Kevin O’Brien

February 15, 2008

More than six years after Americans watched Muslim terrorists destroy the World Trade Center, damage the Pentagon and kill more than 3,000 innocents, the Bush administration is about to attempt justice for some of the high-ranking alleged perpetrators.

Six al-Qaida members, a cast headlined by Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are headed for trial by a U.S. military tribunal.

The questions before the court will involve 169 charges, including conspiracy, murder in violation of the laws of war, and terrorism.

The question before the nation is broader: Are we more interested in defending ourselves from terrorists or defending terrorists against intrusions upon their “rights”?

For the last five or six years, the defendants have lived at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. The key word in that sentence isn’t “defendants,” “detention” or “Guantanamo.” The key word is “lived.” That’s the thing they got to do that their victims didn’t.

I can’t help but feel a little apprehension about seeing them go before a court – even a military court. We haven’t done very well at justice in this war.

In fact, lawyers have provided some of the finest aid and comfort to the enemy that money can buy. In doing so, they’ve worked hard to sow confusion in Westerners’ minds about what constitutes justice.

War isn’t a courtroom drama. The calculations of the people who must save their own lives by pulling a trigger shouldn’t have to include, “What would a lawyer say about this?” Yet those calculations are made every day. But only by our side.

We ought to be ashamed that our own good men have been wounded and killed because hesitation is built into their rules of engagement.

We ought to be ashamed that American lives have been sacrificed to fears that some terrorist might file a lawsuit against his interrogators.

What we don’t need to be ashamed about – not for one second – is that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed got water up his nose before he cracked. By the standards of his own organization, which has a penchant for cutting off the heads of its captives and gleefully packing the videotapes off to Al-Jazeera – Mohammed says he himself wielded the knife that killed journalist Daniel Pearl – he’s gotten off pretty light, so far.

The people we’re fighting have never shown the slightest inclination toward playing by the rules of the Geneva Convention, or anything else that might pass for “civilized” warfare.

They do not wear uniforms, nor do they act under the auspices of any nation or government. They target civilians. They don’t mistakenly commit the occasional atrocity in the heat of battle. Rather, they strive for atrocities, planning them carefully for maximum loss of life and shock value.

Their most effective weapons are terror, stealth, propaganda and our own civilized sensibilities, which they understand perfectly, sneer at, and use against us at every opportunity.

And some of their most effective propagandists, unwitting and otherwise, are people who demand that Americans focus on the legal niceties of this war and the legal rights of enemies who find our laws quaint, silly and useful.

So, although there were worse ideas than leaving Mohammed and his boys to rot in the warm Cuban breeze, the complaints of the I-dotters and T-crossers have won them a day in court. It isn’t the court they would have preferred – a civilian trial court where the whole legal circus could have come to town. But with the military promising all kinds of openness and transparency, the defendants and their advocates probably will have ample opportunity to spew their venom and insult our intelligence.

With the legal strategizing and handicapping already well under way, the Telegraph of London offered this bit of odd phrasing: “Legal experts said the willingness of Mohammed, known as ‘KSM’ in intelligence circles, to take credit for terrorism could complicate the tribunal process.”

Complicate? Killers who brag about their murderous exploits usually simplify the process.

Then again, maybe those legal experts are hoping for an acquittal.

Leonard Pitts Jr.
The Miami Herald
February 14, 2008

You have no right to read this.

The First Amendment gives me the right to write it, but doesn’t necessarily give you the right to read it. Or so I was once told by an attorney. While the right to free speech certainly implies a corresponding right to hear what is being spoken, he said, the First Amendment doesn’t explicitly grant such a right. So theoretically, it could be argued that no such right exists.

The key word being “theoretically.” As a practical matter, the freedom to read whatever we choose is such an intrinsic part of our national character as to make legal theory superfluous. People would rise in outrage if government ever attempted to dictate what they read. Theory and reality are often two different things.

