Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
What happened to all of the thread's hardcore conservatives,
and other "Sheep-O-Phobes"??... 8`}
Schumer Letter to White House on Supreme Court Nominees
By Charles E. Schumer
CNSNews.com Information Services
June 18, 2003
(Editor's Note: The following is a letter from Charles E. Schumer regarding the Supreme Court vacancy.)
The Honorable George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
The Constitution dictates that federal judges be nominated by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. I write to begin the process of fulfilling that Constitutional mandate.
In recent history, Presidents have announced their intention to nominate candidates to fill Supreme Court vacancies shortly after the positions have become available. The short time between the creation of a Supreme Court vacancy and the announcement of a potential replacement leaves little time for Senators to fulfill their constitutional duties to advise the President on whom to nominate.
Recent press reports have indicated that the White House is actively vetting potential nominees in preparation for Chief Justice Rehnquist's or any other Supreme Court justice's retirement. Because it appears you are actively engaged in this process and because I hold so important my constitutional obligation to advise you on these matters, I write to offer my input at this stage.
I start by encouraging you to use the same principles that guide me in evaluating judicial nominees. I consider three criteria: excellence, diversity, and moderation. I am confident that excellence will be a primary consideration for you because I know we agree that judges should be among the best lawyers the bar has to offer. I also know that you will consider the importance of diversity, as you have especially in working with me to put judges on the bench in New York.
When it comes to moderation, I am disappointed that we diverge with increasing frequency. I do not want judges who are too far Left or too far Right, because I believe judges who come to the bench with extreme ideologies are likely to make law, not interpret it. You, more than any other President in history, have chosen judges through an ideological prism. The White House's reliance on ideology when it has come to selecting lower court nominees has led to conflict that has frustrated both of us. If you were to select a mainstream nominee, you would do the process, the Judiciary, and the nation a real service.
I would add a fourth consideration: the willingness to answer questions forthrightly. For the Senate to perform its constitutional role properly, we must have answers to appropriate questions. Several of your nominees have refused to answer questions that legal ethicists have said are clearly appropriate. The same questions were asked by Republican Senators and answered by Democratic nominees when President Clinton was in office, and the same questions have been answered by several of your own nominees. Clearly, there is nothing inappropriate about a nominee discussing his or her views on already decided Supreme Court cases, on the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to privacy, the Commerce Clause, the Spending Clause, or any of the other pressing constitutional issues of the day.
As you know, I have voted for well over 90% of the judges you have nominated, most of them Republicans, most of them conservatives (but mainstream conservatives), and many if not most of them pro-life. I have no litmus test when it comes to what a nominee believes, but if a nominee refuses to answer my fair and reasonable questions and I am unpersuaded [sic] that the nominee will preserve balance on the court to which he or she is nominated, I am compelled to vote no.
Having outlined the criteria I would hope you would consider, I want to offer the names of five potential Supreme Court nominees for your consideration. There is a rich tradition of Senators offering specific advice to Presidents on Supreme Court nominations. Most recently, when President Clinton was considering judicial nominees, he received advice from Senator Hatch.
According to Senator Hatch in his book, Square Peg, he advised President Clinton to consider nominating both Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer to the Supreme Court. He believed that both would win easy Senate confirmation and, while left of center, were "highly honest and capable jurists," and "far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democratic administration." My advice is offered in the same manner and with the goal of helping you identify a nominee who could win 100 Senators' votes, not just 51.
While there are scores of Democrats whom I would hope you would consider, I am offering only individuals who either are Republicans or have previously been nominated by Republican Presidents. The candidates I would advise you to consider are:
The Honorable Arlen Specter, Republican Senator from Pennsylvania.
The Honorable Ann Williams, Judge, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, nominated by President Ronald Reagan to the Northern District of Illinois.
The Honorable Edward Prado. Judge, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, nominated by you and unanimously confirmed by the 108th Senate.
The Honorable Michael Mukasey, Judge, Southern District of New York, nominated by President Ronald Reagan.
The Honorable Stanley Marcus, Judge, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, nominated by President Ronald Reagan.
All of these individuals appear to be legally excellent, ideologically moderate, and several of them would add diversity to the Court. All of them have a history of bipartisan support, are within the mainstream, and have demonstrated a commitment to the rule of law. While I would need to do additional research on them and question them personally before announcing my unqualified support, my initial review of their records is promising.
This is far from an exhaustive list and I appreciate that you may have other individuals in mind should a vacancy arise. I would welcome the opportunity to evaluate any candidates you are considering and provide input before any nomination is made, consistent with the Constitution's mandate that the Senate advise the President on judicial nominations.
My profound hope is that, should there be a Supreme Court vacancy this summer, you will nominate a candidate who will unite us, not divide us. I am confident that by working together we can achieve that goal. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator
All original CNSNews.com material, copyright 1998-2003 Cybercast News Service.
Why has it become a political scandal? The reality is that literally thousands of peoples lives have been deeply harmed or ruined by such abuse. Have those victims been forgotten in favor of "scandal" and the big brewhaha?...
It's not a "scandal" at all. It's a simple issue of "right & wrong". The ULTIMATE "wrong" are wrongs against children. No debate necessary - it's wrong!!
If someone deliberately harmed my child (god forbid!!), I wouldn't care who they were or to what organization they were affiliated. And words could not articulate how I'd want to harm that person...
It's not an issue of "scandal" or institutional protocol. It is an issue of "right & wrong". And anyone who so harms a child MUST be subjected to our justice system, and to the highest punishment. Society can not allow "hiding" or "sanctuary", especially to those who injure children. If a society can not protect it's children, what is that society worth??..
And where is the morality in this whole thing??...
Keating to quit board on sex abuse
Stands by comparison of some clergy to Mafia
By Michael Paulson, Globe Staff, 6/16/2003
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/167/metro/Keating_to_quit_board_on_sex_abuse+.shtml
Poll suggests world hostile to US
People around the world take a dim view of the US, poll suggests
Nearly two-thirds of respondents to an international poll for the BBC say they have an unfavourable opinion of George W Bush.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2994924.stm
Apparently the BBC aired a special last nite titled "What the World Thinks of America", and it was very negative. As you can imagine, Fox is busy spinning BBC as biased today. But we all know, Fox News, "Real Journalism, Fair & Balanced" wrote the book on biased...
What scares me tho is the military or foreign policy pundits on US cable programs chattering about the angst in other parts of the world, and discussing the possibility of our using military force in those parts. What gives 'We the People...' the right to meddle in other parts of the world?.. I suppose international law, and the UN specify when such force is appropriate, but everyone knows how the Bush Boys deal with the UN and international law....
It is no wonder so many feel threatened... I feel threatened...
A superpower acting outside of the international community, and disregarding the community is a very scary thing!...
Mr Bush was "impatient" with UN weapons inspectors as well,
refusing to allow them more time to complete their inspection...
What a coincidence!!
Gay is the new black
The gay rights issue has been a ticking timebomb for the Bush government. And now it looks about to explode
Gary Younge
Monday June 16, 2003
The Guardian
"The difference between being black and being gay," said one gay activist, "is that you don't have to come down at breakfast one morning and break it to your parents: 'Mum, Dad, I'm black.'" In American politics at present it also means that if you're black, you are less likely to be the subject of overt abuse from Republicans. And if you are, then you can at least usually expect them to be punished for it.
