Should Attorney General Gonzales Resign?

Political

"THE NATION; Gonzales urged to quit `for the nation'; The No. 3 Democrat in the Senate says the attorney general has politicized the Justice Department.

Source: Los Angeles Times 03/12/2007
WASHINGTON

U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales has so politicized the Justice Department that he should step down for the sake of the nation, the Senate's third-ranking Democrat said Sunday.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York -- citing recent disclosures about the FBI's improper use of administrative subpoenas to obtain private records and the controversy over the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys in December -- told CBS' "Face the Nation" that Gonzales, who previously served as White House counsel, was "no longer just the president's lawyer, but has a higher obligation to the rule of law and the Constitution."

Schumer, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, charged that under Gonzales the Justice Department had become even more politicized than it was under President Bush's first attorney general, John Ashcroft.

"And so," Schumer said, "I think for the sake of the nation, Atty. Gen. Gonzales should step down."
Appearing on the same program, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, did not go so far as to suggest that Gonzales step down.

But he said that a report released Friday by the Justice Department's inspector general raised questions about the investigatory powers given to federal agents under the Patriot Act, which Congress reauthorized last year.

Resignation, Specter said, is "a question for the president and the attorney general, but I do think there have been a lot of problems. Before we come to conclusions, I think we need to know more facts."

Specter said the inspector general's report showed widespread violations of Patriot Act requirements designed to protect privacy rights of U.S. citizens.

Stating that the act has been "very badly abused," Specter said Judiciary Committee hearings planned for this month -- including one with FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III -- not only should look at the failures but should include "very active consideration about withdrawing some of those powers."

As for the alleged firing of U.S. attorneys for political reasons, Specter said he was concerned about the removal of the U.S. attorney in New Mexico, David C. Iglesias, who has said he received calls last year from two GOP members of Congress from New Mexico, Sen. Pete V. Domenici and Rep.

Heather A. Wilson. The legislators, he told Congress last week, were asking about the progress of a corruption investigation against Democrats in the state, and he said he interpreted the calls as pressure to bring indictments before the 2006 midterm elections.

Specter said he was less concerned whether politics had been involved in the removal in 2005 of a U.S. attorney in Maryland, Thomas DiBiagio. Specter said DiBiagio had claimed similar political pressure from legislators but had failed to immediately report any calls he had received. There were "really good reasons" for DiBiagio's dismissal, Specter added.

Though Justice Department officials say that the U.S. attorneys ousted in December were removed for performance-related reasons, critics have charged that the dismissals were politically motivated and, in some cases, followed complaints that the prosecutors had failed to aggressively investigate Democrats.

Appearing on CNN's "Late Edition," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), another Judiciary Committee member, said that "Gonzales has lost the confidence of the vast majority of Americans."
Responding to the senators' comments, a Justice Department spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, said in a written statement that Gonzales had demonstrated "decisive leadership by demanding a new level of accountability."

On Saturday, during a question-and-answer session with reporters in Montevideo, Uruguay, Bush expressed continued confidence in both Gonzales and Mueller. "

6 months left in Iraq

Republican leaders are claiming that liberals do not support the troops. It seems that Democratic leaders are afraid of taking a clear stance on the Iraq War, so let me entertain you with what I believe.

The work of U.S. troops in Iraq in done. It is time to bring all American troops back home.

The House is discussing legislation to task the Bush Administration with providing results in Iraq by July 2007. My opinion is based on what I have heard military generals and a former soldier say; that American troops could be withdrawn from Iraq in 6 months.

I urge and propose for the United States House and the Senate to vote to end the Iraq War and begin bringing our soldiers home starting September 2007. To make this date LAW for the final End of War against Iraq.

No matter what any corrupted political pundit will tell you, it was in fact the War in Iraq that gave the Democrats control of Congress. It is their mandate to end this debacle. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid must lead the nation in this transition and allow for the House Bills on Iraq to be voting on. The message sent by the American people is not a desire for more of the same or even tolerance for a change in strategy. The American people spoke; WE want an end to this war.

All Africa: Education

This African country is bickering over something as pettie as how its teachers wear thier hair while these countries are dead last in eduation. The problem is obviously not teh teachers but the adminitratiors whom allowed for standards to be loosened at all.

Political

"6 Teachers, Headmaster in Dispute Over Dreadlocks

Source: All Africa 03/12/2007

Harare, Mar 12, 2007 (The Herald/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) --
SIX teachers at Glen View High 1 School who wear dreadlocks are embroiled in a dispute with the head of the school over their locks.

The headmaster said teachers were role models who must be exemplary to pupils.
However, Rastafarianism has been recognised in Zimbabwean courts as a religion that has developed over the years to a dominant political ideology deeply rooted in Pan-Africanism and the class struggle.

In its modern form, it embraces the notion of "self-dignity and self-respect of the black majority" following years of slavery. It stresses the equality of all races.

But Glen View High 1 headmaster Mr Alois Maronga said wearing locks was "dirty" and had no place in Zimbabwean culture.