I bring up the First Amendment in order to discuss the Second. The Supreme Court is pondering what is expected to be a landmark ruling on that amendment which, for the record, reads as follows: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

At issue is whether a District of Columbia law banning handgun ownership is constitutional. The key question is this: Does the Second Amendment confer an individual right to gun ownership, or does it refer only to the right of a state to raise a militia? I’ve always thought the latter, a view buttressed by many legal rulings, including the Supreme Court’s, when it last weighed in on the subject, nearly 70 years ago.

But in a very real sense, and for reasons similar to those just mentioned, I also think that’s beside the point. Regardless of whether a right to individual gun ownership can be found in the Second Amendment, the perception of that right is so deeply ingrained that legal theory is – here’s that word again – superfluous. Do you really think, regardless of what the court rules, it would be possible to ban firearms on a national scale? I think any attempt to do so would lead to uprisings we can scarcely imagine.

What we have here, then, is another case of theory versus reality. It’s a confrontation that did not have to happen.

The problem with this debate is that it has always been defined by its most extreme voices, its most uncompromising, ideologically pure voices.

But what if gun control advocates got over the idea that getting the right ruling from the right court would magically make guns disappear? And what if gun advocates got over the notion that every attempt at firearms regulation is a step toward totalitarianism? Where might this debate go then?

What if supporters of gun control could concede that hunting is, for some, an honored tradition? That some people feel it necessary to have a weapon in the home for protection? That some entirely rational folks simply like guns?

Could gun rights people then concede that you don’t need an assault weapon to go deer hunting? And that manufacturers who flood poor, violence-prone neighborhoods with cheap handguns ought to be held accountable? And that guys who sell guns from the trunks of their cars are nobody’s friend? And that background checks and gun safety classes for new gun owners make us all safer? And that gun registration isn’t totalitarianism any more than a driver’s license is? And, most of all, that all of us are tired of seeing children shoot children with guns they never should have had access to?

It’s called compromise and no, it would hardly mollify ideological purists. It would not make guns disappear, nor acknowledge an individual right to bazooka ownership. What it would do, though, is recognize that ideological purity has its limits. That’s a good thing to remember.

When theory confronts reality, put your money on reality every time.

by Chris Jordan

Fri Feb 15, 2008 at 02:02:07 PM PST

Hillary Clinton’s last stand is on March 4th.  If she doesn’t take Texas and Ohio by large margins, there will be pressure on her to step aside and get behind Barack Obama as the party’s nominee.  It is definitely too early to call this primary, but we need to be thinking ahead.  If Obama does win, how does he match up against McCain?  What are his strengths and weaknesses?  What does he need in a running mate?

I’ve been a strong supporter of General Wes Clark for years now and I was sorely disappointed when he decided not to run.  I think, after watching him for so long, that he may be exactly what Barack Obama needs to win this thing.  Allow me to explain.  Here are several critical reasons why Wes Clark would make a great VP pick…

Military Credibility

Barack Obama has zero military experience.  John McCain was tortured in the jungles of Vietnam.  Although Obama has been right on the war, John McCain’s war experience gives him a lot of commander in chief credibility.  Obama has repeatedly said in interviews that he probably needs someone on the ticket who can bring some military experience to the table because it is something he admittedly lacks.  People don’t need to just trust that a president has good judgment, they need to feel like he/she can handle the military and deal with the threats we face.  Wesley Clark was in the military for 34 years.  He was shot four times while leading American troops through the jungles of Vietnam.  He was a four star general and the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.  He ran the Kosovo operation successfully without losing a single soldier.  Wes Clark is the epitome of military and leadership experience.  His presence on the ticket would inject a serious dose of military credibility and his presence in the White House would be reassuring.

