21 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(05/10/10 5:43pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama nominated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court on Monday, declaring the former Harvard Law School dean “one of the nation’s foremost legal minds.” She would be the court’s youngest justice and give it three female members for the first time.The nomination to replace liberal retiring Justice John Paul Stevens set the stage for a potentially bruising confirmation battle, though mathematically Democrats should be able to prevail in the end.At 50, Kagan is relatively young for the lifetime post and could help shape the high court’s decisions for decades. If confirmed by the Senate, she would become only the fourth female justice in history.Obama cited what he called Kagan’s “openness to a broad array of viewpoints” and her “fair mindedness.”Standing beside the president in the East Room of the White House, Kagan said she was “honored and humbled by this nomination.”“I look forward to working with the Senate in the next stage of this process, and I thank you again, Mr. President, for this honor of a lifetime,” she said.Republicans are expected to criticize her for attempting to bar military recruiters from the Harvard Law campus while she was dean. That issue was used against her by critics during her confirmation hearing last year for her current post.Democratic officials said Kagan would begin making the rounds of senators’ offices on Wednesday.With control of 59 votes in the Senate, Democrats should be able to win confirmation. However, if all 41 Republicans vote together, they could delay a vote with a filibuster.Republicans have shown no signs in advance that they would try to prevent a vote on Kagan, but they are certain to grill her in confirmation hearings over her experience, her thin record of legal writings and her decisions at Harvard.The senator who will preside over her confirmation hearing, Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont, said, “The Senate should confirm Ms. Kagan before” Labor Day.“Our constituents deserve a civil and thoughtful debate on this nomination, followed by an up-or-down vote,” said the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.The Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said his party would make sure there was a “thorough process, not a rush to judgment” on the nomination.“Judges must not be a rubber stamp for any administration. Judges must not walk into court with a preconceived idea of who should win,” he said, adding that Republicans would have a vigorous debate on that principle.Obama introduced Kagan as “my friend.”“Elena is widely regarded as one of the nation’s foremost legal minds. She’s an acclaimed legal scholar with a rich understanding of constitutional law. She is a former White House aide, with a life- long commitment to public service and a firm grasp of the nexus and boundaries between our three branches of government,” Obama said.Kagan would become the only justice who had no prior experience as a judge. The other justices all served previously as federal appeals court judges. She was named to a federal appeals court by President Bill Clinton, but the Senate never brought that nomination to a vote.That means Kagan has a smaller paper trail than other recent nominees since there are no prior decisions to scrutinize.Kagan is known as sharp and politically savvy and has enjoyed a blazing legal career. She was the first female dean of Harvard Law School and the first woman to serve as the top Supreme Court lawyer for any administration.A source close to the selection process said a central element in Obama’s choice was Kagan’s reputation for bringing together people of competing views and earning their respect.Kagan has clerked for Thurgood Marshall, worked for Bill Clinton and earned a stellar reputation as a student, teacher and manager of the elite academic world. Yet she would be the first justice without judicial experience in almost 40 years. The last two were William H. Rehnquist and Lewis F. Powell Jr., both of whom joined the court in 1972.Democrats went 15 years without a Supreme Court appointment until Obama chose federal appellate judge Sonia Sotomayor last year to succeed retiring Justice David Souter. Just 16 months in office, Obama has a second opportunity with Kagan.Kagan, who is unmarried, was born in New York City. She holds a bachelor’s degree from Princeton, a master’s degree from Oxford and a law degree from Harvard.Before she served as a clerk for Justice Marshall, she clerked for federal Appeals Court Judge Abner Mikva, who later became an important political mentor to Obama in Chicago.Kagan and Obama both taught at the University of Chicago Law School in the early 1990s.In her current job, Kagan represents the U.S. government and defends acts of Congress before the Supreme Court and decides when to appeal lower court rulings.
(08/05/09 11:48pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>WAKARUSA, Ind. – President Obama said Wednesday he’s determined to get an overhaul of the health-care system before the end of the year and, if necessary, without bipartisan support.His comments reflected a growing sense among Democrats that they might have to carry the legislation to expand coverage and try to control medical costs with votes from lawmakers of their own party – or at best a handful of Republicans.Visiting economically stressed Indiana to announce $2.4 billion in taxpayer grants for electric cars and tens of thousands of jobs, Obama pledged successful conclusion of the health-care overhaul that he argues would stabilize the nation’s fiscal health.“I promise you, we will pass reform by the end of this year because the American people need it,” the president said.That will take some doing, since action on legislation in the House and Senate has been slowed by divisive policy arguments. Republican leaders oppose the Democrats’ approach, and they’re saying Congress should start over. But in an interview after his speech, Obama said he is not wedded to a bill with Republican as well as Democratic support.He said he is encouraged that a small group of three Democratic and three Republican senators on the Finance Committee continue to negotiate, but signaled impatience with protracted talks that haven’t yet produced legislation.“Sometime in September we’re going to have to make an assessment” about whether to keep trying to negotiate with Republicans, he told MSNBC.Obama said he “would prefer Republicans working with us” but that getting his main priorities for a health-care overhaul are more important. It represents a marked change from the emphasis Obama placed on bipartisanship when he launched his campaign for a health-care overhaul at a White House summit in March.The president’s shift is being echoed by Democratic senators.“The time is closing in,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va. “We cannot finish this year without passing major health-care reform. It’s our sacred duty to the American people.”Rockefeller said negotiations with Republicans have only resulted in a bill that “gets weaker, and weaker, and weaker.”“Everything is being focused on will three Republicans cooperate, or will they not?” Rockefeller said.Democrats will need 60 votes to overcome parliamentary delaying tactics and pass a bill in the Senate. While there are 60 Democratic senators, two have been absent because of illness, and not all Democrats support the legislation that has emerged thus far from committee.Democratic leaders could resort to a maneuver that lets them pass a budgetary bill with a 51-vote majority, but it comes with a risk: Large parts of the health-care legislation could be stripped away on the Senate floor if they don’t directly relate to spending or revenues. Among the provisions likely to be targeted are consumer protections such as prohibitions to keep insurance companies from discriminating against patients in poor health.Rockefeller said Democrats “coming together will be the requirement we go through to get a good bill.”Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, suggested that fellow Democrats would be taking a risk if they defy their party leadership on procedural votes that could snarl the health-care bill.“I don’t think there’s any Democrat, on a procedural vote, who wants to be on the wrong side of history,” he said. “I think, in the end, there will also be a handful of Republicans who don’t want to be on the wrong side of history.”
