SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: George Coyne who wrote (426034)7/12/2003 3:19:33 PM
From: Skywatcher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Another bad appointment by this administration.....pure party politics and big money
The environmental protections enjoyed by all Americans were
placed at risk when the Senate voted narrowly (54-43) to
confirm Victor Wolski to a seat on the U.S. Court of Federal
Claims. Not a single Senator who voted in favor of Wolski
spoke on the Senate Floor, even after Sen. Charles Schumer
(D-NY) spoke twice on the Floor in opposition. Mr. Wolski, a
self-described libertarian ideologue, is expected to use his
position at the court to promote his position that the property
rights of corporations outweigh the need for common-sense
environmental, public health, and other fundamental
safeguards.
Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
Nomination Of Victor Wolski To The
United States Court Of Federal Claims
July 9, 2003

I have concerns about the President’s nominations to the United States Court of Federal Claims and
the manner he has gone about making his selections. Although this Article I court is unknown to many
people outside of Washington, its rulings have a national impact in a variety of areas. For example, the
Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction for almost all so-called “takings” cases that seek
large monetary damages from the government. These cases directly affect the government’s ability to
protect the health and safety of citizens and our environment.

The first nominee we are considering today, Victor Wolski, was incidentally the last one nominated to
this court. Some may wonder why the Senate majority has been pushing his confirmation ahead of the
other less controversial nominees. I fear that Mr. Wolski was selected for this particular nomination to
implement his ideological agenda from the bench. Perhaps that is why his nomination was also given
priority over the others to this court.

Just a few years ago Mr. Wolski told the National Journal that every single job [he has] taken since
college has been ideologically oriented, trying to further [his] principles.” He has dedicated his brief
legal career to expanding property rights and restricting the power of government to protect its
citizens. I am seriously concerned that as a judge he will continue to “further his principles” from the
bench by emphasizing what he views as “property rights” over environmental protection.

It is one thing for a President to appoint members of his Cabinet to carry out his political and
ideological agenda but it should be different with respect to judicial appointments. This nomination is
for a judicial position that requires fairness and impartiality. Mr. Wolski threatens to bring a proven
anti-environmental record to this court and I have serious reservations about his ability to act as a fair
and impartial arbiter. The President should not be able to tip the scales of justice by packing the
courts with ideologues who are selected to implement his political agenda.

At his Committee hearing, Mr. Wolski’s anti-environmental record and intemperate statements raised a
great deal of concern. At the Judiciary Committee Executive Business meeting when this nomination
was considered, some Members voted against reporting him out of Committee and some of us voted
“present” in light to the manner that the Administration and the Republican majority had proceeded.

This Administration’s approach to nominations to the Court of Federal Claims in a unilateral approach
rather than building on the bipartisanship on which Republican Senators insisted when a Democrat was
in the White House and which dates back to the creation of this court in the early 1980s, under
President Reagan.

I recall, for example, President Reagan's appointment of Judge John Wiese, a Democrat, to the
newly-formed Claims Court in 1982. President Clinton followed this bipartisan example when he
re-nominated Christine Miller, a Republican who was a Reagan appointee to the Court of Federal
Claims. What was important was not just that they named people from another political party but that
they did so after consultation.

In another instance, I recall that President Clinton had the power to remove Chief Judge Loren Smith
from his leadership position and received intense lobbying to remove him from environmentalists who
were troubled by the Chief Judge's record. Instead of exercising his unilateral power to name his own
Chief Judge, President Clinton consulted with Senate Republicans and opted to let Loren Smith
continue as Chief Judge as an accommodation to Chairman Hatch and other Republicans. In
exchange, Chairman Hatch allowed several Clinton nominees to receive a hearing and a vote.
Chairman Hatch also negotiated to have a former staffer of his included in President Clinton's slate of
nominee to this court and established a bipartisan panel in 1997 and 1998 to help make
recommendations to fill vacancies on the Court.

These examples of bipartisanship demonstrate that past Presidents of both parties have been involved
in bipartisan consultations and the appointment of judges to the Court of Federal Claims from opposing
parties.

In spite of this Administration’s refusal to follow that bipartisan tradition, during the 107th Congress,
when the Democrats were in the majority, we took the bipartisan action of moving the nomination of
Larry Block, another staff member for Senator Hatch, to the Court of Federal Claims at the request of
the Ranking Member. At that time, I noted that we would expect fairness and consideration in return,
including true bipartisan consultation with respect to the remaining Court of Federal Claims
nominations. Despite our accommodation to the Administration and to Senate Republicans on Mr.
Block’s nomination, the White House refused to consult with us.

Until a few months ago Judge Sarah Wilson was serving with distinction on the Court of Federal
Claims as a recess appointment by President Clinton on whose nomination Senate Republicans had
refused to act. Ms. Wilson is a well respected and talented lawyer who graduated from Columbia
Law School, clerked for a federal judge, was a fellow with the Administrative Office of the Courts, and
served in the Department of Justice and in a prior White House. Yet, the Administration and the
Senate Republicans refused to consider her nomination for a full term on the court.