Mr Maronga last week told the teachers that if they failed to comply with his instruction they risked being sacked.

He made the remarks after the Public Service Commission had noted deterioration in standards of dress by civil servants and came up with a list of acceptable dressing.

The PSC issued a circular to all heads of ministries and departments, including headmasters, on the new standard of dress required.
In an interview, the teachers, who d
eclined to be named, said Mr Maronga convened a meeting after the PSC issued a circular on the new dress standards for civil servants.

The circular did not mention anything on hairstyles but the teachers said Mr Maronga and his deputy Mrs Chenai Magadzire insisted that the six teachers at the school shave off their dreadlocks.
Five of the teachers are women while and they wear the dreadlocks for different reasons.

Some believe in Rastafarianism while for others it is just a mere expression of fashion and style.
"They said we should shave the dreadlocks but we know that it was not part of the circular and we challenged them to show us where it was stated that dreadlocks were no longer allowed," one of the teachers said.

The teachers said Mr Maronga summoned them to his office one by one and threatened to charge each of them with misconduct if they failed to comply.

"He (Mr Maronga) told us that the Secretary of Education, Sport and Culture, Dr Steven Mahere, did not want dreadlocks and we should remove them without fail or would be charged with misconduct," another teacher said.

The teachers said they were making consultations and would challenge the move if the school head continued to pester them.

"This is a clear violation of our rights and we know of cases that have already set a precedent, so we will not be afraid of intimidation.

"But we honestly believe that wearing dreadlocks does not mean that you are a thug or a notorious character as most people would want to believe," another furious teacher said.
The teachers also said they had questioned Mr Maronga why he was being harsh against them when even some Members of Parliament wear dreadlocks.

In 2005 former MDC legislator for Highfield Mr Munyaradzi Gwisai was banned to practice as a lawyer for wearing dreadlocks.

He challenged the ban at the Supreme Court, saying that his constitutional rights of freedom of conscience and expression were being infringed and won the case.

The teachers also said the issue had created an unpleasant working environment for them as they were being viewed as outcasts at the school although wearing locks was a symbolic expression inspired by Rastafarianism and fashion.

Mr Maronga, however, said he had only conveyed a message from his principal, the PSC, which banned teachers from wearing revealing clothes and jeans and had only proffered advice to the teachers on their hairstyles.

"We only gave them advice to shave as Rastafarianism is not part of our culture. So it is now up to them to follow or not," Mr Maronga said.

He also dismissed allegations that he had ordered them to cut off their dreadlocks.
Mr Maronga said he had advised the teachers in line with the PSC staff development programme, whose aim is to restore a befitting image in public institutions following the deterioration of standards of dress.

The commission had noted with concern the deterioration and has directed that certain standards of dress be maintained by members during the course of their duties in order to uphold the dignity and formality expected of them.

In the case of women, the PSC banned the wearing of sleeveless tops, sleeveless dresses, strapped dresses or blouses, tops that have low necklines, jeans, see-through garments and mini-skirts.
Men must wear shirts with collar and tie and there is no objection to wearing of tailored safari suits with alternative dress being suits or sports jackets or blazers.
On formal occasions to which members are invited as representatives of their ministries, suits with collar and tie will be worn.

According to the PSC, exceptions are only at the discretion of heads of ministries or departments and normal dress can only be departed from when public servants are working in rural areas or when the duties require different considerations.

The PSC also advised men to always keep formal jackets in their offices in case they are called to meetings and other formal occasions unexpectedly.
Uniformed civil servants such as soldiers and police are also required to be in the fully prescribed uniforms.

A mixture of uniform and non-uniform items is unacceptable.
Both men and women are not expected to turn up for work wearing tennis shoes or tackies.

In the case of men, open sandals should only be worn for medical reasons and it is necessary for the respective heads of departments to request for medical certificates of affected members. "

Teen Agers: Relationship with your Parents

A word of advice for the teen agers, follow the direction of Bible in your relationship with your parents including the decisions you make “honor your father and mother”. However difficult it may seem it’s always the right way. This holds true for even those of us that have better sense and education than the parents God blessed us with. Heed my advice and I promise you that God has a blessing with your name on it.

Here are some scripture you can check out:

“Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. Exodus 20:12

“Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honor thy father and mother: which is the first commandment with promise: that it may be well with thee and thou mayest live long on the Earth.” Ephesians 6: 1-3
"You drink, I'll sniff" Love those kids.

BUSH, GORE AND KATRINA

The legacy of George W. Bush shall be Iraq and Katrina.

Vice President Al Gore would be well positioned to captilize on what happened in New Orleans, tie it with global warming, embrace the black community and take his rightful place as the President of the United States of America. Lets not forget, Gore is from the south and he is a Christian.

Political

Bush works to assure Katrina victims they aren't forgotten
Source: Agence France Presse 03/01/2007
NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana, March 1, 2007 (AFP) -

US President George W. Bush, under fire for slow reconstruction efforts in areas wrecked by Hurricane Katrina, visited the Gulf of Mexico Thursday telling victims he had not forgotten about them.

