Miscellaneous News Items

[DrSmellThis]

...but just the tip of the

iceberg.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/

28/leak.probe/index.html

[Netghost56]

Conservatives feel betrayed by Bush Analysis: Conservative base, feeling betrayed by selection of

Miers, lashed out at Bush

Harriett Miers' 25-day odyssey as a Supreme Court nominee exposed a serious rift

between President Bush and his conservative base, posing a surprising challenge as he tries to emerge from his

presidency's darkest days.

In choosing Miers, a nominee with no judicial track record but a long history of

personal loyalty, Bush essentially told conservatives: "Trust me.''

They didn't.

At a time

when Bush's popularity has sunk to its lowest level, he must find a way to mollify his conservative, and

traditionally most reliable, supporters at the same time he reaches out to moderates as he pursues the war in Iraq,

Social Security reform, tax simplification and other priorities of his second term.

In Democratic enclaves such

as Northern California, many liberals find Bush's policies so deplorable that they assume their ideological

counterparts on the right adore him. The Miers saga revealed a more complicated and tenuous relationship.



Critics who have blamed Bush for ignoring the political center since his contested victory in 2000 got a crash

course in what happens to a Republican president who does not please the right on a matter as important as the

Supreme Court.

Conservatives expressed more disdain for Bush's agenda and more contempt for his leadership in

the past month than they had in the first 56 months of his presidency combined. They questioned his integrity and

intellectual capacity and jeered his handlers for the way they disparaged their complaints, much as Democrats have

done for the past four years.

Many suspect Miers' abrupt departure on the eve of possible indictments against

top administration officials in the CIA leak probe was a timely effort by the White House to make amends with its

base. Some on the left decried it as capitulation.

Yet even if Bush delivers his base an unabashed conservative

ideologue to replace Miers, many of the harsh words uttered since he nominated her on Oct. 3 will be hard to take

back.

"(Bush) has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing

approaches to construing the Constitution,'' conservative columnist George Will wrote on Oct. 5. "The president

has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution.''

On the day Miers was nominated,

William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, wrote: "It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that

President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. ... What are the prospects for a strong Bush

second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are

demoralized?''

And just last week, David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union wrote: "We've

swallowed policies we might otherwise have objected to because we've believed that he and those around him are

themselves conservatives trying to do the right thing against sometimes terrible odds. We've been there for him

because we've considered ourselves part of his team. No more.''

Conservative contempt for Bush, though far

from universal, extends to matters far beyond the Miers' nomination. Many on the right are deeply upset by the huge

expansion of government spending and rise in the national debt. Others are opposed to the entanglement in Iraq, the

Patriot Act, the expansion of Medicare to include prescription drugs and Bush's signing into law of the

McCain-Feingold campaign finance measure.

"The fact is, from the beginning there have been a number of things

that conservatives have been either leery of, or upset with, the way the Bush administration has proceeded,''

Keene said Thursday.

"It was the promise to move the Supreme Court decidedly to the right that motivated many

conservatives to vote in record numbers in the 2004 election," he said.

"The Bush folks told conservatives

explicitly, maybe you don't like the spending, maybe you disagree with our foreign policy or the war in Iraq, or

the Patriot Act, but this is about the Supreme Court. This is what George Bush said he was going to do, to get

someone in the mold of (justices Antonin) Scalia and (Clarence) Thomas.''

When Bush nominated Miers, Keene

said conservatives felt betrayed just as they had a generation earlier, when Bush's father agreed to raise taxes

after declaring during the campaign: "Read my lips, no new taxes.''

"You never completely repair

it,'' Keene said. "They've got a lot of fence-mending to do.''

Bush now confronts an opening on

the court with the same seemingly impossible task he faced when the summer began: fulfilling his pledge to

conservatives to move the court to the right while fulfilling his promise to be a uniter, not a divider.

Senate

Democrats, none of whom had said they had planned to vote for Miers, decried her withdrawal Thursday as a

capitulation to the right.

"Not a single Republican senator called for Harriet Miers' withdrawal,'' said

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "It was the very extreme wing of the president's party ... that brought about the

withdrawal. If the president continues to listen to that extreme wing on judicial nominations or everything else, it

can only spell trouble for his presidency and for America.''

It is not Democrats, who long ago abandoned

Bush, whom the president needs to worry about. Bush's drop in popularity over the past several months -- about four

in 10 Americans say they approve of the job he is doing as president -- is largely due to mounting frustration among

Republicans and independents.

His agenda is in trouble if he cannot find votes among centrist Democrats and

independents. His agenda is dead if he cannot find enthusiasm among his conservative

base.

------
http://www.propagand

amatrix.com/articles/october2005/281005betrayed.htm

[Netghost56]

Public has

had it with both parties

Battleground poll reveals Americans disillusioned with government

A just-released political survey by George Washington University contains bad news for

Democrats and Republicans because it lays bare a public seemingly disenfranchised with both major parties.



The Battleground poll – unique for its

inclusion of top Democrat and Republican pollsters – shows a definite slide in support for President Bush and the

GOP. But the survey contains little good news for Democrats as a viable alternative.



The poll found just 44 percent of the public is satisfied

with President Bush's job performance – a figure well below his two-term average but still slightly higher than

other recent polls showing his approval at all-time lows.

"The mounting casualties of American troops in Iraq, the higher gas prices certainly put a

dampening on any of the good news about the economy, and you had the surfacing scandals with Republicans in the

House, the Senate and the White House, potential scandals," said GOP pollster Ed Goeas.



While a Republican retreat in the polls normally means good

news for Democrats, there is little evidence Americans are enamored with the opposition party, survey results

indicate. On a host of issues – Iraq, homeland security, the economy – Democrats don't fare much better, the poll

indicated.

"There is a real void right

now in terms of what the alternative is. And right now, Democrats suffer from the fact that Americans are

disillusioned and distrustful of government in general," Democratic pollster Celinda Lake told Voice Of America.

"They tend to be feeling more negative about the Republicans, but not particularly positive about the Democrats."



Goeas believes Democrats' inability to

capitalize on Republican weakness is actually encouraging.

"But the Democrats, whether you look at the image of the Democratic Party, whether you look

at Democrats in Congress, not only did not gain anything, they actually had their negatives go up some during this

period of time," he told VOA.

And, the

survey noted, Republicans continue to hold an edge in the public's eye on issues related to taxes and terrorism.

Democrats, meanwhile, fare better with health care, jobs and education.

The mid-October poll surveyed 1,000 registered likely voters nationwide. It has a

margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.



--------
http://www.worldne

tdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47084

[DrSmellThis]

Indictment Gives Glimpse Into

a Secretive Operation By Douglas Jehl /

The New York Times



WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 - Over a seven-week period in the spring of 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney's suite in the Old

Executive Office Building appears to have served as the nerve center of an effort to gather and spread word about

Joseph C. Wilson IV and his wife, a C.I.A. operative.

I. Lewis Libby Jr., the vice president's chief of staff,

is the only aide to Mr. Cheney who has been charged with a crime. But the indictment alleges that Mr. Cheney himself

and others in the office took part in discussions about the origins of a trip by Mr. Wilson to Niger in 2002; about

the identity of his wife, Valerie Wilson; and whether the information could be shared with reporters, in the period

before it was made public in a July 14, 2003, column by Robert D. Novak.

The indictment identifies the other

officials only by their titles, but it clearly asserts that others involved in the discussion involved David

Addington, Mr. Cheney's counsel; John Hannah, deputy national security adviser; and Catherine Martin, then Mr.

Cheney's press secretary.

Mr. Grossman, Mr. Hannah, Mr. Addington and Ms. Martin have all declined to comment,

citing legal advice. The fact that they were not named in the indictment suggests that they will not be charged, but

all can expect to be called as witnesses in any trial of Mr. Libby, setting up a spectacle that could be unpleasant

for the administration.

That Mr. Cheney and his office sparred with the C.I.A. before the invasion of Iraq has

never been a secret. Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby made repeated trips to C.I.A. headquarters in Langley, Va., in the

months before the American invasion in March 2003, and Mr. Libby was often on the phone with senior C.I.A. officials

to challenge the agency's intelligence reports on Iraq. A principal focus, former intelligence officials say, was

the question of whether Al Qaeda had had a close, collaborative relationship with Saddam Hussein's Iraqi

government, an argument advanced publicly by Mr. Cheney but rejected by the C.I.A. intelligence analysts.

The

antipathy felt by Mr. Cheney and Mr. Libby toward Mr. Wilson, in the aftermath of the invasion, has also long been

known. But the events spelled out in the 22-page indictment suggest a far more active, earlier effort by the vice

president's office to gather information about him and his wife.

The indictment provides a rare glimpse inside

a vice presidential operation that, under Mr. Cheney, has been extraordinary both for its power and its secrecy. It

tracks a period in the spring of 2003, at a time when the American failure to find illicit weapons in Iraq meant

that the administration's rationale for war was beginning to unravel, and when early reports about Mr. Wilson's

2002 trip, which had not yet identified him by name, raised questions about whether the White House should have

known just how weak its case been, particularly involving Iraq and nuclear weapons.

By any measure, the

indictment suggests that Mr. Libby and others went to unusual lengths to gather information about Mr. Wilson and his

trip. An initial request on May 29, 2003, from Mr. Libby to Marc Grossman, the undersecretary of state for political

affairs, led Mr. Grossman to request a classified memo from Carl Ford, the director of the State Department's

intelligence bureau, and later for Mr. Grossman to orally brief Mr. Libby on its contents.