(07/12/09 11:49pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>ACCRA, Ghana – America’s president and Africa’s son, Barack Obama dashed with pride onto the continent of his ancestors Saturday, challenging its people to shed corruption and conflict in favor of peace. Campaigning to all of Africa, he said, “Yes you can.”“I say this knowing full well the tragic past that has sometimes haunted this part of the world,” Obama told a riveted Ghanaian Parliament. “I have the blood of Africa within me.”In the faces of those who lined the streets and in many of Obama’s own words, this trip was personal. Beyond his message, the story was his presence – the first black U.S. president coming to poor, proud, predominantly black sub-Sahara Africa for his first time in office.The emotional touchstone of his visit: a tour of Cape Coast Castle, the cannon-lined fortress where slaves were kept in squalid dungeons, then shipped in chains to America through a “Door of No Return” that opens to the sea.Obama absorbed the experience with his wife Michelle and their girls Sasha and Malia.“I’ll never forget the image of my two young daughters, the descendants of Africans and African-Americans, walking through those doors of no return but then walking back (through) those doors,” he said later at a grand departure ceremony. “It was a remarkable reminder that, while the future is unknowable, the winds always blow in the direction of human progress.” Ghanaians lined up on the tarmac lingered for a time even after Air Force One disappeared into the nighttime sky. Obama arrived back in the U.S. early Sunday.The White House said Obama held no big public events in Accra, a city frenzied to see him, because Obama wanted to put the light on Africa, not himself. But reality proved otherwise.Obama billboards dotted the roads. Women wore dresses made of cloth bearing his image. Tribal chiefs, lawmakers, church leaders, street vendors – to them, it felt like history.“All Ghanaians want to see you,” lamented Ghana’s president, John Atta Mills, before feting Obama to a breakfast banquet of hundreds of guests at the coastal presidential castle.To their disappointment, most people did not see him. The lack of open events and the heavy security kept many in this West African nation away from Obama. They watched him on TV.Overall, there was no dampening the tone of joy. Headlines screamed of Obama fever.“It makes us proud of Ghana,” said Richard Kwasi-Yeboah, a 49-year-old selling posters of the American president. “We’re proud he chose us. It proves that Ghana is really free.”At the heart of Obama’s message here: African nations crippled by coups and chaos, like Ghana has been in the past, can reshape themselves into lawful democracies. He said it takes good governance, sustained development, improved health care.And that the moment is now.“Africa doesn’t need strongmen,” Obama said. “It needs strong institutions.”The son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya, Obama bluntly told Africa to take more responsibility for itself but proclaimed: “America will be with you.”Sub-Saharan Africa is one of the poorest places in the world.– Associated Press writers Mark S. Smith and Todd Pitman contributed to this story from Accra.
(02/27/09 6:59pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. — Declaring "I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end," President Barack Obama on Friday moved to fulfill the defining promise of his campaign, saying all U.S. combat troops will be withdrawn by the end of August 2010.But in the same speech before Marines and military leadership here, he announced that the vast majority of those involved in the pullout will not leave this year. Obama also said that tens of thousands of U.S. personnel will remain behind afterward."The most important decisions that have to be made about Iraq's future must now be made by Iraqis," the president said at the sprawling Camp Lejeune, N.C., base, which is about to deploy thousands of troops to the U.S.'s other war front, in Afghanistan.Senior Obama administration officials had said earlier that of the roughly 100,000 U.S. combat troops to be pulled out of Iraq over the next 18 months, most will remain in the war zone through at least the end of this year to ensure national elections there go smoothly. The pace of withdrawal means that although Obama's promised pullout will start soon, it will be backloaded, with most troops returning in the last few months of the time frame.And even after the drawdown, a sizable U.S. force of 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops will stay in Iraq under a new mission of training, civilian protection and counterterrorism.With most Americans telling pollsters they believe the long, costly, divisive war was a mistake and more than 4,250 Americans killed there, the Aug. 31, 2010 end date for Iraq war combat operations is slower than Obama had promised voters as a candidate. The timetable he pledged then would have seen combat end in May 2010.Regardless, it is a hastened exit, something Obama called a necessity, both for the future of Iraq and to allow the U.S. to refocus its attention more firmly on Afghanistan."America can no longer afford to see Iraq in isolation from other priorities: we face the challenge of refocusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan; of relieving the burden on our military; and of rebuilding our struggling economy and these are challenges that we will meet," he said.Obama applauded the military for its role in an improved situation in Iraq, where violence is down significantly in Baghdad and most of Iraq and U.S. military deaths have plunged.He also acknowledged that many problems remain in the country and said "there will be difficult days ahead." Those include violence that will remain "a part of life," political instability and fundamental unresolved questions, a large displaced and destitute citizenry, tepid support for Iraq's fragile government in the neighborhoods and the stress of declining oil revenues.But, the president said the U.S. cannot continue to try to solve all Iraq's problems."We cannot rid Iraq of all who oppose America or sympathize with our adversaries," he said. "We cannot police Iraq's streets until they are completely safe, nor stay until Iraq's union is perfected. We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars."He emphasized that an end to the war does not mean the U.S. plans to withdraw from its interests in the region. He promised intensified diplomatic and humanitarian efforts."The end of the war in Iraq will enable a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East," Obama said.War critics were ready to hear Obama's public words, which came just three weeks shy of the war's 6-year anniversary.But the size of the force to be left behind after the combat-troop drawdown didn't please leaders of Obama's own Democratic Party, who had envisioned a fuller withdrawal. Obama personally briefed House and Senate members of both parties about his intentions behind closed doors Thursday."When they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I had anticipated," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, echoing many others.Republican Sen. John McCain, who lost the presidential election to Obama, offered his support for the president's plan while saying that the residual force would still go on combat patrols alongside Iraqis. "They'll still be in harm's way," he said in an interview. "There's no doubt about it."Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers in the White House briefing that ground commanders in Iraq believe the plan poses only a moderate risk to security, McCain said.Obama also on Friday notified two key figures of his pending announcement: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and, minutes before taking the podium, former President George W. Bush.From the Jan. 20 start of his presidency to his deadline for ending the combat mission, Obama has settled on a 19-month withdrawal. He had promised the faster pace of 16 months during his campaign but also said he would confer with military commanders on a responsible exit.Officials said Thursday that the timetable Obama ultimately selected was the recommendation of all the key principals — including Gates and Mullen. The timeline was settled on as the one that would best manage security risks without jeopardizing the gains of recent months.In any case, the last of any kind of U.S. troop must be out of Iraq no later than Dec. 31, 2011. That's the deadline set under an agreement the two countries sealed near the end of Bush's presidency. Obama has no plans to extend that date or pursue any permanent troop presence in Iraq.With 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, Obama plans to withdraw most of them; the total comes to roughly 92,000 to 107,000, based on administration projections.Administration officials spoke about Obama's Iraq decision under condition of anonymity to discuss details of the strategy ahead of the announcement.They said Obama would not set a more specific schedule, such as how many troops will exit per month because he wants to give his commanders in Iraq flexibility. "They'll either speed it up or slow it down, depending on what they need," said one official.Yet the officials made clear Obama wants to keep a strong security presence in Iraq through a series of elections in 2009, capped by national elections tentatively set for December. That important, final election date could slip into 2010, which is perhaps why Obama's timetable for withdrawing combat troops has slipped by a few months, too.The officials said that Gen. Ray Odierno, the top American commander in Baghdad, wanted flexibility around the elections. "The president found that very compelling," one said.The senior administration officials sought to describe Obama's decision-making process as one that was not driven by his political promise to end the war. They said he consulted extensively with his military team while interagency government teams reviewed the options.