"I committed to the people of this part of the world and the Gulf Coast that the federal government would fund recovery and stay committed to the recovery," Bush said before a lunch with Louisiana officials in New Orleans.

"I fully understand that there are frustrations and I want to know the frustrations. And to the extent we can help, we'll help," he said.

Bush also made his 14th trip to the region since the 2005 hurricane, visiting Mississippi and New Orleans, to press local authorities to speed up the use of federal funds.

"Part of the reason I've come down is to tell the people here in the Gulf coast that we still think about them in Washington and that we listen to the governor when he speaks," Bush said at his first stop in the Mississippi coast city of Long Beach.

"The other reason I've come down is, I want the taxpayers of the United States to see first hand what their money has done to help revitalize a series of communities that were literally wiped out because of a major storm," he said in his first visit to the region in six months.

"This is a hopeful day," he said, adding "there's obviously a lot more work to be done."
"But times are changing for the better, and peoples' lives are improving and there is hope," he said in a region of stark contrast between renewed communities and those still struggling to recover.

The Bush administration had already been heavily criticized for its slow response to Katrina after it hit the Gulf of Mexico coast on August 29, 2005, flooding most of New Orleans and leaving about 1,500 people dead.

Bush's popularity started to decline in the wake of the government's dismal reaction to the disaster, in addition to the growing unpopularity of the Iraq war. His job approval rating has hovered around 30 percent, recently hitting new lows.

He came under fire anew over Katrina when he did not mention the disaster-wrecked region during his annual State of the Union speech to Congress in January.
Discontent is particularly sharp in New Orleans, where neighborhoods are still devastated, many schools remain closed and crime remains a problem.

Mayor Ray Nagin has said he would press Bush to speed up federal aid when the two meet later Thursday.

"We all have a sense of urgency about the recovery," said Don Powell, Bush's coordinator of Gulf coast reconstruction.

"But I think it's important to look and put it in perspective about the size of the storm and how overwhelming this storm was," he said, noting that only 53 billion of 110 billion in government aid has been spent locally.

Bush said: "The federal government's role has been to write checks."
"The governor's role and the mayor's role is help to expedite the federal money to the local folks," he said.

Great Britain: Families take stage in politics

I have an interest in Great Britain and will post more articles about our sister country.

At last, the family takes centre stage in politics
Source: The Business 03/01/2007

THE politics of the family are on the cusp of changing for good in Britain, in one of the most fundamental intellectual shifts since the rise of new Labour in the mid-1990s. The leaders of both parties now speak out unashamedly in support of two-parent families and even marriage as the best parental arrangement; to argue that, in an ideal world, children would be best brought up by two parents, rather than one, no longer marks a politician out as a mean-spirited, bigoted reactionary. The statistical evidence is at last spreading its light among politicians.

A sign of this welcome shift is that the support for marriage expressed by David Cameron, the Conservative leader, is seen as being integral – rather than somehow in opposition – to his modern image.

There is, of course, resistance to this new consensus, especially by some politicians who try to pervert the debate by claiming that to support the two-parent family is synonymous with attacking single mothers, even though it is nothing of the sort. These include Harriet Harman, a candidate for Labour’s deputy leadership, who has espoused much of the social policy that has done much to undermine the family and who glibly dismisses Cameron’s family policies as “back to basics with an open-necked shirt”; and the Education Secretary, Alan Johnson, another contender, who should know better because of his working class roots. This should have given him an understanding of how the collapse of two-parent families has turned a section of the working class into an underclass. However, he delivered an absurd speech on Tuesday billed as a push-back against the pro-marriage tide.

John Major’s botched Back to Basics campaign in the mid-1990s foolishly suggested that if you were pro-marriage, you had to be anti-single mothers. The sight of the most powerful men in the country railing against some of the most vulnerable women in
society turned stomachs (especially since their own private lives were hardly an example); it also set the debate back a dozen years.

It is time for politicians of all parties to review the evidence dispassionately. Sensible social policy should try to bolster marriage and help keep families together, inspired by America’s successful welfare reforms.

The extent of the retrograde revolution in British family life is rarely understood. In the past quarter of a century, the number of children being brought up by a lone parent has more than doubled to 3.2m. In 1972, 92% of children were being brought up by a couple; by spring 2005, that number had dropped
to 76%.

As recently as 1980, only 12% of all British births were outside of wedlock – although up from 8% in 1970. By 2004 that figure had spiked to 42%. Remarkably, no fewer than 15% of all children are now born and brought up without their father being present; the figure is far higher among the poor.