Later requests

appear to have prompted C.I.A. officials to fax classified information to Mr. Cheney's office about Mr. Wilson's

trip, on June 9. Mr. Cheney himself is alleged to have shared details about the nature of Ms. Wilson's job with Mr.

Libby, on June 12. The indictment says that Mr. Libby first shared information about Mr. Wilson's trip with a

reporter, Judith Miller of The New York Times, on June 23; but it also describes discussions involving Mr. Libby,

Mr. Addington, Mr. Hannah, Ms. Martin and White House officials, about whether the information could be shared with

reporters.

Among the discussions, the indictment says, were one on June 23, 2005, in which Mr. Libby is said to

have told Mr. Hannah that there could be complications at the C.I.A. if information about Mr. Wilson's trip was

shared publicly. It is also not clear how Mr. Cheney may have learned "from the C.I.A." that Ms. Wilson worked in

the agency's counterproliferation division, a fact that meant she was part of the C.I.A.'s clandestine service,

and that she might well be working undercover.

Lawyers in the case say that notes taken by Mr. Libby indicate

that detail was provided to Mr. Cheney by George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, but several

former intelligence officials say they do not believe that Mr. Tenet was the source of the information.

Many

questions remain unanswered in the indictment. The special counsel, Mr. Fitzgerald, said that Ms. Wilson's

affiliation with the C.I.A. had been classified, but he did not assert that Mr. Libby knew that she had covert

status, something the prosecutor would have had to prove to support a charge under the Intelligence Identities

Protection Act.

It is not clear, for example, what guidance, if any, Mr. Cheney gave to Mr. Libby about whether

or how to share information about Mr. Wilson's trip with reporters. Among their discussions, lawyers in the case

have said, was one on July 11, 2003, on a trip to Norfolk, Va., that preceded by a day what two reporters, Ms.

Miller and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, have said were conversations in which Mr. Libby mentioned Mr. Wilson's

wife.

Beyond Mr. Cheney's office, some of the government officials involved in the discussions have yet to be

identified. It is not clear from the indictment, for example, who faxed the "classified information from the C.I.A."

about Mr. Wilson's trip to the vice president's office on June 9, or which "senior C.I.A. officer" provided

further information to Mr. Libby on June 11.

Another question is whether Mr. Libby made appropriate use of the

briefings provided to him by the C.I.A., a privilege afforded to only eight or nine other members of the Bush

administration. The indictment says that Mr. Libby complained to a C.I.A. briefer on June 14 that C.I.A. officials

were making comments critical of the Bush administration, and that he mentioned, among other things, "Joe Wilson"

and "Valerie Wilson" in the context of Mr. Wilson's trip to Niger. Also still unclear is how Ms. Martin, the press

secretary, may have learned in June or early July that Mr. Wilson's wife worked at the C.I.A. The indictment says

that Ms. Martin learned the information from "another government official" and shared that information with Mr.

Libby.

Mr. Grossman, who served under Colin L. Powell, left the government in January and is now a private

consultant. Mr. Addington, still Mr. Cheney's counsel, has been a major participant in debates within the

administration about the treatment of suspected terrorists, including questions surrounding interrogation rules, and

whether those held at the American facility in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, should face military tribunals. Mr. Hannah, a

Middle East specialist, was a main liaison between the vice president's office and Ahmad Chalabi, who as an Iraqi

exile was a major force in urging the administration toward war.

Mr. Hannah and Mr. Libby were also the main

authors of a 48-page draft speech prepared in January 2003 that was intended to make the administration's case for

war in Iraq before the United Nations. The draft was provided to Mr. Powell, in advance of his speech to the

Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, but most of its contents were cast aside by Mr. Powell and Mr. Tenet, who during

several days of review at C.I.A. headquarters rejected many claims related to Iraq, its weapons program and

terrorism as exaggerated and unwarranted.

It has long been understood that Mr. Libby, Mr. Cheney and others

felt hostility toward Mr. Wilson by July 6, 2003, the day the former ambassador emerged publicly, in an Op-Ed

article in The New York Times and an appearance on "Meet the Press," to describe his trip to Niger and to criticize

the administration.

Mr. Wilson suggested that he had taken the trip at the behest of Mr. Cheney's office, and

that the office had been briefed on his findings. Neither assertion was strictly accurate (the C.I.A. had dispatched

Mr. Wilson on its own, after questions from Mr. Cheney about a possible uranium deal between Iraq and Niger; and his

findings, briefed orally to the agency, were never shared with Mr. Cheney's office). After Mr. Wilson's public

appearance, the White House worked aggressively to challenge his statements.

But the indictment shows that,

within Mr. Cheney's office, the pushback against Mr. Wilson began far earlier, at a time when the only news

accounts about his trip had referred to him only as a "former ambassador." Nicholas D. Kristof of The New York Times

wrote about Mr. Wilson on May 6, 2003, without naming him. But the timeline spelled out in the indictment suggests

that it was a second round of news media inquiries, this time from Walter Pincus of The Washington Post, whose

article appeared on June 12, that set Mr. Libby and the vice president's office on the path toward digging out the

information that is now at the heart of the case against Mr. Libby.

[DrSmellThis]

http://www.washingto

npost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/29/AR2005102900549_pf.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/<b...rm_too?mode=PF

I just

love that Bush said he was as anxious as anyone to find out who "leaked" the identity of the CIA officer; but gee,

he says, there are just an awful lot of people in this big administration, and it could be anyone!!



Now the information turns out to have come from Vice President Cheney, and Bush's other closest

colleague, Rove.

Isn't it funny, how when you're President, treason to cover up conquering a non-threatening

nation can be meticulously coordinated right under your nose, over a period of months, by your two closest

associates and you don't even know it? Kinda like a suprise birthday party?

[DrSmellThis]

[url="http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html"]http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html[/u

rl]

It looks as if the Pentagon's "Office of Special Plans" may have been the culprit in the yellowcake

forgeries.

The possible forgery of the information by Defense Department employees would explain the

viciousness of the attack on Valerie Plame and her husband. Wilson, when he denounced the forgeries in the New

York Times in July 2003, turned an issue in which there was little public interest into something much bigger.

I hope everyone is noticing by now that, together with the Downing Street Minutes and related sources, a

very clear big picture is emerging.

Here, it's about breaking every national and international law to conquer a

non-threatening country for economic gain by a few; with no regard for the scores of thousands dead; and no regard

for the national security of the United States.

This goes beyond "corruption". It's not corruption of

something at all, in fact. It is blatant organized crime, through and through. Everything revolves around the

crime, around power and money at any "cost", or regardless of cost to our citizenry and the world. Notice that all

other government functions/agencies, like FEMA and the Pentagon, have been relegated to trivial formalities, whose

only true function is simply loyality to the administration and their corporate friends (hence no appointments

except cronies). Even going after Bin Laden was a trivial going through the motions, with no goal to succeed. With

the Plame outing, they took down a huge, undercover U.S. intelligence network, not just one CIA officer. CIA sources

indicate multiple intelligence personnel have already died because of it. It will take decades to get our intel

credibility back abroad, and we are already at increased risk.

It's all a front.

Even the Christian

fundamentalists have been duped by appearances, as they just found out with the Harriet Meiers nomination. The same

goes for conservatives, who penned the above linked article. People are just beginning to realize that this has

nothing to do with "those damn liberal conspiracy nut jobs."

Massive murder, destruction and chaos are just

normal, taken for granted, methods of doing business; just like in the Mafia.

There is no way to fathom the

national shame we have incurred.

[belgareth]

Panel Recommends Major Tax Law Overhaul By MARY DALRYMPLE, AP Tax Writer



Tue Nov 1,

WASHINGTON - Chosen to find a simpler way to tax the nation, a presidential panel on Tuesday recommended two

designs that would rewrite virtually every tax law for individuals and businesses.



Treasury Secretary John Snow called the proposals "bold

recommendations" but he did not indicate what ideas the administration would

embrace.

"Now it's up to us," Snow said. The Treasury Department

will "take the report, review it carefully, understand the implications and use the report as a starting point for

recommendations that we will make to the president," he said.

Under

the panel's plan, most deductions, credits and other tax breaks would be eliminated along with much of the

paperwork and equations that baffle taxpayers under a drastically simplified income

tax.

Many, including the nine members of the presidential commission,

have said key recommendations will be unpopular.

"The effort to

reform the tax code is noble in its purpose, but it requires political willpower," the group said Tuesday in a

letter to Snow. "Many stand waiting to defend their breaks, deductions and loopholes, and to defeat our

efforts."

Members of the panel urged taxpayers and lawmakers to look

at the whole plan, not just individual components.

Asked whether the

administration could build support for a tax plan that contained some controversial ideas, Snow said, "I happen to

believe — it may be naive, but I don't think so — that good ideas ultimately

prevail."

The President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform spent

most of the year studying tax designs, including consumption taxes like a national retail sales tax. President

Bush tasked the group with finding simpler and more economically productive ideas for

taxation.

The commission wrapped up its work last month, and its

ideas immediately attracted criticism — some from those who wanted to see more change and some from those who felt

the changes went too far.

Drawing particular criticism, the panel

determined that tax breaks for homeownership be changed to spread their benefits to more middle-income

families.

