McCain: Let’s Go Back to Work

Updated LAFAYETTE HILL, Penn. — Come back, Barack.

While some Republican members of the House are having a jolly time in Washington trying to embarrass the Democrats into returning to Congress to pass an energy bill, Senator John McCain on Monday issued a personal challenge to his Democratic rival to “come back into town and come back to work.”

Mr. McCain, the presumed Republican nominee, urged Congress to abandon its five-week summer recess and return to the Capitol to address the nation’s energy needs.

“Congress should come back into session,” Mr. McCain said after touring the National Label Company, in Lafayette Hill, a suburb of Philadelphia, according to a pool report. “I am willing to come back off the campaign trail.”

He then went on to challenge Senator Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee, to meet him in Washington so Congress can move forward on a package of measures to increase the oil supply and develop new sources of energy. Referring to an “energy crisis,” he mentioned offshore drilling and nuclear power as measures to help the nation achieve energy independence.

“I hope that Senator Obama will call on Congress and the leaders Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi to call Congress back into session,” he said. “Let’s get this energy crisis solved.”

Mr. McCain, of Arizona, made the remarks shortly after Mr. Obama, of Illinois, delivered a speech on energy in Michigan, calling the nation’s “addiction to foreign oil” “one of the most dangerous and urgent threats this nation has ever faced.”

He laid out a program to reduce dependence on foreign oil and impose a tax on oil companies to provide energy rebates to American families – a proposal he said Mr. McCain would not support because he is too close to the oil companies. (“He raised more than $1 million from big oil just last month, most of which came after he announced his plan for offshore drilling in a room full of cheering oil executives,” Mr. Obama said in his speech. “His initial reaction to the bipartisan energy compromise was to reject it because it took away tax breaks for oil companies.”)

The McCain campaign pointed out that Mr. Obama also received contributions from oil company executives — $400,000, they said.

In Washington, meanwhile, some Republican House members were engaged in a lively show of theatrics to send a signal to gas pump-challenged Americans that they are ready to address the soaring gas prices and other rising energy costs – if only the Democratic-controlled Congress did not leave town before a bipartisan package of proposals was approved. Several hung around the Capitol, on the Monday after Congress had dispersed, to march in front of television cameras and chide the Democratic leaders.

Mr. McCain, who has served in Congress for 26 years, has missed numerous votes on crucial legislation, particularly during this prolonged campaign. But he said he was ready to return to session and criticized Congress for “doing nothing.”

“I call on Senator Obama to call on Congress to come back into town and come back to work,” he said. “Come off their recess. Come off their vacation and address this energy crisis for America and don’t leave until you do. Republican and Democrat joining together. And a very vital part of that is nuclear power. And another vital part of that is offshore drilling.”

Mr. McCain has been pressing for Congress to approve a measure that would allow states to decide whether they would allow offshore drilling – a plan that he once described as merely “psychological relief” at a time of record oil and gas prices, but which nonetheless has some popularity with the American people, according to some recent public opinion polls.

Mr. Obama has been opposed to expanding offshore drilling, saying it would not provide any new oil for at least seven years, while perpetuating America’s dependence on the nonrenewable energy source. But over the weekend, he said he would accept an offshore drilling provision as part of a larger package of measures to increase the energy supply if its inclusion was the difference between a bill being passed by Congress and not. Today in Michigan he also said that the government should sell 70 million barrels of oil from its strategic petroleum stockpile to help reduce gasoline prices.

Mr. McCain delivered his remarks, and took no questions, after touring the labeling company and holding a private business round table, according to the pool report.

He then boarded his campaign plane and headed for Sturgis, S.D., home of the famous motorcycle rally, to attend its tribute to veterans and members of the military. According to the Web site for the Sturgis rally, he will be speaking at the Buffalo Chip Campground, where Kellie Pickler, an “American Idol” contestant class of 2006, and Kid Rock, will perform.