We now live in a society where lone-parent families are becoming the norm. According to the Office for National Statistics’ 2006 Social Trends survey, 64% of non-African, non-Caribbean black families with dependent children are single-parent families. Among blacks of Caribbean descent the figure is 57% and among those of African descent 47%. In 2001, in nine London boroughs 40% or more families were lone parent families, with the percentages rising to 48% in Lambeth, 47% in Islington and 46% in Southwark, three of the poorest boroughs.
In 2004, 149,300 children experienced the divorce of their parents – a fifth were under five and almost two-thirds under 10. Around 45% of British marriages end in divorce.

The malign consequences of this social revolution are being passed down through the generations. Great Britain has, by a 19% margin, the highest rate of teenage births in the European Union, at 26 live births per 1,000 females aged 15 to 19. This is despite 46% of British pregnancies to under-18s ending in an abortion. In Sweden, Denmark, Slovenia and Cyprus there are only about six births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19.

While some single parents cope admirably (and some two-parent families do not), for most the
odds against success are stacked too high against them and their children. There is evidence to show that hundreds of thousands of children are suffering from the collapse of the traditional family and that poorer children in single-parent families tend to get hurt more than wealthier ones.
Kids growing up in lone-parent families in Britain are twice as liable to suffer from a mental disorder compared with those living with married parents: a fifth of boys living with a single parent who is divorced, separated or widowed are afflicted with a mental disorder; by comparison, the number among those living with married parents is only 8%. Children raised in reconstituted families have a 14% rate of mental disorders, compared to a 9% rate for those in a household with no stepchildren.

The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reports that children raised in either lone-parent families or broken homes are three to six times more likely to have been abused; no wonder a quarter of children in stepfamilies run away from home before they reach 16. Regardless of other factors, 17-year-olds not living with two-parent families are one and a half times more likely to do drugs. Just as depressingly, 70% of young offenders are from lone-parent families.

Children growing up without two parents are also losing out materially. While the overall percentage of households living in over-crowded accommodation has dropped from 7% in 1971 to 3% in 2005, 8% of lone parent households are in such accommodation. These children are also at far greater risk of living in a low-income family.

For all Chancellor Gordon Brown’s boasts, around 41% of lone-parent households with dependent children are workless, compared with just 5% of working-age couple households with children. Approximately three-quarters of children in workless households are living in homes with less than 60% of median income once housing costs have been deducted.

The costs to the public purse of family breakdown are considerable. In 2003-2004, 56% of lone parents with dependent children were on income-related benefits, compared with just 10% of couples. While 81% of “coupled parents” were employed, only 54% of lone parents were. Only about a quarter of 16 to 24-year-old lone mothers are in work and only 46% of those aged 25 to 34 with dependent children are. Iain Duncan Smith’s Social Justice Policy Group report estimates that family breakdown costs the state £20bn ($39.2bn, e29.7bn) to £24bn, close to the £32bn spent on defence in 2006-2007, and equivalent to £620 to £820 per taxpayer.
Many people, especially in politics and the broadcast media, even those who accept that two-parent households are on average better for children than one-parent homes, still feel queasy about the state actively encouraging marriage, feeling that this would somehow be illiberal. But the statistics show that children born to married, as opposed to cohabiting couples, are far more likely to grow up in a stable environment.

Almost half of cohabiting couples break up before their child turns five; only one in 12 married parents have split up by the same point. Holding all other socio-economic and demographic factors constant, cohabitees with young children are more than twice as prone to relationship failure as married couples. A recent study of 15,000 women who became mothers in the millenium found that unmarried parents account for almost three-quarters of all family breakdowns; it is hard enough getting and staying married; the omens for those who choose to cohabit are truly grim.
So those who wish for a tax and benefit system that is “bias-free” should think again. If nothing else, they ignore how the current system discriminates heavily against couples staying together. Jill Kirby, the Centre for Policy Studies scholar, calculates that if a family breaks down or a child is born to a single mother the cost to the state is £4,000 to £12,000 a year in additional benefits and reduced tax revenue. A couple with one working parent on £24,000 a year with a mortgage and two kids pay £5,000 more in tax than they receive in benefits per year. However, if they were to break up their two households could make £7,000 more from benefits than they contribute in tax.

Anyone who doubts that changing the tax and benefits system can tackle family breakdown should look across the Atlantic. While it is well known that the Clinton-Gingrich welfare reforms of 1996 ended the automatic entitlement to benefits and slashed welfare rolls from 12.2m to 4.5m, few in Britain realise that it was also designed to strengthen the family and deter teenage pregnancies.

By the end of the Clinton administration child poverty was at its lowest level since 1979 and the poverty rate for children of single mothers its lowest in US history. This was thanks to the incomes of poor mother-led households increasing by more than a quarter. The employment rates of even the least-qualified single mothers rose by 40%, while teenage pregnancies are down by 30%. The growth in out-of-wedlock births has also slowed radically, confirming that changing economic incentives can have an important effect on family structures.
Johnson argued on Tuesday that the “debate is about ensuring politicians don’t go back to moralising about the nature of the relationship and concentrate on helping the child.” We have no desire to moralise but politicians should be practical – and all the evidence shows that if we are to concentrate on helping the child the state should encourage marriage. This does not mean, though, that society should stop offering its love and support to single parents, many of whom achieve heroic successes with their children despite all the obstacles.

