FBI Scrutinizes Unlikely Veco Contracts

The FBI wants to know why oil services company Veco Corp. won federal contracts worth $170 million to provide the National Science Foundation with polar and arctic research support, despite having no experience in the field, the Anchorage Daily News reports.

Veco won the federal awards right around the time CEO Bill Allen oversaw the remodeling of Stevens' Girdwood home, another field in which Veco had no prior experience.

Stevens, who has long supported NSF arctic research, would have had authority over NSF funding as a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, though no evidence has surfaced holding Stevens responsible for directly securing the contracts for Veco.

The Daily News spoke with former chairman of the Arctic Research Commission, George Newton about the contracts:

Newton said that when it came time in 1999 to award a polar logistics contract,
it was believed within the NSF and in polar research circles that Veco's
relationship to Stevens' son might give the company an advantage.

Stevens' son, former Alaska Senate President Ben Stevens, was identified as one of the state lawmakers namelessly described in Bill Allen's bribery guilty plea. According to the plea, Stevens' company received $243,250 in "consulting fees" from Veco.

Over the years, Veco has won many federal contracts, but throughout the course of the Stevens scandal so far, it's been unclear what exactly the company has allegedly received in exchange for all of the nice gifts and favors sent the way of state and federal politicians. We asked what it is Veco receives back in June and noted the NSF contracts, but this is the first specific contract we've heard of facing FBI scrutiny.

- Laura McGann, TMP

Senator Says He Will Block C.I.A. Nomination

The New York Times:

A Democratic senator said he would indefinitely block President Bush’s nominee to become the C.I.A.'s top lawyer.

“I’m going to keep the hold until the detention and interrogation program is on firm footing, both in terms of effectiveness and legality,” said Senator Ron Wyden (pictured) of Oregon.

Mr. Wyden said he was troubled that John Rizzo, who is the Central Intelligence Agency’s interim general counsel, did not object to a 2002 memo authorizing interrogation techniques that stop just short of inflicting pain equal to that accompanying organ failure or even death.

Mr. Wyden also said he was concerned that an executive order issued last month by Mr. Bush did not clarify legal guidelines regarding detentions and interrogations.

BACKGROUND - ThinkProgress, June 19, 2007:

Today, the Senate Intelligence Committee held a confirmation hearing for John Rizzo, President Bush’s nominee to become the C.I.A.’s general counsel.

Rizzo has served as an acting general counsel “off and on for the past six years, serving without Senate confirmation.” During his tenure, the CIA has engaged in a wide variety of highly questionable and potentially illegal interrogation practices.

In 2002, Rizzo approved of a memo drafted by then-Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee that stretched the definition of torture in order to make torture permissible in the course of an interrogation. To be torture, the Bybee memo concluded, physical
pain must be “equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”

Sen. Ron Wyden asked Rizzo at the hearing, “Do you think you should have objected at the time?” to the Bybee definition of torture. Rizzo answered, “I honestly — I can’t say I should have objected at the time.” To which Wyden replied, “I think that’s unfortunate because it seems to me that language on a very straightforward reading is over the line. And that’s what I think all of us wanted to hear — is that you wish you had objected.” Watch it here.

Also during the hearing, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) asked Rizzo “whether we’ve ever rendered detainees to countries which use torture.” Rizzo said “it’s difficult to give a yes or no answer” in a public hearing and asked that he provide an answer in closed session. Levin noted that in Dec. 2005, Bush said “we do not render to countries that use torture.”

Mine Safety Czar Richard Stickler: Another Bush Fox Guarding the Henhouse

Max Follmer, Huffington Post:

The man who will oversee the federal government's investigation into the disaster that has trapped six workers in a Utah coal mine for over a week was twice rejected for his current job by senators concerned about his own safety record when he managed mines in the private sector.

President George W. Bush resorted to a recess appointment in October 2006 to anoint Richard Stickler as the nation's mine safety czar after it became clear he could not receive enough support even in a GOP-controlled Senate.

In the wake of the January 2006 Sago mine disaster in West Virginia, senators from both sides of the aisle expressed concern that Stickler was not the right person to combat climbing death rates in the nation's mines.

LSB: No doubt he'll do a "heckuva job" for W.

