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.
9/11 Panel Members Weren’t Told of Meeting
<< this falls right in line with the kind of response Richard Clarke got from Rice when he tried to escalate the issue as well... only the brain dead (or sell outs) continue to deny the Bush administrations failures pre and post 911 >>
By PHILIP SHENON
Published: October 1, 2006
WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 — Members of the Sept. 11 commission said today that they were alarmed that they were told nothing about a White House meeting in July 2001 at which George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, is reported to have warned Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, about an imminent Al Qaeda attack and failed to persuade her to take action.
Details of the previously undisclosed meeting on July 10, 2001, two months before the Sept. 11 terror attacks, were first reported last week in a new book by the journalist Bob Woodward.
The final report from the Sept. 11 commission made no mention of the meeting nor did it suggest there had been such an encounter between Mr. Tenet and Ms. Rice, now secretary of state.
Since release of the book, “State of Denial,” the White House and Ms. Rice have disputed major elements of Mr. Woodward’s account, with Ms. Rice insisting through spokesmen that there had been no such exchange in a private meeting with Mr. Tenet and that he had expressed none of the frustration attributed to him in Mr. Woodward’s book.
“It really didn’t match Secretary Rice’s recollection of the meeting at all,” said Dan Bartlett, counselor to President Bush, in an interview on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.”
“It kind of left us scratching our heads because we don’t believe that’s an accurate account,” he said.
Although passages of the book suggest that Mr. Tenet was a major source for Mr. Woodward, the former intelligence director has refused to comment on the book.
Nor has there been any comment from J. Cofer Black, Mr. Tenet’s counterterrorism chief, who is reported in the book to have attended the July 10 meeting and left it frustrated by Ms. Rice’s “brush-off” of the warnings.
He is quoted as saying, “The only thing we didn’t do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.” Mr. Black did not return calls left at the security firm Blackwater, which he joined last year.
The book says that Mr. Tenet hurriedly organized the meeting — calling ahead from his car as it traveled to the White House — because he wanted to “shake Rice” into persuading the president to respond to dire intelligence warnings that summer about a terrorist strike. Mr. Woodward writes that Mr. Tenet left the meeting frustrated because “they were not getting through to Rice.”
The disclosures took members of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission by surprise last week. Some questioned whether information about the July 10 meeting was intentionally withheld from the panel.
In interviews Saturday and today, commission members said they were never told about the meeting despite hours of public and private questioning with Ms. Rice, Mr. Tenet and Mr. Black, much of it focused specifically on how the White House had dealt with terrorist threats in the summer of 2001.
“None of this was shared with us in hours of private interviews, including interviews under oath, nor don’t we have any paper on this,” said Timothy J. Roemer, a Democratic member of the commission and a former House member from Indiana. “I’m deeply disturbed by this. I’m furious.”
Another Democratic commissioner, former Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste, said that the staff of the Sept. 11 commission was polled in recent days on the disclosures in Mr. Woodward’s book and agreed that the meeting “was never mentioned to us.”
“This is certainly something we would have wanted to know about,” he said, referring to the July 10, 2001, meeting.
He said he had attended the commission’s private interviews with both Mr. Tenet and Ms. Rice and had pressed “very hard for them to provide us with everything they had regarding conversations with the executive branch” about terrorist threats before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the Sept. 11 commission and now a top aide to Ms. Rice at the State Department, agreed that no witness before the commission had drawn attention to a July 10 meeting at the White House, nor described the sort of encounter portrayed in Mr. Woodward’s book.
Mr. Zelikow said that it was “entirely plausible” that a meeting occurred on July 10, during a period that summer in which intelligence agencies were being flooded with warnings of a terrorist attack against the United States or its allies.
But he said the commissioners and their staff had heard nothing in their private interviews with Mr. Tenet and Mr. Black to suggest that they had made such a dire presentation to Ms. Rice or that she had rebuffed them.
“If we had heard something that drew our attention to this meeting, it would have been a huge thing,” he said. “Repeatedly Tenet and Black said they could not remember what had transpired in some of those meetings.”
