While the American press is on hiatus, you may want to check out this site as well as a sprinkling of others.

Welcome to

The Fund for Independence in Journalism (TFIJ)

Abraham Lincoln once said, "I'm a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts."

Today, many media corporations are reducing their commitment to journalism. That plus litigation against unwanted scrutiny and historic challenges to openness, freedom of information, and government oversight all stand in the way of bringing the public the "real facts."

The Fund for Independence in Journalism, a 509 nonprofit, tax-exempt organization, was created in 2003 to foster independent, high quality public service journalism in the United States and around the world.

The Fund's primary purpose is providing legal defense and endowment support for the largest nonprofit, investigative reporting institution in the world, the Center for Public Integrity, and possibly other, similar groups. This core mission and our related activities illuminate the fundamental role of the press, the public's right to know, and accountability in a democratic society.

******

The Bush Dollar Trap

by Dave Lindorff

Hold on to your seat. With the Fed in a trap between the need to lower interest rates and the need to prevent a dollar collapse, we're in for some rocky economic times. The next step will be soaring inflation, as strapped companies in China, India and elsewhere start raising their prices for goods shipped to the US and paid for in dollars. Then the Fed will have to respond by raising interest rates again, in an effort to shore up the currency. And with that will come deeper recession and an even lower stock market.

******

How the Bush Administration Is Turning the

USA into a Sub-prime Borrower

by Heather Wokusch

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”

--George W. Bush

Much in the same way that US investors were “steered” into rip-off mortgage loans, the entire country has been “steered” into an economic crisis. The question is how to get out of it.

In the sub-prime loan scandal, unscrupulous brokers conned home buyers with poor credit histories into deals designed to profit lenders and bleed borrowers. Contract “teasers” hid ballooning monthly payments while a lack of regulation allowed the scam to continue unabated. Millions more Americans now face losing their homes.

The Bush administration similarly used promises of cakewalks and increased security to con the US public into wars with Iraq and Afghanistan. US taxpayers have spent over $450 billion on Iraq alone, while Bush/Cheney cronies continue making a killing from military contracts. Meanwhile, global security has degenerated, and over 4,100 US service members have died in Iraq and Afghanistan along with an untold number of coalition troops, contractors, and civilians.

Bush’s military adventurism, not to mention his administration’s exorbitant tax cuts for the wealthy, gutted the surplus of $128 billion Clinton handed him in 2001 into a deficit of well over $200 billion today. And Bush has simultaneously increased the national debt by over $3 trillion (to roughly $9 trillion), effectively nailing each and every US citizen with a bill for almost $30,000.

While heavy borrowing from Asia has mopped up some stateside red ink, there’s an inherent threat: China, for example, has an estimated $900 billion in US bonds and can increasingly call the shots on the US economy and foreign policy.

Just weeks ago, Beijing warned that if the Bush administration pushed for a revaluation of the Chinese currency, then Beijing would sell dollars, thereby threatening the greenback’s reserve currency status. Washington backed down. It had little other option.

In other words, the US itself has become as vulnerable to its lenders as any other sub-prime borrower.

Overall, the US debt situation looks so dire that the non-partisan Government Accountability Office Comptroller recently warned, “America is on a path toward an explosion of debt. And that indebtedness threatens our country’s, our children’s, and our grandchildren’s futures. With the looming retirement of the baby boomers, spiraling health care costs, plummeting savings rates, and increasing reliance on foreign lenders, we face unprecedented fiscal risks.”

Financial analysts say credit markets are facing a Minsky moment--the inevitable downward spiral when over-leveraged investors have to sell valued assets just to pay back their loans. Some analysts have even coined a new term, suggesting we are in a “Minsky meltdown”--the prelude to a wider market crash.

But it looks more like a “Minsky massacre,” not an unavoidable economic downturn but rather a coldly-calculated hit, with the intention of transferring wealth from the lower and middle classes to an unaccountable few at the top.

Bottom line: this economic downturn isn’t hurting everyone. Select brokers and lenders made a fortune off the backs of sub-prime borrowers, and now that the related hedge funds are collapsing, well-leveraged private equity firms can buy assets at fire-sale prices.

And as Jim Hightower recently noted, a “hands-off regulatory ideology” is complicit: “There are no fewer than five financial agencies at the federal level that could have protected people, yet the sub-prime surge was allowed to proceed...The Federal Reserve Board, for example, has direct authority under the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act to ‘prohibit acts or practices in connection with mortgage loans that the board finds to be unfair, deceptive or...associated with abusive lending practices, or that are otherwise not in the interest of the borrower.’ The Fed simply ignored this law.”

The US has been down this road before. The Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis of the late 1980s was also characterized by loose lending requirements, lax regulation, obscene profits for the few--and US taxpayers left holding the bag for $125 billion.

