In An Iraq-Related Hole, McCain Keeps On Digging

In politics, as in life, when one is in a hole, he or she should stop digging. This advice was not heeded by John McCain's campaign today. Both the Senator and his aides sought to brush away his factually inaccurate statement that American troops in Iraq were down to pre-surge levels. In the process, they made the hole even bigger.

Reminded that troops in Iraq currently number 155,000, well above the pre-surge level of 130,000, McCain refused to acknowledge on Friday that he had misspoke.

"I said we had drawn down," the Senator declared during a press conference (watch video). "I said we have drawn down and we have drawn down three of the five brigades. We have drawn down three of the five brigades. We have drawn down the marines. The rest will be home the end of July. That's just facts, the facts as I stated them."

But that isn't what he stated. On Thursday, in fact, he made a very specific measurement as to the extent of troop reductions.

"I can tell you that it [the mission in Iraq] is succeeding," said McCain. "I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels."

And that was just the beginning. McCain's gaffe had already been exacerbated during a conference call earlier in the day, when aides to the Arizona Republican insisted that he had not misspoke, even while McCain surrogate Sen. Jon Kyl acknowledged on the same call that he had: "What he said was not entirely accurate. OK. So what?"

The campaign aides also ridiculed reporters for even caring about the topic. "It is the essence of semantics," foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann said. "We are having this call about a verb tense and if you choose to write a story about Sen. McCain's use of a verb tense you need to hold Senator Obama to that exact same standard."

All of which, of course, simply piqued the interest of reporters. Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post pointed out that, contrary to the McCain campaign's tone, word choice does, in fact, matter. "If Bush had said 'the mission will be accomplished' as opposed to 'mission accomplished' -- those are two completely different things with completely different meanings."

An increasingly irritated Scheunemann responded: "If you're going to start fact-checking verb tenses, we're going to make sure we start monitoring verb tenses a lot more closely than we have in this campaign."

Later in the call, a reporter questioned whether McCain's verbal error was a sign that the Senator's age was affecting his memory and understanding.

"In every campaign, when you want to change the subject you try to pick a little thing that you can pick on and try to change the subject," replied Senator Jon Kyl, a McCain supporter. "I don't think this has anything to do with age."

The problem, however, was that this was not McCain's only gaffe. During the same Thursday conference when he misstated troop levels, he also argued that conditions were "quiet" in Mosul. That same day, three suicide bombers killed 30 in the city.

The Obama campaign quickly jumped on both the comments, organizing a call with reporters in which surrogates questioned McCain's judgment.

"It is very disturbing to have John McCain continue to raise questions about what he knows and what he bases his judgments on," Sen. John Kerry said. "If you don't know the number of troops, it is difficult to make a judgment as to whether they are overextended. ... It raises serious questions about his comprehension of this challenge."

All of which, apparently, was a step too far for the McCain folks. Hoping to shift attention away from his boss, Scheunemann cried 'journalistic double standard.'

"If we are going to talk about verb tenses in this level of detail, rather than the fact that Senator Obama doesn't care about what is going on in Iraq to even meet General Petraeus or to take time to visit the country in the last 873 days, let's talk about some of the other things that Senator Obama has misstated, like campaigning in 57 states, like the need for Arabic translators in Afghanistan, or for opium poppy agronomists in Iraq, or a non-existent uncle that helped the Red Army liberate Auschwitz."

A reporter later reminded him that McCain had structured his campaign on his judgment on Iraq. Obama had not, in the same regard, built his candidacy around his great uncle or the map of the United States.

"Obama," wrote Ben Smith, "perhaps, meant that the U.S. will, at some future date, add seven states."

Original here

McCain Declares Mosul "Quiet" On Same Day As Three Suicide Attacks (Video)

Speaking about Iraq at a townhall event on Thursday evening in Greensdale, Wisconsin, Sen. John McCain declared, "I can tell you that it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr city are quiet and it's long and it's hard and it's tough and there will be setbacks..." (Video is below.)

McCain was wrong on two points. First, U.S. forces have not returned to pre-surge levels. Before the surge, there were 130,000 troops in Iraq; even if the scheduled troop reductions are carried out as planned, there will still be 140,000 troops in Iraq in August.

Moreover, McCain's claim that Mosul is "quiet" was disproved earlier today in grim fashion. Three suicide bombings -- two in Mosul and another in a surrounding town -- left 30 Iraqis dead and more than two dozen injured, according to press reports.

Clearly, McCain's various congressional trips to Iraq haven't made him infallible on the issue.

Here's video of McCain from this evening:

Original here

Obama used party rules to foil Clinton

WASHINGTON - Unlike Hillary Rodham Clinton, rival Barack Obama planned for the long haul.

Clinton hinged her whole campaign on an early knockout blow on Super Tuesday, while Obama's staff researched congressional districts in states with primaries that were months away. What they found were opportunities to win delegates, even in states they would eventually lose.

Obama's campaign mastered some of the most arcane rules in politics, and then used them to foil a front-runner who seemed to have every advantage — money, fame and a husband who had essentially run the Democratic Party for eight years as president.

"Without a doubt, their understanding of the nominating process was one of the keys to their success," said Tad Devine, a Democratic strategist not aligned with either candidate. "They understood the nuances of it and approached it at a strategic level that the Clinton campaign did not."

Careful planning is one reason why Obama is emerging as the nominee as the Democratic Party prepares for its final three primaries, Puerto Rico on Sunday and Montana and South Dakota on Tuesday. Attributing his success only to soaring speeches and prodigious fundraising ignores a critical part of contest.

Obama used the Democrats' system of awarding delegates to limit his losses in states won by Clinton while maximizing gains in states he carried. Clinton, meanwhile, conserved her resources by essentially conceding states that favored Obama, including many states that held caucuses instead of primaries.

In a stark example, Obama's victory in Kansas wiped out the gains made by Clinton for winning New Jersey, even though New Jersey had three times as many delegates at stake. Obama did it by winning big in Kansas while keeping the vote relatively close in New Jersey.

The research effort was headed by Jeffrey Berman, Obama's press-shy national director of delegate operations. Berman, who also tracked delegates in former Rep. Dick Gephardt's presidential bids, spent the better part of 2007 analyzing delegate opportunities for Obama.

"The whole Clinton campaign thought this would be like previous campaigns, a battle of momentum," said Thomas Mann, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank. "They thought she would be the only one would who could compete in such a momentous event as Super Tuesday."

Instead, Obama won a majority of the 23 Super Tuesday contests on Feb. 5 and then spent the following two weeks racking up 11 straight victories, building an insurmountable lead among delegates won in primaries and caucuses.

What made it especially hard for Clinton to catch up was that Obama understood and took advantage of a nominating system that emerged from the 1970s and '80s, when the party struggled to find a balance between party insiders and its rank-and-file voters.

Until the 1970s, the nominating process was controlled by party leaders, with ordinary citizens having little say. There were primaries and caucuses, but the delegates were often chosen behind closed doors, sometimes a full year before the national convention. That culminated in a 1968 national convention that didn't reflect the diversity of the party — racially or ideologically.

