Post-Katrina Poll > Poverty over Terrorism

Post-Katrina Poll Finds Americans Prioritizing Poverty over Terrorism Haider Rizvi, OneWorld US [It seems to me that poverty and poor education is an ongoing problem in this country which has nothing to do with storms like Katrina regardless of their devastation. In fact the emphasis on Katrina is counter productive because it implies that if we fix the Gulf Coast, then everything will be hunky-dory until the next disaster and we can simply continue on ignoring our social problems. More comments are embedded below... AG] NEW YORK, Nov 24 (OneWorld) - It's the growing rate of poverty in the United States--not Washington's global war on terrorism--that most people of color are concerned about, according to a new nationwide opinion poll conducted by an independent civil rights group. The multilingual survey suggests that a vast majority of Blacks, Latinos, and Asian Americans strongly believe that ending poverty should be on top of the government's agenda, not fighting wars in foreign lands, such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Those who considered tackling poverty to be the country's number one priority included 58 percent of Blacks, 43 percent of Hispanics, 38 percent of Asians and 36 percent of non-Hispanic Whites, according to the poll results. [Those numbers are terrible! One would think that since poverty affects those groups more than European stock, that the percentages would be up in the 70' and 80's at least! It certainly does not jibe with the second paragraph above. And.... what the hell is a non-Hispanic White? Would that include me and Tonto - or just my granddaughters? ...AG] Pollsters believe that the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina and the painful images of hopelessness and suffering of the victims have made a large impact on many Americans. "I don't remember poverty ever finishing as the number one priority on any kind of list," says Sergio Bendixen, who runs Bendixen and Associates, the private firm that conducted the polls for New California Media (NCM), a group representing more than 700 ethnic media organizations. NCM says the poll was focused on gauging Katrina's impact on public opinion on four national issues: the eradication of poverty in the United States, racial discrimination, the environment and climate change, and the government's ability to deal with catastrophic events. The results were released in Washington last week at a briefing cosponsored by NCM, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the Center for American Progress. Pollsters say that the largest portion of respondents from all four major ethnic and racial groups agreed that the reconstruction of the Gulf Coast and the official share of rebuilding efforts should be financed by "getting our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible." They included 77 percent of Blacks, 69 percent of Hispanics, and 60 percent of Asians, as well as a plurality of non-Hispanic Whites. The respondents endorsed the strategy of withdrawal over "raising taxes," "cutting government funding for health and education programs," and "borrowing more money from foreign countries." The poll, entitled "Lessons of Katrina: America's Major National and Ethnic Groups Find Common Ground After the Storm," is based on interviews with 1035 people in Spanish, English, Korean, Vietnamese, Cantonese, and Mandarin. Pre-Katrina studies show that the Latino and Black populations in the United States, the largest minorities with 37 and 36 million people, respectively, continue to suffer from economic hardships. (SOURCE IF NEEDED: PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA). According to official figures from the Census Bureau, about 33 million U.S. residents live below the poverty line, including women, children, and the elderly who are most likely to suffer from hunger. Currently, the U.S. government is spending around $400 billion a year on defense, while allocating only $16 billion to welfare. [I hate to bite the hand that feeds me but my entire financial well-being is/was based upon the wasteful Defense Department allocations throughout the long and very profitable ‘cold war.' Otherwise, with my limited abilities to dig ditches (or anything else constructive), I would probably have had to tap into the welfare budget also... AG] The outcome of debates in Washington over the next fiscal year's budgetary allocations has left no sign of hope for the poor. The administration is rather making it harder for the poor to qualify for the Food Stamp Program, for example. A budget-reducing bill that passed the House of Representatives suggests that in the next five years cuts would remove childcare subsidies for more than 300,000 low-income working families as well. Moreover, the Bush administration is proposing changes in its budgetary policy that would reduce Medicaid by nearly $30 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Though mindful that the current administration's economic policy would further hurt the poor, activists fighting for economic and social justice appear to be pleased with the results of the NCM polls. "Americans seem genuinely to want something done about poverty in this nation," says Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, who thinks that dramatic images of tens of thousands of poor families "might have changed the American perception on poverty." But Henderson is not yet convinced that these perceptions will last. "It remains to be seen whether this view will be fleeting and episodic, or whether it represents a real watershed of public opinion," he cautioned On how minorities responded to the pollsters' questions in the wake of the Katrina tragedy, Henderson's colleague Karen Lawson reflects in a different way. "We have the chance to address the issues of poverty and racial isolation," she says. "But that opportunity exists only if we work to take advantage of it." "We cannot let the history of Katrina be that for a few days America seemed to care about poor people, but we lacked the staying power to make a difference in their lives and the lives of their children." [Finally the Sermon: Don't be too optimistic about anything being done about poverty. The very people who are hurt the most - the ethnic poor - don't vote! They most certainly have the power in numbers, but they are either too dumb or have developed such fatalistic attitudes towards government that they refuse to participate. A few well-meaning, over educated and comfortably affluent whites can't do it for them against an unregulated Capitalistic system backed up by a contorted interpretation of the Christian Bible which emphasizes personal greed over compassion. ...AG]

