Medicare Debate Turns to Pricing of Drug Benefits: "With Congress poised for final action on a major Medicare bill this week, some of the fiercest debate is focused on a section of the bill that prohibits the government from negotiating lower drug prices for the 40 million people on Medicare. That provision epitomizes much of the bill, which relies on insurance companies and private health plans to manage the new drug benefit. They could negotiate with drug companies, but the government, with much greater purchasing power, would be forbidden to do so." Supporters of the provision say it is necessary to prevent the government from imposing price controls that could stifle innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Critics say the restriction would force the government and Medicare beneficiaries to spend much more for drugs than they should. The House passed the Medicare bill on Saturday by a vote of 220 to 215, after an all-night session and an extraordinary three-hour roll call. President Bush and House Republican leaders persuaded a few wayward conservatives to vote for the bill, which calls for the biggest expansion of Medicare since its creation in 1965. In the Senate, debate continued on Sunday, with Democrats asserting that the bill would severely undermine the traditional Medicare program. Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he would lead a filibuster against the measure. Democrats acknowledged they did not have the votes to sustain a filibuster. But they said they would use points of order to slow the legislation, whose passage is a priority for President Bush.� No provision has been mentioned more often in Congressional debate than the section that prohibits the government from interfering in negotiations with drug companies. Democrats have repeatedly asserted that Medicare could provide more generous drug benefits if, like other big buyers, it took advantage of its market power to secure large discounts. But many Republicans have expressed alarm at the possibility that federal officials might negotiate drug prices. The Medicare program, they say, dwarfs other purchasers, and the government is unlike other customers because it could give itself the power to set prices by statute or regulation, just as it sets the rates paid to doctors and hospitals for treating Medicare patients. Under the bill, the government would subsidize a new type of insurance policy known as a prescription drug plan. "In order to promote competition," the bill says, the secretary of health and human services "may not interfere with the negotiations between drug manufacturers and pharmacies and prescription drug plan sponsors, and may not require a particular formulary or institute a price structure for the reimbursement" of drugs.� Representative Tom Allen, Democrat of Maine, said it struck him as absurd that "the government will not be able to negotiate lower prices" for the drugs on which it plans to spend $400 billion in the next decade. "The bill will allow the pharmaceutical industry to continue charging America's seniors the highest prices in the world," Mr. Allen said. Representative Peter A. DeFazio, Democrat of Oregon, said, "We could provide a much more meaningful benefit if we negotiated lower prices as other nations have done." Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois, said: "We could bring down drug prices if we allowed the secretary of health and human services to negotiate on behalf of 40 million seniors. That is what Sam's Club does." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/24/politics/24MEDI.html?pagewanted=all&position=

An 800-Pound Gorilla Changes Partners Over Medicare: "AARP, the organization representing retirees, has long been the 800-pound gorilla in the Medicare prescription drug debate. So when the group endorsed a Republican-backed Medicare bill last week, Democrats reacted with anger and alarm." Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader in the House, complained that AARP was "in the pocket" of Republicans, and suggested that the group, which also sells insurance to its members, had a financial conflict of interest. Eighty-five House Democrats announced they would either resign from AARP, or refuse to join. But behind all the Democratic barbs at the organization itself is a seismic political shift that represents a broader threat to the party's appeal to older Americans. For decades, older Americans were reliable, and crucial, Democratic voters. As recently as last year, Senator Trent Lott, the former Senate Republican leader from Mississippi, derided AARP as a "wholly owned subsidiary" of the Democratic Party. Yet today's older Americans are increasingly voting Republican, a trend that experts say will likely continue as the baby boomers age and the generation of Eisenhower replaces the generation of F.D.R. Before making their endorsement, AARP officials conducted polls and focus groups of Americans 45 and older. The responses, they said, suggested support for a bill that would help the indigent and encourage employers to continue to provide the drug benefits they already offer. Still, surveys of people eligible for Medicare, those 65 and older, have repeatedly found what Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, calls "a big expectation gap" between what retirees believe the prescription drug bill offers and the limited coverage it actually affords. But in the end, with Congress willing to spend $400 billion over 10 years, on the first-ever Medicare drug benefit for retirees, AARP decided an imperfect bill was better than no bill at all. "Well, we represent a constituency that doesn't have that much time to wait," said John Rother, AARP's chief lobbyist. "There was no prospect in the short term that we were going to get a better bill, and there was a real risk that we could end up with a worse bill." The endorsement was a huge victory for Republicans, but it came at a price: the AARP demanded bigger subsidies for low-income people, and incentives for employers to continue offering drug benefits.� But AARP's critics say its executive director, William D. Novelli, a former public relations man who took the helm of the organization two years ago, is playing a dangerous game by aligning himself so closely with Republicans. Mr. Novelli, who wrote a forward to a book by Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House speaker, defended himself last week against Democratic claims that he was a "closet Republican." "We intend to mend fences as soon as this is over," Mr. Novelli said of the Democrats on Friday. The fundamental debate over Medicare is whether the program should be administered privately, as many Republicans prefer, or by the government, the preference of Democrats and the AARP. By promoting a Republican-backed bill, the AARP is assisting a political party whose long-term goals are at odds with its own.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/weekinreview/23STOL.html