But the simple truth, buttressed by dozens of studies and oodles of hard data, is that in the majority of cases, marriage works better than any other child-raising system – and the poorer you are, the truer that is. Britain urgently needs a US-style welfare revolution, which puts at its heart the restoration of the traditional family and which ends the current system’s undermining of marriage.

The shift in the British debate is a positive first step; now our political elite needs to follow words with deeds and move to reverse the catastrophe that is Britain’s family policy.

OBAMA & BLACK VOTERS

Political

Why Obama will surprise national political pundits
Source: Chicago Sun-Times
02/23/2007

Memo to all national political journalists, columnists, pundits, etc.:

Please, get a clue.

Perhaps because I live in and cover the politics of a state which has elected two African-American U.S. senators, a black mayor of our largest city and a black secretary of state who four years ago carried all 102 counties, I find your coverage of the "race issue" in the presidential contest to be utterly devoid of insight and context. I'll try to fill you in.

First, just because a prominent African-American leader endorses Hillary Clinton, that doesn't mean Barack Obama's campaign has suffered a mortal wound. It may seem unusual to you that some black leaders aren't supporting a black candidate, but, take it from me, this happens all the time.

Just look at Obama himself. Obama has endorsed Mayor Daley (who is white) over two black opponents. The reason is pretty clear: Daley is a surefire bet for winning his re-election and Hizzoner can help Obama raise money and eat into Clinton's support with other mayors and assorted big shots.

You want more evidence? Fine. Back in 2004, Cook County Board President John Stroger endorsed two-term Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes (white) for the U.S. Senate instead of Obama. Obama won Stroger's own ward by a huge margin.

That's another lesson for you. An endorsement by an influential black person does not usually translate into actual Democratic African-American votes for a white candidate who's up against a viable, attractive black candidate.

Yet another example along those lines was the 1983 Chicago mayoral race when incumbent Jane Byrne (white) was endorsed by a whole host of black political leaders. African-American Congressman Harold Washington came in at the right time, with the right message and the right campaign, set fire in the precincts and won the race, carrying the black wards by a large margin. In the end, the endorsements did Byrne no good.

Next, you "experts" assume that just because viable, credible black candidates end up winning overwhelming majorities of black votes that polls currently showing Hillary Clinton leading Obama among African Americans are somehow important.

Wrong again.

In Illinois, at least, large numbers of black voters tend to take their time making up their minds. In political parlance, they "break late."

Ten months before the March 2004 U.S. Senate primary (about where we are now before the Iowa caucuses), Obama's own polls showed him winning just 34 percent of the black vote. About a month before the primary, African-American voters began "breaking" in large numbers to his candidacy. As they began focusing on the campaign, black voters saw he was viable, liked his message and a significant percentage finally realized he was African American. He ended up winning just about all their votes.

This same pattern has been repeated time and time again during the past 25 years here. Harold Washington didn't start off his campaign with the majority of black support against a white female with a huge war chest and the powers of patronage and incumbency, but he certainly ended that way.

Like Byrne, Hillary Clinton is almost universally known and has a strong record of backing issues important to many Democratic African- American voters. Obama is far less known. It's perfectly natural that, right now, many black voters are siding with Clinton. But, if Obama's candidacy remains viable through early next year, I'd bet that the vast majority of African-American voters will end up with him.

To recap, because I know you're all very busy: Black leadership endorsements of white candidates over black opponents are not necessarily important because they don't automatically translate into black votes; and black voters take their time deciding whether to vote for a fellow African American, but if that candidate looks like a potential winner, they usually end up voting for him or her.

I hope this helps.

Rich Miller also publishes Capitol Fax, a daily political newsletter, and thecapitolfaxblog.com.

Dick Cheney, its time to resign

Haliburton needs you.

Political

THE ABC OF CHENEY

Source: The Age 02/23/2007
US POLITICS

Dick Cheney, currently in Australia, is often described as the most powerful vice-president in American history. He's also one of the most controversial. Here's why:
D is for Defence: Dick Cheney served as defence secretary under President George Bush snr between 1989 and 1993. During this time, he oversaw the US invasion of Panama, codenamed Operation Just Cause, in 1989 to depose the country's de facto military leader, General Manuel Noriega.

Involving more than 27,000 troops and 300 aircraft, the invasion was powerful and swift. Within days, Noriega was on the run and sought diplomatic refuge in the Vatican's mission in Panama City. Subjected to loud rock'n'roll 24 hours a day, he lasted only days in the Vatican mission before handing himself over to the US military. In 1991, Cheney devised the US-led multinational action Operation Desert Storm against Saddam Hussein's regime after Iraq invaded Kuwait.

He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his efforts. But after inflicting a crushing defeat on Saddam, the US decided to let him remain in power instead of deposing him. The ramifications of this decision are still being felt today.

