MSNBC - Did Ashcroft brush off terror warnings?: "Did Ashcroft brush off terror warnings?
Did Ashcroft brush off terror warnings?
NBC exclusive: 9/11 commission interviews FBI officials who contradict Ashcroft testimony
By Lisa Myers
Senior investigative correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 7:32 p.m. ET June 22, 2004WASHINGTON - The 9/11 commission is busy writing its final report, but is still investigating critical facts, including the conduct of U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. NBC News has learned that the commission has interviewed two FBI officials who contradict sworn testimony by Ashcroft, about whether he brushed off terrorism warnings in the summer of 2001.
advertisement
In the critical months before Sept. 11, did Ashcroft dismiss threats of an al-Qaida attack in this country?
At issue is a July 5, 2001, meeting between Ashcroft and acting FBI Director Tom Pickard. That month, the threat of an al-Qaida attack was so high, the White House summoned the FBI and domestic agencies, and warned them to be on alert.
Yet, Pickard testified to the 9/11 commission that when he tried to brief Ashcroft just a week later, on July 12, about the terror threat inside the United States, he got the brush-off.
"Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this anymore," Democratic commission member Richard Ben-Veniste asked on April 13. "Is that correct?"
"That is correct," Pickard replied.
Testifying under oath the same day, Ashcroft categorically denied the allegation, saying, "I did never speak to him saying that I didn't want to hear about terrorism."
However, another senior FBI official tells NBC News he vividly recalls Pickard returning from the meeting that day furious that Ashcroft had cut short the terrorism briefing. This official, now retired, has talked to the 9/11 commission.
Full coverage
9/11 commission
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States wrapped up its public hearings with a two-day session on June 16 and 17.
• No Iraq-al-Qaida link: Story | Statement
• Al-Qaida's plan: Story | Statement
• Day of attack: Story | Statement
• Commission Web site
NBC News has learned that commission investigators also tracked down another FBI witness at the meeting that day, Ruben Garcia, head of the Criminal Division at that time. Several sources familiar with the investigation say Garcia confirmed to the commission that Ashcroft did indeed dismiss Pickard's warnings about al-Qaida.
"When you get two people coming forth and basically challenging a sworn statement by the attorney general regarding a critical meeting in the history of the 9/11 event, you raise serious questions about the Attorney General's truthfulness," says Paul Light, a government reform expert and New York University professor.
Ashcroft's version of events is supported by his top aide, who attended the meeting. But another Justice official also there — who Ashcroft's office claimed would dispute Pickard's account — says he doesn't remember.
"I do not recall the conversation that interim director Pickard referred to," says former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson.
Experts say that in the context of Sept. 11, the issue is not trivial.
"Was there a communications breakdown between the FBI and the Department of Justice, at the highest levels of each agency?" asks former Justice Department Inspector General Michael Bromwich.
Ashcroft's spokesman dismissed the allegations Tuesday, saying, "The suggestion that the attorney general wasn't concerned about terrorism is absurd."
He says if Ashcroft was ever short with FBI officials, it was because "he was unhappy with the quality of information he was getting."
Pickard did brief Ashcroft on terrorism four more times that summer, but sources say the acting FBI director never mentioned the word al-Qaida again in Ashcroft's presence — until after Sept. 11.
© 2004 MSNBC Interactive
MORE FROM NIGHTLY NEWS WITH TOM BROKAW
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
could not sleep today
pain pills keeping me awake
memories of people
from fort lauderdale
the red book
the rabbit at the door this morning
the gay guy with hiv, made me a web
page
steven, the millionare
what is the significance of a rabbit
like i have a rabbit here, and he hops
away, fear in his eyes as he looks at me
is there a rabbit hole here i have yet
to find?
is there a door here i have yet to open, that
will take me down down down
it is only with the heart one can see rightly
all else is hidden?
what is my purpose here, here and now
in pain
what am i suppose to do
to make
to invent
nana showed me the red book (s) in a dream four
years ago
and now i have a red book here, one james
brought home
and now, here and now
i have in my little room here
my little studio in florida
a red book, with white and empty pages
whatever god is, he is here
he is providing pills for pain
ice for pain
other dimensions
abound here and around me
i can feel them
they are all here
there, their, is majik in this air
this is going to be the summer
of manifestations
of dreams made real
pain pills keeping me awake
memories of people
from fort lauderdale
the red book
the rabbit at the door this morning
the gay guy with hiv, made me a web
page
steven, the millionare
what is the significance of a rabbit
like i have a rabbit here, and he hops
away, fear in his eyes as he looks at me
is there a rabbit hole here i have yet
to find?