The many bipartisan discussions involving appointments to the Court of Federal Claims have helped the
confirmation process for the Court of Federal Claims nominees. This cooperation has broken down,
however. This Administration is acting unilaterally in complete disregard for tradition, bipartisanship
and fairness. We all know that we work better when we work together in a bipartisan manner, when
we honor traditions and rules that respect both sides of the aisle, when there is advising as well as
consenting. It is unfortunate that this Administration refuses to honor those traditions and
bipartisanship.

For several months, Members of the Judiciary Committee have been calling for hearings to investigate
the caseload of this court and whether its caseload requires the confirmation of additional judges. In
the wake of the recent Washington Post editorial questioning the Court of Federal Claims and recent
studies and conflicting comment that seemed prudent. Instead, the majority is insisting on proceeding
at this time.

In light of all of these factors, I join the senior Senator from New York in opposing the nomination of
Victor Wolski.
Unfortunately he won by ONE STINKING VOTE>.... everyone who voted yes....DIDN"T EVEN SPEAK ON THIS BEHALF.....because he stinks
CC



To: George Coyne who wrote (426034)7/12/2003 4:13:41 PM
From: American Spirit  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
 
Newsweek poll shows Bush down to 55% approvals.
They keep going lower. Wonder if it's starting to eat into his base as pro-military voters see the troops get killed thanks to GW's lack of diplomatic and planning savvy.

My attacks on GW Bush are based on FACT. That's the difference. And I dont use silly names like "Chimp" which I could, but dont because it would undermine my argument. I want to stick with the facts.



To: George Coyne who wrote (426034)7/12/2003 5:23:02 PM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 769667
 
you got that right, his/her posts are a hoot!!



To: George Coyne who wrote (426034)7/12/2003 5:50:45 PM
From: Ish  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769667
 
USS Reagan Officially Enters Service
2 hours, 22 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!


By SONJA BARISIC, Associated Press Writer

NORFOLK, Va. - With the order "Bring her to life," former first lady Nancy Reagan sent lines of sailors streaming onto the USS Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) as a crowd cheered at the commissioning of the Navy's newest aircraft carrier Saturday.

The carrier, nearly 1,100 feet long and standing 20 stories above the waterline, is the first to be named for a living president.

Ronald Reagan, now 92 and ailing with Alzheimer's disease (news - web sites), didn't attend the ceremony at Norfolk Naval Station, but he was praised by many of the speakers.

Today's Navy is in many ways a monument to Reagan's vision, Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) told the hundreds of spectators who applauded under the clear blue sky.

"He came to the presidency with a clear understanding of the tools our Navy would need to protect the American people," Cheney told the crowd.

The crowd cheered wildly when Mrs. Reagan walked to a podium and waved.

"I only have one line, so `man the ship and bring her to life,'" Mrs. Reagan said.

As the carrier's whistle blared and the sailors ran aboard, two F-14 Tomcats and two F-18 Hornets flashed overhead in formation.

Mrs. Reagan had also christened the ship, breaking a bottle of sparkling wine against the carrier's bow in 2001.

The Reagan, expected to serve the Navy for more than 50 years, will be based in San Diego, be home to 6,000 sailors and carry more than 80 aircraft. With two nuclear reactors, the carrier can travel faster than 30 knots and operate for 20 years without refueling.

"Quite frankly, there's not a better name for an aircraft carrier than Ronald Reagan," said the ship's commanding officer, Capt. Bill Goodwin.

Petty Officer 1st Class Paul Fulsom became the first sailor assigned to the Reagan when he was transferred from Bahrain three years ago after the birth of his daughter, who needed surgery.

He watched the carrier's construction over the years since reporting to the Reagan on May 26, 2000. That first day, "you could look from the hangar bay up to the sky," the 32-year-old said.

Fulsom, of Yakima, Wash., says he's proud to serve on a carrier named after the nation's 40th president.

"To have my name in the same sentence as the former president is an honor in itself," he said.



To: George Coyne who wrote (426034)7/13/2003 5:27:17 AM
From: Raymond Duray  Respond to of 769667
 
BUSH LIES DEPT.: CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in Oct.
Why Bush Cited It In Jan. Is Unclear

George,

Your man is proving to be a bad liar. He got George Tenet to fall on his sword, but retribution is coming hard and fast back at the sniveling creeps in the White House.

Time for the impeachment to begin. This ain't no stain on a blue dress. This is 1,200 U.S. casualties and thousands of innocent Iraqis who were murdered by George Bush.

washingtonpost.com

CIA Got Uranium Reference Cut in Oct.: Why Bush Cited It In Jan. Is Unclear

By Walter Pincus and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 13, 2003; Page A01

CIA Director George J. Tenet successfully intervened with White House officials to have a reference to Iraq seeking uranium from Niger removed from a presidential speech last October, three months before a less specific reference to the same intelligence appeared in the State of the Union address, according to senior administration officials.