Southern Appeal

If Obama is the nominee in 2008, it seems like we may finally have a chance to eat into the base of Republican “red” states.  He can win Midwest and Rocky Mountain swing states, and with the right running mate, Southern states as well.  Arkansas may be up for grabs, Virginia, and Missouri also seem to be within reach.  With Virginia trending blue, many feel that Jim Webb may be a good fit on the ticket with Obama.  Webb, however, only has a 46% approval rating and a 44% disapproval rating in the latest Survey USA poll.  John Edwards is also a southerner, but he brings no military experience and brought no Southern victories to John Kerry in 2004.  Wes Clark lived most of his life in Arkansas and launched his 2004 campaign from Little Rock.  He won the Oklahoma primary in 2004 and has a lot of qualities that appeal to Southerners – a twang, a fierce patriotism, a strong family, and a long record of military service.  His presence on the ticket not only boosts the national security credentials, but gives Obama a chance to eat into McCain’s Southern military voters.  Wes Clark is essentially the Anti-McCain in the South.  He gives white southerners a reason to consider Barack Obama when they may have otherwise automatically have gone to McCain.

Clinton-ite Appeal

It’s no secret that Wesley Clark has been a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton in this race.  He has campaigned for her everywhere from Nevada to New Hampshire, and it’s exactly for these reasons that he is such a great fit for Obama.  He could very well win this nomination with barely over 50% of the delegates.  The party has been divided and the race has at times gotten heated (remember the WalMart/Rezko debate smackdown?).  In order for us to win this election and win it big, we are going to need a Democratic party that is completely UNITED and FIRED UP.  We need Hillary Clinton supporters to drop their resentment for Obama (which does exist in many circles) and join in the fight with all they’ve got.  If Barack Obama picks a strong supporter of Hillary as his running mate, he is essentially extending an olive branch to Hillary Clinton supporters.  An Obama/Clark ticket will probably help many Clinton-ites overcome their doubts about Obama’s experience because they trust Clark’s.  This would be a strong gesture for Democratic Party unity.

So there you go.  He gives the ticket military cred.  He appeals to John McCain’s southern base.  He gains the trust of Hillary supporters.  

Wes Clark would make one hell of a VP.

James Klurfeld

February 15, 2008Watch out, Barack Obama. You’ve hit the magic tipping point. After winning the Virginia, Maryland and District of Columbia primaries, you are now the front-runner. It doesn’t mean that the nomination is yours, not by a long shot in this kind of competitive race. But you’ve got more delegates than Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Don’t get me wrong. Obama has my attention. He might actually have momentum – whatever that is and if it even exists. But it’s been only six weeks since the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries. So far, I like what I see. But I’m still not sure what I’m getting. Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.