Update | 7:37 p.m.: “If Senator McCain is willing to pass a compromise that provides immediate relief to consumers in the form a $1,000 energy rebate and makes a serious investment in renewable energy, Senator Obama would be happy to join him in calling on Congress to return,” Bill Burton, Obama campaign spokesman, said. “But if he continues to reject any compromise that takes away tax breaks for the same oil companies that have given millions to his campaign, as he did on Friday, we’d rather not waste the American people’s tax dollars,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.

Original here

Romney: ‘McCain Doesn’t Ask For Any Tax Reduction For Oil Companies’

For the first time, six of the giant oil companies — including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Total — made more than $50 billion in combined profits in a single quarter last quarter, with ExxonMobil breaking the record for the highest corporate profits ever, at more than $11 billion.

Today, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney appeared on CNN’s American Morning to discuss an ad by Barack Obama that argues John McCain would give $4 billion in tax breaks to Big Oil. Romney declared the charge “dishonest” and “below the belt.” He claimed that McCain “doesn’t ask for any tax reduction for oil companies.” Watch it:

There is nothing dishonest about pointing out the fact that McCain’s plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent would give nearly $4 billion in tax breaks to the six largest oil companies. Ensuring that corporations pay dramatically fewer taxes is an integral part of McCain’s regressive tax plan that skews its benefits heavily toward the wealthy and offers little for the poor and middle class.

This Wonk Room analysis demonstrates the massive benefits for oil companies in McCain’s tax plan:

Just since McCain’s embrace of offshore drilling in June, donations to his campaign from the oil and gas industry have skyrocketed. He has received $881,450 in the last 6 weeks alone.

The McCain campaign may claim to “stand up” to the oil industry, but McCain’s own plans are the stuff of Big Oil’s dreams.

Original here

Hess Corporation "Office Manager" And Her Husband Both Gave $28,500 To Elect McCain

As we reported below, ten Hess Corporation executives and Hess family members each gave $28,500 to the RNC's committee to elect John McCain president, just days after he reversed his previous opposition to offshore drilling.

But the story gets better.

It turns out that Hess executives aren't the only ones who gave such huge sums to elect McCain -- generosity towards McCain apparently extends down into lower levels of Hess staff. A lower level employee gave the same, too, and so did her husband, even though he works for Amtrak.

The FEC filings show that Alice Rocchio, who's identified as a Hess office manager, and her husband, Pasquale Rocchio, who's described as an Amtrak "track foreman," each separately donated $28,500 to the RNC-McCain fund, which is called McCain Victory 2008. They gave the money on June 24th, the same day that eight other Hess execs and family members each shelled out the same amount.

So the Rocchios, who live in Flushing, Queens, donated a total of $57,000 to McCain's efforts.

I just reached Ms Rocchio and she insisted adamantly that the contributions were theirs.

"It was my option to give," she told me. "This is my favorite candidate...I fully acknowledge that [the donation] was done by myself personally, my own doing." She added that the same went for her husband.

When I pointed out that the Rocchios' job titles seemed to jar a bit with the size of their donations, Ms. Rocchio said that no one could guess the real income levels of other people.

"No one knows what someone's income taxes say," she told me.

Ms. Rocchio declined to say whether the contributions had been bundled by another Hess employee or who bundled them.

Original here

Back On Offense: Obama Gets Personal On Energy Policy

Barack Obama sought to regain the political offensive on Monday, painting John McCain as part of the problem when it comes to comprehensive energy reform. Quoting the Arizona Republican as saying that "our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been thirty years in the making," Obama leveled one of the more direct criticisms he's offered in this campaign.

"What Senator McCain neglected to mention was that during those thirty years, he was in Washington for twenty-six of them," said the Senator. "And in all that time, he did little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He voted against increased fuel efficiency standards and opposed legislation that included tax credits for more efficient cars. He voted against renewable sources of energy. Against clean biofuels. Against solar power. Against wind power. Against an energy bill that -- while far from perfect -- represented the largest investment in renewable sources of energy in the history of this country. So when Senator McCain talks about the failure of politicians in Washington to do anything about our energy crisis, it's important to remember that he's been a part of that failure."