Tenet argued personally to White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used because it came from only a single source, according to one senior official. Another senior official with knowledge of the intelligence said the CIA had doubts about the accuracy of the documents underlying the allegation, which months later turned out to be forged.

The new disclosure suggests how eager the White House was in January to make Iraq's nuclear program a part of its case against Saddam Hussein even in the face of earlier objections by its own CIA director. It also appears to raise questions about the administration's explanation of how the faulty allegations were included in the State of the Union speech.

It is unclear why Tenet failed to intervene in January to prevent the questionable intelligence from appearing in the president's address to Congress when Tenet had intervened three months earlier in a much less symbolic speech. That failure may underlie his action Friday in taking responsibility for not stepping in again to question the reference. "I am responsible for the approval process in my agency," he said in Friday's statement.

As Bush left Africa yesterday to return to Washington from a five-day trip overshadowed by the intelligence blunder, he was asked whether he considered the matter over. "I do," he replied. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters yesterday that "the president has moved on. And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on, as well."

But it is clear from the new disclosure about Tenet's intervention last October that the controversy continues to boil, and as new facts emerge a different picture is being presented than the administration has given to date.

Details about the alleged attempt by Iraq to buy as much as 500 tons of uranium oxide were contained in a national intelligence estimate (NIE) that was concluded in late September 2002. It was that same reference that the White House wanted to use in Bush's Oct. 7 speech that Tenet blocked, the sources said. That same intelligence report was the basis for the 16-word sentence about Iraq attempting to buy uranium in Africa that was contained in the January State of the Union address that has drawn recent attention.

Administration sources said White House officials, particularly those in the office of Vice President Cheney, insisted on including Hussein's quest for a nuclear weapon as a prominent part of their public case for war in Iraq. Cheney had made the potential threat of Hussein having a nuclear weapon a central theme of his August 2002 speeches that began the public buildup toward war with Baghdad.

In the Oct. 7 Cincinnati speech, the president for the first time outlined in detail the threat Hussein posed to the United States on the eve of a congressional vote authorizing war. Bush talked in part about "evidence" indicating that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. The president listed Hussein's "numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists," satellite photographs showing former nuclear facilities were being rebuilt, and Iraq's attempts to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes for use in enriching uranium for nuclear weapons.

There was, however, no mention of Niger or even attempts to purchase uranium from other African countries, which was contained in the NIE and also included in a British intelligence dossier that had been published a month earlier.

By January, when conversations took place with CIA personnel over what could be in the president's State of the Union speech, White House officials again sought to use the Niger reference since it still was in the NIE.

"We followed the NIE and hoped there was more intelligence to support it," a senior administration official said yesterday. When told there was nothing new, White House officials backed off, and as a result "seeking uranium from Niger was never in drafts," he said.

Tenet raised no personal objection to the ultimate inclusion of the sentence, attributed to Britain, about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa. His statement on Friday said he should have. "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," the CIA director said.

Bush said in Abuja, Nigeria, yesterday that he continues to have faith in Tenet. "I do, absolutely," he said. "I've got confidence in George Tenet; I've got confidence in the men and women who work at the CIA."

There is still much that remains unclear about who specifically wanted the information inserted in the State of the Union speech, or why repeated concerns about the allegations were ignored.

"The information was available within the system that should have caught this kind of big mistake," a former Bush administration official said. "The question is how the management of the system, and the process that supported it, allowed this kind of misinformation to be used and embarrass the president."

Senior Bush aides said they do not believe they have a communication problem within the White House that prevented them from acting on any of the misgivings about the information that were being expressed at lower levels of the government.

"I'm sure there will have to be some retracing of steps, and that's what's happening," White House communications director Dan Bartlett said. "The mechanical process, we think is fine. Will more people now give more, tighter scrutiny going forward? Of course."

A senior administration official said Bush's chief speechwriter, Michael J. Gerson, does not remember who wrote the line that has wound up causing the White House so much grief.

Officials said three speechwriters were at the core of the State of the Union team, and that they worked from evidence against Iraq provided by the National Security Council. NSC officials dealt with the CIA both in gathering material for the speech and later in vetting the drafts.

Officials involved in preparing the speech said there was much more internal debate over the next line of the speech, when Bush said in reference to Hussein, "Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in his Feb. 5 presentation to the United Nations, noted a disagreement about Iraq's intentions for the tubes, which can be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium. The U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency had raised those questions two weeks before the State of the Union address, saying Hussein claimed nonnuclear intentions for the tubes. In March, the IAEA said it found Hussein's claim credible, and could all but rule out the use of the tubes in a nuclear program.