Dem tourists take 'Billgrimage' in Arkansas
Mood:  silly
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Nostalgia is an admission that you think your best days are in your past. So maybe it is no surprise that the Dems are feeling nostalgic. Dems are using their vacation time to visit the Clinton Presidential library and then travel to Hope, Arkansas. They refer to this trip as a "Billgrimage" and the religious tone is no accident.

Fans On 'Billgrimage' to Arkansas

The summer travel season is in full swing, the Clinton Presidential Library is drawing 2,000 visitors a day, and a new tourism phenomenon - the "Billgrimage" - is being seen 115 miles away in the town of Hope, Arkansas.

"People are coming from the library saying they're making a Billgrimage to Arkansas; it's so cute," giggles Crystal Altenbaumer, director of the Clinton Birthplace museum in Hope.

Among those on a recent "Billgrimage" was Ava Carter, a Democrat from Dallas, who convinced her Republican travel partner, James D. Stearns, to give their summer trip a Clinton theme.

"I'd never even been to Arkansas, but last year we planned to go to Clinton's birth home in Hope, up to Hot Springs (where Clinton grew up) and here," Carter said. "James said, 'Sure, let's go."'

They and other pilgrims to all-things-Clinton are helping to put the Clinton Birthplace back in the black after a period of financial uncertainty.

Clinton lived in Hope in a white foursquare house until he was 4 with his mother and his grandparents, Eldridge and Edith Cassidy. The house is now owned by the birthplace museum and is open for self-guided tours.

But the birthplace museum ran deficits eight years in a row before finally generating its first operating surplus in the 2003-04 year - a mere $806, but a big improvement from the $51,000 shortfall the year before. Buzz related to the November 2004 opening of the presidential library in Little Rock apparently increased interest in - and contributions to - the birthplace museum.

Gary Johnson, who runs the city-owned Hope Visitor Center & Museum down the road, said visitation to the center has increased on average about 40 percent since the library opened.

"These are the best numbers we've had since 1999 or the year 2000," said Johnson.

Most of Hope's visitors have already been to the library or are en route, said Johnson, whose mother, Elaine, chairs the Birthplace Foundation. "I've actually had people come in here complaining that there were too many people at the library," he added. "But I knew it would only help us."

Altenbaumer said the birthplace museum brings in many, but not all of those stop at the visitor center. Many, she said, simply drive by the house and slow down, but don't have time to see the memorabilia, the house's 1946 decor, rotating photograph exhibits on loan from the library archive and the gift shop.

The Clinton Library, meanwhile, has drawn more than 400,000 visitors since opening in November, with some 2,000 a day in the summer and 1,500 a day on average.

Visitors are coming from all over the country, with the top 10 out-of-state markets being Memphis, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington-Baltimore, Kansas City, New York City, St. Louis and Atlanta.

Clinton Foundation president Skip Rutherford attributes the strong attendance to interest in Clinton and his wife Hillary; the location near two major interstates, I-30 and I-40, providing easy access for travelers passing through; and the growth of the convention business in Little Rock, which is bringing in travelers from around the country.

News Max.com ~ Associated Press ** Fans On 'Billgrimage' to Arkansas

Fla Gov hopeful battled unions now wants their votes
Mood:  silly
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Scott Maddox wants to replace Jeb Bush as Governor of Florida. The Dems should be proud. Maddox used to run the state party which had its assets seized and nearly went bankrupt this year. The hypocrite panders to the union vote but as mayor of Tallahassee he was faced with the unionizing of municipal workers. The article charges that Maddox likely participated in a nasty anti-union campaign, marked by illegal tactics.

Maddox denies role in video

Scott Maddox, a Democratic candidate for governor and former head of the Florida Democratic Party, proclaims he's a strong supporter of union rights, but the city he headed may have used illegal tactics to keep workers from joining a union.

The "Maddox for Governor" Web site says he's running to help working people and tells how his grandfather "had no union" to protect him when he was fired from a job hauling chunks of ice.

Yet when Maddox was mayor of Tallahassee four years ago, the city waged what union leaders call a "brutal" campaign to keep blue collar city employees from joining a union.

City efforts included spending taxpayer money to create a video of city employees urging fellow workers to reject the union. Legal experts say the video violates state law and the Florida Constitution, which guarantees government workers the right to join a union.

"It's unlawful," said Thomas Brooks, former chief attorney for the state Public Employees Relations Commission, which oversees labor complaints. "It's coercive, and I think it's crossing the line of what employers can do to get their message out."

Though Maddox was mayor, there's no evidence he was personally involved in approving the video. He said this week he had never heard of the video but that it was probably illegal. "It sounds like an unfair labor practice," Maddox said. "If I had direct knowledge of an unfair labor practice, I would have done something."

The newly surfaced video raises questions about how hard Maddox will fight for worker's rights, an issue he calls a big part of his campaign.

Numerous complaints of illegal tactics were filed in 2001: bribing city officials with pay hikes, spying on union organizing meetings, and firing employee organizers to block the union. State records show Maddox, as the city's top elected official, was named in the complaints and received related documents.

