Printer Friendly
July
Don’t get caught flat-footed in front of the press! Below is a quick rundown of today’s “must reads.” – John T. Doolittle, House Republican Conference Secretary
The Morning Murmur – Wednesday, July 12, 2006
1. Mumbai back at work after blasts - Reuters
Victims of Mumbai's deadly bombings battled for life in crowded city hospitals
on Wednesday but millions of others put the threat of more attacks to the
back of their minds as India's financial hub went back to work.
2. Soaking the Rich - Wall Street Journal Op-ed
Yesterday's political flurry over the falling budget deficit shows that even
Washington can't avoid the obvious forever: to wit, the gusher of revenues
flowing into the Treasury in the wake of the 2003 tax cuts.
3. Ride 'Em, Cowboy - Investor's Business Daily
Where Bush critics see a disastrous "go it alone" approach, wiser heads
understand the need to assert leadership.
4. Novak: My role in Plame leak probe - Chicago Sun-Times
After 2-1/2 years, Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the CIA leak case
concerning matters directly relating to Robert Novak has been concluded,
allowing Novak to reveal his role in the case for the first time.
5. McKinney skips two televised debates - Atlanta Journal-Constitution
U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney
was a no-show for two major televised debates this weekend. The 4th District
congresswoman did not appear at Georgia Public Broadcasting's Midtown
Atlanta studios Friday morning to face her Democratic primary opponents.
For previous issues of the Morning Murmur, go to www.GOPsecretary.gov
FULL ARTICLES BELOW:
1. Mumbai back at work after blasts -
Reuters
Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:20 AM ET
By Krittivas Mukherjee
MUMBAI (Reuters) - Victims of Mumbai's deadly bombings battled for life in
crowded city hospitals on Wednesday but millions of others put the threat of
more attacks to the back of their minds as India's financial hub went back
to work.
Investigators picked through mangled trains to search for clues as to who
was behind Tuesday's seven coordinated bomb blasts that killed at least 183
people. Suspicion fell on Pakistan-based militants fighting Indian rule in
Kashmir.
Tuesday's attacks, on first-class compartments and railway stations, seemed
to have been aimed at the heart of India's economic success story, but just
hours later the city's residents were back at work and the stock market was
steady.
"It's a little scary but we have no option to go back to work," said Amita
Rane, a 24-year-old chartered accountant.
More than 700 were wounded when seven bombs blew apart railway carriages and
stations packed with rush-hour commuters in the space of just 11 minutes.
The death toll was the worst since a series of bombs killed more than 250 in
Mumbai in 1993. The attacks were also eerily reminiscent of serial bomb
blasts on commuter rail networks in Madrid and London in the past two years.
"In my view the Mumbai bombers could have been inspired by the London and
Madrid attacks," said Peter Lehr at the Center for the Study of Terrorism
and Political Violence at Britain's St. Andrews University.
"It is an attempt to instill fear and terror in the minds of the people and
spark a new wave of communal violence among Hindus and Muslims. In this they
have miserably failed."
On Wednesday morning, more than 12 hour after the attacks, relatives and
friends of victims were still poring over survivors' lists at city hospitals
or trying to identify charred and mutilated corpses. Other relatives were
inside the wards, tending to the injured lying on blood-soaked beds.
KASHMIR LINK?
In the state-run King Edward Memorial Hospital, a woman cried inconsolably
after seeing the half-burnt face of her husband, who was critically wounded.
"That cannot be him, that cannot be him. It cannot happen to him," she
wailed.
Extra police were deployed at railway stations, parks, markets and religious
institutions across the country to prevent further attacks and possible
violence between Hindus and Muslims. Checkpoints were set up on key roads in
major cities.
The explosions happened hours after a series of grenade attacks on tourists
in Srinagar, capital of Indian Kashmir, which killed eight people.
Police in Kashmir blamed the attacks there on the Lashkar-e-Taiba militant
group, which authorities say is backed by Pakistan and was also behind bomb
blasts in crowded markets in New Delhi last October that killed more than
60.