Obama's speech, delivered in Lansing, Michigan, marked a political role reversal of sorts. For weeks it has been the McCain campaign that has accused Obama of inaction on the energy front.

Perhaps sensing a need to shift that narrative, the Obama camp also released a biting new attack ad on Monday, hitting McCain's ties to Big Oil. "After one president in the pocket of big oil," the spot goes, "We can't afford another." He also, in an apparent reversal -- though, perhaps, compelled by current events -- called for tapping the strategic oil reserves and a limited amount of offshore drilling as part of a broader compromise.

The Arizona Republican and his surrogates did not meekly cede the stage. On Monday, the Senator's economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, hosted a conference call in which he blasted Obama for supporting the 2005 Energy Bill, opposing off-shore drilling, and demonstrating a general unwillingness to explore other alternative sources. The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, passed out tire gauges at Obama's event to mock the Senator for saying (truthfully) that U.S. consumers could save significant money by merely inflating their tires. But the harshest attacks seemed to come from Obama, whose speech at Lansing -- covered by all three cable news outlets in its entirety -- was well-received by those in attendance.

"After years of inaction," said the presumptive Democratic nominee, "and in the face of public frustration over rising gas prices, the only energy proposal [McCain's] really promoting is more offshore drilling -- a position he recently adopted that has become the centerpiece of his plan, and one that will not make a real dent in current gas prices or meet the long-term challenge of energy independence."

Original here

Oregon GOP Candidate Endorses Obama

The Republican Party is famous for keeping members loyal. But in Oregon, at least, that no longer seems to be the case. First Oregon GOP Sen. Gordon Smith promoted his ties to Barack Obama in ads. Now a Republican candidate for the House is endorsing the Democratic candidate. The Politico reports:

A guy gets 70% of the Republican primary vote, and how does he repay his party? By endorsing Barack Obama for president and the Democratic challenger to an incumbent Republican for Senate. At least that's how Joel Haugen, challenging Oregon Rep. David Wu, decided to thank his party's leadership for their support.

Haugen, a businessman and Army veteran, is running an uphill campaign in a district Wu has held onto against good Republican challengers. So instead of embracing fellow Republicans in a state that's moving increasingly left, Haugen is falling in line with Obama, and he's is listed on State House Speaker Jeff Merkley's website as a backer; Merkley is the Democratic nominee against Senator Gordon Smith.

The endorsements aren't something Haugen is hiding. "We certainly understand why people are so surprised to see" Haugen backing Obama, the campaign writes on its website, citing the Democrat's positions on foreign policy and the economy over John McCain's.

But Haugen's is a position that causes the Oregon Republican Party some heartburn. The state party is continuing to offer tacit support for Haugen's candidacy (though they're not returning his phone calls) while local party officials have shut him out of some events, PolitickerOR reported over the weekend.

Meanwhile, the GOP's 2006 Senate candidate in Delaware says he's been booted out of his party position for supporting Obama.
Original here

McCain To Clinton Backer Who Endorsed Him: "Perhaps Your Reward Will Be In Heaven"

John McCain has criticized Barack Obama supposed presumptuousness frequently. Last week, a McCain ad suggested Obama is styling himself the new Messiah. But who's really playing the God card? First McCain's campaign came out with this poster. Now he's telling Clinton voters that support him over Obama that they'll be thanked in the afterlife:

Also Thursday, McCain called Debra Bartoshevich, the Racine County resident who lost her delegate seat at the Democratic National Convention for endorsing McCain instead of Obama, a "person of great courage" for endorsing him.

"Perhaps your reward will be in heaven - not here on Earth," McCain told Bartoshevich as he addressed the Civic Centre crowd.

No word yet from God on what the prize will be.