I is for Iraq: President George W. Bush decided in the aftermath of the September 11 terror attacks on the US to finish what his father did not. Again, Cheney was a key player, this time as Vice-President. Cheney, together with his mentor and friend, former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was among the chief architects of the plan to remove Saddam for good. As the US-led coalition, including Britain and Australia, powered into Iraq in March 2003, Cheney predicted US forces would be "greeted as liberators".

But the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that the US, Britain and Australia said were the justification for the war were never found and probably never existed. Fuelled by the US occupation, sectarian violence continues on a horrific scale, with hundreds of Iraqis dying every month. In America, support for the war has plummeted as more than 3000 US military personnel have lost their lives. Cheney remains resolute in his belief that progress is being made in a war that was "the right thing to do".

C is for CIA: One of the biggest scandals Cheney has been implicated in is the leaking of information about a covert CIA agent Valerie Plame in 2003. Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, a former US ambassador, has claimed members of the Bush Administration revealed his wife's covert identity as payback for him criticising its justifications for the Iraq war. In October 2005, Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted by a grand jury investigating the leak. Libby, who promptly resigned, was charged with lying to FBI agents and the grand jury, and obstructing justice. The trial jury was still considering its verdict yesterday. During the long-running saga, it has been reported that Cheney and Bush advised Libby to disclose Plame's identity, something Libby himself denies.
K is for Kennedy County Sheriff's Office: The sheriff's office in the southern Texas county cleared Cheney of any criminal wrongdoing in one of the most bizarre episodes of his life when he accidentally shot hunting partner Harry Whittington during a quail shooting expedition in February last year.

Turning to blast a bird, Cheney peppered Whittington in the torso, face and neck with shotgun pellets, causing the 78-year-old Texas lawyer to suffer a minor heart attack. Cheney was criticised at the time for not releasing details of the incident for 18 hours. The chief deputy of the Kennedy County Sheriff's Office, Gilbert San Miguel, said, "This was a hunting accident. . . there was no alcohol or misconduct."

C is for Chief of Staff: Cheney assumed the mantle of chief of staff to President Gerald Ford in 1975 after he and Rumsfeld oversaw sweeping changes to Ford's cabinet in a series of political manoeuvres immediately dubbed the "Halloween Massacre". The pair are said to have persuaded Ford to replace James Schlesinger as defence secretary with Rumsfeld, which opened the door for Cheney to become the president's chief of staff. Henry Kissinger was fired from the National Security Council and William Colby sacked as CIA director and replaced by George Bush snr. Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller also announced he would not be Ford's running mate in the 1976 elections.

H is for Halliburton: The giant US engineering and oil services company is where Cheney served as chief executive and chairman between 1995 and 2000. His personal fortune, which runs into tens of millions of dollars is derived mostly from his time at Halliburton. Before running for vice-president in 2000, Cheney put all his shares in a blind trust and has repeatedly claimed to have no ties to the company. But he has still received financial gain from it in recent years due to a deferred compensation or payment program Cheney arranged with the company in 1998.
With the Democrats now in control of the US Congress, an investigation into Halliburton's $7 billion no-bid contract with the Pentagon to help rebuild Iraq is possible. Cheney's office has repeatedly claimed to have had no involvement in the decision. But Democrats argue emails between Pentagon and White House officials in 2003 clearly link Cheney to the contract.
Halliburton's work in Iraq has been mired in controversy, with US Government audits finding the company's subsidiary KBR charged millions of dollars for work it never completed. The company was also under fire for hiring cheap foreign labour to work in Iraq. In 2004, Cheney clashed with Democrat senator Patrick Leahy during a Senate photo shoot after Leahy had criticised his links to Halliburton, with the Vice-President telling Leahy to "go f--- yourself".
E is for Executive Powers: Cheney has been a strong advocate for Bush to be able to exercise executive powers such as phone-tapping in America's war on terror. In response to revelations that the National Security Agency was conducting phone-taps without warrants in violation of existing laws, Cheney said "we believe . . . we have all the authority we need".

As Vice-President, Cheney has been influential in advising Bush that he needs to execute his executive powers to defend America. In 2002, his office supervised the drafting of memos that advised Bush the Geneva Convention on torture need not apply to terrorist suspects. "Bottom line is we've been very active and very aggressive defending the nation and using the tools at our disposal to do that," Cheney told reporters in December 2005. He derided senior Republican John McCain's introduction of legislation to ban the inhumane treatment of detainees, saying it would cost "thousands of lives".

N is for Neo-Conservative: Cheney, along with Rumsfeld and his former deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, are leading proponents of the neo-conservative ideology that has driven America's domestic and foreign policies since Bush's ascension to the White House in 2000. The classic definition of neo-conservative ideology is less taxation to stimulate economic growth, strong domestic government and ensuring the national interest is protected at all times in regards to foreign affairs.