Ironically, the Bush family was involved in that scandal too, with Bush Jr.’s brother Neil serving on the board of the disgraced Silverado Savings and Loan, which went bust and stuck US taxpayers with a $1.3 billion debt. Regulators accused Neil of “multiple conflicts of interest” but he never did jail time--thanks at least in part to the S&L bail out engineered by his father, Bush Sr., who happened to be President at the time.

Just as in the S&L crisis, the poor and middle class have borne the brunt of the current sub-prime disaster, an especially nasty fact given the nation’s huge wealth gap. As Inequality.org points out, “The richest one percent of U.S. households now owns 34.3 percent of the nation’s private wealth, more than the combined wealth of the bottom 90 percent. The top one percent also owns 36.9 percent of all corporate stock.”

It’s probably no coincidence that terms associated with both corporate and developing country indebtedness are being used to discuss the US sub-prime meltdown (payment defaults, vulture funds, distressed debt, etc). Perhaps the US hasn’t reached banana republic status yet, but the increasing wealth gap, not to mention ballooning budget deficits, low capital spending and reliance on foreign capital are disturbing signs.

Doesn’t help either that the Federal Reserve stopped releasing M3 money-supply data in 2006. M3 data (covering Eurodollars, repurchase agreements, and large-denomination time deposits) is critical in determining how fast the Fed is printing money, which in turn impacts inflation.

So, what further fallout from the sub-prime scandal can be expected? Millions more Americans will lose their homes, and as The New York Times recently reported, “for the first time since federal housing agencies began keeping statistics in 1950,” the median price of homes in the US will fall.

Ratings agencies, such as Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s, will take some heat for their role in the scandal, but the Bush administration will focus on bailing out predatory lenders rather than helping Americans keep their homes. Congress and most presidential candidates will protect financial services campaign donors by not pursuing true reform.

Meanwhile, Asia and Europe will continue “decoupling” from increasingly volatile US markets, threatening the dollar’s reserve currency status even more. Fresh off its recent war games with China and four Central Asian republics, Russia will more actively confront the US on the world stage. The Bush administration will move closer to a war with Iran.

Of course, these dire predictions don’t have to materialize -- we can regroup and fight back. One avenue is by urging Congress members to take action, such as changing foreclosure rules to protect homeowners and supporting Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act (HR 2895). Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) push to have the Fed start releasing M3 data again (HR 4892 ) is also urgent.

At the very least, we must frame the Bush administration’s war-making as a direct threat to the US economy, not to mention national security, and just like maxed out home buyers, confront our nation’s culture of debt.

--Published on Monday, August 27, 2007

by CommonDreams.org

******

Pocket veto

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A pocket veto is a legislative maneuver in American federal lawmaking, and is a process of indirect rejection. The U.S. Constitution requires the President to sign or veto any legislation placed on his desk within ten days (not including Sundays) while the United States Congress is in session.

If the President does not sign the bill within the required time period, the bill becomes law by default. However, the exception to this rule is if Congress adjourns before the ten days have passed and the President has not yet signed the bill. In such a case, the bill does not become law; it is effectively, if not actually, vetoed. If the President does sign the bill (into law), the bill becomes law. Ignoring legislation, or "putting a bill in one's pocket" until Congress adjourns is thus called a pocket veto. Since Congress cannot vote while in adjournment, a pocket veto cannot be overridden. James Madison became the first president to use the pocket veto.

Courts have never fully clarified when an adjournment by Congress would "prevent" the President from returning a vetoed bill. Some Presidents have interpreted the Constitution to restrict the pocket veto to the adjournment sine die of Congress at the end of the second session of the two-year Congressional term, while others interpreted it to allow intersession and intrasession pocket vetoes. In 1929, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the Pocket Veto Case that a bill had to be returned to the chamber while it is in session and capable of work. While upholding President Calvin Coolidge's pocket veto, the court said that the "determinative question...is not whether it is a final adjournment of Congress or an interim adjournment...but whether it is one that 'prevents' the President from returning the bill." In 1938, the Supreme Court overruled itself in part in Wright v. U.S., ruling that Congress could designate agents on its behalf to receive veto messages when it was not in session, saying that "the Constitution does not define what shall constitute a return of a bill or deny the use of appropriate agencies in effecting the return." A three-day recess of the Senate was considered a short enough time that the Senate could still act with "reasonable promptitude" on the veto. However, a five-month adjournment would be a long enough period to enable a pocket veto. Within those constraints, there still exists some ambiguity; Presidents have been reluctant to pursue disputed pocket vetoes to the Supreme Court for fear of an adverse ruling that would serve as a precedent in future cases.

Recent events have brought the legal status of the pocket veto back to the forefront of American politics.

