U.S. House of Representatives Votes to Stop Selling F-14 Tomcat Parts to Iran

Is it possible that maybe the representatives in the U.S. House actually do have some common sense? After all, why would the United States actually want to help Iran keep their jet fighters in good working order?

This vote on Monday to ban sales of F-14 fighter parts to Iran was the second time the House voted on such a measure.

This measure to stop selling left-over F-14 parts was voted on in May that was part of the military funding legislation package approved by the House but vetoed by President Bush.

Now the House of Representatives is sending the so named "Stop Arming Iran Act" as a separate bill to the President for his approval. It would seem this is one bill President Bush will have a hard time vetoing when it comes to his desk.

This bill is expected to gain Senate approval, and from there this bill would then head to the White House for final approval. Considering President Bush has all stated Iran is part of the "axis of evil", White House approval seems to be a given. However, the White House has yet to comment on whether they support this funding ban to a country they consider one that freely fund terrorists, and especially terrorists in Iraq.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., and Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., proposed the legislation after The Associated Press reported in January that buyers for Iran, China and other countries exploited weaknesses in Pentagon surplus sale security to acquire sensitive military gear including parts for F-14s, other aircraft and missiles.

In one instance, a surplus auction held by the Department of Defense ended up making its way to Iran.

In citing this AP story, Giffords said the goal of her bill, H.R. 1441, was to stop having military surplus sales from inadvertently ending up in Iran to help Iran maintain their military weapons.

Giffords went on to say the United States must ensure parts that are unique to F-14 fighters do not end up in Iran.

After the AP broke this story about jet fighter parts ending up in Iran, the Department of Defense said they would voluntarily halt sales of Tomcat parts. The Department of Defense also said they would review whether these fighter parts could be sold as surplus parts on the world market without posing a national security risk.
The Department of Defense went on to say they had all ready planned to destroy parts unique to the F-14, but other parts that are common to the Tomcat, and other jet fighters, might still be sold on the open market.

Back in the 1970's, the United States gave Iran permission to buy the F-14 fighters because both countries were allies at the time. Iran is the only country still known to fly the F-14 because the United States just retired their F-14 fleet last year.

The Department of Defense just recently decided to tighten security of surplus military parts when it was discovered that GAO ( Government Accountability Office) investigators posing as defense contractors were able to obtain more than one million dollars worth of sensitive military surplus parts. One item these investigators were able to purchase was a rocket launcher.

One of the new measures adopted by the Pentagon is the accurate identification of military surplus items to ensure they are safe to sell before actually putting these items up for sale.

Giffords and Wyden say a broad, permanent ban on the Pentagon's sale of the thousands of spare F-14 components is needed to make sure sensitive parts do not accidentally wind up in surplus sales, as has happened in the past.
This legislation calls for the banning of export licenses for F-14 parts.

In addition, this legislation will ban the sale of F-14, and F-14 parts, to anyone except museums and historical groups. Before the F-14's are sold to these groups, these planes also have to be rendered useless.

Read more about bill HR 1441 at Yahoo News

Hillary Clinton Looks For Her Jock

Hillary Clinton would like to be known as a candidate that is not only smart, but is also considered a sports 'jock'. The 2008 Presidential hopeful has even gone so far as to list 'speed walking' as her favorite sport on her My Space account.

Besides listing 'speed walking' as one of her favorite hobbies, Sen. Clinton says she enjoys a good cross word puzzle, Scrabble, and gardening.

However, when it comes to actually showing herself as a weekend sports warrior, Hillary seems to miss the mark being hit by her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama.

Many pundits feel the Illinois Senator is bringing back the sports glory days of the Kennedy clan's touch football games by showing his sporty side during pick-up basketball games. Most men view someone as being cool if they can show any ability to play a pick-up basketball game or two.

The problem, as one of her donors put it: “How does 59-year-old Mama run against sexy Obama?” (The donor asked not to be named speaking critically of his candidate.)

The American public is used to seeing their President involved in some type of sport such as George W. Bush tossing the first pitch at a baseball game, George H.W. Bush racing speedboats, Ronald Reagan sitting atop a horse, and even Bill Clinton hitting the golf links. Some pundits even point to Condoleezza Rice's love for the National Football League as a plus if Rice ever decides to run for president.

And herein lies the problem for Hilliary-How does she show her 'inner jock' without it appearing as if she is forcing a persona that she has no idea how to project to the American public.

“I certainly don’t foresee her playing basketball,” said Alan Patricof, a Clinton fund-raiser.

While her camp does feel the NY Senator will win when it comes to brains and guts, many in her camp feels she will badly lose when it comes to projecting a personality the American public will come to accept.

Hillary's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, said Mrs. Clinton is a very intelligent, warm, friendly, compassionate, strong and experience person. Columnist Ellen Goodman even went so far as to say Sen. Clinton would be the ‘caring commander in chief'.

However, Mrs. Clinton does realize that when it comes to winning the Presidency, the American public wants a president who is not only strong and smart but likable as well. And when it comes to likable, Sen. Clinton knows she needs to make up a lot of ground, and this has led Hillary to start poking fun of herself more and more during recent campaign stops.

At a recent campaign stop, Hillary made fun of her weight by seeking the help of the Lord, and Hillary has even gone so far as to making a video that mocks her. Sen. Clinton even likes to joke about her lack of singing ability.

But when it comes to being a sports jock, well it appears the 59 year old Senator may find this job a little harder to pull off than the job of poking fun at herself.

Last week, Sen. Clinton teamed with tennis legend Billie Jean King while sharing stories about how she once played softball, pick-up basketball, and tennis. The erstwhile presidential candidate even mentioned she once won an Arkansas doubles tennis tournament.

Sen. Clinton may find out that trying to show a sporty side at her age may cost her votes instead of helping her gain votes. All Hillary has to do is look back to the 2004 race for the White House to see how tricky it will be to convince the America public about her sports prowess.

Many people feel Sen. John Kerry lost major points with the American public when he tried to show off his sports skills by windsurfing, hunting and downhill skiing. This sports persona move back fired on Kerry because the America public ended up viewing him as a phony because he looked more like a fool instead of someone who could lead our country.

So if Sen. Clinton is a smart as everyone thinks, she may want to leave the sports persona image to the glamours and athletic looking Sen. Obama because sometimes it is better to reminisce about your 'glory days' instead of actually trying to recapture that moment in time.

Read more about the sporty Hillary Clinton at NYT.com

Immigration Bill Dies A Quick Death in the Senate

Deep divisions within the U.S. Senate kills the Bush backed immigration bill allowing 'amnesty' to illegal immigrants. A compromise bill appears to be unlikely as Senate voting fell 15 votes short of the required 60 to move legislation forward.

The Democratic controlled Senate lead the charge in voting down a White House backed bill on immigration that may cause this hot button issue to be tabled for the remainder of 2007.

This deep divide with the Senate mirrors the feeling of Americans nationwide when it comes to deciding the fate of over 15 million people living and working illegally in the United States.

Despite the backing of most Democrats in the Senate, some of the more liberal Democrats voted against moving this bill forward because they felt this bill did not go far enough to ensure immigrant families were kept together. These more liberal Democrats also felt this bill did not adequately protect jobs for U.S.-born workers.

The division amongst Republicans came down to social conservatives wanting to remove any type of 'amnesty' language from this bill versus Republicans backing business who rely on these undocumented workers to fill unskilled and low paying jobs. Most of these jobs are found in the hotel, farming, construction and restaurant industries.

This immigration bill fell flat despite weeks of bipartisan work in the Senate. Meanwhile, the House of Representatives said they will not take up the immigration issue until the Senate is successful in passing an immigration bill.

Wondering what happened to President Bush pushing his people into helping the Senate pass a bill he supports, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, said he hopes that someday the Senate will come together in crafting a bill that will gain Senate approval.

Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC, defended the work of the White House by saying the White House, and particularly Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Cherto, worked liked dogs right up to Thursdays vote in the Senate.

A statement issued by the White House said this set back did not signal a death knell for one of the President's top domestic issues. The White House encouraged Sen. Reid to allow debate on the immigration issue in the hopes something can be worked out. Administration officials were closely monitoring this situation from Germany were they are attending the G-8 summit meetings, but President Bush did not call any lawmakers to discuss this hot button issue.