is there a door here i have yet to open, that
will take me down down down
it is only with the heart one can see rightly
all else is hidden?
what is my purpose here, here and now
in pain
what am i suppose to do
to make
to invent
nana showed me the red book (s) in a dream four
years ago
and now i have a red book here, one james
brought home
and now, here and now
i have in my little room here
my little studio in florida
a red book, with white and empty pages
whatever god is, he is here
he is providing pills for pain
ice for pain
other dimensions
abound here and around me
i can feel them
they are all here
there, their, is majik in this air
this is going to be the summer
of manifestations
of dreams made real
Monday, June 21, 2004
CBSNews.com: Print This Story
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Military Specialists Dismissed
SAN FRANCISCO, June 21, 2004
Brian Muller, an Army bomb squad team leader who served on a security detail for President Bush, said he was dismissed from duty after deciding to tell his commander he's gay.
"I didn't do it to get out of a war -- I already served in a war," Muller, 25, said in an interview. "After putting my life on the line in the war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many other people that I couldn't myself enjoy was almost unbearable."
The exodus of soldiers like Muller continues even as concerns grow about military troop strength, according to a new study. Some 770 people were discharged for homosexuality last year under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
The figure, however, is significantly lower than the record 1,227 discharges in 2001 - just before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since "don't ask, don't tell" was adopted in 1994, nearly 10,000 military personnel have been discharged - including linguists, nuclear warfare experts and other key specialists.
The statistics, obtained from the Defense Manpower Data Center and analyzed by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California at Santa Barbara, offers a detailed profile of those discharged, including job specialty, rank and years spent in the service.
"The justification for the policy is that allowing gays and lesbians to serve would undermine military readiness," said Aaron Belkin, author of the study, which will be released Monday. "For the first time, we can see how it has impacted every corner of the military and goes to the heart of the military readiness argument."
"Don't ask, don't tell" allows gays to serve in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts.
The study, which analyzed discharges between 1998 and 2003, found the majority of those let go under "don't ask, don't tell" were active duty enlisted personnel in the early stages of their careers.
Of the nearly 6,300 people discharged during that six-year period, only 75 were officers. Seventy-one percent of those discharged were men.
The study found that the Army, the largest of the services, was responsible for about 41 percent of all discharges. About 27 percent of the discharges came from the Navy, 22 percent from the Air Force, and 9 percent from the Marines.
Hundreds of those discharged held high-level job specialties that required years of training and expertise, including 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 rocket and missile specialists and 49 nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare specialists.
Eighty-eight linguists were discharged, including at least seven Arab language specialists.
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, said the loss of gays and lesbians serving in specialized areas is irrelevant because they never should have been in those jobs in the first place.
"We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality is incompatible with military service," Donnelly said. "There is no shortage of people in the military, and we do not need people who identify themselves as homosexual."
There are currently about 1.5 million people serving in active duty in the military, and another 1 million in the Reserves.
By Beth Fouhy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key Military Specialists Dismissed
SAN FRANCISCO, June 21, 2004
Brian Muller, an Army bomb squad team leader who served on a security detail for President Bush, said he was dismissed from duty after deciding to tell his commander he's gay.
"I didn't do it to get out of a war -- I already served in a war," Muller, 25, said in an interview. "After putting my life on the line in the war, the idea that I was fighting for the freedoms of so many other people that I couldn't myself enjoy was almost unbearable."
The exodus of soldiers like Muller continues even as concerns grow about military troop strength, according to a new study. Some 770 people were discharged for homosexuality last year under the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
The figure, however, is significantly lower than the record 1,227 discharges in 2001 - just before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Since "don't ask, don't tell" was adopted in 1994, nearly 10,000 military personnel have been discharged - including linguists, nuclear warfare experts and other key specialists.
The statistics, obtained from the Defense Manpower Data Center and analyzed by the Center for the Study of Sexual Minorities in the Military at the University of California at Santa Barbara, offers a detailed profile of those discharged, including job specialty, rank and years spent in the service.
"The justification for the policy is that allowing gays and lesbians to serve would undermine military readiness," said Aaron Belkin, author of the study, which will be released Monday. "For the first time, we can see how it has impacted every corner of the military and goes to the heart of the military readiness argument."
"Don't ask, don't tell" allows gays to serve in the military as long as they keep their sexual orientation private and do not engage in homosexual acts.
