors. These allies — and their families — have become a haunted and hunted group, branded as traitors and targeted for kidnapping and assassination by insurgents and militias.

By any measure, the Bush administration is failing them. The current price tag for the war is $8 billion a month, yet the State Department plans to spend only $20 million in the coming fiscal year to help shelter Iraqi refugees overseas and to resettle them here. A special visa program to resettle Iraqi and Afghan military translators has been capped at 50 people a year and has a six-year waiting list.

Of all the Vietnam-era mistakes the country has been repeating lately, indifference to refugees is especially unforgivable. The administration can start addressing the problem by devoting a far greater number of refugee slots — currently 70,000 a year — to people from Iraq and Afghanistan. It can streamline entry procedures, which should be a manageable task for those who have already been vetted to work with the United States military.

It should move quickly to organize a conference with Iraq’s neighbors to discuss ways to cope better with the human suffering and the potentially destabilizing effects of the rising human tide. And it should answer an urgent appeal for funds by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which is seeking $60 million over the next 12 months to shelter and protect displaced Iraqis.

Does it really need to be said yet again that in these perilous times the way to win trustworthy allies is to be one?

Read full post and comments:
"Iraq’s Refugees" >>


Honesty in Elections

Editorial: The New York Times
Published: January 31, 2007


On Election Day last fall in Maryland, fliers were handed out in black neighborhoods with the heading “Democratic Sample Ballot” and photos of black Democratic leaders — and boxes checked off beside the names of the Republican candidates for senator and governor. They were a blatant attempt to fool black voters into thinking the Republican candidates were endorsed by black Democrats. In Orange County, Calif., 14,000 Latino voters got letters in Spanish saying it was a crime for immigrants to vote in a federal election. It didn’t say that immigrants who are citizens have the right to vote.

Dirty tricks like these turn up every election season, in large part because they are so rarely punished. But two Democratic senators, Barack Obama of Illinois and Charles Schumer of New York, are introducing a bill today that would make deceiving or intimidating voters a federal crime with substantial penalties.

The bill aims at some of the most commonly used deceptive political tactics. It makes it a crime to knowingly tell voters the wrong day for an election. There have been numerous reports of organized efforts to use telephones, leaflets or posters to tell voters, especially in minority areas, not to vote on Election Day because voting has been postponed.

The bill would also criminalize making false claims to voters about who has endorsed a candidate, or wrongly telling people — like immigrants who are registered voters in Orange County — that they cannot vote.

Along with defining these crimes and providing penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment, the bill would require the Justice Department to counteract deceptive election information that has been put out, and to report to Congress after each election on what deceptive practices occurred and what the Justice Department did about them.

The bill would also allow individuals to go to court to stop deceptive practices while they are happening. That is important, given how uninterested the current Justice Department has proved to be in cracking down on election-season dirty tricks.

The bill is careful to avoid infringing on First Amendment rights, and that is the right course. But in steering clear of regulating speech, it is not clear how effective the measure would be in addressing one of the worst dirty tricks of last fall’s election: a particular kind of deceptive “robocall” that was used against Democratic Congressional candidates. These calls, paid for by the Republicans, sounded as if they had come from the Democrat; when a recipient hung up, the call was repeated over and over. The intent was clearly to annoy the recipients so they would not vote for the Democrat.

While there are already laws that can be used against this sort of deceptive telephone harassment, a more specific bill aimed directly at these calls is needed. But the bill being introduced today is an important step toward making elections more honest and fair. There is no reason it should not be passed by Congress unanimously.

Read full post and comments:
"Honesty in Elections" >>


Not-So-Strange Bedfellow

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: January 31, 2007
The New York Times

Here’s a little foreign policy test. I am going to describe two countries — “Country A” and “Country B” — and you tell me which one is America’s ally and which one is not.

Let’s start: Country A actively helped the U.S. defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan and replace it with a pro-U.S. elected alliance of moderate Muslims. Country A regularly holds sort-of-free elections. Country A’s women vote, hold office, are the majority of its university students and are fully integrated into the work force.

On 9/11, residents of Country A were among the very few in the Muslim world to hold spontaneous pro-U.S. demonstrations. Country A’s radical president recently held a conference about why the Holocaust never happened — to try to gain popularity. A month later, Country A held nationwide elections for local councils, and that same president saw his candidates get wiped out by voters who preferred more moderate conservatives. Country A has a strategic interest in the success of the pro-U.S., Shiite-led, elected Iraqi government. Although it’s a Muslim country right next to Iraq, Country A has never sent any suicide bombers to Iraq, and has long protected its Christians and Jews. Country A has more bloggers per capita than any country in the Muslim Middle East.