India's Home Secretary V.K. Duggal said that although the explosives were
different, the same people could have been behind both sets of attacks.
Newspapers quoted unnamed security sources as naming Lashkar as the prime
suspect for the Mumbai blasts, but the organization denied any role.
"These are inhuman and barbaric acts. Islam does not permit the killing of
innocent people," a spokesman who identified himself as "Doctor Ghaznavi"
told newspapers in Kashmir.
Pakistan, which denies supporting the militants, condemned what it called a
"terrorist attack" in Mumbai.
Indian Junior Foreign Minister Anand Sharma said the blasts were aimed at
"wrecking" the peace process between the nuclear-armed rivals but New Delhi
remained committed to improving ties with Islamabad.
CITY SHOWS HEART
Mumbai is a teeming metropolis of contrasts, with glitzy high-rise office
and apartment blocks standing side-by-side with slums and pavement dwellers.
Home to Bollywood, the world's biggest movie industry, the city lures
millions of rural poor.
But though sometimes considered hard-hearted, Mumbai residents went out of
their way to help fellow city dwellers, offering rides in cars, providing
water and biscuits, and taking the dead and injured to hospitals.
"We're used to crises here," said Makarand Bhopatkar, a 35-year-old
corporate trainer. "The city survives."
Muslims in areas near the blasts helped injured Hindus to hospitals and gave
cups of tea to relatives.
After a shaky start on Wednesday, India's financial markets regained their
poise.
The benchmark Bombay stock exchange index took heart from upbeat earnings
results to post decent gains in afternoon trade. Bond yields rose to their
highest since December 2001 but later retreated, while the rupee clawed back
initial losses against the dollar.
"The bomb blasts do not alter our fundamental view of the Indian economy,"
said Rajeev Malik, an analyst with J.P. Morgan. The economy grew at an
average eight percent in the past three years.
(Additional reporting by Sanjay Rajan, Rupam Jain, Charlotte Cooper and
Nitin Luthra)
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-12T102006Z_01_SP141887_RTRUKOC_0_US-INDIA-BLAST.xml
2. Soaking the Rich - Wall Street
Journal Op-ed
Guess who is paying more in taxes now?
Wednesday, July 12, 2006 12:01 a.m.
Yesterday's political flurry over the falling budget deficit shows that even
Washington can't avoid the obvious forever: to wit, the gusher of revenues
flowing into the Treasury in the wake of the 2003 tax cuts. The trend has
been obvious for more than a year (see our May 23, 2005, editorial,
"Revenues Rising"), but now it's so large that Republicans are trying to
take credit while Democrats explain it away.
Republicans do deserve some credit, though not exactly the way they're
claiming. Democrats are right that the White House February estimate of a
$423 billion budget deficit in Fiscal Year 2006 was inflated, perhaps to be
able to claim progress later this election year. Also not very important is
the White House claim that it has already met its second-term goal of
"cutting the deficit in half." That was always a minor and political
ambition.
The real news, and where the policy credit belongs, is with the 2003 tax
cuts. They've succeeded even beyond Art Laffer's dreams, if that's possible.
In the nine quarters preceding that cut on dividend and capital gains rates
and in marginal income-tax rates, economic growth averaged an annual 1.1%.
In the 12 quarters--three full years--since the tax cut passed, growth has
averaged a remarkable 4%. Monetary policy has also fueled this expansion,
but the tax cuts were perfectly targeted to improve the incentives to take
risks among businesses shell-shocked by the dot-com collapse, 9/11 and
Sarbanes-Oxley.
This growth in turn has produced a record flood of tax revenues, just as the
most ebullient supply-siders predicted. In the first nine months of fiscal
2006, tax revenues have climbed by $206 billion, or nearly 13%. As the
Congressional Budget Office recently noted, "That increase represents the
second-highest rate of growth for that nine-month period in the past 25
years"--exceeded only by the year before. For all of fiscal 2005, revenues
rose by $274 billion, or 15%. We should add that CBO itself failed to
anticipate this revenue boom, as the nearby table shows. Maybe its
economists should rethink their models.