Although legal complaints were rejected by a state labor board on procedural grounds, many claims were never disputed by the city and some may have been tossed improperly, legal experts say.

The Sarasota Herald-Tribune discovered the video during routine reporting checks.

Maddox has been dogged by controversy since he announced his candidacy for governor this year. One of the state's most powerful unions, The Florida Police Benevolent Association, has openly criticized him.

Democrats rely heavily on union support for statewide races, especially as Florida has evolved from a Democratic stronghold to a battleground state.

Maddox, who brags about his strong support for unions and his "bold leadership" during a decade as mayor of the capital city, did nothing to help the union and dodged the issue, according to other city officials and labor leaders.

When union leaders asked for help getting a vote to recognize the union and complained to Maddox about anti-union tactics by City Manager Anita Favors, the mayor told them there was nothing he could do, said Chris Chafe, a national leader of UNITE NOW involved in the push. "He claimed he was unable to influence her," Chafe said. "He wanted the political cover of his council to move. We couldn't get it, so he didn't stick his neck out."

Maddox said there was little he could do.

"I'm pretty much unabashedly pro-union," he said. "I would have helped -- if it got to the City Commission level." Maddox later conceded that, as mayor, he had the power to call a City Commission vote on whether to accept the union.

City leaders say Maddox stayed far from the union fight. "On issues where Scott wants to lead, he's not shy," said veteran commissioner Debbie Lightsey, who served with Maddox for more than a decade. "On this, I didn't see any evidence he had any role whatsoever."

By contrast, another union last month tried to organize the same city employees. This time, with Maddox no longer mayor, it made it to a council vote. And Maddox, now running for governor, pressured the new mayor to call a vote on the union.

Union leaders say what a public official like Maddox does when he is in power is more important than lobbying efforts.

"There's a whole heap of elected officials, including Democrats, who 'talk the talk' that they're pro-union, but when they're really on the spot to deliver, it's a whole different ballgame," said Monica Russo, president of the statewide Service Employees International Union/Florida Healthcare Union.

The video made while Maddox was mayor shows one city worker after another blasting a proposed union as costly, unnecessary and dangerous. "I don't need anyone to speak for me," bus driver Karen Grimes says in the video, shown at employee meetings. "I'm an adult."

Parks employee Ken Cole said on the tape that he previously belonged to a union that went on strike and he "lost a lot of money." The union would take thousands in dues, then "sit back and do nothing," parking officer Charles Gatlin warned.

City spokeswoman Michelle Bono, who helped make the video, said it was shot on city time and at taxpayer expense but costs were "minimal." She said workers were approached after employee meetings but not pushed to take part. "I certainly never got the impression anyone was hesitant about going on camera," she said.

Labor issues could be especially sensitive for Democrats this year in the wake of a controversy that split the national AFL-CIO. Florida Democratic candidates have long depended on unified labor support, including the last candidate for governor, Bill McBride, whose 2002 campaign was largely bankrolled and staffed by a state teachers union.

The Miami-born Maddox was born with union roots. His father, Charles Maddox, founded a statewide police union. The group later ousted Charles Maddox and still holds bad blood toward his son.

Publicly, Maddox has taken strong pro-union stands. When he ran for attorney general three years ago, he was endorsed by some of the state's biggest unions, including the Service Employees International Union. Flanked by nursing home and school workers, Maddox pledged to "fight all the way" for rights to unionize. In a letter endorsing Maddox, SEIU specifically cited the importance of "workers' rights to organize."

Just last month, speaking to electrical workers from the Tampa Bay area, Maddox talked about the importance of the labor movement and said union talks with Verizon would test the fairness of big companies.

Sarasota Herald-Tribune ~ Bob Mahlburg ** Maddox denies role in video

PETA has killed more than 12,000
Mood:  don't ask
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

PETA has killed more than 12,000 animals, primarily dogs and cats, at its Virginia shelter. PETA not only refuses to become a no-kill shelter but it kills animals at a higher rate than other shelters. This story has been around for a while and the details keep coming but where is the investigation by the main stream media?

Dressed in protective gear, Ahoskie Police Detective Sgt. Jeremy Roberts prepares to bury one of the dead dogs found Wednesday in an Ahoskie, NC dumpster. The Ahoskie Police made two arrests in the case, individuals employed by PETA. A total of 31 dead dogs were discovered. \/

PETA's Dirty Secret

Hypocrisy is the mother of all credibility problems, and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has it in spades. While loudly complaining about the "unethical" treatment of animals by restaurant owners, grocers, farmers, scientists, anglers, and countless other Americans, the group has its own dirty little secret.

PETA kills animals. By the thousands.

From July 1998 through the end of 2003, PETA killed over 10,000 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals" -- at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. That's more than five defenseless animals every day. Not counting the dogs and cats PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 85 percent of the animals it took in during 2003 alone. And its angel-of-death pattern shows no sign of changing.

>> skeptical? click here to see the proof

On its 2002 federal income-tax return, PETA claimed a $9,370 write-off for a giant walk-in freezer, the kind most people use as a meat locker or for ice-cream storage. But animal-rights activists don't eat meat or dairy foods. So far, the group hasn't confirmed the obvious -- that it's using the appliance to store the bodies of its victims.