Original here

Top McCain Surrogates Back Obama Energy Idea That GOP Mocked

Republicans have seized on Barack Obama's call for drivers to inflate their tires as a laughable response to the energy crisis. But at least three prominent John McCain supporters have recently agreed with the Democrat on tire efficiency.

While Joe Lieberman may be a recent convert (along with McCain) to the necessity of offshore drilling, the independent senator has long advocated a smarter approach to the nation's tire fleet. Lieberman's own website still features several press releases that treat tire efficiency as a smart idea -- even a critical national security issue.

Nestled within the "Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act of 2005," which Lieberman introduced in the Senate, section 201 requires the creation of a "national tire fuel efficiency program for tires designed for the use on passenger cars and light trucks."

It doesn't stop there, either. Lieberman is on record going as far back as 2001 touting the significant role tire efficiency can play in any plan to reduce the nation's dependency on foreign oil. In a 2001 press release arguing against exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Senator said: "Increasing the fuel efficiency of replacement tires for our cars to the same level as those sold on new automobiles will save drivers $90 in fuel costs over the lifetime of the tires and will save the U.S. more than 70 times the amount of oil we might find in the Refuge."

In 2005, another press release referenced the benefits of creating "a tire efficiency program for tires used on light duty vehicles."

Lieberman is not the only McCain supporter who feels that tires are a useful point of leverage in the battle for energy security. As the LA Times reported in June, both California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida Governor Charlie Crist have encouraged drivers to keep tires inflated -- even as they disagreed about the value of offshore drilling. Indeed, tire maintenance would appear to be the one energy cause that almost everyone can get behind -- save for McCain's campaign.

So while the Republican National Committee thinks they've found an effective way to lampoon Barack Obama's judgment, it's not clear that the quote they decided to focus on is quite so ridiculous. Still, the Obama camp is wasting no time responding to the notion that the candidate does not have a comprehensive energy plan. On Monday, Obama is set to unveil his "New Energy for America" plan in a speech in Lansing, Michigan. The plan includes a pitch to create five million new "green jobs" and eliminate America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil in 10 years.

Meanwhile, his campaign has released a contrast ad meant to sting McCain for his $2 million in campaign donations from Big Oil.

While the candidate sketches the big picture on energy, Obama spokesperson Linda Douglass told the Huffington Post that his campaign isn't especially concerned about the GOP's tire taunts, noting that Obama's original comment came in response to a town hall questioner. "It's fascinating that every time a consumer asks a question about what he can do while waiting for Washington to act -- which it never does -- Republicans mock the idea," Douglass said.

Original here

Obama's crime? Acting too presidential

So the pundits' verdict is in: Obama is too confident. It all would be funny if many people didn't seem to be inhaling this multimedia stink bomb as if it were fragrant truth.

By JAMES RAINEY, ON THE MEDIA
America, meet Barack The Arrogant.

Did you hear, this guy's already talking about redecorating the Lincoln Bedroom? Or that a few weeks back, he stood behind a podium bearing a faux presidential seal? The young upstart from Illinois has even got his minions planning a White House transition!
We have reporters, columnists and TV talking heads to thank for exposing these outrageous displays. So apparently the verdict is in: Sen. Barack Obama, too confident to govern.

It all would be quite funny if many people didn't seem to be inhaling this multimedia stink bomb as if it were fragrant truth.

I've spent a few days on the campaign trail with Obama and know people who've traveled with him for months. I wouldn't argue that portrayals of the candidate as occasionally aloof, or a little professorial, are imagined.
But it's a long ways from, in the words of Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, acting like "the presumptuous nominee" whose "biggest challenger may not be Republican John McCain but rather his own hubris."
Milbank, who is often wickedly revealing, last week seemed mostly wicked as he turned benign campaign tableau -- an Obama motorcade, a talk with the Treasury secretary, a "pep rally" with congressional Democrats -- into evidence that Obama thinks he's already the winner.

Milbank at least leavened his thesis with humor, unlike others piling on the campaign to turn Barack into Slick Barry.

