News and Current Events

Doolittle Blames Corruption Probe On Partisan Democrats At Bush Justice Department

ThinkProgress.org
05/18/07

In recent weeks, two conservative House members whose homes were raided in FBI corruption investigations have claimed that the raids were part of a Justice Department conspiracy.

Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) said the raid on his house last month was “little more than an attempt to intimidate and pressure� him to admit criminal wrongdoing. Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ) said that the Justice Department had been leaking “lies� about him “and that needs to be investigated.�

Today, Doolittle took the conspiracy theory a step further, blaming the Justice Department’s actions on partisan Democrats inside the Bush administration:

In a telephone press conference with California reporters, the Roseville Republican said he still thinks the raid - and more importantly, the government’s leak of information about it - was all about rehabilitating the reputation of embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

But it wasn’t Republicans trying to do the rehabilitating, Doolittle said. It was embedded Democratic staffers in the Justice Department who were responsible because of the party’s “Republican culture of corruption� campaign.

Doolittle apparently didn’t explain why partisan Democrats would be interested in “rehabilitating� Alberto Gonzales’ image, or how these liberal Bush officials managed to convince FBI agents to seek a warrant for the raid and then convince a judge to approve the warrant. We’re sure there’s a perfectly good explanation.

Iraq is on the verge of collapse: report

Reuters
Thu May 17, 2007 3:05PM EDT
By Ibon Villelabeitia

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq’s government has lost control of vast areas to powerful local factions and the country is on the verge of collapse and fragmentation, a leading British think-tank said on Thursday.

Chatham House also said there was not one civil war in Iraq, but “several civil wars” between rival communities, and accused Iraq’s main neighbors—Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey—of having reasons “for seeing the instability there continue.”

“It can be argued that Iraq is on the verge of being a failed state which faces the distinct possibility of collapse and fragmentation,” it said in a report.

“The Iraqi government is not able to exert authority evenly or effectively over the country. Across huge swathes of territory, it is largely irrelevant in terms of ordering social, economic and political life.”

The report also said that a U.S.-backed security crackdown in Baghdad launched in February has failed to reduce overall violence across the country, as insurgent groups have just shifted their activities outside the capital.

While cautioning that Iraq might not ultimately exist as a united entity, the 12-page report said a draft law to distribute Iraq’s oil wealth equitably among Sunni Arabs, Shi’ites and ethnic Kurds was “the key to ensuring Iraq’s survival.”

“It will be oil revenue that keeps the state together rather than any attempt to build a coherent national project in the short term,” the influential think-tank said.

The oil law, among benchmarks Washington has set Baghdad as critical steps to end sectarian violence, has yet to be approved by parliament. Ethnic Kurds, whose autonomous Kurdistan region holds large unproven reserves, oppose the draft’s wording.

Rather that one civil war pitting majority Shi’ites against Sunnis nationwide, the paper said Iraq’s “cross-cutting conflicts” were driven by power struggles between sectarian, ethnic and tribal groups with differing regional, political and ideological goals as they compete for the country’s resources.

The author of the report, Middle East expert Gareth Stansfield, said instability in Iraq was “not necessarily contrary to the interests” of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

“(Iraq) is now a theatre in which Iran can ‘fight’ the U.S. without doing so openly,” Stansfield said, adding that Iran was the “most capable foreign power” in Iraq in terms of influencing future events, more so than the United States.

The rise to power of Iraq’s long-oppressed Shi’ite majority has caused concern in Sunni Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, which deeply distrusts non-Arab, Shi’ite Iran’s influence in Iraq, Stansfield wrote.

Should a U.S. withdrawal herald the beginning of a full-scale Sunni-Shi’ite civil war in Iraq, Saudi Arabia “might not stand by,” the paper said, “with the possibility of Iran and Saudi Arabia fighting each other through proxies in Iraq”.

Caller ID - it’s not whether the president called. It’s what he did.

Washington Post
Friday, May 18, 2007; A22

IT DOESN’T much matter whether President Bush was the one who phoned Attorney General John D. Ashcroft’s hospital room before the Wednesday Night Ambush in 2004. It matters enormously, however, whether the president was willing to have his White House aides try to strong-arm the gravely ill attorney general into overruling the Justice Department’s legal views. It matters enormously whether the president, once that mission failed, was willing nonetheless to proceed with a program whose legality had been called into question by the Justice Department. That is why Mr. Bush’s response to questions about the program yesterday was so inadequate.

“I’m not going to talk about it,” Mr. Bush told reporters at a news conference with departing British Prime Minister Tony Blair. “It’s a very sensitive program. I will tell you that, one, the program is necessary to protect the American people, and it’s still necessary because there’s still an enemy that wants to do us harm.”