Democratic lawmakers have seized on Mr. Woodward’s book in arguing that the Bush administration bungled the war in Iraq and paid too little attention to terrorist threats in the months before Sept. 11.
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on “Face the Nation” on CBS that there had been “rumors” of such an encounter between Mr. Tenet and Ms. Rice in the summer of 2001.
Mr. Woodward’s book, he said, raised the question of “why didn’t Condi Rice and George Tenet tell the 9/11 commission about that? They were obliged to do that and they didn’t.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/washington/01cnd-book.html?hp&ex=1159761600&en=797d904aead...
here's a site on "Texas Environment" that I found while searching for info on this whole topic... funny, I had noticed the link to the article from here questioning the safety of nuclear plants. Guess even Texan's have concerns about that too (said tongue in check... as I'm sure, as I said before, that Texan's care as much for their families and children as any of us).
http://www.environmenttexas.org/energy
But some have already determined that nukes are bad so its solar/wind/maybe geothermal or nothing I guess.....
Almost correct... I would change it to:
But some have already determined that nukes are bad so its solar/wind/maybe geothermal or something else.....
maybe you should re-read your own post:
Coal power becomes Texas debate topic
By EILEEN O'GRADY
Reuters News Service
Texans may consume more electricity than other Americans, but they're suddenly debating the wisdom of doubling the number of coal-fired power plants in the state — plants critics say will worsen air quality and increase health risks.
The threat of more smog-forming emissions from 12,000 new megawatts of coal-fired generation on the books for Texas has sparked a robust debate involving citizens, business groups and big-city mayors. Even the prospect of new jobs, additional tax revenue and cheaper electricity has not quelled anxiety about increased pollution.
After a decade of building natural-gas-fired plants that drew little opposition on environmental grounds, companies are rushing to permit more than 120 new coal-fired plants across the U.S. because coal is cheaper to burn than gas.
Some of the most vocal opposition to the Texas coal rush has been in McLennan County. Companies want to build four new coal generators there.
The concentration of plants in one area of the state has raised concern among elected officials who normally support new investment, said Jim Vaughan, president of the Waco Chamber of Commerce.
Vaughan said his members worry rising power prices will hurt economic growth, but they also fear more coal plants will boost mercury levels in lakes and add to global warming.
Environmentalists are heartened by the chorus of concern. "When you hear the chamber of commerce president talk about global warming, it's clear the tipping point has been reached," said Tom Smith, Texas director of Public Citizen.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4205973.html
et
Mr. Reynolds said in a statement Saturday that he had also personally raised the issue with Speaker J. Dennis Hastert.
Hastert should resign as well.
we import cement from Texas?
even if we do, would be pay a little extra to cover the cost of caring about the environment? yes.
we aren't telling other states to drill offshore and I'm sure we'd not only understand but encourage them to have the same laws we do about that
no I don't agree. I think my previous post shows that we care about where the oil comes from and are doing what we can to address the issues rather than a state like Texas or like our Fed Government that wants to give free reign to energy companies. We don't have all the problems worked out... but we are doing more than most states.
I think the reality is that there are very, very few corps. that will be moving any manufacturing to a state that will make them less competitive in the market place.
Although I'm sure there are many corporations that would put earning an extra buck over the quality of human life. The fact that CA's enconomy is so vibrant is proof that you can run a business and pay attention to the environment. And, as you mentioned, CA has the world's fifth largest enconomy.
As for the comparision with Texas, I have a feeling that the average Texan cares as much about his/her children and the quality of their air and environmet. And when they realize they've been sold down the road for an extra buck in some energy companies CEO's pocket, things will swing back towards more environmental protection laws and less letting the big energy companies run rampant and out of control.
http://www.environmenttexas.org/
Also this week, Schwarzenegger is expected to sign a second Democrat-sponsored global warming bill with consequences beyond the state's borders. That bill will prohibit California's large utilities and corporations from entering long-term power contracts with suppliers whose electricity sources do not meet the state's greenhouse gas emission standards.
just to make sure you didn't miss this part that I bolded... so much for your statement about hypocracy.
not supporting offshore drilling is not inconsistent with Californians efforts to be environmentally conscientious. We are actively looking for alternate energy, clean energy soltuions... and comparing that to Texas which lets power plants run wild still stands. Are Texans happy about that?