(02/27/09 6:57pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. — Declaring "I have come to speak to you about how the war in Iraq will end," President Barack Obama on Friday moved to fulfill the defining promise of his campaign, saying all U.S. combat troops will be withdrawn by the end of August 2010.But in the same speech before Marines and military leadership here, he announced that the vast majority of those involved in the pullout will not leave this year. Obama also said that tens of thousands of U.S. personnel will remain behind afterward."The most important decisions that have to be made about Iraq's future must now be made by Iraqis," the president said at the sprawling Camp Lejeune, N.C., base, which is about to deploy thousands of troops to the U.S.'s other war front, in Afghanistan.Senior Obama administration officials had said earlier that of the roughly 100,000 U.S. combat troops to be pulled out of Iraq over the next 18 months, most will remain in the war zone through at least the end of this year to ensure national elections there go smoothly. The pace of withdrawal means that although Obama's promised pullout will start soon, it will be backloaded, with most troops returning in the last few months of the time frame.And even after the drawdown, a sizable U.S. force of 35,000 to 50,000 U.S. troops will stay in Iraq under a new mission of training, civilian protection and counterterrorism.With most Americans telling pollsters they believe the long, costly, divisive war was a mistake and more than 4,250 Americans killed there, the Aug. 31, 2010 end date for Iraq war combat operations is slower than Obama had promised voters as a candidate. The timetable he pledged then would have seen combat end in May 2010.Regardless, it is a hastened exit, something Obama called a necessity, both for the future of Iraq and to allow the U.S. to refocus its attention more firmly on Afghanistan."America can no longer afford to see Iraq in isolation from other priorities: we face the challenge of refocusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan; of relieving the burden on our military; and of rebuilding our struggling economy and these are challenges that we will meet," he said.Obama applauded the military for its role in an improved situation in Iraq, where violence is down significantly in Baghdad and most of Iraq and U.S. military deaths have plunged.He also acknowledged that many problems remain in the country and said "there will be difficult days ahead." Those include violence that will remain "a part of life," political instability and fundamental unresolved questions, a large displaced and destitute citizenry, tepid support for Iraq's fragile government in the neighborhoods and the stress of declining oil revenues.But, the president said the U.S. cannot continue to try to solve all Iraq's problems."We cannot rid Iraq of all who oppose America or sympathize with our adversaries," he said. "We cannot police Iraq's streets until they are completely safe, nor stay until Iraq's union is perfected. We cannot sustain indefinitely a commitment that has put a strain on our military, and will cost the American people nearly a trillion dollars."He emphasized that an end to the war does not mean the U.S. plans to withdraw from its interests in the region. He promised intensified diplomatic and humanitarian efforts."The end of the war in Iraq will enable a new era of American leadership and engagement in the Middle East," Obama said.War critics were ready to hear Obama's public words, which came just three weeks shy of the war's 6-year anniversary.But the size of the force to be left behind after the combat-troop drawdown didn't please leaders of Obama's own Democratic Party, who had envisioned a fuller withdrawal. Obama personally briefed House and Senate members of both parties about his intentions behind closed doors Thursday."When they talk about 50,000, that's a little higher number than I had anticipated," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, echoing many others.Republican Sen. John McCain, who lost the presidential election to Obama, offered his support for the president's plan while saying that the residual force would still go on combat patrols alongside Iraqis. "They'll still be in harm's way," he said in an interview. "There's no doubt about it."Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told lawmakers in the White House briefing that ground commanders in Iraq believe the plan poses only a moderate risk to security, McCain said.Obama also on Friday notified two key figures of his pending announcement: Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and, minutes before taking the podium, former President George W. Bush.From the Jan. 20 start of his presidency to his deadline for ending the combat mission, Obama has settled on a 19-month withdrawal. He had promised the faster pace of 16 months during his campaign but also said he would confer with military commanders on a responsible exit.Officials said Thursday that the timetable Obama ultimately selected was the recommendation of all the key principals — including Gates and Mullen. The timeline was settled on as the one that would best manage security risks without jeopardizing the gains of recent months.In any case, the last of any kind of U.S. troop must be out of Iraq no later than Dec. 31, 2011. That's the deadline set under an agreement the two countries sealed near the end of Bush's presidency. Obama has no plans to extend that date or pursue any permanent troop presence in Iraq.With 142,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, Obama plans to withdraw most of them; the total comes to roughly 92,000 to 107,000, based on administration projections.Administration officials spoke about Obama's Iraq decision under condition of anonymity to discuss details of the strategy ahead of the announcement.They said Obama would not set a more specific schedule, such as how many troops will exit per month because he wants to give his commanders in Iraq flexibility. "They'll either speed it up or slow it down, depending on what they need," said one official.Yet the officials made clear Obama wants to keep a strong security presence in Iraq through a series of elections in 2009, capped by national elections tentatively set for December. That important, final election date could slip into 2010, which is perhaps why Obama's timetable for withdrawing combat troops has slipped by a few months, too.The officials said that Gen. Ray Odierno, the top American commander in Baghdad, wanted flexibility around the elections. "The president found that very compelling," one said.The senior administration officials sought to describe Obama's decision-making process as one that was not driven by his political promise to end the war. They said he consulted extensively with his military team while interagency government teams reviewed the options.