In December of 2007, President George W. Bush pushed the pocket veto into murky waters by claiming that he had pocket vetoed HR-1585, the "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008," even though the House of Representatives had designated agents to receive presidential messages before adjourning. The bill had been previously passed by veto-proof majorities in both the House and the Senate. If the President had chosen to veto the bill, he would have been required to return it to the house whence it originated, which, in this case, was the House of Representatives. The House then could have voted to override the veto, and the Senate could then do likewise. In the event that each house had voted by at least two-thirds majority to override the veto, the bill would become law.

A spokesperson for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stated: "Congress vigorously rejects any claim that the president has the authority to pocket-veto this legislation and will treat any bill returned to the Congress as open to an override vote." A White House spokesperson has said: “A pocket veto, as you know, is essentially putting it in your pocket and not taking any action whatsoever. And when Congress--the House is out of session--in this case it’s our view that bill then would not become law.”

Louis Fisher, a constitutional scholar at the Library of Congress indicated: “The administration would be on weak grounds in court because they would be insisting on what the Framers decidedly rejected: an absolute veto.”

By "absolute veto," Fisher was referring to the fact that a bill that has been pocket vetoed cannot be overridden. Instead, the bill must be reintroduced into both houses of Congress, and again passed by both houses, an effort that can be very difficult to achieve.

In the end, the House of Representatives did not attempt to override it. Instead, in January of 2008, the House effectively killed HR-1585 by referring it to the Armed Services Committee. It then passed HR-4986, a bill identical to HR-1585 but slightly modified to meet the President's objection. The Senate and President both appear likely to approve the bill in short order.

This is not the first time that a President has attempted to pocket veto a bill despite the presence of agents to receive his veto message. Both George H.W. Bush and William J. Clinton made similar attempts.

******

Congress Members Call for Hearings on Bush

Signing Statement Submitted by Leader Staff on

February 1, 2008--8:04pm.

* Congress

* News

* Politics

* U.S. Government

* U.S. Politics

(Washington, DC)--Today, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, sent a letter to the Speaker requesting that appropriate Committee Chairs quickly schedule oversight hearings regarding the recent Bush Signing Statement to circumvent a key provision in the Defense Authorization Act (HR-4986) against a permanent military presence in Iraq.

The letter, co-authored by Congresswomen Lee, Lynn Woolsey, and Maxine Waters, states, “We believe that Congress must find out and the American public made aware of the serious consequences of long-term military basing agreements or treaties that bypass congressional action as the ‘Declaration of Principles.’ In addition, it is critical to shed light on the implications of the President’s signing statement and intention to ignore the law. At the same time, it is also imperative to give greater scrutiny to the Bush administration’s efforts to maintain a long-term or indefinite military presence in Iraq. Holding hearings will complement the 166 hearings on Iraq that Democrats have held since you became our speaker in January 2007.”

Congresswoman Lee issued the following statement:

“Circumventing this important provision is contrary to the law and oversight hearings are clearly needed for Congress to get answers and for the American public to be assured the law is not being side stepped.

“We need to know why President Bush wants to ignore a key provision he signaled he would uphold by signing the bill into law in the first place.

“This latest action by this Republican administration seems to flagrantly disregard the law of the land. The President has signed into law, five times, legislation that included similar provisions to prohibit permanent military bases in Iraq since 2006. Now he arbitrarily wants an exemption from the provision in the FY08 Defense Authorization bill.

“We need answers and we need them now. Congress must immediately hold the Bush administration accountable.”

Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Oakland-D) is co-chair of the Progressive Caucus and a co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus. She sits on the House Appropriations Committee, where she serves on the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education Subcommittee and the State Foreign Operations Subcommittee and is Vice-Chair of the Legislative Branch Subcommittee.

LETTER TEXT FOLLOWS:

February 1, 2008

Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker

US House of Representatives

The Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Pelosi:

President George W. Bush issued a signing statement on Monday, January 28, 2008 where he signaled his intent to ignore a provision in the FY08 Department of Defense Authorization Bill (PL 110-181) that prohibits permanent military bases in Iraq. We urge you to request the appropriate committee chairs to quickly schedule oversight hearings on this important issue.

We believe this is a particularly contradictory and serious development given that the President has signed similar provisions into law five times before.

When a majority of the American people are committed to ending our occupation in Iraq on a timeline within a year, in making this proclamation President Bush has only reinforced what we have always known: that he intends our occupation in Iraq to be indefinite.

Sadly, this is a pattern of behavior from a White House that seems intent on cutting Congress out of any decisions relating to the permanent stationing of the US military in Iraq. At the end of last year, without any congressional input, President Bush and Prime Minister al-Maliki signed a “Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship Between the Republic of Iraq and the United States of America” that will set the stage for future agreements on the disposition of US troops in Iraq and other wide-ranging aspects of this important bilateral relationship. (We introduced H.R. 5128, legislation disapproving of any agreement that doesn’t have the approval of both houses of Congress and that of the Iraqi Parliament, too.)