The brand of Islam practiced by Country A respects women, is open to reinterpretation in light of modernity and rejects Al Qaeda’s nihilism.

Now Country B: Country B gave us 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11. Country B does not allow its women to drive, vote or run for office. It is illegal in Country B to build a church, synagogue or Hindu temple. Country B helped finance the Taliban.

Country B’s private charities help sustain Al Qaeda. Young men from Country B’s mosques have been regularly recruited to carry out suicide bombings in Iraq. Mosques and charities in Country B raise funds to support the insurgency in Iraq. Country B does not want the elected, Shiite-led government in Iraq to succeed. While Country B’s leaders are pro-U.S., polls show many of its people are hostile to America — some of them celebrated on 9/11. The brand of Islam supported by Country B and exported by it to mosques around the world is the most hostile to modernity and other faiths.

Question: Which country is America’s natural ally: A or B?

Country A is, of course. Country A is Iran. Country B is Saudi Arabia.

Don’t worry. I know that Iran has also engaged in terrorism against the U.S. and that the Saudis have supported America at key times in some areas. The point I’m trying to make, though, is that the hostility between Iran and the U.S. since the overthrow of the shah in 1979 is not organic. By dint of culture, history and geography, we actually have a lot of interests in common with Iran’s people. And I am not the only one to notice that.

Because the U.S. has destroyed Iran’s two biggest enemies — the Taliban and Saddam — “there is now a debate in Iran as to whether we should continue to act so harshly against the Americans,” Mohammad Hossein Adeli, Iran’s former ambassador to London, told me at Davos. “There is now more readiness for dialogue with the United States.”

More important, when people say, “The most important thing America could do today to stabilize the Middle East is solve the Israel-Palestine conflict,” they are wrong. It’s second. The most important thing would be to resolve the Iran-U.S. conflict.

That would change the whole Middle East and open up the way to solving the Israel-Palestine conflict, because Iran is the key backer of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Syria. Iran’s active help could also be critical for stabilizing Iraq.

This is why I oppose war with Iran. I favor negotiations. Isolating Iran like Castro’s Cuba has produced only the same result as in Cuba: strengthening Iran’s Castros. But for talks with Iran to bear fruit, we have to negotiate with Iran with leverage.

How do we get leverage? Make it clear that Iran can’t push us out of the gulf militarily; bring down the price of oil, which is key to the cockiness of Iran’s hard-line leadership; squeeze the hard-liners financially. But all this has to be accompanied with a clear declaration that the U.S. is not seeking regime change in Iran, but a change of behavior, that the U.S. wants to immediately restore its embassy in Tehran and that the first thing it will do is grant 50,000 student visas for young Iranians to study at U.S. universities.

Just do that — and then sit back and watch the most amazing debate explode inside Iran. You can bet the farm on it.

Read full post and comments:
"Not-So-Strange Bedfellow" >>


Bush Is Not Above the Law

Published: January 31, 2007
The New York Times

Washington LAST August, a federal judge found that the president of the United States broke the law, committed a serious felony and violated the Constitution. Had the president been an ordinary citizen — someone charged with bank robbery or income tax evasion — the wheels of justice would have immediately begun to turn. The F.B.I. would have conducted an investigation, a United States attorney’s office would have impaneled a grand jury and charges would have been brought.

But under the Bush Justice Department, no F.B.I. agents were ever dispatched to padlock White House files or knock on doors and no federal prosecutors ever opened a case.

The ruling was the result of a suit, in which I am one of the plaintiffs, brought against the National Security Agency by the American Civil Liberties Union. It was a response to revelations by this newspaper in December 2005 that the agency had been monitoring the phone calls and e-mail messages of Americans for more than four years without first obtaining warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

In the past, even presidents were not above the law. When the F.B.I. turned up evidence during Watergate that Richard Nixon had obstructed justice by trying to cover up his involvement, a special prosecutor was named and a House committee recommended that the president be impeached.

And when an independent counsel found evidence that President Bill Clinton had committed perjury in the Monica Lewinsky case, the impeachment machinery again cranked into gear, with the spectacle of a Senate trial (which ended in acquittal).