Ex-DeLay Aide Cooperating in Bribery Probe

Ex-DeLay Aide Cooperating in Bribery Probe By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer Tue Nov 22 [AG: I think this is very interesting and just the beginning of a bigger scandal in the House of Representatives. The spin put on it by Rep. Bob Ney's office that he was ‘one of the people defrauded' seems strange since he was the one who took the bribes - I think that is against the law - even for Congressmen! Doesn't one wonder just how many other of ‘the people's representatives' are guilty of the same crime. Seems to me that it should be very simple to go over the records of everyone in Congress to see who took ‘expense paid' or ‘free' trips paid for by lobbyists. That is of course, bribery, and about the worst thing a representative of the people can do! FYI: According to ‘Wikipedia,' In 1980, Michael Myers was expelled for accepting bribes and James Traficant was expelled in 2002 following his conviction for corruption. The House also has the power to censure its members; censure requires only a simple majority, but does not remove a member from office. These are the only two congressmen to be removed in the entire history of Congress (not counting the Civil War) for criminal acts. It must be that others I know of must have resigned. I'm sure this particular scandal involves only Republicans, but there probably are other lobbyists who work the Democrats in similar fashion. I should mention that the following piece was so badly chopped up by author Yost that I re-organized it into a coherent form for your reading pleasure. ...AG] WASHINGTON - (AP) A former aide to Rep. Tom DeLay who pleaded guilty in a federal bribery probe involving members of Congress has been cooperating with prosecutors since July. (DeLay, R-Texas, is among those facing scrutiny for his associations with Abramoff, including a trip to Scotland and use of Abramoff's skybox at a Washington sports arena. DeLay, who relinquished his post as House majority leader after a separate indictment in Texas, is due in court Tuesday in Austin for a hearing seeking dismissal of conspiracy and money laundering charges.) The disclosure about Michael Scanlon, who also is an ex-partner of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, comes in an investigation of $80 million that the two men collected between 2001 and 2004 from six Indian tribes with casinos. On Friday, Scanlon was charged with conspiracy. On Monday, the Justice Department's statement of facts which Scanlon signed went beyond the earlier charging document, revealing that by means of trips, tickets to sporting events and campaign contributions Scanlon and Abramoff "provided a stream of things of value to public officials in exchange for a series of official acts." [i.e.: BRIBERY] "Guilty, your honor," Scanlon told the judge when asked how he was pleading. Scanlon pleaded guilty Monday to conspiring to bribe public officials. Under the plea before U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle, Scanlon will pay restitution totaling more than $19 million to Indian tribes that he admitted had been defrauded. Scanlon could face up to five years in prison. "There have been a lot of conversations" between Scanlon and federal prosecutors over the past five months, Scanlon attorney Plato Cacheris said Monday night. "He had a lot to say." In the Scanlon plea, documents filed with the court say the items to one unidentified congressman or his staff included all-expense-paid trips to the Northern Marianas Islands in 2000, a trip to the Super Bowl in Tampa., Fla., in 2001 and a golf trip to Scotland in 2002. The statement of facts that Scanlon signed said that he and Abramoff — identified in the document as Lobbyist A — provided items to public officials in exchange for: agreements to support and pass legislation, agreements to place statements in the Congressional Record, agreements to contact personnel in the United States Executive Branch agencies and offices to influence decisions of those agencies and offices." A representative of the Inspector General's office in the Interior Department was seated at the table of prosecutors. The court documents said a senior staffer for "Representative No. 1" and others traveled to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in January 2000 to assist Abramoff and his company in maintaining lobbying clients; Representative No. 1 as the co-chairman of a conference committee of House and Senate members agreed to introduce legislation that would lift existing federal bans against commercial gaming for two Indian tribes in Texas that were Abramoff clients; and that Representative No. 1 met with a California tribe to discuss the congressman's agreement to assist in passing legislation regarding taxation of certain payments received by members of the California tribe. Based on information already placed on the public record by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, the congressman is Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio. http://tinyurl.com/dljfy In a statement, Ney's office said, "All that this plea agreement shows is that Mr. Scanlon had a deliberate, secret, and well-concealed scheme to defraud many people, and it appears, unfortunately, that Rep. Ney was one of the many people defrauded." Many of the things suggested to have occurred in the plea agreement "did not actually take place," Ney's office said. "Whenever Rep. Ney took official action, actions similar to those taken by elected representatives every day as part of the normal, appropriate government process, he did so based on his best understanding of what was right and not based on any improper influence." The court documents that Scanlon signed say he had a fee-splitting arrangement with Abramoff that was kept secret from the tribes because disclosure likely would have jeopardized the arrangement. Lobbyist A, the court papers said, encouraged his existing clients to hire Scanlon's firm for grass roots and public relations services, while discouraging the clients from seeking competitive pricing and proposals from vendors other than Scanlon's firm. The prices Scanlon's firm charged for its services "were significantly in excess" of the costs, the statement added. Outside the courthouse, Scanlon attorney Cacheris said his client regrets what happened to the tribes and "he is trying to do what he thinks is right" by cooperating with the government investigation.

Landmark Nazi Trial

Landmark Nazi Trial Is Remembered
By DAVID RISING, Associated Press Writer

[AG: Let me say first that --
Lest we forget how evil people can be on a grand scale we should remember or be reminded of the genocide of the Nazi's before and during WWII.

Mention was also made below that these trials were the catalyst for forming the International Criminal Court. Sadly we, the United States, have not agreed to be associated with that court. You might ask, "Why not?" And, of course the reason is that the leaders of our nation are afraid that they might, by their actions, find themselves as defendants. It seems that our present government feels that it is above the laws and conventions established for universal peace and stability throughout the world.

At first I wondered about this since we as a nation were fighting terrorism on behalf of the world and doing the good thing - and at first, the world lauded our efforts and were willing to join with us.

However, this has taken an ugly turn with the prison camp in Cuba where we keep prisoners without trial or charge indefinitely. An ugly turn with evidence of the torture of prisoners despite our President saying "We don't torture prisoners." An ugly turn when we find that we ship prisoners off to other prisons about the globe where torture is or may be condoned. An ugly turn when we have our top government lawyers telling our leaders that what we do is legal and/or justified.

This has taken an ugly turn when we learn that our government has lied to us consistently to promote their own agendas, be it oil or the lucrative business of rebuilding a nation we destroyed with our own bombs. It has taken an ugly turn when we falsely claim that all of our soldiers sent to that God-forsaken land are willing to give up their lives to save a reluctant and very divided people both civilly and religiously from themselves. Saddam is gone - so what is the problem?

Insurgents or revolutionaries or religious fundamentalists or Shiites or Sunni's or Kurds'? What is the name of the enemy in Iraq? None of them seem to totally agree with how we Americans think they should run their country. Should they be secular? or perhaps fundamentalist Islams (Sunni)? Why not divide them into three countries for each religious sect? The Kurds have wanted that for decades! But, of course, the Sunni minority wants more than just Baghdad which has no oil!

We have been warned that if we were to leave our occupation of Iraq, that they would enter into a civil war. Well, guess what! We are in the very middle of their civil war and we blame some al Caida terrorist for all of the aggression even though it takes more than a "personality" to cause the insurgency.

The people have to be complicit for the effort to be effective against the world's greatest military force, the United States! This reminds me of the French underground during the Nazi occupation of France! The Germans didn't have a chance either. And before that, if my understanding of history is correct, we did a pretty good job on the British during their occupation of what we decided to be ‘our land' before and during our Revolutionary War.