"He obviously is disappointed by the setback," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said of Bush. "But based on the latest information we have, there still is a good chance this bill could go forward."

Placing tighter limits on immigration is a top priority for many conservatives, and this was evident when fighting occurred earlier in the year because limits were placed on incoming temporary workers. In May, Senators reduced this temporary worker program from 400,000 to 200,000 workers. Some Senators became even more furious when the Senate voted to stop this temporary worker program all together after five years.

Top U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbyist R. Bruce Josten told The Associated Press this week that the immigration issue is "divisive in the Republican base, it's divisive in the Democratic base, it's divisive in the business community. It splits organized labor, it splits the immigration community."

Republican Senators backing President Bush on this immigration bill came under fierce heat from people in their home state, local GOP officials, and even from conservative talk show hosts.

A recent poll conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center indicates 55 percent of respondents favor imposing a penalty on businesses that hire illegal immigrants. 25 percent of the respondents said border agents are the best way to stop the flow of illegal workers, and 7 percent said more border fences would help stem the tide of illegals entering the country.

However, when the word 'amnesty' was removed from the polling questions, 62 percent of respondents who identified themselves as Republicans said they would favor giving U.S. citizenship to illegals all ready in the country if these illegals have jobs, pass background checks and pay fines. When the word 'amnesty' was put back into these poll questions, the percent of Republican responders who backed this type of program dropped to 47.

Read more about the defeat of this bill at Yahoo News

Hillary: Faith Helped Save My Marriage

During a speech on Monday, Presidential hopeful Hillary Rodham Clinton said faith in God helped her cope with Bill's numerous infidelities.

Still standing by her man, Sen. Clinton said Bill's admission that he did have an affair is what helped her decide to stay the course of her marriage to the former president.

"I am very grateful that I had a grounding in faith that gave me the courage and the strength to do what I thought was right, regardless of what the world thought," Clinton said during a forum where the three leading Democratic presidential candidates talked about faith and values.

Sen. Clinton also said she was not sure if she would have stayed with her marriage if not for her faith.

Hillary was speaking in front of a forum sponsored by the liberal Sojourners/Call to Renewal evangelical organization. Also invited to speak at this forum were rivals John Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama. This forum allowed these three presidential hopefuls the opportunity to speak about their most personal beliefs.

Sen. Clinton spoke openly about the ways she was tested both publicly and privately while the world debated her marriage. Hillary said it was during times like this that prayers and faith helped her cope with the many issues surrounding her marriage. Sen. Clinton went on to say that it is times like these were it is essential that you are grounded by your faith.

When it was his turn to speak. former Senator Edwards he prays-and sins- everyday. The crowd at this forum gasped loudly when moderator Soledad O'Brien asked Mr. Edwards to name his biggest sin. Edwards was able to gain the crowds support when he said he sins were so many that he could not name just one.

"I sin every single day," said Edwards, the 2004 vice presidential nominee. "We are all sinners and we all fall short."

Trying to score points with moderator O'Brien, Edwards appeared at this forum wearing a purple tie. Purple is Ms. O'Brien's favorite color. Edwards also described himself as the candidate best committed to the Democrats goal of fighting the war against poverty.

Edwards does not feel his belief in evolution goes against his belief in God. Edwards also feels gays should have the right to marriage, but he went on to say that as president he would not impose this marriage right on the rest of the country.

Edwards feels the United States should not be labeled as a Christian country even though Edwards states to have a deep and abiding love for God.

Edwards said he has been going to church since childhood and that he was baptized when he was a teenager. Mr. Edwards did admit he strayed off the path as an adult, but he came back to his belief in God when his teen-age son died in 1996.

"It was the Lord that got me through that," Edwards said, along with both of his wife's cancer diagnoses.

Sen. Clinton on the other hand admitted her religious belief's do not come easy for her.

"I take my faith very seriously and very personally," she said. "And I come from a tradition that is perhaps a little too suspicious of people who wear their faith on their sleeves."

This forum allowed each speaker to have their say for 15 minutes during this CNN broadcast before a live audience from George Washington University's Lisner Auditorium. Clinton, Edwards, and Obama were questioned by Ms. O'Brien and church leaders from across the country.

Sen. Obama preferred to talk more about policy issues instead of any personal issues he may have. When asked about if he agreed with President Bush that the war on terror is a war against good versus evil, Sen. Obama said there is a risk in using such a narrow vision in defining this global struggle.

"The danger of using good verses evil in the context of war is that it may lead us to be not as critical as we should about our own actions," Obama said to applause.

Sen. Obama went on to say the attacks of 9/11 were the results of evil, but Obama was quick to point out the United States treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay is unjust.

Read more about this group forum at Yahoo News

NASA Chief Says Global Warming Is Nothing to Worry About

The global warming debate was turned up a notch last Friday, June 1, when NASA chief Michael Griffin issued a statement saying he was unsure if global warming was an issue to be "wrestled with" at this time.

This bold statement on the issue of global warming is so counter to conventional wisdom because most scientists feel global warming is one of the top issues facing people around the world.

Mr. Griffin has come under fire from Congress in the past because Mr. Griffin has cut funding for programs designed to monitor global climate change. However, in a radio interview on Thursday, Mr. Griffin said he had no doubt there is a trend indicating global warming exists."

But, he told National Public Radio, "I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with."

James Hansen, NASA's top expert on climate change, was totally caught off-guard by this statement because he said he almost 'fell out of this chair' when hearing about Griffin's remarks.

"It was a shocking statement because of the level of ignorance it indicated with regard to the current situation," Hansen told NPR.

Mr. Hansen went on to say Mr. Griffin must not be aware that over 170 countries have all ready agreed that global warming and climate change is a serious issue with worldwide repercussions if this issue is not addressed as soon as possible.

In a statement released later in the day, Mr. Griffin did say it is NASA's responsibility to collect, analyze and then release reports on climate change, but it is not NASA's responsibility to implement policies regarding strategies to combat climate change and global warming.

The Democrats wasted no time in taking pot shots at Mr. Griffin.

Bart Gordon, D-TN, heads the House Science and Technology committee, and he issued a statement saying that based on NASA's five year budget plan NASA will not be able to start any new Earth observation programs that were recommended by the National Academies for the foreseeable future.

"That's not going to get us where we need to be in our understanding of climate change."

The League of Conservation Voters is a national pro-environment group that is calling for Mr. Griffin to resign over his outlandish statements.

Griffin's comments are "deeply troubling," said Gene Karpinski, the group's president.

Mr. Karpinski also said global warming is real and humans are contributing to this problem. Mr. Karpinski said it is not 'rocket science' when it comes to taking action in regards to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Mr. Griffin's comments seemed to go against comments made by President Bush on the same day.

On Friday, President Bush was calling for the major industrialized countries to come together in developing a new global warming pact that will replace the Kyoto Pact that is set to expire in 2012.

Read more on this issue at Yahoo News

Pelosi Wants to Pass Gas This Year

House leader Nancy Pelosi issued a statement saying she would like to pass gas this year in hopes of reducing that bloated and pained looked on her face.

Of course the House leader is actually talking about Congress passing a bill that will cap the heat producing carbon dioxide emissions, and not natural occurring human and animal flatulence.

"I'd like to see it pass this year," Pelosi told reporters at a news conference. "Congress will act upon cap-and-trade legislation in this Congress."

These remarks by Pelosi came a day after President Bush called on the worlds 15 most influential countries to reach some type of agreement by the end of 2008 on a long-term plan to cut carbon emissions.

The Pelosi deadline for a carbon reduction bill marks the first time House leader Pelosi actually placed a time-line for Congress to take action on any type of legislation. Rep. Pelosi never demanded a time-line for troop withdrawals from Iraq because she left this 'hot potato' task to fellow minions like John Murtha.

The United States is the largest producer of heat causing carbon emissions, and Pelosi is endorsing the idea of a cap and trade system that she hopes will cut U.S. gas emissions in half by 2050.

Few details of this Pelosi gas reduction plan have been released, but it appears this bill will allow businesses to pollute as much as they want as long as they buy permits for pollution that exceeds set industry standards. There has not been any word on what would be done with the money generated from the selling of these pollution permits, but one can only wonder what wasteful programs will be funded with this money.