Even our Republican Gov is supporting environmental issues:
Schwarzenegger signs sweeping global warming bill
By SAMANTHA YOUNG, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
(09-27) 15:19 PDT San Francisco (AP) --
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Wednesday signed into law a sweeping global warming initiative that imposes the nation's first cap on greenhouse gas emissions, saying the effort kicks off "a bold new era of environmental protection."
Standing on picturesque Treasure Island with San Francisco's skyline in the background, Schwarzenegger called the fight against global warming one of the most important issues of modern times.
"We simply must do everything we can in our power to slow down global warming before it is too late," Schwarzenegger said during an address before signing the bill.
Mayor Gavin Newsom and New York Gov. George Pataki, as well as Democratic legislators, joined Schwarzenegger for the high-profile ceremony. British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who struck a deal with Schwarzenegger over the summer to develop clean technologies, addressed the ceremony participants via video link.
Blair said California had set a "bold target" and called the bill-signing "a proud day for political leadership."
"This will echo right round the rest of the world," he said.
California's efforts on global warming have been in the spotlight since Schwarzenegger and the state's legislative Democrats reached an accord last month on the Democrat-authored bill to cut greenhouse gases.
The negotiations culminated in the last week of the legislative session, handing the Republican governor a key victory during an election year in which he has sought to portray himself as a friend to the environment.
On Wednesday, Schwarzenegger called the bill signing a historic occasion.
"It will begin a bold new era of environmental protection in California that will change the course of history," he said.
Schwarzenegger and Democratic lawmakers said they expected others to follow California's lead.
"Today, we tell the rest of the world, other states and our nation that California has the courage, the know-how to turn this tide and the ability to move forward to putting an end to this creeping disaster we know as global warming," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles.
Nunez wrote the bill with Democratic Assemblywoman Fran Pavley of Agoura Hills.
Schwarzenegger's Democratic opponent in the November election, state treasurer Phil Angelides, also supports the new law.
It imposes a first-in-the-nation emissions cap on utilities, refineries and manufacturing plants in a bid to curb the gases that scientists blame for warming the Earth. Two years ago, a state board adopted tight regulations on automobile tailpipe emissions, an initiative that is being challenged in federal court by automakers.
State reports have predicted the effects of global warming could be severe for the state, leading to earlier melting of the Sierra snowpack and threats to the state's water supply. It also could lead to changes in the growing season in the nation's No. 1 agricultural producer, even jeopardizing the Napa Valley wine industry.
Tom Graff, California regional director of Environmental Defense, urged the federal government to follow with a national cap on carbon emissions.
"Together we have moved from a message of despair to one of hope and action," Graff said. "We are still at the beginning of a long journey to restrain and manage the warming of our globe, and there is still much more work to be done."
Also this week, Schwarzenegger is expected to sign a second Democrat-sponsored global warming bill with consequences beyond the state's borders. That bill will prohibit California's large utilities and corporations from entering long-term power contracts with suppliers whose electricity sources do not meet the state's greenhouse gas emission standards.
The measure by Sen. President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, is intended to force coal plants in the western U.S. to install cleaner technologies.
California's efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions from industry and automobiles are part of a goal to reduce the state's emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, an estimated 25 percent reduction. California is the world's 12th largest producer of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide that are trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere.
Schwarzenegger issued an executive order in 2005 calling for an even more ambitious reduction — cutting the levels of greenhouse gases to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
In an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press, Schwarzenegger described the emissions-cap bill as one step in a long-term strategy by the nation's most populous state to combat global climate change. He said the state should further reduce industrial emissions and adopt initiatives such as placing greater emphasis on renewable energy and hydrogen-fueled cars.