The panel would convert the home mortgage interest

deduction into a credit equal to 15 percent of mortgage interest paid. The $1 million limit on mortgages eligible

for the tax break would shrink to the average regional price of housing, ranging from $227,000 to

$412,000.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley,

R-Iowa, said that idea is bound to be politically unpopular. "But it's important to have a comprehensive starting

point that will get everyone talking and thinking," he said.

In

another major change, taxpayers could purchase health insurance using untaxed money up to the amount of the average

premium, about $5,000 for an individual and $11,500 for a family, a change that caps currently unlimited breaks but

would create a new tax break for those who do not get health insurance through

work.

Both plans would tax rates on individuals and

businesses.

Under one plan, individuals would pay no tax on dividends

paid by U.S. companies and exclude 75 percent of their capital gains from taxation. Under the second plan, all

investment income would be taxed at 15 percent.

Both proposals would

abolish the alternative minimum tax, a levy originally drafted to prevent wealthy individuals from escaping taxation

but increasingly reaching into the middle class. They also would eliminate federal deductions and credits for

mortgage interest, state and local taxes and education, among others.

The advisory commission would replace those withdrawn tax breaks with simpler benefits, including three

savings plans that supplant more than a dozen provisions currently available for retirement, medical expenses and

education.

Bush set certain limits on the panel, requiring that the

new plans collect roughly as much tax money as the government collects now.

The proposals also had to retain the progressive system that taxes wealthier taxpayers at higher rates

than poorer individuals and families. They were also required to recognize "the importance of homeownership and

charity in American society."

The panel rejected frequently touted

ideas to impose taxes on consumption, like a retail sales tax.

Instead, the group chose to use one recommendation to push for major simplification of the current income tax

system. Its second recommendation makes changes for businesses that shift the nation's tax system toward indirect

tax on consumption.

The changes allow every taxpayer to use a

simpler tax form, less then half the length of the current Form 1040. Snow said that would also cutting in half the

number of taxpayers who need to hire a professional tax preparer.

The tax-writing House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees pledged to take a close look at the

recommendations.

___



On the Net:



President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform:

http://www.taxreformpanel.gov

[DrSmellThis]

Democrats close Senate to

push war probe

Deal struck to advance investigation on prewar intelligence

WASHINGTON (CNN) --

Democrats forced the Senate into a closed session Tuesday to pressure the Republican majority into completing an

investigation of the intelligence underpinning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Democrats demanded that Intelligence

Committee Chairman Pat Roberts move forward on a promised investigation into how Bush administration officials

handled prewar intelligence about Iraq's suspected weapons programs.

The probe would be a follow-up to the July

2004 Intelligence Committee report that blamed a "series of failures" by the CIA and other intelligence agencies for

the mistaken belief among U.S. policymakers that Iraq had restarted its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons

programs. (Full story)

The

Senate reopened about two hours later, after members agreed to appoint a bipartisan group of senators to assess the

progress of the "Phase 2" probe, the office of Majority Leader Bill Frist said.

(See video on Democratic move -- 3:05)

The three Republicans and three Democrats are to

report back to Senate leaders by November 14.

Democrats accused Roberts of stalling the probe into how

administration officials handled the intelligence used to sell Congress and the public on invading Iraq.



Roberts, a Kansas Republican, said the closed session was "not needed, not necessary and, in my personal opinion,

was a stunt."

The closed session was punctuated by acrimonious broadsides in the Capitol hallways.

Frist

said Democrats had "hijacked" the Senate, and Democrats threatened to close the chamber each day until Republicans

agreed to move forward with the investigation.

"This is an affront to me personally," said Frist, a Tennessee

Republican. "This is an affront to our leadership. It is an affront to the United States of America, and it is

wrong."

[So it's an affront to the American people for anyone to question the actions of government; but

not to lie to the American people into fighting and dying in a war for narcissistic reasons. This lecture on ethics

is coming from one of our most "corrupt" politicians. -- DST]

Frist said Senate Rule 21 -- which requires

everyone but senators and a few aides to clear the chamber until a majority votes to reopen -- had been invoked only

rarely and with "mutual conversation" between the leaders of both parties.

Democratic leader Harry Reid said the

surprise move was necessary to overcome Republican efforts to "obstruct" a full investigation of how the Bush

administration led the United States into war.

"There's nothing more important to a Congress or a president

than war," the Nevada Democrat said. "I think the American people are entitled to know how we got there. That's

what this is all about."

There was no immediate reaction from the White House.

Reid said the GOP leadership

in Congress has "repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what

happened and why."

He said he had "zero regret" about the move: "The American people had a victory today."



Rule 21 has been invoked 53 times since 1929, according to the Congressional Research Service.

It was invoked

six times during the impeachment trial of former President Bill Clinton for senators to organize the proceedings and

deliberate on his eventual acquittal.

Roberts: Probe in progress

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the

intelligence committee's ranking Democrat and vice chairman, said the Democratic maneuver was necessary for

Americans to learn who was accountable for the way prewar intelligence was used.

"Everything is about

accountability to the American people, accountability of the executive branch ... [and] accountability of the

oversight of the Congress," Rockefeller said.

He said the committee's Republican majority has refused to

request documents from the White House about how the Bush administration crafted arguments for the invasion.



"What disturbs me the most is the majority has been willing, in this senator's judgment, to take orders from this

administration when it comes to limiting the scope of appropriate, authorized and necessary oversight

investigations," Rockefeller said.

Roberts said his committee has been working on the Phase 2 investigation

since May and "we have what we think is a pretty good report." He said the committee will take up the matter next

week.

"However long it takes, working in good faith, we will look into Phase 2 and see what we can do and finish

that product," Roberts said.

Sen. Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat on the panel, expressed his doubts.

"Assurances have been made for months that progress is being made," Levin said. "We have not seen any evidence of

it."

Democrats last year had pushed for the second part of the panel's inquiry to be completed before the

November 2004 elections.

Democratic Whip Richard Durbin said last week's indictment of Vice President Dick

Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, on perjury and obstruction of justice charges showed how the Bush

administration reacts to criticism.

Libby is accused of lying to investigators and a grand jury probing the

disclosure of the identity of a CIA officer whose husband had challenged a key assertion in the administration's

case for war.

"It's a question about whether or not anyone in this administration in any way misused or

distorted intelligence," Durbin said. He said senators "owe the American people some straight answers."

Durbin,

an Illinois Democrat, denied his party was trying to stall Senate action on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.



He said work on Alito's nomination was still going on, and he was scheduled to meet with the nominee on

Wednesday.

Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri, a Republican member of the Intelligence Committee, said Democratic

complaints against Roberts were "terribly unfair and unfounded."

Bond said the panel's 2004 report found no

indication that the mistaken assumptions about Iraq's weapons programs were the result of political pressure.



"Even after they signed on to that, they contend that somehow this intelligence was misused," he said.



Responding to that argument, Durbin told CNN, "This is a different question: Once they received the intelligence,

did members of the administration accurately and honestly portray it to the American people?"

CNN's Ted

Barrett contributed to this report.

[belgareth]

Nominee Has Some Unexpected Supporters By David G. Savage and Henry Weinstein Times Staff Writers



Wed Nov 2, 2005





WASHINGTON — Samuel A. Alito Jr. was quickly branded a hard-core

conservative after President Bush announced his nomination, but a surprising number of liberal-leaning judges

and ex-clerks say they support his elevation to the Supreme Court.

Those who have worked alongside him say he was neither an ideologue nor a judge with an agenda, conservative

or otherwise. They caution against attaching a label to Alito.

Kate

Pringle, a New York lawyer who worked last year on Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record)'s presidential

campaign, describes herself as a left-leaning Democrat and a big fan of

Alito's.

She worked for him as a law clerk in 1994, and said she was

troubled by the initial reaction to his nomination. "He was not, in my personal experience, an ideologue. He pays

attention to the facts of cases and applies the law in a careful way. He is conservative in that sense; his opinions

don't demonstrate an ideological slant," she said.

Jeff Wasserstein,

a Washington lawyer who clerked for Alito in 1998, echoes her view.

"I am a Democrat who always voted Democratic, except when I vote for a Green candidate — but Judge Alito was

not interested in the ideology of his clerks," he said. "He didn't decide cases based on ideology, and his record

was not extremely conservative."

As an example, he cited a case in

which police in Pennsylvania sent out a bulletin that called for the arrest of a black man in a black sports car.

Police stopped such a vehicle and found a gun, but Alito voted to overturn the man's conviction, saying that that

general identification did not amount to probable cause.

"This was a

classic case of 'driving while black,' " Wasserstein said, referring to the complaint that black motorists are

targeted by police. Though Alito "was a former prosecutor, he was very fair and open-minded in looking at cases and

applying the law," Wasserstein said.

It is not unusual for former law

clerks to have fond recollections of the judge they worked for. And it is common for judges to speak respectfully of

their colleagues. But for a judge being portrayed by the right and left as a hard-right conservative, Alito's

enthusiastic backing by liberal associates is striking.

Former

federal Judge Timothy K. Lewis said that when he joined the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1992, he consulted

his mentor, Judge A. Leon Higginbotham Jr. The late Higginbotham, a legendary liberal and a scholar of U.S. racial

history, was the only other black judge on the Philadelphia-based court at the time.



"As he was going down the roster of colleagues, he got to Sam Alito.

