Death Be Not Loud: "Who can blame poor President Bush? Look at his terrible dilemma." There are those who say the chief executive should have come out of his Texas ranch house and articulated and assuaged the sorrow and outrage and anxiety the nation was feeling on Sunday after the deadliest day in Iraq in seven months. An attack on a Chinook helicopter had killed 15 American soldiers, 13 men and 2 women, and wounded 21. There are those who say Mr. Bush should have emulated Rudy Giuliani's empathetic leadership after 9/11, or Dad's in the first gulf war, and attended some of the funerals of the 379 Americans killed in Iraq. Or one. Maybe the one for Specialist Darryl Dent, the 21-year-old National Guard officer from Washington who died outside Baghdad in late August when a bomb struck his truck while he was delivering mail to troops. His funeral was held at a Baptist church three miles from the White House. But let's look at it from the president's point of view: if he grieves more publicly or concretely, if he addresses every instance of bad news, like the hideous specter of Iraqis' celebrating the downing of the Chinook, he will simply remind people of what's going on in Iraq. So it's understandable why, going into his re-election campaign, Mr. Bush wouldn't want to underscore that young Americans keep getting whacked over there, and we don't know who is doing it or how to stop it. The White House is cleverly trying to distance Mr. Bush from the messy problem of flesh-and-blood soldiers with real names dying nearly every day, while linking him to the heroic task of fighting global terror. It's better to keep it vague, to talk about the "important cause" and the "brave defenders" of liberty. If he gets more explicit, or allows the flag-draped coffins of fallen heroes to be photographed coming home, it will just remind people that the administration said this would be easy, and it's teeth-grindingly hard. And that the administration vowed to get Osama and Saddam and W.M.D., and hasn't. And that the Bush team that hyped the presence of Al Qaeda in Iraq has now created an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq. And that there was no decent plan for the occupation or for financing one, no plan for rotating or supporting troops stretched too thin to guard ammunition caches or police a fractious society, and no plan for getting out.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/opinion/06DOWD.html

Op-Ed Columnist: Death by Optimism: "Ultimately, Saddam's rule collapsed in part because he couldn't read Iraq and made decisions based on hubris and bad information. These days, President Bush and his aides are having the same problem. Critics complain that they lied to the American public about how difficult the war would be, but I fear the critics are wrong: they didn't just fool us � they also fooled themselves. Evidence suggests that Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney may have actually believed that our troops would be, as Mr. Cheney predicted, "greeted as liberators." The administration chose to rely not on intelligence but on wishful thinking, and it became intoxicated by the siren calls of Ahmad Chalabi, a silver-tongued charlatan." I wish administration officials were lying, because I would prefer hypocrisy to delusion � at least hypocritical officials make decisions with accurate information. Policy by wishful thinking is crippling our occupation. Initially, U.S. officials didn't restrain looting because they regarded it as celebratory high jinks. Then, confident that security was in hand, they disbanded the Iraqi Army. They didn't push hard to bring in international forces. The foreign forces they suggest introducing are Turks, which adds to my fear that administration officials have been more deluded than duplicitous. It is a crazy scheme: anyone who has spent time in Iraq knows that Iraqis will never accept their former colonial power policing them. Mr. Cheney has cited a Zogby International poll to back his claim that there is "very positive news" in Iraq. But the pollster, John Zogby, told me, "I was floored to see the spin that was put on it; some of the numbers were not my numbers at all." Mr. Cheney claimed that Iraqis chose the U.S. as their model for democracy "hands down," and he and other officials say that a majority want American troops to stay at least another year. In fact, Mr. Zogby said, only 23 percent favor the U.S. democratic model, and 65 percent want the U.S. to leave in a year or less. "I am not willing to say they lied," Mr. Zogby said. "But they used a very tight process of selective screening, and when they didn't get what they wanted they were willing to manufacture some results. . . . There was almost nothing in that poll to give them comfort." Sure, we're making some progress in Iraq. A hand grenade sells for $2.50 now, compared with 10 cents a few months ago. But U.S. troops now face 25 to 30 attacks daily, compared with 15 to 20 in September. Last month 33 Americans were killed, twice as many as in September.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/opinion/05KRIS.html

Op-Ed Contributor: So Few Soldiers, So Much to Do: "The Bush administration's reaction to the deaths of 16 American soldiers in the downing of a helicopter on Sunday morning was the same as it was to the suicide bombings at police stations and the Red Cross headquarters in Baghdad a week earlier � and the same as it has been to every other setback the coalition has faced: insistence that there is no need for more American troops beyond the 133,000 now in Iraq." It is part of any president's job to inspire confidence under pressure, but given the true number of troops in Iraq � actual armed soldiers doing a soldier's job � President Bush might just as well have said that there is no need for any American troops in Iraq. Because zero is the exact number of soldiers actually present at many sites that should be secured 24 hours a day. Such is the arithmetic of an ultra-modern army. The support echelon is so large that out of the 133,000 American men and women in Iraq, no more than 56,000 are combat-trained troops available for security duties. As for the rest, there are many command posts where soldiers operate computers not guns, there are many specialized units charged with reconstruction and civil duties, and even in the actual combat formations there is a large noncombat element. The 101st Airborne Division has 270 helicopters, which alone require more than 1,000 technicians. The Fourth Infantry Division has the usual panoply of artillery, aviation and antiaircraft units that are needed in war but have little role in peacekeeping and security duties. And even the finest soldiers must sleep and eat. Thus the number of troops on patrol at any one time is no more than 28,000 � to oversee frontiers terrorists are trying to cross, to patrol rural terrain including vast oil fields, to control inter-city roads, and to protect American and coalition facilities. Even if so few could do so much, it still leaves the question of how to police the squares, streets and alleys of Baghdad, with its six million inhabitants, not to mention Mosul with 1.7 million, Kirkuk with 800,000, and Sunni towns like Falluja, with its quarter-million restive residents. In fact, the 28,000 American troops are now so thinly spread that they cannot reliably protect even themselves; the helicopter shot down on Sunday was taking off from an area that had not been secured, because doing so would have required hundreds of soldiers. For comparison, there are 39,000 police officers in New York City alone � and they at least know the languages of most of the inhabitants, few of whom are likely to be armed Baathist or Islamist fanatics.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/opinion/04LUTT.html

Issue for Bush: How to Speak of Casualties?: "When the Chinook helicopter was shot down on Sunday in Iraq, killing 15 Americans, President Bush let his defense secretary do the talking and stayed out of sight at his ranch. The president has not attended the funeral of any American soldiers killed in action, White House officials say. And with violence in Baghdad dominating the headlines this week, he has used his public appearances to focus on the health of the economy and the wildfires in California." But after some of the deadliest attacks yet on American forces, the White House is struggling with the political consequences for a president who has said little publicly about the mounting casualties of the occupation. The quandary for Mr. Bush, administration officials say, is in finding a balance: expressing sympathy for fallen soldiers without drawing more attention to the casualties by commenting daily on every new death. White House officials say their strategy, for now, is to avoid having the president mention some deaths but not others, and so avoid inequity. (Mr. Bush does send a personal letter to the family of every soldier killed in action and has met privately with relatives at military bases.) http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/politics/campaigns/05STRA.html

Bush Says Iraq Attacks Don't Rise to Level of Major Combat: "President Bush said today that despite the deadly attack on an American helicopter on Sunday, the United States was no longer involved in major combat in Iraq. And he insisted that Saddam Hussein is no longer a danger." Asked whether United States forces were again engaged in "major combat operations," � which he declared over on May 1 � Mr. Bush said that they were not. "We're back to finding these terrorists and bringing them to justice," the president said in Harbison Canyon, Calif., where he toured areas swept by wildfires. "And we will stay the course," he added. "We will do our job." The president was asked for his reaction to the death of 15 soldiers (the Pentagon revised the toll down from 16 today) in a helicopter that was shot down on Sunday near Falluja, Iraq. "I am saddened any time that there's a loss of life," he said. The White House has been visibly struggling with how to address the loss of American life in Iraq and has apparently decided, at least for now, to refer only in general terms to the dead, who now number more than 135 since Mr. Bush's May 1 declaration. Asked whether his administration was trying to speed up the transfer of power to Iraqis, Mr. Bush said there were now more than 70,000 Iraqis engaged in police and border-security work and in creating a new army. "That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens," Mr. Bush said. The president said that despite reports that the fugitive Saddam Hussein might be behind some of the recent attacks on American troops, he was no longer a menace.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/politics/04CND-BUSH.html