(03/28/08 2:58am)
DAYTON, Ohio - President Bush on Thursday defended the slow pace of progress in Iraq, asserting “it is not foot-dragging” as Iraqi politicians try to reach agreement on political, security and economic goals.\nBush derided calls from Congress for troop withdrawals or deadlines so that the military could focus more on the anti-terror battle elsewhere. “This argument makes no sense,” he said.\nBush offered his assessment of the war in a speech before a military audience of more than 1,000 people at the National Museum of the United States Air Force in Dayton.\nWithin weeks, Bush is expected to endorse the recommendations of Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. Petraeus has proposed a pause in troop cutbacks to assess the impact of having withdrawn five combat brigades since December. He has argued that it would be reckless to shrink the American force so rapidly that the gains achieved over the past year are compromised or lost entirely.\nBush suggested that Iraqi officials were able to make more progress than the U.S. Congress.\n“They got their budget passed,” the president said. “Sometimes it takes our Congress awhile to get its budget passed.\n“Nevertheless some members of Congress decided the best way to encourage progress in Baghdad was to criticize and threaten Iraq’s leaders while they’re trying to work out their differences,” Bush said.\n“But hectoring was not what the Iraqi leaders needed,” he said. “What they needed was security. And that is what the surge has provided.”\nBush asked critics of Iraq’s political progress to consider the enormity of the task.\n“They’re trying to build a modern democracy on the rubble of three decades of tyranny, in a region of the world that has been hostile to freedom. And they’re doing it while under assault from one of history’s most brutal terrorist networks,” Bush said. “When it takes time for Iraqis to reach agreement, it is not foot-dragging, as one senator described it during Congress’ two-week Easter recess. It is a revolutionary undertaking that requires great courage.”\nBush was referring to comments made in a television interview last weekend by Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon. He told CNN on Sunday that there has been too much “foot-dragging on key governance questions in Iraq” and that putting off troop withdrawals would only exacerbate it.\nThe president pointedly took on the Democratic case for troop withdrawals.\n“No matter what shortcomings these critics diagnose, their prescription is always the same: retreat,” Bush said. “They claim that our strategic interest is elsewhere and if we would just get out of Iraq, we could focus on the battles that really matter.”\nBut, he countered, “If America’s strategic interests are not in Iraq, the convergence point for the twin threats of al-Qaida and Iran, the nation Osama bin Laden’s deputy has called the place for the greatest battle, the country at the heart of the most volatile region on earth, then where are they?”
(02/28/08 5:55am)
They have guys nicknamed Big Papi and Dice-K and Bones. They have a star pitcher who famously danced in his underwear and a left fielder who is such a sublime hitter that he gets away with being loopy.\nSo when the Boston Red Sox, World Series champions, arrived at the White House Wednesday, President George W. Bush had a blast.\n“I love the fact that you’ve got some of the game’s biggest stars,” Bush said, honoring the team on a chilly day on the South Lawn. “I mean, Big Papi. The guy lights up the screen.”\nThat would be David Ortiz, the lumbering left-handed slugger and team leader who proudly held the World Series trophy.\nThen, in a line that surprised even the players, Bush sent a zinger toward absent left fielder Manny Ramirez.\n“I guess his grandmother died again,” Bush said to prolonged laughter. “Just kidding.”\nRamirez says his various antics are just a matter of “Manny being Manny.” He also missed the Red Sox 2005 World Series ceremony at the White House because he was visiting a sick grandmother, he said.\nBush said he did not mean to poke fun at Ramirez, then did so again.\n“I do want to quote him,” Bush said. “He said, ‘When you don’t feel good, and you still get hits, that’s when you know you’re a bad man.’ I don’t know what that means. But if bad man means good hitter, he’s a really bad man, because he was clutch in the World Series.”\nWith their second World Series title in four years, the Red Sox looked comfortable as returning guests on the South Lawn. Boston had not won the title for 86 years until the 2004 squad swept the St. Louis Cardinals.\nBush noted the pitching of Japanese player Daisuke Matsuzaka, known as Dice-K. His presence drew a huge number of Japanese reporters.\n“His press corps is bigger than mine,” Bush said. “And we both have trouble answering questions in English.”\nThen there was Jonathan Papelbon, the relief pitcher who danced in the Fenway Park infield in his underwear when the Red Sox won the pennant.\n“Thanks for wearing pants,” Bush told him.\nMore than a thousand people came out to see the champs, from the White House chief of staff to the policy wonks to the press aides.\nThese Red Sox were on the brink of getting bounced from the playoffs one round before the World Series before rallying against the Cleveland Indians. Then they swept the Colorado Rockies in four games.
(01/24/08 5:00am)
Return of the living meat:\n"Aqua Teen Hunger Force" has made its triumphant debut this season, promising more glee for high-as-hell surrealists and total bewilderment for everyone else. Music snobs take note: Neko Case and Josh Homme of Queens of the Stone Age make cameo appearances.
(10/26/07 2:34am)
President Bush flew to fire-ravaged California Thursday with promises of federal help, supportive words for those who’ve lost homes \nand businesses.\n“It’s a sad situation out there in Southern California,” Bush said on the rainy South Lawn of the White House early Thursday as he was leaving for bone-dry California and a visit to the blaze-stricken region. “I fully understand that the people have got a lot of anguish in their hearts, and they just need to know a lot of folks care about them.”\nBush, who was getting an aerial tour of the devastation wrought by blazes fanned by Santa Ana winds, took several California lawmakers with him on Air Force One. He was greeted on the tarmac at Marine Corps Air Station-Miramar by his tour guide for the day, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the smell of smoke.\nThe president also was getting a look at the situation on the ground. But first came the helicopter tour inspection of the wildfire damage and a visit to a San Diego neighborhood. He then traveled north to Escondido to assess that area’s damage, talk about recovery efforts and have lunch with emergency responders.\n“We have some incredibly brave citizens who are risking their lives to protect people and property in California and we owe a great debt of gratitude to our nation’s firefighters,” Bush said.\nFran Townsend, his White House-based homeland security adviser, said the most important aspect of the president’s trip was providing comfort to the victims of the fires.\n“People are going through a very difficult time,” she told reporters traveling with Bush. “This is chaotic. It’s anxiety producing. And just having him there – where he walks the neighborhoods that have been devastated and listens to the people who have been affected – is very important.”\nBush declared the fires a major disaster on Wednesday, setting in motion long-term federal recovery programs, some requiring matching funds from the state, to help state and local governments, families, individuals and certain nonprofit organizations recover. The assistance varies from direct aid for uninsured losses to help with rebuilding infrastructure.\nFor example, the Agriculture Department on Thursday approved a monthlong emergency food stamp program in San Diego County to help feed people whose homes were damaged or destroyed or who lost income because of\n the fires.\n“There will be help for the people of California,” Bush said.\nThe fires have destroyed about 2,200 structures since Sunday and led to the largest evacuation in California history. The flames have burned at least 431,000 acres across five counties, from Ventura in the north all the way into Mexico. Property damage has reached at least $1 billion in San Diego County alone.