The study, which analyzed discharges between 1998 and 2003, found the majority of those let go under "don't ask, don't tell" were active duty enlisted personnel in the early stages of their careers.
Of the nearly 6,300 people discharged during that six-year period, only 75 were officers. Seventy-one percent of those discharged were men.
The study found that the Army, the largest of the services, was responsible for about 41 percent of all discharges. About 27 percent of the discharges came from the Navy, 22 percent from the Air Force, and 9 percent from the Marines.
Hundreds of those discharged held high-level job specialties that required years of training and expertise, including 90 nuclear power engineers, 150 rocket and missile specialists and 49 nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare specialists.
Eighty-eight linguists were discharged, including at least seven Arab language specialists.
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness, a conservative advocacy group that opposes gays serving in the military, said the loss of gays and lesbians serving in specialized areas is irrelevant because they never should have been in those jobs in the first place.
"We need to defend the law, and the law says that homosexuality is incompatible with military service," Donnelly said. "There is no shortage of people in the military, and we do not need people who identify themselves as homosexual."
There are currently about 1.5 million people serving in active duty in the military, and another 1 million in the Reserves.
By Beth Fouhy
Sunday, June 20, 2004
June 19
Whatever you do, don’t shut off your pain; accept your pain and remain vulnerable. However desperate you become, accept your pain as it is, because it is in fact trying to hand you a priceless gift: the chance of discovering, through spiritual practice, what lies behind sorrow.
“Grief,” Rumi wrote, “can be the garden of compassion. If you keep your heart open through everything, your pain can become your greatest ally in your life’s search for love and wisdom.”
Whatever you do, don’t shut off your pain; accept your pain and remain vulnerable. However desperate you become, accept your pain as it is, because it is in fact trying to hand you a priceless gift: the chance of discovering, through spiritual practice, what lies behind sorrow.
“Grief,” Rumi wrote, “can be the garden of compassion. If you keep your heart open through everything, your pain can become your greatest ally in your life’s search for love and wisdom.”
james g got alcohol poisoning this weekend, but he was fun
stayed by his bed a lot, to keep him from falling out
met james friend, lional, nice
im at home, full of pills, in bed most of the time, certainly not on my feet
thats for sure
i see doc jackson again this week or next monday, thank god for ice
dave hell
stayed by his bed a lot, to keep him from falling out
met james friend, lional, nice
im at home, full of pills, in bed most of the time, certainly not on my feet
thats for sure
i see doc jackson again this week or next monday, thank god for ice
dave hell
Saturday, June 19, 2004
Friday, June 18, 2004
The New York Times > Washington > News Analysis: Questioning Nearly Every Aspect of the Responses to Sept. 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 18, 2004
NEWS ANALYSIS
Questioning Nearly Every Aspect of the Responses to Sept. 11
By DOUGLAS JEHL
ASHINGTON, June 17 - For most of 2002, President Bush argued that a commission created to look into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks would only distract from the post-Sept. 11 war on terrorism.
Now, in 17 preliminary staff reports, that panel has called into question nearly every aspect of the administration's response to terror, including the idea that Iraq and Al Qaeda were somehow the same foe.
Far from a bolt from the blue, the commission has demonstrated over the last 19 months that the Sept. 11 attacks were foreseen, at least in general terms, and might well have been prevented, had it not been for misjudgments, mistakes and glitches, some within the White House.
In the face of those findings, Mr. Bush stood firm, disputing the particular finding in a staff report that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization. "There was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Mr. Bush declared.
Such assertions, attributed by the White House until now to "intelligence reports," may now be perceived by Americans as having less credibility than they did before the commission's staff began in January to rewrite the history of Sept. 11, in one extraordinarily detailed report after another.
With its historic access to government secrets, the panel was able to shed new light on old accountings, demonstrating, for example, that Mr. Bush himself, in the weeks before the attack, had received more detailed warnings about Al Qaeda's intentions than the White House had acknowledged.
For now, the panel is casting its work in tentative terms. Its final report is due next month, on the eve of the Democratic convention. In this election year, its contribution has already been to portray Sept. 11 not just as a starting point in the war on terrorism, but also as a point on a continuum, one preceded and followed by other treacheries and failures.
At a briefing, a senior White House official sought again to turn away attention from the past. "The real issue is how do we move forward," the official said. "We've made a lot of changes since Sept. 11, because this country was simply not on war footing at the time of the attacks."
In the studies, Mr. Bush in particular has come off as less certain and decisive than he has portrayed himself. The final report, issued on Wednesday, reminded Americans that Mr. Bush remained in a classroom in Florida for at least five minutes after the second jet struck the World Trade Center, in what he told the panel was an effort "to project calm" for a worried nation.