Justices Face Decision on Accepting 9/11 Cases: "With cases generated by the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, now reaching the Supreme Court in substantial numbers, the court faces a basic decision apart from the merits of any individual case: whether to become a player in the debate over where to set the balance between individual liberty and national security." As early as this week, there may be an indication of whether the court intends to remain on the sidelines, leaving the last word to lower courts that have so far deferred to the White House, or to weigh in with the same assertiveness it has displayed so often in recent years on some of the most bitterly disputed issues in American life. The first cases in the queue on the court's docket are appeals filed on behalf of two groups of detainees at the United States naval base at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba. These appeals frame an issue that at some level all the cases, despite their considerable differences, have in common: the degree of deference owed by the judicial branch to the executive for actions taken in the name of national security in a crisis. In these cases, two British citizens, two Australians and 12 Kuwaitis, all seized in Pakistan or Afghanistan during operations led by the United States against the Taliban, are challenging a ruling by the federal appeals court here in March. That court ruled that no federal court has jurisdiction to consider the legality of an open-ended detention that has now lasted more than 18 months without charges and without review by any impartial military or civilian tribunal. A wide array of groups, including former senior military officers, retired American diplomats and prisoners of war from World War II, are urging the justices to hear the appeals, which the administration opposes. Later this year, probably before its winter recess, the court will decide whether to hear a United States citizen's challenge to his open-ended detention as an "enemy combatant." The man, Yasser Esam Hamdi, an American-born Saudi who was apparently captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan, has been held without access to a lawyer in military brigs, first in Virginia and now in South Carolina, since April 2002. The federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled in January that he was not entitled to a lawyer and had no right to challenge the basis for his continued detention. The justices have also been asked to hear a Freedom of Information Act case challenging the Bush administration's refusal to release information, including their names, about the hundreds of people, nearly all of them Muslim immigrants, who were arrested in the weeks following the terrorist attacks. Overturning a ruling by a federal district judge, the appeals court here ruled in June that the information, even concerning those found to have no connection to terrorism, was exempt from disclosure. Unlike the small category of cases the Supreme Court is jurisdictionally obliged to consider � the campaign finance case now awaiting decision, which Congress instructed the court to hear, is one example � these appeals all fall within the completely discretionary part of the court's docket. If the court decides not to hear them, no explanation is likely to be forthcoming, only the word "denied" on the weekly list of orders that dispose of new appeals. The votes of four justices are required for the court to agree to hear a case. The court applies several unofficial criteria for selecting roughly 75 cases to decide each term out of the 8,000 that are filed. These appeals meet none of those criteria. The issues raised have not produced conflicting rulings in the lower courts � the main test the court uses to choose cases worthy of its attention � and the appeals were not filed by the solicitor general's office, which enjoys a very high success rate in getting its cases accepted, if not always decided favorably. Indeed, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson is urging the court not to hear the Guant�namo detainees' appeals, Rasul v. Bush, No. 03-334, and Al Odah v. United States, No. 03-343. His brief argues that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit properly interpreted a 53-year-old Supreme Court precedent to hold that "aliens detained by the military abroad" have only those rights that are "determined by the executive and the military, and not the courts," and that these cases consequently do not merit Supreme Court review. The government's formal responses to the other pending appeals � Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, No. 03-6696, and Center for National Security Studies v. United States Department of Justice, No. 03-472 � are due at the court in early December. The question, then, is whether the justices will nonetheless see these cases as simply important enough to command the Supreme Court's attention despite the absence of the traditional factors that govern discretionary review. The appeal filed by Shearman & Sterling, an international law firm with offices here, on behalf of Fawzi Khalid Abdullah Fahad al Odah and 11 other Kuwaitis held at Guant�namo invokes the court's robust sense of institutional pride and concern for the separation of powers, a particular interest of the conservative majority. "It is not for the executive branch to define the jurisdiction of the federal courts," the brief says. The decision of what steps are required to protect the country "is not a judgment the executive alone should make," it continues, adding: "Someone impartial must have authority to examine the executive's actions. That is the traditional role of the judiciary." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/03/national/03SCOT.html?pagewanted=all&position=

White House Letter: Two Words on a Banner That No Author Wants to Claim: "President Bush and the banner that will not go away. No one seems to want to take credit for coming up with the idea for the banner." Whoever came up with the idea of the "Mission Accomplished" banner that has so plagued President Bush remained as elusive last week as the White House leaker. But here, so far, is the story of "Bannergate" and the hunt for the person or persons behind the two words. President Bush got the story rolling in a Rose Garden news conference on Tuesday, when he distanced himself from the exultant "Mission Accomplished" declaration that his critics increasingly cite as hubristic and premature. As anyone who has watched television lately now knows, the enormous red, white and blue banner was the backdrop to Mr. Bush's May 1 landing in a flight suit on the carrier Abraham Lincoln and his speech on the open deck declaring major combat in Iraq at an end. "The `Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished," Mr. Bush testily told reporters at the news conference, on another day of violence and death in Iraq. "I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff. They weren't that ingenious, by the way." After the news conference, the White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, tiptoed around the president's words. The banner "was suggested by those on the ship," Mr. McClellan said. "They asked us to do the production of the banner, and we did. They're the ones who put it up." The Democratic presidential candidates immediately pounced, saying that Mr. Bush was blaming the Navy for something his advance team had staged. Gen. Wesley K. Clark told reporters that Mr. Bush's comments were outrageous and added, "I guess the next thing we're going to hear is that the sailors told him to wear the flight suit and prance around on the aircraft carrier." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/03/national/03LETT.html

It looks optimistic mainly because people think of zero as the threshold. In fact, job creation must keep up with population growth in order to prevent the labor market from deteriorating.

Job Creation Math: The Three-Card Monte of Economics: "What does an increase in jobs really mean? John W. Snow, the Treasury secretary, raised the issue last week by saying that he expected the economy to add 200,000 jobs a month for the next year. With almost three million jobs having been lost since early 2001, the comment had an air of bold optimism to it and caused a bit of a stir on Wall Street." We are surprised," a senior economist at Goldman Sachs wrote to clients, "that Snow would choose to hand the Democratic presidential candidates this optimistic prediction." But it looks optimistic mainly because people think of zero as the threshold. In fact, job creation must keep up with population growth in order to prevent the labor market from deteriorating. These days, the economy must add from 150,000 to 200,000 jobs every month to keep the unemployment rate from rising, economists say. In 1997, the economy added 250,000 jobs a month, and the unemployment rate fell substantially. But in 1995, 180,000 new jobs were created each month, and the jobless rate ticked up slightly. Shortly after a downturn ends, people who had dropped out of the labor force during the slump � no longer working or looking for work � begin their job search again. This swells the ranks of the officially unemployed and makes a monthly gain of 200,000 look even smaller. "It's entirely possible that you'll see an uptick in the unemployment rate even with" a monthly increase of more than 150,000, said Richard Berner, the chief United States economist at Morgan Stanley. So without changing his meaning, Mr. Snow instead could have said, "We're not going to have enough job growth over the next year to bring down the jobless rate very much, if at all." Given that the Bush administration last year predicted a monthly job gain of about 300,000 for 2004, Mr. Snow could even have added, truthfully, "This estimate of job growth is about 50 percent lower than the last one the administration made." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/26/weekinreview/26LEON.html

Reconstruction: Bush Got $500,000 From Companies That Got Contracts, Study Finds: "The overwhelming majority of government contracts for billions of dollars of reconstruction work in Iraq and Afghanistan went to companies run by executives who were heavy political contributors to both political parties. Though the employees contributed to both parties, their giving favored Republicans by a two-to-one margin. And they gave more money to Mr. Bush than any other politician in the last 12 years." Among the biggest contributions to Mr. Bush's election and re-election efforts were those from executives and employees of Dell Computer at $113,000; of Bearing Point, a business consulting firm, at $119,000; of General Electric at $72,000 and of Halliburton Inc. at $28,000, according to the report. Nine of the 10 biggest contractors � the biggest of which were Bechtel Corporation and Halliburton, either employed former senior government officials or had close ties to government agencies and to Congress. Prepared by the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit research group, the report said the contractors' executives and employees had contributed $49 million to political candidates and parties since 1990. The new report is the first comprehensive independent study of companies involved in Iraqi reconstruction, and it provides evidence that the process for handing out big contracts has often been secretive, chaotic and favorable to companies with good political contacts. The report is the result of a six-month investigation, which included obtaining information on 70 contracts through the Freedom of Information Act.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/politics/31CONT.html