If Congress and the President are serious about reducing heat causing emissions, they would place a 'cap'on the amount of political 'hot air' and rhetoric that spews out of their mouths on a daily basis.

The United States and Iran End 27 Year Silence Towards Each Other

Iran and the United States broke 27 years of diplomatic silence on Monday so they could talk about the lack of security in Iraq.

This four hour meeting held in Iraq brought together the two major players that will mostly likely determine the fate of an unstable Iraqi country.

U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker said broad agreement over Iraq was made, but Mr. Crocker said Iran must stop giving arms and money to militants attacking U.S. and Iraqi security forces.

Iranian Ambassador Hassan Kazemi Qomi issued a statement to the Associated Press (AP) indicating both the U.S. and Iran would meet again to further discuss Iraq's situation. However, Mr. Crocker said the U.S. will only meet again with Iran if Iraq invites the U.S. to further talks.

"We don't have a formal invitation to respond to just yet, so it doesn't make sense to respond to what we don't have," Crocker told reporters after the meeting.

These talks were held in the offices of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Mr. al-Maliki's offices are located in the Green Zone area of Baghdad.

The talks between the U.S. and Iran were the first formal talks between these former allies since Washington broke off diplomatic relations with Tehran in 1979. 1979 was the year of the Iranian Islamic Revolution and the seizure of the U.S. Embassy.

An AP reporter who viewed this meeting said Mr. Crocker and Mr. Kazemi shook hands.

The American envoy called the meeting "businesslike" and said at "the level of policy and principle, the Iranian position as articulated by the Iranian ambassador was very close to our own."

Mr. Crocker went on to say the United States and Iraq would like Iran to actually put their words into actions by doing on the ground what they are saying during these meetings.

Speaking later at a news conference in the Iranian Embassy, Kazemi said: "We don't take the American accusations seriously."

Crocker did not go into detail about what Mr. Kazemi said during these meetings;however, Crocker did hint that Mr. Kazemi said Iran is willing to train and equip the Iraqi Army and Police in order to establish a new military and police structure in Iraq.

Iranian Ambassador Kazemi said U.S. policy to rebuild Iraqi security forces were inadequate to handle the current chaos in Iraq. Mr. Kazemi's statement also places sole blame for this chaos at the feet of Washington. Mr. Kazemi further stated his offer is meant to help Iraq rebuild their security structure that has been totally demolished by the United States.

Both sides said this ice-breaking meeting did not delve into the more difficult questions surrounding U.S.-Iranian relations: Iran's nuclear program and more than a quarter century of giving each other the cold shoulder.

Iran's Shiite theocracy worries the Bush administration will push for regime change, and act on this impulse, in Tehran the same way they did against Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Meanwhile, the U.S. and their Sunni Arab allies are worried that Iran's growing influence in the Middle East will lead to further Islamic extremism.

On top of these worries, Iran is concerned with the U.S. relationship with Israel; and the U.S. is concerned about Iran's open hostility towards Israel.

The Americans maintain Iran must stop their Quad force from bankrolling and arming militants in Iraq. The U.S. was aiming this statement directly towards the aid going to Mahdi Army forces led by Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.

The U.S. also claims Iran is shipping the deadly explosive formed penetrators, or EFPs. These EFPs are the armor piercing explosives being used in roadside bombs that are killing hundreds of U.S. soldiers. Mahdi Army forces have told AP reporters the Revolutionary Guards are supplying and training Mahdi soldiers.

Kazemi and Crocker did not discuss the issue of the seven Iranians captured by U.S. forces in Iraq. Five of these Iranians are still in U.S. custody.

Mr. Crocker said these talks were about Iraq only.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki issued a statement from Tehran saying further talks between Iran and the United States are possible, but only if Washington admits its Mid-East policy is a total failure.

Read more about this historic meeting at Yahoo News.

Clinton Crony Sued Over His Use Of A Company Jet to Ferry Bill and Hillary Clinton Around The World

A long time Clinton crony is facing a lawsuit claiming the use of a company jet to fly Hillary Rodham Clinton around the country on business, personal and campaign trips is a waste of company resources.

This lawsuit claims Vinod Gupta has received more than $3 million worth of contracts from former President Bill Clinton to provide consulting services for Mr. Gupta's Nebraska based company infoUSA. These contracts are set to run from 2003 to 2008.

It is estimated Mr. Gupta has spent roughly $900,000 since 2002 flying Sen. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton on international trips to promote Clinton Foundation business and political events.

The suit, filed by infoUSA shareholders last year, claims those expenses as well as millions of others unrelated to the Clintons were a "serial misuse of corporate assets and resources." The Clintons are not a party to the suit.

Details of this lawsuit first appeared in a February edition of The Deal, a business publication. Further accounts of this lawsuit also appeared in Saturday editions of the New York Times and Washington Post.

This lawsuit only mentions a "high ranking" company official and his wife, but Clinton campaign staffers and unnamed company officials did confirm this case involves Mr. Gupta and the Clintons.

Messages left Saturday with lawyers for infoUSA and for Dolphin Limited Partnership, a hedge fund that brought the suit, were not immediately returned Saturday. Stamford, Conn.-based Dolphin owns 3.6 percent of infoUSA stock.

Phil Singer, a spokesman for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign said all flights were properly reimbursed and disclosed as outlined by FEC ( Federal Election Commission) rules. Mr. Singer also said Sen. Clinton followed Senate ethics rules in regards to these flights.

A message left on Saturday for a spokesman of the former president was not returned.

This suit will give the American public a rare view of how far a Clinton crony will go in order to gain the favor of these two very powerful politicians. This suit alleges Mr. Gupta spent $145,000 to fly the Clinton's, and himself, on a 2002 vacation trip to Acapulco, Mexico.

Gupta has always been a major contributor to Democratic fundraisers, and his loyalty was paid off when former President Clinton invited him to sleep in the White House's Lincoln bedroom. Mr. Gupta showed his appreciation for this night in the Lincoln bedroom by donating $1 million to the Clinton library in Little Rock, Ark.

FEC records show Gupta controlled entities supplied jets for Sen. Clinton on at least seven different occasions since 2002. Clinton campaign, and other political committee, staffers did pay the equivalent price of first-class air seat for those trips. These payments are required by law, but they are also a significant discount when compared to the actual cost of charter jet service.

So far, it does not appear Mr. Gupta has supplied any flights to Sen. Clinton for use during her presidential campaign stops.

Aides to Sen. Clinton say the 2008 Democratic Presidential hopeful paid $450,000 on flights during the first three months of her presidential campaign. Payment records show the $450,000 was for full charter flight service. The actual details of these expenses do not have to be reported until July 15.

FEC records also show that in addition to providing jet service for Sen. Clinton, Mr. Gupta has also donated $19.500 dollars to Hillary's Senate campaign, presidential campaign and her political action committee since 2001.

Before bringing the lawsuit against Mr. Gupta, Dolphin Limited Partnership did try to place three directors on the infoUSA board of directors.

Both in its suit and in its quest to alter the board, Dolphin has maintained that Gupta squandered company money not only on the Clintons but on a stadium sky-box and on a private yacht with an all-female crew.

Documents filed by Mr. Gupta defend this spending by indicating Mr. Gupta paid for the sky-box at the University of Nebraska with his own money, and then transferred the sky-box to infoUSA.

Mr. Gupta also sent a letter to infoUSA directors in 2005 to defend his expenditures on a boat and sky-box by saying these items are used to woo large clients and top performing company employees.

InfoUSA is a marketing information company that provides electronic, print and data processing services to its clients.

InfoUSA has come under intense heat and scrutiny not only because of Mr. Gupta's spending habits, but because of customer data sold by the company that ended up being used by crooks in bilking older people. The company has since issued a statement saying measures have been taken to ensure a sale such like this will not happen again.

Read more about this lawsuit at Yahoo News

Democrats Vow To Continue Their Anti-Troop Movement

Conceding victory to President Bush in the latest battle of troop funding, Congressional Democrats vow to continue the fight when it comes to undermining our battlefield troops.

Congressional Democrats will continue their trampling of the U.S. Constitution by pushing President Bush on whether he has the authority to continue operations in Iraq.

