SouthCoastToday.com - Lawmakers turn to lobbyists for fundraising - January 29, 2006: "Lawmakers turn to lobbyists for fundraising
By BRODY MULLINS, The Wall Street Journal
/File photo by The Associated Press The Justice Department’s public-corruption and bribery case against lobbyist Jack Abramoff (right), seen here with his attorney, Abbe Lowell, in September 2004, has refocused attention on the financial ties between lawmakers and lobbyists. While Mr. Abramoff’s lobbying activities reportedly crossed the line into illegality, the practice of lobbyists raising large amounts of money for lawmakers is both legal and commonplace in Washington today.
Nearly three years ago, Gregg Hartley left his job as a top aide to Republican Rep. Roy Blunt of Missouri to become a lobbyist. Mr. Hartley began helping companies like BellSouth Corp., Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and Viacom Inc. get audiences with Mr. Blunt and other top House Republicans and win some important legislative battles.
At the same time, Mr. Hartley was helping his old Capitol Hill boss raise campaign money and offering him political advice. Mr. Hartley is now assisting Mr. Blunt in his bid to succeed Rep. Tom DeLay as House majority leader. For the last three weeks, the lobbyist has offered strategic advice during regular visits to Mr. Blunt's office in the U.S. Capitol, according to people familiar with the meetings.
Mr. Hartley's dual roles highlight a practice that is becoming more common in Washington: Lobbyists are serving as principal fundraisers for lawmakers they're trying to sway. Bruce Gates, the top political strategist for Mr. Blunt's main rival to become Majority Leader, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, also is a lobbyist for private clients. William Oldaker, a lobbyist with numerous health-care clients, oversees fund raising for two dozen Democratic lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts.
The Justice Department public-corruption and bribery case against lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a half-dozen members of Congress has refocused attention on the financial ties between lawmakers and lobbyists. While Mr. Abramoff's lobbying activities crossed the line into illegality, the practice of lobbyists raising large amounts of money for lawmakers is both legal and commonplace in Washington today.
Federal Election Commission records show that 71 lawmakers now list lobbyists as treasurers of their re-election or political action committees. In 1998, the number was just 15, according to a review of FEC reports by the Center for Public Integrity. Lawmakers attribute the change to the sharply rising costs of running campaigns.
In the long-running debate about whether lobbying money corrupts politics, Mr. Hartley's relationship with Mr. Blunt shows how deeply the financial ties run between Capitol Hill and the lobbyists on K Street. Advocates of change argue that lawmakers who rely on lobbyists become unduly beholden to them, and thus more willing to help their clients.
"By putting a lobbyist in charge of your political operations, you are conflicted from the start," argues Alex Knott of the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, which favors reducing the role of money in politics.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Blunt says there's nothing wrong with the congressman's close relationship with the lobbyist. In the leadership race, says his spokeswoman, Jessica Boulanger, the only involvement of Mr. Hartley "has been in the capacity of an old friend." Mr. Hartley hasn't called other members of Congress on Mr. Blunt's behalf, she notes. Mr. Blunt declines to comment. Mr. Hartley declines to discuss his fundraising activities.
In the wake of the current lobbying scandal, lawmakers from both parties have been scrambling to introduce bills to reform the lobbying industry. But none of the leading proposals would ban lobbyists from continuing their fundraising activities for members of Congress. House Speaker Dennis Hastert wants to ban lawmakers from accepting privately financed trips. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would prohibit lawmakers' spouses and children from lobbying.
"We are carping on trifles here," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, during a Senate hearing on lobbying reform Wednesday. "Why is it that we warm up to all these lobbyists? It isn't for a meal. ... We know when it comes time to finance our campaigns, we're going to be knocking on those same doors."
The lobbying reform legislation proposed by Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican, wouldn't ban lobbyists from raising money for members of Congress. But it would require them to disclose when they host fundraisers for politicians. Lobbyists say they aren't violating any rules by moonlighting as fundraisers. "I'm not a rule maker, I'm a game player," says David Girard-diCarlo, a managing partner at Philadelphia-based law firm Blank Rome who serves as national finance director for Republican Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Blank Rome has numerous lobbying clients. Mr. Girard-diCarlo oversees a group of more than 40 Washington lobbyists who hope to raise $4 million for Mr. Santorum's re-election bid. "The senator is most appreciative" of such fundraising help, says Mr. Santorum's spokesman, Robert Traynham.
In addition to providing help with direct fundraising, Mr. Hartley is one of many lobbyists also helping members of Congress to raise money for specialized funding organizations called leadership PACs. Mr. Blunt and hundreds of other lawmakers in both parties have formed such PACs in order to help fellow party members facing close re-election races. Under federal election rules, lawmakers cannot donate more than $4,200 per election cycle from their own re-election coffers to the campaign of any colleague. But they can funnel as much as $10,000 per election cycle from leadership PACs to another campaign.
In practice, such financial support from politically secure lawmakers for the re-election efforts of vulnerable colleagues often translates to reciprocal support down the road. Lawmakers draw on such support when angling for leadership positions within Congress.
"Leadership PACs originated as a way for one member to garner support from other members when seeking a leadership position in the House or Senate," Mr. Blunt wrote to the FEC in 2003. "More recently, leadership PACs have enabled the Republican party to maintain its majority in the House of Representatives."
When Republicans took over Congress in 1994, about 90 lawmakers operated such leadership PACs, which together raised a total of $28 million, according to the FEC. In the last election cycle, more than 300 leadership PACs took in $127 million.
Corporations represented by Mr. Hartley have donated more than $150,000 to Mr. Blunt's leadership PAC, the Rely On Your Beliefs Fund, known as the ROY B. Fund. Mr. Gates, the lobbyist with ties to Mr. Boehner, is treasurer of Mr. Boehner's leadership PAC, The Freedom Project. Mr. Boehner is Mr. Blunt's main rival for the majority leader post.
Both lawmakers are now recruiting congressional supporters for their majority-leader campaigns. Of the roughly 150 House Republicans who have announced who they will vote for, most have endorsed the candidate who has given them the most campaign money. Of Mr. Blunt's 91 publicly announced supporters, 68 have received money totalling $690,000 from Mr. Blunt's PAC, according to the Campaign for a Cleaner Congress, a congressional watchdog group.
Mr. Hartley, a 52-year-old fan of muscle cars and rock 'n' roll, was running a legal aid organization in his native Missouri when he met Mr. Blunt, who then worked as a country clerk. In 1992, Mr. Hartley raised money for Mr. Blunt's unsuccessful campaign for governor.
Four years later, Mr. Hartley helped Mr. Blunt, who is now 56, win a seat in Congress. Mr. Blunt, an ideological conservative, rose fast on Capitol Hill, winning the respect of moderate Republicans for his nonconfrontational approach. In 1999, when Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois was named speaker of the House, Rep. Tom DeLay tapped Mr. Blunt to replace Mr. Hastert as chief deputy whip.
Several years after arriving in Washington, Mr. Blunt married Abigail Pearlman, a lobbyist for the tobacco and food giant Altria Group Inc. Mr. Blunt's son, Andrew, is a lobbyist in Missouri whose clients include Altria, United Parcel Service Inc. and the former SBC Communications. Another son, Matt, is the current governor of Missouri.
When Mr. DeLay became majority leader in 2003, Mr. Blunt rose to Republican whip, the party's top House vote-counter. A few months later, Mr. Hartley left Capitol Hill to become a lobbyist with Cassidy & Associates, one of Washington's oldest and most successful lobbying firms.
Mr. Hartley's first clients were companies that had contributed money to Mr. Blunt and received legislative support from him. For example, Mr. Blunt had backed the Baby Bell phone companies in their battles with long-distance carriers and cable TV operators, and the Baby Bells had backed him with donations. They became Mr. Hartley's clients.
In July 2003, Mr. Hartley was hired by a coalition of major television networks — General Electric Co.'s NBC, Viacom Inc.'s CBS, News Corp.'s FOX and Walt Disney Co.'s ABC. The networks were seeking to loosen rules governing their ownership of local TV stations.
The Federal Communications Commission had proposed allowing the networks to own local stations covering 45 percent of U.S. households, up from the previous limit of 35 percent. By the time Mr. Hartley was hired, local broadcasters had mounted fierce opposition to the change, and more than two-thirds of Congress had announced their opposition to the move.
Mr. Blunt, however, joined other House Republican leaders in blocking the measure from reaching a floor vote. The standoff ended with a compromise: the network ownership limit was lifted to 39 percent. Mr. Hartley's network clients considered it a victory.
During this lobbying battle, Mr. Hartley was helping Mr. Blunt raise campaign money. Cassidy & Associates made available its skybox at Washington's MCI Center for a fundraiser at a Simon and Garfunkel concert. Mr. Blunt reimbursed Cassidy for the cost of the seats. Last fall, Mr. Blunt rented the skybox again for a fundraiser during a U2 concert.
At Cassidy, Mr. Hartley hired two former aides of Mr. Blunt and the husband of a third. After Mr. Blunt launched his campaign to replace Mr. DeLay as majority leader three weeks ago, Mr. Hartley began advising Mr. Blunt and his staff on the race, according to Republican aides involved in the matter.
"Roy has the trust and confidence in him that he had when Gregg was his chief of staff," says Drew Maloney, a lobbyist and former aide of Mr. DeLay who backs Mr. Blunt's campaign for majority leader. Dan Mattoon, a close adviser to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, calls Mr. Hartley "a very important part of Roy's outside operation."
Mr. Hartley joined a small group of lobbyists who have helped plot strategy and raise money for other Republican leaders, such as Messrs. DeLay and Hastert. In January 2004, Mr. Hartley attended a dinner meeting hosted by Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff at Signatures, Mr. Abramoff's now-defunct Pennsylvania Avenue restaurant, to discuss ways to persuade Republican lobbyists and their clients to give more campaign contributions to Republicans.
During the 2003-04 election cycle, Mr. Hartley himself donated $74,500 to Mr. Hastert, Mr. DeLay and other congressional Republicans. He is on pace to match that level of giving once again in the 2006 election season."
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/29/2006 | Editorial | Santorum and the Lobbyists
Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/29/2006 | Editorial | Santorum and the Lobbyists: "Posted on Sun, Jan. 29, 2006
Editorial | Santorum and the Lobbyists'K Street? K Street? Never heard of it'Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) is trying to do an extreme makeover, in broad daylight.
He's trying to paper over his central role in a now-infamous program to boost Republicans' clout among Washington lobbyists.
As the huge and seedy Jack Abramoff scandal unfolds in Congress, Santorum has discovered a newly urgent desire to restrict lobbying. Well and good, all willing hands welcome.
But no voter should fall for the senator's attempt to obscure his ties to the so-called "K Street Project," named after the street that is home to many lobbying firms.
Santorum was an enthusiastic, high-profile supporter of the project, which sought to install movement conservatives in top lobbying jobs. It also sought to ensure that lobbyists and trade associations supported only Republican issues and candidates.
That's not illegal, per se. When Democrats dominated Congress, they threw their weight around, too. But the K Street Project took the practices to a new level of blatancy.
Santorum wouldn't be distancing himself from the project were it not for Jack Abramoff. The former lobbyist, and former close friend of the former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R., Texas), has pleaded guilty in an expanding federal probe of bribery and influence-peddling in Congress.
Abramoff rose to prominence in the Republican-friendly climate fostered by the K Street Project. But now Abramoff is radioactive politically and, by extension, so is K Street.
When he became the third-ranking Senate Republican in 2001, Santorum began hosting weekly meetings with lobbyists in Washington. They discussed issues, political strategy and, at times, job openings for Republicans at Washington lobbying firms.
But pressure anyone to hire Republicans? The senator is shocked, just shocked that anyone would suggest such a thing.
The official story line from the GOP, post-Abramoff, is that there were two K Street projects. One, led by top conservative activist Grover Norquist (a close friend of presidential adviser Karl Rove), actively pressured lobbying firms to hire Republicans. The other K Street project, says Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham, consisted of Santorum's weekly meetings with lobbyists to "get the Republican message out." Sort of a bad cop, good cop routine.
Santorum told a reporter last week that he "didn't even know what Grover Norquist was up to." But in 2002, Norquist told a reporter for the Inquirer's Washington bureau that Santorum had invited him to speak to Santorum's group.
"He [Santorum] has gotten me in to talk to all those guys," Norquist said, adding that he had access to most of them anyway. In the article, Santorum said he merely allowed Norquist to speak to the group, but added that he supported the push for more "transparency" as to the political affiliation of Washington lobbyists.
"Sen. Santorum has never pressured anyone to accept any type of job," Traynham said. "That is Grover Norquist's function."
It's a distinction without much of a difference, given Santorum's clout in the party. He set the table, and Norquist cleaned up.
Now, in the midst of a tough reelection race, Santorum is trying to distance himself from all things K Street. His leadership office said last week it would stop handing out lists of lobbying job vacancies at the weekly meetings.
If Santorum now wants to be in the vanguard of lobbying reform, fine. But his conversion is far more dramatic than he's willing to admit."
Editorial | Santorum and the Lobbyists'K Street? K Street? Never heard of it'Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) is trying to do an extreme makeover, in broad daylight.
He's trying to paper over his central role in a now-infamous program to boost Republicans' clout among Washington lobbyists.
As the huge and seedy Jack Abramoff scandal unfolds in Congress, Santorum has discovered a newly urgent desire to restrict lobbying. Well and good, all willing hands welcome.
But no voter should fall for the senator's attempt to obscure his ties to the so-called "K Street Project," named after the street that is home to many lobbying firms.
Santorum was an enthusiastic, high-profile supporter of the project, which sought to install movement conservatives in top lobbying jobs. It also sought to ensure that lobbyists and trade associations supported only Republican issues and candidates.
That's not illegal, per se. When Democrats dominated Congress, they threw their weight around, too. But the K Street Project took the practices to a new level of blatancy.
Santorum wouldn't be distancing himself from the project were it not for Jack Abramoff. The former lobbyist, and former close friend of the former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R., Texas), has pleaded guilty in an expanding federal probe of bribery and influence-peddling in Congress.
Abramoff rose to prominence in the Republican-friendly climate fostered by the K Street Project. But now Abramoff is radioactive politically and, by extension, so is K Street.
When he became the third-ranking Senate Republican in 2001, Santorum began hosting weekly meetings with lobbyists in Washington. They discussed issues, political strategy and, at times, job openings for Republicans at Washington lobbying firms.
But pressure anyone to hire Republicans? The senator is shocked, just shocked that anyone would suggest such a thing.
The official story line from the GOP, post-Abramoff, is that there were two K Street projects. One, led by top conservative activist Grover Norquist (a close friend of presidential adviser Karl Rove), actively pressured lobbying firms to hire Republicans. The other K Street project, says Santorum spokesman Robert Traynham, consisted of Santorum's weekly meetings with lobbyists to "get the Republican message out." Sort of a bad cop, good cop routine.
Santorum told a reporter last week that he "didn't even know what Grover Norquist was up to." But in 2002, Norquist told a reporter for the Inquirer's Washington bureau that Santorum had invited him to speak to Santorum's group.
"He [Santorum] has gotten me in to talk to all those guys," Norquist said, adding that he had access to most of them anyway. In the article, Santorum said he merely allowed Norquist to speak to the group, but added that he supported the push for more "transparency" as to the political affiliation of Washington lobbyists.
"Sen. Santorum has never pressured anyone to accept any type of job," Traynham said. "That is Grover Norquist's function."
It's a distinction without much of a difference, given Santorum's clout in the party. He set the table, and Norquist cleaned up.
Now, in the midst of a tough reelection race, Santorum is trying to distance himself from all things K Street. His leadership office said last week it would stop handing out lists of lobbying job vacancies at the weekly meetings.
If Santorum now wants to be in the vanguard of lobbying reform, fine. But his conversion is far more dramatic than he's willing to admit."
Saturday, January 28, 2006
RugNotes: Iranian Carpet-Makers Display Breathtaking Designs - Haghighi in Oman
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Iranian Carpet-Makers Display Breathtaking Designs - Haghighi in Oman
"Iranian Carpet-Makers Display Breathtaking Designs
SALALAH, Oman: Visitors at the Crowne Plaza Resort Salalah were in for a surprise at the end of last month when a selection of fine Persian carpets was on show in the hotel. For these were not your typical Persian rugs - they were carpets depicting breathtaking portraits of Iranian monuments in intricate detail.
"The main reason we are here is to introduce the people of the region to our art," said architect Mohammed Haghighi, business manager of Haghighi Carpets of Isfahan, Iran.