Fox News host Sean Hannity told viewers last week how "presumptuous" Obama had become. Proof: The candidate told congressional Democrats that the world had been waiting for his hopeful message and that to some he had become a symbol of a "return to our best traditions."

That may not be humble pie, but doesn't even come close to breaking the narcissism barrier. Don't our politicians routinely boast about how essential they are to the republic?

Then came the stunning revelation that Obama had begun planning for a transition to the White House.

Fox News hostess E.D. Hill -- who dubbed Obama's playful knuckle bump with his wife a "terrorist fist jab" -- reminded viewers recently that the Democrat was "not commander in chief just yet, which is why some find his decision to start planning his transition into the White House a bit presumptuous."

Hill wondered whether Obama was "jumping the gun or just covering all the bases?"

Never mind that McCain advisors have acknowledged that they too were planning for a White House transition or the fact that history has rewarded those who looked ahead. Early transition planner Ronald Reagan hit the ground running in 1980. Bill Clinton initially struggled after dawdling on White House preparations in 1992.

Yeah, but what about that talk of remodeling the Lincoln Bedroom? Surely that proves Obama thinks he's destined for 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

That whopper grew out of an entirely benign moment last month in Fargo, N.D. A woman asked if Obama would consider remodeling the room with African kente cloth.

"No," Obama said with a laugh. He mused that when he had toured the White House in 2005, he thought a copy of the Gettysburg Address would look more appropriate in the historic chamber than the flat-screen TV on the wall.

What about that seal, complete with American eagle, that the Obama faithful trotted out a few weeks back? No question it was a cheesy would-be stature-builder -- but it was far short of counting electoral votes before they're cast.

The candidate's crowning demonstrations of hubris, according to those building a case, came during his extended trip to Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and Europe. Recall the pundits demanding the freshman Illinois senator prove he could be presidential in the foreign arena?

So he appeared at ease with world leaders, talked animatedly with beaming American troops and drew huge civilian crowds. Then the pundits -- who had been taking a round of bashing for supposedly going easy on Obama -- told Obama he needed to beware of appearing too presidential.

Opponents would like to put the Democrat in another can't-win box over his "failure" to visit wounded troops at a military hospital in Germany. Obama canceled a visit to the Landstuhl hospital and was accused of being self-centered.

What if he had appeared at the hospital? David Kiley reported in BusinessWeek magazine how a Republican operative described plans to attack Obama for -- that's right -- using wounded troops as campaign props, if he had gone through with the visit.

These red herrings, a veritable school of 'em, are amusing for those who put them in perspective. But how many take the time to do that?

In 1992, George H.W. Bush reportedly was surprised to find a price scanner in a grocery store, which "proved" he was out of touch with the common man. In 2004, John F. Kerry windsurfed and knew how to speak French. He was pegged as an elitist snob.

McCain launched a television ad last week lumping Obama with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton: just a trio of celebrities handed fame they haven't really earned.

"There's an interesting line building on Obama that somehow success and intelligence are a handicap," said Mark Sawyer, a UCLA political scientist. "If he wasn't extraordinary, he wouldn't be there. But then he is extraordinary and it becomes, 'He is just too good, too well spoken, too accomplished.' "

So here are a few lessons for would-be commanders in chief:

Inspire attention, but not too much. Act presidential, but not like you already have the job. Be confident, but in an obsequious kind of way.

It's really not that complicated.
Original here

Would Obama prosecute the Bush administration for torture?

By Mark Benjamin

Aug. 4, 2008 | WASHINGTON -- On the campaign trail in April, Barack Obama was asked whether, if elected, he would prosecute Bush administration officials for establishing torture as American policy. The candidate demurred. "If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," he said. But he quickly added, "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems to solve."