In 2000, when the Associated Press first noted PETA's Kervorkian-esque tendencies, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk complained that actually taking care of animals costs more than killing them. "We could become a no-kill shelter immediately," she admitted.

PETA kills animals. Because it has other financial priorities.

PETA raked in nearly $29 million last year in income, much of it raised from pet owners who think their donations actually help animals. Instead, the group spends huge sums on programs equating people who eat chicken with Nazis, scaring young children away from drinking milk, recruiting children into the radical animal-rights lifestyle, and intimidating businessmen and their families in their own neighborhoods. PETA has also spent tens of thousands of dollars defending arsonists and other violent extremists.

PETA claims it engages in outrageous media-seeking stunts "for the animals." But which animals? Carping about the value of future two-piece dinners while administering lethal injections to puppies and kittens isn't ethical. It's hypocritical -- with a death toll that PETA would protest if it weren't their own doing.

PETA kills animals. And its leaders dare lecture the rest of us.

PETA kills animals ** PETA's Dirty Secret

Anti-war activists target September 11 event
Mood:  loud
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Anti-war activists have successfully pressured the Washington Post to drop support of an event to commemorate the September 11th attacks. The anti-war types claim to be afraid the event will become a pro-war event.

In this case I agree with them. Every mention of the September 11th attacks is a pro-war event. Watch the video and you will remember, in case you have forgotten, that we are at war. The anti-war types want September 11th to go away so they can pretend that we are not under siege.

Washington Post Backs Out of Pentagon 9/11 Event

The Washington Post is withdrawing its offer of free advertising for an organized event by the Defense Department to memorialize the victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, the newspaper announced.

The Post backed out of the agreement after critics said the event, scheduled to take place four years after the attacks that hit New York and Washington and resulted in the crash of a commercial airliner over western Pennsylvania, would have a pro-war slant and that support of the event by the newspaper would compromise the Post's journalistic integrity.

"The Post has a code of conduct that says employees should avoid a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest," said Rick Ehrmann, a Local representative for the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild. "In this case The Post was sponsoring the Pentagon's Freedom Walk, which ties the attack on Sept. 11 to the Iraq war, and of course, The Post's reporters have proven ... that there is no connection between the two, that that link is false."

Ehrmann said, "The Post has made a very good decision in withdrawing from this event."

The paper said that it instead will make a donation directly to the Pentagon Memorial Fund, which is raising money to build a two-acre contemplation park in honor of the 184 people who died when a plane crashed into the Pentagon in 2001. The decision was reported by the Post in Tuesday's Style section.

"It is unfortunate that The Washington Post has made this decision not to support the Freedom Walk, but we welcome their donation to the Pentagon Memorial Fund," said a Defense Department statement. "Everyone in American will pay tribute and commemorate this important day in different ways."

Critics of media support for the event also pointed to the free concert by Clint Black that is to take place at the end of the march route. Black's Web site, http://www.clintblack.com/songlyrics.html, features lyrics to his song entitled "I Raq and I Roll," including "Our troops take out the garbage/ for the good old U.S.A."

"If this is the person they're going to have representing American freedom, I'd say it's a political event," said Eric Hilton of the pop duo Thievery Corporation, who is part of a coalition that's organizing an anti-war protest concert on the Mall for later in September. Hilton said his concert will be political and he does not expect media sponsorship.

Other organizations scheduled to sponsor the Sept. 11 event included Stars and Stripes newspaper, Pentagon Federal Credit Union, Subway, Lockheed Martin, WTOP Radio Network, ABC/WJLA-TV Channel 7 and News Channel 8 and the Washington Convention & Tourism Corporation, according to the Freedom Walk Web site.

"As things stand right now we are committed to honoring our agreement to promote the event," said Stan Melton, director of creative services at WJLA TV and News Channel 8 in Washington. "If we were to find out that it was meant to be a political event, we couldn't support it."

Calls to The Washington Post and to the Defense Department were not immediately returned.

News Max.com ~ Associated Press ** Washington Post Backs Out of Pentagon 9/11 Event

State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in '96
Mood:  don't ask
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Critics of pre-emptive counter-terrorism, pay attention. We had our chance and we did nothing. The Clinton administration saw an extremist in a third world dump. No challenge to the U.S., no concern. They are doing it all over again. Out of Iraq, no action against Iran, read your history.

State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996

By Eric Lichtblau

WASHINGTON - State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.

In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that "his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan.

The declassified documents, obtained by the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch as part of a Freedom of Information Act request and provided to The New York Times, shed light on a murky and controversial chapter in Mr. bin Laden's history: his relocation from Sudan to Afghanistan as the Clinton administration was striving to understand the threat he posed and explore ways of confronting him.

Before 1996, Mr. bin Laden was regarded more as a financier of terrorism than a mastermind. But the State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Two years after the State Department's warning, with Mr. bin Laden firmly entrenched in Afghanistan and overseeing terrorist training and financing operations, Al Qaeda struck two American embassies in East Africa, leading to failed military attempts by the Clinton administration to capture or kill him in Afghanistan. Three years later, on Sept. 11, 2001, Al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in an operation overseen from the base in Afghanistan.