Critical Study Minus Criticism of Justice Dept.: "An internal report that harshly criticized the Justice Department's diversity efforts was edited so heavily when it was posted on the department's Web site two weeks ago that half of its 186 pages, including the summary, were blacked out. The deleted passages, electronically recovered by a self-described 'information archaeologist' in Tucson, portrayed the department's record on diversity as seriously flawed, specifically in the hiring, promotion and retention of minority lawyers." The unedited report, completed in June 2002 by the consulting firm KPMG, found that minority employees at the department, which is responsible for enforcing the country's civil rights laws, perceive their own workplace as biased and unfair. "The department does face significant diversity issues," the report said. "Whites and minorities as well as men and women perceive differences in many aspects of the work climate. For example, minorities are significantly more likely than whites to cite stereotyping, harassment and racial tension as characteristics of the work climate. Many of these differences are also present between men and women, although to a lesser extent." Another deleted part said efforts to promote diversity "will take extraordinarily strong leadership" from the attorney general's office and other Justice Department offices. Even complimentary conclusions were deleted, like one that said "attorneys across demographic groups believe that the Department is a good place to work" and another that said "private industry cites DOJ as a trend-setter for diversity." Beyond that, a recommendation that the department should "increase public visibility of diversity issues," was kept out of the public report. The edited version gave a much narrower view of the department's diversity problems.� "The Justice Department has sought to hide from the public statistically significant findings of discrimination against minorities within its ranks," said David J. Shaffer, a lawyer who has represented agents from federal agencies in class-action discrimination lawsuits. "These cases challenge the same type of discriminatory practices found to exist at the Justice Department." After the unedited document began circulating in computer circles, and articles began appearing earlier this month in publications like Computer World and newspapers like Newsday, the Justice Department pulled the edited report from its Web site, later posting a different version thought to be more resistant to electronic manipulation. The complaints about the Justice Department come as it has shifted many resources to fighting terrorism and critics have said it has allowed the enforcement of civil rights to languish and failed to aggressively pursue some accusations of discrimination in housing, the workplace and other critical areas. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the department's handling of the report called into question its commitment to diversity in its own workplace. At a Senate hearing this week, Mr. Kennedy told James B. Comey, nominated by President Bush to succeed Larry Thompson as deputy attorney general, that the episode "gives the distinct impression that the department commissioned the report, then left it on the shelf, ignoring the recommendations." By the time the department posted the theoretically more secure version of the report on its Web site, it was too late. Russ Kick, a writer and editor in Tucson, who operates a Web site, thememoryhole.org, had had already electronically stripped the edited version of the black lines that hid the full text. Mr. Kick then posted the unedited version of the report on his Web site, where it has been copied more than 32,000 times, a near record for the site. Justice Department officials said it was unlikely that any action would be taken against Mr. Kick.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/national/31JUST.html

Intelligence: Senate Panel Sends New Letter to Rice Demanding Papers on Iraq Arms Friday: "The Senate Intelligence Committee, in a letter to Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, demanded Thursday that the White House 'must lift' its objections and hand over to the panel documents related to intelligence about Iraq and its illicit weapons before the war. The panel set a deadline of noon Friday for compliance by the White House, the same as it has set for the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department and the Pentagon to provide documents and schedule interviews that the committee has been seeking for months." The committee � headed by Senators Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas, and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia � is trying to determine how the Bush administration reached its conclusions about Iraq's suspected stocks of chemical and biological weapons and its nuclear program. Among the documents sought by the committee, Congressional officials said, are copies of President Bush's Daily Brief, a document prepared by the C.I.A. that the White House has until now maintained was off limits to Congress because of executive privilege. The Congressional officials said the documents also included memorandums between the C.I.A. and the White House discussing disputed claims that Iraq was seeking to obtain enriched uranium from Niger for its nuclear weapons program.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/31/politics/31PANE.html

Report Links Iraq Deals to Bush Donations: "Companies awarded $8 billion in contracts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan have been major campaign donors to President Bush, and their executives have had important political and military connections, according to a study released Thursday." The study of more than 70 U.S. companies and individual contractors turned up more than $500,000 in donations to the president's 2000 campaign, more than they gave collectively to any other politician over the past dozen years. The report was released by the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington-based research organization that produces investigative articles on special interests and ethics in government. Its staff includes journalists and researchers. The Center concluded that most of the 10 largest contracts went to companies that employed former high-ranking government officials, or executives with close ties to members of Congress and even the agencies awarding their contracts. Major contracts for Iraq and Afghanistan were awarded by the Bush administration without competitive bids, because agencies said competition would have taken too much time to meet urgent needs in both countries. ``No single agency supervised the contracting process for the government,'' Center executive director Charles Lewis said. ``This situation alone shows how susceptible the contracting system is to waste, fraud and cronyism.'' J. Edward Fox, an assistant administrator at the U.S. Agency for International Development, took issue with Lewis' statement and aspects of the report. ``It would ... be incorrect to suggest that there is no overall oversight of this process,'' he wrote the Center. ``The USAID inspector general's review of all Iraq contracts which was requested by USAID Administrator Andrew S. Natsios on April 14th has shown that all Iraq contracts to date have been done in compliance'' with federal regulations. The top contract recipient was the Halliburton subsidiary KBR, with more than $2.3 billion awarded to support the U.S. military and restore Iraq's oil industry. Halliburton was headed by Vice President Dick Cheney before he resigned to run with Bush in 2000.� http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Iraq-Contracts.html

In a blistering review of President Bush's national security policy, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said on Tuesday that the administration could not "walk away from its responsibilities for 9/11." "You can't blame something like this on lower-level intelligence officers, however badly they communicated in memos with each other," said the retired general, the latest entrant in the Democratic presidential field. "It goes back to what our great president Harry Truman said with the sign on his desk: `The buck stops here.' And it sure is clear to me that when it comes to our nation's national security, the buck rests with the commander in chief, right on George W. Bush's desk." "And," he added, "we've got to say again and again and again, until the American people understand: strong rhetoric in the aftermath is no substitute for wise leadership." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/29/politics/campaigns/29CLAR.html

In his now legendary interview last month with Brit Hume of Fox News, George W. Bush explained that he doesn't get his news from the news media � not even Fox. "The best way to get the news is from objective sources," the president said, laying down his utopian curriculum for Journalism 101. "And the most objective sources I have are people on my staff who tell me what's happening in the world." Those sources? Condoleezza Rice and Andrew Card. Mr. Hume, helpfully dispensing with the "We Report" half of his network's slogan, did not ask the obvious follow-up question: What about us poor benighted souls who don't have these crack newscasters at our beck and call? But the answer came soon enough anyway. The White House made Condoleezza Rice's Newshour available to all Americans by dispatching her to Oprah. "No camera crews have ever been granted this much access to this national security adviser," Oprah told her audience as she greeted her guest. A major scoop was not far behind. Is there anything you can tell us about the president that would surprise us? Oprah asked. Yes, Ms. Rice said, Mr. Bush is a very fast eater. "If you're not careful," she continued, "he'll be on dessert and you're still eating the salad." And that's the way it was, Oct. 17, 2003. This is objective journalism as this administration likes it, all right � news you can't use.�

U.N. Resolution Condemns Israeli Barrier The General Assembly overwhelmingly approved a resolution late on Tuesday demanding that Israel tear down the barrier it is building in the West Bank to deter terrorist attacks. The barrier, according to the resolution, is "in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law" and its route could imperil the Middle East peace plan, known as the road map, which envisions a two-state solution to the crisis. The measure passed by a vote of 144 to 4, with 12 abstentions. The United States voted against it. The resolution approved Tuesday night demanded that Israel "stop and reverse the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory." The passage of the resolution reaffirmed a pattern in which the United States protects Israel in the Security Council, while the General Assembly overwhelmingly passes nonbinding resolutions critical of Israel. General Assembly resolutions carry only symbolic weight, unlike those passed by the Security Council. The vote came at the end of several days of back-room negotiations over an earlier version of the resolution and a second resolution, dropped just before the vote on Tuesday night, that would have requested an opinion from the International Court of Justice, based in The Hague, on whether Israel is legally obligated to halt construction of the barrier and tear down the existing portions. Following the vote last week in the Security Council vote on the barrier - in which France and Spain voted for the resolution condemning it and Germany and Britain abstained - the Europeans sought to vote in unison this time and forestall further divisions among the mediators who are trying to shepherd the road map. The mediators, known as the quartet, include the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations. The Arab and Islamic ambassadors secured the European Union's support by agreeing to amend the resolution to include a condemnation of Palestinian suicide bombings, "extrajudicial killings" by the Israelis, and the Oct. 16 bomb attack on an American diplomatic convoy in the Gaza Strip that killed three American security officers. Russia also voted for the resolution. The United States, Israel, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands voted against it. Before the vote, Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Dan Gillerman, called the negotiations that led to the final resolution a "humiliating farce." Israel says it is building the barrier - a network of fencing, concrete walls, barbed wire and guard posts - to stop suicide bombers entering Israel from the West Bank. But Palestinians condemn the barrier as a land grab and an attempt to create a political border. They say it does not hew along its length to the so-called Green Line, the boundary between Israel and the West Bank, but cuts into the West Bank and surrounds some towns. The vote came several hours after a top United Nations official reported that construction of the barrier had accelerated during the past month, and demanded that Israel dismantle it. On Oct. 1, Israel's government approved construction of new barriers, significantly expanding the scope of the contentious project. The United Nations official, Kieran Prendergast, under secretary general for political affairs, said at a meeting of the Security Council that halting the barrier's construction would "assist in building support among the Palestinian people for the peace process," which had sunk to "a low point." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/22/international/middleeast/22NATI.html