FOLLOW-UP: Utah Mine Owner: Troubling Safety Record, Useful Political Clout

In 2003, when safety inspectors ordered the owner of a Utah coal mine where six workers have been trapped for more than a week to shut down one of his Ohio operations because of repeated safety problems, local press reports say he did not hesitate to flex his political muscle to get the inspectors off his back.

West Virginia Public Radio reporter Jeff Young filed a story at the time that said Murray Energy Corp. CEO Bob Murray (standing behind Stickler in the photo above) had a meeting in Morgantown, W. Va. with Tim Thompson, then a district manager for the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Young obtained notes from the meeting which showed Murray threatening to have MSHA employees fired.

"I will have your jobs. They are gone. The clock is ticking," Young quotes Murray as saying at the meeting.

The notes then go on to say Murray dropped the name of a pair of powerful Republicans in order to underscore his own political clout.

"Mitch McConnell calls me one of the five finest men in America, and last time I checked he was sleeping with your boss," Murray told the inspectors, referring to the senior GOP senator from Kentucky.

The quote was repeated in an Oct. 2006 Lexington (Ky.) Herald-Leader article on McConnell's political influence.

McConnell - the Republican leader in the Senate - is married to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao, who oversees MSHA. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, McConnell has received $176,800 in campaign donations from mining interests since 2001.

Gingrich: Young Americans 'Massacred' by Illegal Immigrants

Eunice Moscoso, Cox News Service:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Tuesday he is "sickened" that President Bush and Congress went on vacation "while young Americans in our cities are massacred" by illegal immigrants.

LSB: Leave out "in our cities" and Newt could be asking why our war president has gone to Crawford to clear brush while insurgents are killing our soliders.

Gingrich, who is considering a run for the White House, was referring to the recent execution-style murders of three college students on a school playground in Newark, N.J.

One man whom police believe was involved in the murders — Jose Lachira Carranza — is an illegal immigrant from Peru who had been released on bail on charges of raping a child when the murders occurred.

Gingrich said that the "war here at home" against illegal immigrants is "even more deadly than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan."

"The federal government's incompetence, timidity and uncoordinated efforts to identify and deport criminal illegal aliens have had devastating consequences for innocent Americans," Gingrich said in a newsletter.

"As an American, I am sickened that the political leadership of America could continue to go on vacation and do nothing," he said. "Why are the August vacations for the president and the Congress more precious than the lives of young Americans who are being killed because of government incompetence and inaction?"

Ornicus:

Gingrich is obviously trying, as have so many nativists before him, to blame immigrants for bringing crime to our shores. Nevermind that it's clear that the crime rate among Latino immigrants is lower than that of the general population, and most
other ethnic groups as well, including whites. What matters, for Gingrich, is exploiting sensational cases for political gain, as always at the expense of people who are essentially powerless.

This kind of ugly eliminationist rhetoric is the logical outcome of the rhetoric that has preceded it, declaring the current wave of immigration an "invasion" -- everyone from Lou Dobbs to Pat Buchanan to Michelle Malkin to Tom Tancredo to American Border Patrol have declared it such. Couched in military terms, the immigrants thus become an "invading army" -- so of course we are now at war with them.

Well, as Cliff Schechter has observed, Gingrich has a long history of blaming liberals for a number of travesties -- most notably the Susan Smith incident, which of course turned out to have an ugly Republican stamp on it instead. Gingrich, of course, is a true past master of the right-wing art of projection.

But as for the current rise in violence against Latinos, well, I'm sure that Gingrich would assure us it has nothing to do with rhetoric declaring "war" against them.

LA Times: White House is writing General Petraeus' September progress report on "the surge" in Iraq

John Aravosis, BlogAmerica.com: Absolutely incredible. These people have no shame. The "big" report coming this September, the one Bush has been telling us we should wait for before making any decisions about what to do next in Iraq. Well, the White House is writing the frigging report.

From today's Los Angeles Times:

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

So rather than have the general do his own evaluation of his own progress - which is suspect enough, I mean, what is he going to say, "fire me"? - Bush is now writing Petraeus' report to Bush.

LSB: John, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that Bush isn't writing the report; rather this will be the gift Rove leaves on his desk on August 31st. Bush is on vacation now, remember? He won't have time to write a report on Iraq - he's got too much brush to clear.