People who have given advice to the Obama campaign say they see little political advantage in the candidate discussing during a general election campaign how his administration might investigate or prosecute Bush administration officials for torture. Other than the response above, prompted by a question from Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News, he has said little about his plans. But behind the scenes, a slate of foreign policy and human rights experts with various degrees of connections to the Obama campaign, some of them likely to occupy positions of authority in an Obama administration, have begun to discuss that very issue, and in great detail. What they're likely to recommend to Obama, should he become president, won't fulfill the dreams of those who've hoped for immediate criminal accountability for Bush administration officials.

Members and advisors of the administration-in-waiting have formed largely informal working groups to take up a whole host of issues related to the Bush administration's legacy, like what to do about the Guantánamo detainees. While they have not been asked to develop a formal recommendation for Obama on the question of criminal accountability for torture, those who are weighing the issue, a group that includes some of the 300 people the New York Times recently described as Obama's "mini State Department," are moving toward consensus on some key points. Specifically, don't hold your breath waiting for Dick Cheney to be frog-marched into federal court. Prosecution of any officials, if it were to occur, would probably not occur during Obama's first term. Instead, we may well see a congressionally empowered commission that would seek testimony from witnesses in search of the truth about what occurred. Though some witnesses might be offered immunity in exchange for testimony, the question of whether anybody would be prosecuted would be deferred to a later date -- meaning Obama's second term, if such is forthcoming.

While there are certainly participants in these discussions who believe that top-level administration officials deserve to be hauled before a judge, even the harshest critics of the current administration's torture policies don't think there will be an immediate effort by the next president to prosecute anyone from the Bush administration. "I don't sense the political appetite for it," said Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director at Human Rights Watch, who is involved in the informal discussions about what Obama could do about investigating torture. "I don't think the next president will do that no matter who he is."

Attorneys say successful prosecutions would be tough anyway. The Justice Department approved the abuse and Congress changed the War Crimes Act in 2006 to make prosecutions more difficult. There is also speculation that any end-of-term presidential pardons by Bush might include some of the likely torture defendants.

But the avenues of investigation being discussed don't necessarily rule out at least an attempt at prosecuting Bush officials at some later date. The nonpartisan presidential commission that Malinowski and other people involved in the discussions are advocating would have considerable power, granted by Congress, to force cooperation. The commission would ultimately deliver recommendations to the president that would include, among other things, whether or not Cheney deserves that walk up the courthouse steps.

The first order of business, however, would be learning the truth. "I think a lot of us feel that the American people are entitled to the whole truth," said another person who knows about the discussions. "The American people are entitled to [an investigation] from an official body that has access to the classified documents that makes as much public as it can," that person added.

The commission would focus strictly on detention, torture and extraordinary rendition, or the practice of spiriting detainees to a third country for abusive interrogations. The panel would focus strictly on these abuses, leaving out any other allegedly illegal activities during the Bush administration, such as domestic spying.

It would also try to confirm or debunk, once and for all, the claims of high-level Bush administration officials that the use of abusive interrogations worked and resulted in significant intelligence gains.

This might include claims made by the president. In a Sept. 6, 2006, White House address, Bush admitted to a network of secret CIA prisons and the use of "tough" interrogation techniques by the agency. He then ticked off a treasure trove of intelligence he said the CIA pried out of Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaida operative captured on March 28, 2002, by intelligence agents from the United States and Pakistan.

But FBI agents initially interrogated Zubaydah using tried and true, noncoercive techniques, reportedly with success. The CIA later took over and used coercive methods that included waterboarding. Controversy lingers over claims about the effectiveness of the CIA's methods, particularly in comparison to the FBI's approach.

Like the 9-11 Commission, Congress could grant this panel the authority to issue subpoenas to compel witnesses to cooperate and leverage the production of documents. The panel might also have the power to grant witnesses immunity from prosecution in exchange for cooperation.

Immunity, in fact, remains one of the thorniest issues in the ongoing discussions about how to investigate the Bush administration's interrogation program. A recent Newsweek piece by Stuart Taylor Jr. suggested that Bush "pardon any official from cabinet secretary on down who might plausibly face prosecution" for torture during the Bush years. Taylor argued that this would encourage those individuals to testify freely in front of some sort of truth commission.