We believe that Congress must find out and the American public made aware of the serious consequences of long-term military basing agreements or treaties that bypass congressional action as the ‘Declaration of Principles.’ In addition, it is critical to shed light on the implications of the President’s signing statement and intention to ignore the law. At the same time, it is also imperative to give greater scrutiny to the Bush administration’s efforts to maintain a long-term or indefinite military presence in Iraq. Holding hearings will complement the 166 hearings on Iraq that Democrats have held since you became our speaker in January 2007.

We appreciate your strong leadership and commitment in ending the US occupation of Iraq and look forward to working with you on this matter.

Sincerely,

BARBARA LEE, Member of Congress

LYNN WOOSLEY, Member of Congress

MAXINE WATERS, Member of Congress

******

Federal Judge Blocks Massey Mine Expansion

by Ken Ward Jr., Charleston Gazette, March 26, 2006

The latest courtroom battle to curb mountaintop removal coal mining is starting to heat up.

On Friday, a federal judge in Huntington blocked expansion of a Massey Energy mine near the intersection of Kanawha, Fayette, and Raleigh counties.

U.S. District Judge Robert C. Chambers also set a hearing for early April to consider a request for a broader court order to block permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (Ed. Note: That hearing is now moved to June 19.)

Over the last seven years, two federal judges in West Virginia have issued rulings to more tightly regulate mountaintop removal.

Those rulings, by the late Judge Charles H. Haden II and Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, were both overturned by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

One of those cases is now back before Goodwin. Environmental group lawyers have asked the judge to rule on several issues that were not considered in his previous decision or in the Fourth Circuit appeal.

And last month, two West Virginia judges who served on the Fourth Circuit issued a harsh dissent that supports Goodwin’s original ruling.

“The Appalachian mountains, the oldest mountain chain in the world, are one of the nation’s richest, most diverse and most delicate ecosystems, an ecosystem that mountaintop coal mining authorized by the corps’ general permit may irrevocably damage,” Judges Robert B. King and M. Blane Michael said in their dissent…

In the current case, Chambers is being asked to force the Corps of Engineers to conduct broad environmental impact studies on every application for a new mountaintop removal permit.

Lawyers for the Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition and other groups specifically targeted permits for three Massey Energy operations based in Boone, Kanawha, and Logan counties.

The case is a follow-up to Goodwin’s ruling to block the corps from reviewing valley fill proposals through a streamlined “general permit” process.

In the new case, the environmentalists argue that the corps was wrong to approve mining operations through more detailed “individual permit” reviews because those reviews did not include a study called an Environmental Impact Statement.

“The mining and valley fills at these three mines collectively will destroy over 2,000 acres of land and smother over seven miles of streams,” the lawyers said in the court papers. “Yet, the corps has neglected to examine in a meaningful way the inevitable damage that will be caused by these mines, or to develop any realistic plan for mitigating that damage.”

A gigantic coal sludge lake in southern West Virginia can be seen from a local airplane flight. Like mountaintop removal mining, scores of such ponds endanger downstream residents and businesses.

Coal Sludge

Coal sludge is presently being stored underground. Elements in samples show the degree of contamination it causes. Maybe out of sight, but definitely not out of mind! Too bad our lawmakers are caving to some of the unconscionable “business” practices. 2,500 square miles of West Virginia’s once pristine land is now contaminated.

******

False Pretenses:

Following 9/11, Bush and 7 top administration officials

waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of

misinformation about the threat posed by

Saddam Hussein's Iraq

by Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith

President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.

On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.

It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.

In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.

President Bush, for example, made 232 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and another 28 false statements about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Secretary of State Powell had the second-highest total in the two-year period, with 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq's links to Al Qaeda. Rumsfeld and Fleischer each made 109 false statements, followed by Wolfowitz (with 85), Rice (with 56), Cheney (with 48), and McClellan (with 14).

The massive database at the heart of this project juxtaposes what President Bush and these seven top officials were saying for public consumption against what was known, or should have been known, on a day-to-day basis. This fully searchable database includes the public statements, drawn from both primary sources (such as official transcripts) and secondary sources (chiefly major news organizations) over the two years beginning on September 11, 2001. It also interlaces relevant information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches, and interviews.

Consider, for example, these false public statements made in the run-up to war:

* On August 26, 2002, in an address to the national convention of the Veteran of Foreign Wars, Cheney flatly declared: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." In fact, former CIA Director George Tenet later recalled, Cheney's assertions went well beyond his agency's assessments at the time. Another CIA official, referring to the same speech, told journalist Ron Suskind, "Our reaction was, 'Where is he getting this stuff from?'"

* In the closing days of September 2002, with a congressional vote fast approaching on authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, Bush told the nation in his weekly radio address: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given. ...This regime is seeking a nuclear bomb, and with fissile material could build one within a year." A few days later, similar findings were also included in a much-hurried National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction--an analysis that hadn't been done in years, as the intelligence community had deemed it unnecessary and the White House hadn't requested it.