We really do have to rely on history and human behavior cousins, in order to make sense of world affairs. We should have sensed trouble when ALL of the populace didn't turn out with cheers and love for our repatriating forces as they marched through Baghdad - just as the French did as our troops marched through Paris. It just wasn't the same.

Remember the old saying that "Time heels all wounds" as you consider Germany, Japan, Italy, Viet Nam. And also remember the corollary saying that "Time wounds all heels" as you think of those such as Hitler, those psychopaths who followed him, and others yet to be named. ...AG]

NUREMBERG, Germany - American prosecutor Whitney R. Harris gazed at the top Nazis in front of him — men like Hermann Goering, Rudolf Hess, Julius Streicher — as their war crimes trial opened 60 years ago and immediately knew his mission.

Later he would reflect on the significance of the landmark trial at Nuremberg: the establishment of charges like "war crimes" in a new international law and the principle that individuals could be held responsible for their aggression.

On Nov. 20, 1945, the 33-year-old Harris sought justice for the 21 Nazis on trial.

"These were evil men, and what they did was our task to expose, and we did get the evidence and we were able to do so," Harris said.

Harris, now 93, returned Sunday with three witnesses to Courtroom 600 in the Nuremberg Palace of Justice, where the trials were held, to mark the anniversary.

Arno Hamburger, 82, recalled seeing many of the defendants at the Nazis' annual rallies in Nuremberg before he fled the country because he was Jewish.

"It was a very depressing feeling that the people in the dock considered themselves innocent and upright citizens who had only been in secondary positions," said Hamburger, who sat in on some of the trial before joining the court as a simultaneous interpreter for follow-up trials of more than 100 Nazis over the next three years.

When it ended, however, Hamburger said his "feeling was that finally, in spite of all the atrocities, justice won over."

Over 218 trial days, the high-ranking Nazis faced a panel of judges that represented the victorious Allies — the United States, Soviet Union, Britain and France.

The trial established the offenses of crimes against peace, waging a war of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Its legacy can be seen in the cases under way or being prepared against former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein and the leaders of the genocide in Rwanda.

It was also a precursor to today's international system of justice, said Johann-Georg Schaetzler, one of Hess' defense attorneys.

"It set the precedent for the establishment of the international criminal court, which was needed," Schaetzler, 84, told The Associated Press.

Prosecutors were able to rely on the Nazis' own meticulous records for much of their case, as well as hundreds of statements — with witnesses often recounting the greatest horrors with the utmost banality, Harris recalled.

He remembered interrogating Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Hoess for three days, taking a statement that would later be used to prosecute him for war crimes and send him to the gallows.

"Hoess was a very unimpressive individual, he looked like a clerk at a grocery store, he didn't look like a big Nazi or murderer or anything like that, but he was responsive to my questions," Harris said.

"I asked Hoess how many men, women and children did you murder in this camp, and he told me just like this gentleman sitting next to me, 2.5 million ... I said to him, but the conditions were terrible, how many people died of starvation or disease or reasons other than the gas chambers, and he said another half million."

As a young journalist covering the trials for the German DANA news agency, Susanne von Paczensky said she was proud to be one of the few local reporters sending stories about the Nazis' crimes back to the German people.

"The trial was the chance to take those to court who were responsible for everything," said von Paczensky, 82, who is part Jewish and lost relatives in the Holocaust.

On Oct. 1, 1946, Goering — Adolf Hitler's air force chief and a top aide — was sentenced to death along with 11 others, including Streicher, an anti-Jewish propagandist, and Martin Bormann, Hitler's vanished private secretary, who was tried in absentia. Hess, Hitler's deputy, and six others drew long prison sentences and three were acquitted.

Fifteen days later, the condemned men were hanged in the courthouse's adjacent prison. Goering committed suicide by swallowing a poison pill in his cell the night before.

Murtha predicts US troop withdrawal...