This strategy by the Democrats involves continual and increasing pressure on the President and moderate Republicans over the issue of how long U.S. troops will be deployed in Iraq. With the Iraq war growing increasingly unpopular, Democrats believe increasing pressure will force moderate Republicans, and the President, to change course in Iraq.

"I feel a direction change in the air," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House panel that oversees military funding.

The Democrats had to drop their troop withdrawal plans from the latest troop funding bill because they knew the two thirds vote requirement to override the President was not present. However, this still did not stop Congressional Democrats from waging a vicious war with the President that once again left brave U.S. service personnel caught in the middle.

Congress did finally approved the revised $120 billion, pork laden troop funding bill on Thursday with the hopes President Bush would sign this bill before Congress takes their usual Memorial Day Holiday. The vote in the House was 280-142, and the Senate vote was 80-14.

Democratic Presidential hopefuls Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-NY, and Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, both voted against this bill.

Sen. Clinton, sounding like a broken Democrat record, issued a statement saying she supports the troops, but this bill does not compel the President to change course in Iraq.

Sen. Obama meanwhile said enough is enough, when it comes to giving Bush a blank check so he can continue on the same ill-fated course currently being followed by the President.

The votes by Clinton and Obama appear to signal a shift in their campaign stance against withdrawing troops from Iraq because earlier in the year both thought withdrawing troops from Iraq was not a good idea.

Thursday's legislative actions concluded weeks of fighting between Congress and the White House over funding for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush finally won, and he did receive an extra $17 billion in funding. However, almost half of this additional funding will go to Democratic pet pork domestic projects.

"If all funding bills are going to be this partisan and contentious, it will be a very long year," Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said.

Democrats were still claiming victory over the President by saying they were successful in further pushing the debate over continued U.S. involvement in Iraq. Democrats signaled their fight against the troops will continue in October when talks about the 2008 fiscal year budget begin.

"This debate will go on," vowed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

"Senate Democrats will not stop our efforts to change the course of this war until either enough Republicans join with us to reject President Bush's failed policy or we get a new president," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said.

The Senate will start off talks about the 2008 budget by discussing a defense spending bill authorizing more than $600 billion in spending for the military. Sen. Carl Levin, D-MI, heads the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he plans on attaching language to this defense appropriations bill calling for troop withdrawals with 120 days once this spending bill is approved.

Former Ku Klux Klansman, Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.VA, said he will continue his fight for repealing the 2002 bill authorizing combat actions in Iraq.

Sen. John Warner, R-VA, issued a statement saying the security situation in Iraq needs to improve by Mid-July otherwise President Bush should seriously consider a change of direction for U.S. involvement in Iraq.

"It seems to me it's time for them (Iraqi troops) to ... step up," said Warner, R-Va.

The most critical votes for continued operations in Iraq will come in September when both houses of Congress begin debating 2008 war funding legislation. The House is planning to debate two cut and run bills- one bill deals with troop withdrawals by July 2008, and the other bill calls for repealing the authority giving the President to wage war in Iraq.

These September votes will most likely come after a visit from Gen. David Petraeus in which he will discuss whether or not the troop build-up plan is working. Also due in September is an independent assessment report outlining the progress of the Iraqi government.

"Those of us who oppose this war will be back again and again and again and again until this war has ended," said Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

According to the GAO (Government Accountability Office), more than $300 billion spent so far on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Therefore, the most likely action Congress should take is to stop funding these operations all together. This action is within the scope of Congressional powers granted under the Constitution, but so far the Democrats are afraid, or unwilling, to use this power granted to them.

Read more about the latest anti-troop Democratic actions at Yahoo News

Hillary Told to Ignore Iowa Primaries

Fearing voter backlash from Iowa voters who will cast the first 2008 Presidential primary votes, a leaked memo from Sen. Clinton's Presidential campaign suggests the former first lady should 'skip' over Iowa.

Denouncing an internal memo suggesting "a new approach to winning" is needed, Sen. Clinton said she has no intention of not participating in the Iowa caucuses next year.

After a Des Moines Sunday Register poll showed Hillary trailing John Edwards and Barack Obama in Iowa, a memo from Mike Henry suggests Sen. Clinton's campaign money may be better spent in states that show the NY Senator is faring better than third place.

"I believe we need a new approach to winning the Democratic nomination," Henry wrote. "This approach involves shifting the focus away from Iowa and running a campaign that is more focused on other early primary states and winning this new national primary."

Because California, New York and Florida have moved up their primary dates, all presidential candidates are scrambling to adjust their approach for gaining their parties 2008 presidential nomination. These primary moves seem to be effecting the junior Senator from New York the most because her strategy of projecting herself as the eventual Democratic Presidential nominee is facing a stiff challenge from Edwards and Obama.

Mr. Henry went so far as to say Iowa is 'the weakest link' in the presidential hopes of Sen. Clinton.

Polls in Iowa have consistently shown Edwards winning the Iowa primary even though most national polls give the overall edge in almost every other state to Sen. Clinton. Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack has privately pondered and acknowledged the fact that maybe Sen. Clinton should not waste her time with Iowa.

Mr. Henry's leaked memo suggest it will cost roughly $15 million to campaign in Iowa, and Mr. Henry believes this money is better spent elsewhere.

"We have the opportunity to change the focus of the campaign from a traditional process (Iowa first) to a campaign that favors us," Henry wrote.

Once the Clinton campaign found out this memo was leaked to the AP, Clinton staffers moved quickly into damage, and spin, control mode by offering a plausible explanation about the information contained in the Mike Henry memo.

"This memo offered the views of one person," Clinton told the AP. "I didn't see the memo and didn't know about the memo until it apparently fell into the hands of someone outside the campaign."

Clinton also went on to say that debates about the best course of campaigning is normal in any presidential effort.

Clinton also said she is the one who makes the final decisions about what direction her campaign takes, and Sen. Clinton feels a campaign is well served when there is healthy debate about how the campaign should be run.

Speaking on condition of anonymity. some senior campaign advisers do feel Clinton is best served by avoiding the Iowa caucuses, and this memo was created by Mr. Henry to make sure Hillary knew about other options besides participating in Iowa. Other advisers in the Clinton "inner circle" feel Iowa has long been the focal point of her campaign, and these advisers feel Sen. Clinton still shares this opinion.

Hillary has all ready won the support of Gov. Vilsack and his wife, Christie. These two often accompany Sen. Clinton during her Iowa campaign stops. Sen. Clinton is showing her dedication to Iowa by making numerous stops in Western Iowa starting this Friday.

Former Sen. John Edwards almost won the 2004 Iowa primary, and he has been stumping extensively in Iowa. In addition, Sen. Obama's campaign advisers senses their may be 'blood in the water' because polls in Iowa show Obama may be the best nominee for the general election.

The Iowa caucus goers have gained increasing power and influence within the Democratic party ever since Jimmy Carter rose out of no where in 1976 to win the Iowa caucus and eventually the Presidency.

However, Former President Bill Clinton skipped the Iowa caucus in 1992 because one of his rivals, Sen. Tom Harkin was from Iowa. By-passing Iowa did not hurt Mr. Clinton because he still went on to win the 1992 Presidential election.

A top Clinton strategist, Harold Ickes, said Sen. Hillary Clinton has been weighing her options in Iowa because of the big influx of nominees for the 2008 election.

"Every campaign games out different scenarios and this is one scenario," he said of the memo. "The campaign is moving in Iowa, is going to stay in Iowa, and Mrs. Clinton is very dedicated to winning the state."

The 2008 Iowa caucus, scheduled for January, 14, 2008, is still some time away, and opinion polls can change. This means Sen. Clinton still has some time to decide if she wants for 'fish or cut bait' when it comes to her involvement in this caucus.

Read more about this leaked memo at Yahoo News

Congress, White House Near Agreement on Troop Funding Bill

It appears the Democratic controlled Congress will be the first to 'blink' on the issue of funding for U.S. operations in Iraq.

Fearing another Bush veto, Congress finally decided to drop their request for a troop withdrawal time-line as a requirement for further funding of troop activities in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Several unnamed officials said this bill will cost roughly $120 billion with approximately $8 billion earmarked for Democrat domestic funding issues. The domestic funding, which was initially resisted by the White House, will include aid for victims of hurricane Katrina and aid for farmers hurt by drought.