That indemnity arrangement is more reminiscent of South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the 1990s-era investigation aimed at unearthing the sins of apartheid. But blanket indemnity would not be part of the commission under discussion. "A lot of people think that that is not something that goes over well with the American people," said the person familiar with the discussions. "What we have much more of a tradition of is presidential fact-finding commissions."

Instead of offering a blanket amnesty, the fact-finding commission would delay any decisions on whether or not to attempt to prosecute any Bush administration officials for their transgressions. Given the time it would take for a commission to do its work, any such decision would probably not take place till Obama's second term. That would be in accord with what Obama said in April, in what seems to be his lone statement on the issue of accountability, about not wanting his first term to be taken up by what critics would try to characterize as political retribution.

"Something like this would be unprecedented in the American experience and I think it would be absolutely necessary," Kenneth Kitts, author of "Presidential Commissions and National Security: The Politics of Damage Control," said when informed of the rough plans for the commission. "We've had panels that have looked at scandals. We've had panels that have looked at intractable political problems," said Kitts, a political science professor at South Carolina's Francis Marion University. "But nothing in terms of looking at an issue that has this array of legal, moral and even spiritual questions attached to it."

Ben Rhodes, a foreign policy advisor to the Obama campaign, did not respond to Salon's request for comment by press time.

Original here

House conservatives boo veterans organizations who urge a clean military funding bill

On Friday, the House considered a bill providing needed funding to veterans and military organizations. House conservatives tried to attach an offshore oil drilling amendment to the bill, threatening its passage. Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Chet Edwards (D-TX) denounced the tactic. When he read statements from veterans groups urging Congress not to meddle with the legislation, House conservatives booed. Watch it:

Despite the Republicans’ stunts, the House passed the bill.

Original here

Deleted photo sparks fears DEA hiring mercenaries

When a California medical marijuana dispensary, Organica Collective, was raided last Thursday by agents of the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency and local police, the Los Angeles Times ran a dramatic story on the incident, accompanied by a set of photographs showing the raid and its aftermath.

According to the Times, witnesses described the DEA agents as "removing computers, medicine and money, and using a steel cylinder battering ram to get into the upstairs bedrooms." When they left four hours later, all that remained was "trash, counters strewn with open and empty glass jars, piles of receipts thrown on the ground, upturned couch cushions, bits of marijuana on the edges of counters and an ATM with its doors torn open and emptied. ... An outdoor vegetable garden had plants uprooted, along with marijuana plants removed by the agents."

However, one particular photograph from the Times story has drawn more attention than anything else. That picture, which has now been widely reproduced at blogs, shows a long-haired man, wearing a Blackwater tshirt and with a pistol at his belt, passing a box marked "DEA Evidence" to other agents participating in the raid.

Blackwater, a private mercenary army often employed by the US government for security services and by local police forces for training, has drawn widespread criticism for its shoot-em-up tactics in Iraq and has recently aroused suspicion by its establishment of a private intelligence service and its growing role in global drug enforcement.

A medical marijuana website may have been the first to draw attention to the picture, noting, "We’re used to the DEA calling in help from various federal agencies and local law enforcement. But I guess none of their usual buddies were available yesterday because from the picture below, which appeared in the LA Times today, it looks like they had to resort to calling in Blackwater."

The next day, Tim King of Salem-News.com gave wider distribution to the story, writing, "Are members of a disputed mercenary killer group now working with the DEA? A photo from the LA Times shows proof of one of two things; either Blackwater members are now working for the Bush White House's Drug Enforcement Agency, or this semi-illegitimate band of rogue federal cops have worse discipline than any of us ever imagined."

The photo has since been taken down by the Times, but it has continued to circulate online. Although there has been no previous suggestion of a Blackwater role in domestic drug enforcement, the single picture was sufficient enough to set off furious discussion at both left-wing and libertarian message boards and blogs.