The fiasco of the 1968 convention in Chicago, where police battled anti-war protesters in the streets, led to calls for a more inclusive process.

One big change was awarding delegates proportionally, meaning you can finish second or third in a primary and still win delegates to the party's national convention. As long candidates get at least 15 percent of the vote, they are eligible for delegates.

The system enables strong second-place candidates to stay competitive and extend the race — as long as they don't run out of campaign money.

"For people who want a campaign to end quickly, proportional allocation is a bad system," Devine said. "For people who want a system that is fair and reflective of the voters, it's a much better system."

Another big change was the introduction of superdelegates, the party and elected officials who automatically attend the convention and can vote for whomever they choose regardless of what happens in the primaries and caucuses.

Superdelegates were first seated at the 1984 convention. Much has been made of them this year because neither Obama nor Clinton can reach the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination without their support.

A more subtle change was the distribution of delegates within each state. As part of the proportional system, Democrats award delegates based on statewide vote totals as well as results in individual congressional districts. The delegates, however, are not distributed evenly within a state, like they are in the Republican system.

Under Democratic rules, congressional districts with a history of strong support for Democratic candidates are rewarded with more delegates than districts that are more Republican. Some districts packed with Democratic voters can have as many as eight or nine delegates up for grabs, while more Republican districts in the same state have three or four.

The system is designed to benefit candidates who do well among loyal Democratic constituencies, and none is more loyal than black voters. Obama, who would be the first black candidate nominated by a major political party, has been winning 80 percent to 90 percent of the black vote in most primaries, according to exit polls.

"Black districts always have a large number of delegates because they are the highest performers for the Democratic Party," said Elaine Kamarck, a Harvard University professor who is writing a book about the Democratic nominating process.

"Once you had a black candidate you knew that he would be winning large numbers of delegates because of this phenomenon," said Kamarck, who is also a superdelegate supporting Clinton.

In states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, Clinton won the statewide vote but Obama won enough delegates to limit her gains. In states Obama carried, like Georgia and Virginia, he maximized the number of delegates he won.

"The Obama campaign was very good at targeting districts in areas where they could do well," said former DNC Chairman Don Fowler, a Clinton superdelegate from South Carolina. "They were very conscious and aware of these nuances."

But, Fowler noted, the best strategy in the world would have been useless without the right candidate.

"If that same strategy and that same effort had been used with a different candidate, a less charismatic candidate, a less attractive candidate, it wouldn't have worked," Fowler said. "The reason they look so good is because Obama was so good."

Original here

Poll: New York Dems Say Obama More Electable Than Clinton

Fifty percent (50%) of New York Democrats say it's time for Senator Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race for the White House. Just 43% believe she should keep going. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey also found that most New York Republicans--52%--want Clinton to keep striving for the nomination. Overall, among all Empire State voters, 45% believe she should drop out while 43% disagree.

Just 16% of New York Democrats think Obama should drop out of the race.

Original here

In Contrast With Core Hillary Message, Carville Says He Thinks Obama "Will" Win General Election

In a quick phone interview with me just now, prominent Hillary supporter James Carville diverged from the Hillary campaign message on several key "electability" questions, saying that he thinks Obama "will" win the general election.

Carville, surprisingly, also seemed to downplay Obama's problems with non-college whites -- a cornerstone of Hillary's electability claim -- saying that if Obama gets the same level of non-college whites that John Kerry did in 2004, he "will" win the general.

Asked if he thought Obama would beat McCain, Carville said: "I think he will. I think Democrats will win in November...There's a crushing desire for change in this country. No one has seen a party or brand held in such low esteem" than the Republicans.

Carville's repeated suggestions that Obama "will" beat McCain contrast with the core Hillary message -- repeated frequently by Hillary advisers -- that Obama merely "can" win a general election, while Hillary "will" win it. Carville's comments also suggest that with the fall contest looming, it's becoming tougher for prominent Hillary backers to sustain any argument that doesn't show full confidence in Obama's chances against McCain.

Carville stressed that he thought Hillary was a better bet against McCain, but reiterated his confidence in Obama. "Hillary would be a stronger candidate, but I think he'll win this thing," Carville said.

Asked about claims that Obama has a problem with non-college whites that could hamper his electability, Carville said that thanks to changes in the electorate, to win Obama merely has to match the performance of Kerry, who underperformed with that group.

"I would argue that if he gets what Kerry got he will still win the election, because the dynamics have changed," Carville said, pointing to likely larger turnout among young voters, African Americans and other demographic changes. Carville joked, however, that he'd be loath to see Obama fall below Kerry's performance.

Original here

Young Hillary Clinton

Clinton’s Latest Claim: She’s The Most “Fiscally Responsible” Candidate

HURON, S.D. -- On her last day of campaigning in South Dakota, Hillary Clinton told a group of supporters huddled inside a ballroom that South Dakotans should pick her on Tuesday because of her economic experience. “If you will vote for me next Tuesday, you are voting for the most fiscally responsible candidate in this race on either side of the aisle,” Clinton said, a blatant jab at both Barack Obama and John McCain. Clinton was referring to her practice of offering explanations on how she will pay for all of the programs she has laid out, including her very expensive universal health care plan.

“We need a president who will put us back on the path to fiscal responsibility,” she said. “I am the only candidate running who has told you specifically how I will pay for everything I propose because I want you to hold me accountable.”

There are a couple of problems with this claim, though. First, her campaign is approximately $20 million in debt, even after she loaned over $11 million of her own money to the cause. Several vendors and suppliers have come forward to say they are owed money by the campaign, and her former chief strategist, Mark Penn, is owed $5 million for his services before he parted ways with Clinton.

Second, Clinton received more than five times the number of earmarks than any other senator, according Taxpayers for Common Sense. Their report also found that Clinton is responsible for receiving over $2 billion in earmarks from 2002 to 2006, which is more than either Barack Obama or John McCain.

The report set off controversy when it was revealed that Clinton, and the senior senator from New York, Charles Schumer, supported a $1 million earmark for a Woodstock museum. McCain knocked the project during a Republican debate last year, calling Woodstock a “cultural and pharmaceutical event.” He added that he didn’t attend Woodstock because he was “tied up at the time,” a reference to his day as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

Original here

Scott McClellan On Countdown: Talks To Keith Olbermann About His New Book (Video)

On "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" Thursday Scott McClellan sat down for a nearly hour-long interview with the MSNBC host to discuss his new book, "What Happened". The wide-ranging interview covered everything from the CIA leak to Fox News to McClellan's critics to the possibility of military action in Iran.