The same can not be said for lesbians and gay men. Six months after senator Trent Lott was forced to resign after suggesting that America would have been a better place if a segregationist had won the presidency in the 40s, his colleagues appear free to spout homophobia at will and whim.
Most recent was the decision by the US justice department - where attorney general John Ashcroft holds prayer meetings every morning - to ban its employees from holding a lesbian and gay pride event (this is gay pride month). Such was the furore that by the end of last week the decision had been partly reversed - the event can go ahead but this time without government funding. More shocking was Pennsylvania senator, Rick Santorum - number three in the nation's upper chamber - who in April ranked homosexuality alongside polygamy, incest, adultery and bestiality.
After some initial dithering, to gauge the public mood, Lott was dumped. After similar prevarication, Santorum was defended. "[He] took a very courageous and moral position based upon principles and his world view," said Tom DeLay, the house majority leader.
Republican strategist, Rich Galen, summed up the contradiction thus: "In America in 2003, you can't say bad things about African-Americans, but you can still say bad things about gays. That's where we are."
That is is not quite true. Racism in America's public discourse is certainly more subtle than homophobia, but no less pervasive. Whenever politicians refer to welfare, crime, inner-city deprivation, teenage pregnancy or affirmative action - which is often - they are talking about race, and rarely in terms supportive of minorities.
While racism has been employed to galvanise the white Republican base in past elections - most notably by president George Bush's father in 1988 and Newt Gingrich in 1994 - homophobia may yet become the rallying cry for the next one. When it comes to finding a signifier for the indulgent excesses of liberal Democrats and the Republicans' no-nonsense adherence to the values of middle America, gay is the new black.
"Candidate Bush said in the second [presidential] debate that he felt marriage was a sacred covenant, limited to a man and a woman," said Kenneth Connor, president of the rightwing Family Research Council. "That was not a huge issue in 2000. Mark it down. It will be a big, big issue in 2004."
This is not President Bush's wish. He would rather the whole issue just went away. Since he came to office he has appointed an openly gay ambassador and Aids tsar. But all his judicial appointments so far have been hostile to gay rights, and his refusal to reprimand Santorum indicates that he is all too willing to tolerate intolerance in his ranks.
For Bush this is not a matter of moral principle but political calculation. He has made enough of an impact on restricting abortion rights to keep the faithful happy and provide a lightning rod for Democrats and women's groups. He does not need any more enemies. As the standard-bearer of compassionate conservatism he has no wish to be seen as isolating a relatively small group for special opprobrium - unless of course they are Arab immigrants, in which case he can hide behind national security. The order to allow the justice department's gay pride event to go ahead after all is widely believed to have come from the White House.
Moreover, the ramifications of scapegoating lesbians and gays would go way beyond the actual gay voters - who according to the gay advocacy group, the Human Rights Campaign, comprise just 5% of the electorate. A Republican party that is mean to a few is widely regarded as having the potential to be mean to the many. The issue of sexual orientation may not be as explosive a touchstone as race, but a homophobic campaign would attract few new voters and repel many - particularly among moderates, women and the young. The issue of gay marriage is incredibly divisive. Polls show that while most Americans (51%) are against it, more than a third - a large proportion of whom are women - support it.
The response to last weekend's lingering televised kiss between Marc Shaiman and Scott Wittman, two gay winners of the Tony awards, also suggests political culture is lagging way behind popular culture. "I love this man," said Shaiman. "We're not allowed to get married in this world ... But I'd like to declare, in front of all these people, I love you and I'd like to live with you the rest of my life." The audience cheered. Of the 8 million viewers there were just 10 phone calls and 68 emails containing negative feedback.
Despite this, some of Bush's most fervent and active supporters are still keen to bring the issue to the fore. Conservative Christians, who used to exert pressure from outside, now form an influential base within the party. Today they exercise either "strong" or "moderate" influence in 44 Republican state committees, compared with 31 in 1994, according to a study in Washington magazine Campaigns and Elections. The man who used to run the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed, is now the head of the Georgia Republican party.
The conservative right have been increasingly irritated with what they regard as Bush's ambivalent attitude towards gay rights. After Marc Racicot, the Republican national chairman, met with the HRC, Connor asked whether he was fit to run Bush's campaign, claiming he was "out of touch with Bush's most loyal and committed voters".
Whether the evangelical right can deliver on their threats is another matter. As fundamentalists, compromise does not come easily to conservative Christians - particularly on social issues. But with Bush enjoying more than 90% approval ratings among Republicans, the president could call their bluff. He knows they won't vote Democrat, though he fears they might stay at home.
And even if Bush could persuade his own side to bury the subject, the courts could resurrect it. A supreme court ruling on a law in Texas which criminalises sexual practices between same-sex couples that are lawful when performed by heterosexuals, is expected by the end of today. The Massachusetts supreme court should rule on the legality of same-sex marriages by mid-July.
The most that conservatives can hope from either judgment is a confirmation of the status quo. More likely, however, is that one or both will extend the rights of lesbians and gay men, sending the Christian right into a frenzy and demanding that Bush make a stand. Under pressure from his own side he would be forced to show us where the conservatism ends and compassion really starts.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
Head Start's cloudy future
By Marjorie Coeyman / Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
from the June 17, 2003 edition
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0617/p13s01-lepr.html
Bush & the End of Reason
By Nat Parry
June 17, 2003
The United States is at a crossroads, with neither route offering an easy journey. In one direction lies a pretend land – where tax cuts increase revenue, where war is peace, where any twisted bits of intelligence justify whatever the leader wants and the people follow. In the other direction lies a painful struggle to bring accountability to political forces that have operated with impunity now for years.
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2003/061703a.html
I love the Fox spin on the Iraq intel thing - passing the blame buck, closed hearings...
Reminds me of the backpeddling, BS, and cover-up leading to the Watergate blow-out.
We shall see...
brain, Are you "conservative" across the board, ie pro entire conservative agenda?
Separation, guns, reproductive rights,etc?
Honestly, I think most of us are a mix - conservative, liberal, moderate... But to the hardliners,
"you're with us or with the evil doers", I guess...
You forgot Rush & Savage on the checklist, fire & brimstone too... :)
I go to Lakewood very often. The area around the two schools is swarming with police.
More than just "precautionary" presence - I think... Altho I'm glad for the police presence,
I think it's disgusting that students have to live with that type of "guard", literally.
What a world, huh?...
I assume Israel's intel is more reliable than ours because of the constant terrorist threat Israel lives with.
Hamas leader, Rantizi (sp??), is a pediatrician, and also an advocate of suicide bombings. How demented is that??...
Peg, Suggesting that we send troops into Palestinian territories is ridiculous, and another global relations nightmare for the US, imo. We supply Israel's military. Israel has the best intelligence in the world. Our intel appears inept. While the thought of us sending troops into Palestinian territories probably pleases Osama, it would be fatal to the US's ability to lead, if we still have that ability. The world would perceived the US as the ultimate bully brutalizing an oppressed people. Totally counterproductive to the "peace" effort and larger war on terror, imo.
Or maybe Tenet can search for Hamas when he finishes searching for WMD.