Initially it was Henry A. Kissinger, the pillar of Republican foreign policy, whom Mr. Bush selected as the panel chairman, with George J. Mitchell, a former Democratic leader in the Senate, as vice chairman.
But those two appointees quickly fell by the wayside, to be replaced by former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, a Republican, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana , whose milder manners undoubtedly gave the panel a less partisan demeanor.
Notably, the two men joined forces successfully to persuade the White House to allow the panel access to crucial documents, including copies of the Presidential Daily Brief, and to pivotal figures, including Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, who testified under oath in March, and to Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who appeared jointly in a closed session.
Whether the two leaders and the other panel members, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, can join forces in presenting final conclusions remains to be seen. Among the issues to be decided, and which the White House is closely watching, is the position on how and whether to reorganize United States intelligence agencies, in hopes of closing gaps that might have contributed to the Sept. 11 failures.
The Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation bore the particular brunt of the staff reports, for missteps in communication, intelligence gathering and analysis that contributed to failures in anticipating the attack and in intercepting the hijackers.
So too, the Justice Department and the Pentagon came under fire, the Justice Department for doing too little to speed information sharing among law enforcement and intelligence agencies and the Pentagon for being ill prepared to combat the peril posed by aircraft hijacked by suicide pilots.
The staff has been critical of the Clinton administration, too, pointing out missed opportunities in the late 1990's, when that White House shied from what might have been opportunities to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda.
But it was Mr. Bush and his top aides, particularly Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice, who were most in the spotlight, particularly in this final week of the public hearings. On Thursday, it was Mr. Bush's self-image of being calm under fire that came under scrutiny, with a portrayal of a White House that was slow to respond as the attacks unfolded.
Starker still were preliminary staff conclusions on Wednesday that took aim at the assertions made by Mr. Cheney, in particular, of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda in connection to Sept. 11, including what the White House has repeatedly said might well have been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the chief hijacker, and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer.
Much of the support for the American invasion of Iraq last year was based, polls have suggested, on a perception that Mr. Hussein and his government were behind the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush acknowledged last fall that there was no evidence of such ties, but it was a perception that the White House never actively sought to squelch.
With the commission staff's saying it did not believe that the Prague meeting had occurred and that there was no evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq in connection with the attacks, Mr. Bush on Thursday sounded very much on the defensive.
"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda," he said.
The sole example he cited of "numerous contacts" between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda was a meeting between a senior Iraq intelligence agent and Mr. bin Laden in Sudan in 1994, one that the commission said appeared to have gone nowhere.
In 2002, Mr. Bush did finally sign off on the plan to form the commission, bowing to Congressional pressure. Until now, he has resisted other proposals being pushed by Congress, including a major overhaul of intelligence agencies.
A plan for such an overhaul is expected to be among the commission's final recommendations next month, presenting Mr. Bush and the White House with yet another challenge.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 18, 2004
NEWS ANALYSIS
Questioning Nearly Every Aspect of the Responses to Sept. 11
By DOUGLAS JEHL
ASHINGTON, June 17 - For most of 2002, President Bush argued that a commission created to look into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks would only distract from the post-Sept. 11 war on terrorism.
Now, in 17 preliminary staff reports, that panel has called into question nearly every aspect of the administration's response to terror, including the idea that Iraq and Al Qaeda were somehow the same foe.
Far from a bolt from the blue, the commission has demonstrated over the last 19 months that the Sept. 11 attacks were foreseen, at least in general terms, and might well have been prevented, had it not been for misjudgments, mistakes and glitches, some within the White House.
In the face of those findings, Mr. Bush stood firm, disputing the particular finding in a staff report that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist organization. "There was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda," Mr. Bush declared.
Such assertions, attributed by the White House until now to "intelligence reports," may now be perceived by Americans as having less credibility than they did before the commission's staff began in January to rewrite the history of Sept. 11, in one extraordinarily detailed report after another.
With its historic access to government secrets, the panel was able to shed new light on old accountings, demonstrating, for example, that Mr. Bush himself, in the weeks before the attack, had received more detailed warnings about Al Qaeda's intentions than the White House had acknowledged.
For now, the panel is casting its work in tentative terms. Its final report is due next month, on the eve of the Democratic convention. In this election year, its contribution has already been to portray Sept. 11 not just as a starting point in the war on terrorism, but also as a point on a continuum, one preceded and followed by other treacheries and failures.