I expressed some concern about [him] being so conservative. He said, 'No, no. Sam Alito is my favorite judge to sit

with on this court. He is a wonderful judge and a terrific human being. Sam Alito is my kind of conservative. He is

intellectually honest. He doesn't have an agenda. He is not an ideologue,' " Higginbotham said, according to

Lewis.

"I really was surprised to hear that, but my experience with

him on the 3rd Circuit bore that out," added Lewis, who had a liberal record during his seven years on the bench.

"Alito does not have an agenda, contrary to what the Republican right is saying about him being a 'home run.' He

is not result-oriented. He is an honest conservative judge who believes in judicial restraint and judicial

deference."

In January 1998, Alito, joined by Judge Lewis, ruled that

a Pennsylvania police officer had no probable cause to stop a black man driving a sports car after a rash of

robberies in which two black males allegedly fled in a different type of sports car. The driver, Jesse Kithcart, was

indicted for being a felon in possession of a gun, which police discovered when they patted him down after his car

was stopped. After a trial judge refused to suppress the search, Kithcart pleaded guilty but reserved his right to

appeal.

"Armed with information that two black males driving a black

sports car were believed to have committed three robberies in the area some relatively short time earlier," the

police officer "could not justifiably arrest any African-American man who happened to drive by in any type of black

sports car," Alito wrote. He said the trial judge had erred in concluding that the police had probable cause that

extended to the weapons charge because Kithcart had not been involved in the

robberies.

Alito and Lewis sent the case back to the trial judge for

new hearings on whether the search was legal. The third judge in the case, Theodore A. McKee, said he would have

gone even further.

"Just as this record fails to establish" that the

officer "had probable cause to arrest any black male who happened to drive by in a black sports car, it also fails

to establish reasonable suspicion to justify stopping any and all such cars that happened to contain a black male,"

wrote Judge McKee. He said he would have thrown out the search without further

proceedings.

Judge Edward R. Becker, former chief judge of the 3rd

Circuit, said he also was surprised to see Alito labeled as a reliable

conservative.

"I found him to be a guy who approached every case with

an open mind. I never found him to have an agenda," he said. "I suppose the best example of that is in the area of

criminal procedure. He was a former U.S. attorney, but he never came to a case with a bias in favor of the

prosecution. If there was an error in the trial, or a flawed search, he would vote to reverse," Becker said.



Some of his former clerks say they were drawn to Alito because of

his reputation as a careful judge who closely followed the text of the law.

Clark Lombardi, now a law professor at the University of Washington, became a clerk for Alito in 1999.



"I grew up in New York City, and I'm a political independent. But I

liked Judge Alito because he was a judicial conservative, someone who believed in judicial restraint and was

committed to textualism," he said. "His approach leads to conservative results in some cases and progressive results

in other cases. In my opinion, he is a fantastic jurist and a good guy."

Some of Alito's former Yale Law School classmates who describe themselves as Democrats say they expect they

will not always agree with his rulings if he joins the Supreme Court. But they say he is the best they could have

hoped for from among Bush's potential nominees.

"Sam is very smart,

and he is unquestionably conservative," said Washington lawyer Mark I. Levy, who served in the Justice Department

during the Carter and Clinton administrations. "But he is open-minded and fair. And he thinks about cases as a

lawyer and a judge. He is really very different from [Justice Antonin] Scalia. If he is going to be like anyone on

the court now, it will be John Roberts," the new chief justice.

Joel

Friedman teaches labor and employment law at Tulane University Law School, but is temporarily at the University of

Pittsburgh because of Tulane's shutdown following Hurricane Katrina.

"Ideology aside, I think he is a terrific guy, a terrific choice," said Friedman, a Yale classmate of

Alito's. "He is not Harriet Miers; he has unimpeachable credentials. He may disagree with me on many legal issues —

I am a Democrat; I didn't vote for Bush. I would not prefer any of the people Bush has appointed up until now.



"The question is, is this guy [Alito] going to be motivated by the

end and find a means to get to the end, or is he going to reach an end through thoughtful analysis of all relevant

factors? In my judgment, Sam will be the latter."







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[fon

t=Times New Roman]Savage reported from Washington and Weinstein from Los Angeles[/font]

[Mtnjim]

And from the ACLU:






Dear Friend,

The ACLU participates in more cases before the Supreme Court than anyone besides the U.S.

government itself.

Every time we step into that courtroom, fundamental freedoms are on the line. That will

certainly be true later this month when ACLU attorney Jennifer Dalven, Deputy Director of our Reproductive Freedom

Project, will step before the Justices of the Supreme Court to argue Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New

England.

With a decision in the Ayotte case, the Supreme Court could revoke the long-established principle that

abortion restrictions must include exceptions to protect a woman's health. This is the first abortion-related case

to reach the Court in five years -- and it will probably be the last time the ACLU argues a case before Justice

Sandra Day O'Connor.

Justice O'Connor has provided more than a swing vote on the Court. She has been a

moderating voice on critical civil liberties issues ranging from race to religion to reproductive freedom. We cannot

know for certain how Judge Alito would vote in Ayotte or any other case, but there is no question that this

nomination calls into question the delicate balance that Justice O'Connor has helped to shape and preserve.

For

example, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Alito voted to uphold a state law provision that required women to

notify their husbands before having an abortion. Justice O'Connor joined with a majority of the court in rejecting

his position. In addition, Judge Alito has been more willing to support state-sponsored religious displays than

Justice O'Connor. And he has written several dissenting opinions on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that, if

accepted, would have not only made it more difficult for victims of discrimination to prevail in bringing a suit,

but would have made it more difficult for them to even get their case to a jury.

Other troubling positions in

Judge Alito's record includes:

Upholding the strip search of a mother and her ten-year old daughter, even though

the warrant allowing the search did not name either of them.
Holding that Congress does not have the power under

the Commerce Clause to restrict the transfer and possession of machine guns at gun shows.
Holding that Congress did

not have authority to require state employers to comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Make no mistake

about it. As the Senate considers the Alito nomination, we are at a pivotal moment in our nation's history. The

Bush Administration is claiming unprecedented national security powers, reproductive rights are in jeopardy, the

teaching of evolution is under attack, and we continue to struggle with a legacy of discrimination.

The Supreme

Court's role as the ultimate safeguard of our constitutional liberties has never been more critical. With that

stark reality in mind, the ACLU will, in the weeks ahead, compile a complete report on Judge Alito's civil

liberties record, including the good and the bad. And, with your help, we will make sure each and every Senator

understands that record and acts on his or her obligation to protect the Supreme Court's vital position in our

constitutional democracy.

We'll be counting on your support every step of the way.

Sincerely,

Anthony D.

Romero
Executive Director
American Civil Liberties Union

[Netghost56]

I have a proposal that I

think would satisfy people on both sides of the abortion issue. But people are so polarized about it I decided to

keep my mouth shut.

[Mtnjim]

I have a proposal

that I think would satisfy people on both sides of the abortion issue. But people are so polarized about it I

decided to keep my mouth shut.

Uhm!!
"If you're against abortion, don't have one"???

[belgareth]

Uhm!!
"If

you're against abortion, don't have one"???

Isn't that a bit too rational for our society? They'd

much rather spend their time forcing others to act in accordance with their beliefs.

[belgareth]

The ACLU is kind of in the same

catagory with me as the major religions. They can and do do some good but they can and do do immeasurable harm too.

The position stated by the ACLU is a really good example of why I don't trust them. Poorly reasoned at best.

And from the ACLU:




Dear Friend,

The ACLU participates in more cases before the

Supreme Court than anyone besides the U.S. government itself.

Every time we step into that courtroom,

fundamental freedoms are on the line. That will certainly be true later this month when ACLU attorney Jennifer

Dalven, Deputy Director of our Reproductive Freedom Project, will step before the Justices of the Supreme Court to

argue Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

With a decision in the Ayotte case, the Supreme

Court could revoke the long-established principle that abortion restrictions must include exceptions to protect a

woman's health. This is the first abortion-related case to reach the Court in five years -- and it will probably be

the last time the ACLU argues a case before Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Justice O'Connor has provided more

than a swing vote on the Court. She has been a moderating voice on critical civil liberties issues ranging from race

to religion to reproductive freedom. We cannot know for certain how Judge Alito would vote in Ayotte or any other

case, but there is no question that this nomination calls into question the delicate balance that Justice O'Connor

has helped to shape and preserve.

For example, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Judge Alito voted to uphold a

state law provision that required women to notify their husbands before having an abortion. Justice O'Connor joined

with a majority of the court in rejecting his position. In addition, Judge Alito has been more willing to support

state-sponsored religious displays than Justice O'Connor. And he has written several dissenting opinions on the

Third Circuit Court of Appeals that, if accepted, would have not only made it more difficult for victims of

discrimination to prevail in bringing a suit, but would have made it more difficult for them to even get their case

to a jury.

Other troubling positions in Judge Alito's record includes:

Upholding the strip search of a

mother and her ten-year old daughter, even though the warrant allowing the search did not name either of

them.
Holding that Congress does not have the power under the Commerce Clause to restrict the transfer and

possession of machine guns at gun shows.
Holding that Congress did not have authority to require state employers to

comply with the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Make no mistake about it. As the Senate considers the Alito

nomination, we are at a pivotal moment in our nation's history. The Bush Administration is claiming unprecedented

national security powers, reproductive rights are in jeopardy, the teaching of evolution is under attack, and we

continue to struggle with a legacy of discrimination.