Towards the beginning of the interview Olbermann noted a passage in McClellan's book where he says Bush's foreign policy view was grounded in a "philosophy of coercive democracy." Olbermann noted, "it's a marvelous phrase, but is it an oxymoron?" McClellan said it was:

"[C]ertainly those [policies] have tarnished the reputation of the United States in a very negative way. And I think that has been harmful over the long term. But in terms of the coercive democracy, that was -- and you bring up a very good point about the oxymoron there -- but that was always the strategy for going into Iraq in first place. And I think that is what really drove the president's motivation to push ahead and rush into this. When I think that there were probably other options -- there were definitely other options available to him. He didn't have to box himself in. But when he went to the United Nations he said, either he disarms and the U.N. -- if he doesn't, then the U.N. goes in, or the security council authorizes it, or we will do it ourselves."

McClellan also struck back at the former colleagues who have emerged to speak out against his new book, pointing out that despite their criticism of his actions none of them have so far refuted anything specific about his account:

One, some of the people that are making those comments are almost trying to judge the content of the book, judge me and my motivations for writing the book, and they haven't even read the book. And the second, which you bring up, is that I haven't seen people refuting specific parts within the book. Dan Bartlett earlier today, when he was doing an interview right after me or in between segments with me, said, well, we need to set the leak episode to the side. And the other day, he said, well, I'm not going to talk about the Katrina part, because that's internal deliberations. So I did find that very interesting.

McClellan shed some light on the administration's, in particular Dick Cheney's, relationship with Fox News and its role in disseminating information:

OLBERMANN: What was Fox News to you and to the White House? Was it a friendly cousin, house organ, was it the choice for funneling propaganda? What was it?

MCCLELLAN: Well -- there certainly are allies there that work at Fox News and there's one story that I've told before, I didn't include it in the book, but during the vice president's hunting accident, which was another disillusioning moment for me because I was out there advocating get this news out and get it out now and of course the vice president said, no no, no, and then decided to send it to the Web site where the Corpus Christy Collar Times (ph) Web site, as opposed to getting it out widely to the national media.

OLBERMANN: I remember.

MCCLELLAN: And caused me a lot of fun at the podium for three days before the vice president decided that he was going to go out and talk about this after a little nudging from the president. And we were standing outside the Oval getting ready for a meeting and he looked at me, and he said, you already know why I picked Fox News to do this, because I want everybody else to have to cite Fox News when they do their report. It's just kind of the attitude of the vice president about things.

McClellan also suggested that some Bush officials may still be considering military action on Iran, and urged viewers to be skeptical of the current press secretary Dana Perino's statements on the matter:

MCCLELLAN: [T]hey are still in this permanent campaign mode. They haven't backed away from that. I can't speak specifically to what the intent is in some of the people's heads there. I think that our options are certainly limited with all of our commitments right now, but I hope that when people look and read this book, that they will learn some of the lessons from Iraq and that we won't make some of the same mistakes that we've made elsewhere.

OLBERMANN: So knowing what you know, if Dana Perino gets up there and starts making noises that sound very similar to what you heard from the administration, from Ari Fleischer in 2002, from other actual members of the administration and the cabinet, you would be suspicious?

MCCLELLAN: I would be. I would be. I think that you would need to take those comments very seriously and be skeptical.

Read the entire transcript here.

Original here

How John McCain Went from the GOP's 4th Choice to Its Nominee

Flash back to a little less than 12 months ago. In Iowa, the leader board featured a former Mayor of New York, a former Governor of Massachusetts, and the DA from Law & Order. In New Hampshire, the outlook was similar: Mitt Romney was at the front of the pack, followed distantly by Rudy Giuliani.

By all accounts, John McCain's presidential hopes were dead in the water.

But sometime between the summer of 2007 and the New Hampshire Republican Primary on January 8^th, McCain's fortunes changed, leaving him the sole contender for the Republican nomination by early February. The catalyst for that change was the rise of Mike Huckabee, and the domino effect that ensued.

Few initially took Huckabee's candidacy seriously, and maybe that was the problem. But whatever the case may have been, the former Arkansas Governor's meteoric rise in Iowa touched off a series of events that wiped just about everyone - himself included - off the board, leaving the nomination to McCain for the taking.

The 2008 Republican nomination race was unique, at least for the recent era. In each of the previous two contests, George W. Bush was ultimately successful in his efforts to unite the entire Republican coalition behind his cause. But in the race to become the 44th American Presdient, the GOP was fractured, with each candidate representing a different faction of the party.

The conservatives were primarily behind Romney, their concerns about his decidedly un-conservative past notwithstanding. The defense and homeland security vote was behind Giuliani. Huckabee was rounding up the Christian right. Moreover, each candidate had significant barriers preventing their acceptance by the other factions. Giuliani was far too socially and fiscally liberal to attract either the religious right or the conservatives. Huckabee would end up being branded by one of his own rivals for the nomination, Fred Thompson, as a "pro-life liberal," effectively barring the conservatives from him as well. And Romney, a once pro-life Mormon, was going to have serious problems courting the traditional religious right.

For his part, McCain stood well outside even that circle, at best tangentially considered to be a member of the top tier of Republican candidates. As it would become readily apparent later, the Arizona Senator's clout came from the very fringe of the party, and moreover from those on the outside: moderates and independents. His own impediments to uniting the GOP factions seemed insurmountable. Conservative guru Rush Limbaugh declared that McCain was simply "not a conservative," a dagger that wasn never removed- even after Romney threw his support behind McCain in his post-Super Tuesday concession speech. And the religious right wasn't going with him either. In 2000, McCain directed his now-infamous "agents of intolerance" speech at some of conservative Christianity's most notable pastors and preachers, effectively dooming himself in that demographic. He lost the support of the staunchly Republican National Rifle Association when he virtually eliminated the interest group's ability to load the coffers of pro-gun candidates with the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform bill. When it came to support, John McCain had little ground to stand on within the Republican Party.

Essentially, McCain could do nothing to improve his standing on his own, being locked out of the rank-and-file of his own party. Even debates proved fruitless. New York Times columnist Katharine Q. Seelye called McCain's performance in the debate in South Carolina "uneven," noting his inability to return crisp answers. In a poll after that event, the Drudge Report had McCain finishing a paltry fourth- behind Romney, Giuliani, and Ron Paul. Later debates would be no more helpful to him.

The "Straight Talk Express" had lost its steam, stopped dead in its tracks by the runaway-train campaigns that the many in his party were climbing aboard. In the end, McCain's laurels rested on the off chance that his rivals' own White House bids could be derailed. Little did he know, that opportunity was just around the corner.

Giuliani began the contest as the Republican equivalent of Hillary Clinton- well known, well funded, and the nationwide favorite for the nomination. But Giuliani's cosmopolitan background and history as the quasi-liberal mayor of an ueber-liberal big city made it difficult for him to connect with reliable red state voters in early contests like Iowa and South Carolina, sending shockwaves of doubt through his campaign. Though he'd hang on through his last stand in Florida, Giuliani was effectively finished before the first vote was cast.

But more important than Giuliani's fall was Romney's rise. As time wore on, Romney- though an imperfect fit for the GOP mantle- appeared to be the candidate most likely to unite the party. And what was promising for both the Romney campaign and the Republican Party was that he was succeeding across the board, building considerable margins not just in Iowa, but in New Hampshire as well. Even the Christian right, reluctant to support a Mormon candidate, were beginning to respond to what many were calling his "JFK-style" speech on religion in Houston.