"Our brand in Iran is like Gucci in Italy."
Haghighi said that he wants people to realize how cheap hand made Persian carpets are relative to the time and effort it takes to create them.
"Countries such as India, Pakistan, and China mass produce cheaper carpets," said Amirhossein Haghighi, Mohammed's brother. He said these carpets are often of bad quality, especially the dyes, but they sell quickly because of their cheap price.
Mohammed Haghighi, whose family has been in the carpet-making business for more than a century, explained that Iran is the best place for producing carpets because the carpet industry belongs to Iran.
"The weaving technique is mastered with age long dexterity. If you want to buy good quality perfume," he said, "you would go to Paris because Paris is the best place for perfume."
Haghighi Carpets, which has been in business since 1890, won the Tehran-based International Grand Hand Woven Carpet Exhibition's Shaneh Bolourine award for their exceptional design and craftsmanship twice in 2001 and 2002.
Apart from the traditional carpet design, Haghighi weaves portraits, mostly of Iranian landmarks, into carpets. These portraits are not just any illustrations, they are three dimensional images.
"If you close your fist and look at the carpet right through it, the image will come alive," Haghighi said.
If you look at one of the carpets depicting the courtyard and fountain of a palace in Isfahan from one angle and slowly move to another, you feel as though the image's perspective is changing, as though you really are inside the palace.
The carpet-making process is directed by Haghighi's father, Feizollah Haghighi, owner of Haghighi Carpets, who works closely with the designers and weavers. It takes 10 people to make a 1.5 x 2.5 meter carpet.
"It is very difficult," said Amirhossein Haghighi, "you must calculate everything. First, you have to have the entire design in your mind."
Then follows the intricate and time-consuming process of drawing colors on wool or silk and weaving, he said.
The company uses natural dyes all drawn from plants. Applying these colors is an art in itself. "When you extract the colors while the plant is still wet, you get a different color than when the plant is dried up," said Mohammed Haghighi. "Using colors is the first and foremost thing you should know about in the carpet-making business."
The three dimensional portraits can have up to 3 different colors in one knot. One of the portraits illustrating the main hall of a public bath has beams of light projecting from the ceiling windows. The accuracy and consistency in the shades reflect a remarkable ability to control uniformity and use colors with such skill and competence.
In terms of cost, the portrait that won Haghighi Carpets the 2002 award was priced by the judging committee at $250,000.
This portrait, which depicts the inside of the Khaje Nasir mosque in the Iranian city of Shiraz, took two years to design and dye and two and a half years to weave.
Haghighi said that people think the price is fair. Still he wants the future owner of this portrait to have an air of appreciation of art and not simply be rich.
Haghighi has sold carpets to customers from all over the world, especially Arab buyers and international collectors. European buyers tend to purchase the smaller, cheaper ones.
When asked about the cost of producing such fine carpets, Haghighi answered philosophically: "It costs 40 years of working hard with passion and love."
Source : dailystar.com.lb"
Iranian Carpet-Makers Display Breathtaking Designs - Haghighi in Oman
"Iranian Carpet-Makers Display Breathtaking Designs
SALALAH, Oman: Visitors at the Crowne Plaza Resort Salalah were in for a surprise at the end of last month when a selection of fine Persian carpets was on show in the hotel. For these were not your typical Persian rugs - they were carpets depicting breathtaking portraits of Iranian monuments in intricate detail.
"The main reason we are here is to introduce the people of the region to our art," said architect Mohammed Haghighi, business manager of Haghighi Carpets of Isfahan, Iran.
"Our brand in Iran is like Gucci in Italy."
Haghighi said that he wants people to realize how cheap hand made Persian carpets are relative to the time and effort it takes to create them.
"Countries such as India, Pakistan, and China mass produce cheaper carpets," said Amirhossein Haghighi, Mohammed's brother. He said these carpets are often of bad quality, especially the dyes, but they sell quickly because of their cheap price.
Mohammed Haghighi, whose family has been in the carpet-making business for more than a century, explained that Iran is the best place for producing carpets because the carpet industry belongs to Iran.
"The weaving technique is mastered with age long dexterity. If you want to buy good quality perfume," he said, "you would go to Paris because Paris is the best place for perfume."
Haghighi Carpets, which has been in business since 1890, won the Tehran-based International Grand Hand Woven Carpet Exhibition's Shaneh Bolourine award for their exceptional design and craftsmanship twice in 2001 and 2002.
Apart from the traditional carpet design, Haghighi weaves portraits, mostly of Iranian landmarks, into carpets. These portraits are not just any illustrations, they are three dimensional images.
"If you close your fist and look at the carpet right through it, the image will come alive," Haghighi said.
If you look at one of the carpets depicting the courtyard and fountain of a palace in Isfahan from one angle and slowly move to another, you feel as though the image's perspective is changing, as though you really are inside the palace.
The carpet-making process is directed by Haghighi's father, Feizollah Haghighi, owner of Haghighi Carpets, who works closely with the designers and weavers. It takes 10 people to make a 1.5 x 2.5 meter carpet.
"It is very difficult," said Amirhossein Haghighi, "you must calculate everything. First, you have to have the entire design in your mind."
Then follows the intricate and time-consuming process of drawing colors on wool or silk and weaving, he said.
The company uses natural dyes all drawn from plants. Applying these colors is an art in itself. "When you extract the colors while the plant is still wet, you get a different color than when the plant is dried up," said Mohammed Haghighi. "Using colors is the first and foremost thing you should know about in the carpet-making business."
The three dimensional portraits can have up to 3 different colors in one knot. One of the portraits illustrating the main hall of a public bath has beams of light projecting from the ceiling windows. The accuracy and consistency in the shades reflect a remarkable ability to control uniformity and use colors with such skill and competence.
In terms of cost, the portrait that won Haghighi Carpets the 2002 award was priced by the judging committee at $250,000.
This portrait, which depicts the inside of the Khaje Nasir mosque in the Iranian city of Shiraz, took two years to design and dye and two and a half years to weave.
Haghighi said that people think the price is fair. Still he wants the future owner of this portrait to have an air of appreciation of art and not simply be rich.
Haghighi has sold carpets to customers from all over the world, especially Arab buyers and international collectors. European buyers tend to purchase the smaller, cheaper ones.
When asked about the cost of producing such fine carpets, Haghighi answered philosophically: "It costs 40 years of working hard with passion and love."
Source : dailystar.com.lb"
Santorum Linked to Gun Running, Corruption $500 Million Missing Dollars and a dead U.S. contractor
Mystery surrounds dead U.S. contractor: "Saturday, January 28, 2006 · Last updated 9:19 a.m. PT
Mystery surrounds dead U.S. contractor
By DEBORAH HASTINGS
AP NATIONAL WRITER
There are fortunes to be made in Iraq, where seemingly everything is broken or looted or blown up. The fortunes come from fixing those things; there is no shortage of cash to hire the fixers.
Often they are characters writ large with bravado and cunning and greed, sprouting like weeds amid the rubble.
Dale Stoffel was all of that. He devised elaborate schemes to get Iraqi government contracts to repair an unending list of things that no longer worked. He posed for photographs in the desert wearing a flak vest and toting an M5 submachine gun. He clinched a cigar between his teeth.
He pushed those schemes until they became reality. He signed huge contracts with the interim Iraqi Defense Ministry - the biggest of which was to repair the country's broken-down arsenal of tanks, helicopters and jets.
Yet Stoffel had expectations that seemed naively arrogant for a man of the world.
He was an arms dealer with a mysterious past, a swashbuckling, larger-than-life character who'd been around the block of international intrigue more than once. But in all the chaos, in a place overrun with mercenaries, privateers and shady government officials, he nonetheless expected everyone in Iraq to play by his rules.
It was a dangerous expectation.
At first, he complained to U.S. military and Baghdad officials: He wasn't being paid for his contracting work; corruption plagued his dealings with the Iraqi interim government. When that didn't produce a satisfactory response, he wrote to the Pentagon and to members of Congress saying the Iraqi Defense Ministry was ripping him off.
Then, after one year in country, after he hired powerful Washington lobbyists and pressed the flesh with connected Iraqis such as Ahmed Chalabi, after he secured contracts with the Iraqi government potentially worth hundreds of millions, someone killed Dale Stoffel.
On Dec. 8, 2004, a blue BMW station wagon riddled with blood and bullet holes was found on the side of a one-lane road used as a shortcut from the Taji military base, just past the point where it makes a hard right along the Tigris River.
The occupants were missing.
Stoffel had been in the passenger seat. Driving was American engineer Joseph Wemple, an expert carpenter who worked for Disney World and knew little about living in the kind of shadow world Stoffel embraced.
They had left Taji earlier that day, accompanied by an Iraqi worker, and were headed to their fortified compound outside Baghdad, a 15-minute drive. They never arrived.
After a series of calls, desperate colleagues located the Americans' bodies in a Baghdad morgue. They had been shot to death. The Iraqi employee survived. He has since disappeared.
The killings remain unsolved. The FBI is still investigating, though family members say little has happened in the past several months. A previously unheard of insurgency group continues to post Internet videos for no apparent reason, showing documents from Stoffel's laptop computer, which was stolen in the attack.
And in the passage of time, the deaths of these men have become one more turn in a twisting road of corruption leading ultimately to the interim Defense Ministry, to the issuance of 27 arrest warrants for its members - and to the disappearance of nearly the entire procurement budget for rearming the Iraqi military.
That money was to be used so that Iraq could stand on its own, and so that its occupying soldiers, most of them Americans, could go home.
---
Stoffel's company, Wye Oak Technology, had a hard-to-get federal license allowing him to import weapons. His former schoolmate Robert Irey, head of a Pennsylvania firm called CLI Corp., had years of construction experience.
Together, according to the plan, the international arms dealer and the small-town engineering company would get Iraqi military contracts and make lots of money.
Robert's brother, Bill, who did construction work for Disney World in Florida, also signed on, which was how Joe Wemple entered the picture. "I knew Joe from Disney," said Bill Irey. "He was the project manager for Shades of Green, the Army resort" near the amusement park.
All parties agreed that much of the money earned in Iraq would go to Stoffel, according to Irey. Stoffel had the weapons knowledge and he had made the contacts, including hiring a lobbying firm that also represented Chalabi's exiled Iraq National Congress.
He used those connections to meet other Chalabi family members - an extremely large clan whose offspring are scattered through the Iraqi government and business community - as well as interim Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan and other officials.
"It was his idea," said Bill Irey. "He had put together a brilliant proposal."
Wye Oak and CLI would refurbish every piece of moving equipment in Iraq's well-worn arsenal, including jets, helicopters, and Soviet-era tanks. The work would be financed by selling off an estimated 30 to 40 million pounds of military scrap from across Iraq, which Stoffel said was worth at least $1 billion, and possibly a great deal more.
CLI would retrofit a number of buildings at Taji military base, installing a kind of assembly line to do the repairs. CLI would also provide the manpower. Stoffel's international arms license would allow him to buy whatever parts were needed.
The interim Defense Ministry, in the first project of its kind since the U.S.-led invasion, signed the contract. Work began in August 2004, focusing on refurbishing tanks so they could be used to protect polling places during the parliamentary election in January 2005.
The project was overseen by the rebuilding task force led by U.S. Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus.
To the Americans, it was a public relations bonanza. The Iraqi military had been disbanded after the invasion. If the occupiers could show the army was getting back on its feet with newly overhauled equipment, everyone looked good.
To Stoffel and CLI, the deal was worth nearly $300 million. It also represented a windfall for the Iraqi government, which would get whatever funds were leftover from selling the military scrap, after the refurbishing was done.
But Wye Oak and CLI were never paid, both companies claimed.
After the contract was signed, Defense Minister Shaalan "came in and said, 'Oh, by the way, we're putting this guy in charge as an intermediary,' " Irey said. The intermediary was Raymond Zayna, an enigmatic Lebanese businessman who was given control of financial transactions between the contractors and the ministry. "We sent an invoice. The Ministry of Defense paid him. But we never saw any of the money," Irey said.
Stoffel believed that Zayna was skimming funds and kicking some back to the Defense Ministry, Irey said.
Fed up, Stoffel flew home for Thanksgiving.
He met with staffers from Republican Sen. Rick Santorum's office, who promised to look into the matter. The senator wrote to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asking for an investigation of Stoffel's complaints, according to documents supplied to The Associated Press by Santorum's staff.
Heartened, Stoffel went back to Iraq, where he was summoned to a series of meetings in the Green Zone to discuss his complaints. Eventually, after arguing back and forth, it was agreed that Zayna would make an initial payment to the contractors.
Five days later, Stoffel and Wemple were shot to death.
---
The killings have become Internet folklore, generating scores of blog entries and spy scenarios as intricate as any Eric Ambler novel: Stoffel, and by association, Wemple, were CIA agents; Stoffel was killed by an assassin connected to the Iraqi government; Stoffel was bumped off by another arms dealer who wanted his contract.
A week after the killings, an insurgent group calling itself the Brigades of the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility in a video that showed identity cards belonging to Stoffel and Wemple, and photographs of the two taken from Stoffel's computer.
Both men, the video claimed, were CIA spies who were pillaging Iraq.
But unlike most terrorist postings, there were no images of the killings or of the bodies, prompting questions about whether the video was truly the work of terrorists or simply a smoke screen to hide the murder of a troublesome American.
"It's very strange," said Evan Kohlman, a terrorism consultant who has monitored the postings with increasing interest. "I really doubt they're insurgent groups. I've never seen anything like this, and I monitor every single posting coming out from every major insurgent group in Iraq."
And never, Kohlman said, has he seen such postings continue for months.
At least 13 have appeared since the killings - by another unknown group, this one calling itself Rafidan: The Political Committee of the Mujahideen Central Command. These show Defense Ministry correspondence and e-mail between Stoffel and various Iraqi and military officials, as well as photographs of Stoffel standing next to President George W. Bush, and another of him standing next to Chalabi, all taken from Stoffel's laptop.
"I think they're trying to divert attention from the fact that there are other motives for the killing of Dale Stoffel," Kohlman said. "There's nothing to be gained except to try to convince people that it's really insurgents who killed this guy."
---
And as for the corruption in the Iraq Defense Ministry that so infuriated Stoffel?
It went much deeper than even he suspected.
Stoffel and his CLI colleagues were dealing with Shaalan, the defense minister who was a small business owner in London before the invasion, and with chief procurement officer Zaid Cattan, a salesman with joint Polish-Iraqi citizenship who'd been living in Europe.
He griped about both, but his complaints found no legitimacy until five months after he and Wemple were killed.
In that time, a new parliament was sworn in, with Shaalan as a member. Letters from the U.S. Defense Department about Stoffel's accusations had bounced from Rumsfeld's office down to a military attorney who concluded the entire matter had nothing to do with the U.S. military.
But then the Iraqi Supreme Board of Audit presented a confidential report on the Defense Ministry to new Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari.
The May 2005 findings were breathtaking. Widespread fraud under Shaalan had resulted in the disappearance of virtually the entire $1.3 billion procurement budget. The report, a copy of which was obtained by the AP, examined 89 contracts and found that all had been paid in full, via cash bank transfers, in advance of any work being done.
All were awarded to Iraqis acting as intermediaries like Stoffel's contact, Zayna, and not to the suppliers themselves.
The finance minister called it "possibly one of the greatest thefts" in Iraqi history.
The Wye Oak-CLI contract was one of the most glaring examples. Nearly $25 million had been deposited by Zayna in a Lebanese bank "contrary to general contracting provisions," the audit said.
In October, 27 arrest warrants were issued for Defense Ministry officials, including Shaalan and Cattan. But by then, Shaalan had immunity from prosecution as a member of parliament.
He'd also left the country. He now lives in Britain and denies wrongdoing, though he acknowledges transferring $500 million in ministry funds to a Lebanese bank - to buy armored vehicles, he said.
He ran for re-election in December, but lost.
It is unclear what the newest Iraqi government will do about the arrest warrants.
As for Zayna, the last thing Bob Irey heard was the middleman remains in Iraq. He continues to bill the Defense Ministry for work done under the Taji contract."
Mystery surrounds dead U.S. contractor
By DEBORAH HASTINGS
AP NATIONAL WRITER
There are fortunes to be made in Iraq, where seemingly everything is broken or looted or blown up. The fortunes come from fixing those things; there is no shortage of cash to hire the fixers.
Often they are characters writ large with bravado and cunning and greed, sprouting like weeds amid the rubble.
Dale Stoffel was all of that. He devised elaborate schemes to get Iraqi government contracts to repair an unending list of things that no longer worked. He posed for photographs in the desert wearing a flak vest and toting an M5 submachine gun. He clinched a cigar between his teeth.