The industrial emissions cap has been praised by environmentalists as a step toward fighting global climate change, but business leaders have warned that it will increase their costs and force them to scale back their California operations.
Industry officials say California lawmakers must ease other regulatory burdens to counter the higher costs they face with the tighter emissions standards.
An example could be eliminating the sales tax levied on new equipment, said Dorothy Rothrock, vice president of government relations for the California Manufacturers and Technology Association.
"If we do continue to discourage California manufacturing, emissions will happen elsewhere without regulation, and we will not have achieved our goal of reducing emissions," she said.
Association President Jack Stewart said the group does not plan to sue California to stop the regulations as automakers have done with the rules regarding tailpipe emissions.
Schwarzenegger said it is possible to protect the environment as well as the state's economy. He expects the law will lead to a new business sector in California devoted to developing the technologies industries can use to meet the tougher emission requirements.
"We will create a whole new industry that will pump up our economy," he said.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/09/27/financial/f113257D83.DTL&hw=emission...
Californians have long been against drilling off our coast... nothing new there. The cost to the environment is always a primary consideration and as it should be IMO.
CA has increased it's power generation ability since the days of black outs and there are several cement plants in CA... so you are really off in left field there.
I'd like to see a link and the full quote please.
Congress may give the president the power to lock up almost anyone he thinks is a terror threat.
The President has already exercised that power... it's now up to congress to reel him back in... don't see it happening with the GOP in majority.
great quote... is there more to it?
she hasn't read the book and probably won't bother to do so. amazing how many are willing to parrot what they've heard without making any real effort to check it out for themselves. it's so easy to listen to talk show hosts, news sound bites... but ask them to read a book that details the current controversy... too much effort.
so true... I've heard that called "givers gain" :)
did you end up watching it?
exaggerating what? that I care more about the impact of the environment on the health of kids?
did you read Clarke's book? yes or no only please.
ergo made a statement about it... you responded with "all the better..." like you think it's a good trend. I don't agree.
pretty funny calling Clarke partisan LOL
where did you see it?
hope that ends up better than the one you didn't finish
sure glad my kids and grandkids were raised here and not there...
in the future maybe environmental conscious states like CA will start looking better even to businesses
It was great that finally the truth is coming out about that... I've been telling people to read Clarke's book for a long time. If anyone really wants to fairly talk about the Clinton record re bin Laden, they need to read that book first and not rely on their talk show hosts talking points (aka propaganda).
you think importing our food is better than growing it ourselves?
``Farmers to
Congress: Support a Safe and Secure American Food Supply, Pass an Immigration Fix Before the Election of 2006.''
Dear Friend:
The Senate recently debated a bill to provide increased border security. As part of that debate, I joined a bipartisan effort to include the AgJOBS as an amendment. I am happy to provide you with part of my remarks during this debate. Regrettably, this provision was not included in the final bill.
Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator
I want to tell you what is happening in my State right now. We haven't acted, and we haven't taken care of the broader issue.
I have a farm community, an agricultural community that is in deep trouble. It seems to me, since we have 62 Members supporting the Craig-Kennedy bill, which is the AgJOBS bill, that at minimum we ought to be allowed to offer an amendment, which I know Senator Craig wants to do, to deal with this terrific problem. We must do more than one thing at a time.
To those people who say we will take care of the fence, and then after it is built we will figure out how we can take care of the rest of the immigration problem, I say that is a recipe for economic disaster, at least in the agricultural community.
I want to read to you a letter that I received from an organization that represents 1,100 organizations, the United Fresh Produce Association. The headline says: ``Farmers to
Congress: Support a Safe and Secure American Food Supply, Pass an Immigration Fix Before the Election of 2006.''
It goes on to say that we have a horrible problem in our agricultural industry.
Here is what they say:
- American labor-intensive agriculture has proactively sought a solution to its labor and immigration challenges since the early 1990's. Unfortunately, Congress has failed to act. Now, growers and producers are experiencing actual labor shortages rather than just shortages of legal workers. Labor shortages are being reported from coast to coast. Crop losses are starting to occur, from berries and pears in the West to oranges in Florida.