What Romney wasn't counting on was the absolute blitz of Huckabee in Iowa. Sure, the religious right could vote for a Mormon, but with a viable alternative in the Baptist preacher from Arkansas, Huckabee made it so they didn't have to. And so began the surge of Huckabee the spoiler.

It was then that the presidential aspirations of McCain, who erstwhile had considered withdrawing from the race altogether, were revived. Huckabee's instant rise to the top of the pile in Iowa opened up a significant opportunity for McCain to regain the competitive edge he'd had in 2000. In fact, McCain's New Hampshire surge directly coincided with Huckabee's jump in Hawkeye State polls- or perhaps more importantly, with Mitt Romney's decline. Here's why:

Huckabee was essentially a one-trick pony. Iowa was ideal. Stock full of rural farmers and conservative Christians, it was tailor-made for his campaign. But New Hampshire, with its Ivy League schools and aristocratic New England inhabitants, was a different story. Success in Iowa wasn't going to generate enough momentum for Huckabee to fare well in the Granite State, but it was certainly enough to cause serious doubt about Romney's long-term prospects. With Giuliani out of the picture and Huckabee a non-issue, that left McCain as the only other viable candidate.

Consider, then, that New Hampshire is rich with independents who were allowed to vote in the state's Republican primary. Huckabee's knocking-off of Romney, Giuliani's utter collapse, and New Hampshire's electoral gold mine of independent voters added up to an alignment of stars for McCain, who took the one group with whom he was popular and ran with it.

Over the next few weeks, the inability of Romney to score early wins led to his demise. Giuliani's inability to win at all caused his. And despite his popularity in the South and the Heartland, Huckabee showed little promise in the grand scheme of things. Fred Thompson hamstringed himself by waiting too long to get in the race, joining a fight that was already in progress and too far along for voters to even be interested in getting to know a new candidate.

It's all reminiscent of a story that emerged from the 2002 winter Olympic games with which Romney himself was so involved. In the 1000-meter speed skating competition, a fall from one of the top-tier skaters ended up wiping the entire front four skaters off the ice on the final turn of the final lap, allowing the far-behind fifth-place skater to surge across the finish line to take the gold medal. That same thing happens often in auto racing; cars thundering down the home stretch will get tangled up, allowing another party to cruise to victory. McCain's story is hardly any different.

The Arizona Senator looks a lot like a Phoenix rising from the flames of what appeared to be a vanquished campaign. But what many in the media are overlooking is that his success and ultimate coronation as the Republican nominee was not a result of his ability to convince those both within as well as outside his party that he's the best man for the job. Rather, his rise to the top was born out of a pile-up that took the top-tier out of contention. Whether he'll be able to parlay that success into the White House is yet to be seen.

Original here

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

"Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft," the statement said. "These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."

A White House spokesman said Sunday that the Bush administration was not aware of the NORAD exercises. But the exercises using real aircraft show that at least one part of the government thought the possibility of such attacks, though unlikely, merited scrutiny.

On April 8, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks heard testimony from national security adviser Condoleezza Rice that the White House didn't anticipate hijacked planes being used as weapons.

On April 12, a watchdog group, the Project on Government Oversight, released a copy of an e-mail written by a former NORAD official referring to the proposed exercise targeting the Pentagon. The e-mail said the simulation was not held because the Pentagon considered it "too unrealistic."

President Bush said at a news conference Tuesday, "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale."

The exercises differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country.

Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries.

But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.

NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.

"Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the scriptwriters to invoke creativity and broaden the required response," Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said.

"We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."

NORAD, a U.S.-Canadian command, was created in 1958 to guard against Soviet bombers.

Until Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD conducted four major exercises a year. Most included a hijack scenario, but not all of those involved planes as weapons. Since the attacks, NORAD has conducted more than 100 exercises, all with mock hijackings.

NORAD fighters based in Florida have intercepted two hijacked smaller aircraft since the Sept. 11 attacks. Both originated in Cuba and were escorted to Key West in spring 2003, NORAD said.

Original here

GOP senator's wife donates to Obama

Wife of Republican war opponent Chuck Hagel donates to Obama campaign

Sens. John McCain and Chuck Hagel have long been friends. Fellow Republicans and Vietnam War veterans, their Senate offices are just across the hall from each other.

But at least during the presidential primary, Hagel's wife, Lilibet, is helping McCain's likely Democratic rival, Barack Obama.

According to Federal Election Commission records, Mrs. Hagel donated twice to Obama's campaign in February for a total contribution of $500. The contributions were first reported by the Washington Post

The contribution came a month before Sen. Hagel, a sharp GOP critic of the war in Iraq, appeared on ABC's "This Week" and declared that he and McCain have "pretty fundamental disagreements on the future of foreign policy."

But Mrs. Hagel is acting on her own, said Mike Buttry, Sen. Hagel's chief of staff. In fact, Mrs. Hagel has contributed to a Democrat before. Last August, she donated $250 to Niki Tsongas, a Democrat and widow of Sen. Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts who was running to fill a vacant House seat from the state.

"Mrs. Hagel is a private citizen who is entitled to decide who she supports and how she supports them," Buttry said in a statement. "She has admired Mrs. Tsongas for many years, going back to the time when she was married to Senator Tsongas."

He added: "Senator Hagel has not endorsed or supported any candidate in the presidential race."

Original here

ACTION: Searching for John McCain

Searching for John McCain is a massive, online activism campaign designed to make at least ten million non-partisan, poll-tested, on-message voter contacts that reveal the damning truth about John McCain entirely through mainstream news reports and McCain's own words. Through mass blogger participation and the use of embedded hyperlinks, Searching for John McCain will connect millions of curious, low-information swing voters to negative, mainstream news articles about John McCain without 99% of those voters even knowing that Searching for John McCain exists. It is the more sophisticated, and hopefully more effective, 2.0 version of the Googlebomb the Elections campaign which, with only $1,500 and three days of work, reached 6% of the electorate in 47 swing congressional districts during the final two weeks of the 2006 mid-term elections. You can participate if you have a website of your own, if you make comments on other websites, or even if you are a registered user on a community website. It is quick. It is easy. It is free. And it is very, very effective. If it is done correctly, and if enough people participate, this campaign alone should cost John McCain 1% of the vote in November. To learn how to participate, and to learn how it will work, read on into the extended entry.