At Democratic Underground, posters generally acknowledged there was no proof of Blackwater involvement and some pointed out that tshirts of the sort shown in the photograph are available online.

However, others found the idea possible, citing Sen. John McCain's recent call for an Iraq-style approach to urban crime. One poster even claimed, "They were also used in raids in Humboldt County last month against the growers....Operation Southern Sweep. Can't find any news stories about it, but some people I know have said they were using Blackwater as well as DEA agents."

At Boing Boing, however, a more skeptical commenter suggested, "I'm willing to bet he's DEA. Blackwater probably wouldn't hire someone who looked that scuzzy, but DEA agents frequently look like dirtbags. Would YOU sell dope to someone who looked like a federal agent?"

Original here

Former FBI Official: After 9/11, White House Told FBI To Blame Anthrax Attacks On Al Qaeda

Last week, Bruce Ivins, a government scientist who researched anthrax and was expected to be charged in connection with the 2001 attacks, reportedly committed suicide. As Glenn Greenwald has noted, President Bush and his administration initially attempted to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq.

The New York Daily News has a new twist in the administration’s attempt to peg the anthrax attacks to its own bellicose aims. Immediately after 9/11, the Daily News reports, “White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda,” according to a former FBI official:

After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was “beaten up” during President Bush’s morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide.

“They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East,” the retired senior FBI official told The News.

As the Daily News noted, similar to its efforts with Iraq, the White House on multiple occasions suggested that the anthrax attacks were tied to al Qaeda operatives abroad:

On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, “There may be some possible link” to Bin Laden, adding, “I wouldn’t put it past him.” Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden’s henchmen were trained “how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together.”

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) claimed “some of this anthrax may…have come from Iraq,” suggesting that the “second phase” of the war on terror may be in Iraq.

The claims, however, were quickly rejected by experts, who “told us this was not something some guy in a cave could come up with,” the former FBI official said. “They couldn’t go from box cutters one week to weapons-grade anthrax the next.”

As press reports have indicated, while the source of the attacks is still unknown, a large body of evidence points towards Ivins’s lab in Ft. Detrick, Maryland. For the Bush administration, however, the evidence doesn’t seem to matter until after the case for war is made.

Original here

Daschle criticizes anthrax investigation, saying FBI should provide more information

WASHINGTON -- Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, whose office was a target of the anthrax attacks in 2001, said Sunday the suicide of the government's main suspect does not mean the case is over.

Daschle said the FBI has not given him any new updates. He also raised questions about the quality of the investigation, noting that the government recently paid out almost $6 million to a former Army scientist, Steven Hatfill, who accused authorities of unfairly targeting him in the anthrax case.

"From the very beginning I've had real concerns about the quality of the investigation," Daschle said in a broadcast interview. "Given the fact that they already paid somebody else $5 million for the mistakes they must have made gives you some indication of the overall caliber and quality of the investigation."

Five people died and 17 others were sickened when anthrax-laced letters began showing up at congressional offices, newsrooms and post offices soon after Sept. 11, 2001.

The case re-emerged in the news this past week as investigators prepared to charge a government scientist Bruce Ivins in the case. Ivins died Tuesday in what has been ruled a suicide.

"Unfortunately, it doesn't bring anything to closure," Daschle said. "This probably further complicates their ability to get to the facts."

He said he did not know if the investigation involving Ivins "is just another false track and a real diversion of where they need to be. We don't know and they aren't telling us."

Tom Ridge, Bush's Homeland Security secretary at the time of the anthrax attacks, said he did not know what evidence the FBI had uncovered against Ivins.

"But I know that they were relentless, relentless, both domestically and overseas, both with the notion that it could have been a part of a broader terrorist network, but it could also have been the act of a deranged individual or two," Ridge said.

Daschle appeared on "Fox News Sunday," while Ridge was on "This Week" on ABC.

Original here