Many neo-conservatives started out as Democrats dissatisfied with the move to the left of their party in the 1970s, but today most are associated with the Republican Party. In the late 1990s, Cheney was a member of the Project for a New American Century - a Washington think-tank many accuse of agitating for US global domination. The group was a significant supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

America's woes in Iraq in recent years have caused the downfall of many of the neo-conservative agenda's leading lights, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Recent reports out of Washington also suggest Cheney's influence in the Bush Administration may be on the decline.
E is for Environment and Energy: Once described by serial presidential candidate Ralph Nader as a dinosaur living among mammals, Cheney has often been criticised for his record on environmental issues during his time as a congressman, political adviser, business executive and vice-president. Cheney has advocated drilling for oil in Arctic wildlife reserves, strongly pushed for the expansion of America's nuclear industry and been accused of having secret meetings with fossil fuel company chiefs on setting energy policies.

He has headed the Bush Administration's energy taskforce and presided over extreme secrecy regarding its operations. In 2005 it was revealed executives from companies such as Exxon Mobil, Conoco, Royal Dutch Shell and BP met energy taskforce members while they were developing energy policy. Cheney's office has fought against judicial rulings to release information on the taskforce and has rejected a series of freedom-of-information law requests seeking documents.

Y is for Yale: The prestigious university is where Cheney briefly studied for a few semesters in 1959 after a Republican businessman from his home state of Wyoming helped him get a scholarship. Former Yale classmates of Cheney's have recounted his disdain for study and liking of a good time. "He spent his time partying with guys who loved football but weren't varsity quality," his former room mate Stephen Billings told Rolling Stone magazine.

Cheney has since sought to explain why he failed to stay the course at Yale by saying "wasn't gonna go to college and buckle down" and "I didn't like the east". He later gained a master's degree in political science from the University of Wyoming. Like Cheney, Bush also spent time at Yale, as did his father, the first President Bush.

Richard Baker is an Age reporter.

3 Candidates for President Already Out

I am ready to at least predict that Obama, Romney, and Edwards will loose and will not even come close to winning their parties nomination. They are already out the race to the next president of the United States. Read my blog, my political predictions are about 80% spot on. These candidates can maybe save time if they replace some key campaign staffers, but quickly. After reading this article one would guess they all have the same campaign manager or marketing firm, a loosing one. You tell me?

Romney, you're a Republican.

Edwards, you blew your shot.

Obama, my brother, some free advice. Change your name Mr. Vice-President to be.

Political

Presidential Hopefuls Buzzword Takes Off

Source: Associated Press Newswires 02/21/2007

WASHINGTON (AP) - Meet the transformers. No, they're not toy action figures or electrical components. They're candidates for president, and transformational leadership is their calling card.

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama announced he was running for president by declaring, "I want to transform this country."

Republican Mitt Romney launched his candidacy by telling people, "If there ever was a time when innovation and transformation were needed in government, it is now."

And Democrat John Edwards revved up his second presidential bid by offering "transformational change that will strengthen this country," as he phrased it in a recent Associated Press interview.

Just what is a transformational leader?

Presidential historian James MacGregor Burns, whose 1978 book "Leadership" is widely admired and studied, wrote that a "transformational leader stands on the shoulders of his followers, expressing coherently those ideas which lie inchoate in the hearts of the followers -- and in the process makes his followers into new leaders."

That's what Howard Dean tried to do in 2004 with his grass-roots-powered populism -- until his primeval scream in Iowa drowned out the whole thing.

Democratic consultant Joe Trippi, who helped to frame Dean's campaign after reading Burns' book, welcomes the talk about transformational leadership rippling through the early campaign rhetoric this time.

"You see it now popping up on the Internet," he says. "I think it's a very healthy thing that at least we're in some discussion."

He's not sure, however, that the candidates realize how hard it is to avoid the more traditional "transactional" form of political leadership typified by pitches such as: "I'll give you a tax cut for your vote."

"Any one of these candidates could be a truly transformational candidate," Trippi says, "and any one of them could immediately revert to being transactional."

Al Gore, who so far is staying out of the race, has clearly become a transformational leader with his campaign to fight global warming, Trippi says. But if he got back into the race, "the one question mark would be: Does running ruin him being a transformational guy?"

Burns, now 88, is happy to see that candidates are talking about transformational leadership, but he's not sure they fully understand it. And even if they do, he says, "it's hard for them to realize that you don't just suddenly turn yourself into a transforming leader."

From what he's seen of the candidates so far, Burns said: "I think it's a fancy choice of words to indicate that they're going to do big things. Will they do big things? No, not in my view."

The candidates themselves speak of the need for transformation with dead-serious earnestness. Edwards, for example, is out front in calling for tax increases to pay for universal health care coverage. "On these big issues like Iraq and health care, I want to lead, not follow," he said.
Romney uses his transformational pitch to try to distinguish himself from Washington politics-as-usual. "I don't believe Washington can be transformed from within by lifetime politicians," he said.

Obama managed to tweak Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's signature line that "I'm in it to win it," when he expanded on that: "I want to win, but I don't just want to win. I want to transform the country."