Chris Bowers :: ACTION: Searching for John McCain

Searching for John McCain What The utilization of simultaneous, widespread embedded hyperlinks in order to connect voters looking for information on John McCain to nine revealing, important news articles on John McCain. Why According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, the number one way that voters use the Internet for political action is to search for information on candidates. In 2004, 34 million Americans used the Internet for this purpose. In 2008, that number will increase significantly, possibly to 50 million or more, with tens of millions looking for information on John McCain. As these voters are looking for information on John McCain, our actions will direct them toward nine articles in particular. Voters are looking for information on John McCain, and we are giving it to them. These nine articles were not chosen lightly. Analyzing and interpreting polling has long been one of the specialties as a blogger, and I have spent the last three months culling through mountains of available polling on John McCain in order to find the top attacks. All nine of these articles directly correspond to messaging on John McCain that, according to my research, effectively raises doubts about McCain among more than 60% of swing voters. Additionally, six of these nine articles are from news organizations that already boast top twenty-five Google search rankings for either "John McCain" or "McCain." As such, in order for those six articles to appear in the top twenty Google searches on either John McCain or McCain, we only have to optimize each of those articles relative to other articles from that news organization. That is a very simple, low-hanging fruit sort of task that can be accomplished in only a matter of days. Further, this messaging is presented by either John McCain himself, or by a non-partisan news organization (or, in most cases, both). As such, the messaging will not be, or be seen as, a partisan attack, making it all the more effective. Personally, I also like that when the inevitable media and conservative outcry against this action kicks in, we can just say that these are all McCain's own words, and all articles produced by national news organizations. Considering that Michelle Malkin claimed Google should sue me over the Googlebomb campaign two years ago, that her readers issued dozens of death threats against me, and that every single TV news organization contacted me about the campaign two years ago, I really like this aspect of the campaign. Finally, all of these articles have "McCain" in the title of the article, and most have "McCain" in the URL for the article, making them easier to optimize on Google. The Articles Here are the nine articles: 1--John McCain Votes to Filibuster Minimum Wage Hike AOL News is highly ranked on John McCain, and the minimum wage increase was incredibly popular. 2--McCain housing policy shaped by lobbyist This article emphasizes how corporate special interests have formed McCain's economic policy. If it becomes the top ranked MSNBC article, it will appear in the top ten searches for McCain nationwide. 3--Bush, McCain plug Social Security Seniors are going to be the key swing vote in this election, and they hate Bush's plan to privatize Social Security. This is the best polling message against McCain of all, which isn't surprising since our victory on Social Security is how began to turn the tide against Republicans and conservatives three years ago. The headline alone ties McCain to Bush, and this article already ranks very high on searches for McCain Social Security. 4--McCain blasts Obama's and Clinton's attacks on NAFTA This is a great article because it not only ties McCain to NAFTA, which is quite unpopular, but it also draws a contrast between McCain and Democrats on the issue. The LA Times is also in the top twenty searches for John McCain. 5--McCain in NH: Would Be "Fine" To Keep Troops in Iraq for "A Hundred Years" McCain's "100 years" statement ha damaged him already, and this article has already been significantly optimized on Google. While Mother Jones is not an ideal news source, it is the top article for this quote, and appears in the top thirty searches for John McCain already. 6--McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion This is my personal favorite. The headline just makes McCain look like an asshole, and ties him to Bush. Who is opposed to health insurance for kids? CNN also is in the top ten searches for McCain and John McCain A lot of people will see this one. 7--Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition While I am not thrilled about using Salon, since it isn't as well known, and since there is an advertising wall that hides the story, the title is damaging enough. McCain's opposition to the GI Bill really hurts him, and tying him to Bush is just as bad. This title does both in a clear, straightforward manner. 8--McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion Pretty straightforward, and extremely important. More than half of all women voters think that McCain is pro-choice. This will quickly change their minds. 9--McCain Defends Bush's Iraq Strategy The classic McCain SEO, that still appears in top thirty searches for McCain and John McCain. It is also proof positive that this campaign will work, because it appears as the second CBS news article, but still on the front page in Google searches just below the CBS election center information on John McCain. That is all we need to do to get it on the front page of searches about McCain--optimize it against other CBS articles. Also, even though this SEO campaign was abandoned fifteen months ago, it still ranks in the top forty in McCain searches. If a fifteen month old campaign is still that effective, imagine what we can do with enough participation in this campaign. Even if people searching for information on McCain don't click through to read each of these articles, the titles alone collectively paint a pretty terrifying picture of McCain. Further, their wide subject range will create a trickle down effect for all kinds of searches on McCain. When people look for specific information on McCain's issue positions, these articles will appear in the top ten for many, if not most, of those searches. Action And now the important part. Here is how you can participate in the campaign: 1. Blogroll John McCain: If you have a website of your own, create a blogroll link for either McCain or John McCain, that links to one of these nine articles. 2. Sign John McCain: Put an embedded John McCain link to one of these nine article in your signature line on all community websites where you are registered. Choose any one of the nine that you like. 3. Comment on John McCain: Whenever you write the words John McCain or McCain online, makes sure to do so with an embedded link to one of these nine article. Choose any of the nine that you link. And that is all you have to do. If we can get only a few hundred bloggers to participate, we should be able to put six of these nine articles in the top twenty search results for John McCain and McCain before the end of next week. Over time, all nine should appear in the top twenty, and three or four will appear in the top ten. In the end, this should result in several million voter contacts that provide important information on John McCain. The contacts will all be effective, poll tested, non-partisan, and in line with progressive messaging in this election. They will also be educational, as the people who find these articles might forward them to friends and co-workers, or bring them up in conversations. The ripple effect should be quite powerful. So, please, optimize John McCain today. Put John McCain in your blogroll. Put John McCain in your signature line. Link to John McCain whenever you type his name on a website. This is a quick and powerful action you can take, and it will help us win this election. There isn't another action you can take this election that will have anywhere near as a high a return for the amount of effort it takes to execute. Millions of truly effective voter contacts just by creating embedded hyperlinks on John McCain or McCain. Let's do this. Let's make a difference. Let's win this election. Let's search for John McCain. UPDATE: The first article about the recession being "psychological" has been replaced due to an oversight on my part. It now optimizes John McCain on the minimum wage. Really, I think this is an improvement. Please update your links if you used the first one originally.

Original here

Rupert Murdoch Says Obama Will Win

Carlsbad, CA -- Tonight at the "All Things Digital" conference sponsored by the Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch -- Chairman of News Corp, new WSJ owner, and longtime torchbearer for conservative politics -- said this about Barack Obama: "He is a rock star. It's fantastic" "I love what he is saying about education." "I don't think he will win Florida.....but he will win in Ohio and the election". "I am anxious to meet him." "I want to see if he will walk the walk."

About the presumptive Republican nominee, Murdoch said, "McCain is a friend of mine. He's a patriot. But he's unpredicatble. Doesn't seem to know much about the economy. He has been in Congress a long time, and you have to make a lot of compromises. So what's he really stand for?... I think he has a lot of problems."

Here is the video of Murdoch's appearance at the All Things Digital Conference:

Original here

Hillary's Popular Vote Notion only 'Popular' with the Punditocracy

It is incomprehensible to me that Mrs. Clinton can seriously be touting the notion, with the support of the punditocracy of CNN and Fox, that she is leading in the popular vote and should therefore be seriously considered as the most electable candidate in the November election. She's including those who voted for her in Florida and Michigan's name recognition ballot saying that to exclude them would be to disenfranchise them. What about the Democrats in Alaska, American Samoa, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Nebraska, Washington, Hawaii and Wyoming who did not cast ballots because they were playing by the pledged delegates playbook and voted by caucus. What about them? Certainly if the rules are going to be changed and judgment is based on the 'popular' vote those voters in the eleven caucus states and Samoa will be disenfranchised. What about them?