One message Alabama voters needed to hear more clearly was that rejecting higher taxes costs more in the long run. Saving $10,000 by denying medicine to a poor, H.I.V.-positive woman is no bargain if she ends up in a state hospital with full-blown AIDS needing $100,000 in care. Tutoring high school students in danger of failing is cheap compared with paying for welfare � or prison. What Alabama's Low-Tax Mania Can Teach the Rest of the Country The budget ax is swinging in Alabama, and the carnage is piling up. A hundred and fifty fewer low-income AIDS patients will receive life-saving medicines from the state. Fifteen thousand low-income Alabamians may lose their hypertension drugs. High Hopes, a program that offers after-school tutoring to students who fail the high school graduation exam, is being slashed. And up to 1,500 poor children and adults with Down syndrome, autism and other disabilities will not be able to attend a state-supported special-needs camp. The cuts are reaching down to core government functions. The court system is laying off 500 of 1,600 workers, from clerk's office employees to probation officers. The health department is losing investigators who track tuberculosis, and sharply reducing restaurant inspections. Alabama's huge budget gap is a result of the voters' rejection, nearly six weeks ago, of Gov. Bob Riley's tax reform plan, which would have generated an additional $1.2 billion, much of it from undertaxed timberland. After the vote, Governor Riley was forced to cut most state agencies by 18 percent, and other recipients of state funds by 75 percent. Bad as things are, the impact is being blunted by a fortuitous one-time injection of federal funds. Next year agencies are bracing for a 56 percent hit. If the state cannot find more revenue � and Governor Riley is searching � it may be nearly impossible for basic services, including courts, prisons and police, to operate. Alabama's disintegrating government is a problem, certainly, for anyone in the state. But it may also be a harbinger of where the nation is headed. There is a "starve the beast" ethic, currently fashionable among conservatives, holding that the best way to downsize government and end the social safety net is to get voters to demand lower taxes. But before we hurtle any further in that direction, we should think hard about whether we want the whole nation to look like Alabama does this year or, worse, next year. Alabama is not a wealthy state, but its bigger problem is that it is not making an effort to raise the taxes it needs. It is 48th in the nation in state and local revenue as a percentage of personal income, according to Governing magazine. And it has the nation's least equitable tax system. Alabama's income tax kicks in for families of four earning just $4,600. Its property taxes are the lowest in the nation, Governing reports, and "heavily favor farming interests." As a Republican congressman, Governor Riley strongly opposed tax increases. But when he took over the state government, he realized it could not run on the revenues coming in. He courageously offered up a tax package that raised the needed revenue while shifting the burden from overtaxed poor people to undertaxed business interests. But the package was defeated by a skeptical electorate, with many of the no votes coming from low-income Alabamians, whose taxes would have gone down. The voters were not entirely wrong to be skeptical. No budget is free of waste, not even Alabama's meager one. There is a state tradition of legislative pork, patronage controlled by key legislators. And powerful lobbies, notably the teachers' union, have long gotten more than their share of state funds. But Governor Riley has already trimmed much of the pork. And next year, he will no doubt take aim at teacher benefit packages. It is easy to sell voters on low taxes, and a well-financed campaign by Alabama's business community � aided, shamefully, by the state Christian Coalition � did just that. What is harder, but vital right now, is making the more challenging case for why taxes, and sometimes even tax increases, are necessary.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/20/opinion/20MON3.html

Prisoner's Dilemma How '60s anti-war activists let today's chicken hawks off the hook.� On the surface, the war with Iraq seems a simple case of hypocrisy gone lethal. With few exceptions, those in and around the White House who beat the drum most loudly for the invasion of Iraq had not seen a day of combat in their lives. Some, like Vice President Dick Cheney, avoided the Vietnam draft with college deferments; others, like President George Bush, served out their time in safe, hard-to-acquire berths in the National Guard; and the number of medical deferments awarded to now-vigorous conservative leaders is suspiciously high. Meanwhile, many top officials who had seen combat, including senior uniformed officers at the Pentagon and retired soldiers like Secretary of State Colin Powell and Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), were dubious about the administration's choice to attack Iraq as the next move in the war on terror. Even those who came around to support the invasion openly worried about the best-case scenario "plans" for post-Saddam Iraq made by civilians at the Pentagon, few of whom had ever worn the uniform. These concerns proved valid. In the months since May 1, when the president donned an aviator's jumpsuit, landed on an aircraft carrier, and declared the end of major combat, and more than 155 American soldiers have died in Iraq. The number of wounded has skyrocketed to over 1,000, up 35 percent in August alone, according to The Washington Post. Exhausted, middle-aged reservists have had their tours of duty lengthened. And the administration has had to go back to the United Nations for a mandate to spur the international community to bail out the United States with additional troops and resources. �At a recent gathering of current and retired military officers, retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni--who endorsed Bush in 2000, became his Middle East coordinator, but then broke with the administration over Iraq--spoke for many when he said, "My contemporaries, our feelings and sensitivities were forged on the battlefields of Vietnam, where we heard the garbage and the lies, and we saw the sacrifice. I ask you, is it happening again?" according to The Washington Post's Thomas E. Ricks. Last month, after Bush gave a speech to returning members of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division thanking them for their bravery, one young soldier told the Los Angeles Times, "He likes war. He should go fight in a war for two days and see how he likes it." Sidebar: How To Be a Chicken Hawk George W. Bush, President In 1968, George W. Bush, the son of a Texas congressman, applied for a position with the Texas Air National Guard, a popular way to avoid being drafted for combat. Although there was a long waiting list, and Bush had received only mediocre scores on his pilot aptitude test, he was quickly accepted. Bush's service was supposed to last until 1973, but in 1972 he received a transfer to a guard unit in Alabama, allowing him to work on the Senate campaign of a friend of his father. When he failed to take his annual flight physical, guard officials grounded him, and he never flew again. His final officer-efficiency report from May 1973 noted that supervisors hadn't seen him or heard from him. Dick Cheney, Vice President Cheney, who explained that he "had other priorities" at the time, received two draft deferments --one for being a student, and one for being married. In 1965, the government announced a change of policy: Married men would now be drafted, unless they were also fathers. Nine months and two days after that announcement, the Cheneys had their first child. John Ashcroft, Attorney General Ashcroft received six student deferments during Vietnam, plus another "occupational deferment," on the grounds that his civilian job--teaching business law to undergraduates at Southwest Missouri State University--was critical. "I would have served if asked," he has said. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense Wolfowitz received a student deferment, allowing him to attend Cornell, then do graduate work at the University of Chicago, where he remained until the draft was over. Tom Delay, Speaker of the House (R-Texas) Delay received a student deferment, and in 1969 drew a high number in the draft lottery, meaning he did not have to go to Vietnam. At a 1988 press conference defending his and vice presidential nominee Dan Quayle's failure to serve in Vietnam, Delay argued that so many blacks volunteered to serve as a way to escape poverty that there was no room for patriotic conservatives like him and Quayle. Richard Perle, Pentagon Adviser Perle received a student deferment, enabling him to go to graduate school at Princeton, then went to England to work on his doctoral thesis. Fed up with Perle's constant war-mongering last year, Sen. Chuck Hagel, (R-Neb) who volunteered for Vietnam and earned two Purple Hearts, suggested that perhaps "Mr. Perle would like to be in the first wave of those who go into Baghdad." Elliott Abrams, National Security Council, Middle East Director Abrams avoided Vietnam with a bad back, which vanished once the war ended. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0310.poe.html