Murtha predicts US troop withdrawal By Joanne Kenen [As I see it, Did any of you watch on C-Span the House debate the other night involving Murtha's non-binding resolution to remove US troops from Iraq within six months? The Republicans put out their own resolution calling for the immediate withdrawal of troops and placed it ahead of Murtha's - in fact, I don't think that Murtha's resolution ever came to a vote! Of course, both parties voted that ridiculous resolution down and the press ran with it indicating that the House of Representatives almost unanimously still want war in Iraq! But we know better - Congress is getting pretty antsy about this war - and Bush knows it. It was a great show of a bunch of old men trying to tell us of how our servicemen felt about the war and that these patriots in Iraq wanted to see it through - and they brought up Viet Nam and the fact that we ‘cut and ran' then, "but never again!" Well, I'm an old man too, I served in the Korean ‘police action' and remember the Viet Nam fiasco quite well also since I was concerned about my sons. I also remember some of my high school buddies who joined the Marine Reserves (before Korea) because they could go to macho meetings and got paid for them! It was cool to smoke cigarettes then, too. Little did they know that when we moved in against North Korea who was invading South Korea that they'd be the first sent into the fight because they were an amphibious unit. (I almost joined with them, but couldn't find the meeting place at Moffett Field and went home.) A year later, faced with the draft, I enlisted in the Air Force - so don't make a hero of me - I was a very ‘reluctant volunteer'! (Actually, that is what they called us in Basic Training, since the Air Force and Navy were overwhelmed with volunteers trying to avoid the draft.) I can assure you that any GI caught in a situation which could cost him his life, all of a sudden doesn't think GI pay and benefits to be that great and would absolutely love to come back home to his family and his lousy job at Wal Mart. Granted, there are some gung-ho guys who just love to get into a fight of some sort or ‘just to be Marines!' - you know, ‘Semper Fi!'. These are the ones who are paraded out by those politicians backing the war as speaking for ‘our boys over there' (an of't used phrase in WWII and later). It would be nice if there were enough of them to make an army, but alas the military has to draw in at least 40%, guys who joined the National Guard to become ‘weekend' warriors to bring in a few more bucks for their families -- and wrongly figured they'd never have to go to war. After all, we do have a full-time volunteer military which will protect us, right? These are supposed to be the ‘Gung-ho' guys - the professional soldiers (sometimes called Mercenaries)! Well, it backfired on the weekend warriors and they are out there fighting for their lives against roadside bombs - a new and novel form of Russian Roulette - lets coin the phrase here, "Iraqi Roulette". You'll never convince me that these guys would feel that we're ‘turning our backs on them' if we suggested that they come on back home to their families and even – Wal Mart. However, it seems that Representative Murtha will not go away as shown in the news tonight. We Democrats are behind him, perhaps a few steps too far behind him, but behind him nevertheless. And I think there are some Republicans who are wondering whose side they're on also. Finally, I note that Bush, while in Ulan Bator, Mongolia - In the wake of congressional unrest over his war policies, thanked Mongolia on Monday for standing with him in Iraq and compared the struggle against Islamic radicalism to this country's battle against communism. Guess you get your friends where you find them. .... AG] WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Rep. John Murtha, the Democrat whose call for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq set off a furor last week, on Sunday predicted U.S. forces would leave Iraq before next year's U.S. congressional elections. The Pennsylvania lawmaker, a Vietnam veteran and respected authority on the military, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he expected more people to come around and share his views and that U.S. troops should be withdrawn in 2006. Asked if that meant U.S. troops would be out of Iraq before November congressional elections, Murtha said, "You have hit it on the head." President George W. Bush's approval ratings have been sinking in the polls in tandem with growing public disapproval of the Iraq war and even some Republicans have started to question aspects of the administration Iraq's timetable and strategy. The U.S. House, in an unusually raucous session on Friday, defeated a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal. Democrats denounced the vote as a political stunt meant to attack and isolate Murtha. But Murtha predicted that more and more Americans, in government and private life, would come to the same conclusion he had, that U.S. military occupation was making the situation in Iraq worse and that a political solution was needed. "I have never seen such an outpouring in the 32 years I've been in Congress of support and people with tears in their eyes, people walking along clapping when I'm walking through the halls of Congress, saying something needed to be said," Murtha said. "It's not me. It's the public that's thirsting for an answer to this thing," he added." Bush and top administration officials in the past few days lashed out sharply against critics of the Iraq policy. But the president, speaking in Beijing, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were both more muted about their opponents on Sunday although both strongly defended their Iraq policy. Bush, dogged by questions about Iraq during a week-long Asia tour, said "Congressman Murtha is a fine man, a good man who served our country with honor and distinction as a Marine in Vietnam and as a U.S. congressman." Rumsfeld, who appeared on four Sunday talk shows, said debate about war is and should be part of the democratic process, but that Murtha's call for an immediate withdrawal would strengthen U.S. enemies and embolden terrorists. "That would be a terrible thing for our country and for the safety of our people," he said on CNN's "Late Edition." Rumsfeld depicted progress in Iraq in both the political and military arenas. "The Iraqi security forces are doing an excellent job. They're well-respected by the Iraqi people. They're engaged in the fight," he said on FOX News Sunday. Rumsfeld also reiterated his support for the war to topple Saddam Hussein, even knowing now that the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was flawed. But he said Bush had never directly asked him for his views on an invasion. "I wasn't asked," he said on ABC's "This Week." "I'm sure the president understood what my views were." While commending Murtha's record as a veteran and lawmaker, Rumsfeld pointed out that neither Republicans nor Murtha's fellow Democrats had rushed to embrace his ideas.

The Evils of Alito...

Biden: Chance of Alito Filibuster Higher

[My view:
With what is coming out about this guy's legal beliefs, I'm amazed that he was even allowed to become a judge at all - to say nothing of being considered for the Supreme Court!

It is obvious that he would have opposed the premises of our Declaration of Independence which set forth why we became a nation. And certainly not in accord with Lincoln's views of this nation as presented in the Gettysburg Address. Alito is most certainly not one who believes in government ‘of the people, by the people and for the people' if he doesn't believe in equal and fair participation of the people in government!

I most certainly hope the hearings are filibustered if necessary, but hope that most Republicans would find those completely un-American views equally abhorant! ...AG]

WASHINGTON - (AP) The views that Samuel Alito expressed on reapportionment in a 20-year-old document could jeopardize his Supreme Court nomination and provoke a filibuster, a leading Democratic senator said Sunday.

"I think he's got a lot of explaining to do, and depending on how he does, I think will determine whether or not he has a problem or not," said Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting record), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which plans confirmation hearings in early January.

In 1985, Alito was applying to become deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration. In the document, he boasted that while working as an assistant to the solicitor general, he helped "to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly."

Drawing the most attention from Alito's critics today is his comment on abortion.

"I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government argued that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," wrote Alito, now a federal appeals court judge.

But Biden, D-Del., said he was most troubled by Alito's comment about reapportionment under the Supreme Court when it was led by Chief Justice Earl Warren.

The Warren Court, as it became known, ended public school segregation and established the election principle of one-man one-vote.

"The part that jeopardizes it (Alito's nomination) more is his quotes in there saying that he had strong disagreement with the Warren Court particularly on reapportionment — one man, one vote," Biden told "Fox News Sunday."

"The fact that he questioned abortion and the idea of quotas is one thing. The fact that he questioned the idea of the legitimacy of the reapportionment decisions of the Warren Court is even something well beyond that," Biden said.

In the document, Alito wrote, "In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause and reapportionment," he said.

Biden said the chances of a filibuster against Alito had increased because of Alito's assertions in the document.

"If he really believes that reapportionment is a questionable decision — that is, the idea of Baker v. Carr, one man, one vote — then clearly, clearly, you'll find a lot of people, including me, willing to do whatever they can to keep him off the court. ... That would include a filibuster, if need be," Biden said.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision in 1962 in Baker v. Carr, ruled that arbitrarily drawn legislative districts can be challenged in federal court.

Words of Wisdom....

[Words to learn, believe and follow from a man worth remembering on his 80th birthday. ...AG]

I come here this evening because of my deep interest and affection for a land settled by the Dutch in the mid-seventeenth century, then taken over by the British, and at last independent; a land in which the native inhabitants were at first subdued, but relations with whom remain a problem to this day; a land which defined itself on a hostile frontier; a land which has tamed rich natural resources through the energetic application of modern technology; a land which was once the importer of slaves, and now must struggle to wipe out the last traces of that former bondage. I refer, of course, to the United States of America.

But I am glad to come here, and my wife and I and all of our party are glad to come here to South Africa, and we are glad to come here to Capetown. I am already greatly enjoying my visit here. I am making an effort to meet and exchange views with people of all walks of life, and all segments of South African opinion -- including those who represent the views of the government. Today I am glad to meet with the National Union of South African Students. For a decade, NUSAS has stood and worked for the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- principles which embody the collective hopes of men of good will around the globe.