Remember the folks who said the tax cuts would "blow a hole in the deficit?"
Well, revenues as a share of the economy are now expected to rise this year
to 18.3%, slightly above the modern historical average of 18.2%. The
remaining budget deficit of a little under $300 billion will be about 2.3%
of GDP, which is smaller than in 17 of the previous 25 years. Throw in the
surpluses rolling into the states, and the overall U.S. "fiscal deficit" is
now economically trivial.
This would all seem to be good news, but some folks are never happy. The
same crowd that said the tax cuts wouldn't work, and predicted fiscal doom,
are now harrumphing that the revenues reflect a windfall for "the rich." We
suppose that's right if by rich they mean the millions of Americans moving
into higher tax brackets because their paychecks are increasing.
Individual income tax payments are up 14.1% this year, and "nonwithheld"
individual tax payments (reflecting capital gains, among other things) are
up 20%. Because of the tax cuts, the still highly progressive U.S. tax code
is soaking the rich. Since when do liberals object to a windfall for the
government?
The other favorite line of critics yesterday was summed up by North Dakota
Democrat Kent Conrad, who said the deficit would still "explode" in the long
term because of the "coming retirement of the baby boom generation." But
this is a political bait-and-switch. When Senator Conrad had the chance to
do something about the "long term" by reforming Social Security in 2005, he
refused. But now that the tax cuts he opposed are reducing the short-term
deficit, he's back to fretting about the long term. At least Mr. Conrad is
consistent in wanting a tax increase.
There surely is a long-term budget problem, driven largely by fast-growing
entitlements for seniors. Federal spending is still climbing by 8.6% this
year, with Medicare alone growing at an astonishing rate of 15.5%, or $33
billion in the first nine months of this fiscal year (which ends September
30). Thank the GOP prescription drug benefit for that future taxpayer
burden. The only solution to the entitlement problem, short or long term, is
to reform both Medicare and Social Security.
As for the 2003 tax cuts, the current revenue boom is one more argument for
making them permanent. They are now set to expire in 2010, and, even if they
are extended, federal revenues will continue to climb as a share of GDP as
more taxpayers earn higher incomes and move into higher tax brackets. If
liberal Democrats are really determined to soak the rich--and we don't doubt
it for a second--they'll also vote to make the tax cuts permanent.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008640
3. Ride 'Em, Cowboy - Investor's
Business Daily
Posted 7/10/2006
Foreign Affairs: Has the Bush administration implicitly acknowledged the
failure of its simplistic "cowboy diplomacy"? Time magazine thinks so, but
don't take a cover story as gospel.
The granddaddy of newsweeklies revels in its pronouncement that, after six
years, President Bush's foreign policy has been stampeded into dust by
multiple, uncontrollable global crises. This week's cover art even recalls
the old Texas gibe about "all hat and no cattle."
Time's editorial theologians build their case predictably: "A grinding and
unpopular war in Iraq, a growing insurgency in Afghanistan, an impasse over
Iran's nuclear ambitions, brewing war between Israel and the Palestinians -
the litany of global crises would test the fortitude of any president."
There's a bit of schadenfreude and much faux sympathy in such journalistic
stage-setting. Time's editors long ago abandoned the "American Century"
vision of the magazine's founder, Henry Luce, who proposed a U.S. foreign
policy that evangelized for democracy and freedom - which, like Bush's, too
easily has been belittled by aspiring cosmopolitans as a schoolboy's
"cowboy" fantasy.
Here's the mistake of these would-be sophisticates, itself touching in its
simplistic misreading of history: They imagine "cowboy" to be a pejorative
word, a caricature of a trigger-happy loner.