- Specialty crops, fruits, vegetables, nursery, greenhouse and floriculture plants, turfgrass, sod, wine grapes, forage crops, and Christmas trees comprise 50 percent of the value of the American crop agriculture. They are labor-intensive crops, and they are at risk. Also at risk are poultry, dairy and livestock production.
- My dairymen tell me the same thing. They talk about the fact that the 50-year-old flawed guest worker program just isn't working. It is unresponsive, it is bureaucratic, and it is expensive. It is litigation prone. They are asking for this AgJOBS bill.
You may ask: Senator, why can't you offer this amendment? The answer has to come from the Republican side. They control this place. I can tell you right now there is support from 1,100 businesses from growers to shippers, wholesalers, retailers in every state want this bill.
I ask unanimous consent that their letter be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Farmers to Congress: Support a Safe and Secure American Food Supply--Pass an Immigration Fix Before Election 2006
American labor-intensive agriculture has proactively sought a solution to its labor and immigration challenges since the early 1990's. Unfortunately, Congress has failed to act. Now, growers and producers are experiencing actual labor shortages rather than just shortages of legal workers. Labor shortages are being reported from coast to coast.
Crop losses are starting to occur, from berries and pears in the West to oranges in Florida.
Specialty crops (fruits, vegetables, nursery, greenhouse and floriculture plants, turf-grass sod, winegrapes, forage crops, and Christmas trees) comprise 50% of the value of American crop agriculture. They are labor-intensive crops, and they are at risk. Also at risk are poultry, dairy and livestock production.
An estimated 70% of the farm labor force lacks proper legal status. The only available labor safety net is a 50 year-old flawed guest worker program known as H-2A, which presently provides only two percent of the farm labor force. It is unresponsive, bureaucratic, expensive, and litigation-prone.
The reforms American agriculture needs now are two-fold: An agricultural worker program, such as reformed H-2A, that meets the special needs of agriculture; A workable transition strategy that allows for more experienced workers to earn legal status while capacity is built on the farm and at the border for wider reliance on an agricultural worker program.
Last May, the U.S. Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill. It contains agricultural provisions consistent with the needs outlined above. Namely, it overhauls H-2A to streamline the program, make it more affordable, and provide a balance of worker and employer protections.
By contrast last December the House of Representatives passed a harsh and anti-employer border security and internal enforcement bill. If it became law, H.R. 4437 would cause American agriculture to lose most of its workforce through mandatory and universal electronic verification of employment authorization documents.
What is at stake? America's food independence and security.
That's a matter of national security.
And the economic contributions and job-creation that exist here in America because the production is here.
A recent study by the American Farm Bureau conservatively projects that the loss of the workforce from an enforcement-only bill would result in U.S. fruit and vegetable production falling $5-9 billion annually in the short term and
$6.5-12 billion in the long term, with impacts in other production sectors reaching upward of $8 billion. Three to four jobs in the upstream and downstream economy are generated by each farm worker job, so well over one million good American jobs are at risk.
To avert an unfolding crisis in American agricultural disaster, Congress must enact comprehensive immigration reform that that ensures growers and producers access to a legal workforce American agriculture is unified behind these critical
principles:
A safe and secure domestic food supply is a national priority at risk. With real labor shortages emerging, agriculture needs legislative relief now. The choice is simple: Import needed labor, or import our food!
If perishable agriculture and livestock production is encouraged or forced offshore, we will also lose three to four American jobs for every farm worker job.
Any solution must recognize agriculture's uniqueness--perishable crops and products, rural nature, significant seasonality, and nature of the work.
Enacting enforcement alone, or enacting enforcement-first, will cause agriculture to lose its workforce. Even ``doing nothing''
will worsen the growing crisis, with the border already much more secure, and worksite enforcement on the rise.