Laws are broken, the federal government investigates, and the individuals involved — even if they’re presidents — are tried and, if found guilty, punished. That is the way it is supposed to work under our system of government. But not this time.

Last Aug. 17, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court in Detroit issued her ruling in the A.C.L.U. case. The president, she wrote, had “undisputedly violated” not only the First and Fourth Amendments of the Constitution, but also statutory law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Enacted by a bipartisan Congress in 1978, the FISA statute was a response to revelations that the National Security Agency had conducted warrantless eavesdropping on Americans. To deter future administrations from similar actions, the law made a violation a felony punishable by a $10,000 fine and five years in prison.

Yet despite this ruling, the Bush Justice Department never opened an F.B.I. investigation, no special prosecutor was named, and there was no talk of impeachment in the Republican-controlled Congress.

Justice Department lawyers argued last June that warrants were not required for what they called the administration’s “terrorist surveillance program” because of the president’s “inherent powers” to order eavesdropping and because of the Congressional authorization to use military force against those responsible for 9/11. But Judge Taylor rejected both arguments, ruling that even presidents must obey statutory law and the Constitution.

On Jan. 17, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales unexpectedly declared that President Bush had ended the program, deciding to again seek warrants in all cases. Exactly what kind of warrants — individual, as is required by the law, or broad-based, which would probably still be illegal — is as yet unknown.

The action may have been designed to forestall a potentially adverse ruling by the federal appeals court in Cincinnati, which had scheduled oral arguments on the case for today. At that hearing, the administration is now expected to argue that the case is moot and should be thrown out — while reserving the right to restart the program at any time.

But that’s a bit like a bank robber coming into court and arguing that, although he has been sticking up banks for the past half-decade, he has agreed to a temporary halt and therefore he shouldn’t be prosecuted. Independent of the A.C.L.U. case, a criminal investigation by the F.B.I. and a special prosecutor should begin immediately. The question that must finally be answered is whether the president is guilty of committing a felony by continuously reauthorizing the warrantless eavesdropping program for the past five years. And if so, what action must be taken?

The issue is not original. Among the charges approved by the House Judiciary Committee when it recommended its articles of impeachment against President Nixon was “illegal wiretaps.” President Nixon, the bill charged, “caused wiretaps to be placed on the telephones of 17 persons without having obtained a court order authorizing the tap, as required by federal law; in violation of Sections 241, 371 and 2510-11 of the Criminal Code.”

Under his program, President Bush could probably be charged with wiretapping not 17 but thousands of people without having obtained a court order authorizing the taps as required by federal law, in violation of FISA.

It is not only the federal court but also many in Congress who believe that a violation of law has taken place. In a hearing on Jan. 18, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said, “For years, this administration has engaged in warrantless wiretapping of Americans contrary to the law.”

His view was shared by the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, who said of Mr. Bush, “For five years he has been operating an illegal program.”

And Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, noted that much of the public was opposed to the program and that it both hurt the country at home and damaged its image abroad. “The heavy criticism which the president took on the program,” he said, “I think was very harmful in the political process and for the reputation of the country.”

To allow a president to break the law and commit a felony for more than five years without even a formal independent investigation would be the ultimate subversion of the Constitution and the rule of law. As Judge Taylor warned in her decision, “There are no hereditary kings in America.”

James Bamford is the author of two books on the National Security Agency, “The Puzzle Palace” and “Body of Secrets.”

Read full post and comments:
"Bush Is Not Above the Law" >>


Mama Hugs Iowa


Published: January 31, 2007
The New York Times


DAVENPORT, Iowa When she was little, Hillary Rodham would sit on a basement bench and pretend she was flying a spaceship to Mars. Her younger brother Hugh, perched behind, would sometimes beg for a chance to be captain.

No dice. “She would always drive, and I would always have to sit in the back,” he once told me.

Through all the years of sitting behind Bill Clinton on his trip to the stars, Hillary fidgeted and elbowed, trying to be co-captain rather than just wingman, or worse, winglady.

Finally, in Iowa, she was once more behind the wheel of her spaceship to Mars. She didn’t have to prop up Bill after one of his roguish pratfalls. She didn’t have to feign interest in East Wing piffle — table settings and pastry chefs and designer gowns. She didn’t have to defer to her male colleagues in the Senate, stepping back to give them the limelight.