The Supreme Court's role as the ultimate safeguard of our

constitutional liberties has never been more critical. With that stark reality in mind, the ACLU will, in the weeks

ahead, compile a complete report on Judge Alito's civil liberties record, including the good and the bad. And, with

your help, we will make sure each and every Senator understands that record and acts on his or her obligation to

protect the Supreme Court's vital position in our constitutional democracy.

We'll be counting on your support

every step of the way.

Sincerely,

Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
American Civil Liberties

Union

[Mtnjim]

Isn't that a bit

too rational for our society? ...

Ya, you're right, I forgot!!

[Mtnjim]

The ACLU is kind

of in the same catagory with me as the major religions. They can and do do some good but they can and do do

immeasurable harm too. ...

Absolutely!!!

I remember one time when they defended some wingnut Nazis

right to hold a march. They came right out and said that they found the Nazis to be abhorent, but that they did have

the right to hold their march.
I admire that they will stand on principle, even when they don't agree with who

they are defending.

[belgareth]

I hear a lot of hyperbole about how the republicans are only out to

help big business, are screwing the little guy, etc. In my opinion it is politically motivated propaganda with

little basis in fact. As you can see, the Supreme court ruled against the individual in favor of of

government/business interests. Here we see where the conservatives, including King W himself, are backing the

individual but nowhere is there anything about democratic participation either for or against. I wonder why. I have

several thoughts on this issue. One is that it is not the place of the Supreme Court to make laws, it is their job

to interpret them without an agenda. Clearly they have failed at that many times but this in one of the most

egregious. The other is that, while I agree in principle that Bush and company are generally awful, they are not the

all consuming evil so many make them out to be. As with anybody and everybody, there are many sides to the

picture.

Belgareth
*************************************************

House to Vote on Eminent Domain Measure By JIM ABRAMS,

Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - Charging that the Supreme Court has undermined a pillar of American society, the sanctity of the

home, the House considered a bill to block the court-approved seizure of private property for use by developers.



The bill, headed toward easy passage with bipartisan support

Thursday, would withhold federal money from state and local governments that use powers of eminent domain to force

homeowners to give up their property for commercial uses.

The Supreme

Court, in a 5-4 ruling in June, recognized the power of local governments to seize property needed for private

development projects that generate tax revenue. The decision drew criticism from private property, civil rights,

farm and religious groups that said it was an abuse of the Fifth Amendment's "takings clause." That language

provides for the taking of private property, with fair compensation, for public

use.

The ruling in Kelo v. City of New London allowed the Connecticut

city to exercise state eminent domain law to require several homeowners to cede their property for commercial

use.

With this "infamous" decision, said Rep. Phil Gingrey (news,

bio, voting record), R-Ga., "homes and small businesses across the country have been placed in grave jeopardy and

threatened by the government wrecking ball."

Added the House's No. 3

Republican, Rep. Deborah Pryce (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio: "For a country founded on property rights, this

is a terrible blow."

The legislation is the latest, and most

far-reaching, of several congressional responses to the court ruling. The House previously passed a measure to bar

federal transportation money from going for improvements on land seized for private development. The Senate approved

an amendment to a transportation spending bill applying similar restrictions.

About half the states are also considering changes in their laws to prevent takings for private

use.

The Bush administration, backing the House bill, said in a

statement that "private property rights are the bedrock of the nation's economy and enjoy constitutionally

protected status. They should also receive an appropriate level of protection by the federal

government."

The House bill would cut off for two years all federal

economic development funds to states and localities that use economic development as a rationale for property. It

also would bar the federal government from using eminent domain powers for economic

development.

"By subjecting all projects to penalties, we are

removing a loophole that localities can exploit by playing a 'shell game' with projects," said Rep. Henry Bonilla

(news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, a chief sponsor.

The House, by a

voice vote, approved Gingrey's proposal to bar states or localities in pursuit of more tax money from exercising

eminent domain over nonprofit or tax-exempt religious organizations. Churches, he said, "should not have to fear

because God does not pay enough in taxes."

Eminent domain, the right

of government to take property for public use, is typically used for projects that benefit an entire community, such

as highways, airports or schools.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who

wrote the majority opinion in Kelo, said in an August speech that the ruling was legally correct because the high

court has "always allowed local policymakers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public

goals."

Several lawmakers who opposed the House bill said eminent

domain has long been used by local governments for economic development projects such as the Inner Harbor in

Baltimore and the cleaning up of Times Square in New York. The District of Columbia is expected to use eminent

domain to secure land for a new baseball stadium for the Washington Nationals.

[DrSmellThis]

Ownership, property, and the

"ownership society" are conservative issues. It is not suprising that Bush would play to his conservative base here.



Supporting ownership rights cannot be construed necessarily as concern for the "little guy", however. It turns

out in this case that it often is, as with cases we have examined in the forum recently. Generally, the rights

involved in ownership are consistent with Democratic capitalism, and necessary to respect, in context.

But

ownership rights are not best seen as black and white absolutes, IMO. (e.g., "What's mine is mine. End of story.")

Absolute ownership rights are also consistent with fascism, wherein ownership is like a religion. Corporatism is

strongly related to an extreme view of ownership. Once, again, if you want to see any political/philosophical/moral

principle turn destructive, just make it a black and white absolute. I believe Bush and Family take the concepts of

property rights and ownership too far, in some ways.

This in no way implies any one position on eminent domain.



This issue crosses party lines for multiple reasons. Progressives are also interested in helping individuals

keep their houses. There is a middle path in thinking about ownership.

Also, a great many progressives are

sympathetic to traditional conservative (e.g., fiscal, right to religious views) issues, even the most radical ones.

In no way are conservatives bad or "evil". Unfortunately for them, traditional Republicans and conservatives are

getting screwed by current leadership.

For my part, I avoid the word "evil" when referring to the present

administraton, preferring concrete, descriptive, evidence-based terms; like "destructive", instead.

There are

positive, constructive, genuine, ethical people in politics on both sides of the aisle, in my opinion. They just

don't carry enough weight to rule the process.

[belgareth]

I see nothing so far, other

than what has been in the press, that you could possibly call evidence. Since I do not regard the press as a

reliable source of information, and I do regard all forms of news organizations as biased sensationalists, I find

the press of little value other than as a starting point to research issues, something I have encouraged others to

do many times. If and when the allegations you mention reach a legal venue I will put stock in the decisions of that

legal venue as that is the standard set by the constitution to determine a person's guilt or innocence. While not

perfect, it is a far better meduim than the press to base opinions on. If and until any person is convicted, under

law and constitutionally, they are innocent.

On the other hand, I find actions to be important and that is what

I was commenting on. At this time, there is nothing to indicate the liberals or progressives are helping to protect

the individual from local government abuse in this instance. Before I'll form a stronger opinion on the matter

I'll look at voting records to see who really supported this highly important issue. If you want to regard that as

a conservative issue that's fine. To me, taking one's home away from them for commercial or government gain is

wrong under almost any conditions and has nothing to do with any political leaning.

As for King W's White

House, in my personal opinion, the lot of them are crooks. However, their support of individual property rights is

the right thing to do. I am willing to see they grey in the current administration's behavoir. Under my 'Black and

White' philosophy, I hold a person responsible for their actions The other side of the coin requires I give them

credit where due instead of looking for reasons to fault them. Everybody, no matter who they are or what their

political leanings has a wide range of traits across a spectrum from what I call good to what I call bad.



Doubtless there are some people in government that are honest and well meaning. In my opinion they are in a small

and suppressed minority. Some of them may even be headed in the direction I think is the right path. Others are well

meaning and dangerous fools who can do a lot of damage to our society. Unfortunately, since the course we follow and

what is the right thing to do is subjective, we often will disagree on who is who. That's fine by me as I don't

ask you or anybody else to agree with me. However, I will continue to mistrust any and all people involved in

politics until they not only prove their honesty but demonstrate that they are on a path I believe is a good one for

society. Oh...yes, I do consider honesty to be a black and white issue in this respect.

A curiousity though,

when you mention ownership you sound as if you disagree with ownership. Am I misunderstanding your position on

that?

[belgareth]

Payrolls Expand in Oct.; Jobless Rate Dips By JEANNINE AVERSA, AP Economics Writer



WASHINGTON - America's payrolls grew by a rather tepid 56,000 in

October, a sign that the nation's job market is slowly regaining its footing after the beating administered to the

Gulf Coast area by Hurricane Katrina. The unemployment rate dipped to 5 percent of the labor force.



The latest snapshot released by the Labor Department on Friday

offered fresh insights into the impact of Katrina, the most costly natural disaster in U.S.

history.

Importantly, job losses in September turned out to be just

8,000, according to revised figures. That was smaller than the 35,000 decline in jobs that was reported a month ago,

suggesting the damage to the job market from Katrina wasn't as terrible as many had feared. Still, the storm was

certainly felt: The drop in payrolls in September was the first nationwide employment decline in two

years.

The unemployment rate, meanwhile, edged down to 5 percent in

October as some people opted to leave the civilian labor force for any number of reasons. The jobless rate in

September had crept up to 5.1 percent.

"The United States' economy

is strong. It's healthy," President Bush proclaimed Friday while attending the Summit of the Americas in

Argentina.

On Wall Street, stocks edged higher. The Dow Jones

industrials were up 9 points in morning trading.