Democrats Find Little Donations Go a Long Way on Internet A number of Democratic presidential candidates have started monthly contribution plans as part of their Internet fund-raising strategies, attracting donations that while modest � $10 or $50 � are given repeatedly. "It's the same theory that goes behind the late-night infomercials," said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that analyzes campaign finance. "Buy the abs machine for $29.99 for six months! It's much easier to do that than to say that the machine will cost you $180. That is just part of marketing." These subscription plans are partly a result of supporters' requests, but they fit into a Democratic Party effort to build a base of small regular donors to match the one that the Republicans have accumulated over the years. They also reflect evolving fund-raising strategies in response to the new campaign finance regulations, currently under review by the Supreme Court, that have put the emphasis on "hard money," or individual contributions that are capped at $2,000. Only the first $250 of an individual donation is matched by federal funds. "You are essentially doubling every one of these contributions with matching funds," said Erik Smith, a spokesman for the campaign of Representative Richard A. Gephardt. "It's very significant." In addition to Mr. Gephardt, other presidential candidates who are trying the online subscriber route, where people can have donations automatically charged to their credit cards each month, are Howard Dean of Vermont and Senators John Edwards of North Carolina and John Kerry of Massachusetts. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/politics/campaigns/19GIVE.html

President Bush's support among older voters has dropped substantially in recent months, eroding recent Republican gains and highlighting the importance of this critical electoral bloc in 2004, political strategists and analysts say. The trend underscores the stakes for Mr. Bush in the current Congressional negotiations aimed at creating a long-promised prescription drug benefit in Medicare, which covers 40 million elderly and disabled Americans. Negotiators passed a self-imposed deadline on Friday for reaching agreement, but vowed to complete their work before Congress adjourns, which is expected to be sometime next month. Mr. Bush's popularity has declined over all since early summer, but some recent polls suggest that he lost significantly more ground among voters 65 and older than he did among younger Americans. Politicians in both parties consider older voters to be particularly important because they are much more likely to vote than younger people, and because they are heavily concentrated in states that are often presidential battlegrounds, like Florida and Pennsylvania. Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, a longtime Republican campaign strategist, said, "It's still a very fluid vote that can swing on a dime." A poll conducted this month by The New York Times and CBS News showed that Mr. Bush had a 41 percent approval rating among the 65-and-older voters, his lowest among any age group. That was down from 44 percent in July and 63 percent in May. Similar trends have been reported this fall by the Pew Research Center. The latest Gallup Poll, released this week, showed that even as Mr. Bush's overall approval rating had risen to 56 percent from 50 percent during the past month, voters older than 65 remained his weakest age group. Forty-nine percent of them approved of the job he was doing, compared with 60 percent of those 30 to 49. Analysts in both parties cite the economy, the stock market and the situation in Iraq as major factors in the slippage, along with more traditional concerns for older Americans like Medicare and the cost of prescription drugs. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/politics/campaigns/19ELDE.html?pagewanted=all&position=

For Better or Worse, It's Becoming 'Bush's War' All may not be well at the White House if the president feels compelled to assert, as George W. Bush did in a television interview last week, that "the person who is in charge is me." If a president has to state the obvious � in 1995, Bill Clinton memorably announced that he was still relevant � it is even more likely that something, somewhere, is wrong. In this case, it was the management of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy, or at least the public's perception of it. The president's comment was meant to drive home the message that the American occupation would now be overseen by the White House, not the Pentagon. Specifically, Iraq policy would be run by the new "Iraq Stabilization Group," led by Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, who works down the West Wing corridor from Mr. Bush and is one of his closest aides. To a lot of the president's critics and some of his supporters, the change was an overdue attempt by the White House to gain control of what the chattering class calls "Rummy's war," but which history will remember as Mr. Bush's war. Others, though, say the shift represents a significant risk for Mr. Bush. The decision-making, they argue, is now even closer to the Oval Office, with no one but the president to blame when things go badly. "It raises the political stakes considerably," said David M. Kennedy, a professor of history at Stanford. "The president has essentially denuded himself of possible political cover, should he need it. It strikes me as a sign of real political urgency, and possible political desperation, that he is ready to take this into the White House and expose himself in that way." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/weekinreview/19BUMI.html

Hoping to speed up reconstruction work in Iraq, American officials in Baghdad are offering contracts totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, but giving companies as little as three days to submit competing bids. Procurement experts said the extremely short deadlines were legal, but some warned that they could stifle open competition, favor well-connected contractors at the expense of outsiders and lead to higher costs. "Three days is absurd," said Steven Schooner, a professor of procurement policy at George Washington University's law school. "You can objectively conclude that in the United States we don't do this. It's highly unusual." Two weeks ago, the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq gave companies three days to bid on a contract to supply the Iraqi government as many as 850 personal computers as well as telephones, fax machines and other office equipment. A week before that, occupation officials gave contractors seven days to offer a price for up to 14 million boxes of ammunition for Russian-made AK-47 automatic rifles, which are widely used by the Iraqi police and security forces. Scores of other jobs have been awarded or offered with similarly short bidding periods. They include contracts to provide private security guards, repair buildings, supply heavy electrical equipment and even to destroy gigantic sculptures of Saddam Hussein. Occupation officials say they have made the process more open. They now post contracting opportunities on the occupation authority's Web site, along with a standard list of rules and conditions for bidding and carrying out work. But they also say that speed is a top priority, and they make no apologies for giving companies a very short time to respond. "We're here to support the customer, and he has an urgent need," said Col. Anthony Bell, a spokesman for the occupation on contracting issues, explaining the rationale for the rapid granting of contracts. "All that we're doing is reacting to the urgent requirement that he has provided us." The current rush of contracts is being financed out of the new Development Fund of Iraq, which holds money received from Iraqi oil exports. Since the fund's inception in mid-July, coalition officials say they have awarded 143 projects worth more than $200 million. But that is just the beginning. The Bush administration predicts that Iraqi oil revenues will reach $12 billion next year, and President Bush is pressing Congress to approve nearly $20 billion in American money for civilian work in Iraq next year. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/international/middleeast/19CONT.html

State Dept. Study Foresaw Trouble Now Plaguing Iraq A yearlong State Department study predicted many of the problems that have plagued the American-led occupation of Iraq, according to internal State Department documents and interviews with administration and Congressional officials. Beginning in April 2002, the State Department project assembled more than 200 Iraqi lawyers, engineers, business people and other experts into 17 working groups to study topics ranging from creating a new justice system to reorganizing the military to revamping the economy. Their findings included a much more dire assessment of Iraq's dilapidated electrical and water systems than many Pentagon officials assumed. They warned of a society so brutalized by Saddam Hussein's rule that many Iraqis might react coolly to Americans' notion of quickly rebuilding civil society. Several officials said that many of the findings in the $5 million study were ignored by Pentagon officials until recently, although the Pentagon said they took the findings into account. The work is now being relied on heavily as occupation forces struggle to impose stability in Iraq. The working group studying transitional justice was eerily prescient in forecasting the widespread looting in the aftermath of the fall of Mr. Hussein's government, caused in part by thousands of criminals set free from prison, and it recommended force to prevent the chaos. "The period immediately after regime change might offer these criminals the opportunity to engage in acts of killing, plunder and looting," the report warned, urging American officials to "organize military patrols by coalition forces in all major cities to prevent lawlessness, especially against vital utilities and key government facilities." Despite the scope of the project, the military office initially charged with rebuilding Iraq did not learn of it until a major government drill for the postwar mission was held in Washington in late February, less than a month before the conflict began, said Ron Adams, the office's deputy director. The man overseeing the planning, Tom Warrick, a State Department official, so impressed aides to Jay Garner, a retired Army lieutenant general heading the military's reconstruction office, that they recruited Mr. Warrick to join their team. George Ward, an aide to General Garner, said the reconstruction office wanted to use Mr. Warrick's knowledge because "we had few experts on Iraq on the staff." But top Pentagon officials blocked Mr. Warrick's appointment, and much of the project's work was shelved, State Department officials said. Mr. Warrick declined to be interviewed for this article. The Defense Department, which had the lead role for planning postwar operations and reconstruction in Iraq, denied that it had shunned the State Department planning effort.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/19/international/worldspecial/19POST.html?pagewanted=all&position=