At a briefing, a senior White House official sought again to turn away attention from the past. "The real issue is how do we move forward," the official said. "We've made a lot of changes since Sept. 11, because this country was simply not on war footing at the time of the attacks."
In the studies, Mr. Bush in particular has come off as less certain and decisive than he has portrayed himself. The final report, issued on Wednesday, reminded Americans that Mr. Bush remained in a classroom in Florida for at least five minutes after the second jet struck the World Trade Center, in what he told the panel was an effort "to project calm" for a worried nation.
Initially it was Henry A. Kissinger, the pillar of Republican foreign policy, whom Mr. Bush selected as the panel chairman, with George J. Mitchell, a former Democratic leader in the Senate, as vice chairman.
But those two appointees quickly fell by the wayside, to be replaced by former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, a Republican, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic congressman from Indiana , whose milder manners undoubtedly gave the panel a less partisan demeanor.
Notably, the two men joined forces successfully to persuade the White House to allow the panel access to crucial documents, including copies of the Presidential Daily Brief, and to pivotal figures, including Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, who testified under oath in March, and to Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who appeared jointly in a closed session.
Whether the two leaders and the other panel members, evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, can join forces in presenting final conclusions remains to be seen. Among the issues to be decided, and which the White House is closely watching, is the position on how and whether to reorganize United States intelligence agencies, in hopes of closing gaps that might have contributed to the Sept. 11 failures.
The Central Intelligence Agency and the Federal Bureau of Investigation bore the particular brunt of the staff reports, for missteps in communication, intelligence gathering and analysis that contributed to failures in anticipating the attack and in intercepting the hijackers.
So too, the Justice Department and the Pentagon came under fire, the Justice Department for doing too little to speed information sharing among law enforcement and intelligence agencies and the Pentagon for being ill prepared to combat the peril posed by aircraft hijacked by suicide pilots.
The staff has been critical of the Clinton administration, too, pointing out missed opportunities in the late 1990's, when that White House shied from what might have been opportunities to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda.
But it was Mr. Bush and his top aides, particularly Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice, who were most in the spotlight, particularly in this final week of the public hearings. On Thursday, it was Mr. Bush's self-image of being calm under fire that came under scrutiny, with a portrayal of a White House that was slow to respond as the attacks unfolded.
Starker still were preliminary staff conclusions on Wednesday that took aim at the assertions made by Mr. Cheney, in particular, of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda in connection to Sept. 11, including what the White House has repeatedly said might well have been a meeting in Prague between Mohammed Atta, the chief hijacker, and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer.
Much of the support for the American invasion of Iraq last year was based, polls have suggested, on a perception that Mr. Hussein and his government were behind the Sept. 11 attacks. Mr. Bush acknowledged last fall that there was no evidence of such ties, but it was a perception that the White House never actively sought to squelch.
With the commission staff's saying it did not believe that the Prague meeting had occurred and that there was no evidence of links between Al Qaeda and Iraq in connection with the attacks, Mr. Bush on Thursday sounded very much on the defensive.
"This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between Saddam and Al Qaeda," he said.
The sole example he cited of "numerous contacts" between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda was a meeting between a senior Iraq intelligence agent and Mr. bin Laden in Sudan in 1994, one that the commission said appeared to have gone nowhere.
In 2002, Mr. Bush did finally sign off on the plan to form the commission, bowing to Congressional pressure. Until now, he has resisted other proposals being pushed by Congress, including a major overhaul of intelligence agencies.
A plan for such an overhaul is expected to be among the commission's final recommendations next month, presenting Mr. Bush and the White House with yet another challenge.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top
washingtonpost.com: Patriot Act Provision Invoked, Memo Says
washingtonpost.com
Patriot Act Provision Invoked, Memo Says
FBI Request Came Weeks After Ashcroft Denied Using Controversial Part of Law
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 18, 2004; Page A11
The FBI asked the Justice Department last fall to seek permission from a secret federal court to use the most controversial provision of the USA Patriot Act, four weeks after Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said that part of the law had never been used, according to government documents disclosed this week.
A one-paragraph memo -- saying the FBI wanted to use the part of the law that allows investigators in terrorism and espionage cases easier access to people's business and library records -- was in a stack of documents the government has released under court order, as debate persists over whether use of the anti-terrorism law violates civil liberties.
The 383 pages of documents, many with names and other information blacked out, are the first results of a Freedom of Information Act request and lawsuit filed against the Justice Department by a coalition of civil rights groups. Last month, Ellen Segal Huvelle, a federal appeals court judge for the District, ordered the agency to release certain documents indicating how the FBI is carrying out the law. She denied the government's request to withhold such information for another year.