Critics of the Clinton administration have accused it of ignoring the threat posed by Mr. bin Laden in the mid-1990's while he was still in Sudan, and they point to claims by some Sudanese officials that they offered to turn him over to the Americans before ultimately expelling him in 1996 under international pressure. But Clinton administration diplomats have adamantly denied that they received such an offer, and the Sept. 11 commission concluded in one of its staff reports that it had "not found any reliable evidence to support the Sudanese claim."

The newly declassified documents do not directly address the question of whether Sudan ever offered to turn over Mr. bin Laden. But the documents go well beyond previous news and historical accounts in detailing the Clinton administration's active monitoring of Mr. bin Laden's movements and the realization that his move to Afghanistan could make him an even greater national security threat.

Several former senior officials in the Clinton administration did not return phone calls this week seeking comment on the newly declassified documents.

Adam Ereli, a spokesman for the State Department, said the documents should be viewed in the context of what was happening globally in 1996, rather than in the hindsight of events after the Sept. 11 attacks.

In 1996, Mr. Ereli said, "the question was getting him out of Sudan."

"The priority was to deny him safe haven, period, and to disrupt his activities any way you could," he continued. "There was a lot we didn't know, and the priority was to keep him on the run, keep him on guard, and try to maximize the opportunities to nail him."

Before the East Africa bombings in 1998, however, Mr. bin Laden "wasn't recognized then as the threat he is now," Mr. Ereli said. "Yes, he was a bad guy, he was a threat, but he was one of many, and by no means of the prominence that he later came to be."

The State Department assessment, written July 18, 1996, after Mr. bin Laden had been expelled from Sudan and was thought to be relocating to Afghanistan, said Afghanistan would make an "ideal haven" for Mr. bin Laden to run his financial networks and attract support from radicalized Muslims. Moreover, his wealth, his personal plane and many passports "allow him considerable freedom to travel with little fear of being intercepted or tracked," and his public statements suggested an "emboldened" man capable of "increased terrorism," the assessment said.

While a strategy of keeping Mr. bin Laden on the run could "inconvenience" him, the assessment said, "even a bin Laden on the move can retain the capability to support individuals and groups who have the motive and wherewithal to attack U.S. interests almost world-wide."

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, said the declassified material released to his group "says to me that the Clinton administration knew the broad outlines in 1996 of bin Laden's capabilities and his intent, and unfortunately, almost nothing was done about it."

Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, was highly critical of President Clinton during his two terms in office. The group has also been critical of some Bush administration actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, releasing documents in March that detailed government efforts to facilitate flights out of the United States for dozens of well-connected Saudis just days after the attacks.

Michael F. Scheuer, who from 1996 to 1999 led the Central Intelligence Agency unit that tracked Mr. bin Laden, said the State Department documents reflected a keen awareness of the danger posed by Mr. bin Laden's relocation.

"The analytical side of the State Department had it exactly right - that's genius analysis," he said in an interview when told of the declassified documents. But Mr. Scheuer, who wrote a book in 2004 titled "Imperial Hubris," under the pseudonym "Anonymous," that was highly critical of American counterterrorism strategies, said many officials in the C.I.A.'s operational side thought they would have a better chance to kill Mr. bin Laden in Afghanistan than they did in Sudan because the Sudan government protected him.

"The thinking was that he was in Afghanistan, and he was dangerous, but because he was there, we had a better chance to kill him," Mr. Scheuer said. "But at the end of the day, we settled for the worst possibility - he was there and we didn't do anything."

NY Times ~ Eric Lichtblau ** State Dept. Says It Warned About bin Laden in 1996

Whistleblower says Clintax military blocked sharing of files on terrorists in 2000
Mood:  don't ask
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Officer Says Military Blocked Sharing of Files on Terrorists

By Philip Shenon

WASHINGTON - A military intelligence team repeatedly contacted the F.B.I. in 2000 to warn about the existence of an American-based terrorist cell that included the ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a veteran Army intelligence officer who said he had now decided to risk his career by discussing the information publicly.

The officer, Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, said military lawyers later blocked the team from sharing any of its information with the bureau.

Colonel Shaffer said in an interview on Monday night that the small, highly classified intelligence program, known as Able Danger, had identified the terrorist ringleader, Mohamed Atta, and three other future hijackers by name by mid-2000, and tried to arrange a meeting that summer with agents of the Washington field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to share its information.

But he said military lawyers forced members of the intelligence program to cancel three scheduled meetings with the F.B.I. at the last minute, which left the bureau without information that Colonel Shaffer said might have led to Mr. Atta and the other terrorists while the Sept. 11 attacks were still being planned.

"I was at the point of near insubordination over the fact that this was something important, that this was something that should have been pursued," Colonel Shaffer said of his efforts to get the evidence from the intelligence program to the F.B.I. in 2000 and early 2001.

He said he learned later that lawyers associated with the Special Operations Command of the Defense Department had canceled the F.B.I. meetings because they feared controversy if Able Danger was portrayed as a military operation that had violated the privacy of civilians who were legally in the United States.