February 15, 2008 02:23 PM ET | Michael Barone |

 There has been some scoffing at Clinton pollster Mark Penn’s memo issued yesterday arguing that Hillary Clinton can still win more delegates than Barack Obama. The memo contains a certain amount of campaign boilerplate:Hillary is the only candidate who can deliver the economic change voters want—the only candidate with a real plan and a record of fighting for health care, housing, job creation and protecting Social Security.But, hey, he’s paid (and very well) to say things like this. And there’s independent polling data that seem to support his argument.Start with Pennsylvania, which votes April 22. Quinnipiac today released a poll showing Clinton leading Obama there 52 to 36 percent. Whites back Clinton 58 to 31; blacks back Obama 71 to 10. Since Pennsylvania’s population is only 10 percent black, that accounts for Clinton’s big lead.Then look at Ohio, which votes March 4. Here Quinnipiac shows Clinton ahead 55 to 34 percent. Whites back Clinton 64 to 28; blacks back Obama 64 to 17. Ohio’s population is 11 percent black. Quinnipiac’s Peter Brown (whom veterans of the campaign trail will remember as a first-rate reporter) explains why Clinton seems to be doing so well in Ohio (and, by implication, demographically similar Pennsylvania) after losing eight straight contests:Ohio is as good a demographic fit for Sen. Clinton as she will find. It is blue-collar America, with a smaller percentage of both Democrats with college educations and African-Americans than in many other states where Sen. Obama has carried the day. If Clinton can’t win the primary there, it is very difficult to see how she stops Obama.Quinnipiac’s result is similar to two other recent Ohio polls. Rasmussen has Clinton ahead 51 to 37 percent; SurveyUSA has her ahead 56 to 39 percent. The only Ohio poll taken in January, by the Columbus Dispatch, showed Clinton ahead of Obama 42 to 19 percent. Obama has apparently made gains since then. But so has Clinton.In the other big state that votes March 4, Texas, it seems that there has been no public poll since last April(!). Texas’s population is 12 percent black and 32 percent Hispanic, so we can expect the Democratic primary electorate there to be about 20 percent black and perhaps 15 to 20 percent Hispanic.One primary Penn did not stress in his memo was Wisconsin. The Clinton campaign line has been that the post-Super Tuesday February contests are all dismal ground for their candidates. But the Wisconsin polling data tell a different story. Scott Rasmussen shows Obama leading Clinton by only 47 to 43 percent. This is similar to Strategic Vision’s Wisconsin survey, which shows Obama ahead 45 to 41 percent. Wisconsin’s population is 6 percent black and 3 percent Hispanic.How can Clinton be doing so much better here than she did in Maryland and Virginia? One reason is that there are smaller percentages of black voters in these states. Another, probably more important, reason is that the white Democratic primary voters are different. In Maryland and Virginia, they tended to be quite upscale and on the young side, especially in the big suburban counties outside Washington, D.C. In Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, they’re much more downscale. At a time when Clinton and Obama are essentially tied in national polls, it stands to reason that if Obama is ahead in states like Maryland and Virginia, Clinton will be ahead in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.Texas is another, interesting story. Texas doesn’t have party registration, and, historically, huge numbers of white voters participated in the state’s Democratic presidential primary—1.3 million in 1980, 1.8 million in 1988, 1.5 million in 1992. That number plunged downward to 786,000 in 2000 and 839,000 in 2004, even though the state’s population grew from 14 million in 1980 to 22 million in 2004. The obvious conclusion: An awful lot of white Texans began voting in the Republican primary again. This year’s Texas Democratic primary could turn out to be largely a battle of minorities, with blacks voting heavily for Obama and Latinos, as in most other states so far, heavily for Clinton. In this battle Obama will undoubtedly have an organizational advantage, both because his campaign— unlike hers— has done organizational work in the post-Super Tuesday states and because of the strength of pre-existing black turnout organizations. As for white Democratic primary voters, upscale Texans still tend to be heavily Republican, though a little less so than 15 or 20 years ago—very much contrary to the pattern in Northern Virginia and Montgomery County, Md. White downscale voters in southern states have generally gone for Clinton, but not by overwhelming margins. Of the four states we’ve looked at here, Texas appears the most problematic for Clinton, though she’s on far stronger ground there than in the already concluded post-Super Tuesday contests. 

Mitt Romne applauds as Sen. John McCain reaches out to shake hands during a news conferenceThursday in Boston.Associated Press (Associated Press )

Perry Bacon Jr. and Michael D. Shear
Washington Post
February 15, 2008

BOSTON – Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on Thursday made a Valentine’s Day endorsement of Sen. John McCain, ending a bitter, yearlong rivalry and releasing almost enough delegates to guarantee McCain the Republican nomination.

Romney urged the 280 delegates who had pledged to support him to back McCain, calling him a “true American hero” and saying the party needs to unify behind him.

“Even when the contest was close and our disagreements were debated, the caliber of the man was apparent,” Romney said at a press conference at his campaign headquarters here. “Right now the Democrats are fighting; let us come together and make progress while they are fighting.”