No one is asking Mr. Bush to talk about classified information, and no one is discounting the terrorist threat. But there is a serious question here about how far Mr. Bush went to pressure his lawyers to implement his view of the law. There is an even more serious question about the president’s willingness, that effort having failed, to go beyond the bounds of what his own Justice Department found permissible.

Yes, Mr. Bush backed down in the face of the threat of mass resignations, Mr. Ashcroft’s included, and he apparently agreed to whatever more limited program the department was willing to approve. In the interim, however, the president authorized the program the Justice lawyers had refused to certify as legally permissible, and it continued for a few weeks more, according to former deputy attorney general James B. Comey’s careful testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Under the Constitution, the president has the final authority in the executive branch to say what the law is. But as a matter of presidential practice, this is breathtaking.

These are important topics for public discussion, and if anyone doubts that they can safely be discussed in public, they need look no further than Mr. Comey’s testimony. Instead of doing so, Mr. Bush wants to short-circuit that discussion by invoking the continuing danger of al-Qaeda.

“And so we will put in place programs to protect the American people that honor the civil liberties of our people, and programs that we constantly brief to Congress,” Mr. Bush assured the country yesterday, as he brushed off requests for a more detailed account. But this is exactly the point of contention. The administration, it appears from Mr. Comey’s testimony, was willing to go forward, against legal advice, with a program that the Justice Department had concluded did not “honor the civil liberties of our people.” Nor is it clear that Congress was adequately informed. The president would like to make this unpleasant controversy disappear behind the national security curtain. That cannot be allowed to happen.

War pull-out bill gains support of majority of Democrats, but fails

Rawstory.com, Nick Juliano
Published: Wednesday May 16, 2007

In a move aimed at appeasing anti-war voices in the Democratic party, the Senate today voted on an amendment that would begin bringing US troops home from Iraq within three months with the goal of having all troops home within a year.

The measure, introduced in April by Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisc., and Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., failed, 29-67 but it attracted support from presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden.

“Congress cannot wait for the president to change course—we must change the course ourselves,” Feingold said during the Senate debate of the amendment. “Iraq’s problems will not be solved by an open-ended, massive US military engagement. And our own national security will be weakened until we bring this war to a close.”

There was virtually no question the amendment would fail, but a Feingold aide told RAW STORY before the vote that the senator would look at support from a majority of the Democratic caucus, which was achieved, as an encouraging sign in the push to end the war.

The Feingold-Reid amendment, which was first introduced in April, calls for the president to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 120 days. The measure would cut off all funds for the military mission by March 31, 2008 but would continue to fund limited missions against al Qaeda, security for US personnel in Iraq and training for Iraqi security forces.

Clinton, who previously opposed a deadline for the war’s end, said in a statement released Tuesday that she would support the measure because Democrats “must work together with clarity of purpose and mission to begin bringing our troops home and end this war.”

Obama supported the amendment as what he saw as a second-best option for changing course in Iraq. He reintroduced on Tuesday a measure that would speed up the troop withdraw.

“I want to send a strong statement to the Iraqi government, the President and my Republican colleagues that it’s long past time to change course,â€? Obama said in a prepared statement.

Although the full troop-withdraw measure failed, negotiations are continuing between Democratic and Republican leaders over a timeframe to consider a full supplemental military funding bill. Feingold’s amendment was attached to an unrelated bill in order to clear the decks for the funding debate, ensuring it would be considered separate from the withdraw measure.

Presidential candidate John Edwards, who left the Senate in 2005, continued his anti-war push this week and called on senators to go further than Feingold-Reid in removing troops from combat zones.

“The only real power Congress has to end the war is their funding power, which is why I and others have been calling on them to use it for some time,” Edwards said

Congress last month passed a funding bill that would impose a timetable for US Troop withdraw. President Bush vetoed that measure May 1—four years to the day from his infamous “Mission Accomplished” speech aboard an aircraft carrier—saying a timeline would amount to “setting a date for failure.”

The House earlier this month passed another bill that would partially fund the war effort until July, at which point Congress to consider the war’s progress before voting for more funds in a few months.

The president also has vowed to veto that measure, and the sense is that such a measure would not garner enough support in the Senate to avoid a Republican filibuster. The challenge faced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is to get through the chamber a bill that will reflect Democrats goals to change course in Iraq while at the same time garner support from enough Republicans to get to 60 votes.

Senate aides say a supplemental funding bill could be considered later this week, although there is a sense that such a bill would essentially act as a placeholder until House and Senate negotiators can work out the details of a final bill to be sent to the president’s desk.

The main sticking point appears to be on what types of benchmarks for progress in Iraq will be and what, if any, consequences will be included in those bills. A Republican leadership aide said Republicans are comfortable with some benchmarks but will not accept “a mission surrender date.”