Op-Ed Columnist: Death by Dividend: "In this impoverished corner of southwestern Guatemala, lush with jungle and burbling brooks, you can just about see people dying as an indirect result of America's trade agenda. Even now, some governments in Central America choose to let their people die rather than distribute cheap generic AIDS drugs, which would save more lives but might irritate the U.S. And now America is trying to make it more difficult for these countries to use generic drugs." �the stark choice that we Americans face: Do we want to maximize profits for U.S. pharmaceutical companies, or do we want to save lives? American trade negotiators, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, have pushed U.S. interests in a narrow economic sense by making it difficult for poor nations to use cheap generic medicines. In front of the television cameras, the U.S. has made some concessions to public health needs, but the compassion usually vanishes in trade negotiations. The public drafts of the F.T.A.A. clearly place the priority on patents over public health, and the word is that the (still secret) draft text of a Central American Free Trade Agreement should also embarrass us. "An F.T.A.A. agreement with strong I.P. [intellectual property] provisions threatens to have a catastrophic impact on the lives of millions of people living with H.I.V./ AIDS and other diseases," warns Doctors Without Borders, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning aid group. I know, I know. Mention "intellectual property" and eyes glaze over. But meet the people whose lives are at stake.� Juan Emiliano S�nchez, 51, may be too far gone to be saved. A farmer with a son in San Rafael, Calif., Mr. S�nchez has advanced AIDS and is so frail that he can barely walk. "I really want to fight this as long as I can," he said, his face glistening with a feverish sweat, but it looks as if that won't be long. Mar�a Gloria Ger�nimo is a different story. A 27-year-old hotel maid, she was infected with H.I.V. by her husband, and she in turn passed the virus to their son, Rony, during childbirth. Desperate to save Rony's life, Ms. Ger�nimo trekked around Guatemala until she found an AIDS clinic where Doctors Without Borders uses generic antiretrovirals to treat AIDS. Both she and Rony, who is now 5, are strong again. Should drug company profits be more important than the lives of Mr. S�nchez, Ms. Ger�nimo and Rony? "I don't understand how it's in the interests of Americans to pursue policies that are going to lead to the deaths of tens of thousands, maybe even millions," says Robert Weissman, an intellectual property lawyer in Washington who is co-director of Essential Action, which monitors trade agreements. The U.S. trade officials I spoke with vigorously deny that they are insensitive to third-world health needs. But almost every expert I spoke to outside the U.S. government said that the U.S. continued to place hurdles in front of the use of generics to save lives. Even now, ahead of the F.T.A.A., Guatemala and Honduras avoid using generic antiretrovirals for fear of offending the U.S. Guatemala, for example, has 67,000 people, including 5,000 children, with H.I.V. or AIDS. Most will die. Astonishingly, the country spends most of its scarce AIDS money on brand-name drugs rather than cheaper generics, which could treat three times as many people. Honduras does the same, preferring to let people die than use generics. Why would these countries do this? The doctors and public health officials I interviewed said that Central American nations had a strong desire to curry favor with Washington, which is perceived as hostile to generics. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/22/opinion/22KRIS.html

Medicare Drug Benefit Calculator: "Beneficiary Out of Pocket Costs This calculator allows users to enter their prescription drug costs to determine what they would pay under the Medicare reform proposal currently being considered in Congress. Enter annual drug costs below and click on the "Calculate" button." http://www.kaisernetwork.org/static/kncalc.cfm