Mark Zandi, chief

economist at Economy.com, said: "the economy has weathered these storms about as gracefully as could be

expected."

The payroll gain of 56,000 in October disappointed

economists. Before the release of the report, they were predicting that around 100,000 were created during the

month.

"Hiring was cautious in October," observed Carl Tannenbaum,

chief economist at LaSalle Bank. "Aside from companies not being able to operate because of the hurricanes, many

businesses might have been in a state of suspense as they assessed damage to their operations and to the economy

that might have resulted from these storms."

Another disappointment:

job gains in August turned out to be 148,000, according to revised figures. That was down from the more robust

increase of 211,000 previously reported.

An inflation barometer tied

to the report picked up strongly.

Workers' average hourly earnings

rose to $16.27 in October, representing a 0.5 percent increase from September. Economists were calling for a 0.2

percent rise. Wage gains are good for workers but a rapid pickup can lead economists to fret about inflation. The

0.5 percent increase was the largest since February 2003 when hourly earnings rose by the same

amount.

More worried about the prospects of inflation heating up,

rather than a serious slowdown in the economy, Fed policy-makers on Tuesday bumped up a key interest rate to its

highest level in more than four years to keep a lid on prices. More rate increases are

expected.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, appearing

before Congress on Thursday, said fallout from a trio of late-summer and fall hurricanes should be temporary and

that the expansion remains firmly planted.

Katrina, Rita and Wilma

are likely to "exert a drag" on employment and production in the short term and may aggravate inflation pressures,

he said. "But the economic fundamentals remain firm, and the U.S. economy appears to retain important forward

momentum," Greenspan said in his most extensive remarks thus far on the impact of the

storms.

The Fed chairman is retiring in late January after 18 years

at the helm of the monetary policy-making body.

For October, "job

growth in the remainder of the country (outside the hurricane zone) appeared to be below trend," said Kathleen

Utgoff, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. "It is possible, of course, that employment growth for the

nation could have been held down by indirect effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, for example, because of their

impact on gas prices," she said.

Retailing and leisure and

hospitality were among the areas of business that cut jobs in October. Those losses, however, were blunted by gain

in construction, manufacturing, professional and business services, and in education and health services.



The latest jobs picture comes as Bush is confronted with sagging job

ratings.

President Bush's job approval is at the lowest level of

his presidency.

A new AP-Ipsos poll showed Bush's approval rating

dipped to 37 percent, compared with 39 percent just a month ago.

Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coat on Aug. 29. Rita barreled into the region on Sept. 24. Those storms

battered crucial oil and gas facilities, choked off commerce and destroyed businesses. Wilma, which hit on Oct. 24,

caused widespread power outages and property damage across Florida.

While Katrina had a visible impact on employment, Rita's bite was minimal, the Labor Department said.

The figures released on Friday don't capture the impact of Wilma because the employment information was collected

before the hurricane hit.

[tim929]

Ya know...some day...court cases

will simply be decided by two guys named Ted and Earl flipping a coin and rendering a verdict.

[DrSmellThis]

I see nothing

so far, other than what has been in the press, that you could possibly call evidence. Since I do not regard the

press as a reliable source of information, and I do regard all forms of news organizations as biased

sensationalists, I find the press of little value other than as a starting point to research issues, something I

have encouraged others to do many times. If and when the allegations you mention reach a legal venue I will put

stock in the decisions of that legal venue as that is the standard set by the constitution to determine a person's

guilt or innocence. While not perfect, it is a far better meduim than the press to base opinions on. If and until

any person is convicted, under law and constitutionally, they are innocent.

On the other hand, I find actions to

be important and that is what I was commenting on. At this time, there is nothing to indicate the liberals or

progressives are helping to protect the individual from local government abuse in this instance. Before I'll form a

stronger opinion on the matter I'll look at voting records to see who really supported this highly important issue.

If you want to regard that as a conservative issue that's fine. To me, taking one's home away from them for

commercial or government gain is wrong under almost any conditions and has nothing to do with any political

leaning.

As for King W's White House, in my personal opinion, the lot of them are crooks. However, their

support of individual property rights is the right thing to do. I am willing to see they grey in the current

administration's behavoir. Under my 'Black and White' philosophy, I hold a person responsible for their actions

The other side of the coin requires I give them credit where due instead of looking for reasons to fault them.

Everybody, no matter who they are or what their political leanings has a wide range of traits across a spectrum from

what I call good to what I call bad.

Doubtless there are some people in government that are honest and well

meaning. In my opinion they are in a small and suppressed minority. Some of them may even be headed in the direction

I think is the right path. Others are well meaning and dangerous fools who can do a lot of damage to our society.

Unfortunately, since the course we follow and what is the right thing to do is subjective, we often will disagree on

who is who. That's fine by me as I don't ask you or anybody else to agree with me. However, I will continue to

mistrust any and all people involved in politics until they not only prove their honesty but demonstrate that they

are on a path I believe is a good one for society. Oh...yes, I do consider honesty to be a black and white issue in

this respect.

A curiousity though, when you mention ownership you sound as if you disagree with ownership. Am I

misunderstanding your position on that?

To me relying on the courts to tell us whether politicians and their

foreign policies have done anything immoral or destructive would be just as crazy as getting it all off of Fox news.

That is not the proper role of courts, which is to determine legal guilt and innocence for the purpose of

penalization and other legal actions -- not to determine human thought. The sum total of what courts will ever be

able to tell us about the world is virtually nothing, except on a few extremely discreet questions about a few

extremely discreet instances. I am supposed to think nothing immoral has ever occured in society unless everyone has

been convicted of it? My girlfriend cheats on me, but I can't get mad unless she's been convicted in court?

Realistically, there is not a single corrupt politician in our government that will ever have all their corruption

thoroughly addressed by the legal system. Therefore I am to conclude there is no corruption anywhere in government.



Give to the courts the things that belong to the courts. That's not to say using the courts to the max as a

source of information isn't wise. It's partly to say that courts are not our only source of information.

To me

Republican propaganda, and to a lesser extent politician-speak in general, is full of legalism. I'm not a big fan

of legalism as a life philosophy (another oft-heard version of legalism: "as long as it's legal, it's OK to

do"). It's obvious that Rove and Libby did something unethical to me and most Americans. And yet neither Bush,

Scott McCllellan nor Cheney will apologize, accept responsibility, or express dismay. They keep using the cheap

excuse that no one has been convicted of a crime yet, so therefore they are all doing a great job. I don't buy that

logic.

All I've been doing for the past few years is uncovering evidence of this administration's

destructiveness (e.g., that we are fighting an unjust war based on real lies in which real people are really dying),

and everything I've read and heard points to the same conclusion. I don't know how to respond to the notion that

there is "no evidence" of our current regime's destructiveness. Maybe Bush doesn't exist at all. Now there's a

comforting thought.

So "honesty" is black and white? Do you know anyone who is perfectly honest? That has a

perfect grasp of the truth? That knows themselves perfectly to even tell the truth to themselves? Are all statements

even clearly true or clearly false? Is there ever a case where being dishonest, even the slightest little bit, might

be the best thing to do?

Black and white thinking is now, and will always be, a harmful disorder of thinking.

It's sort of like "concept arrogance". To promote it is dangerous, frankly. If I could eradicate it and accomplish

nothing else, my life would have been well-spent beyond my wildest dreams. They'd have to put me in the bible. The

elimenation of terrorism and intolerance would be just grains of sand in the total benefits.

An example of black

and white thinking would be to interpret my statement that there should be some limits to ownership as indicating

even a possibility that I am against ownership, even after I indicated support of the homeowners in every case here

on the forum. Now I'm a communist? I'll leave both that and your question as rhetorical.

[tim929]

The unfortunate limitations of

our current situation leave us...and our elected officials in a very uncomfortable situation."Honesty," is a word

that gets alot of air time in the press and among the intelectual elite.But unfortunatly it's not how you win and

election and it certainly isnt how you keep the office you just won.Regardless of party affiliation or personal

beliefs.If the Bush administration were to come befor the American people with hat in hand and appologize for

leading us down this path of stupidity,the voters would run them out of town on a rail in a heart beat.

The same

would have been true durring the Clinton administration,the first Bush administration,the Reagan administration and

so forth,on down the line to our first president...George what's-his-name.The wheeels of politics are powered by

money,greased with the blood of the innocent and driven on a road paved with thier bones.This is the sad reality of

politics.One need only pick up a history book and read of the trecherous and broken path of the Roman senate and the

various Roman emperors to see the almost photographic simmilarities in the demise of the Romans and the path we are

on today.

Roman senators were forbidden by law from owning businesses...yet,they became quite wealthy on a

modest state stypend...how?Our vice president is no longer affiliated with his former corperation,Halliburton...and

yet his bank accounts are pregnant.Republican friends of mine refer to Bill Clinton as Clintigula.A throw back to

the perverse and corrupt Roman emperor Caligula.

The rules of politics are simple.If you wish to feed at the

trough,keep your mouth shut and you will feed comfortably.Dont make waves,dont rat out the others and everything

will be alright.Make the wrong noises and we will throw you under the bus to make an example of you.Just sit there

and make little grunting noises and shove your snout in the slop and let the media circus keep the people distracted

from whats realy going on.Sure,the piglets might scrap among themselves over silly things like abortion or gay

rights,but thats all part of the show.The moment a politician starts having an attack of guilt and starts making the

wrong noises,he ends up being hauled off to the slaugter house for processing.