After an intense struggle between the White House and Congress over much needed troop funding, Congressional leaders hope this compromise bill reaches the President's desk by Friday so this bill can be enacted before the Memorial Day weekend.

Despite the concession, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev., told reporters that the legislation would be the first war-funding bill sent to Bush since the U.S. invasion of Iraq "where he won't get a blank check."

Senate leader Reid and other Democrats quickly pointed to a provision in this bill that calls for setting standards the Iraqi government must reach in developing a more democratic country. U.S. financial aid would be tied to the Iraqi government meeting these set standards, but this bill also allows President Bush to continue giving financial aid to Iraq regardless of how well the country performs on reaching a more democratic society.

Sen. Reid said Democrats are still going to work towards developing a different defense bill later this summer that addresses what the American people desire-a change of direction in the United States involvement in Iraq.

Republicans are claiming victory over the troop funding issue because they claim the Democrats backed down on their demand for a troop withdrawal time-line.

Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, added, "Democrats have finally conceded defeat in their effort to include mandatory surrender dates in a funding bill for the troops, so forward progress has been made for the first time in this four-month process."

Democrats are also claiming victory by saying Republicans paid a price by seeing the Democrats wring out money for spending on domestic issues that should have be going to the troops.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, officials said the final details of this bill still remain in flux. These officials said House leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, intends to present this bill to her rank and file at a meeting later this evening.

This bill will give President Bush approximately $17 billion more than he originally requestd for funding the troops. $9 billion of this additional money will go towards funding defense related items and veteran health-care. The remaining $8 billion is earmarked for the Democrats domestic items.

The bill would also include the first increase in the federal minimum wage in more than a decade. Both the House and Senate have passed measures raising the current level of $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour in three separate 70-cent increases over 26 months. Those measures included modest tax breaks, mainly aimed at helping businesses that hire low-skilled or handicapped workers.

With the possibility of an agreement nearing, Reid and Pelosi also toyed with the idea of splitting this bill into two separate pieces. One bill would have been for troop funding only, and the other bill would have been for domestic funding issues.

Under this scenario, antiwar House Democrats would have been able to vote against troop funding while being able to vote for funding of domestic issues. The troop funding bill would have still passed the House based on strong Republican voting, but it would have also allowed anti-war advocates to show their voters they still voted against additional troop funding.

If this scenario did play out, Sen. Reid would have had to merge both bills in the Senate. This would have left Senate anti-war critics without luxury of voting against troop funding while voting for domestic funding.

The Democrats have been back in Congressional power for only a few months, but the Iraq war has been able to dominate the new Democratic Congressional agenda.

Congress has been trying to pressure President Bush into changing the course in Iraq, but it now appears the President still keeps the upper hand in a war that is becoming more and more unpopular as the days pass.

Read more about this latest troop funding measure at Yahoo News

U.S. Supreme Court Hands Victory to Telecom Companies

By a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court handed the nation's biggest local phone carriers a victory over consumers who filed an anti-competitive business practices lawsuit.

The court ruled in favor of the phone companies because it was found this consumer lawsuit lacked any factual support showing these local phone companies secretly conspired to stay out of the others territory when it came to supplying local phone and high-speed Internet service.

Justice David Souter wrote in the majority opinion that it was not enough to claim a conspiracy exists without having actual facts and evidence to back up such a claim.

Souter said the complaint alleging restraint of trade "comes up short." The consumers "have not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible," Souter wrote.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens objected to a federal judge's dismissal of the case. Stevens said federal rules, previous rulings and "sound practice mandate that the district court at least require some sort of response" before throwing out the case.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg joined Justice Stevens as the only two justices to vote in favor of the consumers.

The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals voted in favor of the consumers by ruling this lawsuit did show "a plausible claim of conspiracy."

This lawsuit shows the Supreme Court Justices are focusing their efforts on anti-trust laws. Two other cases to be heard by this court involve a suit against Wall Street Investment banks, and a case challenging a 96 year-old ruling which bans agreements between manufacturers and retailers who agree to preset pricing on certain products.

Attorney Joseph Simons, a former chief antitrust enforcer at the Federal Trade Commission, said it appears the Supreme Court wants to make over the anti-trust landscape by cleaning up areas this courts feels a clean-up is necessary.

The Chamber of Commerce and eight other business groups and companies filed papers supporting the phone companies.

The decision is "a triumph of the voices for America's wealthiest corporations," said attorney J. Douglas Richards, who argued the case for the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court.

Attorney Richards said it was deplorable the Supreme Court won't allow cases to progress so disclosure of any evidence the phone companies may have showing they did collude with each other in fixing the price of certain services.

This case came to fruition because of changes made to the 1996 telecommunications act which said local phone companies had to open up their monopoly of local phone service to other competitors. By agreeing to this, local phone companies were given the right to offer both local and long-distance service. At the time of this change, four local phone companies supplied roughly 90 percent of the local phone service to consumers.

This case, Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 05-1126, named Bell Atlantic Corp., BellSouth Corp., Qwest Communications International Inc., and SBC Communications Inc.

Bell Atlantic has since changed their name to Verizon, and SBC bought AT&T and changed their name to AT&T. Bellsouth has just recently agreed to a merger with AT&T and Cingular.

A prominent firm of plaintiffs' attorneys represented the consumers by suing these companies when it was discovered these companies retained their own territory without competing with one another.

In his writing for the majority, Justice Souter wrote there was a natural explanation for these companies not competing with each other by saying these companies were sitting tight while waiting for each other to make the first move.

The consumers complaint also alleged the big 4 local companies conspired to keep smaller companies from competing in the larger companies market.

Justice Souter also wrote nothing in the consumers complaint suggest the defendants were resisting competition efforts by other companies, but instead the reaction of the defendants was quite natural because they were acting alone.

Attorney Edward Schwartz said this court decision should discourage anyone from filing an anti-trust lawsuit based solely on nothing more than parallel conduct with the hopes that some type of evidence against a defendant will pop-up in discovery.

The defense attorneys said it should be totally understandable these companies would decide on a individual basis whether is was worth the risk of entering into a new market.

The Bush administration also agreed with this Supreme Court ruling because the consumers case did not show concrete evidence of any wrong doing by the phone companies.

The Justice Department's solicitor general went on to say the burden of proof lies with the plaintiff's ability to show clear evidence these companies met with the intended goal of conspiring with one another to fix prices.

It is not sure whether a new lawsuit will be brought against these phone companies with additional information attached to the original lawsuit.

Read more about this decision at Yahoo News

Private Equity Firm Agrees to $25B Buyout of Alltel

TPG Capital and GS Capital Partners agreed on Friday to buy Alltel wireless for $25 billion dollars.

Alltell becomes the latest publicly held company to fall into the arms of a private equity firm.

With Alltell's stock closing at $65.35 on Friday, TPG and GS Capital agreed to buy this corporate giant's stock for $71.50 in cash.

TPG was formerly know as Texas Pacific Group while GS Capital Partners is better known as the buyout arm of Goldman Sachs.

It is a common practice for private equity firms to purchase companies and then sell them a few years later. Private equity firms usually borrow money to make such investments. More private equity firms have been making these purchases because of a robust debt market that has fueled more leveraged buyouts in the last couple of years.

Alltell joins a growing list of companies that includes Chrysler Group (see my 051507 in the news article), contact lens company Bausch & Lomb, and credit card processor Alliance Data as companies agreeing to be bought by private equity firms.

Analysts have speculated Alltell would be an attractive target for a buyout because Alltell shares sell for about 9 times its cash-flow. Buyout companies have been willing to pay double-digits for companies because deals have been harder and harder to come buy. These buyout companies usually seek companies with strong cash flows because this helps pay down the debt borrowed for the deal.

Alltel is the top rural U.S. wireless provider, and speculation surfaced in February that private equity investment was starting to heat-up because of a conference call indicating Alltell was looking to review their strategic options.

Several teams of private equity suitors emerged earlier this month. Amid a wave of mergers and acquisitions in telecoms, Alltel Chief Executive Scott Ford had been eyeing a sale since the Little Rock, Arkansas-based company spun off its fixed-line arm last year.