It's not just the 2008 candidates who have tried to claim the mantle of transformational leader.
President Bush's aides have often spoken of his desire to be a transforming leader.
But Burns dismisses that notion out of hand.

"I can't imagine him even being serious about that," the scholar said.
Republican consultant Rich Galen thinks that all the "transformational" talk is nothing more than the latest fad in presidential packaging.

"This is the 2008 version of 'soccer mom,'" he said, evoking a catch phrase from campaigns past. And, Galen adds, probably not a very smart one.

"Candidates that are on the edge, no matter how transforming their ideas are, don't really go very far because they just make people uncomfortable," he said. "American politics generally is glacial in its changes. The notion of having somebody burst upon that scene that just changes everything happens very rarely."

Wayne Fields, an expert on presidential rhetoric at Washington University in St. Louis, said people are "fairly cynical about grandiose claims and terms, and what does it translate into specifically."

"The question of what we're really ready for is complicated," he said. "I'm all for change -- as long as it make me healthier, younger and richer."

Clinton in Liberty City, FL

Political

Clinton makes early bid to court black voters; Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton stopped in Liberty City, as Florida draws candidates earlier than ever before. CAMPAIGN 2008 LIBERTY CITY
Source: The Miami Herald 02/21/2007

Hillary Rodham Clinton chose Liberty City Tuesday for her first public appearance in Florida as a presidential candidate, signaling that she won't forfeit black voters to Democratic rival Barack Obama.

The senator from New York and former first lady set an informal tone at the Joseph Caleb Community Center, fielding questions from community activists seated all around her. She reminded the crowd that she had visited nearby Charles Drew Elementary School 13 years ago, calling out to the former principal, Fred Morley.

''I've been to Liberty City before, so I am happy to be back,'' she said.
Clinton's visit to Florida also generated hundreds of thousands of dollars from private campaign fundraisers in Coconut Grove, Hollywood and Tampa.

Though two South Florida members of Congress -- Alcee Hastings and Debbie Wasserman Schultz -- endorsed Clinton Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Kendrick Meek, who hosted the public forum with her, did not join them. Considered a rising star, Meek said he wanted his constituents to hear Clinton first and that he would make a decision soon.

''It spoke volumes to me that someone ingrained in politics in Florida since 1991 would come here,'' Meek said. ``Usually, a stop like this in the black community is a month or two before the election.''

EARLIER PRIMARY

But the 2008 presidential campaign is far from usual. State lawmakers are poised to bump up the presidential primary from the second Tuesday in March to the last Tuesday in January. That means Florida could, for the first time, play a make-or-break role in choosing presidential nominees.

Clinton's visit follows Florida appearances in the past few days by two Republican candidates, John McCain and Mitt Romney. Florida voters preferred Clinton over her Democratic opponents in a recent Quinnipiac University poll.

''But can we ever elect a woman?'' Clinton asked the cheering crowd. ``We'll never know until we try. I am proud to be a woman . . . but I'm not running as a woman candidate. I am running because I believe I'm the best qualified and experienced candidate, who can hit the ground running.''

Clinton did not make any policy-related news Tuesday, repeating her call for universal healthcare and her opposition to President Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq. She also repeated her support for immigration reform that gives illegal workers a chance to become citizens.

''Let's bring them out of the shadows,'' Clinton said. ``If they're criminals, let's deport them, but for all the others, let's give them a path to legalization. But don't let them jump the line over people who have been waiting legally.''

Clinton responded to several questions of particular concern to minorities, like the achievement gap between white and black students. When asked about helping poor people, she referred to her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who cultivated widespread support among black voters.
''We're not talking about ancient history,'' she said of his administration. ``We know what to do. We just have to look back a few years.''

Clinton recently hired Mo Elleithee, who knows Florida politics from working on Bob Graham's 2004 presidential campaign and Janet Reno's 2002 bid for governor. Reno lost to Democratic nominee Bill McBride, whose failure to inherit her popularity among black voters was partly blamed for his loss to then-Gov. Jeb Bush.

''Clearly it is an important constituency, and we're going to spend a lot of time campaigning and talking to folks in the community and in every community,'' Elleithee said.
Several black voters who attended Clinton's hourlong event said they faced a tough choice between her and Obama, campaigning to be the first black president.
`WE'RE TORN'
''We're torn, but when it comes down to it, you have to go with your heart, and I believe it will take a woman to straighten us out,'' said Beverly Bush, an AARP activist from Miami Gardens.
Miami Gardens Mayor Shirley Gibson said she hasn't made up her mind yet.
''As a black woman, at the end of the day I will make the decision of who is best for my community and my country,'' she said.

Obama supporters said they are confident he will pick up more support among black voters in Florida as the race proceeds.

''Like every other segment of America, you have to work for the vote,'' said Obama fundraiser Kirk Wagar, a Coconut Grove attorney. ``The numbers now certainly don't indicate where the race will end up.''

Clinton has the advantage of having campaigned in Florida since 1991, when Obama was just graduating from Harvard Law School.