Our "home" in NJ, tho residents are not called "refugees". They are children failed by their families, and the "system" with resulting severe emotional & behavioral problems... A very sad situation, but how does society deal with the growing number of children like these. And public sector cost is often life long. What does the future hold for children like these children??...
Touted as a solution, DYFS home for boys has been fraught with problems
Allegations of abuse and irregularities plagued treatment center
Sunday, May 18, 2003
BY SUSAN K. LIVIO AND MARY JO PATTERSON
Star-Ledger Staff
Two years ago, in a bleak industrial section of Newark, state officials presided over the opening of a 40,000-square foot remodeled warehouse, the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services' newest, and supposedly finest, residential treatment center.
It was the most ambitious project DYFS had undertaken in years, an attempt to house dozens of severely disturbed boys 12 and older under one roof. They had dozens of labels but one common problem: a debilitating, sometimes dangerous, inability to get along in the world.
They were sex offenders, firesetters, chronic runaways, drug addicts, schizophrenics, depressives, the mentally retarded, and others who had landed in the deep end of the child welfare system. Many were former abuse or neglect cases.
The facility, called the Wynona M. Lipman Training & Education Center, was a for-profit enterprise headed by John J. Clancy, 54, a former Essex County youth services director who had built a solid reputation as a contractor for the N.J. Department of Corrections. Clancy, who was also a well-known political patron, promised "state of the art" care.
But in less than two months, Lipman Hall was hit by allegations of child abuse and shockingly substandard care, and the allegations continued for much of its first year.
A review of government documents and interviews with former and current state officials show that DYFS gave Clancy a $12.5 million contract without putting it up for bid. The agency then bent over backwards to keep the place going, paying dearly all the while: $28,000 a day to care for 80 boys, no matter how many were actually there.
Treatment, meanwhile, was hardly state of the art. Some boys did not receive medication or therapy. Others were hurt by residents or staff. Staffers misused "behavior management rooms," making boys take meals or even stay overnight in the windowless rooms. For eight months after Lipman Hall opened, there was no psychiatrist -- only a specialist in adult infectious diseases. One DYFS inspector was so incensed by conditions that he wrote a whistle-blower letter, alleging that the state was risking residents' lives.
Last June, with DYFS inspectors constantly at Lipman Hall to probe new abuse allegations, Human Services Commissioner Gwendolyn Harris halted admissions. She lifted the moratorium in September but capped Lipman Hall at half its licensed capacity. She is still closely monitoring the program and has rebuffed Clancy's offer to open a twin facility for girls.
"Lipman Hall is where we want it to be. Now we want to evaluate this program to see if it is, in fact, good for these kids," Laurie Facciarossa, Harris' spokeswoman, said recently. "We are not going to authorize any sort of expansion until it is stable."
Human Services did learn a few lessons from the experience. One is that it needed to reform its contracting process, something it is now doing. Another is that big institutions may not be the answer for such children.
Lipman Hall was named for the state's first black female senator, who was a leading advocate for women and children. Wynona Lipman represented the 29th District in Essex and Union counties from 1971 until her death in 1999.
In hindsight, the facility appears to be the product of a child welfare agency driven by crisis, with little internal oversight. What is still hard to fathom is how a contract for $12.5 million for the care of some of New Jersey's most disturbed children sailed so easily through state government.
Some people say Lipman Hall was poorly conceived from the start, a throwback to an era of big institutions. These days, smaller is regarded as better.
"Generally speaking, the larger the facility, the harder is it to maintain the quasi-homelike environment," said Richard O'Grady, a former DYFS deputy director who retired in June 2000 after 40 years at the agency.
Clancy believes his institution has "very successfully managed" a difficult mission and has replaced its original "custodial" atmosphere with a climate "more like a psychiatric hospital."
"I think Lipman Hall is doing very well," he said. "Like any other institution, it isn't perfect. Have there been incidents? Yes, a couple. There will be more in the future. (But) this is a clean facility that has bettered the neighborhood and made the lives of the parents of these children easier."
GROWING PAINS
No one was saying that, however, when Lipman Hall opened its doors on Oct. 23, 2001, with a catered party for hundreds, including Newark Mayor Sharpe James and then-acting Gov. Donald DiFrancesco. The facility began to admit children in November 2001. The DYFS Bureau of Licensing received its first complaint on Jan. 2, 2002, from an anonymous staffer.
"I am very sad to have to write to you, but I feel that in the interests of the children being served in this facility, you must be informed of the unacceptable and potentially dangerous level of care occurring here at Lipman Hall," the letter said.
The writer went on to describe the atmosphere as "unhealthy and abusive" and asked for an investigation.
DYFS sent out an inspection team. It found that Lipman Hall did not have a board-certified child psychiatrist as planned, and that residents had inadequate treatment plans. But, the team reported, "there was no evidence that residents were harmed or placed at risk."
That came in March, when inspectors cited Lipman Hall for restraining children in an "unapproved and dangerous" manner. Then a boy was injured.
One licensing inspector for DYFS, Gary Sefchik, grew very concerned. He had received two more grim letters about Lipman Hall -- one from a lawyer complaining about lack of treatment given a client, and another from a Morris County official.
Sefchik complained to his boss, Richard Crane. Why, he asked, had DYFS Director Charles Venti requested that the bureau put off the February inspection until July?
Two weeks later, Sefchik wrote again, invoking the state whistle-blower statute for his own protection.
"The youth in this facility are not receiving appropriate treatment services and are at risk," he wrote.
"Since the bureau is being prevented from carrying out its mandated responsibilities, in spite of Division and Bureau administration having knowledge that there are serious problems at Lipman Hall, I am preparing to disclose this information to others outside of the Division of Youth and Family Services."
Crane wrote back that Lipman Hall was just having "growing pains." Also, DYFS Director Venti had advised that Lipman Hall planned "a substantial reorganization," Crane stated.
More injuries were documented in April, May, June, July and August of 2002, DYFS records show.
One staffer punched a child in the stomach; another broke a child's arm while restraining him. A third verbally and physically abused a boy by calling him a derogatory name, punching him in the face and kicking him in the head with a steel-toed boot. A fourth staffer hit a child in the face with a phone and choked him. All were fired.
Many other assaults were reported to DYFS but not substantiated. One Lipman Hall boy, who had witnessed a particularly vicious beating, complained that investigators had been to Lipman Hall more than 15 times but had "not made any changes that he could see," according to a document filed in a lawsuit against DYFS by Children's Rights Inc., a New York City advocacy group.
"R.W. entered the room angry ... He stated that he was tired of giving statements to investigators. He advised that he reported to other investigators that there is staff abusing residents, homosexuality, shanking and gang violence in this facility," the document stated.
On July 15, 2002, residents of Lipman Hall got a scare when one of the known firesetters started a blaze in his room. The wing was evacuated, but no one was hurt.
DYFS inspectors later determined that Lipman Hall, with 15 resident firesetters, did not yet have an approved anti-firesetting curriculum. By then it had been open eight months.
VERY DISTURBED
To understand why Lipman Hall exists, one must first remember Sam Manzie.
Manzie, a mentally unstable 15-year-old from Jackson Township, made headlines in 1997 when he sexually assaulted and murdered Eddie Werner, a slight 11-year-old selling candy and wrapping paper for a school fund-raiser.