She positively glistened as she talked about how “I” — rather than the “we” of ’92 — would run the world.

Humbly, graciously, deftly, she offered Iowa the answer to that eternal question, What Is Hillary Owed?

Everything.

John Wood, a self-described “plainsman,” Republican and machinery-and-tool salesman from Davenport, asked Hillary how she would handle the world’s evil and bad men, provoking the slyly ambiguous retort: “What in my background equips me to deal with evil and bad men?”

He said afterward that he was more worried about her ability to face down villains, “being a lady,” but conceded, “The woman did good today.”

(His question was reminiscent of Ali G’s interview of Newt Gingrich, when the faux rapper asked whether a woman president would be turned on and manipulated by evil dictators, given that, with women, “the worse you treat ’em, the more they want you.”)

As YouTube attests, Hillary didn’t care about style as first lady; she was too busy trying to get in on Bill’s substance. She showed off a long parade of unflattering outfits and unnervingly changing hairdos.

In Iowa, her national anthem may have been off-key, but her look wasn’t. It was an attractive mirror of her political message: man-tailored with a dash of pink femininity.

“I think you look very nice,” a veteran of the first gulf war told her in Des Moines.

“Thank you!” she answered, beaming and laughing.

When Geraldine Ferraro made her historic run in ’84, she tried to blend a mother’s concerns into her foreign policy answers, but it did not work so well once she started getting her nuclear terminology mixed up.

Hillary dealt with the issue head on — “I’m a woman; I’m a mom” — hoping to stir that sisterly vote that Ms. Ferraro failed to draw after it turned out that many women were skeptical about one of their own facing down the Soviets.

Unlike Barack Obama, who once said he was bored by the suburbs, she introduced herself in the land of bingo and bacon as a product of the suburbs, wallowing in the minutiae of kitchen-table issues.

W. and Cheney have lavished attention and money on Iraq, leaving Americans feeling neglected. Hillary offered Iowans a warm bath of “you,” homey rumination rather than harsh domination.

(Though Jon Stewart warned on “The Daily Show” that her slogan — “Let the conversation begin!” — will not help her with men. “I think the typical response would be, ‘Now?’ ” he said, adding that her new Iraq policy is, “America, let’s pull over and just ask for directions.”)

Thomasine Johnson, a 66-year-old African-American from outside Des Moines, complained that Hillary talked too much about “traditional women’s issues,” but many in the audiences seemed enthralled.

The Achilles’ heel of “The Warrior,” as she is known, is the war. She expressed outrage about Iraq, but ended up sounding like a mother whose teenage son has not cleaned up his room: “The president has said this is going to be left to his successor ... and I think it’s the height of irresponsibility, and I really resent it.”

She uttered the most irritating and disingenuous nine words in politics: “If we had known then what we know now. ...”

Jim Webb knew. Barack Obama knew. Even I knew, for Pete’s sake. The administration’s trickery was clear in real time.

Hillary didn’t have the nerve to oppose a popular president on a national security issue after 9/11, and she feared being cast as an antiwar hippie when she ran. Now she feels she can’t simply say she made a bad decision. And that makes her seem conniving — not a good mix with nurturing.

Read full post and comments:
"Mama Hugs Iowa" >>


In Senate, Allies of Bush Work to Halt Iraq Vote

Published: January 31, 2007
The New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 30 — The Bush administration’s allies in the Senate began a major effort on Tuesday to prevent a potentially embarrassing rejection of the president’s plan to push 20,000 more troops into Iraq.

With the Senate expected to reach votes on possible resolutions sometime next week, the signs of the new campaign seeped out after a weekly closed-door lunch in which Republican senators engaged in what participants described as a heated debate over how to approach the issue.

The new effort by President Bush’s allies, including Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, is aimed at blocking two nonbinding resolutions directly critical of the White House that had appeared to be gaining broad support among Democrats and even some Republicans.

Republicans skeptical of the troop buildup said some of their colleagues had begun to suggest that opponents of the White House plan ran the risk of undermining Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new military commander in Iraq, as well as Mr. Bush.

“There is a lot of pressure on people who could be with us not to be with us,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the co-author of one resolution along with Senators John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska.

As an alternative to that measure and another broadly backed by Democrats, Mr. McCain and Mr. Graham, along with Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, the independent Democrat from Connecticut, are trying to enlist support for a resolution that would set benchmarks for the Iraqi government and describe the troop increase as a final chance for the United States to restore security in Baghdad.