It's not. The word springs not only from America's best sensibilities but
also from its inescapable world position. The U.S. remains the indispensable
nation, the font of liberty and democracy.
Where Bush critics see a disastrous "go it alone" approach, wiser heads
understand the need to assert leadership. And it is a canard that the
administration has forsaken "coalition-building," that touchstone of liberal
foreign policy. In Iraq specifically, the U.S. has led a multinational
coalition, citing resolutions the United Nations enacted but showed no
stomach for enforcing.
If there's an iconic moment in the legend of the West, it's when Gary
Cooper, as the marshal in "High Noon," fails to rally the townspeople as
they await the arrival of a murderous gang. Only when the lawman acts
"unilaterally" do the citizens overcome their cowardice and restore the
peace.
Dismiss that successful saga as a screenwriter's fantasy if you wish, but it
fairly resembles this administration's leadership over many of the world's
townspeople. More to the point, the Bush Doctrine simply hasn't failed, as
Time's editors prematurely believe.
A long slog does not mean failure, even if journalistic rustlers rush to
brand it as such in the administration's rawhide. A rattlesnake may spook a
horse, the chuck wagon might bust a spoke, but that doesn't mean the drive
can't be completed.
No terrorist strikes have hit our soil since 9-11. The Taliban, though
trying a comeback, was ousted in Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein is not
slaughtering hundreds of thousands and he's no longer funding terrorists,
his regime replaced by a legitimate state.
Bellicosity from North Korea, which Bush identified as part of an "axis of
evil" shortly after 9-11, has persuaded Japan to seek a "cowboy" posture on
our model. In 2003, U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, as assistant defense
secretary, quietly initiated a 13-nation program to keep missile propellants
out of Pyongyang's hands.
The successful covert program also denied Kim Jong-Il revenues from
ballistic missile sales and blocked China from selling deadly chemicals to
its little communist brother. Time magazine missed that story. You had to go
to the Times of London to find it.
Cowboy diplomacy? Let's have more of it.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20060710
4. Novak: My role in Plame leak probe -
Chicago Sun-Times
July 12, 2006
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
WASHINGTON -- Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my
attorneys that, after 2-1/2 years, his investigation of the CIA leak case
concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded. That frees me
to reveal my role in the federal inquiry that, at the request of Fitzgerald,
I have kept secret.
I have cooperated in the investigation while trying to protect journalistic
privileges under the First Amendment and shield sources who have not
revealed themselves. I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal
grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea
bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue.
For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew --
independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July
14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former
Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the
CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not
indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them
violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
Some journalists have badgered me to disclose my role in the case, even
demanding I reveal my sources -- identified in the column as two senior Bush
administration officials and an unspecified CIA source. I have promised to
discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and
I do so now.
The news broke Sept. 26, 2003, that the Justice Department was investigating
the CIA leak case. I contacted my longtime attorney, Lester Hyman, who
brought his partner at Swidler Berlin, James Hamilton, into the case.
Hamilton urged me not to comment publicly on the case, and I have followed
that advice for the most part.
The FBI soon asked to interview me, prompting my first major decision. My
attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse
cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury. To do so would make me subject to
imprisonment and inevitably result in court decisions that would diminish
press freedom, all at heavy personal legal costs.
Sources signed waivers
I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices on Oct. 7, 2003, by an FBI
inspector and two agents. I had not identified my sources to my attorneys,
and I told them I would not reveal them to the FBI. I did disclose how
Valerie Wilson's role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to
disclose my sources.
THE TIMELINE
On Dec. 30, 2003, the Justice Department named Fitzgerald as special
prosecutor. An appointment was made for Fitzgerald to interview me at
Swidler Berlin on Jan. 14, 2004. The problem facing me was that the special
prosecutor had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have
given me information about Wilson's wife.
That created a dilemma. I did not believe blanket waivers in any way
relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect a source. Hamilton
told me that I was sure to lose a case in the courts at great expense.