Only days before, Manzie's parents had gone to Family Court and begged a judge to commit their son. Sam had recently broken off a sexual relationship with an adult predator, they said, and was out of control, defiant and destructive.
The judge declined and sent Sam home.
After Eddie Werner was killed, Manzie's lawyer went public with the story. People were outraged.
New Jersey has never had enough long-term facilities to treat children with serious emotional problems. After Eddie's death, "You (had) more kids coming into the system with mental health issues (because) judges were more willing to order it," Joe Delmar, a spokesman for DYFS, said.
This put DYFS under pressure -- from parents, advocacy groups, detention center directors, and judges -- to develop more treatment options for disturbed youngsters. And their numbers seemed to be going up.
For DYFS, an agency often under fire, it was one more headache.
The year after Eddie Werner's murder, New Jersey sent 175 children out-of-state to facilities in Florida, South Carolina, Virginia, New York and Pennsylvania. This ran counter to a 1992 mandate from the Legislature to treat kids at home when possible.
Around this time, John Clancy wrote DYFS to inquire about its "most critical" residential placement needs.
The former drug counselor was a major player in the private corrections field, running treatment-oriented halfway houses for adult drug offenders in New Jersey and other states.
Clancy was also well-known in political circles. Since 1981 he has contributed $406,400 to Democrats and Republicans. He considers courting politicians part of his business.
"I think it's important to be noticed and be known," he said. "If you're trying to advertise for a particular type of population and trying to provide services for them, you need to be involved in that world. I have friends who are in political positions."
DYFS Director Venti wrote Clancy back and said New Jersey needed local placements for very disturbed youths. DYFS was about to issue interested bidders an "RFP," or request for proposals, and Clancy should stay tuned, he wrote.
To move his project forward, Clancy hired a consultant, Nicholas Scalera, a retired DYFS director.
Venti, meanwhile, decided DYFS would do business with Clancy without putting the project out for bid.
"I want to assure you that our discussions and potential contractual agreement have and will continue to be properly conducted outside of an 'RFP' process, based on our crisis in meeting the needs of a difficult to place population," he wrote Clancy on Jan. 31, 2000.
Under state rules, New Jersey agencies are required to use the RFP process to purchase services over $25,000. The only exceptions are for "life, safety and health emergencies," or if the service is unavailable from more than one source. In such situations, agencies must file a waiver.
Venti did not file a waiver.
According to Tom Vincz, a spokesman for the state Treasury Department, the project should have been competitively bid. His department is now inquiring into how the Lipman Hall deal was done. "We will do an audit on the case," he said.
Four days later, DYFS did publish an RFP for residential treatment centers serving the same population as Lipman Hall. It solicited proposals for programs of 30 or fewer beds. Clancy did not bid.
In an interview, Venti said it may have been "a mistake" not to put Lipman Hall out for bid.
But, he added, people above him in Human Services and in former Gov. Christie Whitman's office supported the project. They approved of the "handshake and a verbal commitment" to use Lipman Hall, when appropriate, he said.
The RFP process took many months, and DYFS needed to act at once, Venti said.
"You could sit on your rear end and do nothing. You could say, 'These kids are not our responsibility because they have psychiatric or juvenile justice problems and should be locked up.'
"Or, you could do what we did and try to normalize them and treat them," he said. "Because eventually they will leave the system, and you will find them dead, homeless or in prison."
Venti retired from DYFS last summer. Soon thereafter he went to work for Clancy, on what he called "a little short-term" research project." The topic was adult corrections.
On Jan. 18, 2001, Robert Sabreen, a regional DYFS chief in Newark under Venti's supervision, signed a $12.5 million contract, for up to 200 children, with Clancy's Roseland-based nonprofit agency, Educational and Health Centers of America. He also runs the for-profit Community Education Centers of America Inc., which offer alternatives to the punitive corrections system.
Clancy planned on a July 1 opening for Lipman Hall.
But a new commissioner of Human Services, Jim Smith, applied brakes to the project after taking an inventory of the department's contracts.
The Clancy contract "did not appear to have the standard inclusions ... staffing qualifications (or) curriculum," recalled Smith, now director of the department's Division of Developmental Disabilities.
It was also inconsistent "with the direction we were taking in residential services," Smith said. And it was not clear, he said, where the money would come to pay for it.
Smith renegotiated the contract.
His predecessor, Michele Guhl, has since said she had no inkling DYFS signed a contract with Clancy.
"I never authorized (signing a contract)," Guhl, now executive director of the New Jersey Association of Health Plans, a trade group for HMOs, said in an interview last month.
Guhl's former assistant, Maddy Keogh, said she, however, was directly involved. "I probably should have said something, but I had 900 contracts, 2,700 employees, 52,000 kids. It wasn't done to keep anything from anybody," she said.
While Smith renegotiated the contract, Lipman Hall was put on hold. John Clancy, who had sunk millions of dollars into renovations at the warehouse, was losing money.
He went to the governor's office to complain. Specifically, he went to see Ciro Scalera, DiFrancesco's chief of management and policy, and a first cousin of Nick Scalera, his consultant.
Ciro Scalera met with Clancy. But, he said recently, "I informed my superiors that I couldn't be involved in any matters related to Lipman Hall. Then I assigned my deputy to it. I never took a meeting with Mr. Clancy, or my cousin, or anyone related to Lipman Hall. The only other thing I know is that it was ultimately resolved." Scalera, a former director of the Association for Children of New Jersey, is now a Verizon executive.
When Lipman Hall opened, Clancy's administrators handed out programs thanking seven individuals "for their support and assistance in making Lipman Hall a reality."
They were: DiFrancesco, Human Services Commissioner Jim Smith, DYFS Director Venti, Mayor James, State Sen. Richard Codey (D-Essex), State Sen. Joseph M. Kyrillos Jr. (R-Monmouth) and Scalera.
A few days later on Nov. 1, 2001, Venti signed the new Clancy contract. It was for $8.8 million, covering eight months, and limited the number of children to 80.
Smith managed to find a way to pay for Lipman Hall funds through the Children's System of Care Initiative, a $137 million community-based network of children's mental health services that had been launched earlier that year.
That stunned Kathy Wright, a founding member of the Children's Initiative.
Tapping that money for Lipman Hall goes "against the fundamental philosophy" of the program, she said. The Children's Initiative was designed to treat mentally ill children on an out-patient basis and keep them at home whenever possible, according to Wright.
New Jersey's state auditor, Richard L. Fair, was critical of the contract for another reason.
Under its terms, Lipman Hall was held to 80 beds, at a rate of $350 day. Clancy would receive a set monthly payment of $847,000, whether all 80 were occupied or not.
Thus, although there were only 28 boys at Lipman Hall in December 2001, the state still cut a check for $847,000. Four months later, there were 65.
Fair recommended that the department "seek reimbursement for the overpayments," which amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The state is evaluating the contract and how the money was spent before deciding whether to seek repayment, Delmar says.
Clancy's spokesman, William Palatucci, a lawyer, lobbyist and Republican Party strategist, said the arrangement was nothing unusual.
"This helps needed projects like Lipman Hall get off the ground and makes budgeting easier for any department," he said.
In January 2003, DYFS renewed Clancy's contract.
Now he gets paid only for beds that are filled.
WHAT WORKS
Today there are 110 boys at Lipman Hall. Caring for them costs $395 a day per child, a rate comparable to other treatment centers for severely disturbed youths.