Analysts predicated Alltell was hoping some kind of purchase agreement would go through in April or May because this would be before the governments planned sale of wireless airwaves. This government sale is expected to happen around August.

Once rival companies register to take place in this government auction of wireless airwaves, these companies are barred from talking to each other about mergers and acquisitions. And this rule is what led Alltell into finalizing a deal before the August air-wave sale.

Read more about Alltell at CNNMoney

Al Gore Takes His Climate Change Show on the Road to Istanbul

The former Vice-President has been asked to give a presentation on climate change during a conference hosted by World Wildlife Fund, Turkey and Garanti Bank.

The former vice-president is being given credit for bringing more worldwide attention to global warming and climate change as the result of his wildly popular documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.

Mr. Gore's presentation at this conference in Turkey will be based on his 30 years of work and research about the causes and effects of global climate change. This speech will be given to Turkish opinion leaders, leaders of the Turkish business world and media on June 12 at Çırağan Palace.

Mr. Gore has been able to assemble a team of renowned scientists and educators that are attempting to train more than 1,000 people on the causes and effects of climate change. Gore is hoping his team will be able to lead these people into coming up with a worldwide solution to global warming and climate change.

The former vice-president's presentation will show how global climate change is leading to the melting of icebergs and severe droughts and storms. This presentation will also involve a discussion about how misinformation is leading to worldwide confusion about global warming.

Mr. Gore plans to use scientific data to show the world can longer ignore the facts surrounding global warming. Mr. Gore also plans to discuss what can be done to combat climate change while inviting everyone to do their part in helping to save the worldwide environment.

WWF-Turkey Chairman Akın Öngör says, “Global climate change is the biggest environmental threat that the world faces.

Mr. Öngör points to severe flooding, bigger and more frequent forest fires, rapidly spreading diseases, a decrease in rainfall, and water shortages as some of the consequences attributed to global climate caused by an increase in the Earths temperature.

The leaders of this conference hope the invitation for Al Gore to speak at their conference will lead to an increasing awareness about the need for people to take action now in the battle against global warming and climate change.

Garanti Bank's President and CEO Ergun Özen says, “For 15 years, we have been the corporate sponsor of WWF-Turkey and have been supporting its environmental conservation projects. Our goal is to help create a more livable environment that is better conserved.

Mr. Özen also said his company supported a January viewing of Gore's An Inconvenient Truth in Turkey, and this led to Turkey inviting Gore to his presentation on global climate change. Mr. Özen is also among those people who hope the Gore presentation will lead to more people getting involved in the fight against global warming and climate change.

Read more about Gore's trip to Turkey at the Turkish Daily News

UN talks on Climate Change Stall--Is the US to Blame?

UN hosted talks about climate change held in Bonn, Germany bogged down over the issue of US involvement in a climate change policy.

The issue at hand is the United States refusal to sign-off on the Kyoto Pact that is set to expire in 2012. Diplomats fear that without the United States agreeing to this pact, further discussions on global warming are fruitless.

The US is concerned the Kyoto Pact only targets the rich countries, and by doing this the emerging countries will be allowed to pollute as much as they want.

The United States and Japan, despite UN alarmists ringing warning bells, did not see much hope for launching more serious talks about extending the Kyoto Pact at the upcoming UN meeting to be held this December in Bali.

Japan's chief climate negotiator, Mutsuyoshi Nishimura said all emitters of carbon, including China and India, need to be involved in these talks, and not just the rich countries like the United States and Japan. Mr. Nishimura said his expectations of extending the Kyoto Pact in Bali are extremely low.

The United States never ratified the Kyoto Protocol and ruled out talks in Bali to change the pact's parent treaty, the Convention on Climate Change, a necessary step to extend Kyoto.

"Certainly it would be premature," chief U.S. negotiator Harlan Watson told Reuters.

Jamil Ahmad, coordinator for the G77 group which represents 132 developing countries, said developing countries should not be the ones targeted in the next Kyoto agreement for 2013.

"After the second commitment period future possibilities can be discussed, it's too far ahead to imagine a scenario for discussion," he told Reuters.

China, the world's second biggest carbon emitter, said developing countries have been trying to cut their carbon emissions, but further help is needed. Guoshun Sun, China's head of delegation, said developing countries need financial and technological assistance, along with resources, from all the developed countries in helping to curb carbon emissions in their countries.

Yvo de Boer, the UN's head of climate change, did acknowledge some "sticky points" in the debate on climate change, but Yvo went on to say it was a good sign to see the willingness of Brazil and South Africa discussing how the developing countries can shoulder some the the burden of committing to a climate change pact.

Germany is set to hold a G8 economic summit this June where a discussion on global warming is set to highlight this meeting of the world's biggest economic countries.

Germany's chief climate negotiator Nicole Wilke said, she hopes the change in policy by Brazil and South Africa will open the door for more serious talks about extending the Kyoto Pact beyond 2012. Ms. Wilke said Chancellor Merkel is hoping the G8 summit will pave the way for even more productive talks at the Bali meeting later in the year.

Proponents of climate change are worried about what will happen if he Kyoto treaty is allowed to expire without an extension being given to this pact. Nations have to come to an agreement and then parliamentary backing has to be won in a process that usually takes four years.

An agreement reached in Bonn, Germany, still needs to be signed-off at the Bali meetings that would create a fund to help most vulnerable countries. This agreement would also call for a group to give technology aid to countries that need such assistance.

"Everybody knows there's a higher public expectation on policymakers," said the head of the European Commission's delegation, Artur Runge-Metzger. "The results of the IPCC reports are creeping into delegates' minds.

A series of reports issued this year by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are said to be the cause of diplomats now focusing their minds to acting fast on the issue of how carbon emissions are effecting the world's climate.

Read more at Yahoo News

Congress and the White House Remian Locked in an Impasse Over a Troop Funding Bill

The White and Congress remain in a deadlock over funding for US troops in Iraq because of the Democratic controlled Congress stubborn stand on setting a deadline for troop withdrawals.

While US troops remain in a deadly crossfire between insurgents and terrorists in Iraq, the US government remains bogged down on the issue of troop funding that will give these over-taxed troops much needed equipment and supplies.

After a nearly 90-minute meeting on Capitol Hill, White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten issued a statement saying any bill with language mentioning any type of troop withdrawal action is something the White House is just not willing to accept at this time.

House leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, and Senate leader Harry Reid, D-NV, issued a joint counter statement saying the Democrats latest proposal includes language giving the President the ability to waive troop withdrawals if the Iraqi government reaches certain benchmarks. These two Democratic leaders said they are also willing to remove domestic spending language attached to the troop funding bill as long as President Bush acknowledges the need for a troop withdrawal deadline.

These are the first concessions by the Democrats in their battle with the White House over a troop funding bill that is long overdue.

"To say I was disappointed in the meeting is an understatement," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters. "I really did expect that the president would accept some accountability for what we're trying to accomplish here."

At risk is the $90 billion dollar funding request President Bush states as necessary for continued operations through September in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Congress sent a bill to the President on May 1 approving the required funding of troops, but this bill also stated troop withdrawals must begin on Oct. 1. The President quickly vetoed this bill on the same day because of the troop withdrawal language.

According to a report released Friday by the GAO ( Government Accountability Office), the US has spent more than $300 billion on military operations in Iraq.

The Bush administration and Congressional Republicans say they are willing to consider legislation setting goals for the Iraqi government to reach if the Iraqis want to continue receiving financial aid from the United States.

However, the most pressing question is whether President Bush is willing to accept binding legislation calling for serious consequences to the Iraqi government if they fail to meet the established guidelines. Aides to the President say Bush should have the power to waive these restrictions, but Democrats say this compromise by the President is too weak.

Democratic and Republican aides gave hints that Pelosi and Reid both gave a lukewarm response to this Bush proposal because the Democrats are stuck on the idea of a troop withdrawal date.

Also not being ruled out is the idea of the Democrats sending the President another troop funding bill with withdrawal language still attached, but this action will just lead to another Bush veto.

"I was a little surprised that (the) Democratic leaders, at least so far, seem so dug in on that position" of setting a timetable, Bolten said. "Because it's a position that ... the president vetoed and which was sustained in" both chambers.