As part of a comprehensive immigration reform or stand-alone legislation, agriculture needs a program that (1) eliminates needless paperwork and administrative delays; (2) provides an affordable wage rate; and (3) minimizes frivolous litigation.
For a successful transition, trained and experienced workers who lack proper legal status should be able to eventually earn permanent legal status subject to strict conditions like fines, future agricultural work requirements and lawful behavior.
American farmers, ranchers, and business people are depending on Congress to pass a good bill without further delay. To do otherwise jeopardizes American agricultural production and jobs and the food security of our Nation.
For more information: Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, Craig Regelbrugge; National Council of Agricultural Employers, Sharon Hughes; United Fresh Produce Association Robert Guenther.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we need to pass an AgJOBS bill. Our farmers and our ranchers are begging us to do it. They need a solution. But because we haven't acted, everything is paralyzed.
I want to show you a picture of Toni Skully, a pear farmer from Lake County, CA, looking at the pear crop she lost because she didn't have enough workers to pick the trees. Pear farms are an estimated $80-million-a-year business in California. They were unable to harvest 35 percent of their crop this year due to the lack of field and packinghouse labor. Unfortunately, situations like Toni's and the pear growers of Lake County are happening all over California.
I discussed this with my colleagues. They are telling me it is happening in their States, too. My lemon growers in San Diego are experiencing a 15- to 20-percent harvest loss. Avocado farmers in Ventura County are worried about workers for the December planting season. Tree fruit growers in Fresno County have seen their labor force increase by as much as 50 percent.
In Sonoma, as many as 17,000 seasonal farm workers have not returned from Mexico to work in the fields.
According to USDA, agriculture is a $239-billion-a-year industry. And if we refuse to provide a solution to labor shortages now, we are jeopardizing our domestic economy and our foreign export markets. We are driving up production costs that get passed on to consumers. Our consumers are already having trouble. Even with the decrease in gasoline prices, they are way up from where they where historically. They are dealing with health insurance premiums that are way up. They are dealing with college tuition costs and education costs that are way up. Now they are going to walk in the supermarket where we have such good prices and see that prices are up because of the inability to hire people because there has been a crackdown on the workers.
All of that is happening for one reason: the House wouldn't follow the Senate. The Senate had taken care of it. We had a good, broad bill that dealt with border security, additional guards at the border, and everything they needed at the border, plus a way to deal with the agricultural industry and the millions of workers who are in the shadows who are afraid to come out of the shadows.
Let me tell you, do you think that makes us secure when we don't know who they are? I don't think it does for a minute.
That is why we need to have this type of bill passed in the Senate.
But at minimum, I say to Senator Frist, allow us to offer the Craig amendment. Senator Feinstein is very strong on this.
It was interesting. Independent of one another we immediately said we ought to offer the Craig-Kennedy amendment. She and I talked to Senator Craig. We said: Please put us on as cosponsors.
A 2006 study done by the American Farm Bureau found that if agriculture's access to migrant labor is cut off, as much as $5 billion to $9 billion in annual production would be lost--and that is just the short-term prediction. If agriculture's access to migrant labor is cut off, as much as $5 billion to $9 billion in annual production of primarily import-sensitive commodities would be lost in the short term. That is a statistic from the American Farm Bureau Federation.
I will do whatever I can to convince the Republican leadership to allow Congress to take care of agriculture. When we have a bill that is supported by 62 Senators, on both sides of the aisle, that is supported by labor and management, it makes sense to move it forward. I cannot stand the thought of looking in the eyes of my dairymen and my farmers one more time when they come back here and say the first issue on their agenda is this problem they are having with their workforce.
There is a way to do this that makes sense. There is a way to do this that will give us control of our border. That is what we ought to be doing. We ought to be looking, at the minimum, to saving our agricultural industry.
I say to my Republican friends, and I am being very honest, I am not sure farmers have been my strong supporters over the years. They usually go Republican. I can read the list of supporters. What is the majority doing, shutting them out?