A large explosion ripped apart a vehicle in an American diplomatic convoy in the Gaza Strip today, killing three American security staff members and wounding one in the most serious attack on Americans since the Palestinian uprising started more than three years ago. The explosion, caused by a roadside bomb or mine, hit the small convoy on the outskirts of this Palestinian town, after the vehicles had passed through the Erez Crossing, which connects Israel with the Palestinian-ruled Strip. It was not immediately clear whether the convoy, which included a Palestinian security car, was attacked because it was American. The convoy vehicles, which were armored and had diplomatic license plates, bore no outward identification as being American. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/15/international/middleeast/15CND-Gaza.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Toward Death Penalty Reform Even as Congress was advancing long-delayed death penalty reforms last week, the Supreme Court was moving in the opposite direction, lending tacit approval to modern-day barbarism. The justices declined to review a lower court ruling allowing a deranged prisoner to be forcibly medicated to make him sane enough to be executed. Public enthusiasm for the death penalty has been muted in recent years as the country learns more about how it is actually applied. And those stories continue surfacing, one more distressing than the next. A recent article in The Times pointed to a growing debate among legal and medical experts about the supposedly humane use of lethal injection to kill condemned prisoners, noting that Tennessee recently outlawed use of one of the chemicals for pet euthanasia. The developments in Congress reflect the positive side of all these disclosures � a desire even among supporters of the death penalty to eliminate some of the most outrageous aspects of how it is applied.�The new legislation combines President Bush's initiative to reduce the backlog of biological evidence awaiting testing with a pale version of Senator Patrick Leahy's Innocence Protection Act, a measure that has languished year after year. The hybrid includes provisions to require the preservation of physical evidence in federal criminal cases, expand the availability of post-conviction DNA testing and help nudge states to raise the abysmal caliber of legal representation in capital cases. The bill has cleared an important hurdle, passing the House Judiciary Committee by a 28-to-1 vote. A vote by the full House is expected shortly. No one should be deluded into thinking the measure is a cure-all, however. In the redrafting, for one thing, penalties for noncompliance with lawyering standards were replaced with a voluntary system of large financial incentives to goad states to bind themselves to federal guidelines. The effectiveness of the incentives depends largely on whether the bill is fully financed � a big if � and even then it is possible some states with more primitive death penalty practices may decline to participate. More fundamentally, plenty of factors that contribute to the risk of executing the innocent were left unaddressed, like coerced confessions and the faulty recollection of eyewitnesses. Nor would the bill stop states from forcibly medicating deranged prisoners to get around the Eighth Amendment ban on executing the mentally incompetent � the serious constitutional issue sidestepped by the justices. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/13/opinion/13MON2.html

The N.R.A. Is Naming Names The National Rifle Association doesn't call it an enemies list, but deep in the recesses of the organization's Web site is a long, long compilation of the names of groups and individuals that the N.R.A. considers unfriendly. �The A.F.L.-C.I.O. is there, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. The Children's Defense Fund and the Lutheran Office for Governmental Affairs are there. The United States Catholic Conference, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the Y.W.C.A. of the U.S.A. are all there. Among the celebrities on the list are Dr. Joyce Brothers, Candice Bergen, Walter Cronkite, Doug Flutie, Michelle Pfeiffer, Vinny Testaverde, Moon Zappa and the Temptations. Also on the list are the Kansas City Chiefs, Hallmark Cards, the Sara Lee Corporation, Ben & Jerry's, and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City. I'm sure there's a method to the N.R.A. madness, but to tell you the truth, all I can see is the madness http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/13/opinion/13HERB.html

Unable to find weapons of mass destruction, the Bush team has turned to weapons of personal destruction. It's bad enough that the administration hasn't come up with any plausible reason for not having uncovered any W.M.D., even as it's requesting $600 million more to find them; now it's practicing Crawford McCarthyism. At his office yesterday, a block from the White House that he has turned into Bleak House, Mr. Wilson was calm, even as Republicans continued to rip him. For Bush officials, who have wielded patriotism as a bludgeon on critics, you'd think that doing something as unpatriotic as outing Mr. Wilson's wife and endangering the lives of her C.I.A. contacts would be enough. Nah. The group that fights so ferally to keep everything secret, from the cronies who met with Dick Cheney to the identities of the people it has tossed into the brig at Gitmo, had no problem spilling the beans on its own spy when self-preservation was at stake. The issue is the administration's credibility, not Joe Wilson's. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/02/opinion/02DOWD.html

They imposed estimated annual costs of $1.6 billion to $2 billion, but produced estimated annual benefits of $2.4 billion to $6.5 billion.

Review of Environment Rules Finds Benefits Outweigh Costs The White House office in charge of reviewing federal regulations has reported that the benefits of some major environmental rules appear to exceed the costs by several times and that the net benefits may be even larger than previously acknowledged. In its annual review of the costs and benefits of regulations, the Office of Management and Budget examined a sampling of major rules and found that the total benefits, to the extent they can be measured, were at least triple the costs. In this report, which was described on Saturday in The Washington Post, the Environmental Protection Agency was found to have produced significantly greater net benefits than last year's report acknowledged. But the change was mainly due to accounting technicalities. In one change, the budget office expanded its review by looking back 10 years. This meant the latest report included the effects of the successful efforts of the 1990's to rein in the pollution that causes acid rain. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/28/politics/28COST.html

At Central Command, Death Gets an Online Demotion More than 300 American troops have been killed since the war in Iraq began. According to Pentagon records, more than 160 have been killed since President Bush declared on May 1 that major combat operations had ended. At least 70 of those deaths have been the result of hostile fire. Every week seems to bring more deaths. When the guns are silent, there are fatal traffic accidents, fires, even electrocutions. But as the death toll rises, it is growing less visible, at least to those who visit the Web site operated by the United States Central Command, which controls American troops in Iraq. Until early September, the Central Command official site, www.centcom.mil, posted press releases of American military deaths at the top of its home page, along with other releases. The result was a m�lange of good news and bad that reflected the gap between intention and outcome plaguing the United States-led occupation here. Earlier this month, for example, a visitor to the Web site would have seen "Coalition Offers Help With Water, Jobs, Public Safety," topped by a reference to deaths in the First Armored Division: "Two Soldiers Killed, One Wounded in Attack and 1AD Soldier Killed in Helicopter Accident." But about two weeks ago, the site began offering a different picture of the occupation in which death assumed a far less prominent role. In fact, the deaths of American soldiers were now nowhere to be seen on the home page. To find them, visitors had to scroll to the bottom of the page and click on a small link called "Casualty Reports." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/28/weekinreview/28ALEX.html

Senator: Cheney pushes line - Report questions nature of VP's Halliburton ties A Congressional Research Service report undermines Vice President Dick Cheney's denial of an ongoing relationship with Halliburton Co., the energy company he once led, Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) said Thursday. The report concluded that federal ethics laws treat Cheney's annual deferred-compensation checks and unexercised stock options as financial interests in the company. The seven-page report did not name Cheney or Halliburton; it addressed the general legal question. It was prepared at Lautenberg's request. The report from the law division of the congressional research arm of the Library of Congress said deferred salary or compensation received from a private corporation -- as well as unexercised stock options -- may represent a continuing financial interest as defined by federal ethics laws. Democrats have challenged Cheney's claim that he has no financial ties to Halliburton. Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sept. 14 that since becoming vice president, "I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years." Democrats disputed that because Cheney received deferred compensation of $147,579 in 2001 and $162,392 in 2002, with the payments scheduled to continue for three more years. In response, Cheney's office said he had purchased an insurance policy so he would be paid even if Halliburton failed. And his office also has announced he has agreed to donate the after-tax proceeds from his stock options to charity. But the congressional report said that neither the insurance policy nor the charity designation would change a public official's obligation to treat the pay and options as ties to a private corporation. Halliburton, a Houston-based energy conglomerate, has been awarded more than $2 billion in contracts for rebuilding Iraq, including one worth $1.22 billion awarded on a non-competitive basis. Cheney was chief executive officer of Halliburton from 1995 through August 2000. Lautenberg said the report makes clear that Cheney has financial ties to Halliburton. "I ask the vice president to stop dodging the issue with legalese," Lautenberg said. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0309260335sep26,1,7807894.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed

Clark Comes Out Blazing at Bush's 'Arrogance' on Iraq Former Gen. Wesley Clark, in his first full day as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, blasted President Bush for a "dogmatic" foreign policy and for putting "strong-arm tactics" on Congress to rush approval for the war in Iraq. Saying the Bush White House used its executive authority "in ways that cut off debate," Clark said he would likely have voted to authorize the war because "the simple truth is that when the president of the United States lays the power of office" on the line, "the balance of judgment probably goes to the president." "I was against the war," Clark said. "In retrospect, we should never have gone in there. We could have waited. We could have brought the allies in." Asked whether he would support the president's $87-billion request for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Clark said he would first want to see an accounting of the administration's projected costs and its exit strategy. He faulted the administration for "arrogance" in slighting Congress and many of the nation's traditional allies. But he added, "Now that we're there, I want the mission to succeed." Standing on a chair and using a microphone, Clark assailed Bush's economic record, asking why the country has lost 2.7 million jobs, to which the crowd responded, "Bush!" Clark said he had some other tough questions for Bush: "Why are we engaged in Iraq?" Clark asked. "Mr. President, tell us the truth. Was it because Saddam Hussein was assisting the hijackers? Was it because Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapon?" Someone in the audience yelled, "Oil!" Clark said: "We don't know. And that's the truth. We have to ask that question." To which another person in the crowd shouted, "Halliburton is why!" http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-clark19sep19,1,2682695.story?coll=la-headlines-nation-manual