The Democrats have started to come under pressure to not cede ground on a troop withdrawal plan for a war that is becoming more and more unpopular. The House in particular is coming under fire to not give in to the President because many of the newly elected House Democrats were voted into office with the idea they would be able to bring the troops home.

"It is clear that the difference between the Democrats and the president is the issue of accountability," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "He will not accept any accountability or responsibility for what has happened there."

Attending this rare meeting between Democrats and Republican leaders were Bolten, White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley and White House budget director Rob Portman, as well as Reid, Pelosi, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Reps. Jerry Lewis and David Obey. Lewis, R-Calif., is the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee and Obey, D-Wis., is chairman.

House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-OH, was also an attendee at this meeting. He took this opportunity to slam Democrats over their offer to remove domestic spending language attached to the troop funding bill because the Democrats want to keep the troop withdrawal language attached to any troop funding bill

"What a principled stand to take when we're talking about our men and women in uniform in Iraq taking on the enemy in a war that I think most Americans want to win," said Boehner.

Pelosi went on to say the troops would be funded, regardless of how negotiations with the White House are proceeding. Pelosi also went on to say she is still working with Sen. Reid on drafting a new troop funding bill Democrats want to send to the President next week.

The Democrats are not saying what this new bill will look like, but it appears nothing is off the table and that includes setting a troop withdrawal time-line.

Read more about this impasse at Yahoo News

Microsoft and Bill Clinton Team-Up to Fight Pollution

The Clinton Foundation and Microsoft have teamed up in developing software that will help large cities create, track and share strategies to reduce carbon emissions.

Former President Clinton is set to speak in front of the C40 climate summit this week for the mayors of the world's largest cities to discuss his plans for new software and Web applications that are parts of a program being developed for tracking carbon emissions.

This software tool is designed to create a standardized way for cities all around the world to track their greenhouse gas emissions. By using this software, cities will be able to tell how effective, or ineffective, their carbon reduction programs are working.

The C40 summit of leaders from the world's major cities, which first met in London in 2005, was started with the aim of helping cities share ideas and band together to force down the price of technology to combat global warming.

It is estimated that urban cities use 75 percent of the world's energy, and these cities also produce 80 percent of the carbon emissions that lead to greenhouse gas pollution.

Bruce Lindsey, chief executive of the Clinton Foundation, said this software tool will be a key resource in the Clinton Foundation's work with cities worldwide in the fight against global warming.

As the world's largest software developer, Microsoft said they will provide this software, and associated services, for free. Microsoft also hopes to have this software in place by the end of this year.

The technical details still need to be worked out, but it appears most of these tools are going to be web-based and accessed through the Internet. This software should allow cities around the world to share data and policies that are working in reducing carbon based emissions.

Based on a formula developed by environmental groups, a city using the software would add up various factors like commercial space, residential buildings and transportation usage to gauge how much carbon dioxide a city produces.

Read more about this team at Yahoo News

Senate Set to Vote on War Funding Bill

Democrats in the US Senate are set to cast what they call a dramatic anti-war vote this week.

Behind closed doors this week, some moderates in the Senate worked with the anti-war coalition in crafting a bill they hope will make President Bush rethink his Iraq war strategy.

On Monday, Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, D-NV, said the Senate will vote on whether funding for troops in Iraq will be halted sometime next year. This bill will most likely include language stating US troops need to start withdrawal maneuvers this fall. Sen. Reid said he plans to attach these two provisions to a water projects funding bill that is up for debate this week.

Voting on the water project funding bill should take place this Wednesday, and it is expected the Senate will still be short the 60 votes required to move any legislation forward in the Senate. Sen. Reid hopes voting on this bill will help him determine the political waters surrounding the issue of troop funding that even has the Democratic caucus divided on how far Congress should go in support of US troops.

"These are important votes," said Reid spokesman Rodell Mollineau. "This will give members an opportunity to debate these issues and have up-or-down votes" on whether to end the war.

President Bush has all ready vetoed a $124 billion troop funding bill because this bill included a provision stating US troops need to be begin Iraq withdrawal tactics starting this Oct. 1.

The US House of Representatives all ready defied the President on the troop funding issue by passing proposed legislation that would only fund US troops in Iraq through July. This bill all ready appears 'dead on arrival' in the Senate because Democratic Senators do not want to give the appearance they are abandoning US troops deployed in a war zone.

"On our side of the aisle, Democrats believe they should do something very, very close to what was done in the bill that was sent to the president to be vetoed," Reid said.

Sen Reid and Sen.Carl Levin, D-Mich, are willing to allow the Senate to vote on legislation demanding troop withdrawals starting on Oct. 1, but this proposed legislation will also allow the President to waive that requirement.

Sen. Levin is the Chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He called this legislation the "second-best" option because he feels it allows the President to waive the troop withdrawal date, and this gives Bush no reason to veto this particular piece of legislation. However, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino says Bush is still not in favor of Levin and Reid's newest withdrawal plan.

"Such time lines tie the hands of our commanders, weaken our friends, embolden our enemies and enhance the risk faced by our troops in combat," Perino said. "The bottom line is that a date for retreat is a date for retreat, and the president opposes such provisions."

Senator Reid is still facing pressure from more liberal Democrats who want to cut off all funding, as of March 31, 2008, for all troops still in Iraq. Earlier this year, Reid teamed with Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis, to co-sponsor this legislation, but Reid says he does not intend to push this bill as the Democrats caucus position on funding US troops.

Feingold said the American public deserve to see, on record, the position Senators are taking when it comes to ending our misguided mission in Iraq, and then safely redeploying our brave troops.

This voting comes as nearly a dozen Republicans are discussing their own plan for further funding of troops in Iraq. A proposal by Sen. John Warner, R-Va, calls for the President to re-evaluate his Iraq strategy if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks.

"We're trying to put together a single document" that would address concerns of GOP senators, Warner, R-Va., said in an interview.

Warner said he personally backs a requirement calling for Iraqi progress reports that need to be sent to Congress before their usual breaks in August and September.

Warner would like the first report by July so Congressional members have an updated evaluation of the situation they can take back to their voters. Sen. Warner also said if the Iraqi government is not meeting their benchmarks at this time, President Bush should then consider whether a new Iraq war strategy needs to be developed.

Sen. Warner said this group of a dozen Republicans have been discussing this issue along with Sen. Bob Nelson, D-Neb, and the goal is to develop proposals that will provide bipartisan interest and support.

Sens. Susan Collins, R-ME, and Norm Coleman, R-MN, are among the Senators working with Warner and Nelson in trying to come up with proposals that both Democrats and Republicans will like.

Sen. Nelson has drafted legislation that calls for reconstruction aid to be cut off if the Iraqis fail to meet certain political and security benchmarks. This legislation would also allow the President to waive the cutting of reconstruction aid if the President can show public justification for this aid to continue.

Nelson's proposed legislation would also call for the U.S. commander in Iraq to testify by Sept. 15 on the effectiveness of Bush's troop buildup around Baghdad.

"The Senate needs to move forward," Nelson said. "The president has signaled he will accept reasonable benchmarks."

Senators Warner and Nelson have worked successfully on Senate legislation before as part of the the "Gang of 14,". This "gang" was a group of senators who in 2005 drafted a compromise to end a Senate fight on judicial nominations.

Read more about the Senates Iraq plan at Yahoo News

Private Equity Firm Cerberus Plans to Bail Out Chrysler

Cerberus has announced plans to buy a majority portion of the Chrysler business from DaimlerChrysler for $7.4 billion dollars.

DaimlerChrysler said on Monday Cerberus will receive an approximate 80 percent stake in the Chrysler group, and this skate will also include interest in Chrysler related financial services.

At the time of its founding nine years ago, DaimlerChrysler created a transatlantic merger that was worth roughly $36 billion dollars, but now Cerberus is buying into this once proud auto company at a fraction of its original net worth.

This deal has been in the work for months, and this will be the first time a US automaker has been held by a private equity group.

"Cerberus is the right strategic buyer for Chrysler, with a long-term commitment to Chrysler's growth and success. They are committed to working constructively with both union leadership and Chrysler's management team to help Chrysler realize its full potential," Chrysler President Tom LaSorda said.