He pushed those schemes until they became reality. He signed huge contracts with the interim Iraqi Defense Ministry - the biggest of which was to repair the country's broken-down arsenal of tanks, helicopters and jets.
Yet Stoffel had expectations that seemed naively arrogant for a man of the world.
He was an arms dealer with a mysterious past, a swashbuckling, larger-than-life character who'd been around the block of international intrigue more than once. But in all the chaos, in a place overrun with mercenaries, privateers and shady government officials, he nonetheless expected everyone in Iraq to play by his rules.
It was a dangerous expectation.
At first, he complained to U.S. military and Baghdad officials: He wasn't being paid for his contracting work; corruption plagued his dealings with the Iraqi interim government. When that didn't produce a satisfactory response, he wrote to the Pentagon and to members of Congress saying the Iraqi Defense Ministry was ripping him off.
Then, after one year in country, after he hired powerful Washington lobbyists and pressed the flesh with connected Iraqis such as Ahmed Chalabi, after he secured contracts with the Iraqi government potentially worth hundreds of millions, someone killed Dale Stoffel.
On Dec. 8, 2004, a blue BMW station wagon riddled with blood and bullet holes was found on the side of a one-lane road used as a shortcut from the Taji military base, just past the point where it makes a hard right along the Tigris River.
The occupants were missing.
Stoffel had been in the passenger seat. Driving was American engineer Joseph Wemple, an expert carpenter who worked for Disney World and knew little about living in the kind of shadow world Stoffel embraced.
They had left Taji earlier that day, accompanied by an Iraqi worker, and were headed to their fortified compound outside Baghdad, a 15-minute drive. They never arrived.
After a series of calls, desperate colleagues located the Americans' bodies in a Baghdad morgue. They had been shot to death. The Iraqi employee survived. He has since disappeared.
The killings remain unsolved. The FBI is still investigating, though family members say little has happened in the past several months. A previously unheard of insurgency group continues to post Internet videos for no apparent reason, showing documents from Stoffel's laptop computer, which was stolen in the attack.
And in the passage of time, the deaths of these men have become one more turn in a twisting road of corruption leading ultimately to the interim Defense Ministry, to the issuance of 27 arrest warrants for its members - and to the disappearance of nearly the entire procurement budget for rearming the Iraqi military.
That money was to be used so that Iraq could stand on its own, and so that its occupying soldiers, most of them Americans, could go home.
---
Stoffel's company, Wye Oak Technology, had a hard-to-get federal license allowing him to import weapons. His former schoolmate Robert Irey, head of a Pennsylvania firm called CLI Corp., had years of construction experience.
Together, according to the plan, the international arms dealer and the small-town engineering company would get Iraqi military contracts and make lots of money.
Robert's brother, Bill, who did construction work for Disney World in Florida, also signed on, which was how Joe Wemple entered the picture. "I knew Joe from Disney," said Bill Irey. "He was the project manager for Shades of Green, the Army resort" near the amusement park.
All parties agreed that much of the money earned in Iraq would go to Stoffel, according to Irey. Stoffel had the weapons knowledge and he had made the contacts, including hiring a lobbying firm that also represented Chalabi's exiled Iraq National Congress.
He used those connections to meet other Chalabi family members - an extremely large clan whose offspring are scattered through the Iraqi government and business community - as well as interim Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan and other officials.
"It was his idea," said Bill Irey. "He had put together a brilliant proposal."
Wye Oak and CLI would refurbish every piece of moving equipment in Iraq's well-worn arsenal, including jets, helicopters, and Soviet-era tanks. The work would be financed by selling off an estimated 30 to 40 million pounds of military scrap from across Iraq, which Stoffel said was worth at least $1 billion, and possibly a great deal more.
CLI would retrofit a number of buildings at Taji military base, installing a kind of assembly line to do the repairs. CLI would also provide the manpower. Stoffel's international arms license would allow him to buy whatever parts were needed.
The interim Defense Ministry, in the first project of its kind since the U.S.-led invasion, signed the contract. Work began in August 2004, focusing on refurbishing tanks so they could be used to protect polling places during the parliamentary election in January 2005.
The project was overseen by the rebuilding task force led by U.S. Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus.
To the Americans, it was a public relations bonanza. The Iraqi military had been disbanded after the invasion. If the occupiers could show the army was getting back on its feet with newly overhauled equipment, everyone looked good.
To Stoffel and CLI, the deal was worth nearly $300 million. It also represented a windfall for the Iraqi government, which would get whatever funds were leftover from selling the military scrap, after the refurbishing was done.
But Wye Oak and CLI were never paid, both companies claimed.
After the contract was signed, Defense Minister Shaalan "came in and said, 'Oh, by the way, we're putting this guy in charge as an intermediary,' " Irey said. The intermediary was Raymond Zayna, an enigmatic Lebanese businessman who was given control of financial transactions between the contractors and the ministry. "We sent an invoice. The Ministry of Defense paid him. But we never saw any of the money," Irey said.
Stoffel believed that Zayna was skimming funds and kicking some back to the Defense Ministry, Irey said.
Fed up, Stoffel flew home for Thanksgiving.
He met with staffers from Republican Sen. Rick Santorum's office, who promised to look into the matter. The senator wrote to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asking for an investigation of Stoffel's complaints, according to documents supplied to The Associated Press by Santorum's staff.
Heartened, Stoffel went back to Iraq, where he was summoned to a series of meetings in the Green Zone to discuss his complaints. Eventually, after arguing back and forth, it was agreed that Zayna would make an initial payment to the contractors.
Five days later, Stoffel and Wemple were shot to death.
---
The killings have become Internet folklore, generating scores of blog entries and spy scenarios as intricate as any Eric Ambler novel: Stoffel, and by association, Wemple, were CIA agents; Stoffel was killed by an assassin connected to the Iraqi government; Stoffel was bumped off by another arms dealer who wanted his contract.
A week after the killings, an insurgent group calling itself the Brigades of the Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility in a video that showed identity cards belonging to Stoffel and Wemple, and photographs of the two taken from Stoffel's computer.
Both men, the video claimed, were CIA spies who were pillaging Iraq.
But unlike most terrorist postings, there were no images of the killings or of the bodies, prompting questions about whether the video was truly the work of terrorists or simply a smoke screen to hide the murder of a troublesome American.
"It's very strange," said Evan Kohlman, a terrorism consultant who has monitored the postings with increasing interest. "I really doubt they're insurgent groups. I've never seen anything like this, and I monitor every single posting coming out from every major insurgent group in Iraq."
And never, Kohlman said, has he seen such postings continue for months.
At least 13 have appeared since the killings - by another unknown group, this one calling itself Rafidan: The Political Committee of the Mujahideen Central Command. These show Defense Ministry correspondence and e-mail between Stoffel and various Iraqi and military officials, as well as photographs of Stoffel standing next to President George W. Bush, and another of him standing next to Chalabi, all taken from Stoffel's laptop.
"I think they're trying to divert attention from the fact that there are other motives for the killing of Dale Stoffel," Kohlman said. "There's nothing to be gained except to try to convince people that it's really insurgents who killed this guy."
---
And as for the corruption in the Iraq Defense Ministry that so infuriated Stoffel?
It went much deeper than even he suspected.
Stoffel and his CLI colleagues were dealing with Shaalan, the defense minister who was a small business owner in London before the invasion, and with chief procurement officer Zaid Cattan, a salesman with joint Polish-Iraqi citizenship who'd been living in Europe.
He griped about both, but his complaints found no legitimacy until five months after he and Wemple were killed.
In that time, a new parliament was sworn in, with Shaalan as a member. Letters from the U.S. Defense Department about Stoffel's accusations had bounced from Rumsfeld's office down to a military attorney who concluded the entire matter had nothing to do with the U.S. military.
But then the Iraqi Supreme Board of Audit presented a confidential report on the Defense Ministry to new Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari.
The May 2005 findings were breathtaking. Widespread fraud under Shaalan had resulted in the disappearance of virtually the entire $1.3 billion procurement budget. The report, a copy of which was obtained by the AP, examined 89 contracts and found that all had been paid in full, via cash bank transfers, in advance of any work being done.
All were awarded to Iraqis acting as intermediaries like Stoffel's contact, Zayna, and not to the suppliers themselves.
The finance minister called it "possibly one of the greatest thefts" in Iraqi history.
The Wye Oak-CLI contract was one of the most glaring examples. Nearly $25 million had been deposited by Zayna in a Lebanese bank "contrary to general contracting provisions," the audit said.
In October, 27 arrest warrants were issued for Defense Ministry officials, including Shaalan and Cattan. But by then, Shaalan had immunity from prosecution as a member of parliament.
He'd also left the country. He now lives in Britain and denies wrongdoing, though he acknowledges transferring $500 million in ministry funds to a Lebanese bank - to buy armored vehicles, he said.
He ran for re-election in December, but lost.
It is unclear what the newest Iraqi government will do about the arrest warrants.
As for Zayna, the last thing Bob Irey heard was the middleman remains in Iraq. He continues to bill the Defense Ministry for work done under the Taji contract."
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Huge Loophole in Santorum's Lobbying Bill Leaves Wiggle Room
Loophole in Lobbying Bill Leaves Wiggle Room: "Loophole in Lobbying Bill Leaves Wiggle Room
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 18, 2006; Page A04
Lawmakers are about to bombard the American public with proposals that would crack down on lobbyists. Several prominent plans, including one outlined yesterday by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), would specifically ban meals and privately paid travel for lawmakers.
Or would they?
According to lobbyists and ethics experts, even if Hastert's proposal is enacted, members of Congress and their staffs could still travel the world on an interest group's expense and eat steak on a lobbyist's account at the priciest restaurants in Washington.
The only requirement would be that whenever a lobbyist pays the bill, he or she must also hand the lawmaker a campaign contribution. Then the transaction would be perfectly okay.
"That's a big hole if they don't address campaign finance," said Joel Jankowsky, the lobbying chief of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, one of the capital's largest lobbying outfits.
The plans offered by Republican leaders yesterday would change two of the three areas of law or regulation that govern lobbyists' behavior: the congressional rules that limit gifts to lawmakers and the laws that dictate the amount of disclosure that lobbyists must give the public.
A third major area -- campaign finance laws -- would go untouched, an omission that amounts to a gaping loophole in efforts to distance lobbyists from the people they are paid to influence.
Anything that members of Congress can now do in the pursuit of money for their reelections will still be permitted in the future -- including accepting lobbyist-paid travel and in-town meals -- unless campaign finance laws are altered.
"Political contributions are specifically exempted from the definition of what a gift is in House and Senate gift rules," said Kenneth A. Gross, an ethics lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. "So, unless the campaign finance laws are changed, if a lobbyist wants to sponsor an event at the MCI arena or on the slopes of Colorado, as long as it's a fundraiser it would still be fine."
The result, he added, "may well be more out-of-town fundraising events than there are at the moment."
Paul A. Miller, president of the American League of Lobbyists, said of the loophole: "You may see a shift from what we're able to do now to the political fundraiser side where it is legal."
Currently, lawmakers and staff members are permitted to take "fact-finding" trips paid for by private groups, including lobbying organizations and corporations. These excursions, whose destinations are often major cities and warm resorts in wintertime, need only be disclosed and include official functions to be acceptable under the rules.
Yesterday, Hastert and high-ranking Senate Republicans, led by Rick Santorum (Pa.) and John McCain (Ariz.), said they would eliminate these privately funded fact-finding trips as part of a comprehensive ethics package that they hoped would begin moving through Congress early next month. The senators also said they would restrict gifts to lawmakers but apparently would not go as far as to ban meals, as Hastert said he intended to propose.
None of the lawmakers, however, said they would end travel and meals supplied by lobbyists as part of fundraising events, which, at least for now, would leave the loophole open. Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), who is Hastert's emissary on the lobbying issue, said he was tasked to deal with lobbying laws, not campaign-finance laws, which he declared a separate issue.
McCain, who has been a leader on matters dealing with lobbyists and campaign fundraising, said he was aware of the problem. In an interview after his news conference with Santorum, McCain said he knows the loophole exists and vowed to close it before the bill becomes a law."
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 18, 2006; Page A04
Lawmakers are about to bombard the American public with proposals that would crack down on lobbyists. Several prominent plans, including one outlined yesterday by House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), would specifically ban meals and privately paid travel for lawmakers.
Or would they?
According to lobbyists and ethics experts, even if Hastert's proposal is enacted, members of Congress and their staffs could still travel the world on an interest group's expense and eat steak on a lobbyist's account at the priciest restaurants in Washington.
The only requirement would be that whenever a lobbyist pays the bill, he or she must also hand the lawmaker a campaign contribution. Then the transaction would be perfectly okay.
"That's a big hole if they don't address campaign finance," said Joel Jankowsky, the lobbying chief of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, one of the capital's largest lobbying outfits.
The plans offered by Republican leaders yesterday would change two of the three areas of law or regulation that govern lobbyists' behavior: the congressional rules that limit gifts to lawmakers and the laws that dictate the amount of disclosure that lobbyists must give the public.
A third major area -- campaign finance laws -- would go untouched, an omission that amounts to a gaping loophole in efforts to distance lobbyists from the people they are paid to influence.
Anything that members of Congress can now do in the pursuit of money for their reelections will still be permitted in the future -- including accepting lobbyist-paid travel and in-town meals -- unless campaign finance laws are altered.
"Political contributions are specifically exempted from the definition of what a gift is in House and Senate gift rules," said Kenneth A. Gross, an ethics lawyer at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom. "So, unless the campaign finance laws are changed, if a lobbyist wants to sponsor an event at the MCI arena or on the slopes of Colorado, as long as it's a fundraiser it would still be fine."
The result, he added, "may well be more out-of-town fundraising events than there are at the moment."
Paul A. Miller, president of the American League of Lobbyists, said of the loophole: "You may see a shift from what we're able to do now to the political fundraiser side where it is legal."
Currently, lawmakers and staff members are permitted to take "fact-finding" trips paid for by private groups, including lobbying organizations and corporations. These excursions, whose destinations are often major cities and warm resorts in wintertime, need only be disclosed and include official functions to be acceptable under the rules.
Yesterday, Hastert and high-ranking Senate Republicans, led by Rick Santorum (Pa.) and John McCain (Ariz.), said they would eliminate these privately funded fact-finding trips as part of a comprehensive ethics package that they hoped would begin moving through Congress early next month. The senators also said they would restrict gifts to lawmakers but apparently would not go as far as to ban meals, as Hastert said he intended to propose.
None of the lawmakers, however, said they would end travel and meals supplied by lobbyists as part of fundraising events, which, at least for now, would leave the loophole open. Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), who is Hastert's emissary on the lobbying issue, said he was tasked to deal with lobbying laws, not campaign-finance laws, which he declared a separate issue.
McCain, who has been a leader on matters dealing with lobbyists and campaign fundraising, said he was aware of the problem. In an interview after his news conference with Santorum, McCain said he knows the loophole exists and vowed to close it before the bill becomes a law."
Monday, January 09, 2006
Philadelphia Inquirer | Santorum is lieing About His Close Associate Jack Abramoff and the Money
Philadelphia Inquirer | 01/07/2006 | Santorum donating Abramoff money: "Posted on Sat, Jan. 07, 2006
Santorum donating Abramoff moneyThe Pa. senator, seeking to "set an example," will give away contributions received from the lobbyist.By Carrie BudoffInquirer Staff WriterU.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) will shed the remaining $9,000 of his contributions from tribes connected to lobbyist Jack Abramoff - a decision that Santorum's campaign said was prompted by his plans to take a lead in tightening lobbying rules.
"He wanted to set an example by donating all the contributions to charity," Virginia Davis, Santorum's campaign spokeswoman, said yesterday.
Santorum's move to return the money and put forward lobbying bills underscores the potential potency of ethics issues in the 2006 campaigns here and across the country.
Within hours of Abramoff's guilty plea Tuesday in a federal influence-peddling case, dozens of Republican and Democratic lawmakers started giving away campaign donations tied to the Washington lobbyist.
At first, Santorum returned only $2,000 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, a former Abramoff client, because the tribe was specifically mentioned in Abramoff's plea agreement.
"Because we are having difficulty determining the role Jack Abramoff may or may not have had in these contributions, we are going to err on the side of caution," Davis said yesterday of the remaining $9,000, which came from two other tribes.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist asked Santorum, the No. 3 Republican Senate leader, in November to write legislation that could address some of the excesses exposed by the Abramoff case. For years, Abramoff showered lawmakers with trips, entertainment and millions of dollars in contributions.