A friend of mine lives in

Chicago.The practice there is that EVERYBODY knows that the local officials are corrupt up to thier necks.But

everybody covers for everybody else.But once in a while,just to keep all the little herdlings happy in the

public,they cull one or two of them away from the trough and butcher them on national T.V. and everybody

says,"wow,those guys are realy looking out for us by catching those crooks."And the herd goes back to watching the

latest episode of CSI Miami and the politicians shove thier snouts back into the trough and its back to buisiness as

usual.

The Bush administration has thrown a couple people out in front of the speeding train so that the

herdlings will make a buch of noise and stomp around and carry on dramaticly.The press will be busy re-reporting the

same crap about these guys for weeks.The talking heads will flop around and moan and groan on T.V. and the herd will

imagine to itself that the big bad wolves will finaly pay thier dues.But the reality is that G.W. and his closest

friends are,as I write this,burrying thier snouts back into the trough and feeding wildly in a frenzy of grunting

and squealing and laughing to themselves about how wonderful it is to be an American.And,when the dust settles and

the smoke clears,we will still be in the same mess we are in right now.

The next administrations hardest job

wont be "how to fix the mess George Bush made." Thier biggest problem will be to figure out how to make a profit

from it and keep the trough filled for themselves and all thier friends while making sure the herdlings stay focused

on CSI Miami and Poptarts.Much of the "opposition" we hear from the Democrats is geared toward enhancing thier

position in the up comming elections.If they can make Republicans look bad enough,they will be handed a grand

opportunity to sweep the White House AND Congress and be in a position to pour and extra measure of slop in the

trough for thier buddies and friends.Dont be fooled by this silly talk about peace and love and all that crap.The

real issue is the fact that when Republicans control the trough,Democrats dont get as much slop.When Democrats

control the trough,the Republicans get pushed away from the trough.

If you spend alittle time in a stock yard

watching pigs getting fed...you will develop the most accurate and detailed understanding of the inner workings of

politics.No joke....it should be required in college.

[DrSmellThis]

Some good points, and I

support your bringing us in touch with the dark side of it; though I personally am not quite that cynical or ready

to give up. I don't think talk of peace and love is all crap, and I do believe progress is possible. Positive

change in world culture happens, but challenges get greater with a shrinking world and resources. So progress is

masked. I still refuse to accept the least-common denominator, status quo.

Clinton at least eventually apologized

and came clean about his affair in that particular instance. I think it was effective when he did so. I believe

honesty and integrity can potentially work in government, when combined with strength, charisma, communication

skills, and clarity of vision. There are changes we can make to make it more possible.

Incidentally, Cheney is

still on the payroll at Halliburton, to the tune of an amount roughly equal to his salary as VP.

I personally

think there's both specific and general corruption at play. What I've noticed is that a lot of folks with

conservative and/or republican and/or righty leanings rely much heavier on the "all politics is equally corrup"

mindset, allowing them to gloss over the specific situation we are in with neoconservative leadership. Otherwise

they'd have to turn a critical eye on themselves specificially, which would be uncomfortable. That is just my

opinion and observation. Nothing personal to anyone intended.

[belgareth]

[QUOTE=DrSmellThis] To me

relying on the courts to tell us whether politicians and their foreign policies have done anything immoral or

destructive would be just as crazy as getting it all off of Fox news. That is not the proper role of courts, which

is to determine legal guilt and innocence for the purpose of penalization and other legal actions -- not to

determine human thought. The sum total of what courts will ever be able to tell us about the world is virtually

nothing, except on a few extremely discreet questions about a few extremely discreet instances. I am supposed to

think nothing immoral has ever occured in society unless everyone has been convicted of it? My girlfriend cheats on

me, but I can't get mad unless she's been convicted in court? Realistically, there is not a single corrupt

politician in our government that will ever have all their corruption thoroughly addressed by the legal system.

Therefore I am to conclude there is no corruption anywhere in government.
[/qoute]
I love how one thing cannot

be black and white but another can. Your morality is not necessarily theirs or mine, you should know better than to

expect anything else. How can you convict somebody of immorality? More to the point, how can you convict somebody of

immorality based on the press? How can you expect me or anybody else to accept your morality? That's an absurdity

on the face of it!

If your girlfriend has sexual relations with somebody outside your relationship, that is a

moral question between you, her and the outside party and it is none of my business. I will not judge you on it

until you try to enforce your morality on me. Then I will fight you tooth and claw. That is significantly different

from sending citizens off to die in a war, I hope you can understand that. Frankly, I doubt very seriously if you

know all Bush's reasons for his actions, only what you choose to attribute to him. Is that really what is in

Bush's mind, a reflection of press bias or a reflection of your mentality? I don't personally know or even have an

opinion. Whatever the case is, the point is that some things he does are very bad and I strongly disagree with him,

other things he does are good and I give him credit for them. What you conclude is up to you and really not my

concern.

Give to the courts the things that belong to the courts. That's not to say using

the courts to the max as a source of information isn't wise. It's partly to say that courts are not our only

source of information.

So, what is? I am not going to rely on the press. You can if you want to, that's

entirely up to you. I don't expect or want the courts to make moral judgements, even though they do all to often. I

also spend time looking for other sources of information because I don't trust the press, they've misrepresented

too many times and are obviously biased.

To me Republican propaganda, and to a lesser extent

politician-speak in general, is full of legalism. I'm not a big fan of legalism as a life philosophy

(another oft-heard version of legalism: "as long as it's legal, it's OK to do"). It's obvious that Rove and Libby

did something unethical to me and most Americans. And yet neither Bush, Scott McCllellan nor Cheney will apologize,

accept responsibility, or express dismay. They keep using the cheap excuse that no one has been convicted of a crime

yet, so therefore they are all doing a great job. I don't buy that logic.

That's true of both parties,

as you should well know. It may be obvious to you that they did something unethical. Please present your proofs.

Without your proofs the rest is noise. Nor does the lack of proof indicate they are doing a great job, that's a

silly statement and you know it.

All I've been doing for the past few years is uncovering

evidence of this administration's destructiveness (e.g., that we are fighting an unjust war based on real lies in

which real people are really dying), and everything I've read and heard points to the same conclusion. I don't

know how to respond to the notion that there is "no evidence" of our current regime's destructiveness. Maybe Bush

doesn't exist at all. Now there's a comforting thought.

I didn't say there was no evidence of the

current regime's distructiveness and get really sick of you trying to put words in my mouth. Please stop. I am

happy to discuss the issues but that approach is dishonest.

Intellectual dishonesty is just as bad. How much did

you scream about Clinton's bombing of Belgrade and all the innocents who died there? When did the Yugoslavs attack

the US? Or was it the Serbs? Of course, it's entirely possible that Clinton didn't exist either based on your

thought processes. However, my friends that were wounded by American bombs dropped on Clinton's orders did

exist!

So "honesty" is black and white? Do you know anyone who is perfectly honest? That has a

perfect grasp of the truth? That knows themselves perfectly to even tell the truth to themselves? Are all statements

even clearly true or clearly false? Is there ever a case where being dishonest, even the slightest little bit, might

be the best thing to do?

Go back and read what I said! Didn't I say "In this instance"? Is there some

part of that you don't understand?

Black and white thinking is now, and will always be, a

harmful disorder of thinking. It's sort of like "concept arrogance". To promote it is dangerous, frankly. If I

could eradicate it and accomplish nothing else, my life would have been well-spent beyond my wildest dreams. They'd

have to put me in the bible. The elimenation of terrorism and intolerance would be just grains of sand in the total

benefits.

An example of black and white thinking would be to interpret my statement that there should be some

limits to ownership as indicating even a possibility that I am against ownership, even after I indicated support of

the homeowners in every case here on the forum. Now I'm a communist? I'll leave both that and your question as

rhetorical.

Get off it Doc! I asked you to clarify something I didn't understand, no more and no less. All

the rest of your statement is ridiculous. Stop putting words in my mouth. Instead of going off in another wild

diatribe, why don't you answer the question asked?

Your stand on black and white is amazing, to say the least.

I'm not going to discuss it with you because you either cannot understand my point of view or don't want to.

That's fine as yours is utterly incomprehensible to me.

[DrSmellThis]

Are you taking responsibility

for what you say and think? Yes, I'm sorry. You did imply there was no evidence of destructivenes. Trace the logic

of your own words, please.

I may not be all that and a bag of chips, but regard myself as saying things that are

typically at least reasonable and withstand scrutiny as such. I've never been accused of a habit of wild diatribes

until just now, but won't waste our time further on it. Your accusations of intellectual dishonesty are groundless

and hilarious.

* You didn't know me during the Clinton administration. I was extremely critical of Clinton,

including of that bombing, as I've said multiple times in the past here, from multiple angles, in threads in which

you were actively participating.

* We all depend on others for information at times.I use as many sources of

information as I can, as I said. I have posted tons of information here about Rove. It is your responsibility to

investigate it further, not mine to prove it to you.

* I have no idea what you meant by honesty being black and

white in that instance. Nor was it possible to see what you meant in your words. I do know it's virtually always BS

to say honesty is "black and white". If you want a more specific response, please make a more specific, clear

statement.