The Silence of the Cams: "Like many others, I stopped clicking on the watch-video button long ago and never looked back. Until late last Friday, when I went online to see whether there was any decent coverage of the leftists who had been in town that day to march on the World Bank and other redoubts of the global capitalist conspiracy. I'm fascinated by these events, mainly because they never live up to their advance billing in the media. The hordes of protesters don't materialize, and those who do show are not fire-breathing Marxist monsters but a bunch of naive kids who really believe that the Gap and Starbucks are the Hitler and Mussolini of our time." Warned again this year of the expected mayhem�shades of Paris in 1789, or Washington in 1968�I stayed well away from the protests myself. Now night had fallen on our embattled capital, and I was curious about what had really gone on. So I went to washingtonpost.com, where I found a color photo of the marchers, a couple of text stories, and a video offering. Normally, of course, I wouldn't have considered the video. But I'd missed the evening news and really wanted to see the heavily hyped protests. Having just started a free trial of America Online's broadband service at home, I figured this was a chance to test its worth. Was Web video still a nightmare? The Web site's protest piece was the video equivalent of what feature writers call a "scene piece," except the scene isn't conveyed with words but with images captured by a handheld camera, edited, and put up on the Web. Washingtonpost.com sent one of its videographers (as they're called), John Poole, out to observe the protesters as they marched, chanted, danced, and got arrested. The results, which you can view at www.washingtonpost.com/cameraworks, are surprising for a few reasons. First, this video has no narrator. The images and sounds Poole caught�protesters and police speaking to the camera, plus lots of captured scenes�speak for themselves. But this is no mere passive journalism of the I-Am-a-Camera school. It's clear the piece was carefully edited. Given that the editing was done on deadline (the piece was up on the Web site before 6 p.m.), the results are downright artful.� washingtonpost.com has been doing these unnarrated videos since it stumbled on the form while covering the 2000 presidential race. "At first we were mostly doing talking-heads stand-ups," recalls Mark Stencel, vice president for multimedia. "It very quickly evolved to this form of self-narrated video storytelling.... There were parts of the conventions where it was more interesting to have the delegates tell what was going on there than for us to tell you what the delegates were doing." The managing editor who oversees the washingtonpost.com multimedia operation, Tom Kennedy, was previously director of photography for National Geographic. "It sort of is a carryover of a style of storytelling that I learned there," he says. "I thought that the methodology was translatable to video. In other words, letting the subject sort of tell their own story, rather than having a lot of mediation by reporters, voice-overs, that sort of thing. I wanted to see if that could work in a Web environment." http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/nj/powers2002- 10-08.htm

White House Is Evacuated, but the Scene is Serene:

We Will Not Be Intimidated� We Will Not Be Intimidated�

"Was it a bird, a plane, a computer glitch? No one connected to the nation's air defense system claimed to know, but whatever it was, it briefly turned the White House upside down on Thursday. About 9:20 a.m., staff members in the West Wing and schoolchildren on tours were suddenly ordered by the Secret Service to evacuate. The initial word was that radar had picked up a plane flying within five miles of restricted White House airspace." In fact, it was nothing more than a false alarm. But somewhere, somehow, someone monitoring a computer screen saw something disturbing on a clear blue late fall morning in the nation's capital. Officials at the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or Norad, in Colorado Springs, would provide no other details, but they scrambled two F-16 fighter jets from the nearby Andrews Air Force Base to investigate. The White House staff, meanwhile, clustered across Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House near the historic townhouses of Jackson Place, a far more placid scene than the terrifying White House evacuation of Sept. 11, 2001. This time, Tom Ridge, the domestic security secretary whose job was created after the Sept. 11 attacks, was seen leaving, too. Some staff members spotted Secret Service agents stationed near the door of the White House bombproof underground bunker, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, apparently waiting for Vice President Dick Cheney. President Bush was in London.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/politics/21EVAC.html