And what about us? What about the American people? Haven't we had enough of Mrs. Clinton's mad antics in her pursuit of the realization of venal personal ambition; her 'say anything, do anything, no matter what' effort to manipulate our all too willing media to gull this country's populace into believing that her wretched illegitimacy is indeed legitimate. How much mendacity do we have to suffer, how much brazenness do we have to swallow before someone, anyone, has the decency, the common sense, to relieve us of this terrible trifle, this pathetic madness?

Original here

John Bolton: Citizen's arrest attempt was comic

John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the UN, has brushed off an attempted citizen’s arrest at the Hay Festival in Wales as “comic”.

DRAGON NEWS AND PICTURES

John Bolton argued that the Iraq war was entirely legal

DRAGON NEWS AND PICTURES

George Monbiot is held off by security guards

DRAGON NEWS AND PICTURES

A protestor talks with police at the Hay festival

But he said there was a “larger issue” at stake - that in a democracy people had to accept the elected government’s view on the legality of a conflict.

George Monbiot, the columnist and activist, had tried to perform a citizen’s arrest on Mr Bolton as the former diplomat ended a talk to more than 600 people on Wednesday evening.

In chaotic scenes, Mr Monbiot was stopped from doing so by security guards.

Afterwards Mr Monbiot, a regular freelance contributor for The Guardian, said he was “disappointed” his attempt had failed.

He said: “This was a serious attempt to bring one of the perpetrators of the Iraq war to justice, for what is described under the Nuremberg Principles as an international crime.”

Mr Bolton, a key ‘hawk’ in President George W Bush’s administration between 2001 and 2006, argued strongly in favour of “regime change” in Iraq before the 2003 invasion.

Brushing aside Mr Monbiot’s attempted citizen’s arrest, he said: “I think in my own individual case it’s kind of comic.”

But he added: “I think there’s a larger issue here. You have a democratically elected parliament and its government assessed the war as legal and proper.”

When individuals took actions outside the law, in their eyes to bring those responsible for the war to justice, “that is the point you move towards lawlessness and fascism,” he said.

And when one’s views do match those of the democratically elected government, “you have to accept that”, he added.

Dismissing Mr Monbiot’s attempted citizen’s arrest as “street theatre”, he claimed not to have been aware of much opposition towards his visit.

“I don’t see a lot of it, I must say,” he said. “I would assess it in the same way I assess Monbiot – as an indication of the larger potential problem.”

Claims have been circulating that he pulled out of a talk today at the Ideas Festival in Bristol because of threats of disruption by the Stop the War coalition.

Mr Bolton said they were unfounded.

He said the reason was a contractual dispute over the payment of his expenses between the organisers of the Hay and Bristol festivals.

“I would be delighted to go to Bristol and face the fruitcakes down,” he said.

A citizen’s arrest is legal in certain circumstances under the under the Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

But Peter Florence, director of the Hay Festival, said on Wednesday that they had sought legal advice and been told carrying out such an arrest would be “completely unlawful” given the circumstances.

He said: ““The Hay Festival encourages visitors to voice their opinions, but also requires that, in their expression, they respect both the law and the speaker.”

Original here

George Bush Authorized the Leak of Valerie Wilson’s Identity

Scottie McC doesn't know it yet. But that's basically what he revealed this morning on the Today Show (h/t Rayne).

During the interview, Scottie revealed the two things that really pissed him off with the Bush Administration. First, being set up to lie by Karl Rove and Scooter Libby. And second, learning that Bush had--himself--authorized the selective leaking of the NIE.

Scottie McC: But the other defining moment was in early April 2006, when I learned that the President had secretly declassified the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq for the Vice President and Scooter Libby to anonymously disclose to reporters. And we had been out there talking about how seriously the President took the selective leaking of classified information. And here we were, learning that the President had authorized the very same thing we had criticized.

Viera: Did you talk to the President and say why are you doing this?

Scottie McC: Actually, I did. I talked about the conversation we had. I walked onto Air Force One, it was right after an event we had, it was down in the south, I believe it was North Carolina. And I walk onto Air Force One and a reporter had yelled a question to the President trying to ask him a question about this revelation that had come out during the legal proceedings. The revelation was that it was the President who had authorized, or, enable Scooter Libby to go out there and talk about this information. And I told the President that that's what the reporter was asking. He was saying that you, yourself, was the one that authorized the leaking of this information. And he said "yeah, I did." And I was kinda taken aback.

Now, for the most part, this is not new. We have known (since I first reported it here) that Scooter Libby testified that, after Libby told Dick Cheney he couldn't leak the information Cheney had ordered him to leak to Judy Miller because it was classified, Cheney told Libby he had gotten the President to authorize the declassification of that information.

Thus far, though, we only had Dick Cheney's word that he had actually asked Bush to declassify this information. We didn't have Bush's confirmation that he had actually declassified the information. In fact, we've had Dick Cheney's claims that he--Dick--had insta-declassified via his super secret pixie dust declassification powers.

But now we've got George Bush, confirming that he, the President of the United States, authorized the leaks of "this information."

Now, though Scottie refers, obliquely, to "this information," he explicitly refers only to the NIE. But as I've described over and over again, it's not just the NIE Bush authorized Dick to order Libby to leak.

As a review, here's what Libby's NIE lies are all about. This is all documented in this post, and here is the court transcript in which most of this is revealed.

• Scooter Libby has instructions in his notes to leak something to Judy Miller on July 8, 2003
• When questioned about the notation, Libby claimed the instructions related to the NIE
• Libby went further to make certain claims about the NIE leak--that the leak was authorized by Dick Cheney and George Bush, that such an authorization was totally unique in his career, and that Libby was so worried about leaking the NIE to Judy that he double checked to make sure he was authorized to do so
• Libby later made claims that directly contradicted these assertions--most importantly, even though Libby claims the Judy leak was totally unique in his career, he also leaked the NIE to three other people: Bob Woodward, a journalist [David Sanger] on July 2, and the WSJ
• Also, in spite of the fact that Libby says he was really worried about getting authorization to leak the NIE to Judy, he's not really sure whether he was authorized to leak the NIE to Woodward; his concern about the leak to Judy only extended to whatever he leaked to Judy

In short, Libby is almost certainly lying about what he was authorized to leak to Judy on July 8, 2003, in a meeting where Judy Miller admits he talked about Valerie Plame, and where Libby tried to get her to falsely attribute the story.

At this point, Scottie McC is still accepting Scooter Libby's lies, though I suspect he sees the dangerous frailty of them. With Bush's clear admission to Scottie that he was in the loop, and the evidence that, subsequent to receiving an order from Cheney (authorized by Bush) to leak classified information to Judy Miller, Libby leaked Valerie Wilson's identity, the circumstantial evidence shows the President was directly involved in the deliberate outing of a CIA spy. The only question now is whether Bush realized he authorized the leak of Valerie's identity, in addition to a bunch of other classified documents.