That the two politicians eventually came together was not entirely surprising, as Romney is already looking to lay the groundwork for a future presidential run and embracing the party’s 2008 nominee could help that effort. McCain made a similar move in 2000, when he endorsed President Bush after a divisive primary fight. For McCain, the endorsement could help mend fences with conservatives in his own party, many of whom had rallied to Romney and view the senator warily.

But Romney’s effusive praise for McCain was nonetheless jarring in light of his repeated criticisms, some as recently as two weeks ago, when both were in the final days of heated competitions for Florida and nearly two dozen Super Tuesday states.

The pair had clashed for more than a year as Romney spent millions from his personal fortune on television ads, many of which portrayed McCain negatively. The waning days of the campaign were especially nasty, with Romney accusing McCain of being dishonest and McCain attacking Romney as an inveterate flip-flopper.

Romney called McCain “wrong and … dishonest” and demanded he apologize for saying the former governor wanted to withdraw troops from Iraq. He called McCain “virtually indistinguishable” from Democratic Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton and mocked McCain for being bereft of knowledge about the economy.

On Thursday, though, he focused on McCain’s national security credentials, calling him “a man capable of leading our country in its toughest hour.”

McCain said Romney ran “a hard, intensive, fine, honorable campaign” that eventually helped the senator “become a better candidate … I respect him enormously.”

Both favor middle class, condemn corporate tax breaks

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton passes out chocolates to the press corps aboard her plane Thursday. Associated Press (Associated Press ) Black leaders rethink support » WASHINGTON – In a fresh sign of trouble for Hillary Rodham Clinton, one of the former first lady’s congressional black supporters intends to vote for Barack Obama at the Democratic National Convention, and a second, more prominent lawmaker is openly discussing a possible switch. » Rep. David Scott, of Georgia, announced on Thursday he is backing Obama. » “You’ve got to represent the wishes of your constituency,” Scott said Wednesday. “My proper position would be to vote the wishes of my constituents.” The third-term lawmaker represents a district that gave more than 80 percent of its vote to Obama in the Feb. 5 Georgia primary. » Rep. John Lewis, whose Atlanta-area district voted 3-to-1 for Obama, said he is not ready to abandon his backing for the former first lady. But several associates said the nationally known civil rights figure has become increasingly torn about his early endorsement of Clinton. Associated Press

Jonathan Weisman and Anne E. Kornblut
Washington Post
February 15, 2008

WARREN, Ohio – Hillary Rodham Clinton slammed Barack Obama during an appearance at a General Motors plant here on Thursday for what she charged was a lack of a record of achievement on the economy.

But as both Democratic presidential candidates announced comprehensive economic plans this week, they advocated similar visions on what has become the single biggest issue for voters in the 2008 campaign.

Clinton and Obama both promise to make the tax code more middle-income friendly and protect consumers from threats real and imagined – from predatory credit card companies to rapacious college lenders. Both condemn corporate tax breaks they say send jobs overseas. Both pledge to protect homeowners and say they would repeal President Bush’s upper-income tax cuts while extending those targeting the middle class. Both pledged to rein in credit card companies that arbitrarily raise interest rates, sending families into a downward spiral of rising debt.

“I’ve been looking for ways to differentiate these two, and it hasn’t been easy,” said Jared Bernstein, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute. This week’s economic speeches do not “make it a whole lot easier,” he added.

Despite their similarities, Clinton, anxious to generate positive news about her campaign, went on the offensive during her tour of an automotive plant. She sharpened her line of attack against Obama and what she argues is his lack of substance.

“Over the years you’ve heard plenty of promises from plenty of people in plenty of speeches,” Clinton told a group of factory workers. “Speeches don’t put food on the table. Speeches don’t fill up your tank. Speeches don’t fill your prescriptions.”

Clinton continued: “That’s the difference between me and my Democratic opponent. My opponent makes speeches. I offer solutions.”