Nevertheless, I still felt I could not reveal their names.
However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special
prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin
offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie
Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was
by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary
source's information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names
of my sources.
When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand -- from Bill Harlow,
the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column
confirming Mrs. Wilson's identity. I answered questions using the names of
Rove, Harlow and my primary source.
Testified before grand jury
I had a second session with Fitzgerald at Swidler Berlin on Feb. 5, 2004,
after which I was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. I testified
there at the U.S. courthouse in Washington on Feb. 25.
In these four appearances with federal authorities, I declined to answer
when the questioning touched on matters beyond the CIA leak case. Neither
the FBI nor the special prosecutor pressed me.
Primary source not revealed
I have revealed Rove's name because his attorney has divulged the substance
of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have
revealed Harlow's name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our
conversation, which also differs from my recollection. My primary source has
not come forward to identify himself.
When I testified before the grand jury, I was permitted to read a statement
that I had written expressing my discomfort at disclosing confidential
conversations with news sources. It should be remembered that the special
prosecutor knew their identities and did not learn them from me.
In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on
television: Joe Wilson's wife's role in instituting her husband's mission
was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I
have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal
investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the
disclosure was inadvertent on his part.
Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second
administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation.
I learned Valerie Plame's name from Joe Wilson's entry in Who's Who in
America.
I considered his wife's role in initiating Wilson's mission, later confirmed
by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of
an important news story. I reported it on that basis.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-novak12.html#
5. McKinney skips two televised debates -
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
By MAE GENTRY
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 07/08/06
U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney was a no-show for two major televised debates
this weekend.
The 4th District congresswoman did not appear at Georgia Public
Broadcasting's Midtown Atlanta studios Friday morning to face her Democratic
primary opponents.
"She never declined," said Sarah Douglas, executive director of the Atlanta
Press Club, which sponsored the debate. "She never responded either way."
An e-mailed statement from McKinney's office said she was unable to attend
the debate "due to a previously scheduled appointment for a meeting with
constituents."
The debate between former DeKalb County Commissioner Hank Johnson and
Alpharetta businessman John F. Coyne III, which was taped, will air at 7
p.m. Monday on Channel 8.
McKinney also skipped a live debate at 1 p.m. today at WSB-TV/Channel 2. Her
schedule called for a meeting with constituents from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m.
during a "District Day" at Clarkston City Hall.
The controversial congresswoman did debate her opponents Thursday evening at
an event sponsored by CrossRoads News, a community newspaper that covers
south DeKalb County.
She also faced them last weekend at a south DeKalb church.
Two years ago, McKinney participated in the Atlanta Press Club debate at
Georgia Public Broadcasting. But during Friday's 30-minute debate, Coyne and
Johnson stood next to an empty lectern as they discussed the war in Iraq,
health care, education, economic development, traffic and other issues
facing residents of the 4th District.
The district encompasses most of DeKalb, half of Rockdale County and a
sliver of Gwinnett.
Both candidates said that, if elected, they would bring more federal dollars
to the area, and they agreed that health care costs should be lowered. But
they differed sharply on Iraq.
"I think that we need to come out of Iraq as quickly as is responsible,"
Johnson said, adding that he wants military professionals to offer some
guidance about how to make that happen.
Johnson said tax dollars going to the defense budget could be used to help
the American people, instead of financing what he called "the endless war in
Iraq."
Coyne said he believed the United States removed "one of the worst dictators
and tyrants in the world" in Iraq and that "we have to stay the course."
He disagreed with Johnson on the defense budget, saying, "We are the
strongest country in the world, and we need to maintain that position."
On immigration, Coyne advocates creating a 2,100-mile-long and 5-mile-wide
military installation along the border and reinstituting "some form of the
draft" to protect it.
Johnson was not asked about immigration during the debate and offered no
opinion during his closing statement.
http://www.ajc.com/search/content/metro/dekalb/stories/0708metfourth.html
### |