Let's work together. Let's work together for them, for the consumers, for the workers. We cannot afford the one-two punch of an agriculture industry that begins to fall apart as the housing industry is having problems. We just cannot afford to see another sector have a problem. Autos, housing, now agriculture?
Please, this is too important to play politics with. Help our agriculture businesses. Help our workers. Help get people out of the shadows. Do something to help America. Don't keep this bill so narrow in focus that we do not see the forest for the trees.
I hope we have some good news and that there will be a good agreement on our surveillance issue, on our military tribunal issue. I hope the leadership will open this up to save our agriculture industries. They are asking us for this.
I yield the floor.
===================================================
For more information on Senator Boxer's record and other information, please go to: http://www.boxer.senate.gov
great quote.
something many of us knew long before now... guess it's just "offical" now.
Happy Belated Birthday :)
Congrats!
I had three of my kids at home with a mid wife... best way to go IMO. Although I attended my granddaughters birth at a local hospital a few years ago and they have gotten better than they use to be... but still, home with an experience mid wife is the best.
p.s. I watch this board fairly regularly... great stuff.
A Bad Bargain
<< what a sham... and when will McCain learn that Bush is not trust worthy? he of all of them should know better by now ..
>>
Published: September 22, 2006
Here is a way to measure how seriously President Bush was willing to compromise on the military tribunals bill: Less than an hour after an agreement was announced yesterday with three leading Republican senators, the White House was already laying a path to wiggle out of its one real concession.
About the only thing that Senators John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham had to show for their defiance was Mr. Bush’s agreement to drop his insistence on allowing prosecutors of suspected terrorists to introduce classified evidence kept secret from the defendant. The White House agreed to abide by the rules of courts-martial, which bar secret evidence. (Although the administration’s supporters continually claim this means giving classified information to terrorists, the rules actually provide for reviewing, editing and summarizing classified material. Evidence that cannot be safely declassified cannot be introduced.)
This is a critical point. As Senator Graham keeps noting, the United States would never stand for any other country’s convicting an American citizen with undisclosed, secret evidence. So it seemed like a significant concession — until Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, briefed reporters yesterday evening. He said that while the White House wants to honor this deal, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, still wants to permit secret evidence and should certainly have his say. To accept this spin requires believing that Mr. Hunter, who railroaded Mr. Bush’s original bill through his committee, is going to take any action not blessed by the White House.
On other issues, the three rebel senators achieved only modest improvements on the White House’s original positions. They wanted to bar evidence obtained through coercion. Now, they have agreed to allow it if a judge finds it reliable (which coerced evidence hardly can be) and relevant to guilt or innocence. The way coercion is measured in the bill, even those protections would not apply to the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.
The deal does next to nothing to stop the president from reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions. While the White House agreed to a list of “grave breaches” of the conventions that could be prosecuted as war crimes, it stipulated that the president could decide on his own what actions might be a lesser breach of the Geneva Conventions and what interrogation techniques he considered permissible. It’s not clear how much the public will ultimately learn about those decisions. They will be contained in an executive order that is supposed to be made public, but Mr. Hadley reiterated that specific interrogation techniques will remain secret.
Even before the compromises began to emerge, the overall bill prepared by the three senators had fatal flaws. It allows the president to declare any foreigner, anywhere, an “illegal enemy combatant” using a dangerously broad definition, and detain him without any trial. It not only fails to deal with the fact that many of the Guantánamo detainees are not terrorists and will never be charged, but it also chokes off any judicial review.
The Democrats have largely stood silent and allowed the trio of Republicans to do the lifting. It’s time for them to either try to fix this bill or delay it until after the election. The American people expect their leaders to clean up this mess without endangering U.S. troops, eviscerating American standards of justice, or further harming the nation’s severely damaged reputation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/opinion/22fri1.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin
Toxic mercury contaminating more species, report shows
Jane Kay, Chronicle Environment Writer
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Mercury pollution from power plants and other industrial sources has accumulated in birds, mammals and reptiles across the country, and only cuts in emissions can curtail the contamination, says a report released Tuesday by a national environmental group.