* Hopefully some others can understand the point about black and white thinking. I promise everyone

I'm doing my best to do a good thing by talking about it, something that needs to be done. Parents need to teach

their kids about it. That's our best hope.

[belgareth]

Are you

taking responsibility for what you say and think? Yes, I'm sorry. You did imply there was no evidence of

destructivenes. Trace the logic of your own words, please.

Taking responsibility for every word of it and

am telling you again that I did not say it or imply it. Trace the logic yourself and tell me where you come to such

an erroneous conclusion. I already went back and re-read it. Your reasoning is beyond me.

I

may not be all that and a bag of chips, but regard myself as saying things that are typically at least reasonable

and withstand scrutiny as such. I've never been accused of a habit of wild diatribes until just now, but won't

waste our time further on it. Your accusations of intellectual dishonesty are groundless and hilarious.

Nice dodge but untrue. In a very recent example I asked a question about ownership for clarification of something I

didn't understand. Rather than putting words in your mouth or assuming what you meant, I asked a question. You went

off on me (wild diatribe) and ended by accusing me of calling you a communist when all I did was ask a single,

simple question. It would make anybody wonder why you got so defensive over a harmless request for clarification.

* You didn't know me during the Clinton administration. I was extremely critical of Clinton,

including of that bombing, as I've said multiple times in the past here, from multiple angles, in threads in which

you were actively participating.

No I didn't know you then. I was attempting to highlight something and

use your own sarcasm to do so. Guess it was lost on you.

* We all depend on others for

information at times.I use as many sources of information as I can, as I said. I have posted tons of information

here about Rove. It is your responsibility to investigate it further, not mine to prove it to you.

I do

investigate but apparently am not seeing the same material as you or maybe I am seeing more or other information. Is

there some reason you are unwilling to share it? Yes, you have posted a lot, almost all from a media that is well

known to be liberally biased and sensationalist and almost all your postings were one sided. That does not

constitute proof of any sort. Part of what I do is try to add a bit of balance to it.

* I have

no idea what you meant by honesty being black and white in that instance. Nor was it possible to see what you meant

in your words. I do know it's virtually always BS to say honesty is "black and white". If you want a more specific

response, please make a more specific, clear statement.

It was clear. I said "Oh...yes, I do consider

honesty to be a black and white issue in this respect." in reference to people in political office. You do

understand qualifiers, don't you? It was not so complicated as to be incomprehensible to most people, or at least

it wasn't intended to be.

* Hopefully some others can understand the point about black and

white thinking. I promise everyone I'm doing my best to do a good thing by talking about it, something that needs

to be done. Parents need to teach their kids about it. That's our best hope.

I do hope so as well. I am

also trying to do a good thing by pointing out a different perspective. Misrepresenting my philosophy and branding

it as mental illness accomplishes nothing. Additionally, my efforts have yeilded success in raising my kids, in my

personal life, in my corporate career and in my own business while doing as much as possible to help others. If

that's wrong or I'm mentally ill as a result of it then I don't think I want to get well. That reality sounds

like a truly horrid world. I'm quite happy with my fantasy world.

You keep implying all sorts of things about

black and white thinking but apply black and white thinking to your argumments then tell us that disagreement with

your position is a sign of mental illness. You seem pretty unwilling to allow anything other than your opinion,

twist or misquote my words and use other assorted misdirection. I should know better than discuss things with you

because it usually degenerates into a long series of corrections. At least your technique is consistant. What a

waste of time.

[belgareth]

Some good

points, and I support your bringing us in touch with the dark side of it; though I personally am not quite that

cynical or ready to give up. I don't think talk of peace and love is all crap, and I do believe progress is

possible. Positive change in world culture happens, but challenges get greater with a shrinking world and resources.

So progress is masked. I still refuse to accept the least-common denominator, status quo.

Clinton at least

eventually apologized and came clean about his affair in that particular instance. I think it was effective when he

did so. I believe honesty and integrity can potentially work in government, when combined with strength, charisma,

communication skills, and clarity of vision. There are changes we can make to make it more possible.



Incidentally, Cheney is still on the payroll at Halliburton, to the tune of an amount roughly equal to his salary

as VP.

I personally think there's both specific and general corruption at play. What I've noticed is that a

lot of folks with conservative and/or republican and/or righty leanings rely much heavier on the "all politics is

equally corrup" mindset, allowing them to gloss over the specific situation we are in with neoconservative

leadership. Otherwise they'd have to turn a critical eye on themselves specificially, which would be uncomfortable.

That is just my opinion and observation. Nothing personal to anyone intended.

Clinton came clean once he

was backed into a corner. he had no choice by that time. In that kind of a case it wasn't a virtue, it was a lack

of any other choices.

Is he? I'd read that somewhere before and never got around to verifying it. Is that

legal? I would think that would be a comflict of interest. Yes, legality is the issue. That and voter opinions on

it. Trying to enforce any particular set of ethics on it is not right because each person has their own set of

ethics. I can imagine the screaming if somebody else wanted to use their christian beliefs to decide the point.



Beyond a doubt you are right that there are both types of corruption at play. It has been going on for an awfully

long time and is getting worse with each administration. It seems to be that those at the top have been so corrupt

for so long that it has filtered down to almost all aspects of the government. What we really need is a general

housecleaning. It isn't likely to happen but it would sure be nice to see the criminals at all levels of government

caught and punished. The biggest problem, and it has been mentioned on this forum in the past, is that to even get

close to being able to run for president in either major party requires a high level of corruption to start off

with.

I am not now or at any other time promoting violence as a solution but I wonder if that isn't what it is

going to take to correct the declining government in this country.

[belgareth]

Some good news, some less than good. One thing that really shocked me

was towards the end. Nearly a quarter of the people think its ok for the government to secretly search your house?

There isn't language strong enough to express my negative opinion of that idea.

Belgareth
************************************************** ****************

Congress May Curb Some Patriot Act Powers By LAURIE

KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Congress is moving to

curb some of the police powers it gave the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, including

imposing new restrictions on the FBI's access to private phone and financial records.



A budding House-Senate deal on the expiring USA Patriot Act includes

new limits on federal law enforcement powers and rejects the Bush administration's request to grant the FBI

authority to get administrative subpoenas for wiretaps and other covert devices without a judge's

approval.

Even with the changes, however, every part of the law set

to expire Dec. 31 would be reauthorized and most of those provisions would become

permanent.

Under the agreement, for the first time since the act

became law, judges would get the authority to reject national security letters giving the government secret access

to people's phone and e-mail records, financial data and favorite Internet

sites.

Holders of such information — such as banks and Internet

providers — could challenge the letters in court for the first time, said congressional aides involved in merging

separate, earlier-passed House and Senate bills reauthorizing the expiring Patriot

Act.

The aides spoke on condition of anonymity because the panel has

not begun deliberations.

Under the 2001 law, the FBI reportedly has

been issuing about 30,000 national security letters annually, a hundred-fold increase since the 1970s, when they

first came into existence under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Last year, a federal judge in New York struck down the national security letter statute as unconstitutional

because he said the law did not permit legal challenges to the letters or a gag rule on recipients of the letters.

The administration has appealed.

Civil libertarians lauded the

deal's preliminary terms, saying recent accounts of the FBI's aggressive use of national security letters have

lent credibility to their call for caution.

"Without those checks and

balances, there will be abuses," said former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., of Patriots to Restore Checks and

Balances.

The Bush administration contends there have been no

abuses.

"In the four years since the passage of the USA Patriot Act

there has not been a single verified abuse of the act's provisions, including in the department's own inspector

general's report to Congress," said Justice Department spokesman Brian

Roehrkasse.

Hashed out over two months by senior House and Senate

aides, the preliminary terms still have to be approved by a panel of lawmakers from each chamber and then by the

full House and Senate. The process is taking shape this week, with the appointment of House members to the panel on

Wednesday and the bicameral committee's first meeting expected on Thursday.

The power to conduct wiretaps and install covert listening devices without court approval had been on the

administration's wish list for more than a year but was never seriously considered by either chamber's Judiciary

committee.

Both the House and Senate versions of a Patriot Act

extension, debated over the summer, proposed giving the judiciary a role in national security letters. "The court

may quash or modify a request if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive," according to a summary by the

Congressional Research Service. The Senate added more conditions: "or violate any constitutional or other legal

right or privilege."

Some version of those curbs is expected to be

passed as part of the compromise bill.

Less specific but looked upon

favorably is a proposal to add a new restriction on evidence-gathering of classified material that would require

investigators to return or destroy any materials that are not relevant to the probe, the congressional aides

said.

Polls show that most Americans do not distinguish between the

Patriot Act and the war on terror, and a majority knows little about the four-year-old law. But the more Americans

know about the Patriot Act, the less they like.

A poll conducted in

August by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut showed that almost two-thirds

of all Americans, 64 percent, said they support the Patriot Act. But only 43 percent support the law's requirement

that banks turn over records to the government without judicial approval; 23 percent support secret searches of

Americans' homes without informing the occupants for a period of time.

[tim929]

Ya know...how can we have a

polite scociety if people arent willing to accept little inconviniences like secret searches of thier

homes,monitoring of thier phone conversations,email and internet habbits and turn over thier firearms the the

nearest available law enforcement agency?You barbaric "freedom seekers" need to get a clue.The Government only wants

to help you by putting sensors and tracking devices up your "you-know-what." Why would you object to that?It's for

your own good and the good of the country.