Your work, at home and in international student affairs, has brought great credit to yourselves and your country. I know the National Student Association in the United States feels a particularly close relationship with this organization. And I wish to thank especially Mr. Ian Robertson, who first extended this invitation on behalf of NUSAS, I wish to thank him for his kindness to me in inviting me. I am very sorry that he can not be with us here this evening. I was happy to have had the opportunity to meet and speak with him earlier this evening, and I presented him with a copy of Profiles in Courage, which was a book written by President John Kennedy and was signed to him by President Kennedy's widow, Mrs. John Kennedy.

This is a Day of Affirmation -- a celebration of liberty. We stand here in the name of freedom.

At the heart of that western freedom and democracy is the belief that the individual man, the child of God, is the touchstone of value, and all society, all groups, and states, exist for that person's benefit. Therefore the enlargement of liberty for individual human beings must be the supreme goal and the abiding practice of any western society.

The first element of this individual liberty is the freedom of speech; the right to express and communicate ideas, to set oneself apart from the dumb beasts of field and forest; the right to recall governments to their duties and obligations; above all, the right to affirm one's membership and allegiance to the body politic -- to society -- to the men with whom we share our land, our heritage and our children's future.

Hand in hand with freedom of speech goes the power to be heard -- to share in the decisions of government which shape men's lives. Everything that makes man's lives worthwhile -- family, work, education, a place to rear one's children and a place to rest one's head -- all this depends on the decisions of government; all can be swept away by a government which does not heed the demands of its people, and I mean all of its people. Therefore, the essential humanity of man can be protected and preserved only where the government must answer -- not just to the wealthy; not just to those of a particular religion, not just to those of a particular race; but to all of the people.

And even government by the consent of the governed, as in our own Constitution, must be limited in its power to act against its people: so that there may be no interference with the right to worship, but also no interference with the security of the home; no arbitrary imposition of pains or penalties on an ordinary citizen by officials high or low; no restriction on the freedom of men to seek education or to seek work or opportunity of any kind, so that each man may become all that he is capable of becoming.

These are the sacred rights of western society. These were the essential differences between us and Nazi Germany as they were between Athens and Persia.

They are the essences of our differences with communism today. I am unalterably opposed to communism because it exalts the state over the individual and over the family, and because its system contains a lack of freedom of speech, of protest, of religion, and of the press, which is characteristic of a totalitarian regime. The way of opposition to communism, however, is not to imitate its dictatorship, but to enlarge individual human freedom. There are those in every land who would label as "communist" every threat to their privilege. But may I say to you , as I have seen on my travels in all sections of the world, reform is not communism. And the denial of freedom, in whatever name, only strengthens the very communism it claims to oppose.

Many nations have set forth their own definitions and declarations of these principles. And there have often been wide and tragic gaps between promise and performance, ideal and reality. Yet the great ideals have constantly recalled us to our own duties. And -- with painful slowness -- we in the United States have extended and enlarged the meaning and the practice of freedom to all of our people.

For two centuries, my own country has struggled to overcome the self-imposed handicap of prejudice and discrimination based on nationality, on social class or race -- discrimination profoundly repugnant to the theory and to the command of our Constitution. Even as my father grew up in Boston, Massachusetts, signs told him that "No Irish Need Apply". Two generations later, President Kennedy became the first Irish Catholic, and the first Catholic, to head the nation; but how many men of ability had, before 1961, been denied the opportunity to contribute to the nation's progress because they were Catholic, or because they were of Irish extraction? How many sons of Italian or Jewish or Polish parents slumbered in the slums -- untaught, unlearned, their potential lost forever to our nation and to the human race? Even today, what price will we pay before we have assured full opportunity to millions of Negro Americans?

In the last five years we have done more to assure equality to our Negro citizens and to help the deprived, both white and black, than in the hundred years before that time. But much, much more remains to be done.

For there are millions of Negroes untrained for the simplest of jobs, and thousands every day denied their full and equal rights under the law; and the violence of the disinherited, the insulted and the injured, looms over the streets of Harlem and of Watts and Southside Chicago.

But a Negro American trains as an astronaut, one of mankind's first explorers into outer space; another is the chief barrister of the United States government, and dozens sit on the benches of our court; and another, Dr. Martin Luther King, is the second man of African descent to win the Nobel Peace Prize for his non-violent efforts for social justice between all of the races.

We have passed laws prohibiting discrimination in education, in employment, in housing; but these laws alone cannot overcome the heritage of centuries -- of broken families and stunted children, and poverty and degradation and pain.

So the road toward equality of freedom is not easy, and great cost and danger march alongside all of us. We are committed to peaceful and non-violent change and that is important for all to understand -- though change is unsettling. Still, even in the turbulence of protest and struggle is greater hope for the future, as men learn to claim and achieve for themselves the rights formerly petitioned from others.

And most important of all, all the panoply of government power has been committed to the goal of equality before the law -- as we are now committing ourselves to achievement of equal opportunity in fact.

We must recognize the full human equality of all of our people -- before God, before the law, and in the councils of government. We must do this, not because it is economically advantageous -- although it is; not because the laws of God command it -- although they do; not because people in other lands wish it so. We must do it for the single and fundamental reason that it is the right thing to do.

We recognize that there are problems and obstacles before the fulfillment of these ideals in the United States as we recognize that other nations, in Latin America and in Asia and in Africa have their own political, economic, and social problems, their unique barriers to the elimination of injustices.

In some, there is concern that change will submerge the rights of a minority, particularly where that minority is of a different race than that of the majority. We in the United States believe in the protection of minorities; we recognize the contributions that they can make and the leadership they can provide; and we do not believe that any people -- whether majority or minority, or individual human beings -- are "expendable" in the cause of theory or policy. We recognize also that justice between men and nations is imperfect, and that humanity sometimes progresses very slowly indeed.

All do not develop in the same manner and at the same pace. Nations, like men, often march to the beat of different drummers, and the precise solutions of the United States can neither be dictated nor transplanted to others, and that is not our intention. What is important however is that all nations must march toward increasing freedom; toward justice for all; toward a society strong and flexible enough to meet the demands of all of its people, whatever their race, and the demands of a world of immense and dizzying change that face us all.