* In July 2002, Rumsfeld had a one-word answer for reporters who asked whether Iraq had relationships with Al Qaeda terrorists: "Sure." In fact, an assessment issued that same month by the Defense Intelligence Agency (and confirmed weeks later by CIA Director Tenet) found an absence of "compelling evidence demonstrating direct cooperation between the government of Iraq and Al Qaeda." What's more, an earlier DIA assessment said that "the nature of the regime's relationship with Al Qaeda is unclear."

* On May 29, 2003, in an interview with Polish TV, President Bush declared: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." But as journalist Bob Woodward reported in State of Denial, days earlier, a team of civilian experts dispatched to examine the two mobile labs found in Iraq had concluded in a field report that the labs were not for biological weapons. The team's final report, completed the following month, concluded that the labs had probably been used to manufacture hydrogen for weather balloons.

* On January 28, 2003, in his annual State of the Union address, Bush asserted: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." Two weeks earlier, an analyst with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research sent an email to colleagues in the intelligence community laying out why he believed the uranium-purchase agreement "probably is a hoax."

* On February 5, 2003, in an address to the United Nations Security Council, Powell said: "What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources." As it turned out, however, two of the main human sources to which Powell referred had provided false information. One was an Iraqi con artist, code-named "Curveball," whom American intelligence officials were dubious about and in fact had never even spoken to. The other was an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who had reportedly been sent to Egypt by the CIA and tortured and who later recanted the information he had provided. Libi told the CIA in January 2004 that he had "decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]."

The false statements dramatically increased in August 2002, with congressional consideration of a war resolution, then escalated through the mid-term elections and spiked even higher from January 2003 to the eve of the invasion.

It was during those critical weeks in early 2003 that the president delivered his State of the Union address and Powell delivered his memorable U.N. presentation. For all 935 false statements, including when and where they occurred, go to the search page for this project; the methodology used for this analysis is explained here.

In addition to their patently false pronouncements, Bush and these seven top officials also made hundreds of other statements in the two years after 9/11 in which they implied that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or links to Al Qaeda. Other administration higher-ups, joined by Pentagon officials and Republican leaders in Congress, also routinely sounded false war alarms in the Washington echo chamber.

The cumulative effect of these false statements--amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts--was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war. Some journalists-- indeed, even some entire news organizations--have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, "independent" validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq.

The "ground truth" of the Iraq war itself eventually forced the president to backpedal, albeit grudgingly. In a 2004 appearance on NBC's Meet the Press, for example, Bush acknowledged that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. And on December 18, 2005, with his approval ratings on the decline, Bush told the nation in a Sunday-night address from the Oval Office: "It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove Saddam Hussein from power."

Bush stopped short, however, of admitting error or poor judgment; instead, his administration repeatedly attributed the stark disparity between its prewar public statements and the actual "ground truth" regarding the threat posed by Iraq to poor intelligence from a Who's Who of domestic agencies.

On the other hand, a growing number of critics, including a parade of former government officials, have publicly--and in some cases vociferously--accused the president and his inner circle of ignoring or distorting the available intelligence. In the end, these critics say, it was the calculated drumbeat of false information and public pronouncements that ultimately misled the American people and this nation's allies on their way to war.

Bush and the top officials of his administration have so far largely avoided the harsh, sustained glare of formal scrutiny about their personal responsibility for the litany of repeated, false statements in the run-up to the war in Iraq. There has been no congressional investigation, for example, into what exactly was going on inside the Bush White House in that period. Congressional oversight has focused almost entirely on the quality of the U.S. government's pre-war intelligence--not the judgment, public statements, or public accountability of its highest officials. And, of course, only four of the officials--Powell, Rice, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz--have testified before Congress about Iraq.

Short of such review, this project provides a heretofore unavailable framework for examining how the U.S. war in Iraq came to pass. Clearly, it calls into question the repeated assertions of Bush administration officials that they were the unwitting victims of bad intelligence.

Above all, the 935 false statements painstakingly presented here finally help to answer two all-too-familiar questions as they apply to Bush and his top advisers: what did they know, and when did they know it?

--Center for Public Integrity.org

******

FEMA Trailers are Shipped to the Gulf Coast

by Train in March 2006

(CNN)--Rep. Nick Lampson, D-TX, said Tuesday that Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) tried to control the outcome of a scientific study on formaldehyde in trailers used to house victims of Hurricane Katrina.

"Someone from one of the agencies, the CDC, came to our committee and reported that he had information that indicated that good science wasn't followed when a decision was made to allow people to live in basically travel trailers that were not designed to be lived in," said Lampson, chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science and Technology.

In addition, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee--Rep. Bennie G. Thompson, D-MS--cited medical experts who said prolonged exposure to high levels of formaldehyde can cause ailments ranging from respiratory irritation to cancer.