"Verbal de-escalation," as opposed to physical restraints and time spent in the behavior management room, has become the main tool for managing boys' behavior. Good behavior is rewarded with points; the more points a boy accumulates, the more privileges he receives.
Lipman Hall's original director, a woman recruited from the Ohio Department of Corrections, is gone.
Clancy replaced her with Nick Scalera, who hired Pat Byrne, a former DYFS chief of staff.
On April 28, 2003, Gary Sefchik -- last year's whistle-blower -- notified Scalera that there were no outstanding violations and the facility was fully in compliance.
Scalera and his staff say the program is succeeding.
"We know what works, and we have very, very high standards," said Lee Underwood, a psychologist who is director of clinical programs for Community Education and Health Centers.
Deputy Human Services Commissioner Colleen Maguire said the state will keep a sharp eye on Lipman Hall. She was appointed to oversee DYFS in February.
"It's a viable functioning program now," she said.
Its size and hard-to-treat population make it a particularly challenging institution, Maguire said, "But we have to make sure all those challenges are attended to."
Copyright 2003 The Star-Ledger. Used by NJ.com with permission.
CT, Sometimes the problems are in your own backyard...
Yet we choose to "liberate" the "women & children" of oil rich nations..... Go figure! :)
Report slams N.J. child welfare system
From Jonathan Wald
CNN New York Bureau
Thursday, June 12, 2003 Posted: 10:36 AM EDT (1436 GMT)
RELATED
• Second child death in one family prompts inquiry
(CNN) -- The New Jersey State Division of Youth and Family Services is not meeting children's basic safety and medical needs, according to a report released Monday by a children's welfare group.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/06/09/child.welfare.abuse/
CT, recently, I read an article that said American Judaism had become more about absolute nationalism and Zionism than religion. I don't know that I agree completely, but there is a point there.
Then there are the Evangelicals, the largest religious & voting group in the US (I didn't know that!..). Evangelicals have become sort of "Christian Zionists". Their support for Israel is also absolute, and unwavering.
Maybe the US or Bush are not the parties to try to make peace in the region. How do opposing factions do a peace deal when the peace broker supports one side absolutely and unconditionally. It's a tough situation.
We lost approx 3K Americans on September 11, 2001.
Estimates of 5K - 10K+ Iraqi civilians died in Desert Storm, Take 2...
Saddam was one of many atrocious leaders - no question. But Iraqi citizens died in our quest to rid Iraq of the deadly
WMD that so gravely threatened the safety & security of each and every American.....
Does any of this make sense??...
They are starting to remind me of the movie "War of the Roses" - w/Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone.
Everyone knows how that story ends..... Very sad!
The hawks in DC are tossing around suggestions the US troops should go to Palestinian territories as "peace keepers"
(or something else?)...
UGANDA President says Sudan wants to expand into his country
Sudan is supporting rebels in northern Uganda because it wants to expand into territory of its east African neighbor, Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni said Friday.
In an interview with The Associated Press on a visit to Washington, he denied that Uganda was supporting tribal fighters in northeast Congo as a proxy in a struggle to control the region's mineral and agricultural wealth.
"We don't support forces in the Congo. That's rumor mongering," Museveni said. "We have pulled our forces out of Congo completely, so we can't be supporting those groups."
Museveni said fighters from the al-Qaida terror network were in Sudan until recently helping rebel groups in northern Uganda with arms and training.
© Copyright 2003, The Salt Lake Tribune.
They are confusing "nationalism" with "patriotism", and there's a BIG difference, obviously.
The media plays a BIG part in social manipulation also. CNBC: "NASDAQ to the MOON!!" and Fox, "Real Journalism..." cheered the war effort like a sporting event. And Americans watched mindlessly..... :)
hap...
"In the ruins of two towers, at the western wall of the Pentagon, on a field in Pennsylvania, this nation made a pledge, and we renew that pledge tonight: Whatever the duration of this struggle, and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men -- free people will set the course of history."
A lovely passage, but what does it have to do with Iraq??..
"Today, the gravest danger in the war on terror, the gravest danger facing America and the world, is outlaw regimes that seek and possess nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. These regimes could use such weapons for blackmail, terror, and mass murder. They could also give or sell those weapons to terrorist allies, who would use them without the least hesitation.
Agreed! But where are Iraq's weapons. Iran & NKorea are nuclear menaces, or close to it. But who will support a US initiative now? The credibility gap... Has the US lost the credibility (and integrity) to lead??..
"Throughout the 20th century, small groups of men seized control of great nations, built armies and arsenals, and set out to dominate the weak and intimidate the world."
`All the President's Men` (& Condi)??... :)
I don't think Bush understands either. I think he's being advised by fanatics with a new vision of the world. The average American doesn't get it either, or doesn't care. They're still delusioned by thoughts of "truth, justice & the American Way... Or something like that?? :}
How did we ever become so complacent (or stupid?) as a society??...
Barbershop Wisdom Says Bush in Trouble
By William O. Beeman, Pacific News Service
June 12, 2003
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16148
..."In her classic work, "And Keep Your Powder Dry," and in numerous other writings, Mead pointed out that Americans have four prevalent attitudes toward the use of violence:
– First, Americans see themselves as resorting to violence only in defense, never for aggression.
– Second, Americans say they use violence for altruistic, never for selfish purposes.
– Third, though Americans must put up a strong defense, they are never bullies.
– Finally, for Americans, violent action is a "job" with a finite length.
The Bush administration sold Americans the conflict in Iraq based on just these principles.
It was essential that the war be seen as defensive. Therefore there had to be weapons of mass destruction ready for imminent use. There also had to be an implicit tie between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, since the war had to be tied to an actual attack on American soil.
It was also essential that the war be conceptualized altruistically as a "war of liberation" designed to "bring democracy to Iraq" rather than a "war for oil" or a "war to establish American hegemony."
Because Americans are not bullies, every instance of civilian death, or destruction of non-military targets had to be seen as "accidental" or "collateral damage."
Finally, as President Bush stated on March 17, two days before military action began, the war had to be billed as short and limited in scope. Americans would do a job and get out.
Americans were in full support of the war, because it was sold to them using principles in which they already believed. In many ways, they were provided with rhetoric they could not resist. It was the sales job of the century"....
AmeriCorps Officials Are Told of Cutbacks
Local Directors Expect 'Devastating' Reductions in Program Bush Pledged to Expand
By David S. Broder
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, June 14, 2003; Page A04
Local directors of AmeriCorps, the community service program President Bush has repeatedly praised and promised to expand, said yesterday they have been notified of what they called "devastating" cutbacks in their allocation of volunteers for the coming year.
Memos sent to the states by the Corporation for National and Community Service, the parent agency for AmeriCorps, indicate that dozens and perhaps hundreds of long-established programs, including some singled out for praise by the president and first lady Laura Bush, will lose their funding....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56976-2003Jun13.html
Congo death camp defies French force
The militiamen controlling the town of Bunia in the Democratic Republic of Congo are carrying out nightly massacres, executing civilians and burying them in mass graves, despite the presence of a French-led European Union combat force.