In a few hours, the plane that brought me to this country crossed over oceans and countries which have been a crucible of human history. In minutes we traced migrations of men over thousands of years; seconds, the briefest glimpse, and we passed battlefields on which millions of men once struggled and died. We could see no national boundaries, no vast gulfs or high walls dividing people from people; only nature and the works of man -- homes and factories and farms -- everywhere reflecting man's common effort to enrich his life. Everywhere new technology and communications brings men and nations closer together, the concerns of one inevitably become the concerns of all. And our new closeness is stripping away the false masks, the illusion of differences which is at the root of injustice and hate and war. Only earthbound man still clings to the dark and poisoning superstition that his world is bounded by the nearest hill, his universe ends at river's shore, his common humanity is enclosed in the tight circle of those who share his town or his views and the color of his skin.

It is your job, the task of the young people in this world to strip the last remnants of that ancient, cruel belief from the civilization of man.

Each nation has different obstacles and different goals, shaped by the vagaries of history and of experience. Yet as I talk to young people around the world I am impressed not by the diversity but by the closeness of their goals, their desires, and their concerns and their hope for the future. There is discrimination in New York, the racial inequality of apartheid in South Africa, and serfdom in the mountains of Peru. People starve to death in the streets of India; a former Prime Minister is summarily executed in the Congo; intellectuals go to jail in Russia; and thousands are slaughtered in Indonesia; wealth is lavished on armaments everywhere in the world. These are different evils; but they are the common works of man. They reflect the imperfections of human justice, the inadequacy of human compassion, the defectiveness of our sensibility toward the sufferings of our fellows; they mark the limit of our ability to use knowledge for the well-being of our fellow human beings throughout the world. And therefore they call upon common qualities of conscience and indignation, a shared determination to wipe away the unnecessary sufferings of our fellow human beings at home and around the world.

It is these qualities which make of our youth today the only true international community. More than this I think that we could agree on what kind of a world we want to build. It would be a world of independent nations, moving toward international community, each of which protected and respected the basic human freedoms. It would be a world which demanded of each government that it accept its responsibility to insure social justice. It would be a world of constantly accelerating economic progress -- not material welfare as an end in of itself, but as a means to liberate the capacity of every human being to pursue his talents and to pursue his hopes. It would, in short, be a world that we would all be proud to have built.

Just to the North of here are lands of challenge and of opportunity -- rich in natural resources, land and minerals and people. Yet they are also lands confronted by the greatest odds -- overwhelming ignorance, internal tensions and strife, and great obstacles of climate and geography. Many of these nations, as colonies, were oppressed and were exploited. Yet they have not estranged themselves from the broad traditions of the West; they are hoping and they are gambling their progress and their stability on the chance that we will meet our responsibilities to them, to help them overcome their poverty.

In the world we would like to build, South Africa could play an outstanding role, and a role of leadership in that effort. This country is without question a preeminent repository of the wealth and the knowledge and the skill of the continent. Here are the greater part of Africa's research scientists and steel production, most of it reservoirs of coal and of electric power. Many South Africans have made major contributions to African technical development and world science; the names of some are known wherever men seek to eliminate the ravages of tropical disease and of pestilence. In your faculties and councils, here in this very audience, are hundreds and thousands of men and women who could transform the lives of millions for all time to come.

But the help and leadership of South Africa or of the United States cannot be accepted if we -- within our own countries or in our relationships with others -- deny individual integrity, human dignity, and the common humanity of man. If we would lead outside our own borders; if we would help those who need our assistance; if we would meet our responsibilities to mankind; we must first, all of us, demolish the borders which history has erected between men within our own nations -- barriers of race and religion, social class and ignorance.

Our answer is the world's hope; it is to rely on youth. The cruelties and the obstacles of this swiftly changing planet will not yield to obsolete dogmas and outworn slogans. It cannot be moved by those who cling to a present which is already dying, who prefer the illusion of security to the excitement and danger which comes with even the most peaceful progress. This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind, a temper of the will, a quality of imagination, a predominance of courage over timidity, of the appetite for adventure over the life of ease -- a man like the Chancellor of this University. It is a revolutionary world that we all live in; and thus, as I have said in Latin America and Asia and in Europe and in my own country, the United States, it is the young people who must take the lead. Thus you, and your young compatriots everywhere have had thrust upon you a greater burden of responsibility than any generation that has ever lived.

"There is," said an Italian philosopher, "nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things." Yet this is the measure of the task of your generation and the road is strewn with many dangers.

First is the danger of futility; the belief there is nothing one man or one woman cando against the enormous array of the world's ills -- against misery, against ignorance, or injustice and violence. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New /world, and 32 year old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal. "Give me a place to stand," said Archimedes, "and I will move the world." These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of the events, and in the total of all these acts will be written the history of this generation. Thousands of Peace Corps volunteers are making a difference in the isolated villages and the city slums of dozens of countries. Thousands of unknown men and women in Europe resisted the occupation of the Nazis and many died, but all added to the ultimate strength and freedom of their countries. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage such as these that the belief that human history is thus shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

"If Athens shall appear great to you," said Pericles, "consider then that her glories were purchased by valiant men, and by men who learned their duty." That is the source of all greatness in all societies, and it is the key to progress in our own time.

The second danger is that of expediency; of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course if we must act effectively we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done. But if there was one thing that President Kennedy stood for that touched the most profound feeling of young people across the world, it was the belief that idealism, high aspiration and deep convictions are not incompatible with the most practical and efficient of programs -- that there is no basic inconsistency between ideals and realistic possibilities -- no separation between the deepest desires of heart and of mind and the rational application of human effort to human problems. It is not realistic or hard-headed to solve problems and take action unguided by ultimate moral aims and values, although we all know some who claim that it is so. In my judgement, it is thoughtless folly. For it ignores the realities of human faith and of passion and of belief; forces ultimately more powerful than all the calculations of our economists or of our generals. Of course to adhere to standards, to idealism, to vision in the face of immediate dangers takes great courage and takes self-confidence. But we also know that only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly.

It is this new idealism which is also, I believe, the common heritage of a generation which has learned that while efficiency can lead to the camps at Auschwitz, or the streets of Budapest, only the ideals of humanity and love can climb the hills of the Acropolis.