"It was because of the chain of command saying we're not going to pass on information - if something goes wrong, we'll get blamed," he said.

The Defense Department did not dispute the account from Colonel Shaffer, a 42-year-old native of Kansas City, Mo., who is the first military officer associated with the program to acknowledge his role publicly.

At the same time, the department said in a statement that it was "working to gain more clarity on this issue" and that "it's too early to comment on findings related to the program identified as Able Danger." The F.B.I. referred calls about Colonel Shaffer to the Pentagon.

The account from Colonel Shaffer, a reservist who is also working part time for the Pentagon, corroborates much of the information that the Sept. 11 commission has acknowledged it received about Able Danger last July from a Navy captain who was also involved with the program but whose name has not been made public. In a statement issued last week, the leaders of the commission said the panel had concluded that the intelligence program "did not turn out to be historically significant."

The statement said that while the commission did learn about Able Danger in 2003 and immediately requested Pentagon files about it, none of the documents turned over by the Defense Department referred to Mr. Atta or any of the other hijackers.

Colonel Shaffer said that his role in Able Danger was as liaison with the Defense Intelligence Agency in Washington, and that he was not an intelligence analyst. The interview with Colonel Shaffer on Monday was arranged for The New York Times and Fox News by Representative Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania Republican who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee and a champion of data-mining programs like Able Danger.

Colonel Shaffer's lawyer, Mark Zaid, said in an interview that he was concerned that Colonel Shaffer was facing retaliation from the Defense Department, first for having talked to the Sept. 11 commission staff in October 2003 and now for talking with news organizations.

Mr. Zaid said that Colonel Shaffer's security clearance was suspended last year because of what the lawyer said were a series of "petty allegations" involving $67 in personal charges on a military cellphone. He said that despite the disciplinary action, Colonel Shaffer had been promoted this year from major.

Colonel Shaffer said he had decided to allow his name to be used in part because of his frustration with the statement issued last week by the commission leaders, Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton.

The commission said in its final report last year that American intelligence agencies had not identified Mr. Atta as a terrorist before Sept. 11, 2001, when he flew an American Airlines jet into one of the World Trade Center towers in New York.

A commission spokesman did not return repeated phone calls on Tuesday for comment. A Democratic member of the commission, Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor, said in an interview on Tuesday that while he could not judge the credibility of the information from Colonel Shaffer and others, the Pentagon needed to "provide a clear and comprehensive explanation regarding what information it had in its possession regarding Mr. Atta."

"And if these assertions are credible," Mr. Ben-Veniste continued, "the Pentagon would need to explain why it was that the 9/11 commissioners were not provided this information despite requests for all information regarding Able Danger."

Colonel Shaffer said he had provided information about Able Danger and its identification of Mr. Atta in a private meeting in October 2003 with members of the Sept. 11 commission staff when they visited Afghanistan, where he was then serving. Commission members have disputed that, saying that they do not recall hearing Mr. Atta's name during the briefing and that the name did not appear in documents about Able Danger that were later turned over by the Pentagon.

"I would implore the 9/11 commission to support a follow-on investigation to ascertain what the real truth is," Colonel Shaffer said in the interview this week. "I do believe the 9/11 commission should have done that job: figuring out what went wrong with Able Danger."

"This was a good news story because, before 9/11, you had an element of the military - our unit - which was actually out looking for Al Qaeda," he continued. "I can't believe the 9/11 commission would somehow believe that the historical value was not relevant."

Colonel Shaffer said that because he was not an intelligence analyst, he was not involved in the details of the procedures used in Able Danger to glean information from terrorist databases, nor was he aware of which databases had supplied the information that might have led to the name of Mr. Atta or other terrorists so long before the Sept. 11 attacks.

But he said he did know that Able Danger had made use of publicly available information from government immigration agencies, from Internet sites and from paid search engines like LexisNexis.

NY Times ~ Philip Shenon ** Officer Says Military Blocked Sharing of Files on Terrorists

Gerhard Schoeder is a traitor like Coward Deanpeace
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder joins Howard Dean in trying to score political points by undermining the West’s struggle to keep nukes out of the hands of the looneys in Iran. Just like Dean on Sunday, the German leader made headlines by bragging that the U.S. is incapable of military action against Iran.

Military force is one of our key bargaining chips and the Gerhard and Dean are literally playing politics with the stability of the world and, perhaps, millions of lives.

Schroeder accused of undermining Iran talks

German conservatives and the press accused Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder Monday of exploiting the crisis over Iran's nuclear program ahead of next month's election, in an echo of his stance on Iraq three years ago. Schroeder kicked off the campaign for his Social Democrats (SPD) with a speech in which he ruled out force to stop Iran from pursuing sensitive nuclear work, in what was widely seen as an attack on the US position, according to AFP. >>>>>

LONDON - German conservatives and the press accused Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder Monday of exploiting the crisis over Iran's nuclear program ahead of next month's election, in an echo of his stance on Iraq three years ago, AFP said.

Schroeder kicked off the campaign for his Social Democrats (SPD) with a speech in which he ruled out force to stop Iran from pursuing sensitive nuclear work, in what was widely seen as an attack on the US position.