By day the military camp at Simbiliyabo, on the eastern outskirts of Bunia, looks like any other Congolese rebel installation, but at night it becomes a death camp....
http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/2003/06/15/news/africa/africa03.asp
France Appeals for Help in Resolving African Conflicts
Lisa Bryant
Paris
13 Jun 2003, 17:34 UTC
Listen to Lisa Bryant's report (RealAudio)
Bryant report - Download 331k (RealAudio)
Dominique de Villepin
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin appealed Friday for the international community to do more to resolve wars and other conflicts in Africa. Mr. de Villepin spoke at the start of a conference in the French capital on ways to better manage African crises.
The two-week Paris conference gathers civilian and military representatives from 46 African countries, along with international experts. Their topic is how to better manage and overcome crises in Africa.
A French-led multinational peacekeeping force is trying to restore order in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where ethnic fighting has killed hundreds of people in recent months.
In Liberia, rebels are attempting to topple the country's leader, Charles Taylor. Further north, Mauritanian President Maawiya Ould Sid Ahmed Taya recently escaped a coup attempt. And south in Zimbabwe, President Robert Mugabe continues to crack down on political dissidents.
In his address at France's top military academy, Mr. de Villepin said resolving African crises should be a priority of the international community.
Mr. de Villepin said France's own African policy would respect three principles: the legitimacy of power, national sovereignty, and territorial integrity. For their part, he said, African countries are faced with a myriad of challenges: from globalization - which risks increasing the gap between rich and poor - to endemic poverty and lack of democracy.
Mr. de Villepin called for regional and international solutions to African conflicts. Ivory Coast, Central Africa, Sudan and Congo are all examples, he said, where African countries have helped mediate local crises. He outlined new commitments toward Africa by the European Union, the United Nations and international financial institutions, and said France would increase its overall development aid to meet the United Nations' target of 0.7 percent of the national budget by 2012.
But some African diplomats at the conference said they remain skeptical about the level of French and international commitment to the continent. One Rwandan official, Ambassador Joseph Mutaboba, said that when it came to eastern Congo, for example, the newly arrived peacekeepers had little grasp of the complexities of the strife.
VOANEWS/
President Bush and father play golf on family holiday in Maine
President Bush began a long family weekend by hooking a drive off the first tee of a golf course near his parents' estate.
http://www.pga.com/news/industry/bush061303.cfm
Bush, from Debka: "...the United States’ elevation to kingpin of these regions in control of its oil resources...
...Shamkhani said Iran must accelerate its purchases of advanced weapons systems, such as long-range missiles, warplanes and submarines, so as to make the United States think twice about attacking it...."
Iran – A Jagged Edge on US Postwar Atlas
Special Report from DEBKA-Net-Weekly 110 Updated by DEBKAfile
May 24, 2003, 11:23 PM (GMT+02:00)
Natanz: Iran`s main uranium enrichment plant
The Bush administration is engaged in one of the most sensitive and ambitious geo-strategic projects ever undertaken by any US presidency - comparable to landmark events like the termination of the Cold War, the opening up of Communist China to the world back in the 1970s and détente with the Communist bloc.
To subscribe to DEBKA-Net-Weekly click HERE .
In the short term, the US president hopes to lay the dividends of the Iraq War before the American voter in November 2004. He will want to demonstrate his success in bringing to fruition an ambitious agenda for sweeping regime change and improvement in the volatile Persian Gulf and Middle East and the United States’ elevation to kingpin of these regions in control of its oil resources. At the same time he will be undertaking a similar objective in Central Asia and the Caucasus for the sake of building a strong overarching bridge linking the Middle East to the Indian subcontinent and China.
With Saddam Hussein gone, the United States can assemble the modular bricks of its policies, building them on the bedrock of the victory in Iraq.
The main stumbling block in the Bush administration’s postwar path is Iran.
In keeping with its star role in Bush’s axis of evil, Iran is pressing ahead with a not so hush-hush nuclear weapons program. It is also conducting undercover negotiations with fellow axis-member, North Korea, for the purchase of one or two off-the-shelf nuclear bombs (as first revealed in DEBKA-Net-Weekly No. 82, October 25, 2002). Teheran’s support for such terrorist gangs as Al Qaeda, Hizballah and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad is just shy of blatant and it is sparing no effort to set up terrorist and subversive networks among Iraq’s Shiites.
Nonetheless, this year, the Bush administration managed to negotiate a series of secret agreements, mostly on military and terrorism issues. Under those deals, Iran agreed to keep its forces out of northern Iraq before, during and after the U.S.-led war. After the fighting began, Iranian Revolutionary Guards helped US and British forces take the Faw peninsula and the southern city of Basra. During the war, Iranian naval and air forces prevented Iraqi terrorist attacks in Gulf waters. After initial attempts at subversion, Iran helped the Americans calm a jittery Shiite populace and persuade their Iraqi coreligionists to accept limited cooperation with US forces in Najaf, Karbala and Baghdad.
In Lebanon, Iran barred the Hizballah from carrying out cross-border terrorist raids.
All these concessions boiled down to a message to the United States: Look what we are prepared to do for you – it would be worth your while for us to talk.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s Iranian sources report that Iran’s ethnic Arab defense minister, Admiral Ali Shamkhani, spent the past 10 days explaining this strategy in meetings with senior army and Revolutionary Guards commanders.
Teheran, he argued, must very clear when it tells the United States that Iran is not Iraq and the Iranian military is nothing like the Iraqi armed forces. Taking his message of deterrence a step further, Shamkhani said Iran must accelerate its purchases of advanced weapons systems, such as long-range missiles, warplanes and submarines, so as to make the United States think twice about attacking it. At the same time, he said, Iran must continue to challenge the United States on all fronts -- Afghanistan, the Gulf, the Middle East and Central Asia – while engaging the Americans in dialogue. These negotiations must be dragged out until Iran achieves its nuclear option.
DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s Iranian experts sum up Shamkhani’s argument as follows: Tehran is open to an accord with Washington based on Iran occupying a lead-position as a friendly regional power subject to the radical reform of its regime - provided Washington agrees to Iran’s possession of a nuclear option. That option need not be consummated immediately as long as Iran is left with capabilities for quickly assembling a bomb. Equally important to Iran is an accord with the US for the distribution of the Caspian Sea oil reserves – a historically outstanding issue among the Caspian nations, including Russia.
If Washington’s refuses to give way on those points, then Tehran shifts from accommodation mode to confrontation on all fronts, including the sphere of terror.
The United States, of course, takes a completely different view. Should it indeed decide to tap Tehran as strongest power in the Gulf and a regional partner, Iran’s government must undergo radical change and on no account be in possession of nuclear weapons in any shape or form.
This is the impasse reached after months spent by the two sides in long and tortuous negotiations.
The moment has come for President George W. Bush to decide between two paths: to go on with secret diplomacy in the hope of melting Iran’s intransigence on the nuclear issue, or going straight into military action to wipe out its rogue nuclear program, a blow that would almost certainly unseat the Shiite revolutionary regime. Just over two months after embarking on war against Iraq, the White House is again deep in deliberations over whether to launch a far more complex and extensive campaign against the leading regional power, Iran.
According to DEBKAfile’s Washington sources, the Bush team is divided on how to handle Iran at this juncture. Some of the president’s White House advisers and certain factions in the CIA and the Pentagon favor direct action. They offer the following arguments to support armed force:
1. Iran is playing a double game – behind its cooperative face, the ayatollahs are in a covert race to make the Islamic republic a nuclear power and present Washington with a fait accompli. They must not be allowed to get away with it; America must first destroy their nuclear program, then go back to the negotiating table.