The committee recently obtained internal CDC e-mail which showed that "despite the efforts of CDC professionals to bring these health risks to the public's attention, those concerns were thwarted by CDC leadership for roughly eight months," Thompson said.

FEMA denies that it has suppressed any report, including one about formaldehyde prepared by a branch of the Centers for Disease Control.

"The health and safety of residents has been and continues to be our primary concern," FEMA said in a statement issued Monday.

"Any and all allegations that FEMA ignored or manipulated formaldehyde-related research are unfounded and false. Such activities are completely contrary to our mission and our commitment to the victims of disaster," said Carlos Castillo, FEMA's assistant administrator for disaster assistance during the House Homeland Security Committee hearing Tuesday afternoon.

Almost 150,000 households have lived in FEMA trailers at some point since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast in 2005. FEMA says about 40,000 families are still living in the travel trailers.

Formaldehyde is a preservative used in construction materials like plywood. The Environmental Protection Agency classifies it as a probable human carcinogen, according to the EPA Web site.

The site says the chemical can also be an irritant to the respiratory tract and the eyes. FEMA and the CDC say the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), an arm of the CDC, did an initial assessment for FEMA that wasn't intended to address the long-term effects of extended exposure to formaldehyde.

"ATSDR's original response focused on the acute health effects of formaldehyde exposure--to meet the urgent needs expressed by FEMA in its original request," said a CDC statement.

"The initial consultation with ATSDR was intended to determine effective mitigation measures and did not discuss long-term health impacts," a FEMA statement agreed.

"FEMA wanted to be able to put people into these trailers for long periods of time," Lampson said. "They gave a report that apparently said that it was safe to go in for a couple of weeks and allowed people to go in. Well, it's been way past a couple of weeks and now people have been in them a year or 18 months."

"One person from the CDC who came to us told us they wouldn't write the report," he said. "That person was circumvented and another person at the agency agreed to write a report to say that levels of formaldehyde were safe for a couple of weeks."

FEMA received that initial report in February 2007. "That study showed that ventilating the units is effective in reducing levels of formaldehyde," according to a FEMA fact sheet.

FEMA and the CDC said it became apparent that more study was needed, so ATSDR went back to work and issued a new report in October.

"This revised report supports the initial report in that ventilation of travel trailers was effective in lowering formaldehyde levels," according to the FEMA statement issued Monday. "It was revised to include a number of caveats relating to potential health impacts of long term exposure."

FEMA says it has offered everyone living in a travel trailer the option of moving to a hotel until alternative housing can be found. Meanwhile, the CDC has been doing a separate study of formaldehyde in the trailers.

The results of that research are expected next month. FEMA pointed to that more comprehensive study in its statement issued Monday about the controversy and added, "In addition, FEMA already had begun an aggressive outreach campaign to occupants advising them of potential exposure to formaldehyde and offered those residents an option for immediate relocation to alternative housing," the FEMA statement said.

Lampson said his subcommittee has requested copies of communications between FEMA and the CDC on the subject.

"Not following good science in advising people to do things as they try to recover from one tragedy is indeed a much greater tragedy this is compounding," he said. "This appears perhaps to be the tip of an iceberg."

CNN's Sean Callebs and Eric Marrapodi

contributed to this report.

************************************************************

Fool us once, shame on us...fool us twice and...um, you

can’t get fooled again? Apparently, we Americans can get fooled

...again and again and ∞.

************************************************************

Federalist No. 11

The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution. They consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. The essays were signed PUBLIUS. The authors of some papers are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote fifty two, James Madison wrote twenty eight, and John Jay contributed the remaining five. The Federalist Papers remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution. The following one is attributed to Alexander Hamilton and was written for the Independent Journal. It is titled “The Utility of the Union in Respect to Commercial Relations and a Navy.”

To the People of the State of New York:

THE importance of the Union, in a commercial light, is one of those points about which there is least room to entertain a difference of opinion, and which has, in fact, commanded the most general assent of men who have any acquaintance with the subject. This applies as well to our intercourse with foreign countries as with each other.

There are appearances to authorize a supposition that the adventurous spirit, which distinguishes the commercial character of America, has already excited uneasy sensations in several of the maritime powers of Europe. They seem to be apprehensive of our too great interference in that carrying trade, which is the support of their navigation and the foundation of their naval strength. Those of them which have colonies in America look forward to what this country is capable of becoming, with painful solicitude. They foresee the dangers that may threaten their American dominions from the neighborhood of States, which have all the dispositions, and would possess all the means, requisite to the creation of a powerful marine. Impressions of this kind will naturally indicate the policy of fostering divisions among us, and of depriving us, as far as possible, of an ACTIVE COMMERCE in our own bottoms. This would answer the threefold purpose of preventing our interference in their navigation, of monopolizing the profits of our trade, and of clipping the wings by which we might soar to a dangerous greatness. Did not prudence forbid the detail, it would not be difficult to trace, by facts, the workings of this policy to the cabinets of ministers.