The senators have been joined in their effort by the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Senator John Cornyn of Texas and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana.

The debate over Iraq also resounded elsewhere on Capitol Hill, as senators attending the confirmation hearing for Adm. William J. Fallon, nominated to command American forces in the Middle East, heard his blunt assessment of the path ahead. He said “time is running out” for positive action by the government of Nuri Kamal al-Maliki to show it can quell sectarian violence.

At another Senate hearing, the leaders of the Iraq Study Group, the bipartisan panel that reported to Mr. Bush and Congress last month, disputed the White House’s contention that most of their recommendations had been incorporated into Mr. Bush’s troop increase plan.

“The diplomatic effort has not been full enough,” said Lee H. Hamilton, co-chairman of the study group with James A. Baker III. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Hamilton described the initiatives begun by the administration in the Middle East as modest and slow, and added, “we don’t have the time to wait.”

On the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democrats began laying the constitutional groundwork for an effort to block the president’s plan to send more troops to Iraq and place new limits on the conduct of the war there, perhaps forcing a withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

In advance of a possible Senate vote on the resolutions, Republican senators now appear widely divided over how to proceed. In trying to head off the resolution supported by Senators Warner and Collins, allies of the White House appear to be trying to muster at least the 41 votes they would need to prevent a vote on the measure under Senate rules. Mr. McCain is sponsoring the competing resolution that would establish benchmarks for the Iraqi government. He said the proposal also could be fashioned to give Congress more oversight.

Republicans were viewing Mr. McCain’s plan as a way to deter Republicans from joining in the resolutions more critical of Mr. Bush, and many Republicans said that would be preferable to one criticizing the troop buildup outright. Senators also said they were beginning to realize that the vote, while nonbinding, would be an important statement on Congressional sentiment regarding the war.

“We all know the world is watching,” said Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia.

The more sharply worded of the two measures critical of the White House is one approved last week by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and backed by the Democratic Senators Joseph R. Biden of Delaware and Carl Levin of Michigan, as well as Senator Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska Republican. The second of the two measures is one backed by Senator Warner.

As those debates flared mostly in private, the confirmation hearing for Admiral Fallon as the new head of the military’s Central Command became a proxy debate not only over the president’s new strategy — and for the competing resolutions supported by senators of both parties.

But Admiral Fallon, currently in charge of American forces across Asia and the Pacific, declined to answer directly politically fraught questions about whether certain proposed resolutions would harm the military effort in Iraq or undermine the troops’ morale.

The admiral, who if confirmed as expected would be the first Navy officer to head the Central Command, said that he would always offer unvarnished military advice, but that he would avoid commenting on partisan political issues.

In his testimony, Admiral Fallon told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that the United States might have erred in its assessments of how effectively the new Iraqi effectively the government could manage the nation’s affairs.

“Maybe we ought to redefine the goals here a bit and do something that’s more realistic in terms of getting some progress and then maybe take on the other things later,” Admiral Fallon said, adding, “What we’ve been doing is not working and we have got to be doing, it seems to me, something different.”

“Time is running out,” he concluded.

Senator Levin submitted a letter he co-authored with Senator McCain demanding that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice make public the administration’s requirements for actions to be taken by the government in Baghdad to earn continued American support.

Late Tuesday, Senator Levin’s office released a reply from Ms. Rice that stated assurances that the Bush administration supports Mr. Maliki but also listed deadlines already missed by his government. Among them were laws to guarantee an equitable distribution of the country’s oil wealth, to establish provincial elections and to reintegrate disenfranchised Sunnis into Iraqi political life.

In the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who led the panel for the last two years, joined Democrats who asserted that Mr. Bush cannot simply ignore Congressional opposition to his plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq.

“I would respectfully suggest to the president that he is not the sole decider,” Mr. Specter said. “The decider is a joint and shared responsibility.”

Senator Russell Feingold, Democrat who acted as chairman for the hearing, said he would soon introduce a resolution that would go much further. It would end all financing for the deployment of American military forces in Iraq after six months, other than a limited number working on counterterrorism operations or training the Iraqi army and police. In effect, it would call for all other American forces to be withdrawn by the six-month deadline.

Jeff Zeleny and David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington, and John O’Neil from New York.

Read full post and comments:
"In Senate, Allies of Bush Work to Halt Iraq Vote" >>