But even with the economy teetering on the edge of recession and both Democrats eager to win in union-heavy Ohio – not to mention, they both hope, the endorsement of former Sen. John Edwards in the days ahead – neither Clinton nor, a day earlier, Obama swerved into an overt populist appeal. Where John Kerry castigated “Benedict Arnold CEOs” four years ago, Clinton and Obama seem to be channeling the Bill Clinton of 1992.

“I won’t stand here and tell you that we can – or should – stop free trade. We can’t stop every job from going overseas,” Obama told GM workers on Wednesday, just hours after the company offered thousands of buyouts. “But I also won’t stand here and accept an America where we do nothing to help American workers who have lost jobs and opportunities because of these trade agreements.”

For Clinton, the new emphasis on the economy allowed her Thursday to push policies that aligned with the core of her message: that she would help ordinary voters.

Clinton’s proposals are tailor-made for an industrial heartland hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs and crippled by mortgage defaults and rising debt. She would rescue the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a federal-local partnership program for small manufacturers perpetually targeted for elimination by President Bush, and impose an immediate cap on credit card interest rates and stop credit card companies from raising interest rates without warning or applying new, higher rates to old transactions.

And she would establish a new Financial Product Safety Commission – similar to the Consumer Product Safety Commission – empowered to crack down on abusive lending practices in the credit card, auto loan and mortgage market.

To lower college tuition costs, she vowed to crack down on student lenders that shower college financial aid officers with gifts, stock options and trips in exchange for steering students to captive lending markets.

Many of those plans mirror Obama promises. To pay for some of them, both candidates pledged to eliminate tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas.

Shashank Bengali
McClatchy
February 15, 2008

NYAGASAMBU, Rwanda – In much of the world, President Bush’s foreign policy will be remembered for the Iraq war. But in these emerald hills in central Africa, his legacy looks brighter.

As bright, in fact, as the face of 19-year-old Jeanne Aribatuka, who was diagnosed with HIV while she was pregnant with her only child. She started taking antiretroviral drugs nine months ago and has gained 7 pounds. Her almond eyes dance when she says it.

Nearly 50,000 Rwandan HIV patients now receive the lifesaving drugs – up from 800 four years ago – thanks largely to a $15 billion global anti-AIDS plan that Bush launched in 2003. It’s one of his most widely praised foreign-policy initiatives and, along with a major anti-malaria plan, forms the centerpiece of a dramatic increase in U.S. aid to Africa during his presidency.

Bush begins a six-day, five-nation tour of Africa this week hoping to showcase progress on AIDS and malaria and his commitment to economic development on the world’s poorest continent. He’s also expected to make the case that Congress should double the funding for his AIDS initiative, due to expire this year, to $30 billion over the next five years.

“Africa in the 21st century is a continent of potential,” Bush said Thursday. “It’s a place where democracy is advancing, where economies are growing and leaders are meeting challenges with purpose and determination.”

But even if he’s able to escape issues such as Iraq and a jittery U.S. economy, Bush’s mission comes amid growing violence in Sudan’s Darfur region, an Islamist-led insurgency in Somalia, and post-election unrest in Kenya, a key U.S. ally.

Critics say that the tour is intended to gloss over those and other trouble spots. Bush and first lady Laura Bush will visit Benin, Ghana and Tanzania – three of Africa’s most stable countries – as well as Liberia and Rwanda, which have emerged from civil wars.

“This trip is designed to show the compassionate side of America,” said Gayle Smith, an Africa expert at the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank.

Africa is one place where Bush’s 2000 campaign pledge of “compassionate conservatism” appears to have been fulfilled, due in no small measure to the evangelical community’s interest in the continent.

When Bush took office in 2001, U.S. humanitarian and development aid to Africa totaled $1.4 billion, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. By 2006, that figure had quadrupled to $5.6 billion.

While America’s standing in much of the world has diminished because of the Iraq war and other Bush administration policies, a report last July by the Pew Global Attitudes Project found that “the U.S. image is much stronger in Africa than in other regions of the world.”