WASHINGTON POST UPDATE:

Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to a private congressional briefing,
suggesting instead that the Bush administration's progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.

White House officials did not deny making the proposal in informal talks with Congress, but they said yesterday that they will not shield the commanding general in Iraq and the senior U.S. diplomat there from public congressional testimony required by the war-funding legislation President Bush signed in May. "The administration plans to follow the requirements of the legislation," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in response to questions yesterday.

LSB: Spin control. Just how bad is this report? Does this proposal remind anyone of the proposal the White House made for top aides to meet with Congressional committeess regarding Plamegate - private meetings in the White House, not under oath, no transcript, etc.? For now, at least, the "administration plans to follow the requirements of the legislation," which is to say "public congressional testimony." Unless Bush made some sort of signing statement that he was going to ignore this part of the legislation, there must be public congressional testimony - under oath, with a transcript, and television cameras capturing every word and gesture for the American (and international) public. We've been told too many times to be patient on the surge until the Petraeus report in September. Withholding Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker at this point should be impeachable. We need to hold the feet of our elected officials to the fire on this and demand public testimony.

Karl Rove to resign at end of August

LSB: It's about time! Why wait until the end of August - leave now and take Gonzalez with you! Oh, and don't let the door hit your fat ass on the way out!

Of course, the problem now is that without his brain the only one Bush trusts is Cheney. God help us!

How will history record Karl Rove's legacy?

SeattleLiberal: There is zero doubt that Karl Rove is ruthless, maniacal, manipulative, devious, dastardly, and Machiavellian by his very nature. In addition, Rove is smart, opportunistic, and exploitive. GWBush personally may have been well served with Rove at his side since 1992, but this great country was not at all well served by Karl Rove. May Karl Rove rot in hell along side his Swift Boat Vet buddies.

kappy: Let's face it, King Karl is bailing on 43 because his reputation as the architect is being tarnished. Better to get out now and make some serious cash from his book deal. Plus, no more investigations. Don't worry about the legal bills - a Rove defense fund is just around the corner. You can bank on that. I find it amusing that Rove predicts that 43 will regain his popularity. If so, why doesn't Rove stick around and execute "Operation Rescue"? Because there is no plan.

milkman57: This guy will be remembered for taking a dimwitted preppie and making him a governor, then a two term President. Mostly on the backs of gays with the help of the so-called Christian right. This will not be known as a great time in American history. Kind of an 8 year Watergate. Rove and his cronies raped and pillaged America and the world while the Congress/press observed. Rove is leaving because he's become increasingly irrelevant within the administration. The sad thing is that there will always be a job for a nasty slimeball like him. Probably with his kind on FOX or with Limpballs on the radio.

Joe Sudbay, BlogAmerica.com: Have to give Rove credit for one thing: he knew the press corps were a bunch of patsies and he played them over and over and over.

Finally, from Steve Benen at theCarpetBaggerReport.com:

Rove’s legacy has nothing to do with his so-called strategic brilliance. His significance has everything to do with his cutthroat, win-at-all-cost style. Rove believes the political rule that there are no rules. Laws are meant to be broken. Scandals are meant to be covered up. Enemies are meant to be destroyed. The key to electoral success is to tear the country in half and see who comes out with the bigger chunk.

Moreover, Rove helped usher in an unprecedented approach to executive-branch governing — one in which the line between policy and politics no longer exists. Every agency, every official, every decision was a political opportunity to be exploited, laws and ethics be damned.

When history looks back at the disgrace of the Bush presidency, the one celebrated quote that will help capture much of what went wrong will be John DiIulio’s. It was DiIulio, the first director of the president’s White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, who told Ron Suskind, “What you’ve got is everything — and I mean everything — being run by the political arm. It’s the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis.”

This was Rove’s idea, and it was Rove’s job to execute the strategy. He’ll be leaving the White House in a few weeks, but his place in history is secure. That’s not a compliment.

Sunday Comics

Richardson asks to speak with The Advocate to clarify his positions

Kerry Eleveld, News Editor of The Advocate:

After a performance in Thursday night's HRC/Logo presidential forum in Los Angeles that was universally panned by media outlets including NPR and The New York Times, New Mexico governor Bill Richardson requested an interview with The Advocate to explain what he was thinking when he said that being gay was a "choice" versus a biological predisposition.