The report is the first major compilation of studies investigating mercury buildup in such wildlife as California clapper rails, Maine's bald eagles, Canadian loons and Florida panthers. In all, scientists working with the National Wildlife Federation found 65 studies showing troublesome mercury levels in 40 species.
"From songbirds to alligators, turtles to bats, eagles to polar bears, mercury is accumulating in nearly every link of the food chain,'' said Catherine Bowes, an author of the report who manages the federation's mercury program in the northeastern states.
High mercury levels in popular fish such as swordfish and canned albacore tuna prompted government health warnings in 2004 aimed at pregnant women and children. Mercury is a neurotoxin that can damage fetuses and cause mental retardation, learning disabilities, cerebral palsy, blindness and deafness.
The contamination also can kill or harm wildlife. According to the study:
-- Common loons stopping at Walker Lake in Nevada on their way to Saskatchewan have been contaminated with mercury lingering from past gold mining operations.
-- At least one endangered Florida panther has died from mercury poisoning, probably from consuming raccoons with high mercury levels.
-- Western and Clarke's grebes in Clearlake (Lake County) have shown altered hormone levels because of mercury poisoning.
-- River otters in New York, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Nova Scotia have elevated levels of mercury and in some places are showing such neurological effects as difficulty in walking. One otter died from mercury poisoning.
Airborne mercury, which eventually falls to the land and water, comes mostly from coal-fired power plants or medical and trash incinerators. Sewage treatment plants, chlorine-manufacturing plants and runoff from abandoned gold and mercury mines can flow directly into water and wetlands.
The main source of mercury in humans comes from consuming big predator fish such as swordfish, shark, king mackerel, tilefish and albacore tuna, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Birds and other wildlife also eat mercury-contaminated fish as well as insects, crayfish and other small organisms. The mercury accumulates at higher levels up the food chain to raccoons, mink, river otters, panthers and polar bears, the study found.
David Evers, a leading avian ecologist who specializes in contaminants at the nonprofit BioDiversity Research Institute in Gorham, Maine, said mercury-contaminated insects contribute to the high levels of the element in birds, bats and some other wildlife species.
"Traditional, conventional thinking was that the fish food web was the only pathway of concern. But our studies have found that there are other food webs of concern, including insects," Evers said.
The report from the National Wildlife Federation is consistent with what California researchers from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey and San Francisco Estuary Institute in Oakland have found in California clapper rails, Caspian and Forster's terns and other shorebirds feeding in the southern end of San Francisco Bay.
Guadalupe Creek, which flows through San Jose, carries inorganic mercury from a now-closed mercury mine. The mercury converts to the toxic form, methylmercury, in the former Cargill salt ponds being restored in the South Bay.
Letitia Grenier, a conservation biologist at the San Francisco Estuary Institute, has researched mercury in songbirds in the wetlands. She praised the work of Evers and other East Coast researchers.
"It's important for us to open our minds. We should question where there are other habitats where we could have mercury accumulations. It's great that we're finally looking at mercury in animals,'' Grenier said.
The National Wildlife Federation issued the study as part of a lobbying effort for regulations to control mercury emissions at coal-fired power plants and other sources.
The Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a trade group for power generating companies, criticized the study Tuesday as redundant, given past studies. In a statement, spokesman Scott Segal said emissions of mercury have been reduced by 40 percent since 1990.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/09/20/MNGNDL90AV1.DTL&hw=Toxic%20Poisoning...
calling for a draft would be an admission of big problems and they don't want to do that... they are trying to play games to get around it.
just like they are trying to change the rules (Geneva Convention) after the fact to cover their butts from being criminally libel.
I agree that a radical new policy is needed... but that policy should be withdrawal. obviously the american people are not behind this war when we are unwilling to fight in it.
I want voters to be educated... I don't trust Wal-Mart to do it in an unbiased way... they have an obvious agenda.
growing awareness and having some of the best minds working on the problem is very encouraging.
wal-mart "educating" voters? what a bunch of crap... fox in the hen house
Bush definitely lost that one.