(10/16/07 2:07am)
President Bush never picked a spending fight when his party ran Congress, but with Democrats now in charge of the budget, he’s dug in for a challenge.\nIn a stop in Arkansas, Bush on Monday planned to again chide congressional leaders for failing to send him any of the 12 spending bills that keep the government running. The budget year began Oct. 1, and federal agencies are operating on a stopgap bill for now.\nFor a president short on domestic victories, the White House sees fiscal discipline as a winning argument for Bush: a chance to label the opposition in tax-and-spend terms.\nAmong fiscal conservatives, Bush’s timing seems a bit late.\nBush never vetoed an appropriations bill when Republicans controlled Congress. He is prepared to use his veto now to reject Democratic spending bills, and with confidence; conservative House Republicans appear to have the votes to sustain his promised vetoes.\nIn northwest Arkansas, Bush toured the manufacturing plant of Stribling Packaging and Display, where cardboard boxes were rolling off the assembly lines. Bush said he wanted to remind people that the economy depends on such businesses to provide job opportunities.\n“That’s what we want,” he said. “We want people working in America.”\nHe later stopped by the Whole Hog Cafe for lunch with business leaders. Bush loaded up a plate of barbecue and prodded photographers to hurry with their pictures so he could eat.\nIn the budget stalemate, Democrats are pressing to spend about $22 billion more on domestic programs than Bush wants. Education, health research and low-income housing grants are among the issues on which Bush and Democratic leaders disagree.\nGiven the budget’s scope, a difference in the range of $20 billion is “trivial in economic terms,” said Sidney Weintraub, an expert on trade and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.\n“But they think it might have a payoff in political terms,” Weintraub said of Bush and fellow Republicans. “I think the Democrats will play this as ‘We’re more responsible on budget issues than Republicans are,’ and this is their way of saying it isn’t so.”\nBush has already vetoed legislation that would have raised spending on a popular children’s health insurance program $35 billion over five years. Bush has called for a $5 billion increase and planned to defend his position again in his remarks in Rogers, Ark.\nBush has offered to accept a bigger spending increase on the program to get a deal done with Democrats. But he and his aides won’t say how high he’s willing to go.\n“We’re not going to negotiate through the media on this,” deputy press secretary Tony Fratto told reporters on Air Force One on Monday. “The goal has to be to get the policy right – what are the principles behind the policy – and then see what the numbers are.”\nThe House will vote to override his veto Thursday, but it is expected to fall short.
(09/26/07 2:27am)
President Bush announced new sanctions Tuesday against the military dictatorship in Myanmar, accusing it of imposing “a 19-year reign of fear” that denies basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.\n“Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma,” the president said in an address to the U.N. General Assembly. The military junta renamed the Asian country Myanmar, but the United States does not recognize the change.\nIranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a bitter foe of the United States, sat in the chamber and checked his watch during Bush’s remarks. First lady Laura Bush, also present for the president’s speech, walked right by the seated Iranian president. The two had no contact.\nBush urged other nations to support countries that are struggling \nfor democracy.\n“Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to stand up for the people suffering under dictatorship,” the president said. “In Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration (of Human Rights).”\n“The nations in this chamber have our differences, yet there are some areas where we can all agree,” Bush said. “When innocent people are trapped in a life of murder and fear, the declaration is not being upheld. When millions of children starve to death or perish from a mosquito bite, we’re not doing our duty in the world. When whole societies are cut off from the prosperity of the global economy, we’re all worse off.”\n“Changing these underlying conditions is what the declaration calls the work of larger freedom and it must be the work of every nation in this assembly,” he said. “This great institution must work for great purposes: to free people from tyranny and violence, hunger and diseases, illiteracy and ignorance and poverty and despair.”\nBush looked ahead to a Cuba no longer ruled by Fidel Castro, the ailing 81-year-old leader of the communist-run government.\n“In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end,” Bush said. “The Cuban people are ready for their freedom. And as that nation enters a period of transition, the United Nations must insist on free speech, free assembly and, ultimately, free and competitive elections.”\nCuba’s foreign minister walked out of the gathering in protest of Bush’s speech. The Cuban delegation later said the move was a “sign of profound rejection of the arrogant and mediocre statement” by Bush.\nBush urged the U.N. to reform its Human Rights Council, created to replace the discredited Human Rights Commission. But Bush criticized the new body for ignoring abuses in places like Iran “while focusing its criticism excessively on Israel.”\nBut the president’s call for change came with the suggestion of a deal: the United States’ support for the highly contentious issue of expanding the Security Council, the U.N.’s most powerful body. Bush suggested that Japan is “well-qualified” to be an additional member and said “other nations should be considered as well.”\nThe council has 10 rotating members elected for two-year terms and five permanent members with veto power — the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France.
(04/30/07 4:00am)
WASHINGTON – President Bush will not support a war spending bill that punishes the Iraqi government for failing to meet benchmarks for progress, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday.\nRice’s comments cast fresh doubt on a potential compromise between the Democratic-led Congress and the White House in getting money to U.S. troops.\nAlso, with a regional conference on Iraq set to begin Thursday in Egypt, Rice raised the possibility of a rare direct encounter between high-level U.S. and Iranian officials. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki is expected to lead his country’s delegation.\n“I will not rule out that we may encounter one another,” Rice said. “But what do we need to do? It’s quite obvious. Stop the flow of arms to foreign fighters. Stop the flow of foreign fighters across the borders.”\nIran agreed Sunday to join the U.S. and other countries at the conference on Iraq this week, raising hopes the government in Tehran would help stabilize its violent neighbor and stem the flow of guns and bombs over the border.\nIn an apparent effort to drive home that point, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told an Iranian envoy that the persistent violence in Iraq – some of it carried out by the Shiite militias Iran is accused of arming – could spill over into neighboring countries, including those that are “supposed to support the Iraqi government.”\nIraq’s other neighbors as well as Egypt, Bahrain and representatives of the five permanent U.N. Security Council members have agreed to attend the meeting Thursday and Friday in the Egyptian resort of Sharm El-Sheik.\nIn Washington this week, Bush plans to veto a $124.2 billion war spending bill that includes a timeline for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. In a second version, Democratic leaders may scrap the timetable but work with Republican lawmakers on benchmarks: ordering the Iraqi government to fulfill promises on allocating oil resources, amending its constitution and expanding democratic participation.\nRice said the president would not agree to a plan that penalizes Baghdad if the Iraqi government fall shorts. To do so, she said, would restrain the abilities of Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, the new U.S. ambassador to Iraq.\n“That’s the problem with having so-called consequences,” Rice said.\n“To begin now to tie our own hands – and to say ‘We must do this if they don’t do that’ – doesn’t allow us the flexibility and creativity that we need to move this forward,” she said.\nBenchmarks have emerged as a possible rallying point as U.S. leaders seek to show they are holding the Iraq government accountable. But establishing goals without consequences may seem pointless to many Democratic lawmakers, who want an aggressive change in policy.\n“The benchmarks – the Iraqis agreed to it, the president agreed it,” said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who heads a House subcommittee that controls defense spending. “We’re saying to them, well, let’s put some teeth into the benchmarks.”\nIn their push to link U.S. money or troop support to Iraqi performance, however, Democrats must negotiate with Republicans. On their own, Democratic lawmakers do not have the votes to override Bush’s veto.\nRice said it makes sense to give Iraq’s leaders time to meet the goals they have set. She said Bush has made clear to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki that people in the United States have limited patience.\nBush is expected the veto the existing war bill by Tuesday, then meet Wednesday with congressional leaders on the next steps.\nMeanwhile, Rice said will not appear in person before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to answer questions about the Bush administration’s prewar intelligence. Rice said she already has addressed claims that Iraq had sought uranium from the African nation of Niger.\nThe committee voted 21-10 last week to issue a subpoena to compel her testimony.\nAsked about the possibility of being held in contempt by the committee chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., Rice said, “That’s the chairman’s prerogative. I respect the oversight – the oversight responsibilities of Congress _ but I frankly think this one has been looked at and looked at and looked at.”\nRice and Murtha appeared on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Rice was also on “This Week” on ABC.