2. Eradicating the Iranian nuclear option will be a lesson for North Korea, whose only foreseeable source of revenue for its own program is Iran. So action against Tehran’s program would kill two birds with one stone.
3. It would also serve as a graphic lesson to Syria and the Lebanese Hizballah that Washington’s demands are not to be trifled with.
The pro-diplomacy faction in the White House, the CIA and the State Department counter those arguments by maintaining:
A. Iran’s leaders are open to reforming their regime in line with American demands. An accord should be finalized on this point as soon as possible, before any thought is taken of war action.
B. The US government has already discovered in Iraq that changing an entire system of national government is an arduous, difficult and expensive proposition. Does it want to embark on a far more daunting enterprise in Iran, whose population of 60 million is more than three times that of Iraq?
In any case, the reformists led by President Mohammed Khatami, are not a viable alternative to the current hard-line regime. They have proved too weak and ineffectual to bring change to the country. It would therefore be best to go on talking to the radicals currently in power and get the most possible out of them in the way of domestic reforms.
C. No direct tie-in has been proved between the rulers of Tehran and the latest al Qaeda offensive in Saudi Arabia and Morocco.
D. If Tehran can be persuaded to scale down its nuclear ambitions from a bomb to a limited option, then China and North Korea, who rather than Russia are Iran’s primary suppliers of nuclear and missile technologies will have lost their best client. Iran’s switch to the American sphere of influence will leave the Chinese and North Koreans with nowhere to go but to play ball with the Americans on nuclear non-proliferation.
E. Quiet, discreet understandings with Tehran could open up the way to similar working accommodations with Iraq’s Shiites, as well as Syrian leaders and the Iran-backed Hizballah.
Looking at the larger picture, a heavy outlay of effort and patience is worth while for the sake of pricking the hot bubble of Shiite militancy and anti-Americanism and achieving pragmatic co-existence under the American aegis. The Sunni Muslim extremists would be left isolated by their belligerence and terrorism – witness the Palestinians and the multi-branched al Qaeda network. The taming of the ayatollahs would be a mighty achievement in global terms and a historic turnabout. Whereas in the Cold War the United States employed Sunni fundamentalist to fight the Khomeinist revolution in Iran and the Red Army, today, Washington has the chance of turning the sharp edge of Shiite radicalism against violent Sunni fundamentalists, at the same time undercutting European influence, and that of Russia, in the Muslim world.
To this end, the Bush administration is aiming to demonstrate that the Sunni terrorists, namely al Qaeda and the Palestinians, are the enemy - not the entire Sunni community. Success promises Bush policy strategists the unprecedented reward of winning over both great branches of Islam, the Shia and the Sunni. America would then hold the key to prevailing in the global war on terror and to its emergence as the dominant power in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and Central Asia.
A crucial element in this strategy is the effort to show that Washington can settle the violent dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. A concomitant to this process is the transformation of the Palestinians from a poor, hungry and deprived society, the natural prey of terror suicide recruiters, to a thriving, healthy community, strong enough to turn its back on terror. The first step toward this goal is bringing Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon on board.
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=493
People are concerned about the credibility of the US because the US is the only Super Power with military might far greater than any other country on the planet. And the US went to war, crushing another country and killing 5k+ civilians, on info, a war case, that is at best questionable.
The US has the military capacity to crush every country on the planet. And many are beginning to wonder if the US, lead by Young Dubya, is a Super Power out of control. Our Constitution is supposed to "control" or keep in check the power of the Executive Branch. The credibility situation is a major issue and should concern Americans as it concerns those abroad.
And Iraq might just be the beginning of the Admins plan to re-design the geo-poliical landscape in the ME and elsewhere...
Bush Has Taken the US Into a Credibility Gap
James Klurfeld • Newsday
WASHINGTON, 15 June 2003 — Here’s a hot news tip: Intelligence sources both here and in Israel have told me in the last few days that they now believe Iran is 18 months to two years away from having a full-fledged nuclear weapons program. One of Israel’s most respected military journalists, Zev Schiff, warns that the United States must take diplomatic steps now to deal with the threat, or soon it will be too late.
I passed this news on to a colleague and his immediate response was to giggle. As in: Where have I heard that before? Or, as another colleague reminded me, “Jim, we’re still trying to find the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had. What makes you any more certain about this intelligence information?’’
Welcome to the Bush credibility gap. And if you believe that some of my colleagues are skeptical, you should try out this news overseas. By and large the American people don’t seemed outraged that the administration seemed to play fast and loose with intelligence information leading up to the attack on Iraq. Overseas it is just another indication that the United States is a superpower out of control and that little if anything that comes from Washington can be trusted.
For a nation that sees itself as the leader of the world, this is a very dangerous position to be in. The United States, with its awesome military power and responsibilities, is on the verge of being treated as the boy who cried wolf by the rest of the world.
I believe the intelligence information coming out about Iran is basically accurate. Maybe 18 to 24 months should be 24 to 36 months. But I believe it’s a valid conclusion that Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons of its own.
And while the administration seems to have played fast and loose with the intelligence information about Iraq in order to build support for its war plans, I also believe, based on what the weapons inspectors discovered over the years, that Saddam was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. However, I do not necessarily believe what the administration said: That Saddam was ready to use those weapons at any time against the United States.
But that’s not the point. If the United States is going to organize an effective diplomatic effort to encourage Iran (or for that matter, North Korea) to stop its nuclear weapons program, it is going to take the cooperation of many different nations. If those nations don’t believe there is a problem in the first place, if they do not trust Washington’s information, the effort to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is doomed.
One longtime national security expert said recently that the administration appeared to be guilty, at the very least, of using raw intelligence to bolster its Iraq policy. That is a classic no-no in the intelligence world. We all learned in the opening days of the Iraq war that raw data can be incredibly confusing and misleading. Raw intelligence can have the same effect on policymakers, especially if they want to prove a point. Intelligence needs to be analyzed, vetted and put into context.
At the very least there must be congressional hearings to determine if the administration was exaggerating the Iraqi threat and misusing intelligence. This is a classic case of why the branches of government must act as a check on each other.
The hearings must be thorough and non-partisan. Neither of those requirements will be easy to meet. Partisanship is a Washington disease these days. Just recall how the Republicans handled the impeachment of Bill Clinton. And exposing intelligence sources and methods in the middle of the war on terrorism will be tricky, to put it mildly. But sources and methods cannot be used as an excuse. The nation’s credibility is at stake.
Copyright: Arab News © 2003 All rights reserved. Site designed by: arabix and powered by Eima IT
The WMD Finder, Patience is a Virtue!
http://www.villagevoice.com/fiore/
Mark Fiore :))
Hatfields, McCoys to sign truce ending historic feud
The Associated Press
PIKEVILLE, Ky. — While hostilities between the Hatfields and McCoys ended long ago, no truce was ever officially signed.
That will change next week when descendants of the nation’s most famous feuding families gather in this eastern Kentucky town to formally declare an end to the fighting and proclaim that they stand together against any common foe to the United States.