"It is a very real possibility" Santorum could work on an agreement with Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), who already has drafted lobbying legislation, said Robert L. Traynham II, Santorum's Senate spokesman.
By involving himself in the ethics debate at a time when incumbents seem vulnerable on the issue, Santorum "can insulate himself and say he is ahead of the curve," said Berwood Yost, a Franklin and Marshall College pollster.
But already, Santorum's leading Democratic opponent, state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., is questioning the senator's standing on the issue.
Larry Smar, Casey's spokesman, said Santorum should first sever his ties with the K Street Project, an effort led by Santorum and other GOP lawmakers to build strong ties with the lobbying community and persuade those firms to hire Republican job applicants. K Street is a Washington address favored by lobbyists.
"If you talk about lobbying reform, that is a pretty good first place to start," Smar said. "Until he ends his association with the K Street Project, he has no credibility."
Traynham said the senator would continue the gatherings, which occur as many as 10 to 15 times a year. "He has no intention to stop meeting with, bouncing ideas off of or seeking advice from strategists based in D.C. that can further advance the agenda of moving this economy forward, protecting our homeland, and helping Pennsylvania's interests," Traynham said.
It was at one of those gatherings in 2001 that Santorum apparently encountered Abramoff, according to articles that year in National Journal and Roll Call that reference a meeting between the senator and more than a half-dozen lobbyists and lawmakers.
However, Davis said Santorum, who meets with hundreds of people every week, "does not recall being personally introduced or meeting Jack Abramoff.""
Santorum donating Abramoff moneyThe Pa. senator, seeking to "set an example," will give away contributions received from the lobbyist.By Carrie BudoffInquirer Staff WriterU.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.) will shed the remaining $9,000 of his contributions from tribes connected to lobbyist Jack Abramoff - a decision that Santorum's campaign said was prompted by his plans to take a lead in tightening lobbying rules.
"He wanted to set an example by donating all the contributions to charity," Virginia Davis, Santorum's campaign spokeswoman, said yesterday.
Santorum's move to return the money and put forward lobbying bills underscores the potential potency of ethics issues in the 2006 campaigns here and across the country.
Within hours of Abramoff's guilty plea Tuesday in a federal influence-peddling case, dozens of Republican and Democratic lawmakers started giving away campaign donations tied to the Washington lobbyist.
At first, Santorum returned only $2,000 from the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe, a former Abramoff client, because the tribe was specifically mentioned in Abramoff's plea agreement.
"Because we are having difficulty determining the role Jack Abramoff may or may not have had in these contributions, we are going to err on the side of caution," Davis said yesterday of the remaining $9,000, which came from two other tribes.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist asked Santorum, the No. 3 Republican Senate leader, in November to write legislation that could address some of the excesses exposed by the Abramoff case. For years, Abramoff showered lawmakers with trips, entertainment and millions of dollars in contributions.
"It is a very real possibility" Santorum could work on an agreement with Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), who already has drafted lobbying legislation, said Robert L. Traynham II, Santorum's Senate spokesman.
By involving himself in the ethics debate at a time when incumbents seem vulnerable on the issue, Santorum "can insulate himself and say he is ahead of the curve," said Berwood Yost, a Franklin and Marshall College pollster.
But already, Santorum's leading Democratic opponent, state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., is questioning the senator's standing on the issue.
Larry Smar, Casey's spokesman, said Santorum should first sever his ties with the K Street Project, an effort led by Santorum and other GOP lawmakers to build strong ties with the lobbying community and persuade those firms to hire Republican job applicants. K Street is a Washington address favored by lobbyists.
"If you talk about lobbying reform, that is a pretty good first place to start," Smar said. "Until he ends his association with the K Street Project, he has no credibility."
Traynham said the senator would continue the gatherings, which occur as many as 10 to 15 times a year. "He has no intention to stop meeting with, bouncing ideas off of or seeking advice from strategists based in D.C. that can further advance the agenda of moving this economy forward, protecting our homeland, and helping Pennsylvania's interests," Traynham said.
It was at one of those gatherings in 2001 that Santorum apparently encountered Abramoff, according to articles that year in National Journal and Roll Call that reference a meeting between the senator and more than a half-dozen lobbyists and lawmakers.
However, Davis said Santorum, who meets with hundreds of people every week, "does not recall being personally introduced or meeting Jack Abramoff.""
The Sentinel Online - Santorum's "MAFIA" Tactics
The Sentinel Online - Archived Story: "Play nice with neighbors
By The Sentinel, Jan 08, 2006
What’s the matter with New Jersey?
Nothing, actually, as far as we can ascertain. But a couple of Pennsylvania’s best known politicians think otherwise.
Both Gov. Ed Rendell and Sen. Rick Santorum, two men not particularly well known for singing from the same songbook, have issued public threats to their counterparts in New Jersey over a proposed dredging project for the Delaware River.
The plan is to make the river five feet deeper through the Philadelphia-area shipping channel so that bigger deep-sea container ships and oil tankers can dock in the City of Brotherly Love, and probably on the New Jersey side of the river as well. The proposal is intended to boost the regional economy and create more jobs.
Not everyone is on board with the dredging plan, however. Labor organizations in the region are of two minds about the plan, and environmentalists believe dredging will upset the river’s ecosystem.
Now you might assume that there was some way for two adjacent states to discuss issues of interest to both, and you’d be right — the dredging plan is under discussion between the governor’s offices of both states. Indeed, a spokeswoman for outgoing N.J. Gov. Richard Codey said she’s “optimistic” that an agreement will be reached in the near future, though Rendell’s spokeswoman said there have been no “substantive” talks on the issue.
It may be that talks are going slowly since Codey is soon to be replaced as governor by just-elected Sen. Jon Corzine. And the price tag for this venture, estimated at $300 million in a recent Associated Press story, will almost certainly require negotiations in regard to which state will pay what amount.
We’re not sure why, but Rendell and Santorum were both motivated to blow their stacks over the status of this project in the past week. Rendell went first, suggesting a failure to make a dredging deal might be fatal to the PATCO commuter rail line that carries New Jerseyites to work in Philadelphia.
Santorum followed up a few days later with his own personal threat to stall any federal programs earmarked for New Jersey unless the dredging project goes forward.
Ed and Rick sound like they’re auditioning for “The Sopranos.” We doubt their counterparts in New Jersey will appreciate their impressions of Tony, Uncle Junior, Paulie Walnuts and the gang. Perhaps their families should switch the channel to “West Wing” on Sunday nights until they remember what it means to negotiate in good faith with their equals."
By The Sentinel, Jan 08, 2006
What’s the matter with New Jersey?
Nothing, actually, as far as we can ascertain. But a couple of Pennsylvania’s best known politicians think otherwise.
Both Gov. Ed Rendell and Sen. Rick Santorum, two men not particularly well known for singing from the same songbook, have issued public threats to their counterparts in New Jersey over a proposed dredging project for the Delaware River.
The plan is to make the river five feet deeper through the Philadelphia-area shipping channel so that bigger deep-sea container ships and oil tankers can dock in the City of Brotherly Love, and probably on the New Jersey side of the river as well. The proposal is intended to boost the regional economy and create more jobs.
Not everyone is on board with the dredging plan, however. Labor organizations in the region are of two minds about the plan, and environmentalists believe dredging will upset the river’s ecosystem.
Now you might assume that there was some way for two adjacent states to discuss issues of interest to both, and you’d be right — the dredging plan is under discussion between the governor’s offices of both states. Indeed, a spokeswoman for outgoing N.J. Gov. Richard Codey said she’s “optimistic” that an agreement will be reached in the near future, though Rendell’s spokeswoman said there have been no “substantive” talks on the issue.
It may be that talks are going slowly since Codey is soon to be replaced as governor by just-elected Sen. Jon Corzine. And the price tag for this venture, estimated at $300 million in a recent Associated Press story, will almost certainly require negotiations in regard to which state will pay what amount.
We’re not sure why, but Rendell and Santorum were both motivated to blow their stacks over the status of this project in the past week. Rendell went first, suggesting a failure to make a dredging deal might be fatal to the PATCO commuter rail line that carries New Jerseyites to work in Philadelphia.
Santorum followed up a few days later with his own personal threat to stall any federal programs earmarked for New Jersey unless the dredging project goes forward.
Ed and Rick sound like they’re auditioning for “The Sopranos.” We doubt their counterparts in New Jersey will appreciate their impressions of Tony, Uncle Junior, Paulie Walnuts and the gang. Perhaps their families should switch the channel to “West Wing” on Sunday nights until they remember what it means to negotiate in good faith with their equals."
Thursday, January 05, 2006
ABC News: Santorum's Close Associate Jack Abramoff Pleads Guilty
ABC News: Abramoff Pleads Guilty to Fraud in Fla.: "Abramoff Pleads Guilty to Fraud in Fla.Lobbyist Abramoff Completes Second Half of Guilty Plea in Gambling Boat Fraud Case
Jack Abramoff arrives at the federal justice building in Miami where he is expected to plead quilty to criminal charges stemming from the 2000 purchase of SunCruz Casinos Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2006. Abramoff plead guilty in federal court Washington Tuesday to mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion charges. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)
By CURT ANDERSON Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
MIAMI Jan 5, 2006 — With two sets of guilty pleas in as many days, once-powerful Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff now must cooperate with federal prosecutors in a broad Congressional corruption probe if he wants a lighter prison sentence.
Abramoff, 46, completed the second half of his plea deal Wednesday, admitting conspiracy and wire fraud connected to his purchase of a gambling boat fleet.
"Guilty, your honor," Abramoff, 46, somberly told U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck, dressed in a dark double-breasted suit and tan baseball cap. When the hearing was over, he swiftly and silently ducked out a side courthouse door, into a waiting car.
White House Told NSA Briefings Broke Law
Political Effects of Abramoff Deal Emerge
Wartime Support
The plea came a day after Abramoff entered guilty pleas to three other federal charges as part of an agreement with prosecutors requiring him to cooperate in a wide-ranging corruption probe that could involve up to 20 members of Congress and aides, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
President Bush joined several lawmakers, including DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, in announcing plans to donate Abramoff's campaign contributions to charity. Bush's re-election campaign is giving up $6,000 in campaign contributions connected to Abramoff.
The plea agreement calls for a maximum sentence of just more than seven years, but the sentence could be reduced if he cooperates fully. It would also run simultaneously with whatever sentence is imposed in the Washington corruption case, in which he pleaded guilty to conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud Tuesday.
Like a former business partner did last month, Abramoff pleaded guilty to concocting a false $23 million wire transfer that made it appear as if the pair contributed a sizable stake of their own cash into the $147.5 million purchase of SunCruz Casinos.
Abramoff's ex-partner in the SunCruz deal, 41-year-old Adam Kidan, pleaded guilty on Dec. 15 to two charges and faces sentencing on March 1. Both admitted using the fake wire transfer to secure $60 million in loans they used to buy SunCruz."
Jack Abramoff arrives at the federal justice building in Miami where he is expected to plead quilty to criminal charges stemming from the 2000 purchase of SunCruz Casinos Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2006. Abramoff plead guilty in federal court Washington Tuesday to mail fraud, conspiracy and tax evasion charges. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)
By CURT ANDERSON Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
MIAMI Jan 5, 2006 — With two sets of guilty pleas in as many days, once-powerful Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff now must cooperate with federal prosecutors in a broad Congressional corruption probe if he wants a lighter prison sentence.
Abramoff, 46, completed the second half of his plea deal Wednesday, admitting conspiracy and wire fraud connected to his purchase of a gambling boat fleet.
"Guilty, your honor," Abramoff, 46, somberly told U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck, dressed in a dark double-breasted suit and tan baseball cap. When the hearing was over, he swiftly and silently ducked out a side courthouse door, into a waiting car.
White House Told NSA Briefings Broke Law
Political Effects of Abramoff Deal Emerge
Wartime Support
The plea came a day after Abramoff entered guilty pleas to three other federal charges as part of an agreement with prosecutors requiring him to cooperate in a wide-ranging corruption probe that could involve up to 20 members of Congress and aides, including former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
President Bush joined several lawmakers, including DeLay and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, in announcing plans to donate Abramoff's campaign contributions to charity. Bush's re-election campaign is giving up $6,000 in campaign contributions connected to Abramoff.
The plea agreement calls for a maximum sentence of just more than seven years, but the sentence could be reduced if he cooperates fully. It would also run simultaneously with whatever sentence is imposed in the Washington corruption case, in which he pleaded guilty to conspiracy, tax evasion and mail fraud Tuesday.
Like a former business partner did last month, Abramoff pleaded guilty to concocting a false $23 million wire transfer that made it appear as if the pair contributed a sizable stake of their own cash into the $147.5 million purchase of SunCruz Casinos.
Abramoff's ex-partner in the SunCruz deal, 41-year-old Adam Kidan, pleaded guilty on Dec. 15 to two charges and faces sentencing on March 1. Both admitted using the fake wire transfer to secure $60 million in loans they used to buy SunCruz."
Monday, December 26, 2005
ELECTION YEAR RICK - Santorum's flip-flops, back-flips and political 180s
ELECTION YEAR RICK AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN: "ELECTION YEAR RICK AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN
Chuck Muth
December 26, 2005
I sure hope Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, has a good chiropractor. 'Cause he's gonna need one by the time this election year is over - what with all his flip-flops, back-flips and political 180s. Either that, or he's got a great future as an Olympic gymnast if his senatorial career comes to an end next November.
I'm trying to keep track of all the strange things Santorum has said and done since kicking his base in the teeth last year when he aggressively stumped for liberal Republican incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, who was being challenged by conservative Rep. Pat Toomey. But the list is just getting too long - including supporting Specter for Judiciary Committee chairman and calling for a hike in the minimum wage..
Nevertheless, social conservatives have stood by their man, through thick and thin. He hasn't been able to shake their loyalty. Call it "Battered Conservative Syndrome." But maybe some of them will now finally have had enough. Perhaps the latest from Sen. Santorum will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.
As I'm sure you've read, a federal judge ruled last week that an updated version of "creationism," now called "intelligent design," could not be taught in the Dover School District as science. Social conservatives are, as you would expect, outraged by the decision. As surely Sen. Santorum must be, right? After all, Santorum wrote an op/ed in 2002 declaring that intelligent design "is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."
Ah, but that was in 2002. This is an election year. And "Election Year Rick," as his Democrat opposition is now calling him, is singing an entirely different tune now.
An organization called the Thomas More Law Center defended the Dover School District's decision to teach intelligent design in its science classes. Santorum is on the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center.
Or I should say, WAS on the advisory board. He quit last week, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer, "I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did."
Huh?
If Santorum thought intelligent design was "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes," why is he now resigning from a Christian-rights organization which defended the school district that said intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes?
Santorum's election-year political rush to the middle just might leave his base behind. It's a high-risk gamble on his part. He's betting there's nothing he can do to cause his conservative supporters to stay home on election day or vote for another candidate. I hope he's not betting the farm on it.
Or at least has Olga Korbut as his campaign manager.
# # #
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com."
Chuck Muth
December 26, 2005
I sure hope Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, has a good chiropractor. 'Cause he's gonna need one by the time this election year is over - what with all his flip-flops, back-flips and political 180s. Either that, or he's got a great future as an Olympic gymnast if his senatorial career comes to an end next November.
I'm trying to keep track of all the strange things Santorum has said and done since kicking his base in the teeth last year when he aggressively stumped for liberal Republican incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter, who was being challenged by conservative Rep. Pat Toomey. But the list is just getting too long - including supporting Specter for Judiciary Committee chairman and calling for a hike in the minimum wage..
Nevertheless, social conservatives have stood by their man, through thick and thin. He hasn't been able to shake their loyalty. Call it "Battered Conservative Syndrome." But maybe some of them will now finally have had enough. Perhaps the latest from Sen. Santorum will be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.
As I'm sure you've read, a federal judge ruled last week that an updated version of "creationism," now called "intelligent design," could not be taught in the Dover School District as science. Social conservatives are, as you would expect, outraged by the decision. As surely Sen. Santorum must be, right? After all, Santorum wrote an op/ed in 2002 declaring that intelligent design "is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."
Ah, but that was in 2002. This is an election year. And "Election Year Rick," as his Democrat opposition is now calling him, is singing an entirely different tune now.
An organization called the Thomas More Law Center defended the Dover School District's decision to teach intelligent design in its science classes. Santorum is on the advisory board of the Thomas More Law Center.
Or I should say, WAS on the advisory board. He quit last week, telling the Philadelphia Inquirer, "I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did."
Huh?
If Santorum thought intelligent design was "a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes," why is he now resigning from a Christian-rights organization which defended the school district that said intelligent design was a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes?
Santorum's election-year political rush to the middle just might leave his base behind. It's a high-risk gamble on his part. He's betting there's nothing he can do to cause his conservative supporters to stay home on election day or vote for another candidate. I hope he's not betting the farm on it.
Or at least has Olga Korbut as his campaign manager.
# # #
Chuck Muth is president of Citizen Outreach, a non-profit public policy advocacy organization in Washington, D.C. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Citizen Outreach. He may be reached at chuck@citizenoutreach.com."
Sunday, December 25, 2005
The Times-Tribune - Santorum evolves (Moral Stands Shift In Responce To Public Opinion)
The Times-Tribune - Opinion - 12/23/2005 - Santorum evolves: "Santorum evolves
12/23/2005 Email to a friend Printer-friendly
Like the famous Galapagos Islands finches that have been observed evolving in a single generation in response to environmental conditions, Sen. Rick Santorum has evolved in a single political season.
The senator, who once claimed in The Washington Times that intelligent design “is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes,” announced Thursday that he is resigning as an adviser to the right-wing group that recently attempted to force that very baloney down the throat of a federal court.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled emphatically Tuesday, in a case originating in the Dover Area School District of York County, that intelligent design is not a scientific theory, but creationism disguised as one. He lambasted witnesses for publicly touting their religious convictions relative to intelligent design and then testifying as to its supposed scientific merits.
That is hardly an endorsement of the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, the conservative Christian organization that pushed the effort and included Mr. Santorum as a member of its advisory board.
Just as the natural world works by observable and verifiable natural forces, the political world works largely by observable and verifiable election results. After the Dover Area School Board did just what Mr. Santorum had advocated in his 2002 op-ed piece — mandate introduction of a religion-based theory in public school science classrooms — eight School Board members were resoundingly dismissed from office in the ensuing election. Although Mr. Santorum apparently isn’t convinced about evolution as the foundation of biology, he clearly understands political geography: York County is a key part of any conservative Republican’s political base in Pennsylvania.
Because of that, the senator is becoming a case study in political evolution. After long advocating a higher Social Security retirement age and other benefit-reducing changes, he recently introduced legislation to guarantee benefits for anyone 55 or older — another change springing from political climate change. As an election year dawns, it will be interesting to observe other changes that the heat produces in Mr. Santorum.
©The Times-Tribune 2005 "
12/23/2005 Email to a friend Printer-friendly
Like the famous Galapagos Islands finches that have been observed evolving in a single generation in response to environmental conditions, Sen. Rick Santorum has evolved in a single political season.
The senator, who once claimed in The Washington Times that intelligent design “is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes,” announced Thursday that he is resigning as an adviser to the right-wing group that recently attempted to force that very baloney down the throat of a federal court.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled emphatically Tuesday, in a case originating in the Dover Area School District of York County, that intelligent design is not a scientific theory, but creationism disguised as one. He lambasted witnesses for publicly touting their religious convictions relative to intelligent design and then testifying as to its supposed scientific merits.
That is hardly an endorsement of the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, the conservative Christian organization that pushed the effort and included Mr. Santorum as a member of its advisory board.
Just as the natural world works by observable and verifiable natural forces, the political world works largely by observable and verifiable election results. After the Dover Area School Board did just what Mr. Santorum had advocated in his 2002 op-ed piece — mandate introduction of a religion-based theory in public school science classrooms — eight School Board members were resoundingly dismissed from office in the ensuing election. Although Mr. Santorum apparently isn’t convinced about evolution as the foundation of biology, he clearly understands political geography: York County is a key part of any conservative Republican’s political base in Pennsylvania.
Because of that, the senator is becoming a case study in political evolution. After long advocating a higher Social Security retirement age and other benefit-reducing changes, he recently introduced legislation to guarantee benefits for anyone 55 or older — another change springing from political climate change. As an election year dawns, it will be interesting to observe other changes that the heat produces in Mr. Santorum.
©The Times-Tribune 2005 "
Friday, December 23, 2005
Rick Santorum Christian Right or Christian Wrong Wrong Wrong!
U.S. senator cuts tie to Ann Arbor Christian rights group: "Santorum To Cut Ties With Evolution-Defending Firm
Senator Said Board Members' Religious Motivation In Intelligent Design School Battle Was Troubling
(AP) PHILADELPHIA Sen. Rick Santorum intends to withdraw his affiliation with the Thomas More Law Center, which defended the Dover Area School District's policy mandating the teaching of intelligent design in science classes dealing with evolution.
Santorum earlier praised the district for "attempting to teach the controversy of evolution."
But on Wednesday, the day after a federal judge ruled the district's policy on intelligent design unconstitutional, the Republican senator told The Philadelphia Inquirer he was troubled by testimony indicating religion motivated some board members to adopt the policy.
The question quickly became a political issue as the leading Democratic challenger in Santorum's 2006 re-election battle, state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., accused him of backtracking on intelligent design.
Casey's spokesman, Larry Smar, said Wednesday that Santorum's statements were "yet another example of 'Election
Year Rick' changing his positions for political expediency."
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones ruled Tuesday that the district's policy of requiring students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade evolution lessons was "a pretext ... to promote religion in the public school classroom."
Intelligent design's proponents hold that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms.
Santorum said in a 2002 Washington Times op-ed article that intelligent design "is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."
But he said he meant that teachers should have freedom to mention intelligent design as part of the evolution debate _ not be required to do so -- and said his position hasn't changed.
Santorum said he disagreed with the Dover board's policy of mandating the teaching of intelligent design, rather than teaching the controversy surrounding evolution. Because of that, he said the case provided "a bad set of facts" to test whether theories other than evolution should be taught in science class.
"I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did," said Santorum, a member of the center's advisory board. He said he would end his affiliation with the Michigan-based public-interest law firm that promotes Christian values.
(© 2005 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)"
Senator Said Board Members' Religious Motivation In Intelligent Design School Battle Was Troubling
(AP) PHILADELPHIA Sen. Rick Santorum intends to withdraw his affiliation with the Thomas More Law Center, which defended the Dover Area School District's policy mandating the teaching of intelligent design in science classes dealing with evolution.
Santorum earlier praised the district for "attempting to teach the controversy of evolution."
But on Wednesday, the day after a federal judge ruled the district's policy on intelligent design unconstitutional, the Republican senator told The Philadelphia Inquirer he was troubled by testimony indicating religion motivated some board members to adopt the policy.
The question quickly became a political issue as the leading Democratic challenger in Santorum's 2006 re-election battle, state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., accused him of backtracking on intelligent design.
Casey's spokesman, Larry Smar, said Wednesday that Santorum's statements were "yet another example of 'Election
Year Rick' changing his positions for political expediency."
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones ruled Tuesday that the district's policy of requiring students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade evolution lessons was "a pretext ... to promote religion in the public school classroom."
Intelligent design's proponents hold that living organisms are so complex they must have been created by a higher force rather than evolving from more primitive forms.
Santorum said in a 2002 Washington Times op-ed article that intelligent design "is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes."
But he said he meant that teachers should have freedom to mention intelligent design as part of the evolution debate _ not be required to do so -- and said his position hasn't changed.
Santorum said he disagreed with the Dover board's policy of mandating the teaching of intelligent design, rather than teaching the controversy surrounding evolution. Because of that, he said the case provided "a bad set of facts" to test whether theories other than evolution should be taught in science class.
"I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did," said Santorum, a member of the center's advisory board. He said he would end his affiliation with the Michigan-based public-interest law firm that promotes Christian values.
(© 2005 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)"
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Santorum Never Returned The Money From The Cyberschool Fraud
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum pulled his five children out of a cyber charter school paid by Penn Hills School District in December 2004 after Penn Hills Progress reported he did not live in the community. He owns a home occupied by relatives.
The school district missed the deadline to object to Santorum's children's enrollment in the cyber charter school and was not reimbursed for $67,000 in expenses for his children's education from the 2001-2002 to 2003-2004 school years. The children were pulled out of the charter school before the district had to pay another $34,000 for the 2004-2005 tuition.
In August, the school board approved a policy to permit enrollment of students whose families have temporarily left the district.
The policy makes exceptions for parents in the armed forces, reserves and National Guard, elected or appointed federal government positions and non-voluntary assignments outside the state for humanitarian or emergency relief efforts.
The change was approved by a vote of 6-2. Board members Erin Vecchio and Jennifer Lundy voted against the policy. Lenny Gallo was absent from the meeting.
State Rep. Anthony DeLuca has proposed legislation that requires children to sleep 183 days of the year in their school district to be enrolled.
The bill was approved by the state House.
The Senate will need to approve it before it becomes law, which would supercede the district's policy."
http://www.gatewaynewspapers.com/pennhillsprogress/56335/
The school district missed the deadline to object to Santorum's children's enrollment in the cyber charter school and was not reimbursed for $67,000 in expenses for his children's education from the 2001-2002 to 2003-2004 school years. The children were pulled out of the charter school before the district had to pay another $34,000 for the 2004-2005 tuition.
In August, the school board approved a policy to permit enrollment of students whose families have temporarily left the district.
The policy makes exceptions for parents in the armed forces, reserves and National Guard, elected or appointed federal government positions and non-voluntary assignments outside the state for humanitarian or emergency relief efforts.
The change was approved by a vote of 6-2. Board members Erin Vecchio and Jennifer Lundy voted against the policy. Lenny Gallo was absent from the meeting.
State Rep. Anthony DeLuca has proposed legislation that requires children to sleep 183 days of the year in their school district to be enrolled.
The bill was approved by the state House.
The Senate will need to approve it before it becomes law, which would supercede the district's policy."
http://www.gatewaynewspapers.com/pennhillsprogress/56335/
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Illegal Campaign Ads Helping Tricky Ricky Santorum
Santorum narrows gap in the polls: "Santorum narrows gap in the polls
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
BY BRETT LIEBERMAN
Of Our Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - President Bush continues to be a drain on Sen. Rick Santorum's re-election, but support for Pennsylvania's junior senator might be on the rebound.
State Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. continues to lead Santorum 50 percent to 38 percent in a Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday, but the margin is the narrowest in months of any major poll of next year's likely Senate campaign matchup. The poll has a margin of error of 2.6 percent.
The last Quinnipiac poll, released Oct. 6, showed Casey with a 52 percent to 34 percent lead.
A Patriot-News/WGAL-TV Keystone Poll found Casey led 51 percent to 35 percent.
The improvement comes after an independent group began airing $1 million in television ads that critics say was aimed at bolstering Santorum's image.
"Santorum probably bottomed out, but we'll have to wait to the next poll to see if that's true," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
"I think he's just floated back up to a more realistic number, but still pretty far behind for an incumbent senator," said Richards.
The survey of 1,447 Pennsylvania voters conducted between Nov. 30 and Dec. 6 shows that Casey, who like Santorum supports abortion restrictions, could be vulnerable on the issue.
In what Richards describes as Casey's Achilles' heel, 22 percent of Democrats polled said they would not vote in the election when told Casey and Santorum's positions are the same.
"Democrats should not repeat the mistake we made in 2000 in nominating an anti-choice candidate [Ron Klink] who failed to mobilize core Democratic voters," Chuck Pennacchio, an abortion-rights supporter who is challenging Casey for the Democratic nomination, said in a statement.
Jay Reiff, Casey's campaign manager, found other factors behind Santorum's apparent rebound.
Americans for Job Security, an independent group that does not disclose its donors, "spent $1 million misrepresenting Santorum's record on Social Security," Reiff said. And he said Santorum is working to reinvent himself for the election year.
"Clearly Rick Santorum has shut his mouth. He has avoided press interviews and he stopped saying a lot of the controversial things that he has said over the last couple years," Reiff said.
Republicans said they did not want to read too much into one poll.
"This poll reflects some tightening in the race, but we don't expect to see dramatic changes until the campaigns are truly under way next year," said Virginia Davis, Santorum's campaign spokeswoman.
But noting that about one-third of voters surveyed say they haven't heard enough about Casey to have an opinion about him, "it speaks very clearly to why the Casey campaign continues to hide Bob Casey," Davis said.
"The climate right now is less than favorable to all Republicans, but Senator Santorum is going to run on his record of accomplishment," she said.
As Santorum's public approval rating rose to 35 percent, with 28 percent unfavorable, Casey's numbers also improved. Casey's favorable number rose to 40 percent from 38 percent two months earlier, and his negatives dropped from 9 percent to 6 percent.
Santorum is hurt by his support for Bush, voters said by a more than 2-1 ratio.
For the first time in a Quinnipiac poll, the war in Iraq has also become unpopular in every region of the state, with fewer than 50 percent everywhere saying it was the right thing for the United States to do. Central Pennsylvanians and voters in the northwest were evenly divided.
The poll also provided good news for Gov. Ed Rendell.
After dropping to 46 percent, Rendell's approval rating rose to 51 percent. The poll was the first time since February that it has been above 50 percent, a critical measure for incumbents.
The state Legislature did not fare as well, with 57 percent disapproving of the job that state lawmakers are doing.
"'Teflon Ed' isn't taking much grief for signing the ill-fated legislative pay raise or the failure to so far produce property tax relief," Richards said.
Rendell's support is weakest in southwestern Pennsylvania, followed by the midstate.
"But come re-election time next year, expect voters to hold him to his original campaign pledge to lower property taxes in his first term," Richards warned.
Rendell continues to enjoy wide leads over potential Republican challengers. He would defeat former Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton 48 percent to 36 percent, and former Pittsburgh Steeler Lynn Swann 48 percent to 35 percent, the poll showed.
Rendell's advantage grows to 52 percent to 27 percent when matched against state Senate Majority Whip Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin, and 53 percent to 24 percent versus Jim Panyard, former head of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association.
BRETT LIEBERMAN: (202) 383-7833 or blieberman@patriot-news.com"
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
BY BRETT LIEBERMAN
Of Our Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - President Bush continues to be a drain on Sen. Rick Santorum's re-election, but support for Pennsylvania's junior senator might be on the rebound.
State Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr. continues to lead Santorum 50 percent to 38 percent in a Quinnipiac University poll released yesterday, but the margin is the narrowest in months of any major poll of next year's likely Senate campaign matchup. The poll has a margin of error of 2.6 percent.
The last Quinnipiac poll, released Oct. 6, showed Casey with a 52 percent to 34 percent lead.
A Patriot-News/WGAL-TV Keystone Poll found Casey led 51 percent to 35 percent.
The improvement comes after an independent group began airing $1 million in television ads that critics say was aimed at bolstering Santorum's image.
"Santorum probably bottomed out, but we'll have to wait to the next poll to see if that's true," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.
"I think he's just floated back up to a more realistic number, but still pretty far behind for an incumbent senator," said Richards.
The survey of 1,447 Pennsylvania voters conducted between Nov. 30 and Dec. 6 shows that Casey, who like Santorum supports abortion restrictions, could be vulnerable on the issue.
In what Richards describes as Casey's Achilles' heel, 22 percent of Democrats polled said they would not vote in the election when told Casey and Santorum's positions are the same.
"Democrats should not repeat the mistake we made in 2000 in nominating an anti-choice candidate [Ron Klink] who failed to mobilize core Democratic voters," Chuck Pennacchio, an abortion-rights supporter who is challenging Casey for the Democratic nomination, said in a statement.
Jay Reiff, Casey's campaign manager, found other factors behind Santorum's apparent rebound.
Americans for Job Security, an independent group that does not disclose its donors, "spent $1 million misrepresenting Santorum's record on Social Security," Reiff said. And he said Santorum is working to reinvent himself for the election year.
"Clearly Rick Santorum has shut his mouth. He has avoided press interviews and he stopped saying a lot of the controversial things that he has said over the last couple years," Reiff said.
Republicans said they did not want to read too much into one poll.
"This poll reflects some tightening in the race, but we don't expect to see dramatic changes until the campaigns are truly under way next year," said Virginia Davis, Santorum's campaign spokeswoman.
But noting that about one-third of voters surveyed say they haven't heard enough about Casey to have an opinion about him, "it speaks very clearly to why the Casey campaign continues to hide Bob Casey," Davis said.
"The climate right now is less than favorable to all Republicans, but Senator Santorum is going to run on his record of accomplishment," she said.
As Santorum's public approval rating rose to 35 percent, with 28 percent unfavorable, Casey's numbers also improved. Casey's favorable number rose to 40 percent from 38 percent two months earlier, and his negatives dropped from 9 percent to 6 percent.
Santorum is hurt by his support for Bush, voters said by a more than 2-1 ratio.
For the first time in a Quinnipiac poll, the war in Iraq has also become unpopular in every region of the state, with fewer than 50 percent everywhere saying it was the right thing for the United States to do. Central Pennsylvanians and voters in the northwest were evenly divided.
The poll also provided good news for Gov. Ed Rendell.
After dropping to 46 percent, Rendell's approval rating rose to 51 percent. The poll was the first time since February that it has been above 50 percent, a critical measure for incumbents.
The state Legislature did not fare as well, with 57 percent disapproving of the job that state lawmakers are doing.
"'Teflon Ed' isn't taking much grief for signing the ill-fated legislative pay raise or the failure to so far produce property tax relief," Richards said.
Rendell's support is weakest in southwestern Pennsylvania, followed by the midstate.
"But come re-election time next year, expect voters to hold him to his original campaign pledge to lower property taxes in his first term," Richards warned.
Rendell continues to enjoy wide leads over potential Republican challengers. He would defeat former Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton 48 percent to 36 percent, and former Pittsburgh Steeler Lynn Swann 48 percent to 35 percent, the poll showed.
Rendell's advantage grows to 52 percent to 27 percent when matched against state Senate Majority Whip Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin, and 53 percent to 24 percent versus Jim Panyard, former head of the Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association.
BRETT LIEBERMAN: (202) 383-7833 or blieberman@patriot-news.com"
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/13/2005 | Serious Charges of Corruption Lodged Against Santorum by Republican Legislator
Philadelphia Inquirer | 12/13/2005 | Legislator guilty on staff duties: "Posted on Tue, Dec. 13, 2005
Legislator guilty on staff duties
A jury found Jeff Habay, 39, had political work done on state time. The legislature could remove him.
By Sean D. Hamill
Associated Press
PITTSBURGH - A Western Pennsylvania state representative was convicted yesterday of making his legislative staff do political campaign work on state time.
Jeff Habay, 39, a six-term Republican from Allegheny County, will lose his state pension and could be removed from office by the legislature because of the felony conviction for conflict of interest.
After the verdict, Habay said the case was the result of a political witch hunt by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former Allegheny County Executive Jim Roddey, both Republicans.
"Any time I spoke up, I was punished by Jim Roddey and Rick Santorum," Habay said.
"I've taken on corrupt leaders in this county," he said, adding that the message of his case and conviction was that if you speak out, "the powers that be will try to crush you, stomp you, and push you out."
Santorum and Roddey did not immediately return messages seeking comment.
Habay said the allegations in his case did not make sense for a lawmaker repeatedly reelected by wide margins and with rare opposition.
"I have had one contested race in seven years. How can I be campaigning out of my [legislative] office?" Habay asked.
Habay said he was not sure whether he would resign and said he intended to appeal. He faces sentencing Jan. 30. The standard range of punishment in such a case ranges from probation to 15 months in prison, prosecutors said.
Senior Deputy Attorney General Anthony Krastek dismissed Habay's argument that the case was politically motivated.
The case against Habay was the result of a State Ethics Commission investigation.
In June 2004, the commission ordered Habay to repay the state about $13,000 for making his staff do campaign work on state time. The commission then referred the case to the Attorney General's Office, which filed the felony charges.
Habay also faces a second trial next year on 21 counts that allege he concocted a story about receiving a suspicious white powder in the mail and directed his staff to investigate his adversaries on state time."
Legislator guilty on staff duties
A jury found Jeff Habay, 39, had political work done on state time. The legislature could remove him.
By Sean D. Hamill
Associated Press
PITTSBURGH - A Western Pennsylvania state representative was convicted yesterday of making his legislative staff do political campaign work on state time.
Jeff Habay, 39, a six-term Republican from Allegheny County, will lose his state pension and could be removed from office by the legislature because of the felony conviction for conflict of interest.
After the verdict, Habay said the case was the result of a political witch hunt by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and former Allegheny County Executive Jim Roddey, both Republicans.
"Any time I spoke up, I was punished by Jim Roddey and Rick Santorum," Habay said.
"I've taken on corrupt leaders in this county," he said, adding that the message of his case and conviction was that if you speak out, "the powers that be will try to crush you, stomp you, and push you out."
Santorum and Roddey did not immediately return messages seeking comment.
Habay said the allegations in his case did not make sense for a lawmaker repeatedly reelected by wide margins and with rare opposition.
"I have had one contested race in seven years. How can I be campaigning out of my [legislative] office?" Habay asked.
Habay said he was not sure whether he would resign and said he intended to appeal. He faces sentencing Jan. 30. The standard range of punishment in such a case ranges from probation to 15 months in prison, prosecutors said.
Senior Deputy Attorney General Anthony Krastek dismissed Habay's argument that the case was politically motivated.
The case against Habay was the result of a State Ethics Commission investigation.
In June 2004, the commission ordered Habay to repay the state about $13,000 for making his staff do campaign work on state time. The commission then referred the case to the Attorney General's Office, which filed the felony charges.
Habay also faces a second trial next year on 21 counts that allege he concocted a story about receiving a suspicious white powder in the mail and directed his staff to investigate his adversaries on state time."
Friday, December 02, 2005
Santorum Did Not Return Bribery Tainted Cunningham Money
Some Republicans Returning Cunningham Money - Yahoo! News: "Some Republicans Returning Cunningham Money By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer
Thu Dec 1, 9:23 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Some congressional Republicans, seeking to distance themselves from former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, are donating to charity political money that he gave them over the years.
Cunningham, who pleaded guilty Monday to taking $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for steering government work to defense contractors, had given colleagues money from his campaign account and a political action committee he created, the American Prosperity PAC.
Since the California Republican's plea, more than a dozen GOP lawmakers and candidates have donated the money to charity or disclosed plans to do so.
Among them are Reps. Richard Pombo of California, Jim Nussle of Iowa, Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Charles Dent of Pennsylvania; Sen. John Thune of South Dakota; Minnesota Senate candidate and Rep. Mark Kennedy (news, bio, voting record); and Oregon congressional candidate Jim Feldkamp.
Some of the lawmakers were facing calls from home-state opponents or opposition parties to get rid of the political money from Cunningham.
The fundraising committee for House Democrats sent out press releases Thursday targeting each of the approximate 60 incumbent Republicans who benefited from Cunningham's money over the years and demanding that they give it back.
"Duke Cunningham's actions were criminal and inexcusable," Dent said in announcing he planned to give $1,000 he got last year from Cunningham's PAC to a charity in his district. "I would rather see the money go to good use here at home rather than back to the political committee of a disgraced politician."
Since 2000, Cunningham has donated over $250,000 from his PAC to fellow Republicans, according to records compiled by PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks campaign donations.
It's common for lawmakers in safe districts, as Cunningham was, to use their campaign funds to boost fellow lawmakers prospects — thereby boosting their own popularity, too.
At least two Republicans said they were hanging onto Cunningham's money — Rep. Katherine Harris (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., and Rep. George Radanovich (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif. Both received $1,000 donations — Harris in 2004, Radanovich in 1994. Aides said the money was legally donated and received, and was spent.
Other lawmakers who have announced they had donated the money or planned to do so were Reps. Mary Bono of California, Jim Gerlach and Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania, Rob Simmons of Connecticut, Michael Ferguson of New Jersey, Jon Porter of Nevada, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska and John Sullivan of Oklahoma.
Associated Press writer Kimberly Hefling contributed to this report."
Thu Dec 1, 9:23 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Some congressional Republicans, seeking to distance themselves from former Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, are donating to charity political money that he gave them over the years.
Cunningham, who pleaded guilty Monday to taking $2.4 million in bribes in exchange for steering government work to defense contractors, had given colleagues money from his campaign account and a political action committee he created, the American Prosperity PAC.
Since the California Republican's plea, more than a dozen GOP lawmakers and candidates have donated the money to charity or disclosed plans to do so.
Among them are Reps. Richard Pombo of California, Jim Nussle of Iowa, Heather Wilson of New Mexico and Charles Dent of Pennsylvania; Sen. John Thune of South Dakota; Minnesota Senate candidate and Rep. Mark Kennedy (news, bio, voting record); and Oregon congressional candidate Jim Feldkamp.
Some of the lawmakers were facing calls from home-state opponents or opposition parties to get rid of the political money from Cunningham.
The fundraising committee for House Democrats sent out press releases Thursday targeting each of the approximate 60 incumbent Republicans who benefited from Cunningham's money over the years and demanding that they give it back.
"Duke Cunningham's actions were criminal and inexcusable," Dent said in announcing he planned to give $1,000 he got last year from Cunningham's PAC to a charity in his district. "I would rather see the money go to good use here at home rather than back to the political committee of a disgraced politician."
Since 2000, Cunningham has donated over $250,000 from his PAC to fellow Republicans, according to records compiled by PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks campaign donations.
It's common for lawmakers in safe districts, as Cunningham was, to use their campaign funds to boost fellow lawmakers prospects — thereby boosting their own popularity, too.
At least two Republicans said they were hanging onto Cunningham's money — Rep. Katherine Harris (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., and Rep. George Radanovich (news, bio, voting record), R-Calif. Both received $1,000 donations — Harris in 2004, Radanovich in 1994. Aides said the money was legally donated and received, and was spent.
Other lawmakers who have announced they had donated the money or planned to do so were Reps. Mary Bono of California, Jim Gerlach and Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania, Rob Simmons of Connecticut, Michael Ferguson of New Jersey, Jon Porter of Nevada, Jeff Fortenberry of Nebraska and John Sullivan of Oklahoma.
Associated Press writer Kimberly Hefling contributed to this report."
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
The Times-Tribune - Santorum Tries To Take Credit For HUD Grant for projects in North Scranton - Tricky Ricky is a shameful blowhard!
The Times-Tribune - News - 11/30/2005 - Santorum drops off $200,000 for projects in North Scranton:
More Pa Federal Tax Dollars leave Pa then ever come back. But Tricky Ricky Santorum waves a HUD grant around like he was responsible. Tricky Ricky is a shameful blowhard! By the way when is Tricky Ricky Santorum going to reimburse the Penn Hills School District for the money he scammed them for? - Lanny Budd
"Santorum drops off $200,000 for projects in North Scranton
BY LYNNE SLACK SHEDLOCK STAFF WRITER 11/30/2005
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum delivered a $200,000 check Tuesday to help complete a revitalization project in North Scranton that neighbors hope to eventually tie into the planned river walk.
It’s the second time in nine months that Mr. Santorum, a Republican, has come bearing gifts to the hometown of Democratic state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., his potential opponent in the closely watched 2006 senate race. Mr. Santorum last March gave Mayor Chris Doherty $300,000 for a South Scranton rehabilitation project. Both grants came from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s highly competitive Neighborhood Initiatives Account.
Tuesday’s money is expected to put phase two of the North Scranton project over the top. The $1.5 million first phase of the project included building new sidewalks, curbs, period lighting and other improvements from Providence Square to North Main Avenue and Oak Street. The estimated cost of phase two, which will carry the work to Green Ridge Street, is about $500,000, neighborhood organizer Dr. Barry Minora said.
Dr. Minora said the neighborhood has generated $375,000 so far in grant money. The federal grant that Mr. Santorum secured with U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter will fill in the rest, he said. The rest of the money might be used to move the project up West Market Street or to make improvements near the Lackawanna River connected to the river walk, Dr. Minora said.
The river walk, backed by a host of local organizations, would potentially connect Carbondale with Luzerne County, serving as an economic engine along the way for restaurants, shops and hotels.
“That’s really where the money is,” Dr. Minora said. “They’re proven winners wherever they’re built.”
Mr. Santorum said he chose the project because residents have embraced it in a bipartisan show of support. “One of the things I feel very strongly about is to work with people in the local communities,” he said.
Mr. Santorum said he’s pushing for money here because he’s “a big fan of the work being done in the city of Scranton.” He added his job is to put political ideology aside and work with elected leaders of local municipalities.
“There’s no Democratic or Republican way to run a city,” Mr. Santorum said.
Contact the writer: lshedlock@timesshamrock.com"
More Pa Federal Tax Dollars leave Pa then ever come back. But Tricky Ricky Santorum waves a HUD grant around like he was responsible. Tricky Ricky is a shameful blowhard! By the way when is Tricky Ricky Santorum going to reimburse the Penn Hills School District for the money he scammed them for? - Lanny Budd
"Santorum drops off $200,000 for projects in North Scranton
BY LYNNE SLACK SHEDLOCK STAFF WRITER 11/30/2005
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum delivered a $200,000 check Tuesday to help complete a revitalization project in North Scranton that neighbors hope to eventually tie into the planned river walk.
It’s the second time in nine months that Mr. Santorum, a Republican, has come bearing gifts to the hometown of Democratic state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., his potential opponent in the closely watched 2006 senate race. Mr. Santorum last March gave Mayor Chris Doherty $300,000 for a South Scranton rehabilitation project. Both grants came from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s highly competitive Neighborhood Initiatives Account.
Tuesday’s money is expected to put phase two of the North Scranton project over the top. The $1.5 million first phase of the project included building new sidewalks, curbs, period lighting and other improvements from Providence Square to North Main Avenue and Oak Street. The estimated cost of phase two, which will carry the work to Green Ridge Street, is about $500,000, neighborhood organizer Dr. Barry Minora said.
Dr. Minora said the neighborhood has generated $375,000 so far in grant money. The federal grant that Mr. Santorum secured with U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter will fill in the rest, he said. The rest of the money might be used to move the project up West Market Street or to make improvements near the Lackawanna River connected to the river walk, Dr. Minora said.
The river walk, backed by a host of local organizations, would potentially connect Carbondale with Luzerne County, serving as an economic engine along the way for restaurants, shops and hotels.
“That’s really where the money is,” Dr. Minora said. “They’re proven winners wherever they’re built.”
Mr. Santorum said he chose the project because residents have embraced it in a bipartisan show of support. “One of the things I feel very strongly about is to work with people in the local communities,” he said.
Mr. Santorum said he’s pushing for money here because he’s “a big fan of the work being done in the city of Scranton.” He added his job is to put political ideology aside and work with elected leaders of local municipalities.
“There’s no Democratic or Republican way to run a city,” Mr. Santorum said.
Contact the writer: lshedlock@timesshamrock.com"
Is Bush Taking Anti-Depressants To Forget Santorum?
Bush Taking Anti-Depressants To Control Mood Swings: "Bush Taking Anti-Depressants
To Control Mood Swings
Note - This story first appeared in July, 2004. Reports of the ongoing mental and emotional decline of the President suggest things have seriously deteriorated from the conditions first described below. Reports of illegal drugs and drinking are now common. Add these 'passtimes' to SSRI antidepressants and you have a dangerously dysfunctional, potentially catastrophic combination. -ed
11-18-5
By Capitol Hill Blue Staff
7-28-4
President George W. Bush is taking anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.
The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President's mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.
"It's a double-edged sword, says one aide. "We can't have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally.
Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.
"Keep those motherfuckers away from me, he screamed at an aide backstage. "If you can't, I,ll find someone who can.
Bush's mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President's wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.
Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a "paranoid meglomaniac and "untreated alcoholic whose "lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad showcase Bush's instabilities.
"I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed, Dr. Frank said. "He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated.
Dr. Frank's conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.
The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President.
"President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies," Dr. Frank adds.
The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment on this article.
The exact drugs Bush takes to control his depression and behavior are not known. While Col. Tubb regularly releases a synopsis of the President's annual physical, details of the President's health and any drugs or treatment he may receive are not public record and are guarded zealously by the secretive cadre of aides that surround the President.
Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bush's health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagan's second term when aides managed to conceal the President's increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimer's Disease.
It also brings back memories of Richard Nixon's final days when the soon-to-resign President wandered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didn't emerge until after Nixon left office.
One long-time GOP political consultant who for obvious reasons asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush.
"We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes, he says sadly. "That's not good for my candidates, it's not good for the party and it's certainly not good for the country.
© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/
artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=33&num=5141"
To Control Mood Swings
Note - This story first appeared in July, 2004. Reports of the ongoing mental and emotional decline of the President suggest things have seriously deteriorated from the conditions first described below. Reports of illegal drugs and drinking are now common. Add these 'passtimes' to SSRI antidepressants and you have a dangerously dysfunctional, potentially catastrophic combination. -ed
11-18-5
By Capitol Hill Blue Staff
7-28-4
President George W. Bush is taking anti-depressant drugs to control his erratic behavior, depression and paranoia, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.
The prescription drugs, administered by Col. Richard J. Tubb, the White House physician, can impair the President's mental faculties and decrease both his physical capabilities and his ability to respond to a crisis, administration aides admit privately.
"It's a double-edged sword, says one aide. "We can't have him flying off the handle at the slightest provocation but we also need a President who is alert mentally.
Tubb prescribed the anti-depressants after a clearly-upset Bush stormed off stage on July 8, refusing to answer reporters' questions about his relationship with indicted Enron executive Kenneth J. Lay.
"Keep those motherfuckers away from me, he screamed at an aide backstage. "If you can't, I,ll find someone who can.
Bush's mental stability has become the topic of Washington whispers in recent months. Capitol Hill Blue first reported on June 4 about increasing concern among White House aides over the President's wide mood swings and obscene outbursts.
Although GOP loyalists dismissed the reports an anti-Bush propaganda, the reports were later confirmed by prominent George Washington University psychiatrist Dr. Justin Frank in his book Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President. Dr. Frank diagnosed the President as a "paranoid meglomaniac and "untreated alcoholic whose "lifelong streak of sadism, ranging from childhood pranks (using firecrackers to explode frogs) to insulting journalists, gloating over state executions and pumping his hand gleefully before the bombing of Baghdad showcase Bush's instabilities.
"I was really very unsettled by him and I started watching everything he did and reading what he wrote and watching him on videotape. I felt he was disturbed, Dr. Frank said. "He fits the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not treated.
Dr. Frank's conclusions have been praised by other prominent psychiatrists, including Dr. James Grotstein, Professor at UCLA Medical Center, and Dr. Irvin Yalom, MD, Professor Emeritus at Stanford University Medical School.
The doctors also worry about the wisdom of giving powerful anti-depressant drugs to a person with a history of chemical dependency. Bush is an admitted alcoholic, although he never sought treatment in a formal program, and stories about his cocaine use as a younger man haunted his campaigns for Texas governor and his first campaign for President.
"President Bush is an untreated alcoholic with paranoid and megalomaniac tendencies," Dr. Frank adds.
The White House did not return phone calls seeking comment on this article.
The exact drugs Bush takes to control his depression and behavior are not known. While Col. Tubb regularly releases a synopsis of the President's annual physical, details of the President's health and any drugs or treatment he may receive are not public record and are guarded zealously by the secretive cadre of aides that surround the President.
Veteran White House watchers say the ability to control information about Bush's health, either physical or mental, is similar to Ronald Reagan's second term when aides managed to conceal the President's increasing memory lapses that signaled the onslaught of Alzheimer's Disease.
It also brings back memories of Richard Nixon's final days when the soon-to-resign President wandered the halls and talked to portraits of former Presidents. The stories didn't emerge until after Nixon left office.
One long-time GOP political consultant who for obvious reasons asked not to be identified said he is advising his Republican Congressional candidates to keep their distance from Bush.
"We have to face the very real possibility that the President of the United States is loony tunes, he says sadly. "That's not good for my candidates, it's not good for the party and it's certainly not good for the country.
© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cgi-bin/
artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=33&num=5141"
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Asia Times Online: Santorum Supports Expanding the War in the Middle East
Asia Times Online :: Middle East News, Iraq, Iran current affairs: "Middle East
Nov 30, 2005
Let's talk about regime change
By Massoud Khodabandeh
As the standoff over Iran's nuclear program steadily deteriorates into a crisis, Washington's policy on the Islamic Republic is coming under sharp scrutiny. While a group of hardcore neo-conservatives want a decisive confrontation with the Iran, the broader US policy-making community is all too aware of the futility and dangers of this approach.
The case for regime change in Iran has been most enthusiastically taken up by the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) , which is largely composed of retired senior military officers and solely administered by a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations officer. Benefiting from close links to the Pentagon, the IPC has been tasked by the Iranian opposition group, Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), a proscribed terrorist organization, to provide professional lobbying and public relations services.
On the other side are those who seek engagement. They won something of a victory on Monday when the State Department announced that the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had been given permission to meet with officials from Iran. "It's a very narrow mandate that he has," spokesman Sean McCormack said. "It deals specifically with issues related to Iraq."
The IPC is likely to be undaunted, though. Lobbying on behalf of a proscribed and notoriously anti-American organization like the MEK would be controversial enough, but the IPC gives the impression that it has gone beyond advocacy and is now, to all intents and purposes, representing the MEK in the US.
While such sensational gestures generate useful propaganda against Iran in the short term, the doomed fate of the MEK means that individual IPC members are at serious risk of destroying their reputations in the long term.
Regime change in Iran?
A proper understanding of the relationship between the MEK and the IPC requires an understanding of the broader regime-change debate now under way in Washington. While the US built a case against Iraq over its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, the neo-conservatives' case against Iran is more complex. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's recent ill-judged comments on Israel (that it should be wiped off the map), coupled with long-term US concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions, have enabled the neo-conservative camp to build up a case against Iran that leaves little room for negotiation.
In 2003, Senator Sam Brownback introduced the Iran Freedom and Democracy Support Act, which was backed by senators Rick Santorum and John Cornyn. After some changes to the bill, now sponsored by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, it was finally passed on April 13 this year as the Iran Freedom Support Act (HR 282). The act allowed for "financial and political assistance ... to entities that support democracy and the promotion of democracy in Iran and that are opposed to the non-democratic government of Iran". While Brownback had envisaged the fund going to Reza Pahlavi and pro-monarchist groups and the media, Ros-Lehtinen promoted the MEK as the best recipients for millions of taxpayers' dollars.
The act was opposed by many Iranian groups, including the National Iranian American Council, which said that "while supporters argue that any step short of regime change is unlikely to bring about change in Iran, opponents argue that making regime change official policy eliminates the possibility of diplomacy and makes confrontation between the US and Iran inevitable". Among those groups which lobbied for the bill were the Institute for Public Affairs, the Iranian American Jewish Federation (IAJF) and the Washington-based IPC.
Iran Policy Committee
The IPC, a think tank established in February by Raymond Tanter, professor of political science at Georgetown University, is supported by several neo-conservative politicians and analysts, including Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Tom Tancredo and Bob Filner.
Ostensibly, the IPC's platform echoes the neo-conservative view that Iran poses a threat to US national security and that regime change is the preferred solution. Leaving nothing to doubt, the IPC's website banner reads "Empowering Iranians for Regime Change". A policy paper released on February 10 extends this view to state that "Iranian opposition groups ought to play a central role in US policymaking regarding Iran". It also perfunctorily adds that "diplomatic and military options" should be kept open.
A review of the IPC's first white paper reveals language and propaganda that is eerily identical to that used by the MEK, thus leaving well-informed and experienced analysts in little doubt that the paper was in part, if not in whole, written by agents of the MEK in the US. This style is also evident in the IPC's two subsequent white papers released in June and September. The promotion of the so-called "third way", oddly implicating the Shi'ite Islamic Republic in the spread of al-Qaeda-style Salafi jihadism (which is anti-Shi'ite through and through), and falsely accusing Iran of being the central force behind the Iraqi insurgency, are pure MEK disinformation techniques.
Interestingly, the June white paper, entitled "Sham elections and regime change", was primarily a response to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report that accused the MEK of torturing its dissident members and engaging in other forms of human-rights abuses. Yet again, using language that is the exclusive trademark of the MEK, the IPC had this to say about the HRW report:
The IPC appointed a task force on human rights to investigate allegations about the MEK and its related groups and claims against that organization by the HRW. IPC research concludes that the "credible claims" of HRW are actually statements by agents of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security [MOIS], especially Mohammad-Hossein Sobhani and Farhad Javaheri-Yar. Tehran sent most of those interviewed by Human Rights Watch from Iran to Europe for the purpose of demonizing its main opposition, the MEK.
This reads like MEK propaganda. But leaving aside this important detail, what is striking about the IPC is that nobody on its board is in fact an Iran expert, let alone an expert on the bloody history and intricate cult-like ideology of the MEK. It is perhaps not surprising then that the IPC scrupulously avoids a debate with former members of the MEK.
Leaving aside the highly questionable relationship between the IPC and the MEK, the solution offered by the former to the policy differences on Iran is not altogether convincing. In the IPC's first white paper, the authors review the appeasement and military options before concluding that "Washington should consider a third alternative, one that provides a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change". The problem for the IPC is that the US government instinctively distrusts the MEK, which has a history of anti-Western propaganda, is the only Iranian organization that has admitted to killing Americans, and was for nearly 20 years an unwavering ally of Saddam Hussein.
Moreover, the IPC's lukewarm enthusiasm for the use of military force against Iran is, at best, deceptive. Indeed, if the IPC is serious about promoting MEK interests, then it must realize (as the MEK readily does) that only massive US-led military force against Iran could make marginalized exiled groups like the MEK even remotely relevant.
Furthermore, a brief glance at the IPC co-chair biographies reveals why this MEK-connected think tank secretly lobbies for war against Iran. Composed of retired senior military officers, a former ambassador, and Claire M Lopez, former operations officer with the CIA (and the sole administrator of the IPC and its main point of contact with the MEK), these individuals' expertise and career paths are based on the promotion of military options rather than peaceful ones. Moreover, several of the principals are affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its related think tanks.
MEK: A bad investment
The IPC's emergence as the representative of the MEK in the US is directly tied to the proscription of the latter in 2003. Up to August 2003, the MEK was capable of running its own propaganda campaign through the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the personnel of both being almost identical.
The NCRI was outlawed in the US in August 2003 when the State Department added the cover organization to the list of terrorist entities as a pseudonym for the MEK. Similarly, the MEK's small military wing in Iraq, the so-called "National Liberation Army of Iran" was bombed, disarmed and dismantled by US forces in April and May 2003. Having lost the patronage of Saddam, the MEK is now looking to the US government and Israel-linked lobby groups in Washington for support.
As part of this push to gain acceptance in the West, the MEK has presented itself as a pluralistic, secular and pro-democratic group which promotes the role of women and supports human rights. Its tools in this exercise have been the feminized image of its head, Maryam Rajavi, in civilian clothes, and the placing of the MEK's long-time US spokesman, Alireza Jafarzadeh, in the Fox News network as an independent analyst on Iran.
But even this was not enough to shift perceptions, and congressional support has been falling off as representatives are made aware of the manipulations which led them to sign up to documents purporting to condemn the Iranian regime, but having in their small print support for the MEK.
The creation of the IPC has arguably been the best publicity asset for the MEK in its efforts to reinvent itself. But no matter how the MEK markets itself, it cannot escape its past. The specter of young, brainwashed devotees burning themselves to protest the arrest of Maryam Rajavi in Paris in June 2003 continues to haunt Europe.
Moreover, there is now a determined and organized effort by former members to bring the organization's leaders to account. On November 24, a group of anti-war activists and former MEK members held a press conference in Washington DC, entitled "Saddam's links with international terrorism". The conference showed videos secretly filmed by Saddam's own security services which evidenced the financial, logistical and intelligence relations between the former Iraqi regime and the MEK. Additionally, a documentary exposed the MEK's involvement in the suppression of the Kurdish uprising in 1991, immediately after the first Gulf War.
The day before this press conference, the MEK issued a statement alleging that former MEK members had been sent by Iran's Intelligence Ministry to prevent the organization being removed from the US terror list. The following day, the IPC issued a statement repeating these unsubstantiated accusations. Unfortunately for the IPC, United Press International picked up its statement and printed it. It was clear that the IPC had simply rehashed the MEK's statement and had not checked its information independently. Consequently, Tanter and other IPC members are now being sued by those they allegedly libeled.
While promoting regime change in Iran is a legitimate discourse, supporting terrorist organizations with a documented history of anti-Americanism clearly is not. IPC members might want to reconsider their position and decide whether supporting an organization that is nearly universally despised by Iranians of all political persuasions is worth the price of personal infamy.
Massoud Khodabandeh is a former member of the Mujahideen-e Khalq, and mainly served in the organization's intelligence/security department. Khodabandeh left the Mujahideen in 1996 and currently lives in the north of England, where he works as a security consultant. He has been active in Iranian opposition politics for over 25 years. He works closely with the Center de Recherche sur la Terrorisme in Paris as an expert on Iran."
Nov 30, 2005
Let's talk about regime change
By Massoud Khodabandeh
As the standoff over Iran's nuclear program steadily deteriorates into a crisis, Washington's policy on the Islamic Republic is coming under sharp scrutiny. While a group of hardcore neo-conservatives want a decisive confrontation with the Iran, the broader US policy-making community is all too aware of the futility and dangers of this approach.
The case for regime change in Iran has been most enthusiastically taken up by the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) , which is largely composed of retired senior military officers and solely administered by a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operations officer. Benefiting from close links to the Pentagon, the IPC has been tasked by the Iranian opposition group, Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK), a proscribed terrorist organization, to provide professional lobbying and public relations services.
On the other side are those who seek engagement. They won something of a victory on Monday when the State Department announced that the US ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, had been given permission to meet with officials from Iran. "It's a very narrow mandate that he has," spokesman Sean McCormack said. "It deals specifically with issues related to Iraq."
The IPC is likely to be undaunted, though. Lobbying on behalf of a proscribed and notoriously anti-American organization like the MEK would be controversial enough, but the IPC gives the impression that it has gone beyond advocacy and is now, to all intents and purposes, representing the MEK in the US.
While such sensational gestures generate useful propaganda against Iran in the short term, the doomed fate of the MEK means that individual IPC members are at serious risk of destroying their reputations in the long term.
Regime change in Iran?
A proper understanding of the relationship between the MEK and the IPC requires an understanding of the broader regime-change debate now under way in Washington. While the US built a case against Iraq over its alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction, the neo-conservatives' case against Iran is more complex. President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's recent ill-judged comments on Israel (that it should be wiped off the map), coupled with long-term US concerns over Iran's nuclear ambitions, have enabled the neo-conservative camp to build up a case against Iran that leaves little room for negotiation.
In 2003, Senator Sam Brownback introduced the Iran Freedom and Democracy Support Act, which was backed by senators Rick Santorum and John Cornyn. After some changes to the bill, now sponsored by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, it was finally passed on April 13 this year as the Iran Freedom Support Act (HR 282). The act allowed for "financial and political assistance ... to entities that support democracy and the promotion of democracy in Iran and that are opposed to the non-democratic government of Iran". While Brownback had envisaged the fund going to Reza Pahlavi and pro-monarchist groups and the media, Ros-Lehtinen promoted the MEK as the best recipients for millions of taxpayers' dollars.
The act was opposed by many Iranian groups, including the National Iranian American Council, which said that "while supporters argue that any step short of regime change is unlikely to bring about change in Iran, opponents argue that making regime change official policy eliminates the possibility of diplomacy and makes confrontation between the US and Iran inevitable". Among those groups which lobbied for the bill were the Institute for Public Affairs, the Iranian American Jewish Federation (IAJF) and the Washington-based IPC.
Iran Policy Committee
The IPC, a think tank established in February by Raymond Tanter, professor of political science at Georgetown University, is supported by several neo-conservative politicians and analysts, including Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, Michael Ledeen, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Tom Tancredo and Bob Filner.
Ostensibly, the IPC's platform echoes the neo-conservative view that Iran poses a threat to US national security and that regime change is the preferred solution. Leaving nothing to doubt, the IPC's website banner reads "Empowering Iranians for Regime Change". A policy paper released on February 10 extends this view to state that "Iranian opposition groups ought to play a central role in US policymaking regarding Iran". It also perfunctorily adds that "diplomatic and military options" should be kept open.
A review of the IPC's first white paper reveals language and propaganda that is eerily identical to that used by the MEK, thus leaving well-informed and experienced analysts in little doubt that the paper was in part, if not in whole, written by agents of the MEK in the US. This style is also evident in the IPC's two subsequent white papers released in June and September. The promotion of the so-called "third way", oddly implicating the Shi'ite Islamic Republic in the spread of al-Qaeda-style Salafi jihadism (which is anti-Shi'ite through and through), and falsely accusing Iran of being the central force behind the Iraqi insurgency, are pure MEK disinformation techniques.
Interestingly, the June white paper, entitled "Sham elections and regime change", was primarily a response to a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report that accused the MEK of torturing its dissident members and engaging in other forms of human-rights abuses. Yet again, using language that is the exclusive trademark of the MEK, the IPC had this to say about the HRW report:
The IPC appointed a task force on human rights to investigate allegations about the MEK and its related groups and claims against that organization by the HRW. IPC research concludes that the "credible claims" of HRW are actually statements by agents of the Iranian Ministry of Intelligence and Security [MOIS], especially Mohammad-Hossein Sobhani and Farhad Javaheri-Yar. Tehran sent most of those interviewed by Human Rights Watch from Iran to Europe for the purpose of demonizing its main opposition, the MEK.
This reads like MEK propaganda. But leaving aside this important detail, what is striking about the IPC is that nobody on its board is in fact an Iran expert, let alone an expert on the bloody history and intricate cult-like ideology of the MEK. It is perhaps not surprising then that the IPC scrupulously avoids a debate with former members of the MEK.
Leaving aside the highly questionable relationship between the IPC and the MEK, the solution offered by the former to the policy differences on Iran is not altogether convincing. In the IPC's first white paper, the authors review the appeasement and military options before concluding that "Washington should consider a third alternative, one that provides a central role for the Iranian opposition to facilitate regime change". The problem for the IPC is that the US government instinctively distrusts the MEK, which has a history of anti-Western propaganda, is the only Iranian organization that has admitted to killing Americans, and was for nearly 20 years an unwavering ally of Saddam Hussein.
Moreover, the IPC's lukewarm enthusiasm for the use of military force against Iran is, at best, deceptive. Indeed, if the IPC is serious about promoting MEK interests, then it must realize (as the MEK readily does) that only massive US-led military force against Iran could make marginalized exiled groups like the MEK even remotely relevant.
Furthermore, a brief glance at the IPC co-chair biographies reveals why this MEK-connected think tank secretly lobbies for war against Iran. Composed of retired senior military officers, a former ambassador, and Claire M Lopez, former operations officer with the CIA (and the sole administrator of the IPC and its main point of contact with the MEK), these individuals' expertise and career paths are based on the promotion of military options rather than peaceful ones. Moreover, several of the principals are affiliated with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its related think tanks.
MEK: A bad investment
The IPC's emergence as the representative of the MEK in the US is directly tied to the proscription of the latter in 2003. Up to August 2003, the MEK was capable of running its own propaganda campaign through the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the personnel of both being almost identical.
The NCRI was outlawed in the US in August 2003 when the State Department added the cover organization to the list of terrorist entities as a pseudonym for the MEK. Similarly, the MEK's small military wing in Iraq, the so-called "National Liberation Army of Iran" was bombed, disarmed and dismantled by US forces in April and May 2003. Having lost the patronage of Saddam, the MEK is now looking to the US government and Israel-linked lobby groups in Washington for support.
As part of this push to gain acceptance in the West, the MEK has presented itself as a pluralistic, secular and pro-democratic group which promotes the role of women and supports human rights. Its tools in this exercise have been the feminized image of its head, Maryam Rajavi, in civilian clothes, and the placing of the MEK's long-time US spokesman, Alireza Jafarzadeh, in the Fox News network as an independent analyst on Iran.
But even this was not enough to shift perceptions, and congressional support has been falling off as representatives are made aware of the manipulations which led them to sign up to documents purporting to condemn the Iranian regime, but having in their small print support for the MEK.
The creation of the IPC has arguably been the best publicity asset for the MEK in its efforts to reinvent itself. But no matter how the MEK markets itself, it cannot escape its past. The specter of young, brainwashed devotees burning themselves to protest the arrest of Maryam Rajavi in Paris in June 2003 continues to haunt Europe.
Moreover, there is now a determined and organized effort by former members to bring the organization's leaders to account. On November 24, a group of anti-war activists and former MEK members held a press conference in Washington DC, entitled "Saddam's links with international terrorism". The conference showed videos secretly filmed by Saddam's own security services which evidenced the financial, logistical and intelligence relations between the former Iraqi regime and the MEK. Additionally, a documentary exposed the MEK's involvement in the suppression of the Kurdish uprising in 1991, immediately after the first Gulf War.
The day before this press conference, the MEK issued a statement alleging that former MEK members had been sent by Iran's Intelligence Ministry to prevent the organization being removed from the US terror list. The following day, the IPC issued a statement repeating these unsubstantiated accusations. Unfortunately for the IPC, United Press International picked up its statement and printed it. It was clear that the IPC had simply rehashed the MEK's statement and had not checked its information independently. Consequently, Tanter and other IPC members are now being sued by those they allegedly libeled.
While promoting regime change in Iran is a legitimate discourse, supporting terrorist organizations with a documented history of anti-Americanism clearly is not. IPC members might want to reconsider their position and decide whether supporting an organization that is nearly universally despised by Iranians of all political persuasions is worth the price of personal infamy.
Massoud Khodabandeh is a former member of the Mujahideen-e Khalq, and mainly served in the organization's intelligence/security department. Khodabandeh left the Mujahideen in 1996 and currently lives in the north of England, where he works as a security consultant. He has been active in Iranian opposition politics for over 25 years. He works closely with the Center de Recherche sur la Terrorisme in Paris as an expert on Iran."
CONGRESS- WHO'S A WAR VET? - Not Tricky Ricky Santorum
CONGRESS- WHO'S A WAR VET?: "CONGRESS- WHO'S A WAR VET?
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com
Now that the pols in the Bush administration have chosen to attack Korea and Vietnam veteran and Congressman John Murtha for coming out in favor of a withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, 'Net commentators are taking off the gloves.
A post earlier this month at the Daily KOS, titled, "The Little Piggies Who Tell You To Support Our Troops," by johninwisconsin, attempted to compare the roster of warmongers with their military service records … and found very little to work with. As their listing notes (after matching a surprising number of Democrats now in office, who did serve in some fashion), a list of 24 Republicans supporting the Bush invasion includes exactly TWO with any military service: Donald Rumsfeld (1954-57, Navy flight instructor, a time when no wars were being fought) and George W. Bush himself (whose National Guard exploits and evasions are now legendary).
The other 22 avoided service entirely, including the biggest sabre-rattlers on the scene today: Dick Cheney, Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, Roy Blunt, Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Saxby Chambliss, Paul Wolfowitz, Vin Weber, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams, Richard Shelby, Jon Kyl, Tim Hutchison, Christopher Cox, or Newt Gingrich.
Moreover, of the top pundits and talk show hosts agitating for more battles, NONE of them spent any military time either, including Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, George Will, Chris Matthews, Paul Gigot, Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol, Ralph Reed, and Michael Medved. The lists also included past politicians, movie stars and even a few pop musical favorites. It was initially compiled by Illinois State Sen. Howard W. Carroll.
staff reports - Free-Market News Network"
Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com
Now that the pols in the Bush administration have chosen to attack Korea and Vietnam veteran and Congressman John Murtha for coming out in favor of a withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, 'Net commentators are taking off the gloves.
A post earlier this month at the Daily KOS, titled, "The Little Piggies Who Tell You To Support Our Troops," by johninwisconsin, attempted to compare the roster of warmongers with their military service records … and found very little to work with. As their listing notes (after matching a surprising number of Democrats now in office, who did serve in some fashion), a list of 24 Republicans supporting the Bush invasion includes exactly TWO with any military service: Donald Rumsfeld (1954-57, Navy flight instructor, a time when no wars were being fought) and George W. Bush himself (whose National Guard exploits and evasions are now legendary).
The other 22 avoided service entirely, including the biggest sabre-rattlers on the scene today: Dick Cheney, Dennis Hastert, Tom Delay, Roy Blunt, Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, Rick Santorum, Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Saxby Chambliss, Paul Wolfowitz, Vin Weber, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Eliot Abrams, Richard Shelby, Jon Kyl, Tim Hutchison, Christopher Cox, or Newt Gingrich.
Moreover, of the top pundits and talk show hosts agitating for more battles, NONE of them spent any military time either, including Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, George Will, Chris Matthews, Paul Gigot, Bill Bennett, Bill Kristol, Ralph Reed, and Michael Medved. The lists also included past politicians, movie stars and even a few pop musical favorites. It was initially compiled by Illinois State Sen. Howard W. Carroll.
staff reports - Free-Market News Network"
Governor Rendell Tells Santorum Where The Bear Went Thru the Buckwheat on Medicare Part D Drug Benefit
PA Governor Rendell Responds to U.S. Sen. Santorum's Criticism of Medicare Part D Drug Benefit: "PA Governor Rendell Responds to U.S. Sen. Santorum's Criticism of Medicare Part D Drug Benefit
November 29, 2005 - 2:01 PM
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Governor Edward G. Rendell today issued the following letter in response to Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's misinformed critique of the commonwealth's handling of the merger of the state PACE program with the new Medicare Part D drug benefit:
Dear Senator Santorum:
I am in receipt of your letter of November 22nd concerning the integration of the Pennsylvania Pharmaceutical Assistance (PACE) program with the new Medicare Part D drug benefit. I appreciate your concern, but I'm afraid that you might not have complete information about these discussions.
As you know, when the legislation creating the Part D benefit was considered in 2003, it passed the Senate with an amendment added to it that would have created a direct link between the PACE program and the Part D program, so the transition for PACE members would have been seamless. Opposition by the Senate Republican Leadership to that provision was largely responsible for its removal and the substitution of the more complicated process now in place.
Pennsylvania has been working closely with the various federal agencies responsible for implementing the new program. Consequently, we are on the verge of announcing an agreement that will enable the Commonwealth to assist the nearly 300,000 Pennsylvanians, who currently receive drug coverage through our state program, to enroll in the Part D program as well. I have had several conversations with Secretary Leavitt about this agreement, which, as you know, will be announced in the near future.
As you are aware, the federal benefit is complicated both in terms of the benefits provided and the choices that consumers have to make from among the many plans. As you point out, many seniors, not just PACE beneficiaries, are confused about the decisions that confront them. We have been working diligently for many months with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a model that will facilitate PACE beneficiaries enrolling in the new benefit program while enjoying the same level of coverage that they have enjoyed under the state PACE program for over twenty years. These efforts were hampered by the fact that the details of the federal program, the identity of the vendors who would offer coverage in the Commonwealth and the benefit levels that they would offer was not known until early October. As you know, Pennsylvania was not alone in having to develop a strategy to integrate its state program with the federal program and we have benefited by the arrangements that several of these states forged.
I am confident that the agreement that Secretary Leavitt and I will announce later this week will result in a significant partnership between the PACE program and the providers of the federal benefit.
I also want to take the opportunity to correct another statement in your letter. You point out that, if the Commonwealth were to wrap the PACE benefit around the new federal program, filling the gaps in the federal benefit, Pennsylvania could "save" hundreds of millions of dollars. Specifically you wrote that "Pennsylvania stands to gain $500 million per year or more if only a fraction of the PACE beneficiaries enroll in Medicare Part D."
I'm not sure of the source of this misinformation. In point of fact, the PACE program only costs the state $415 million to operate. Covering the large gaps in the Medicare D benefit, so that PACE beneficiaries continue to receive the same level of benefit they currently enjoy, will reduce the potential savings significantly. So clearly, if only a small portion of the nearly 300,000 PACE beneficiaries enroll in the federal program, the state savings would be substantially less than $500 million.
Finally, in your letter you mention the assistance available to states to assist in integrating their state prescription drug plans with the federal benefit. I understand that you were instrumental in securing this assistance. As you know, because the details of the federal plan weren't available to the states in time, Pennsylvania and many of the other twenty-two states that operate state programs were unable to draw on this money. Pennsylvania and these other states are working to ensure that this money is still available to us. Of course as you know, the Senate passed a bill earlier this fall to extend the life of the money so it would not be lost to the states. That legislation is now in conference with the House. We would greatly appreciate your support for including this funding in the final legislation.
Pennsylvania is committed to ensuring that seniors who currently benefit from the PACE and PACENet programs continue to receive the same high level of coverage that they now enjoy. The array of options that they face in electing a Medicare Part D plan can be confusing for many seniors. The state is committed to making this transition as easy and as simple as it can be and that they will have the ability to choose a plan that suits their needs whether or not they are enrolled in PACE or PACENet.
Sincerely,
Edward G. Rendell
Governor
The Rendell Administration is committed to creating a first-rate public education system, protecting our most vulnerable citizens and continuing economic investment to support our communities and businesses. To find out more about Governor Rendell's initiatives and to sign up for his weekly newsletter, visit his Web site at: http://www.governor.state.pa.us/.
CONTACT: Kate Philips
Pennsylvania Office of the Governor
717-783-1116
Source: Pennsylvania Office of the Governor
CONTACT: Kate Philips, Pennsylvania Office of the Governor,
+1-717-783-1116
Web site: http://www.governor.state.pa.us/ "
November 29, 2005 - 2:01 PM
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Governor Edward G. Rendell today issued the following letter in response to Pennsylvania U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum's misinformed critique of the commonwealth's handling of the merger of the state PACE program with the new Medicare Part D drug benefit:
Dear Senator Santorum:
I am in receipt of your letter of November 22nd concerning the integration of the Pennsylvania Pharmaceutical Assistance (PACE) program with the new Medicare Part D drug benefit. I appreciate your concern, but I'm afraid that you might not have complete information about these discussions.
As you know, when the legislation creating the Part D benefit was considered in 2003, it passed the Senate with an amendment added to it that would have created a direct link between the PACE program and the Part D program, so the transition for PACE members would have been seamless. Opposition by the Senate Republican Leadership to that provision was largely responsible for its removal and the substitution of the more complicated process now in place.
Pennsylvania has been working closely with the various federal agencies responsible for implementing the new program. Consequently, we are on the verge of announcing an agreement that will enable the Commonwealth to assist the nearly 300,000 Pennsylvanians, who currently receive drug coverage through our state program, to enroll in the Part D program as well. I have had several conversations with Secretary Leavitt about this agreement, which, as you know, will be announced in the near future.
As you are aware, the federal benefit is complicated both in terms of the benefits provided and the choices that consumers have to make from among the many plans. As you point out, many seniors, not just PACE beneficiaries, are confused about the decisions that confront them. We have been working diligently for many months with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services to develop a model that will facilitate PACE beneficiaries enrolling in the new benefit program while enjoying the same level of coverage that they have enjoyed under the state PACE program for over twenty years. These efforts were hampered by the fact that the details of the federal program, the identity of the vendors who would offer coverage in the Commonwealth and the benefit levels that they would offer was not known until early October. As you know, Pennsylvania was not alone in having to develop a strategy to integrate its state program with the federal program and we have benefited by the arrangements that several of these states forged.
I am confident that the agreement that Secretary Leavitt and I will announce later this week will result in a significant partnership between the PACE program and the providers of the federal benefit.
I also want to take the opportunity to correct another statement in your letter. You point out that, if the Commonwealth were to wrap the PACE benefit around the new federal program, filling the gaps in the federal benefit, Pennsylvania could "save" hundreds of millions of dollars. Specifically you wrote that "Pennsylvania stands to gain $500 million per year or more if only a fraction of the PACE beneficiaries enroll in Medicare Part D."
I'm not sure of the source of this misinformation. In point of fact, the PACE program only costs the state $415 million to operate. Covering the large gaps in the Medicare D benefit, so that PACE beneficiaries continue to receive the same level of benefit they currently enjoy, will reduce the potential savings significantly. So clearly, if only a small portion of the nearly 300,000 PACE beneficiaries enroll in the federal program, the state savings would be substantially less than $500 million.
Finally, in your letter you mention the assistance available to states to assist in integrating their state prescription drug plans with the federal benefit. I understand that you were instrumental in securing this assistance. As you know, because the details of the federal plan weren't available to the states in time, Pennsylvania and many of the other twenty-two states that operate state programs were unable to draw on this money. Pennsylvania and these other states are working to ensure that this money is still available to us. Of course as you know, the Senate passed a bill earlier this fall to extend the life of the money so it would not be lost to the states. That legislation is now in conference with the House. We would greatly appreciate your support for including this funding in the final legislation.
Pennsylvania is committed to ensuring that seniors who currently benefit from the PACE and PACENet programs continue to receive the same high level of coverage that they now enjoy. The array of options that they face in electing a Medicare Part D plan can be confusing for many seniors. The state is committed to making this transition as easy and as simple as it can be and that they will have the ability to choose a plan that suits their needs whether or not they are enrolled in PACE or PACENet.
Sincerely,
Edward G. Rendell
Governor
The Rendell Administration is committed to creating a first-rate public education system, protecting our most vulnerable citizens and continuing economic investment to support our communities and businesses. To find out more about Governor Rendell's initiatives and to sign up for his weekly newsletter, visit his Web site at: http://www.governor.state.pa.us/.
CONTACT: Kate Philips
Pennsylvania Office of the Governor
717-783-1116
Source: Pennsylvania Office of the Governor
CONTACT: Kate Philips, Pennsylvania Office of the Governor,
+1-717-783-1116
Web site: http://www.governor.state.pa.us/ "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)