F.B.I.'s Reach Into Records Is Set to Grow: "A little-noticed measure approved by both the House and Senate would significantly expand the F.B.I.'s power to demand financial records, without a judge's approval, from car dealers, travel agents, pawnbrokers and many other businesses, officials said on Tuesday." Traditional financial institutions like banks and credit unions are frequently subject to administrative subpoenas from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to produce financial records in terrorism and espionage investigations. Such subpoenas, which are known as national security letters, do not require the bureau to seek a judge's approval before issuing them. The measure now awaiting final approval in Congress would significantly broaden the law to include securities dealers, currency exchanges, car dealers, travel agencies, post offices, casinos, pawnbrokers and any other institution doing cash transactions with "a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax or regulatory matters." Officials said the measure, which is tucked away in the intelligence community's authorization bill for 2004, gives agents greater flexibility and speed in seeking to trace the financial assets of people suspected of terrorism and espionage. It mirrors a proposal that President Bush outlined in a speech two months ago to expand the use of administrative subpoenas in terrorism cases. Critics said the measure would give the federal government greater power to pry into people's private lives. "This dramatically expands the government's authority to get private business records," said Timothy H. Edgar, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. "You buy a ring for your grandmother from a pawnbroker, and the record on that will now be considered a financial record that the government can get." The provision is in the authorization bills passed by both houses of Congress. Some Democrats have begun to question whether the measure goes too far and have hinted that they may try to have it pulled when the bill comes before a House-Senate conference committee. Other officials predicted that the measure would probably survive any challenges in conference and be signed into law by President Bush, in part because the provisions already approved in the House and the Senate are identical. The intelligence committees considered the proposal at the request of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, officials said. Officials at the C.I.A. and the Justice Department declined to comment on Tuesday about the measure.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/12/politics/12RECO.html

A Toy Gun Can Shut Down Congress, The Vice President Hides on the Least Hint of a Threat, President Says, "We Won't be Intimidated"

Secret Service Hides Cheney as Plane Enters Restricted Area: "The Secret Service hustled Vice President Dick Cheney into a secure site on Monday morning after a small plane flew into restricted airspace around Washington, government officials said." The plane was intercepted by two Air Force F-16 fighters, whose pilots determined that it was not a threat and escorted it out of the area. President Bush was on his way to a fund-raiser in Little Rock, Ark., at the time, and Laura Bush was in Maine. Mr. Cheney returned to work in the White House after a short time, said a Secret Service spokesman, Tom Mazur. Mr. Mazur said Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, was also taken to the undisclosed secure spot while the Air Force sought to determine whether the small plane presented any danger. Officials said the plane, a single-engine Mooney M20, entered the restricted zone, within 17.5 miles of the Washington Monument, about 11:15 a.m. Mr. Mazur said the pilot of the small plane cooperated with the instructions of the fighter pilots and was allowed to go on his way.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/national/11PLAN.html

Internet Tax Ban Stops Dead in Senate: "A push to permanently ban taxes on Internet access came to an abrupt halt in the Senate on Friday amid concern that state and local governments could lose millions in taxes from phones, music and movies that are migrating to the Internet." State and local governments collect more than $20 billion every year on telecommunications and fear the permanent ban will wipe out a large part of that revenue. A core group of senators pressing for a permanent end to taxes on Internet access said those fears are unfounded. "All the bill says is you cannot discriminate against electronic commerce, and not one state has come forward and given an example of how they have been hurt by their inability to discriminate against electronic commerce," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office said the bill could hit state and local governments in three ways. About 10 states that imposed a tax on Internet access charges before the original ban, and who were permitted to keep collecting those taxes, would lose $80 million to $120 million each year. http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1376712,00.asp

Fine Print Is Given Full Voice in Campaign Ads: "In one of his television commercials, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts announces his candidacy for president before a throng of adoring, placard-waving supporters. But at the end of the spot, amid the roar of the crowd, Mr. Kerry abruptly steps from the podium, looks into the camera and shouts, 'I'm John Kerry, and I approve this message!'" Such odd juxtapositions occur often in the first commercials of this election season because of a little-noticed provision of the new election law requiring candidates � including President Bush, when his campaign begins running ads � to pledge responsibility for their ads.� "It's really clumsy and awkward to put in an ad," said Steve McMahon, whose firm is handling the advertising for Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont. "Focus groups say `Of course you approve it, you wouldn't have said it.' " Academics, lawmakers and lobbyists who helped write the provision said it was intended to force campaigns to stand by any attack ads they produce. That, some argued, could dissuade the production of such ads to begin with. But the campaigns contend that it is unclear whether the provision will ultimately stanch the flow of negative political advertisements this election season anyway. At the very least, strategists with every presidential campaign now advertising said the rule seemed silly at this early stage, when the vast majority of spots are positive. "It's just one more example of reform gone amok," said David Axelrod, a consultant for Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. "It was meant to police negative ads, and now you have this absurd addendum to positive ads that makes absolutely no sense." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/08/politics/campaigns/08ADS.html