"Take the military options off the table," Schroeder told a rally in the northern city of Hanover Saturday. "We have seen that they do not work."

The remarks followed comments by US President George W. Bush on Israeli public broadcasting in which he said that "all options are on the table" when asked if the use of force was an alternative to faltering diplomacy with Iran.

Leading German conservatives, who have a double-digit lead in the polls ahead of the September 18 election, said Schroeder was repeating his 2002 re-election strategy in which he eked out a victory in part by stridently opposing a US invasion of Iraq.

"The comments are a transparent attempt to use the nuclear conflict with Iran for domestic political aims," the deputy head of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU)'s parliamentary group, Wolfgang Bosbach, told Monday's Berliner Zeitung.

CDU foreign affairs spokesman Wolfgang Schaeuble said Germany, which has led negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program with European Union partners Britain and France, was playing with fire.

"The chancellor is creating the disastrous impression that the international community is no longer united. He is thus accepting the fact that the danger of Iran getting an atomic bomb is growing," he said.

Despite the opposition's criticism of Schroeder, CDU leader Angela Merkel, who is seeking to replace him as chancellor, reiterated that her party was also opposed to military strikes on Iran.

"Military intervention is out of the question," Merkel told reporters on Monday ahead of a campaign speech in the eastern city of Wittenberg.

"Our aim is to find a diplomatic solution."

The daily Financial Times Deutschland said Schroeder's outburst risked irreparably damaging the negotiations with Iran.

"Schroeder's attempt to win the election again as the chancellor of peace is not only a transparent maneuver. It is also factually false and stupid," it said.

"The Americans are in no way on the brink of attacking Iran as they were then with Iraq. But intelligent security policy always leaves all options open to maintain the pressure created by a threat."

The business daily Handelsblatt said Schroeder had "once again disqualified himself as a statesman" while the conservative broadsheet Die Welt said the chancellor "should be ashamed of himself".

SPD leader Franz Muentefering denied that the chancellor had singled out Bush, in response to criticism Schroeder was driving a new wedge between Berlin and Washington just as relations were beginning to heal over the Iraq dispute.

"The chancellor was not addressing anyone in particular but rather made clear that we want to be a power for peace," he told public radio in Berlin.

Deputy government spokesman Thomas Steg told a regular news conference that Schroeder was in constant contact with his EU partners although he had not discussed the issue with Bush in recent days, and said there was "no disagreement" with Britain and France on the chancellor's position.

The standoff between Iran and the West reached crisis point last week when Tehran defiantly resumed uranium conversion, the initial stage in the nuclear fuel cycle, despite international warnings.

Iran Mania ** Schroeder accused of undermining Iran talks

UNREAL ~ City demands rent from eminent domain homeowners
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Leftists like to pretend the first amendment is the whole of the bill of rights. But many will argue that a free society depends on property rights perhaps more than free speech. Property rights advocates were horrified at the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Kelo v. New London case.

The ruling finds that the 2000 seizure of property was legal. Therefore the city says they only have to pay 2000, or pre-real estate boom, prices for the property. The biggest insult of all comes down like this. Since, legally, the seizure dates back 5 years, the city is demanding rent, that is right, rent from the homeowners.

A New (London) Low

A refrigerator box under the bridge: The Kelo Seven prepares for the worst

By Jonathan O'Connell

Those who believe in the adage "when it rains, it pours" might take the tale of the plaintiffs in Kelo v. New London as a cue to buy two of every animal and a load of wood from Home Depot. The U.S. Supreme Court recently found that the city's original seizure of private property was constitutional under the principal of eminent domain, and now New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.

In some cases, their debt could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Moreover, the homeowners are being offered buyouts based on the market rate as it was in 2000.

The hard rains started falling that year, when Matt Dery and his neighbors in Fort Trumbull learned that the city planned to replace their homes with a hotel, a conference center, offices and upscale housing that would complement the adjoining Pfizer Inc. research facility.

The city, citing eminent domain, condemned their homes, told them to move and began leveling surrounding houses. Dery and six of his neighbors fought the takeover, but five years later, on June 23, the downpour of misfortune continued as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the city could claim the property for economic development.

Dery owns four buildings on the project site, including his home and the birthplace and lifelong home of his 87-year-old mother, Wilhelmina. Dery plans to make every remaining effort to keep his land, but with few legal options remaining, he's planning for the worst.

And for good reason. It's reasonable to think that people who purchased property years ago (in some cases, decades ago) would be in a position to cash in, especially since they're being forced from their homes. But that's not the case.

The New London Development Corp., the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, is offering residents the market rate as it was in 2000, as state law requires. That rate pales in comparison to what the units are now worth, owing largely to the relentless housing bubble that has yet to burst.

"I can't replace what I have in this market for three times [the 2000 assessment]," says Dery, 48, who works as a home delivery sales manager for the New London Day . He soothes himself with humor: "It's a lot like what I like to do in the stock market: buy high and sell low."

And there are more storms on the horizon. In June 2004, NLDC sent the seven affected residents a letter indicating that after the completion of the case, the city would expect to receive retroactive "use and occupancy" payments (also known as "rent") from the residents.