(04/19/07 4:00am)
WASHINGTON – President Bush and Democratic leaders of Congress failed Wednesday to reconcile key differences over a disputed war-funding bill. Both sides held their ground, with Bush ready to veto any measure that calls for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq.\nThe president met with a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the Cabinet Room for about an hour. Democrats said afterward they would send the president legislation soon and held hopes that Bush would sign it. But the White House said that would not happen.\n“It appears that they are determined to send a bill to the president that he won’t accept,” said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. “They fundamentally disagree.”\nSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., tried to pressure Bush to sign the legislation. “We believe he must search his soul, his conscience and find out what is the right thing for the American people,” Reid said, standing outside the White House. “I believe signing this bill will do that.”\n“It gives the troops more than he’s asked for and leaves the troops there for considerable periods of time with some goals and benchmarks that have been called for by the American people, the Iraq Study Group and many, many military,” Reid said.\nRepublicans followed Democrats to the microphones to say there was no hope Bush would sign a bill resembling the Democrats’ legislation.\nRepublicans began calling any troop withdrawal timeline a “surrender date.”\nHouse Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, asked if anything had changed as a result of the meeting, replied: “No.”\n“Except that people were polite, people were open, they were honest,” Boehner said. “And there’s a willingness to try to get through this first phase.” He was referring to Democrats’ sending Bush a bill that he will veto.
(04/10/07 4:00am)
YUMA, Ariz. – President Bush said Monday the United States has toughened security along its border with Mexico and it’s time for Congress to approve legislation overhauling the nation’s immigration laws.\nAt a Border Patrol station in this southwest desert city, the president campaigned for a law to help people get temporary work in the United States or clear up their illegal status with a path to citizenship.\nBush hoped to send a message – particularly to conservative critics from his own party – that the stepped-up border enforcement is working. His get-tough message was meant to prod Congress into passing a guest worker program for immigrants, a signature domestic policy goal.\nBush was joined by Sen. Jon Kyl, the Arizona Republican, whose support is seen as critical to any deal in the Congress.\nAnother lawmaker vital to Bush’s effort, Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, said Monday: “President Bush did the right thing today by speaking out.”\n“Only a bipartisan bill will become law,” Kennedy added. “There is a lot of common ground, especially in the need to strengthen our borders and enforce our laws, though important differences remain to be resolved.”\nThe Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, has scheduled time for immigration debate in May.\nBoth Bush and the Democratic-run Congress are eager to show some accomplishment on a core issue like immigration. Yet it’s a sticky subject, and the fault lines don’t necessarily fall along party lines. For Bush, opportunities to see through his domestic agenda are shrinking.\nAdministration officials led by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez have been meeting privately for weeks with Republican senators. That expanded to a meeting in late March with key senators from both parties.\nOut of that session, a work-in-progress plan emerged – one described as a draft White House plan by officials in both parties and advocacy groups who got copies of the detailed blueprint.
(03/20/07 4:00am)
WASHINGTON – With Democrats pushing for an end to the Iraq war now entering its fifth year, President Bush pleaded for more patience Monday, saying success is possible but “will take months, not days or weeks.”\nThe war has stretched longer, with higher costs, than the White House ever predicted. On the fourth anniversary of the day Bush directed the invasion to begin, the president made a televised statement to defend continued U.S. involvement.\nHe said his plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops to secure Baghdad and Iraq’s troubled Anbar province “will need more time to take effect,” especially since fewer than half of the troop reinforcements have yet arrived in the capital. Bush added: “There will be good days and bad days ahead as the security plan unfolds.”\nDemocrats are bringing up this week in the House a war spending bill that would effectively require the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the fall of 2008, on top of providing funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the year. The White House has been pushing aggressively against this legislation, and Bush did so again on Monday.\n“It can be tempting to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude our best option is to pack up and go home,” Bush said. “That may be satisfying in the short run. But I believe the consequences for America’s security would be devastating.”\nDemocrats swiftly sought to refute Bush’s assertion that the legislation would reduce flexibility needed by the military to win the war.\n“There is nothing in this legislation that will be considered this week that micromanages the war,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md. No military general “will in any way be constrained from the tactics or the strategies that they deem best to employ on the ground in Iraq.”\nHouse Minority Leader John Boehner reiterated that Republicans would vote against the bill. Without GOP support, Democrats have been struggling to make sure they have enough votes within their own party.\n“Our troops have not quit on us, and Republicans will not quit on them,” said Boehner, R-Ohio, who has predicted “99 percent” of GOP lawmakers will vote against the Democratic proposal.\nBush said he had received news of positive signs during a morning briefing on the war with his National Security Council, and during a closed-circuit television conference call with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki from Baghdad.\nBush ridiculed House Democrats’ legislation to remove troops, a measure he has promised to veto because it contains a timeline. He called it an abdication of U.S. commitments to Iraqis.