Job Figures Buoy Bush, but Democratic Hopefuls See Room to Attack: "'Good luck in using statistics to convince working Americans that the Bush administration has their economic interests at heart,' Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts said in Salem, N.H., in remarks typical of all the potential challengers. 'The deep unfairness of the Bush economy is real to Americans.'" Economic matters have long been the Democrats' strong suit. Now, although the jobs numbers suggest that the economic recovery may be genuine and that the issue may not be the sure winner it seemed a few months ago, the party's strategists said the candidates had no choice but to continue to play this hand. "I still think the race will be run on the economy," said Bruce Reed, president of the Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of moderate Democrats. "But it won't be so much on the recent past as on the outlook for the future." Another tactician who is not affiliated with any candidate, Howard Wolfson, said the improving jobs picture made "the argument on the economy tougher to make but still not impossible." Mr. Wolfson added, "What we have to argue is that he bought a short-term uptick in jobs at the expense of structural deficits as far as the eye can see." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/08/politics/campaigns/08CAMP.html

The Fruits of Secrecy: "One of President Bush's first acts was to convene a task force to produce a national energy strategy. Led by Vice President Dick Cheney, the group met secretly with hundreds of witnesses. It heard from few environmentalists, but many lobbyists and executives from industries whose fortunes would be affected by any new policies. Despite lawsuits, the White House has refused to divulge the names of those privileged to get Mr. Cheney's ear. The results, however, have been plain as day: policies that broadly favor industry � including big campaign contributors � at the expense of the environment and public health." That unfortunate bias was demonstrated anew this week when the Environmental Protection Agency decided to drop investigations into more than 140 power plants, refineries and other industrial sites suspected of violating the Clean Air Act. The winner is industry; the loser, the public. The administration had already weakened the cases' legal foundation: a provision in the act that required companies to install up-to-date pollution controls whenever they increased harmful emissions by making major upgrades to their plants. The utilities had complained that the rule kept them from producing more power and discouraged investments in energy efficiency. Though the companies produced no convincing evidence, Mr. Cheney's task force swallowed the argument whole, and in due course it forced Christie Whitman, then head of the E.P.A., to jettison the rule in favor of a more permissive regime allowing companies to increase pollution without paying for new controls. The administration insists lamely that a handful of cases in litigation will be pursued. It seems clear, however, that the many investigations that have not reached litigation will be dropped altogether or at best restarted under the new rules � rules so full of loopholes that it is highly unlikely that anybody will ever be found to have violated them. The administration swore to Congress months ago that this would not happen, that all the old investigations would be aggressively pursued under the old rules.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/08/opinion/08SAT1.html