“Bush did more than anybody else for Africa,” said Blaise Karibushi, a Rwandan doctor who has run AIDS programs for several years. “He has had problems (elsewhere), but for us he did a lot.”

Perhaps no Bush initiative is as broadly popular as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, launched in 2003. In 15 of the countries worst hit by AIDS – 12 of them in Africa – the program has helped put 1.4 million people on antiretroviral drugs by funneling money to international aid agencies, which develop programs at the local level.

In Rwanda, health officials say the impact has been remarkable.

The tiny country, still living quietly with the memory of the 1994 genocide, is among the poorest places in the world, ranked 158th out of 177 countries in the United Nations index of development. Just 438 hospitals and basic clinics serve a population of more than 8 million, crammed into a country smaller than Massachusetts.

Thanks to some $300 million in U.S. funding and tens of millions more from other international donors – chiefly the World Bank and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria – two-thirds of Rwandans who need antiretroviral drugs are now getting them free, government officials said.

Bolten, Miers refused to cooperate in probe

Bolten

Paul Kane
Washington Post
February 15, 2008

WASHINGTON – The House on Thursday escalated a constitutional showdown with President Bush, approving the first ever contempt of Congress citations against West Wing aides and reigniting last year’s battle over the scope of executive privilege.

On a 223-32 vote, the House approved contempt citations against White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and former White House counsel Harriet Miers for their refusal to cooperate with an investigation into the mass firings of U.S. attorneys and allegations that administration officials sought to politicize the Justice Department.

The vote came after a morning of tense partisan bickering over parliamentary rules. The conflict was capped later in the day when most House Republicans walked off the floor and refused to cast a final vote. They accused Democrats of forcing a partisan vote on the contempt citations instead of approving a surveillance law supported by Bush.

Democrats said they were left with no choice but to engage in a legal showdown with Bush because he has refused for nearly a year to allow any current or former West Wing staff member to testify in the inquiry. Citing executive privilege, the president has offered their testimony only if it is taken without transcripts and not under oath.

“This is beyond arrogance. This is hubris taken to the ultimate degree,” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said in the closing moments of the debate.

The administration immediately condemned the House action, noting that no White House official has ever been cited for contempt.

The contempt resolution against Bolten cites his refusal to turn over subpoenaed documents and e-mails sought by the House Judiciary Committee in its now year-long investigation into the dismissals of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. Miers was cited for refusing to testify after she was subpoenaed to appear before the panel last summer.

The furor over the fired prosecutors began last January when congressional Democrats learned that seven U.S. attorneys were fired on the same day, Dec. 7, 2006. Most senior staff of the department resigned as the congressional investigations unfolded; former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is the subject of an internal investigation into whether he tampered with a likely witness.

Democrats said their votes were efforts to compel more information from a White House that has blocked their efforts to conclude the investigation.

By law, the contempt citations go to the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeffrey Taylor, but the White House and Justice Department have said that no executive branch employee will face a grand jury inquiry.

House Democrats already were looking ahead. They included a second provision in the resolution Thursday that would allow the House general counsel to file a civil lawsuit to compel Bolten and Miers’ testimony.

Officials say disabled craft full of toxic fuel

Peter Spiegel and Ben Dubose
Los Angeles Times
February 15, 2008

WASHINGTON – The Bush administration has decided to try to shoot down a failing 5,000-pound spy satellite, fearing its rocket fuel could turn into a deadly toxic gas if the spacecraft crashed in a populated area, officials said Thursday.

The unusual operation, to be carried out in the next several days, would be the first U.S. attempt to shoot down a satellite since Cold War-era military tests ended in the 1980s.

Pentagon officials plan to use the same ships and missiles that are part of the Navy’s nascent missile-defense system. Ships in the North Pacific plan to fire a tactical missile at the satellite when it reaches a low orbit of about 130 nautical miles over their general location.