MISTAKES HAVE BEEN MADE Iraqis wonder how U.S. can be so inept On Aug. 19, when the United Nations building in Baghdad was blown up, a little-known Franco-Egyptian UN worker, Jean-Selim Kanaan, was killed. He had volunteered for Iraq duty to help people, and was counting on the protection of the world's mightiest power. Two weeks after his arrival in June, he wrote letters to friends around the world. "Americans understand only what is American. . . . [They] made this war for their interests and surely not to liberate the Iraqi people . . . the revolt is growing," he said in the letters. There are some a series of questions on the streets of Iraq. How is it possible for the U.S. to make so many mistakes? Does the U.S. want to destroy Iraq or have it plunge into civil war and disintegrate? Is all of this an American conspiracy? People cannot believe that the U.S., with all its might and capabilities, could not provide basic security after the fall of the Baath regime in April or restore essential services such as electricity and water. The lawlessness that prevailed after the fall of Baghdad, the looting and destruction of hospitals, museums, public offices and private businesses, while American troops watched, will remain in the minds of many people. They see what happened as a purposeful dereliction of the occupying power's duty to protect the population. The protection is required of occupying armies by the Geneva Conventions. To have disbanded the entire Iraqi army and police, leaving the cities and streets undefended, sending home several hundred thousand trained persons without income, is insanity. These and other failures to provide for the people's elementary needs raise questions about U.S. motives. Many Iraqis see this as a conspiracy to bring about a civil war between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, leading to the breakdown of their country so that the U.S. can take over its oil--the world's second-largest oil reserve. And as is de rigueur in Middle East matters, Israel is added to the mix, though it has nothing to do with that "made in the U.S." mess. None of this is the American intention, but there is no way to explain these many mistakes. The economy Another astonishing decision recently announced by Paul Bremer, the U.S. administrator in Iraq, is the privatization of Iraq's economy. Because there is no private capital in Iraq and the banking system has collapsed, it means that outside capital will own Iraq's future. Who is to benefit? The Ahmad Chalabi crowd supported by Deputy Defense Secretaries Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz? Add a layer to the conspiracy. Last, but not least, is the U.S. failure to bring the worst Baathist criminals to justice--one of the avowed U.S. purposes in going to war in Iraq. None of the Baath leaders held in U.S. custody, some for months, has been brought to trial, and there are no known plans to prosecute them before a legitimate international or national judicial body. The U.S. even rejects having a United Nations commission gather the evidence, just as one did in Yugoslavia, whose success led to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, which is now prosecuting Slobodan Milosevic. Meanwhile in Iraq, mass graves are dug out and bodies removed, documents pilfered from public officials, and on the whole, the evidence is being lost. In Baghdad, the word is that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized U.S. intelligence to make deals with the infamous deck of cards of most wanted criminals in exchange for information, particularly about the hitherto undiscovered weapons of mass destruction. In the U.S., the administration's Iraq occupation policies are mostly questioned from narrow perspectives addressing smaller pieces of the puzzle. The administration avoids those parts of the puzzle that do not fit the image it wants to convey. It also makes it possible to blame security problems in Iraq on "outside terrorists." It does not report the hundreds of Iraqi civilians accidentally killed by American troops. Nor does it account for thousands of civilian detainees. There is one added allegation not reported extensively in the U.S. That is the claim of kidnapping and presumed rape of more than 400 women, according to an Arab news agency. For Iraqi families, there is nothing worse that can befall them. These crimes are committed by Iraqis, but the people blame U.S. forces for the situation. Moreover, when they try to go to the U.S. authorities for help, they are turned away, like the families of the 5,000 detainees who seek news about their loved ones. The naive impression we are conveying is that our leaders were surprised by Iraqi nationalistic reactions because Iraqis were expected to greet invading American troops as Parisian troops did in 1945. That they didn't see Iraqi opposition coming when common people in the streets of every Arab country could have told them so strains credibility. These are, after all, brilliant people. If they purposely concealed it and misled the American people, they should be held accountable. And if they were imbued with their own arrogance to such a degree or deceived by their self-selected agents of change in Iraq, such as Chalabi, they should be removed from office for incompetence. Yet they still impose Chalabi, even when it is now well-established that he has little or no credibility in Iraq. Not unpredictable Nothing of what is happening in Iraq was unpredictable. Yet, despite consistent evidence of misguided policies and practices during the occupation, there is no indication of a significant change. We hear of cosmetic changes, such as having a Security Council resolution establish a multinational force under the command and control of the U.S. But that will not delude nor deflect Iraqi resistance, and it will not bring security for the Iraqi people. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/perspective/chi-0309140031sep14,1,5066949.story?coll=chi-newsopinionperspective-hed

Clinton Assails Bush at Gathering for Hopefuls Former President Bill Clinton seized the Democratic stage tonight, offering one of his strongest denunciations of President Bush since leaving office as he tried to rally Democrats here around candidates who have yet to stir the excitement he did in 1992. Speaking without notes or a prepared text, Mr. Clinton invoked the circumstances of the 2000 presidential election as he argued that the Bush administration had squandered the domestic and foreign policy gains he had made in his eight years in office. "That election was not a mandate for radical change, but that is what we got," Mr. Clinton said, adding, "We went from surplus to deficit, from job gain to job loss, from a reduction in poverty to an increase in poverty, from a reduction in people without health insurance to an increase of people without health insurance." The former president said that Mr. Bush had wasted an opportunity to unite the country and enhance its international standing in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks. "Instead of uniting the world, we alienated it," he said. "And instead of uniting America, we divided it by trying to push it too far to the right." Mr. Clinton used his own economic situation to mock Mr. Bush's tax cut. Mr. Clinton said he might, as a very wealthy former president living in Chappaqua, N.Y., be paying more taxes than just about anyone else in America. "I get my tax cut, and they are going to take 300,000 poor children and kick them out of after-school programs," he said. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/politics/14DEMS.html

Bush Seeks to Expand Access to Private Data For months, President Bush's advisers have assured a skittish public that law-abiding Americans have no reason to fear the long reach of the antiterrorism law known as the Patriot Act because its most intrusive measures would require a judge's sign-off. But in a plan announced this week to expand counterterrorism powers, President Bush adopted a very different tack. In a three-point presidential plan that critics are already dubbing Patriot Act II, Mr. Bush is seeking broad new authority to allow federal agents � without the approval of a judge or even a federal prosecutor � to demand private records and compel testimony. Mr. Bush also wants to expand the use of the death penalty in crimes like terrorist financing, and he wants to make it tougher for defendants in such cases to be freed on bail before trial. These proposals are also sure to prompt sharp debate, even among Republicans. Opponents say that the proposal to allow federal agents to issue subpoenas without the approval of a judge or grand jury will significantly expand the law enforcement powers granted by Congress after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. And they say it will also allow the Justice Department � after months of growing friction with some judges � to limit the role of the judiciary still further in terrorism cases.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/national/14PATR.html?pagewanted=all&position=

Gunsmoke and Mirrors This is how bad things are for George W. Bush: He's back in a dead heat with Al Gore. (And this is how bad things are for Al Gore: He's back in a dead heat with George W. Bush.) One terrorist attack, two wars, three tax cuts, four months of guerrilla mayhem in Iraq, five silly colors on a terror alert chart, nine nattering Democratic candidates, 10 Iraqi cops killed by Americans, $87 billion in Pentagon illusions, a gazillion boastful Osama tapes, zero Saddam and zilch W.M.D. have left America split evenly between the president and former vice president. "More than two and a half years after the 2000 election and we are back where we started," marveled John Zogby, who conducted the poll. It's plus ?a change all over again. We are learning once more, as we did on 9/11, that all the fantastic technology in the world will not save us. The undigitalized human will is able to frustrate our most elaborate schemes and lofty policies. What unleashed Shock and Awe and the most extravagant display of American military prowess ever was a bunch of theologically deranged Arabs with box cutters. The Bush administration thought it could use scientific superiority to impose its will on alien tribal cultures. But we're spending hundreds of billions subduing two backward countries without subduing them. After the president celebrated victory in our high-tech war in Iraq, our enemies came back to rattle us with a diabolically ingenious low-tech war, a homemade bomb in a truck obliterating the U.N. offices, and improvised explosive devices hidden in soda cans, plastic bags and dead animals blowing up our soldiers. Afghanistan has mirror chaos, with reconstruction sabotaged by Taliban assaults on American forces, the Afghan police and aid workers. The Pentagon blithely says that we have 56,000 Iraqi police and security officers and that we will soon have more. But it may be hard to keep and recruit Iraqi cops; the job pays O.K. but it might end very suddenly, given the rate at which Americans and guerrillas are mowing them down. "This shows the Americans are completely out of control," First Lt. Mazen Hamid, an Iraqi policeman, said Friday after angry demonstrators gathered in Falluja to demand the victims' bodies. Secretary Pangloss at Defense and Wolfie the Naif are terminally enchanted by their own descriptions of the world. They know how to use their minds, but it's not clear they know how to use their eyes.? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/opinion/14DOWD.html