At the moment, this move will not result in any job losses beyond the February announced plans of 13,000 job cuts. These job losses came on the heels of a report issued by DaimlerChrysler stating the company suffered $1.5 billion in operation losses for 2006. These losses were attributed to high fuel prices which led customers to flee their lineup of pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles.

This deals breaks up the mass-marketed line-up of American cars featuring
Jeep, Dodge and Chrysler that went along with Germany's premium Mercedes-Benz, luxury Maybach and Smart minicar brands.

This deal states Chrysler will be responsible for billions of dollars in pension and health care obligations resulting in a net cash outflow of 0.5 billion euros ($677 million) for the world's fifth-biggest car maker.

The German half of this automaker will, once this deal is approved by stockholders, go back to their original name of Daimler AG. Under the terms of this agreement, Daimler will still have to pony up another 650 million euros to cover long-term liabilities at Chrysler. This deal will also cut 2007's net profit by 3-4 billion euros.

"Even though I don't think there is a very strong valuation story, there is a very strong visibility story. One of the great parts of uncertainty surrounding Daimler is now not so uncertain," said Nomura analyst Michael Tyndall.

DaimlerChrysler put the Chrysler brand up for sale in February because they were dismayed over volatile earnings reports.

Bidders who went public with their intentions to buy Chrysler were Kerkorian's Tracinda Corp. and Canadian auto-parts maker Magna International. Another Private equity firm, Blackstone Group, was also in the bidding for Chrysler, and it was said Blackstone was linked up with smaller buyout firm Centerbridge Partners in pursuing the bid for Chrysler.

Cerberus is a New York based investment fund that has built a massive private equity and hedge-fund practice. Wolfgang Bernhard, who helped turn Chrysler around early this decade, was hired as an adviser on this deal.

One of the keys to this deal was the company's unfunded obligations to health care related liabilities Chrysler had with the United Auto Workers ( UAW ). UAW represents factory workers at DaimlerChrysler, and these liabilities are estimated to be around $14.1 billion euros as of the end of last year. DaimlerChrysler released a statement saying Chrysler will live up to their responsibilities for this debt.

UAW President Ron Gettelfinger, who sits on DaimlerChrysler's supervisory board and had publicly opposed a sale to a private equity buyer, hailed the deal.

"The transaction with Cerberus is in the best interests of our UAW members, the Chrysler Group and Daimler," he said.

A main obstacle to Chrysler becoming profitable in 2008 will be their ability, or lack of ability, in ironing out a new contract with the UAW. It is believed Chrysler will be looking for a contract that reduces costs, particularly for health care, when the current contract expires in September.

"That unfunded health care really determines how much the business is worth," Nomura's Tyndall said, noting Bernhard, who used to be Chrysler's chief operating officer, was as well placed as any to have a clear view of this.

Cerberus does have some experience in the auto industry. Last year, General motors sold a 51 percent claim in their GMAC financing arm to a group of investors led by Cerberus. This deal was believed to be worth $14 billion dollars.

Read more about this bail out deal at Yahoo News

Spring Cleaning

Since spring is here, I decided to do a little "spring" cleaning to my site.

After many helpful comments and suggestions on how to make my site easier to read, I have made some changes I hope will make site more enjoyable to read.

I hope you like the changes I have made.

Please keep the helpful suggestions coming because I rely on you, my faithful readers, to help me make this site a joy to read the news you need to know.

Thanks for your support and help.

Rob

US Indicates They are Willing to Discuss Iraq with Iran

Bush administration officials indicated the United States is willing to dicuss Iraq, and Iraq only, with officials from Iran.

Officials from the United States released a statement on Sunday, May 13, saying the Bush administration is willing talk with officials from Tehran because US officials feel Iran is undermining the Iraqi government by exporting roadside bombs to terrorists in Iraq.

A spokeswoman for Vice President Dick Cheney said the US is willing to listen to conversations limited to talks at the ambassador level. This statement was released after the Vice President met with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

The spokeswoman, Lea Anne McBride, said this willingness by the US to talk with Iran over security issues in Iraq is consistent with US policy and does not mean the US is taking a new position on talks with Iran.

The official news agency in Iran said the United States wants to meet with Iran in Baghdad to discuss security issues inside Iraq. Iran states this request from the US came through the Swiss Embassy in Tehran. The Swiss Embassy usually acts as an intermediary for the U.S. in the Iran.

"Iran has agreed to this (negotiation) after consultation with Iraqi officials, in order to lessen the pain of the Iraqi people, support the Iraqi government and establish security and peace in Iraq," the state-run IRNA quoted Mohammad Ali Hosseini, the foreign ministry spokesman, as saying.

McBride said the comments appeared to refer to what the U.S. has called "the Baghdad channel ... our willingness to talk to the Iranians at the ambassador level about Iraq-specific issues."

However, Ms. McBride would not confirm if this request for talks was an official request from the US government.

Another White House spokesman, Gordon Johndroe, said you could expect a meeting within the next few weeks between the US ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and the Iranians. Mr. Johndroe said this meeting will take place in Baghdad, and Mr. Johndroe went on to say the goal of this meeting is to get Iran to play a 'productive role' in Iraq.

While accompanying President Bush on a trip to help celebrate the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, Va., Mr. Johndroe further stated the so named "Baghdad channel" is something the US has been talking about for some time. However, Johndroe would not elaborate on whether the US actually requested to meet with officials from Iran.

Iraqi leaders have been pressuring the United States to meet with Iran because both Iran and the US hold the key to the fate of the Iraqi people.

Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's foreign minister, told the Associated Press ( AP ) he expects these meetings will take place in the next couple of weeks. Mr. Zebari said Baghdad was chosen as the site for these meetings because it would allow "serious, quiet and focused discussions on the responsibilities and the obligations of all to help stabilize the situation in Iraq."

Mr. Zebari said he was pleased to hear Iran was willing to meet in Baghdad with US officials.

This development came at a time when Vice-President Cheney was in Egypt trying to persuade moderate Arab nations to show more support for the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Another goal of this meeting was to curtail Iran's growing influence throughout the Middle East.

Lower level Iranian and US officials held rare talks about Iraq in March. These talks were a lead up to an international conference on Iraq that was held in Egypt this month.

Speculation of a Cabinet-level meeting during this conference never took place because neither Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nor Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki wanted to make the first move. Both of these diplomats passed on a chance for high-level, face-to-face talks between Iran and the United States since a break in relations caused by the 1979 hostage crisis.

The only direct U.S.-Iran contact came in a casual chat between the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and Iran's deputy foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi.

Until this spring, the administration dismissed calls for an outreach to Iran and Syria; at the Egyptian conference, Rice did sit down for a talk with Syria's top diplomat.

Zebari said he could not rule out the possibility these talks will also involve the five Iranians currently being held by US forces in Iraq. The US military claims these Iranians are suspects in a link between terrorists in Iraq and weapons being smuggled into Iraq.

Cheney was in Egypt for a short round of talks with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak about the future of Iraq. President Mubarak is a key US ally in the Mid-East, and the Vic-President was trying to shore up support about the effectiveness of the U.S. military buildup in Iraq. There is growing concern in the Arab world about just how effective the US has been in Iraq.

After these talks with the Egyptian President, Cheney plans to go back to Jordan for more talks with Jordan's King Abdullah. This weeklong trip to the Mid-East by the Vice President will also involve visits to Iraq, the United Arab Emirates, and to the carrier USS John C. Stennis in the Persian Gulf to rally troops.

The carrier USS John C. Stennis is currently about 150 miles off the coast of Iran. While on this carrier, the Vice-President issued a statement warning Iran that the US and their allies would prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and dominating the Mid-East.

Tehran still insists their nuclear program is for peaceful purposed only, but Washington is still 'sticking by their guns' in saying Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons.

Iraqi foregin minister Zebari said the US is trying to create crisis, panic, fear and insecurity in the region by saying Iran is building nuclear weapons. Zebari said this 'fear-mongering' is something Iraq strongly opposes.

Iran's Defense Minister, Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, was quoted as saying he warns Vice-President Cheney and other American leaders that any response by Iranian forces will be strong, swift and surprising. This statement came after he cautioned the US about use of military force against Iran.

Mr. Najajr also dismissed statements by Cheney as being those used for "psychological operations".

Read more about this possible meeting at Yahoo News