A third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change. Aristotle tells us "At the Olympic games it is not the finest or the strongest men who are crowned, but those who enter the lists. . .so too in the life of the honorable and the good it is they who act rightly who win the prize." I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the world.

For the fortunate amongst us, the fourth danger is comfort; the temptation to follow the easy and familiar path of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privelege of an education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. There is a Chinese curse which says "May he live in interesting times." Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind. And everyone here will ultimately be judged -- will ultimately judge himself -- on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

So we part, I to my country and you to remain. We are -- if a man of forty can claim the privelege -- fellow members of the world's largest younger generation. Each of us have our own work to do. I know at times you must feel very alone with your problems and with your difficulties. But I want to say how impressed I am with what you stand for and for the effort you are making; and I say this not just for myself, but men and women all over the world. And I hope you will often take heart from the knowledge that you are joined with your fellow young people in every land, they struggling with their problems and you with yours, but all joined in a common purpose; that, like the young people of my own country and of every country that I have visited, you are all in many ways more closely united to the brothers of your time than to the older generation in any of these nations; you are determined to build a better future. President Kennedy was speaking to the young people of America, but beyond them to young people everywhere, when he said "The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world."

And, he added, "With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth and lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

I thank you.

Day of Affirmation Address
Senator Robert F. Kennedy
University of Capetown
Capetown, South Africa
June 6, 1966
(Text as delivered)

Hawk Calls for Pullout

Hawkish Democrat Calls for Iraq Pullout By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press [My comments: Even our hawks are having second thoughts! Now some Sunnis want American troops to protect them from the Shiites. And the Kurds are worried about both factions and want their own sovereignty! We are in the middle of a religious civil war in Iraq which can only get worse. Religion, by definition is emotional, not logical, it can't be legislated. It took a ruthless dictator like Saddam to maintain a secular government with relative peace - we were babes in the woods....AG] WASHINGTON - An influential House Democrat who voted for the Iraq war called Thursday for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, another sign of growing unease in Congress about the conflict. "It is time for a change in direction," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats. "Our military is suffering, the future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf region." Murtha estimated that all U.S. troops could be pulled out within six months. A decorated Vietnam veteran, he choked back tears during his remarks to reporters. Murtha's comments came just two days after the Senate voted to approve a statement that 2006 "should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty" to create the conditions for the phased withdrawal of U.S. forces. In recent days, President Bush and other top administration officials have lashed out at critics of the war and have accused Democrats of advocating a "cut and run" strategy that will only embolden the insurgency. Vice President Dick Cheney jumped into the fray Wednesday by assailing Democrats who contend the Bush administration manipulated intelligence on Iraq, calling their criticism "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city." Murtha, a Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam, angrily shot back at Cheney: "I like guys who've never been there that criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war, and then don't like to hear suggestions about what needs to be done." The top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, Murtha has earned bipartisan respect for his grasp of military issues over three decades in Congress. He planned to introduce a resolution Thursday that, if passed by both the House and the Senate, would force the president to withdraw U.S. troops. Murtha could not say whether his caucus supports his position. And, although he is a close adviser to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., she was absent from his news conference. For months, Pelosi has pushed for the Bush administration to outline an exit strategy, although she has stopped short of calling for an immediate troop pullout. Some Senate Democrats have called for immediate or phased withdrawal, which many Republicans and the Bush administration reject, arguing that it would only embolden the insurgency. Murtha voted to give the president authority to use force against Saddam Hussein in 2002 but in recent months has grown increasingly troubled with the direction of the war and with the Bush administration's handling of it. "The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion," Murtha said. Rep. Kay Granger (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, said Murtha's call for withdrawal was "reprehensible and irresponsible." "It shows the Democratic Party has chosen a policy of retreat and defeatism which will only encourage the terrorists and threaten the stability of Iraq," Granger said. First elected to Congress in 1974, Murtha is known as an ally of uniformed officers in the Pentagon and on the battlefield. The perception on Capitol Hill is that when the congressman makes a statement on military issues, he's talking for those in uniform. Known to shun publicity, Murtha said he was standing up because he had a constitutional and moral obligation to speak for the troops. His voice cracked and tears filled his eyes as he related several stories of visiting wounded troops, including one who was blinded and lost both his hands but had been denied a Purple Heart because friendly fire caused his injuries. "I met with the commandant. I said, 'If you don't give him a Purple Heart, I'll give him one of mine.' And they gave him a Purple Heart," said Murtha, who has two.

Gay Marriage - morals

Gays push to recast marriage on morals
By Duncan Martell, Reuters

[In my opinion,
OK, so why do I cast my vote for gays? I'm not gay and I have a hard time identifying with the gay condition - whatever that is. I can't even imagine making love to or being ‘in love with' a man. And I'm also fortunate enough to have a wife who has never considered her association with women to be all that great even as friends or as ‘shopping buddies' - and women certainly tend to be much more associative than men - and I suspect that ‘gay' women outnumber gay men ten to one!

So, why should I care at all for gay rights? Why do I cringe at euthanasia of stray cats? Why am I upset over Catholic children who are allowed by their parents to be molested by their priests? Why does the so called marriage of thirteen year old girls to forty year old men here in Arizona bother me? Why does a Rabi who solicits sex with teenage girls on the Internet bother me? Why are so many people so fundamentally evil - that really bothers me.

We Americans are faced with much greater moral issues than the simple secular recognition of gay marriage in whatever legal form our society wishes to put it. It need not be a Christian issue at all unless the Christians wish to make it so - but they should be forewarned that this nation is not their exclusive domain - and if they dare to push it too far, they will indeed lose!

We are, after all, a pluralistic nation, and will remain so. We are a nation of many diverse ideologies which within reason must be respected. We really are not a Christian nation per se - we just have a Christian majority - and that is not the same thing.

If you consider just Christians, you will find an extreme diversity in that faith - many who may agree with me and, of course, those who do not. Fortunately we have the proverbial political separation of church and state which, whether expressly stated in the Constitution or other wisely implied prevents one belief system from overpowering competing systems. Thus we all are free to believe what we wish - or even what we are brain-washed to believe. (with the assumption that even those who are brain-washed have a modicum of free will).

I do have a fundamental question concerning those who wish to ban same-sex marriage. Is it that the problem is -- that the children from a same-sex marriage will not be Christian?