Think of how much sense this makes. We have evidence that George Bush ordered Libby to respond to Joe Wilson on June 9, 2003. We now have Bush's own confirmation that he authorized the leak Libby made to Judy Miller on July 8, 2003--which included the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity. We know on July 10, Condi told Stephen Hadley that Bush "was comfortable" with the response the White House was making towards Wilson. And we know that--when Cheney forced Scottie McC to exonerate Libby publicly that fall, he did so by reminding people that "The Pres[ident] [asked Libby] to stick his head in the meat-grinder." We know that Libby's lawyers tried desperately to prevent a full discussion of the NIE lies to be presented at trial. And we know that--after those NIE lies did not come out, for the most part (though one juror told me that NIE story was obviously false, even with the limited information they received)--the President commuted Libby's sentence on July 2, 2007.

Original here

CNN's Yellin: Network execs killed critical White House stories

On Wednesday night, CNN's Jessica Yellin talked to Anderson Cooper about Scott McClellan's tell-all memoir and agreed with the former press secretary that White House reporters "dropped the ball" during the run-up to war.

But Yellin went much further, revealing that news executives — presumably at ABC News, where she'd worked from July 2003 to August 2007 — actively pushed her not do hard-hitting pieces on the Bush administration. [UPDATE: Yellin now says it was MSNBC execs, not ABC]

"The press corps was under enormous pressure from corporate executives, frankly, to make sure that this was a war presented in a way that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the nation and the president's high approval ratings," Yellin said.

"And my own experience at the White House was that the higher the president's approval ratings, the more pressure I had from news executives — and I was not at this network at the time — but the more pressure I had from news executives to put on positive stories about the president, I think over time...."

But then a shocked Cooper jumped in, asking, "You had pressure from news executives to put on positive stories about the president?"

"Not in that exact.... They wouldn't say it in that way, but they would edit my pieces," Yellin said. "They would push me in different directions. They would turn down stories that were more critical, and try to put on pieces that were more positive. Yes, that was my experience."

UPDATE: TVNewser reports that Jessica Yellin is going to post a blog item shortly on CNN.com that will clarify her remarks. From what I'm hearing, she'll write that it was MSNBC execs, not ABC that she was referring to last night. Yellin worked at MSNBC during the run-up to war, but then moved on to ABC that summer, where she stayed for four years. UPDATE 2: Yellin confirms this.

Original here

All but conceding Dem primary is over, DNC turns to Obama defense

They don't say the name of their likely nominee in the press release, but the DNC is effectively coming to the defense of Barack Obama for the first time today.

Citing what they call John McCain's "troubling pattern of flubbing key facts and echoing obviously false statements about his own record," the committee has put out a Top 10 of McCain's "misstatements and outright deceptions."

The move comes one day after Obama was hammered by the RNC and right-wing voices for falsely claiming his uncle helped liberate Auschwitz — it was a great-uncle and Buchenwald — and as conservatives buzz about a pattern of embellishments.

1. McCain doesn't even know who is in charge in Iran.
2. Iraq/Iran, Sunni/Shia: McCain doesn't know the difference.
3. McCain still thinks Czechoslovakia (which split into two countries in 1993) exists.
4. McCain wrongly claimed that Baghdad was mostly normal.
5. McCain called Baghdad market safe.
6. McCain can't even remember how little he knows about the economy.
7. McCain falsely claimed he never requested pork.
8. McCain falsely claimed that tax cuts increased government revenues.
9. McCain's claim to be untainted by special interest money is false.
10. McCain wrongly claimed he never supported amnesty.

UPDATE: The DNC, doing their due diligence, asked me to take this post down.

I declined.

But this is what DNC spokesman Damien LaVera has to say:

"This post mistakenly and inaccurately suggests that the DNC is taking sides in the primary. The DNC is absolutely neutral in the primary. The primary is not over. It is our job to hold John McCain accountable and as you can see from the materials below we have raised these same issues you posted about many, many times over the past several months. We also believe that it's important that McCain’s so-called misstatements should be pointed out vigorously, like when he has gotten the basic facts on the ground in Iraq woefully incorrect."

Original here

New York to Back Same-Sex Unions From Elsewhere

Nathaniel Brooks for The New York Times

Gov. David A. Paterson, shown at a news conference on budget issues on Wednesday, may push to legalize same-sex unions.

ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has directed all state agencies to begin to revise their policies and regulations to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, like Massachusetts, California and Canada.

In a directive issued on May 14, the governor’s legal counsel, David Nocenti, instructed the agencies that gay couples married elsewhere “should be afforded the same recognition as any other legally performed union.”

The revisions are most likely to involve as many as 1,300 statutes and regulations in New York governing everything from joint filing of income tax returns to transferring fishing licenses between spouses.

In a videotaped message given to gay community leaders at a dinner on May 17, Mr. Paterson described the move as “a strong step toward marriage equality.” And people on both sides of the issue said it moved the state closer to fully legalizing same-sex unions in this state.

“Very shortly, there will be hundreds and hundreds and hundreds, and probably thousands and thousands and thousands of gay people who have their marriages recognized by the state,” said Assemblyman Daniel O’Donnell, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side and has pushed for legalization of gay unions.

Massachusetts and California are the only states that have legalized gay marriage, while others, including New Jersey and Vermont, allow civil unions. Forty-one states have laws limiting marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

Legal experts said Mr. Paterson’s decision would make New York the only state that did not itself allow gay marriage but fully recognized same-sex unions entered into elsewhere.

The directive is the strongest signal yet that Mr. Paterson, who developed strong ties to the gay community as a legislator, plans to push aggressively to legalize same-sex unions as governor. His predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, introduced a bill last year that would have legalized gay marriage, but even as he submitted it, doubted that it would pass. The Democratic-dominated Assembly passed the measure, but the Republican-led Senate has refused to call a vote on it.

Short of an act by the Legislature, the directive ordered by Mr. Paterson is the one of the strongest statements a state can make in favor of gay unions.

“Basically we’ve done everything we can do on marriage legislatively at this point,” said Sean Patrick Maloney, a senior adviser to Mr. Paterson. “But there are tools in our tool kit on the executive side, and this is one.”

The directive cited a Feb. 1 ruling by a State Appellate Court in Rochester that Patricia Martinez, who works at Monroe Community College and who married her partner in Canada, could not be denied health benefits by the college because of New York’s longstanding policy of recognizing marriages performed elsewhere, even if they are not explicitly allowed under New York law. The appeals court said that New York must recognize marriages performed in other states that allow the practice and in countries that permit it, like Canada and Spain.

Monroe County filed an appeal with the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals, but it was rejected on technical grounds. The county has not decided whether to file another appeal, a county spokesman said on Wednesday. The Court of Appeals has previously ruled that the state’s Constitution did not compel the recognition of same-sex marriages and that it was up to the Legislature to decide whether do so.