Diplomacy: Iraq Said to Have Tried to Reach Last-Minute Deal to Avert War: "As American soldiers massed on the Iraqi border in March and diplomats argued about war, an influential adviser to the Pentagon received a secret message from a Lebanese-American businessman: Saddam Hussein wanted to make a deal." Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections. The messages from Baghdad, first relayed in February to an analyst in the office of Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy and planning, were part of an attempt by Iraqi intelligence officers to open last-ditch negotiations with the Bush administration through a clandestine communications channel, according to people involved. The efforts were portrayed by Iraqi officials as having the approval of President Saddam Hussein, according to interviews and documents. The overtures, after a decade of evasions and deceptions by Iraq, were ultimately rebuffed. But the messages raised enough interest that in early March, Richard N. Perle, an influential adviser to top Pentagon officials, met in London with the Lebanese-American businessman, Imad Hage. According to both men, Mr. Hage laid out the Iraqis' position to Mr. Perle, and he pressed the Iraqi request for a direct meeting with Mr. Perle or another representative of the United States. "I was dubious that this would work," said Mr. Perle, widely recognized as an intellectual architect of the Bush administration's hawkish policy toward Iraq, "but I agreed to talk to people in Washington." Mr. Perle said he sought authorization from C.I.A. officials to meet with the Iraqis, but the officials told him they did not want to pursue this channel, and they indicated they had already engaged in separate contacts with Baghdad. Mr. Perle said, "The message was, `Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad.' " A senior United States intelligence official said this was one of several contacts with Iraqis or with people who said they were trying to broker meetings on their behalf. "These signals came via a broad range of foreign intelligence services, other governments, third parties, charlatans and independent actors," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Every lead that was at all plausible, and some that weren't, were followed up." There were a variety of efforts, both public and discreet, to avert a war in Iraq, but Mr. Hage's back channel appears to have been a final attempt by Mr. Hussein's government to reach American officials. In interviews in Beirut, Mr. Hage said the Iraqis appeared intimidated by the American military threat. "The Iraqis were finally taking it seriously," he said, "and they wanted to talk, and they offered things they never would have offered if the build-up hadn't occurred." Mr. Perle said he found it "puzzling" that the Iraqis would have used such complicated contacts to communicate "a quite astonishing proposal" to the administration. But former American intelligence officers with extensive experience in the Middle East say many Arab leaders have traditionally placed a high value on secret communications, though such informal arrangements are sometimes considered suspect in Washington. The activity in this back channel, detailed in interviews and in documents obtained by The New York Times, appears to show an increasingly frantic Iraqi regime trying to find room to maneuver as the enemy closes in. It also provides a rare glimpse into a subterranean world of international networking. The key link in the network was Imad Hage, who has spent much of his life straddling two worlds. Mr. Hage, a Maronite Christian who was born in Beirut in 1956, fled Lebanon in 1976 after the civil war began there. He ended up in the United States, where he went to college and became a citizen. Living in suburban Washington, Mr. Hage started an insurance company, American Underwriters Group, and became involved in Lebanese-American political circles. In the late 1990's, he moved his family and his company to Lebanon. Serendipity brought him important contacts in the Arab world and in America. An influential Lebanese Muslim he met while handling an insurance claim introduced him to Mohammed Nassif, a senior Syrian intelligence official and a close aide to President Bashar al-Assad. On trips back to Washington last year, Mr. Hage befriended a fellow Lebanese-American, Michael Maloof, who was working in the Pentagon as an analyst in an intelligence unit set up by Mr. Feith to look for ties between terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and countries like Iraq. Mr. Maloof has ties to many leading conservatives in Washington, having worked for Mr. Perle at the Pentagon during the Reagan administration. In January 2003, as American pressure was building for a face-off with Iraq, Mr. Hage's two worlds intersected. On a trip to Damascus, he said, Mr. Nassif told him about Syria's frustrations in communicating with American officials. On a trip to the United States later that month, Mr. Hage said, Mr. Maloof arranged for him to deliver that message personally to Mr. Perle and to Jaymie Durnan, then a top aide to the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz. Pentagon officials confirmed that the meetings occurred. Mr. Perle, a member of the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon, is known in foreign capitals as an influential adviser to top administration officials. After Mr. Hage told his contacts in Beirut and Damascus about meeting Mr. Perle, Mr. Hage's influential Lebanese Muslim friend asked Mr. Hage to meet a senior Iraqi official eager to talk to the Americans. Mr. Hage cautiously agreed. In February, as the United States was gearing up its campaign for a Security Council resolution authorizing force against Iraq, Hassan al-Obeidi, chief of foreign operations of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, arrived in Mr. Hage's Beirut office. But within minutes, Mr. Hage said, Mr. Obeidi collapsed, and a doctor was called to treat him. "He came to my office, sat down, and in five minutes fell ill," recalled Mr. Hage. "He looked like a man under enormous stress." After being treated, Mr. Obeidi explained that the Iraqis wanted to cooperate with the Americans and could not understand why the Americans were focused on Iraq rather than on countries, like Iran, that have long supported terrorists, Mr. Hage said. The Iraqi seemed desperate, Mr. Hage said, "like someone who feared for his own safety, although he tried to hide it." Mr. Obeidi told Mr. Hage that Iraq would make deals to avoid war, including helping in the Mideast peace process. "He said, if this is about oil, we will talk about U.S. oil concessions," Mr. Hage recalled. "If it is about the peace process, then we can talk. If this is about weapons of mass destruction, let the Americans send over their people. There are no weapons of mass destruction." Mr. Obeidi said the "Americans could send 2,000 F.B.I. agents to look wherever they wanted," Mr. Hage recalled. He said that when he told Mr. Obeidi that the United States seemed adamant that Saddam Hussein give up power, Mr. Obeidi bristled, saying that would be capitulation. But later, Mr. Hage recounted, Mr. Obeidi said Iraq could agree to hold elections within the next two years.� http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/06/politics/06INTE.html?pagewanted=all&position=

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