(11/14/06 3:37am)
WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Monday praised a bipartisan commission on Iraq for asking him good questions but said he is "not going to prejudge" the report the panel soon will issue. He pledged to search with victorious Democrats in Congress for a consensus on how best to proceed.\nBush said the goal in Iraq remains "a government that can sustain, govern and defend itself and serve as an ally in this war on terror." He also said he was "not sure what the report is going to say" but he looked forward to seeing it.\nBush talked in the Oval Office with members of the Iraq Study Group, headed by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton.\n"I was impressed by the questions they asked. They want us to succeed in Iraq, just like I want us to succeed. So we had a really good discussion," Bush told reporters as he posed for pictures with visiting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in the Oval Office.\nSpeaking about congressional Democrats who will soon govern Congress, Bush said, "What's interesting is they're beginning to understand that with victory comes responsibility and I'm looking forward to working with the Democrats to achieve common objectives."\nIt was revealed that in addition to the work of the Baker commission, Gen. Pete Pace, chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, is leading a Pentagon inquiry into the situation in Iraq.\nBush's spokesman described the meeting as a "general conversation about the situation there," rather than a preview of what the group will recommend.\n"This was not proposal-shopping by the Iraq Study Group," White House press secretary Tony Snow told reporters.\nThe members asked questions of Bush, and he of them, Snow said, "but there was care taken not to sort of try to prejudge, or also to get a jump on what they are going to do."\nOn Monday, Sen. Carl Levin, the Democrat in line to become chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, accused the administration of ignoring the reality that "we're getting deeper and deeper into a hole" in Iraq.\nLevin, of Michigan, said the study group's report "is going to have an impact on whatever action might be possible in this Congress and in the next Congress."\nThe study group was spending the day at the White House speaking with members of Bush's national security team, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, CIA Director Michael Hayden, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalizad and Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.\nCheney, Hadley and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten took part in the meeting with Bush, which ran more than an hour.\nEven before it was finished, the study group's report was seen by many as having huge stakes. It could give the Democratic and Republican parties a chance at consensus -- or at least a tenable framework for agreement -- after an election that gave Democrats congressional control and reshaped Bush's final two years in office.\nMeanwhile, Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, met Monday with the Iraqi prime minister to "reaffirm President Bush's commitment" to success in Iraq, the government said.\nBaker has indicated the recommendations, to be issued before the end of the year, will fall somewhere between the troop withdrawal strategy that Republicans like to say Democrats favor and the stay the course policy until recently used by Bush and widely ridiculed by Democrats.\nOn Sunday, Bush's advisers adopted a new tone, days after a dissatisfied public handed the White House a divided government.\n"We clearly need a fresh approach," said Bolten, making the rounds of morning talk shows.\nLevin and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the incoming chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, predicted that many Republicans would support a resolution on a phased troop reduction now that the election is over.\nYet the Senate's top Democrat, Harry Reid of Nevada, did not seem to go as far. He said he thought the withdrawal of U.S. troops should begin within a few months, but when asked if he would insist on a specific date, he said, "Absolutely not."\nThe administration will not support a timetable for drawing down troops, Bolten said.
(02/21/06 5:39am)
MILWAUKEE -- Seeking to fuel his own agenda, President Bush encouraged Americans to change their energy consumption habits and help move the nation away from its reliance on oil.\n"I think we're in an important moment in history," Bush said during his first stop of a Presidents' Day tour of the Midwest. "We have a chance to transform the way we power our economy and the way we lead our lives."\nBush spoke Monday at the buildings division of Johnson Controls Inc., which sells products designed to make its customers' properties more energy efficient.\nThe president and members of his Cabinet are crisscrossing the country this week to tout the energy ideas he presented in his State of the Union address. The focus on energy is part of an ongoing effort since the speech to highlight a different topic each week.\nBush's broad goal is to steer the nation toward energy independence and away from what he calls an addiction to oil.\nBush has placed energy improvement alongside education and health care as essential parts of making the United States more competitive with its global peers.\nEnergy is also a political issue in this midterm election year, one that hits home for people dealing with expensive winter heating and gasoline costs.\nDemocrats have derided Bush's proposals as recycled ideas that offer no short-term relief.\nIn Wisconsin, Bush put technological advancement in everyday terms -- cell phone batteries that last longer and lighter automotive parts that allow cars to go farther on a gallon of gas.\nEarlier Monday, in Glendale, Wis., Bush toured a technology center of Johnson Controls, which is also a prominent maker of automotive batteries. The company recently launched a new lab to study power-storage for hybrid-electric vehicles, an idea Bush embraces.\nAt the site, Bush peered into the back end of two Ford Escapes, one equipped with a nickel-metal hydride battery, the other with a newer Lithium-ion battery that was about half the size.\nBush says that advances in solar, wind and nuclear energy could change the way Americans power their homes and offices and that boosting alternative fuels could revamp transportation.\n"By changing our driving habits," Bush said, "we change our dependency on foreign sources of oil."\nIncreasing the use of nuclear power is another piece of Bush's energy package. The United States abandoned nuclear fuel reprocessing in the 1970s because of nuclear proliferation concerns, but Bush favors a new approach that advocates say poses much less risk.\n"I think we ought to start building nuclear power plants again," Bush said Monday. "I think it makes sense to do so."\nLater in the day, Bush was to tour a solar energy plan in Auburn Hills, Mich., underscoring his push for investment in clean electric power sources. He was then heading to Colorado, where he planned to speak at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory on Tuesday.
(02/01/05 4:31am)
WASHINGTON -- Margaret Spellings said Monday her role as a parent of school-age children will help guide her views in her new job as secretary of education.\n"In carrying out my duties to the American people, I will be carrying out my duties as a mom," Spellings said in her first public comments as secretary. "And there is none more important than to provide a quality education to our children."\nWith President Bush at her side and much of her family in attendance, Spellings was sworn in by White House chief of staff Andy Card as the eighth education secretary. The moment was ceremonial, as Spellings had already taken the oath of office from Card on Inauguration Day.\nSpellings reaffirmed she plans to "stay the course" with No Child Left Behind, the aggressive education law she helped craft as Bush's domestic policy adviser. The law demands yearly progress among all groups of students and penalizes many schools that fall short.\nSpellings, 47, has two school-aged daughters and two older stepsons. She has become a confidante to Bush over the last decade, both in his jobs as Texas governor and as president.\n"For more than 10 years she's been right down the hall or by my side, and now I look forward to having her take her seat in the Cabinet Room," Bush told an audience of about 250 people at the Department of Education. It was his first stop at the agency in four years.\nSpellings has pledged to Senate leaders that she will address the "horror stories" that some schools say they've faced in enforcing the federal education law. On Monday, she focused on sticking with the law and expanding its reach in high schools. \n"When you signed No Child Left Behind into law three years ago, it was more than an act -- it was an attitude," Spellings told Bush. "An attitude that says it's right to measure our children's progress from year to year so we can help them before it's too late. An attitude that says asking children to read and do math at grade level or better is not too much to ask."\nBush wants Congress to add two more years of state testing in the high school grades.\n"Today only about 68 out of every 100 students entering our public high schools ever make it to graduation four years later," Bush said. "Margaret understands, as do I, that is unacceptable."\nSpellings replaced former IU alumnus Rod Paige, starting just as questions mount about whether the department has inappropriately spent public money to promote Bush's agenda.\n"I pledge to run an open, honest and accessible department -- one that operates with integrity at all levels," she said.