Richardson clearly wanted to make amends with the gays and lesbians, but he seemed beleaguered after a long day of trying to heal the wounds left by last night's forum. Perhaps the most illuminating part of our 20-minute interview at The Advocate's offices came at the end, during informal banter as the governor prepared to leave. Referring back to a question I'd asked earlier in the interview about his possible lack of empathy for a fundamental LGBT concern, he asked, "But you think I didn't come across with much empathy [last night]?" It was a rare, humanizing comment from a presidential candidate who was clearly grappling with the chasm between how he sees himself versus how others view him—in this case, gay and lesbian voters.

Read Eleveld's full interview with Governor Richardson here.

LSB: While the Governor attempts to explain away his remarks, he creates another problem for himself in his response to this exchange:

Q: Regarding the maricón comment you made on the Don Imus show, the native Spanish speakers I've asked all say it's a derogatory term for gays. But you've indicated that maricón is just a term for homosexuality and doesn't have a negative connotation. Do you want to clarify?

A: I also said I shouldn't have used that word. It was at the end of an interview and I was goaded into doing that, and I shouldn't have said it. But in my day, and I'm older than most, there was no such word as faggot. It was more in the sense of being demeaning to someone, more of a pejorative term that was not given the connotation that it has now. But if you look at the transcript of that show, I was goaded into saying it because Imus was trying to stipulate that I'm Hispanic. It was wrong and I apologize.

He was "goaded" into it? What is this - the sixth grade? Somebody else made him do it? Should the leader of the free world be so spinless that he can be "goaded" into saying something he doesn't want to say? Do we want a President who can be "goaded" into doing something he doesn't want to do by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran or Kim Jong-il of North Korea? This is more troublesome than his use of the Spanish word for faggot.

Clinton a Drag? Dems Fear Her Negatives

Associated Press:

Looking past the presidential nomination fight, Democratic leaders quietly fret that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton at the top of their 2008 ticket could hurt candidates at the bottom.

They say the former first lady may be too polarizing for much of the country. She could jeopardize the party's standing with independent voters and give Republicans who otherwise might stay home on Election Day a reason to vote, they worry.

In more than 40 interviews, Democratic candidates, consultants and party chairs from every region pointed to internal polls that give Clinton strikingly high unfavorable ratings in places with key congressional and state races.

LSB: Exactly the same fear I've been expressing for months. For the most part I think Senator Clinton would be a good president; however, I must also confess to some doubts as well. First, she appears scripted at times and, perhaps as a reaction to past experiences, so careful in what she says that I feel I'm hearing more double-speak and spin than sincere expressions. Second, I'm waiting to see more leadership from her, as it appears that she is often waiting for someone else to take a position so that she has political cover when she later takes that same position.

While I will support her in the general election if she is selected by the Dems as their candidate, I will be supporting a different candidate in the primaries and hoping that he is the actual Democratic candidate. Senator Clinton brings too much "baggage" with her, and that will certainly be a drag on other Democratic candidates. Remember, it isn't just the White House that needs to be captured in 2008 - it is also 60% of the Senate and House that will enable progressive legislation to go forward.

Video Surfaces of Cheney, in 1994, Warning That An Invasion of Iraq Would Lead to 'Quagmire'

Editor & Publisher:

It's not the first time that citizen "investigative journalists" have uncovered some embarrassing, or telling, nugget from the past that apparently remained buried for years. But it has happened again with the posting of a now wildly popular video on YouTube that shows Dick Cheney explaining in 1994 that trying to take over Iraq would be a "bad idea" and lead to a "quagmire."

... the on-screen source appears to be the conservative American Enterprise Institute, and the date on the screen is April 15, 1994. That looks right, by the age of Cheney. ...

Cheney had helped direct the Gulf War for President George H.W. Bush. That effort was later criticized for not taking Baghdad and officials like Cheney had to explain why not, for years. Some have charged that this led to an overpowering desire to finish the job after Cheney became vice president in 2001.

Here is the transcript.

Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq.

Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it - eastern Iraq - the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey.

It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq.

The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families - it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right.