Plans for Terror Inquiries Still Fall Short, Report Says The Justice Department, criticized for its treatment of hundreds of illegal immigrants jailed after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has not done enough to avoid a repeat by spelling out clear criteria for determining who is considered a terrorist suspect, an internal report concluded today. In its report, the Justice Department inspector general's office said federal authorities had not developed adequate plans for classifying illegal immigrants arrested in terror investigations to ensure that those with no ties to terrorism would be cleared quickly and adequate F.B.I. resources would be devoted to such investigations. The inspector general's report offered a mixed verdict on the progress the authorities had made in avoiding the pitfalls surrounding the arrests of more than 700 illegal immigrants after the 9/11 attacks. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/09/politics/09DETA.html

Another Friday Outrage By PAUL KRUGMAN When the E.P.A. makes our air dirtier, or the Interior Department opens a wilderness to mining companies, or the Labor Department strips workers of some more rights, the announcement always comes late on Friday � when the news is most likely to be ignored on TV and nearly ignored by major newspapers. Last Friday the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, known as FERC, announced settlements with energy companies accused of manipulating markets during the California energy crisis. Why on Friday? Because the settlements were a joke: the companies got away with only token payments. It was yet another demonstration of how electricity deregulation has gone wrong. Most independent experts now believe that during 2000-2001, price manipulation by energy companies, mainly taking the form of "economic withholding" � keeping capacity offline to drive up prices � added billions of dollars to California's electricity bills. A March FERC report concluded that there had been extensive manipulation of prices in both the natural gas and electricity markets. Using methods widely accepted among economists, the California Independent System Operator � which operates the power grid � estimated that withholding by electricity companies had cost the state $8.9 billion. This estimate doesn't include the continuing cost of long-term contracts the state signed, at inflated prices, to keep the lights on during the crisis. Yet the charges energy companies agreed to added up to only a bit more than $1 million. That is, the average Californian was bilked of more than $250, but the state will receive compensation of about 3 cents.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/02/opinion/02KRUG.html

Taking Arabs Seriously Marc Lynch From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2003 RIGHT GOAL, WRONG APPROACH For the hawks in the Bush administration, one of the keys to understanding the Middle East is Osama bin Laden's observation that people flock to the "strong horse." Bush officials think U.S. problems in the region stem in part from "weak" responses offered by previous administrations to terrorist attacks in the 1980s and 1990s, and they came into office determined to reestablish respect for U.S. power abroad. After nearly two years of aggressive military actions, however, the United States' regional standing has never been lower. As the recent Pew Global Attitudes survey put it, "the bottom has fallen out of Arab and Muslim support for the United States." The failure to find dramatic evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has spurred widespread debate in the Middle East about the real purpose of the recent war, which most Arab commentators now see as a bid by the United States to consolidate its regional and global hegemony. U.S. threats against Iran and Syria play into this fear, increasing a general determination to resist. And the chaos that followed the fall of Baghdad, the escalating Iraqi anger at what is always described as an American occupation, and the seemingly ambivalent U.S. attitude toward Iraqi democracy have reinforced deep preexisting skepticism about Washington's intentions. Because of the speed with which intense anti-Americanism has recently emerged across all social groups in the region -- including educated, Westernized Arab liberals -- the problem cannot be attributed to enduring cultural differences, nor to long-standing U.S. policies such as support for Israel or local authoritarian leaders. Arabs themselves clearly and nearly unanimously blame specific Bush administration moves, such as the invasion of Iraq and what they see as a desultory and one-sided approach to Israeli-Palestinian relations. But perhaps even more important than the substance of the administration's policies is the crude, tone-deaf style in which those policies have been pursued. The first step toward improving the United States' image, therefore, must be figuring out how to address Arabs and Muslims effectively. Ironically, for this administration above all others, taking Arab public opinion seriously cannot be considered either a luxury or a concession to "Arabists" lurking in the bureaucracy. It is instead crucial to the success of the administration's own strategy, which links U.S. security to a democratic and liberal transformation of the region. The Bush team's practice, however, has worked against its stated goals, largely because it has been based on misguided assumptions about the Arab world.� http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82506/marc-lynch/taking-arabs-seriously.html

Bridges, Bombs, or Bluster? Madeleine K. Albright From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2003 Summary: Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has pressured every country in the world to make a simple choice: Are you with the United States or with the terrorists? But by casting the choice so starkly--and expanding the war on terror to include its campaign in Iraq--Washington has alienated many natural and potential allies and made the fight against al Qaeda more difficult. It didn't have to be this way. The White House has acted as if it doesn't care what others think, and the country is paying the price for its mistake. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030901faessay82501/madeleine-k-albright/bridges-bombs-or-bluster.html

DON'T TREAD ON ME Is the war on terror really a war on rights? The Declaration of Independence heralded the values of freedom, justice and equality in a country whose government was accountable to the people. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights enshrined these and other principles, which became the hallmark of this country. We extolled the virtues of our legal system and held it as a model to others. Across 200 years, the progress has been steady in affirming constitutional rights and embedding the rule of law in our society. Among the memorable road hazards of that historic trip are: Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War, Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans, Sen. Joseph McCarthy's witch hunt for Communists or their sympathizers among Americans of all walks of life but particularly among intellectuals and the movie industry. But the nation has never before seen a more systematic erosion of civil rights than after 9/11. This has taken the form of undermining the legal system, coupled with egregious governmental abuses of power, all in the name of combating terrorism. The targets of these measures have been Arabs and Muslims, but the effects extend to everyone. The erosion actually started in 1996 with anti-terrorism and immigration legislation. Permanent residents who were recognized by the Constitution's equal-protection clause as having most of the rights enjoyed by citizens were stripped of them. Non-citizens could be arrested and deported on "secret evidence," which revoked the constitutional right to confront and cross-examine evidence presented against them. This was precisely the practice used by dictatorial regimes the U.S. has repeatedly denounced since the Cold War. After Sept. 11, 2001, the administration embarked on a series of measures that started with a wave of arrests of aliens whose status was irregular. But the administration's campaign only focused on people of Arab origin and others who were Muslims. Their numbers were not confirmed, their status undisclosed, and their cases' outcomes have not been revealed. The Justice Department's inspector general reported that many cases were unjustified and many individuals were harshly treated, something heretofore deemed shocking by our legal standards. Two years later the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a 2-1 decision, reversed an earlier federal court ruling ordering the government to release the names of hundreds of people detained after Sept. 11. One of the concurring judges wrote that "America faces an enemy just as real as its former Cold War Foes, with capabilities beyond the capacity of the judiciary to explore." Judge refuses to cave in The government contended that the disclosure of even one name would compromise national security. In a courageous dissent, however, Judge David Tatel wrote that the majority's "uncritical deference" to the government's vague assertions not only contravened the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act but prevented the American people from discovering whether the present administration "is violating the constitutional rights of hundreds of persons whom it has detained in connection with the terrorism investigation." The war in Afghanistan brought about another type of violation, the placing of enemy war prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Their detention without due process is in clear violation of our international legal obligation under the Third Geneva Convention. The convention requires the U.S. to properly adjudicate their status as prisoners of war and to treat them well. It also provides for their release after the conflict ends. The conflict is over, but they are still detained. Moreover, they were treated in a manner that may fall in the category of torture: sensory deprivation, prolonged hooding and solitary confinement, degrading and humiliating treatment. All of that was glossed over and no one from the U.S. media or human rights organizations was allowed to go inside, view the conditions of detention and talk to the detainees. Among the detainees are people ages 15 to 95, including some who were sick. Secretly, some of them were released to avoid embarrassment, and soon the remaining ones will be released or tried by military commission before which their rights to a fair and impartial defense will not be guaranteed. U.S. courts have shockingly refused to review this situation on the fictitious grounds that Guantanamo Bay, a territory leased from Cuba by the U.S., is not part of the U.S. Our courts found that they are not competent to examine what our troops are doing to their prisoners. That is simply absurd, and judges with moral courage must reverse this position. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/perspective/chi-0308240431aug24,1,3363007.story?coll=chi-newsopinionperspective-hed