In the letter, lawyers argued that because the takeover took place in 2000, the residents had been living on city property for nearly five years, and would therefore owe rent for the duration of their stay at the close of the trial. Any money made from tenantssome residents' only form of incomewould also have to be paid to the city.

With language seemingly lifted straight from The Goonies , NLDC's lawyers wrote, "We know your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free, or rent out that property and pocket the profits, if they ultimately lost the case." They warned that "this problem will only get worse with the passage of time," and that the city was prepared to sue for the money if need be.

A lawyer for the residents, Scott Bullock, responded to the letter on July 8, 2004, asserting that the NLDC had agreed to forgo rents as part of a pretrial agreement in which the residents in turn agreed to a hastened trial schedule. Bullock called the NLDC's effort at obtaining back rent "a new low."

"It seems like it is simply a desperate attempt by a nearly broke organization to try to come up with more funds to perpetuate its own existence," Bullock wrote. He vowed to respond to any lawsuit with another.

With the case nearly closed, the NLDC may soon make good on its promise to sue. Jeremy Paul, an associate UConn law dean who teaches property law, says it's not clear who might prevail in a legal battle over rent. "From a political standpoint, the city might be better off trying to reach some settlement with the homeowners," he says.

An NLDC estimate assessed Dery for $6,100 per month since the takeover, a debt of more than $300K. One of his neighbors, case namesake Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house with her husband, learned she would owe in the ballpark of 57 grand. "I'd leave here broke," says Kelo. "I wouldn't have a home or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."

That's one way to get out of the rain.

Fairfield Weekly ~ Jonathan O'Connell ** A New (London) Low

More Evidence That Socialism Fails... British Tax-funded NHS 'cannot go on'
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Lib Loser Stories

Tax-funded NHS 'cannot go on'

A tax-funded National Health Service, free at the point of use for all, is unsustainable and should be scrapped, Britain's most senior doctor says today.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Bernie Ribeiro, the new President of the Royal College of Surgeons, says health care in this country should be paid for instead through a social insurance system, similar to that used in France and Germany. Patients would pay a proportion of the cost of their treatment, and take out insurance to cover that cost.

Bernie Ribeiro, 'The Government needs to make some tough choices' >>>>>

"If we are to provide health care free at the point of need all the time for patients, then I don't think that's achievable in the present structure," says Mr Ribeiro. "We will have to look hard at an alternative system."

His comments will reignite the political debate about the funding of health care in Britain.

Although some senior figures in the Labour Party called for the introduction of a new funding mechanism in the last Parliament, Gordon Brown ruled out changing the way in which the NHS was paid for. He raised national insurance, following the publication of the Wanless report into the future of the NHS, to increase the resources available for health care.

The intervention from such a senior doctor will also put pressure on the Tory leadership contenders to take a more radical stand in order to differentiate themselves from Labour.

Although shadow frontbenchers visited other European countries to explore alternative funding mechanisms before the last election, the party ruled out moving to a social insurance system because it feared a public backlash to such a reform.

Andrew Lansley, the Tory health spokesman, said yesterday: "We just don't know what level or standard of care the NHS is capable of providing under the current system if the resources are used efficiently. There are many steps to go through before we get to that stage."

However, Mr Ribeiro criticises such political caution and calls on the Government to reconsider the introduction of a social insurance system in order to generate extra resources for health care and make people value the treatment they get.

"We're not a poor country, the working population is reasonably well paid, we could afford our workers to make an identifiable contribution towards health care - not one hidden in national insurance and taxation.

"I think the public would be prepared to pay, it's a question of how you structure it. We seriously need to look at this again."

Under such a system, he says, contributions would be means-tested, with the poorest paying nothing at all. The rising cost of technology and medical staff will, he argues, make a tax-funded NHS completely unsustainable in the medium term.

Mr Ribeiro says: "We're not talking about health care now, we're looking at health care in the future. Look at the cost of technology.

"If we're going to have a health care system suited to the future, we've got to be prepared to invest in it. I don't personally believe that can be done out of pure taxation."

A social insurance system would also, he believes, create a stronger link between the money people spent and the treatment they received. "People value what they pay for. The NHS isn't free but people don't see a link between their money and the service."

The Government needs to make some tough choices about what should be available on the NHS, he adds. "I would prefer to say we will give you the best emergency care possible, but you may not get all the elective work you want done on the state."

Mr Ribeiro calls on the Government to create up to 1,000 more training posts for hospital consultants so that junior doctors who have finished the first stage of their training can go on to become specialists. Earlier this week, the British Medical Association said too many junior doctors were unable to find jobs.

Mr Ribeiro raises concerns, too, about the European working time directive, which imposes a 48-hour working week. The new regime will, he says, make it almost impossible for surgeons to complete their training satisfactorily. "Surgery is a craft, it takes time to learn it."

He also criticises the imposition of waiting list targets, which he says have distorted clinical priorities and may even have contributed to the spread of MRSA.

"The Government sets targets but, when I do a clinic I'm talking to an individual, not a disease or a statistic. The pressures on the health service from targets have made things go wrong."