(01/14/05 2:35pm)
WASHINGTON -- Leaders of a Senate committee have asked the Education Department to turn over records of recent years' public relations contracts, while reminding the education secretary of a federal ban on "propaganda."\nThe request came after revelations that the Bush administration had paid a prominent black media commentator, Armstrong Williams, to promote the new education law that had been strongly supported by President Bush.\nSeparately, a Democratic member of the Federal Communications Commission called Thursday for his agency to investigate whether Williams broke the law by failing to disclose that the Bush administration paid him $240,000 to plug its education policies.\nWilliams, who has apologized for a mistake in judgment, said he had broken no law.\nIn the same contract as the Armstrong arrangement, the Education Department paid the public relations firm Ketchum for a video that promoted the law and appeared as a news story without making clear the reporter was hired as part of the deal.\nThe agency has also paid for ratings of news reporters, with points given for flattering coverage.\n"Given our jurisdiction over the funds involved, we would appreciate your careful review of the contract with Ketchum and the payment made to Mr. Williams," said Sens. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, in a letter to Education Secretary Rod Paige.\nThe letter, dated Wednesday, was obtained by The Associated Press Thursday.\nThe lawmakers are the chairman and ranking member of the Senate panel that oversees education spending.\nThey also asked Paige for a list of any grant, contract or arrangement of public money being used "for public relations or anything similar to the purpose of the Ketchum contract" from the 2002, 2003 and 2004 budget years.\nMeanwhile, at an FCC meeting Thursday, Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein said the agency had received about a dozen complaints concerning the Williams arrangement.\n"I certainly hope the FCC will take action and fully investigate whether any laws have been broken," Adelstein said.\nThrough the Ketchum contract, the department paid the $240,000 to Williams' company, the Graham Williams Group, which was to produce radio and TV ads that featured Paige.\nThe deal allowed Paige and other department officials to appear as studio guests with Williams. And Williams, one of the nation's leading black conservative voices, was to use his influence with other black journalists to persuade them to talk about the law, known as No Child Left Behind.\nThe department has defended its decision as a "permissible use of taxpayer funds under legal government contracting procedures." Williams, though, has apologized, saying that accepting money and then publicly supporting the law was "an obvious conflict of interests."\nWilliams, responding to the request for an FCC investigation, said that neither he nor any of the stations that carried his syndicated program violated the law because ads that aired during the show specifically stated they were paid for by the Education Department.
(10/08/04 6:22am)
WASHINGTON -- Federal law enforcement authorities notified school districts in six states last month that a computer disc found in Iraq contained photos, floor plans and other information about their schools, two U.S. officials said Thursday.\nThe downloaded data found by the U.S. military in July -- all publicly available on the Internet -- included an Education Department report guiding schools on how to prepare and respond to a crisis, said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.\nThe officials said it was unclear who downloaded the information and stressed there is no evidence of any specific threats involving the schools.\nThe districts mentioned are in Georgia, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon and California. The officials said last month FBI agents in charge of those areas alerted local education and law enforcement officials about the finding.\nThe officials did not provide the names of the districts. But Salem, Ore., Superintendent Kay Baker confirmed her district was among them.\n"Local law enforcement has no knowledge of a specific threat to any of our school buildings," she said. "We will work collaboratively with law enforcement on any further developments."\nSan Diego schools also were included, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune, and ABC News said there was a second California district. The Salem Statesman-Journal reported the other districts were Fort Myers, Fla.; Jones County, Ga.; Birch Run, Mich.; and Franklinville and Rumson, both in New Jersey.\nThe disc contained an Education Department report called "Practical Information on Crisis Planning: A Guide for Schools and Communities," published in May 2003, as well as photos and floor plans.\nIn a separate but more widespread warning put out this week, the Education Department advised school leaders nationwide to watch for people spying on their buildings or buses to help detect any possibility of terrorism like the deadly school siege last month in Russia.\nThe warning follows an analysis by the FBI and the Homeland Security Department of the siege that killed nearly 340 people, many of them students, in the city of Beslan.\n"The horror of this attack may have created significant anxiety in our own country among parents, students, faculty staff and other community members," Deputy Education Secretary Eugene Hickok said in a letter sent Wednesday to schools and education groups.\nThe Education Department's advice is based on lessons learned from the Russia siege. But there is no specific information indicating a terrorist threat to any schools or universities in the United States, Hickok said.\nFederal law enforcement officials also have urged local police to stay in contact with school officials and have encouraged reporting of suspicious activities, the letter says.\nIn particular, schools were told to watch for activities that may be legitimate on their own -- but might suggest a threat if many of them occur.\nAmong those activities:\n-- Interest in obtaining site plans for schools, bus routes and attendance lists.\n-- Prolonged "static surveillance" by people disguised as panhandlers, shoe shiners, newspaper or flower vendors or street sweepers not previously seen in the area.\n-- Observations of security drills.\n-- People staring at or quickly looking away from employees or vehicles as they enter or leave parking areas.\n-- Foot surveillance of campuses involving individuals working together.\nThe effort is the latest by the Education Department and other federal agencies to encourage school officials to maintain and practice a plan for responding to emergencies.\n"It's a positive sign that they're finally discussing this after years of downplaying or denying even the possibility of a terrorist strike on schools," said Kenneth Trump, a Cleveland-based school safety consultant who has worked with officials in more than 40 states. "Public officials are in fear of creating fear, but we have to put the cards on the table, educate people in the school community and make sure they are well prepared."\nAfter the terrorist takeover of the Russian school, President Bush asked his top advisers to review their strategies for dealing with hostage situations, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has said.\nThe federal government is advising schools to take many steps to improve the security of their buildings. Those include installing locks for all doors and windows, having a single entry point into buildings and ensuring they can reach school bus drivers in an emergency.\nThe Education Department sent its letter by e-mail Wednesday to school police, state school officers, school boards, groups representing principals and many other organizations.\nThe Homeland Security Department also sent a bulletin to federal, state and local emergency officials to provide fresh guidance based on the review of the school siege in Russia.\nAssociated Press writers Curt Anderson and Elizabeth Wolfe contributed to this report.