Groups that oppose gay marriage said the governor was essentially trying to circumvent the Legislature.

“It’s a perfect example of a governor overstepping his authority and sidestepping the democratic process,” said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a national organization opposed to same-sex marriage. “It’s an issue of public policy that should be decided by the voters.”

Gay rights advocates, however, applauded Mr. Paterson, saying the broad directive would make it clear that gay couples wed in other states were entitled to all of the benefits of marriage in New York and relieve them of the burden of challenging or suing individual agencies.

“He saw no reason to stand in the way of making sure these couples benefit from the rights and protections that come with marriage,” said Susan Sommer, senior counsel for Lambda Legal, a group that advocates for gay rights. “It shouldn’t be the burden of each lesbian or gay couple to have to advocate before an agency every time a new issue comes up.”

In the directive, Mr. Nocenti wrote that state agencies should review all rules and regulations to determine whether they conflict with recognition of same-sex marriages and report back to him by June 30. Mr. Nocenti said that state agencies that did not provide “full faith and credit to same-sex marriages” could be subject to liability.

He said that many changes could be made through internal memos or policy statements, but that regulatory changes might be needed in some cases.

Mr. Nocenti directed agency heads to a list of state regulations and statutes that were likely to need overhaul, including measures affecting a spouse’s ability to collect a deceased spouse’s pension and to continue to use public housing.

In addition to conferring more rights on gay couples, the changes might also require more responsibilities. For example, the order that required certain employees of the executive branch to file financial disclosure documents for their spouses would also apply to gay spouses.

It is less clear what the directive means for state policies that are not enforced by state agencies but by the courts, like those that govern child custody or protect a husband and wife from having to testify against one another about statements they made to each other while married.

Coincidentally, Mr. Nocenti’s directive was dated one day before the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Gay marriage proponents said they expected that ruling, which will take effect in mid-June unless the court grants a stay, will lead some gay couples in New York to marry in California so they can take advantage of the protections under New York law.

Of course, many gay New Yorkers might find Canada to be a more convenient option, some gay rights supporters pointed out. Mr. Nocenti also said that marriages performed in Massachusetts should be recognized in New York, though Massachusetts, unlike California, does not permit gay residents from other states to be married there if their home state prohibits same-sex unions.

While gay rights advocates widely praised the spirit of Mr. Paterson’s policy, some saw more than a little irony in the fact that New York has yet to allow gays to marry.

“If you’re going to treat us as equals, why don’t you just give us the marriage license?” said Alan Van Capelle, executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda. “So this is a temporary but necessary fix for a longer-term problem, which is marriage equality in New York State.”

Original here

Smoke a Joint and Your Whole Family Could End Up Homeless

For 40 years, we have been waging a "war on drugs." Families are kicked out of housing when many have done nothing wrong.

Drug addiction is bad. But the war on drugs is worse.

Courtland Milloy of the Washington Post wrote a heart-breaking story that exemplifies the wasteful and counterproductive way our society deals with illegal drug use. Mr. Milloy talks about Frances Johnson, a 68-year-old grandmother in Washington, D.C. who faces eviction simply because her grandson was arrested for possessing a small amount of marijuana. The federal government's public housing system has a "one strike and you're out" policy for any drug law violation -- even if that violation occurs miles away from home.

How does our society benefit from making homeless a whole family because of a little bit of marijuana? Why are we punishing Ms. Johnson who herself did nothing wrong? Does anyone really believe such draconian policies will help reduce marijuana use? How will an eviction affect her grandson's chances for recovery? Should any family be kicked out of their home for a loved one's drug use?

Though they contain no racist language, the application of the government's zero-tolerance prohibition policies are overtly racist, classist, ineffective and inhumane. The New York Civil Liberties Union released a report earlier this month that found 83 percent of those charged with marijuana possession over the last 10 years are black or Latino even though federal surveys show that whites are more likely to use pot. If you are poor and live in public housing, your whole family is punished for a drug offense--even for smoking a joint. But if you are middle class and do not rely on public housing or other benefits it is a "personal" issue. Despite our arresting a staggering 800,000 people for marijuana last year, marijuana is as easily available as ever -- to find some, just inquire around your local high-school.

For 40 years, we have been waging a "war on drugs." Just what does our $40 billion-a-year drug war get us? Our prisons are exploding with nonviolent drug offenders; families are kicked out of housing when many have done nothing wrong; thousands die from street violence generated by prohibition's lucrative black market; and drugs remain as plentiful and easy to obtain as ever.

Enough is enough. Ms. Johnson should not be more "collateral damage" from this unwinnable war.

Original here

3 Hidden Costs of High Oil Prices

As a barrel of oil hovers around $130, the news has been bombarding us with the obvious effects of high oil prices. As most people weep at the pump, some environmentalists are rejoicing. Gas consumption is down, but there are additional hidden costs to high gas prices that leave even green minded folks with a frown.

1-Difficult to Extract Oil & High Environmental Impact

High oil prices are making it economically viable to utilize oil that is difficult to extract. One example of this is just north of the border.

In the U.S., our single biggest source of foreign oil is from Canada. Although this may be reassuring from a foreign policy standpoint, much of this oil comes with a steep environmental price tag. Known as tar sands oil, 2 tons of sand are needed to produce one barrel of oil in a very resource and energy intensive process.

One technique that is used is to mine the sand leaves huge holes in the earth and devastates the ecosystem. Another technique involves injecting steam underground, requiring large amounts of energy. Tar sands oil generates 2-3 times the greenhouse gas when compared to conventional oil.

“It is quit alarming from an ecological standpoint,” said David Fields of Greenpeace Canada. “Developing the tar sand will make it impossible for us to effectively tackle climate change.

2-Difficult to Extract Oil is an Unreliable Supply

There are reasons why many sources of oil were overlooked in the past. Some are in areas that are populated, making it difficult to obtain permits. Other oil reserves rely on large amounts of energy, making the operation vulnerable to fluctuating energy costs.

Going back to the Canadian tar sands example, large quantities of natural gas are needed to extract this oil. In the cool Canadian climate, large amounts of natural gas are also used to heat homes. If natural gas prices spike or Canadians prioritize conservation of natural gas reserves over short-term profits, this source of oil could dry up.

3-Oil Companies are More Powerful as Profits Increase

In 2007, Exxon made nearly $1300 a second in profits. With record high corporate profits, Exxon reported annual earning of $40.61 billion. While Americans are spending at the pump, the power of this company is increasing. Unfortunately, some of the companies that are rolling in dough are not necessarily ideal corporate citizens.

Exxon has refused to pay court ordered fines for the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 to help compensate the fishermen for loss of their livelihood. The company has also supported groups that question global warming, a practice that has even been criticized by other oil companies.

The political power of oil companies is staggering and is a special interest that is often not in line with what is best for society. The oil industry has donated $180 million to political candidates since 1989. 89% of political donations made by Exxon went to republican candidates.

As with all complex situations, there are numerous positive and negative aspects. What other hidden factors do you find noteworthy?

Original here