Reo Hatfield, the Waynesboro, Va., man who proposed the truce, said he wants to send a broader message to the world that when national security is at risk, Americans put their differences aside and stand united.
‘‘We want the world to know that you can’t come over to our country and attack us and it go unnoticed, even by the Hatfields and McCoys,’’ he said.
mainegolfer??... :)
Survey concern to some bishops
Covington near compliance
From staff and wire reports
http://www.kypost.com/2003/05/30/abuse053003.html
They still don't seem to get it...
America's imperial delusion
The US drive for world domination has no historical precedent
Eric Hobsbawm
Saturday June 14, 2003
The Guardian
The present world situation is unprecedented. The great global empires of the past - such as the Spanish and notably the British - bear little comparison with what we see today in the United States empire. A key novelty of the US imperial project is that all other empires knew that they were not the only ones, and none aimed at global domination. None believed themselves invulnerable, even if they believed themselves to be central to the world - as China did, or the Roman empire. Regional domination was the maximum danger envisaged until the end of the cold war. A global reach, which became possible after 1492, should not be confused with global domination.
The British empire was the only one that really was global in a sense that it operated across the entire planet. But the differences are stark. The British empire at its peak administered one quarter of the globe's surface. The US has never actually practised colonialism, except briefly at the beginning of the 20th century. It operated instead with dependent and satellite states and developed a policy of armed intervention in these.
The British empire had a British, not a universal, purpose, although naturally its propagandists also found more altruistic motives. So the abolition of the slave trade was used to justify British naval power, as human rights today are often used to justify US military power. On the other hand the US, like revolutionary France and revolutionary Russia, is a great power based on a universalist revolution - and therefore on the belief that the rest of the world should follow its example, or even that it should help liberate the rest of the world. Few things are more dangerous than empires pursuing their own interest in the belief that they are doing humanity a favour.
The cold war turned the US into the hegemon of the western world. However, this was as the head of an alliance. In a way, Europe then recognised the logic of a US world empire, whereas today the US government is reacting to the fact that the US empire and its goals are no longer genuinely accepted. In fact the present US policy is more unpopular than the policy of any other US government has ever been, and probably than that of any other great power has ever been.
The collapse of the Soviet Union left the US as the only superpower. The sudden emergence of a ruthless, antagonistic flaunting of US power is hard to understand, all the more so since it fits neither with long-tested imperial policies nor the interests of the US economy. But patently a public assertion of global supremacy by military force is what is in the minds of the people at present dominating policymaking in Washington.
Is it likely to be successful? The world is too complicated for any single state to dominate it. And with the exception of its superiority in hi-tech weaponry, the US is relying on diminishing assets. Its economy forms a diminishing share of the global economy, vulnerable in the short as well as long term. The US empire is beyond competition on the military side. That does not mean that it will be absolutely decisive, just because it is decisive in localised wars.
Of course the Americans theoretically do not aim to occupy the whole world. What they aim to do is to go to war, leave friendly governments behind them and go home again. This will not work. In military terms, the Iraq war was successful. But it neglected the necessities of running the country, maintaining it, as the British did in the classic colonial model of India. The belief that the US does not need genuine allies among other states or genuine popular support in the countries its military can now conquer (but not effectively administer) is fantasy.
Iraq was a country that had been defeated by the Americans and refused to lie down. It happened to have oil, but the war was really an exercise in showing international power. The emptiness of administration policy is clear from the way the aims have been put forward in public relations terms. Phrases like "axis of evil" or "the road map" are not policy statements, but merely soundbites. Officials such as Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz talk like Rambo in public, as in private. All that counts is the overwhelming power of the US. In real terms they mean that the US can invade anybody small enough and where they can win quickly enough. The consequences of this for the US are going to be very dangerous.
Domestically, the real danger for a country that aims at world control is militarisation. Internationally, the danger is the destabilising of the world. The Middle East is far more unstable now than it was five years ago. US policy weakens all the alternative arrangements, formal and informal, for keeping order. In Europe it has wrecked Nato - not much of a loss, but trying to turn it into a world military police force for the US is a travesty. It has deliberately sabotaged the EU, and also aims at ruining another of the great world achievements since 1945: prosperous democratic social welfare states. The crisis over the United Nations is less of a drama than it appears since the UN has never been able to do more than operate marginally because of its dependence on the security council and the US veto.
H ow is the world to confront - contain - the US? Some people, believing that they have not the power to confront the US, prefer to join it. More dangerous are those who hate the ideology behind the Pentagon, but support the US project on the grounds that it will eliminate some local and regional injustices. This may be called an imperialism of human rights. It has been encouraged by the failure of Europe in the Balkans in the 1990s. The division of opinion over the Iraq war showed there to be a minority of influential intellectuals who were prepared to back US intervention because they believed it necessary to have a force for ordering the world's ills. There is a genuine case to be made that there are governments so bad that their disappearance will be a net gain for the world. But this can never justify the danger of creating a world power that is not interested in a world it does not understand, but is capable of intervening decisively with armed force whenever anybody does anything that Washington does not like.
How long the present superiority of the Americans lasts is impossible to say. The only thing of which we can be absolutely certain is that historically it will be a temporary phenomenon, as all other empires have been. In the course of a lifetime we have seen the end of all the colonial empires, the end of the so-called thousand-year empire of the Germans, which lasted a mere 12 years, the end of the Soviet Union's dream of world revolution.
There are internal reasons, the most immediate being that most Americans are not interested in running the world. What they are interested in is what happens to them in the US. The weakness of the US economy is such that at some stage both the US government and electors will decide that it is much more important to concentrate on the economy than to carry on with foreign military adventures. Even by local business standards Bush does not have an adequate economic policy for the US. And Bush's existing international policy is not a particularly rational one for US imperial interests - and certainly not for the interests of US capitalism. Hence the divisions of opinion within the US government.
The key questions now are: what will the Americans do next, and how will other countries react? Will some countries, like Britain, back anything the US plans? Their governments must indicate that there are limits. The most positive contribution has been made by the Turks, simply by saying there are things they are not prepared to do, even though they know it would pay. But the major preoccupation is that of - if not containing - educating or re-educating the US. There was a time when the US empire recognised limitations, or at least the desirability of behaving as though it had limitations. This was largely because the US was afraid of somebody else: the Soviet Union. In the absence of this kind of fear, enlightened self-interest and education have to take over.
This is an extract of an article edited by Victoria Brittain and published in Le Monde diplomatique's June English language edition. Eric Hobsbawm is the author of Interesting Times, The Age of Extremes and The Age of Empire
www.mondediplo.com
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2003
Europe is on the threshold of a new era, declares Giscard
By George Parker and Daniel Dombey in Brussels
Published: June 14 2003 5:00 / Last Updated: June 14 2003 5:00
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing yesterday declared that Europe was "on the threshold of a new era" after his 105-member European Convention overwhelmingly endorsed a draft EU constitution.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=105...
Palestinians are cry-babies, says Sharon
By Ed O'Loughlin in Jerusalem and Marian Wilkinson in Washington and agencies
June 14 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/13/1055220771789.html
'Hamas issued a statement in Gaza saying that "Israel has declared war on our people, and therefore from now on Sharon is a wanted man and we will be after his head like the head of every Israeli. I say to the Israelis: Your wives, your husbands, your children, all will be a target."'