If we continue united, we may counteract a policy so unfriendly to our prosperity in a variety of ways. By prohibitory regulations, extending, at the same time, throughout the States, we may oblige foreign countries to bid against each other, for the privileges of our markets. This assertion will not appear chimerical to those who are able to appreciate the importance of the markets of three millions of people--increasing in rapid progression, for the most part exclusively addicted to agriculture, and likely from local circumstances to remain so--to any manufacturing nation; and the immense difference there would be to the trade and navigation of such a nation, between a direct communication in its own ships, and an indirect conveyance of its products and returns, to and from America, in the ships of another country. Suppose, for instance, we had a government in America, capable of excluding Great Britain (with whom we have at present no treaty of commerce) from all our ports; what would be the probable operation of this step upon her politics? Would it not enable us to negotiate, with the fairest prospect of success, for commercial privileges of the most valuable and extensive kind, in the dominions of that kingdom? When these questions have been asked, upon other occasions, they have received a plausible, but not a solid or satisfactory answer. It has been said that prohibitions on our part would produce no change in the system of Britain, because she could prosecute her trade with us through the medium of the Dutch, who would be her immediate customers and paymasters for those articles which were wanted for the supply of our markets. But would not her navigation be materially injured by the loss of the important advantage of being her own carrier in that trade? Would not the principal part of its profits be intercepted by the Dutch, as a compensation for their agency and risk? Would not the mere circumstance of freight occasion a considerable deduction? Would not so circuitous an intercourse facilitate the competitions of other nations, by enhancing the price of British commodities in our markets, and by transferring to other hands the management of this interesting branch of the British commerce?

A mature consideration of the objects suggested by these questions will justify a belief that the real disadvantages to Britain from such a state of things, conspiring with the pre-possessions of a great part of the nation in favor of the American trade, and with the importunities of the West India islands, would produce a relaxation in her present system, and would let us into the enjoyment of privileges in the markets of those islands elsewhere, from which our trade would derive the most substantial benefits. Such a point gained from the British government, and which could not be expected without an equivalent in exemptions and immunities in our markets, would be likely to have a correspondent effect on the conduct of other nations, who would not be inclined to see themselves altogether supplanted in our trade.

A further resource for influencing the conduct of European nations toward us, in this respect, would arise from the establishment of a federal navy. There can be no doubt that the continuance of the Union under an efficient government would put it in our power, at a period not very distant, to create a navy which, if it could not vie with those of the great maritime powers, would at least be of respectable weight if thrown into the scale of either of two contending parties. This would be more peculiarly the case in relation to operations in the West Indies. A few ships of the line, sent opportunely to the reinforcement of either side, would often be sufficient to decide the fate of a campaign, on the event of which interests of the greatest magnitude were suspended. Our position is, in this respect, a most commanding one. And if to this consideration we add that of the usefulness of supplies from this country, in the prosecution of military operations in the West Indies, it will readily be perceived that a situation so favorable would enable us to bargain with great advantage for commercial privileges. A price would be set not only upon our friendship, but upon our neutrality. By a steady adherence to the Union we may hope, erelong, to become the arbiter of Europe in America, and to be able to incline the balance of European competitions in this part of the world as our interest may dictate.

But in the reverse of this eligible situation, we shall discover that the rivalships of the parts would make them checks upon each other, and would frustrate all the tempting advantages which nature has kindly placed within our reach. In a state so insignificant our commerce would be a prey to the wanton intermeddlings of all nations at war with each other; who, having nothing to fear from us, would with little scruple or remorse, supply their wants by depredations on our property as often as it fell in their way. The rights of neutrality will only be respected when they are defended by an adequate power. A nation, despicable by its weakness, forfeits even the privilege of being neutral.

Under a vigorous national government, the natural strength and resources of the country, directed to a common interest, would baffle all the combinations of European jealousy to restrain our growth. This situation would even take away the motive to such combinations, by inducing an impracticability of success. An active commerce, an extensive navigation, and a flourishing marine would then be the offspring of moral and physical necessity. We might defy the little arts of the little politicians to control or vary the irresistible and unchangeable course of nature.

But in a state of disunion, these combinations might exist and might operate with success. It would be in the power of the maritime nations, availing themselves of our universal impotence, to prescribe the conditions of our political existence; and as they have a common interest in being our carriers, and still more in preventing our becoming theirs, they would in all probability combine to embarrass our navigation in such a manner as would in effect destroy it, and confine us to a PASSIVE COMMERCE. We should then be compelled to content ourselves with the first price of our commodities, and to see the profits of our trade snatched from us to enrich our enemies and persecutors. That unequaled spirit of enterprise, which signalizes the genius of the American merchants and navigators, and which is in itself an inexhaustible mine of national wealth, would be stifled and lost, and poverty and disgrace would overspread a country which, with wisdom, might make herself the admiration and envy of the world.