Some experts theorized that the administration was influenced by concern that classified components on the intelligence satellite could fall into hostile hands. Denying that, Marine Gen. James E. Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said any sensitive instruments would burn on re-entry.

“Once you go through the atmosphere and the heating and the burning, that would not be an issue in this case,” Cartwright said at a news conference. “It would not justify using a missile to take it and break it up further.”

However, the government has never resorted to shooting down a disabled spacecraft or satellite, despite dozens of crashes and re-entries. Administration officials said this time is different because the satellite failed shortly after its launch in December 2006, leaving almost all of its 1,000 pounds of hydrazine rocket fuel frozen in the uncontrollable spacecraft.

Cartwright compared it to a bus, with only half of the craft likely to burn on re-entry. That means the fuel tank could survive if it is not destroyed by the missile strike. Normally, aging satellites – their onboard fuel mostly consumed – are steered into the ocean at the end of their life. But with the spy satellite’s power and communications inoperable, it is tumbling, unguided, to Earth.

Officials compared the effects of hydrazine fuel to chlorine or ammonia.

“It affects your tissues and your lungs – it has the burning sensation,” Cartwright said. “If you stay very close to it and inhale a lot of it, it could in fact be deadly.”

Experts on military satellites agreed that the dispersal of hydrazine could pose a serious health hazard, although even Cartwright said it probably would be spread over a space the size of only two football fields.

John F. Pike, a military analyst who specializes in space-based weapons and intelligence systems, said that under normal circumstances, dying satellites are guided into the Pacific Ocean, primarily so that foreign rivals do not get their hands on sensitive components.

“I’m not arguing that hydrazine isn’t a problem,” Pike said. “But they’re so concerned in normal circumstances about things falling into the wrong hands that I’m not sure I believe them.”

However, administration officials insisted public safety was the reason President Bush approved the plan to shoot down the satellite.

“This is all about trying to reduce the danger to human beings,” said James F. Jeffrey, assistant to Bush and deputy national security adviser, appearing with Cartwright.

The satellite was operated by the National Reconnaissance Office, the intelligence agency responsible for the nation’s spy satellites. Officials would not comment on the satellite’s mission or its cost and could not estimate the cost of shooting it down.

U.S. officials harshly criticized China after learning last year that its military shot down an aging weather satellite. That incident recharged an international debate over space weapons and prompted a Pentagon review of the safety of U.S. orbiters.

Drawing a contrast with the more secretive Chinese operation, U.S. officials dispatched diplomats from around the world to explain their decision.

The officials also said the Chinese destroyed their satellite at a higher orbit than plans for hitting the U.S. spy satellite. China’s shoot-down left debris orbiting the Earth, while Pentagon plans call for hitting the spycraft just as it enters the atmosphere, so debris would re-enter and burn.

The Pentagon would not say which ship would be assigned the task. One Aegis cruiser, the Lake Erie, has conducted more extensive testing than other ships of the Standard Missile 3 – a defensive rocket that will be used to shoot down the satellite. The Lake Erie is stationed at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

The Pentagon will wait to take the shot until the shuttle Atlantis, currently docked at the International Space Station, returns to Earth, scheduled for Monday.

The Navy ships will be modified so the missiles can be used to shoot down the satellite, but Cartwright said those changes will consist of minor software modifications, meaning the shoot-down will be similar to missile-defense tests regularly performed in the Pacific.

“What we’re trying to do is match up that period in which the satellite looks most like a reentering missile,” Cartwright said.

Several Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers were deployed to the waters off the coast of North Korea in July 2006 when Pyongyang tested several medium- and long-range missiles, including the Taepo-Dong II, suspected to be capable of reaching U.S. bases in the Pacific.

None of the ships fired on the missiles, however, instead using radars to track and monitor the test.

The satellite shoot-down will give the Navy its first real-life, uncontrolled test of the Aegis-based system.