President Bush said in a speech last week that he was open to considering benchmarks as part of a new funding bill, and his chief of staff, Josh Bolton, has been meeting with Congressional leaders to determine the scope of such benchmarks. It remains unclear whether the White House would accept a bill that would reduce Iraqi foreign aid or remove troops—two options being considered—if the Iraq did not meet the benchmarks.

House Dems indicate they are more united on Iran legislation

TheHill.com
By Roxana Tiron
May 16, 2007

House Democrats, who have been divided on whether the president needs authorization from Congress to attack Iran, suggested yesterday that they are more united on the controversial issue.

But with Iran measures possibly headed to the House floor as early as today, it is unclear if Democrats have the votes to pass legislation calling for the president to seek authorization from Congress for a preemptive strike on Iran.

House Democratic leaders initially attempted to insert Iran language in their now-vetoed Iraq supplemental bill after some New York Democrats, including Reps. Eliot Engel and Gary Ackerman, balked at the language.

The American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC), an influential group that advocates strong U.S. ties with Israel, lobbied heavily to remove the Iran provision in the supplemental, arguing that the measure would weaken President Bush’s attempts to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Needing every vote they could get, House leaders dropped the provisions before narrowly passing the Iraq measure.

After striking the language, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) promised several members, including Reps. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), that she would allow for an up-or-down vote on an Iran amendment, though it is unclear which amendment or amendments will be voted on.

In the 109th Congress, Iran amendments offered by DeFazio and Hinchey were easily defeated.

But a new amendment by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.) could attract the most votes. His measure would prevent funds authorized in the bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan from being obligated or expended to plan a contingency operation in Iran.

Andrews said in an interview that he has spoken to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) about his amendment to the pending defense authorization legislation.

“He will be supportive of this approach because it balances the assertion of our constitutional prerogative with the needs of the military to act in case of an emergency,� Andrews said. “I think the chairman would agree. He and I share the view to strike that balance.�

At press time, the House Rules Committee was still deliberating which amendments it will clear for votes today.

Skelton did not comment by press time about his position on the issue, though he did indicate that a few Iran amendments may be approved by the Rules Committee.

Skelton voted against DeFazio’s amendment in 2005 that would have prohibited the administration from initiating military operations against Syria, Iran, North Korea or other potential rogue nations without authorization from Congress.

Skelton also voted against the Hinchey amendment to the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill that would have prohibited any of the funds made available to initiate military operations against Iran with the exception of an attack on the United States, its military or interests.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the chairman of the House defense appropriations subcommittee, also voted against the amendments in 2005 and 2006. But it was Murtha, a staunch Iraq war opponent who this year pushed for the language in the supplemental prohibiting military action in Iran without congressional authorization.

While Pelosi voted for the DeFazio and Hinchey amendments, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (Md.) voted against both measures.

At his pen-and-pad session yesterday, Hoyer said, “I believe that any action anywhere that is not a response to an attack on the United States requires congressional authorization. I have made that point, whether it is Iran or any other country.�

If it is an attack on the United States the commander in chief has the authority to retaliate, but if that is not the case, Hoyer said, “I don’t think that he can go into Iran or any place else without that authorization.�

Amendments on that issue, Hoyer said, “will be carefully considered by the Rules Committee.â€? He added, however, that it is “a constitutional premise that only Congress can authorize the country to an active attack or war with another entity or another nation.â€? 

In an interview, McDermott said, “Congress has to take its responsibility of declaring war seriously.�
McDermott, along with Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), believe that the Bush administration is committed to going to war with Iran.

Congress can’t allow the president to bomb Iran based on “the flimsy resolution we passed four years ago,� McDermott added.

The White House has refused to commit to seeking the approval of Congress on a potential future conflict with Iran.

Critics of the Iran amendments have said that it would tie the military’s hands, claiming that Iran has provoked unrest in Iraq.

“I think it is more imperative than ever,� said DeFazio. “There are ongoing assertions from the Bush administration that either the Iraq authorization or the 9/11 authorization allows the president a free hand in Iran…[and] Dick Cheney is starting to beat the war drum.�

DeFazio, together with Reps. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and Hinchey, offered an Iran amendment while Hinchey also offered separate language.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) voted in favor of the DeFazio and Hinchey amendments last Congress. 
House Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.) voted in favor of the DeFazio amendment and against the Hinchey amendment.

AIPAC is likely going to oppose renewed efforts in the House. Hoyer is close with Howard Friedman, a Baltimore-area constituent who is president of AIPAC.

Hoyer is one of the top recipients of AIPAC’s political contributions.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, retired Gen. Wesley Clark (D) together with Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org created a grassroots effort named StopIranWar.com. Their argument, apart from advocating diplomacy with Iran, is that a U.S. attack on Iran would be detrimental to Israel’s security.