UK Telegraph ~ Rachel Sylvester ** Tax-funded NHS 'cannot go on'

In media battle over Roberts, GOP on top
Mood:  cheeky
Topic: Yahoo Chat Stuff

In media battle over Roberts, GOP on top

Lack of controversy and opponents' misstep give the Supreme Court nominee an important leg up.

WASHINGTON – So far, the White House appears to be ahead in the media battle to sell John Roberts's nomination to the US Supreme Court.

"The Bush administration did a very good job of introducing Roberts as a sensible, pragmatic, just-right-of-center fellow that just about anyone between the ideological 20-yard lines would be comfortable with," says Charlie Cook (no relation to the writer), editor of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report.

"Although opponents have been agitating and trying to drum up opposition and finding a smoking gun, the president's side has done better," concurs Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report, which provides nonpartisan political and election analysis.

The goal of whipping up a political base is straightforward: so that voters put pressure on members of the Senate to either support or oppose a nominee. One reason Republicans have done better in energizing their base for Judge Roberts is that "they have good material to work with," says Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics in Charlottesville.

"Fundamentally it comes down to the nominee," he says. "Is he or she qualified, is he or she talented, and [is he or she] in the mainstream? So far, the answers to all three questions are emphatically yes."

In fact, before Roberts's name was submitted, opposition groups had been "raising money and planning events, believing this would be another Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas," notes Dr. Sabato. "It turned out to be a whimper instead of a bang."

Of course, the dynamics could change. Both sides would put renewed attention on motivating their base if there is a major negative revelation hidden in documents about Roberts's government service. The White House is scheduled to release a flurry of additional papers Monday.

"It will take something massive in the records or in Roberts's background to make this nominee controversial, because he just isn't," says Sabato.

The NARAL ad

The White House dominance in the media battle over the nomination was reinforced last week. Roberts's opponents suffered a significant setback when the abortion-rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America was forced to withdraw a roundly criticized television ad accusing the nominee of an ideology that "leads him to excuse violence against other Americans." Critics say the ad mischaracterized an argument Roberts made to the Supreme Court in the case of Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic.

"The victory, of course, is not getting the ad off the air. The victory is reminding all the players and observers of this process who is on offense and who [is] on defense," wrote Mark Halperin, political editor of ABC News, in the network's daily political blog "The Note."

"It is embarrassing for NARAL and it makes it more difficult for other critics to attack Roberts," says Mr. Rothenberg. "Republican conservatives can dismiss it as, 'there they go again.'"

The ad controversy highlights an important advantage for President Bush: His party has lined up solidly behind Roberts. Meanwhile, Democrats appear to be still trying to figure out how to deal with the nomination of a smooth, personally appealing candidate with only a relatively brief record of judicial decisions.

"The Bush administration could not have handled this nomination much better," says Charlie Cook. "The key was securing the center and counting on the conservative base staying in line, albeit a bit uneasily."

In contrast to the largely unified Republican support for Roberts, "there is a big split in the Democratic Party between the liberals and all the others," says Sabato.

"We are in an era when unanimous approval of Supreme Court nominees is a thing of the past. So liberals will likely vote against [Roberts]. Most of the other Democrats will vote for him. So the chances of a successful filibuster are virtually nil."

In fact, two Democratic senators, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, already have said they are leaning toward supporting Roberts's confirmation.

A question of emphasis

Among other issues, Democrats are split on how much to emphasize abortion in the nomination battle. Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts told party operatives that he believed the Democratic stance on abortion and gay rights cost him the 2004 presidential election.

And last week a top Clinton administration official, Lanny Davis, was front and center in criticizing the NARAL ad, telling The New York Times it was "inaccurate, filled with innuendo and shameless."

In coming days, the battle over Roberts is expected to focus on documents and specifically over whether the White House has provided sufficient information to the Senate. Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are united in wanting the White House to release documents from Roberts's service from 1989 to 1993, when he was principal deputy solicitor general during George H.W. Bush's presidency.

Last Friday, committee Democrats wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking him to reconsider a decision not to release those documents, which Democrats say are essential to understanding Roberts's views on civil rights.

"Of various administration positions he has held, his service as the 'political' deputy in the [Office of the Solicitor General] may well be the most relevant for evaluating the Supreme Court nomination," the Democrats wrote.

But earlier last week, committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R) of Pennsylvania sided with the White House in the dispute, eliminating the possibility that the committee would issue a subpoena for the documents.

After receiving the letter from the Judiciary Committee Democrats, a Justice Department spokesman said, "as seven former solicitor generals have stated previously, the confidentiality that enables the solicitor general's office to vigorously defend United States interests should not be sacrificed as part of the confirmation process."

Meanwhile, evangelical Christian supporters of the Roberts nomination planned a televised rally Sunday called "Justice Sunday II" to be broadcast from a large church in Nashville, Tenn.

Analysts, however, do not expect the broadcast to have much lasting impact. "I don't read much importance into this Justice Sunday thing," says Charlie Cook. "Viewers are a sliver of a fringe of a movement."

Rothenberg adds, "There is no evidence that Roberts's supporters need another Justice Sunday or would benefit from another Justice Sunday."

Christian Science Monitor ~ David Cook ** In media battle over Roberts, GOP on top