There are rights of great moment to the trade of America which are rights of the Union--I allude to the fisheries, to the navigation of the Western lakes, and to that of the Mississippi. The dissolution of the Confederacy would give room for delicate questions concerning the future existence of these rights; which the interest of more powerful partners would hardly fail to solve to our disadvantage. The disposition of Spain with regard to the Mississippi needs no comment. France and Britain are concerned with us in the fisheries, and view them as of the utmost moment to their navigation. They, of course, would hardly remain long indifferent to that decided mastery, of which experience has shown us to be possessed in this valuable branch of traffic, and by which we are able to undersell those nations in their own markets. What more natural than that they should be disposed to exclude from the lists such dangerous competitors?

This branch of trade ought not to be considered as a partial benefit. All the navigating States may, in different degrees, advantageously participate in it, and under circumstances of a greater extension of mercantile capital, would not be unlikely to do it. As a nursery of seamen, it now is, or when time shall have more nearly assimilated the principles of navigation in the several States, will become, a universal resource. To the establishment of a navy, it must be indispensable.

To this great national object, a NAVY, union will contribute in various ways. Every institution will grow and flourish in proportion to the quantity and extent of the means concentered towards its formation and support. A navy of the United States, as it would embrace the resources of all, is an object far less remote than a navy of any single State or partial confederacy, which would only embrace the resources of a single part. It happens, indeed, that different portions of confederated America possess each some peculiar advantage for this essential establishment. The more southern States furnish in greater abundance certain kinds of naval stores--tar, pitch, and turpentine. Their wood for the construction of ships is also of a more solid and lasting texture. The difference in the duration of the ships of which the navy might be composed, if chiefly constructed of Southern wood, would be of signal importance, either in the view of naval strength or of national economy. Some of the Southern and of the Middle States yield a greater plenty of iron, and of better quality. Seamen must chiefly be drawn from the Northern hive. The necessity of naval protection to external or maritime commerce does not require a particular elucidation, no more than the conduciveness of that species of commerce to the prosperity of a navy.

An unrestrained intercourse between the States themselves will advance the trade of each by an interchange of their respective productions, not only for the supply of reciprocal wants at home, but for exportation to foreign markets. The veins of commerce in every part will be replenished, and will acquire additional motion and vigor from a free circulation of the commodities of every part. Commercial enterprise will have much greater scope, from the diversity in the productions of different States. When the staple of one fails from a bad harvest or unproductive crop, it can call to its aid the staple of another. The variety, not less than the value, of products for exportation contributes to the activity of foreign commerce. It can be conducted upon much better terms with a large number of materials of a given value than with a small number of materials of the same value; arising from the competitions of trade and from the fluctuations of markets. Particular articles may be in great demand at certain periods, and unsalable at others; but if there be a variety of articles, it can scarcely happen that they should all be at one time in the latter predicament, and on this account the operations of the merchant would be less liable to any considerable obstruction or stagnation. The speculative trader will at once perceive the force of these observations, and will acknowledge that the aggregate balance of the commerce of the United States would bid fair to be much more favorable than that of the thirteen States without union or with partial unions.

It may perhaps be replied to this, that whether the States are united or disunited, there would still be an intimate intercourse between them which would answer the same ends; this intercourse would be fettered, interrupted, and narrowed by a multiplicity of causes, which in the course of these papers have been amply detailed. A unity of commercial, as well as political, interests, can only result from a unity of government.

There are other points of view in which this subject might be placed, of a striking and animating kind. But they would lead us too far into the regions of futurity, and would involve topics not proper for a newspaper discussion. I shall briefly observe, that our situation invites and our interests prompt us to aim at an ascendant in the system of American affairs. The world may politically, as well as geographically, be divided into four parts, each having a distinct set of interests. Unhappily for the other three, Europe, by her arms and by her negotiations, by force and by fraud, has, in different degrees, extended her dominion over them all. Africa, Asia, and America, have successively felt her domination. The superiority she has long maintained has tempted her to plume herself as the Mistress of the World, and to consider the rest of mankind as created for her benefit. Men admired as profound philosophers have, in direct terms, attributed to her inhabitants a physical superiority, and have gravely asserted that all animals, and with them the human species, degenerate in America--that even dogs cease to bark after having breathed awhile in our atmosphere. Facts have too long supported these arrogant pretensions of the Europeans. It belongs to us to vindicate the honor of the human race, and to teach that assuming brother, moderation. Union will enable us to do it. Disunion will add another victim to his triumphs. Let Americans disdain to be the instruments of European greatness! Let the thirteen States, bound together in a strict and indissoluble Union, concur in erecting one great American system, superior to the control of all transatlantic force or influence, and able to dictate the terms of the connection between the old and the new world!

PUBLIUS.