LSB: Is there a Cheney video out there that suggests that invading Iran is a wrong-headed idea? Let's get it out before it's too late!

Religious Right Claims Others [Dems?] Can't Be Christian, Have Values

People for the American Way:

The Family Research Council [Tony Perkins, President] is launching a project aimed at convincing its supporters before the 2008 election that liberal politicians “are spouting God-talk” in order to “confuse people of faith” and hide their “true agenda.” Invoking the Religious Right’s recent favored phrase for its imagined constituency – as well as the “Swift Boat” campaign of 2004 – the so-called “Values Voters for Truth” campaign is an attempt to vilify liberals – and, obviously, Democratic candidates – as enemies of Christianity who are undertaking a conspiracy to “deceive and split values voters.” From a recent fundraising letter from FRC Action:

Our relentless effort to reveal the facts about the Left’s true agenda is already under way. It will not stop until the last vote of the 2008 election has been cast. The Values Voters for Truth campaign will partner with organizations in all 50 states—and at the national level. We will mobilize values voters, engage them in the war of ideas, and keep them informed and involved.

We will rally churches to the cause. And by God’s grace, we will neutralize our opponents’ deceptive tactics.

As an example of this supposed “fraud,” the letter cites a Democratic presidential candidate who spoke of his “belief in Christ” and also supports civil unions for gay couples. Similarly, the letter warns that a candidate noting a “biblical call to feed the hungry” also voted against an anti-abortion bill. A third candidate is denounced for the “hypocrisy” of wanting to let gay couples adopt children. According to FRC, these supposed contradictions indicate that Democrats discussing their faith and values is merely “lip service,” part of a “campaign of deception” that led directly to the Democrats winning control of Congress in the 2006 elections.

FRC’s tactic of trying to claim “values” and “faith” as Religious Right-only attributes is hardly new – it was the driving force behind the group’s “Values Voter Summit” last year, organized before the elections to encourage a disillusioned base to turn out for Republicans. It is also the premise behind cries of “anti-Christian persecution,” such as at the “War on Christians” conference, at FRC’s “Justice Sunday” events (in which opposition to right-wing judicial nominees was presented as an attack on “people of faith”), and with “Patriot Pastor” political machines that warn of the “forces of darkness” trying to “deny America’s Godly heritage.”

And as political candidates are finding their way around the Religious Right’s exclusionary façade, right-wing activists have brought the tactic to the 2008 campaign trail, denouncing a June forum of presidential candidates on “Faith, Values, and Poverty” as a “conspir[acy] to create a fictional class of Christians – so-called 'liberal evangelicals,'” as Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council, who protested the event, put it. “Liberals have no trouble believing in God – or a faith belief system – as long as He marches to their drum,” claimed Jane Chastain. [LSB: Pott, kettle; kettle, pot.] Columnist and former Moral Majority lieutenant Cal Thomas wrote that the candidates “gave no indication that if their faith ever conflicted with their political point of view they would choose what their faith taught them over what focus groups tell them.

More

LSB: Where do I even start with this nonsense? See the story below to learn more about the values of the so-called "Religious" Right.

Cheney continues to urge Iran strike

Raw Story: At a press conference on Thursday, President Bush delivered an apparent threat against Iran, stating, "One of the main reasons that I asked Ambassador Crocker to meet with Iranians inside Iraq was to send the message that there will be consequences for people transporting, delivering EFPs, highly sophisticated IEDs, that kill Americans in Iraq."

Neither Bush nor the State Department would elaborate on the meaning of "consequences." However, McClatchy Newspapers reports that "the president's top aides have been engaged in an intensive internal debate over how to respond to Iran's support for Shiite Muslim groups in Iraq and its nuclear program. Vice President Dick Cheney several weeks ago proposed launching airstrikes at suspected training camps in Iraq run by the Quds force, a special unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, according to two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy."

The Guardian reported in July that Cheney has been continuing to press for military action against Iran. When Larry King asked Cheney in an interview on July 31, ""Would you make an overt move on Iran?" Cheney said with a grin, "For what reason?" He then added, "I'm not going to speculate about prospective operations."

LSB: Cheney is truly the devil incarnate. He alone is the reason I want to see Bush fulfill the term of office. Can you imagine if Bush were impeached and left us with this international terrorist as our president?