Just this evening my son, Larry asked, since he knew I am very interested in genealogy, how the fact that no one is getting married anymore would affect genealogy. Before I could answer and to my surprise, my Betty who has no interest at all in genealogy, pointed out that even without marriage, the mother generally gives the father's name to the child. If that is the case, obviously marriage means very little. ...AG]

As U.S. gays and lesbians prepare to battle a raft of state constitutional amendments banning same-sex marriage that will likely be on the ballot next fall, activists are recasting the issue as one that needs to be fought on moral rather than political grounds.

That is the message Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the oldest and leading U.S. grass-roots gay and lesbian coalition, has taken to more than 2,500 gay rights organizers at its annual conference held in Oakland this week.

"What I really want people to understand is rather than seeing these as political contests, these are really profound, unfair, bordering on immoral elections," Foreman told Reuters on Saturday. "Imagine if this was being done to a minority in Kosovo -- people would be outraged."

The conference, due to end on Sunday, is the first national gathering of gay and lesbian organizers since Tuesday's elections in which Texan voters approved, by nearly a 76 percent majority, a state constitutional amendment banning

Opponents, who believe marriage is only between a man and a woman, argue that same-sex marriage is unnatural and damaging to families.

If last year's conference, which came on the heels of elections in which 11 states approved changing their constitutions to ban same-sex marriage, was a time to vent anger and hurt over the defeats, this year the drive is to organize broad-based grass-roots campaigns to defeat more such votes, said Patrick Guerriero, president of the gay advocacy group Log Cabin Republicans.

"We've gone from some of the (2004) post-election anger to a movement that is optimistic about the future," Guerriero said in an interview.

"We need to be more mobilized as a community, more bipartisan in our message," Guerriero said, pointing to the need to engage people of faith, centrist Republicans and conservative Democrats.

UPHILL CLIMB
It will be a steep hill to climb, activists said.

"We're going to have another 10 to 12 anti-marriage, anti-family recognition constitutional amendments on the ballots next fall," Foreman said. "That's going to be an enormous challenge.'

Two key elements in the strategy to defeat more votes banning same-sex marriage will be reaching out to people of faith and demanding that Democrats, who have long counted on gays and lesbian as core supporters, stand up for the gay community, Foreman said.

"The Democrats' response to gay issues over the last few years has been incoherent and spineless, and that has only worked to their disadvantage," Foreman said. "There is a sense among large gay donors to the Democratic party that they need to have the party take a stand for us."

Condoleezza - The Bush Agenda

Rice takes aim at Syria over human rights
By Sue Pleming - Reuters

[ In my blog opinion....
While we're in the nation bashing business, here is another one we're aiming at. The only reason I'm posting this is to show that the administration is feverishly trying to distract us from his low ratings and credibility problems both here and abroad as he struggles in his second ‘lame duck' term.

The pundits (political science professors, et al) have been saying that the Republicans have to generate a flurry of activities to redirect our attention away from a ‘failed Presidency' and especially Bush's miserable Iraq policy.

If it doesn't happen between now and the 2006 elections, Bush may find very few Republicans who are running want to visit him at the White House or even less, have him visit them! He dropped in to shore up the Virginia contest last week and probably contributed to the Republican defeat there.

I wonder also whether it is just coincidental timing that ABC (?) is going to air a documentary on the miserable plight of the North Korean people including the showing public executions - don't want to miss that!

It seems that Condoleezza will next go to visit the Saudi's and bash their civil rights behavior, then on to Jerusalem for the Judeo-Christian voters against Arabs. Ultimately she'll end up with Bush at the APEC summit in South Korea where he will attempt to avoid protesters, bash North Korea, and focus on bird flu.

Bear in mind that these are not all "bad" subjects, but as one of Syria's politicians pointed out that the US always seems to have a ‘secret agenda' - I think we know what it is... AG]

MANAMA (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took aim at Syria on Saturday over its human rights record, stepping up Washington's bid to isolate Damascus internationally.

The top U.S. diplomat used a conference in Bahrain attended by Arab leaders trying to promote economic and political reform, to criticize what she said was Syria's "arbitrary detention" of human rights activists.

"We continue to support the Syrian people's aspirations for liberty, democracy, and justice under the rule of law," said Rice in a sideways swipe at the government in Damascus.

"We would like to see an end to the arbitrary detentions of democratic and human rights activists -- including Kamal Labwani and all the prisoners of conscience from the Damascus Spring," she added.

The Damascus Spring was a period of intense political and social debate in Syria which started after the death of President Hafez al-Assad in June 2000.

Opposition activist Labwani was arrested in Syria on November 8 on his return from a visit to the United States where he had met senior U.S. officials.

Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Shara, also at the Bahrain conference, shot back, telling reporters he expected Washington to continue pressuring Damascus because of a "hidden agenda."

"I expect everything because they build their policies on a hidden agenda," he told reporters. He did not elaborate.

Relations are at a low between Washington and Syria, which the United States also accuses of fomenting the insurgency in
Iraq by allowing foreign fighters to enter there from Syria.

STRONG CRITICISM
Rice strongly criticized Syria for what she calls its "non-cooperation" with a UN investigation into the assassination last February 14 of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri.

"They should stop trying to negotiate and cooperate," she told reporters traveling with her on a trip to the Middle East, which began with a stop in Iraq on Friday.

Syria has dismissed a UN report implicating its officials in the bombing that killed Hariri, saying it was politically motivated.

That report spoke of evidence pointing to Syrian and Lebanese involvement in Hariri's killing and said it would be hard to imagine how such a plot could have gone ahead without the knowledge of Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services.

A Security Council resolution demanded Syria cooperate fully with the probe or face unspecified action. UN investigator Detlev Mehlis has until December 15 to complete his inquiry and report to the Security Council.

Syria has insisted it is cooperating with the UN investigation and on Saturday proposed Cairo, Vienna and Geneva as venues for UN investigators to question six Syrian officials. The UN team has asked for the interviews to be in Beirut.

"Syria is going to fully cooperate with the international commission led by Mr. Mehlis. We have no reservations except concerning the sovereignty of Syria," Shara said.

U.N investigators questioned Lebanese President Emile Lahoud, a staunch ally of Damascus, on Friday as part of their inquiry.

Rice is set to travel to Saudi Arabia later on Saturday and then go to Jerusalem and Ramallah on Sunday. She also plans a stop in Jordan on Monday to pay her respects after bombings this week and will then join President George W. Bush in Asia for an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit.