Tactics Ammunition Drudge This! Articles Archive Policy Archive Weblog Archive Cons With Cons Search This Site
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
[However, Kennedy adjusted the numbers to account for undecided black voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, and said the runoff election currently stands in Blanco's favor. With that adjustment, Blanco would get 53 percent of the vote, compared to Jindal's 47 percent]
Republican Primary Trial Heat (among Republican voters): Cecil Underwood 30% Robin Capehart 8% Sarah Minear 8% Dan Moore 3% Monty Warner 3% Doug McKinney 2% Other 3% Undecided 43%
Democratic Primary Trial Heat (among Democratic voters): Joe Manchin 46% Darrell McGraw 11% John Perdue 5% Jim Humphreys 4% Lloyd Jackson 3% Jim Lees 3% Spike Maynard 2% Robin Davis 2% Other 1% Undecided 25%
President Bush's closest political adviser, Karl Rove, was yesterday at the centre of a criminal investigation into allegations that he leaked the name of a CIA agent in an attempt to suppress criticism of the administration's Iraq policy, in what is fast becoming the administration's worst scandal since coming to office. The White House fended off calls for an independent inquiry but urged its staff yesterday to cooperate with a justice department investigation.
Over the next few days, FBI agents will question Washington journalists and administration officials about claims that Mr Rove and others in the White House deliberately blew the cover of Valerie Plame, a CIA expert on weapons of mass destruction.
Under US law, it is a serious crime to reveal the identity of a covert US intelligence official, carrying a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison and $50,000 (£31,250) in fines.
If Mr Rove was implicated, it would seriously damage the president's standing at the start of his re-election campaign and rob him of an electoral mastermind who orchestrated his rise to the Texas governorship and then the presidency.
One veteran of the Clinton administration compared it to the Hutton inquiry. "In the Kelly case there's a body but no crime. Here there's no body but there is a crime," he said.
Ms Plame is the wife of Joe Wilson, a former US ambassador who in July accused the White House of misleading the nation over claims of Iraq's attempts to buy uranium in Africa. In a New York Times commentary he said he had been sent to Niger to check such claims in 2002 and found them to be baseless.
A few days after Mr Wilson went public with his allegations, a conservative columnist, Robert Novak, wrote that he had been told by "two senior administration officials" that Mr Wilson had been sent on the Niger mission at his wife's suggestion.
Reporters at Time magazine and NBC News and a handful of others were also tipped off about Ms Plame, and Democrats claim the source in each case was Mr Rove. According to some accounts, Mr Rove, did not mention Ms Plame by name but referred to "Wilson's wife" being a CIA employee.
At a public meeting in August, Mr Wilson, a staunch Democrat himself, said: "It's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frogmarched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words."
Mr Novak and the other journalists involved have refused to name their sources. Their lawyers are expected to claim protection from the law under the first amendment of the constitution guaranteeing freedom of speech.
But a 1972 supreme court ruling, Branzburg v Hayes, states "the first amendment does not relieve a newspaper reporter of the obligation that all citizens have to respond to a grand jury subpoena and answer questions relevant to a criminal investigation".
FBI investigators will also subpoena telephone records from the White House in an attempt to pin down the source of the leak.
Mr Novak claimed he was told by CIA officials that Ms Plame was an analyst, not a covert operative. But intelligence analysts have argued that the CIA director, George Tenet, would not have called for an inquiry if the identification of Ms Plame had not caused potential damage to national security.
Charles Schumer, the Democratic senator leading the campaign for an independent counsel inquiry said yesterday: "When you reveal the name of an agent, it's like putting a gun to that agent's head. You are jeopardising their life in many cases. You are jeopardising the lives of the contacts that they have built up over the decades. You are jeopardising the security of the nation."
The White House has insisted it has no evidence that any of its employees was responsible for the leak and has turned down Democratic demands for the appointment of an independent counsel to look into the matter. The inquiry will instead be carried out by the FBI under the supervision of the attorney general, John Ashcroft, a Bush loyalist. - Source
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Don't you think it's more serious than Watergate, when you think about it?
RNC CHAIRMAN ED GILLESPIE: I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of an undercover CIA operative -- it's abhorrent, and it should be a crime, and it is a crime.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: It'd be worse than Watergate, wouldn't it?
GILLESPIE: It's -- Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world implications of it. It's not just politics. - Source
A former counter-terrorism official at the CIA and the State Department claimed Tuesday night that outted CIA agent "Valerie Plame" was under cover for three decades and was not a "CIA analyst" as columnist Bob Novak has suggested.
Larry Johnson made the charge on PBS's NEWSHOUR.
"I worked with this woman. She started training with me. She has been under cover for three decades. She is not as Bob Novak suggested a "CIA analyst." Given that, i was a CIA analyst for 4 years. I was under cover. I could not divulge to my family outside of my wife that I worked for the CIA unti I left the Intelligence Agency on Sept. 30, 1989. At that point I could admit it. The fact that she was under cover for three decades and that has been divulged is outrageous. She was put undercover for certain reasons. One, she works in an area where people she works with overseas could be compromised...
"For these journalists to argue that this is no big deal... and if I hear another Republican operative suggesting that, well, this was just an analyst. Fine. Let them go undercover. Let's put them go overseas. Let's out them and see how they like it...
"I say this as a registered Republican. I am on record giving contributions to the George Bush campaign. This is not about partisan politics. This is about a betrayal, a political smear, of an individual who had no relevance to the story. Publishing her name in that story added nothing to it because the entire intent was, correctly as Amb. Wilson noted, to intimidate, to suggest taht there was some impropriety that somehow his wife was in a decision-making position to influence his ability to go over and savage a stupid policy, an erroneous policy, and frankly what was a false policy of suggesting that there was nuclear material in Iraq that required this war. This was about a political attack. To pretend it was something else, to get into this parsing of words.
"I tell you, it sickens me to be a Republican to see this." - Source
A recent CNN/USA Today poll showed strong support for recalling Davis and a widening lead for Schwarzenegger. However, the poll's results have been hotly contested.
The survey, conducted by Gallup and released Sunday, showed 63 percent of "probable" voters support the recall to 35 percent opposed. The survey also found Schwarzenegger leading with 40 percent, followed by Bustamante at 25 percent, McClintock at 18 percent, Camejo with 5 percent and Huffington with just 2 percent.
But the poll's results are based on the assumption that Republicans will comprise 47 percent of voters on Oct. 7 -- even though GOP registration in California is only 35 percent.
More polls are expected to be released this week, including the Field Poll and one by the Los Angeles Times.
Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party, blasted the polls results as "outrageous," saying there's little chance Republicans will make up half of voters on election day.
"It's the most irresponsible thing a pollster has ever done in the height of a campaign," Torres said. "If their intent was to depress Democrats, it may very well do that."
When the poll tabulated the responses of "registered" voters, the margin fell to 55 percent in favor of the recall and 41 percent opposed -- essentially what other recent polls have shown.
"It's still not good news for Davis," said pollster Mark Baldassare of the Public Policy Institute of California. "Whatever progress Davis has made since the recall went into effect in early August, it hasn't been enough to overcome the fact that a large proportion of voters who are likely to show up still don't like the job he's doing in office. It's becoming a very difficult thing to overcome."
Davis won re-election last November with just 47 percent of the vote, but to avoid being recalled the governor needs to surpass the 50 percent mark. - Source
Independent candidate Arianna Huffington dropped out of the California recall race on Tuesday, saying it was her best hope of preventing Arnold Schwarzenegger from becoming governor.
"I'm puling out and I'm going to concentrate all my time and energy in the next week working to defeat the recall becasue I realize that's the only way to defeat Arnold Schwarzenegger," Huffington said as she made the announcement on CNN's "Larry King Live."
Huffington's exit from the race mostly clears the way for Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante - the Democrats' best hope of thwarting Schwarzenegger should Gov. Gray Davis lose the recall vote. - Source
On a weekend when the Bush administration's pre-war intelligence on Iraq was a major topic on the Sunday talkshows, Secretary of State Colin Powell re-circulated a false story about United Nations weapons inspectors being kicked out of Iraq in 1998. Some major media outlets let Powell's comments pass without comment or correction.
On ABC's This Week (9/27/03), Powell explained that the Clinton administration "conducted a four-day bombing campaign in late 1998 based on the intelligence that he had. That resulted in the weapons inspectors being thrown out."
The actual history is much different. On December 15, 1998, the head of the U.N. weapons inspection team in Iraq, Richard Butler, released a report accusing Iraq of not fully cooperating with inspections. The next day, Butler withdrew his inspectors from Iraq, in anticipation of a U.S.-British bombing campaign that began that evening. Neither George Stephanopoulos nor George Will, who conducted ABC's interview, corrected Powell's false assertion.
In reporting on the interview, the New York Times merely repeated Powell's charge (9/29/03): "Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in a television appearance today, noted that the Iraqi leader threw weapons inspectors out in 1998, making it more difficult for intelligence agencies to get hard information." The Los Angeles Times (9/29/03), meanwhile, paraphrased Powell's words to make them more factually accurate, prefacing his quote with the statement that "U.N. weapons inspectors had left Iraq in 1998 and did not return until late last year." The quote immediately follows, giving readers the misimpression that Powell accurately conveyed this background.
As the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq have become a public controversy, it is reasonable to expect journalists to point out continuing misinformation on Iraq by senior Bush administration officials. If New York Times editors were interested in correcting the record, all they would have to do is re-print a correction they ran over three years ago (2/2/00): "A front-page article yesterday... on Iraq misstated the circumstances under which international weapons inspectors left that country before American and British air strikes in December 1998. While Iraq had ceased cooperating with the inspectors, it did not expel them. The United Nations withdrew them before the air strikes began." - Source
Arnold Schwarzenegger suggested at a question-and-answer forum with supporters Monday that he might eliminate the state's environmental protection agency, but a spokesman later said he meant only to reduce duplication in functions among the local, state and federal governments.
During an "Ask Arnold" event at a company that manufactures security cameras in this Fresno suburb, Schwarzenegger was asked by a man identifying himself as a farmer why the state needed Cal/EPA when the federal Environmental Protection Agency regulates many of the same things.
"What you just talked about is the waste — overlapping agencies. They cost a fortune," Schwarzenegger said. "We have to strip that down and get rid of some of those agencies."
Schwarzenegger did not go any further. In a briefing with reporters after the event, Rob Stutzman, a Schwarzenegger spokesman, refused to rule out eliminating the state agency, but also said he did not believe Schwarzenegger had said that.
In a subsequent telephone call to The Times, Stutzman said: "We would look at places where state and federal EPA duplicate efforts" but would not eliminate the agency itself.
Asked whether Schwarzenegger was prepared to identify any particular agencies that he would eliminate, Stutzman replied, with a laugh, "Not at this time." Stutzman also gave the clearest account to date of Schwarzenegger's position on Indian gambling. Stutzman said Schwarzenegger supports the expansion of Indian gambling so long as it stays confined to Indian lands and the tribes agree to provide more of their revenue to the state.
Schwarzenegger would dangle the prospect of expanding gambling to convince the tribes to renegotiate their current compacts with the state and provide more revenue, he said. "He's willing to talk to the tribes about expanding the number of slots, if they're willing to pay their fair share."
That proposal would closely resemble a deal that Gov. Gray Davis offered to the tribes this year — one that most of the tribes with casinos have not accepted.
On another policy front, Schwarzenegger — who has condemned the state's borrowing and heavy debt — has left the door open to borrowing more money to close the current year's budget gap. Pressed repeatedly on the subject the last few days, campaign officials would not rule out more borrowing — though they said they hoped to bridge the budget gap with spending cuts and increased revenue they expect as the economy improves.
Asked about balancing the budget, Stutzman said Monday that one approach is making cuts. "The second is to get the economy growing," he said.
The event was the shortest of the six "Ask Arnold" events Schwarzenegger has conducted around the state.
The campaign calls the events "town halls" but participants are members of groups friendly to Schwarzenegger who are invited by the campaign. Questions are not pre-screened, but have generally been supportive.
For the fourth straight day, Schwarzenegger did not answer questions from the political reporters who follow him. He did give one-on-one interviews with several Bakersfield-area news outlets.
In recent days, campaign officials have taken a hard line with reporters, sometimes refusing to respond or answer even basic questions about Schwarzenegger's whereabouts and logistics.
At the same time, Schwarzenegger — sounding more and more like a governor in waiting — softened his tone on Sacramento and its politicians, who he has often promised to "terminate."
He said at the "Ask Arnold" event that "I don't see anyone as a villain. I think everyone there is trying to do something good." - Source
Billionaire philanthropist George Soros has called for an end to the Bush administration ahead of next year's presidential elections. Mr Soros - whose Foundations Network has given $1bn around the world to various causes to help tackle poverty and disease - told BBC Radio 4's United Nations Or Not? programme that the US would only stop pursuing "extremist" policies if there was a change at the White House.
"It is only possible if you have a regime change in the United States - in other words if President Bush is voted out of power.
"I am very hopeful that people will wake up and realise that they have been led down the garden path, that actually 11 September has been hijacked by a bunch of extremists to put into effect policies that they were advocating before such as the invasion of Iraq."
Imposing power
Mr Soros added that there was a "false ideology" behind the policies of the Bush administration.
"There is a group of - I would call them extremists - who have the following belief: that international relations are relations of power, not of law, that international law will always follow what power has achieved," he said. "And therefore [they believe] the United States being the most powerful nation on earth should impose its power, impose its will and its interests on the world and it should do it looking after itself.
"I think this is a very dangerous ideology. It is very dangerous because America is in fact very powerful."
He added that he felt US actions in the build-up to the war on Iraq was evidence of an extremist element in the Bush administration.
"Probably President Chirac would not disagree with this philosophy but he is not so powerful - so I am not so worried about what France is doing," Mr Soros said, referring to France's opposition to the war.
"But America being really the dominant power to be in the grips of such an extremist ideology is very dangerous for the world and that is my major concern."
However, he added that he felt the rift between the US and the United Nations over the war - which President Bush referred to as a "difficult and defining moment" for the UN - had in fact strengthened the UN, rather than weakened it.
"I think that the United States has over-reached," he said.
"What happens to extremists is that they go to extremes and the falsehood in their ideology becomes apparent.
"In a democracy the electorate - which is not extremist - will punish them and they know it, so they have to retreat.
"I think there is a good chance that the US will yet turn to a greater extent to the United Nations because they are now discovering that it is extremely painful and certainly costly to go it alone so in the end the outcome may be to strengthen the United Nations."
State interests
Mr Soros was, however, critical of the UN for what it sees as its inability to function well as a collective of states.
"The United Nations is not an organisation that is terribly effective in promoting open society because it is an association of states... states always put their national interests ahead of the common interest. "So it is not a very effective organisation for changing conditions inside states."
Mr Soros has a history of donating great sums of money to areas in need around the world - but only once has he done this through the UN.
"In Bosnia we gave it to UNHCR - but that was really quite the exception.
"We do interfere in the internal affairs of states, but based on supporting people inside the country who take a certain stance.
"We have actually been quite effective in bringing about democratisation, democratic regime change in Slovakia, Croatia and Yugoslavia, but that's by helping civil society in those countries to mobilise."
Positive response
Mr Soros is highly critical of much government bureaucracy, preferring to make his donations directly to those in need as much as possible.
In June this year he announced he would be drastically cutting back the money he gave to Russia.
And he said that money his fund was pledging to the fight against HIV/Aids would be "more effective" because it was going "only through a governmental organisation."
He conceded too that President Bush's policies on the HIV/Aids pandemic were positive.
"There is some response in America, in the Bush administration, to pressure from some of their constituencies - so there is the Millennium Challenge account, the contribution on fighting HIV/Aids," Mr Soros said.
"Those are positive aspects of the Bush administration. I am very supportive of the Millennium Challenge account - this is the new development aid that they are putting in - and I am very supportive and delighted that President Bush is willing to contribute to the global fund on Aids.
"So I am critical on some aspects of the Bush administration but not every aspect - and here I am actually very supportive." - Source
Karl Rove led the nation to war to improve the political prospects of George W. Bush. I know how surreal that sounds. But I also know it is true.
As the president's chief political advisor, Rove is involved in every decision coming out of the Oval Office. In fact, he flat out makes some of them. He is co-president of the United States, just as he was co-candidate for that office and co-governor of Texas. His relationship with the president is the most profound and complex of all of the White House advisors. And his role creates questions not addressed by our Constitution.
Rove is probably the most powerful unelected person in American history.
The cause of the war in Iraq was not just about Saddam Hussein or weapons of mass destruction or Al Qaeda links to Iraq. Those may have been the stated causes, but every good lie should have a germ of truth. No, this was mostly a product of Rove's usual prescience. He looked around and saw that the economy was anemic and people were complaining about the president's inability to find Osama bin Laden. In another corner, the neoconservatives in the Cabinet were itching to launch ships and planes to the Mideast and take control of Iraq. Rove converged the dynamics of the times. He convinced the president to connect Hussein to Bin Laden, even if the CIA could not.
This misdirection worked. A Pew survey taken during the war
showed 61% of Americans believe that Hussein and Bin Laden were confederates in the 9/11 attacks.
And now, Rove needs the conflict to continue so his client — the president — can retain wartime stature during next year's election. Listen to the semantics from Bush's recent trip to the aircraft carrier Lincoln. When he referred to the "battle of Iraq," Bush implied that we only won a single fight in a bigger war that was not yet over. I first encountered Rove more than 20 years ago in Texas. I reported on him and the future president as a TV correspondent there, traveling with them extensively during their race to the governor's mansion in Austin. Once there, Rove was involved in every important decision the governor made and, according to Bush staffers, vetted each critical choice for political implications.
Nothing is different today in the White House. The same old reliable sources from his days in Texas are in Washington with him. And they say Rove is intimately involved in the Cabinet and that he sat in on all the big meetings leading up to the Iraq war and signed off on all major decisions.
Rove fancies himself an expert in both policy and politics because he sees no distinction between the two. This matters for a number of reasons. There is always a time during any president's administration when what is best for the future of the country diverges from what best serves that president's political future. If Rove is standing with George W. Bush at that moment, he will push the president in the direction of reelection rather than the country's best interests.
The United States is best served when political calculations are not a part of the White House's most important decisions. Rove's calculus is always a formula for winning the next election. He was less concerned about the bombing of Iraqi civilians or the bullets flying at our own troops, according to people who have worked for him for years, than he was about what these acts would do to the results of the electoral college, or how they influence voters in swing states like Florida.
There needs to be something sacred about our presidents' decisions to send our children into combat. The Karl Roves of the world ought to not even be in the room, much less asked for advice.
Rove has influenced dealings with Iraq and North Korea, according to Bush administration sources. For instance, when the U.S. was notified, through formal diplomatic channels, that North Korea had nuclear technology, Congress was in the midst of discussing the Iraqi war resolution. Rove counseled the president to keep that information from Congress for 12 days, until the debate was finished, so it would not affect the vote. He was also reported to be present at a war strategy meeting concerning whether to attack Syria after Iraq. Rove said the timing was not right. Yet. Having the political advisor involved in that decision is wrong.
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
Sun Tzu Files 
and 
indicate whether the poll numbers are up or down from the previous poll. Incumbents are in italics. (prior results in '()')