The Patriot Act was passed by Congress at the Bush administration's urging six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The law strengthens the executive branch's power to conduct surveillance, share intelligence with criminal prosecutors and charge suspected terrorists with crimes. Critics have been frustrated that the law allows many of its most controversial powers to be carried out in secret.
The newly disclosed documents, and a second batch the judge has ordered to be issued next month, come as an election-year fight is raging over whether several parts of the law should be extended beyond the end of next year, when they are scheduled to expire. President Bush argues that all of the law should be made permanent, but many Democrats and some conservative Republicans disagree.
The memo involves the provision at the core of that political debate. Until last September, Ashcroft had insisted that the government could not disclose how many times investigators had used the part of the law that allows his agency to get approval from an obscure secret body, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, which requires less proof than other courts to authorize wiretaps and other surveillance. Ashcroft had repeatedly said that information was classified. But last September, he unexpectedly declassified a memo saying that the provision had never been used.
The newly disclosed memo, dated Oct. 15, shows that an office of the FBI had asked an office at Justice to ask the FISA court to approve a search. The memo does not indicate the nature of the search, whether Justice ever asked the court and -- if so -- whether the court granted the request.
Jameel Jaffer, a staff attorney for the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York, did not accuse Ashcroft of being untruthful in September. But Jaffer said the memo "tells us the attorney general was selectively declassifying information to serve his purposes." He added that the administration did not make public the FBI's request when, late last year, it argued a separate lawsuit over the Patriot Act that the ACLU filed in Michigan.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said yesterday that the disclosed memo does not establish whether the FISA court has ever granted such a request, or even whether the agency forwarded the FBI's request to that court. Asked whether that request -- or any others since -- had been made to or approved by the court, Corallo replied, "That's classified."
Corallo said that in Ashcroft's September memo saying the provision had never been used, the attorney general was "not only . . . being technically accurate. He was being completely accurate."
washingtonpost.com
Patriot Act Provision Invoked, Memo Says
FBI Request Came Weeks After Ashcroft Denied Using Controversial Part of Law
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 18, 2004; Page A11
The FBI asked the Justice Department last fall to seek permission from a secret federal court to use the most controversial provision of the USA Patriot Act, four weeks after Attorney General John D. Ashcroft said that part of the law had never been used, according to government documents disclosed this week.
A one-paragraph memo -- saying the FBI wanted to use the part of the law that allows investigators in terrorism and espionage cases easier access to people's business and library records -- was in a stack of documents the government has released under court order, as debate persists over whether use of the anti-terrorism law violates civil liberties.
The 383 pages of documents, many with names and other information blacked out, are the first results of a Freedom of Information Act request and lawsuit filed against the Justice Department by a coalition of civil rights groups. Last month, Ellen Segal Huvelle, a federal appeals court judge for the District, ordered the agency to release certain documents indicating how the FBI is carrying out the law. She denied the government's request to withhold such information for another year.
The Patriot Act was passed by Congress at the Bush administration's urging six weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The law strengthens the executive branch's power to conduct surveillance, share intelligence with criminal prosecutors and charge suspected terrorists with crimes. Critics have been frustrated that the law allows many of its most controversial powers to be carried out in secret.
The newly disclosed documents, and a second batch the judge has ordered to be issued next month, come as an election-year fight is raging over whether several parts of the law should be extended beyond the end of next year, when they are scheduled to expire. President Bush argues that all of the law should be made permanent, but many Democrats and some conservative Republicans disagree.
The memo involves the provision at the core of that political debate. Until last September, Ashcroft had insisted that the government could not disclose how many times investigators had used the part of the law that allows his agency to get approval from an obscure secret body, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court, which requires less proof than other courts to authorize wiretaps and other surveillance. Ashcroft had repeatedly said that information was classified. But last September, he unexpectedly declassified a memo saying that the provision had never been used.
The newly disclosed memo, dated Oct. 15, shows that an office of the FBI had asked an office at Justice to ask the FISA court to approve a search. The memo does not indicate the nature of the search, whether Justice ever asked the court and -- if so -- whether the court granted the request.
Jameel Jaffer, a staff attorney for the national office of the American Civil Liberties Union in New York, did not accuse Ashcroft of being untruthful in September. But Jaffer said the memo "tells us the attorney general was selectively declassifying information to serve his purposes." He added that the administration did not make public the FBI's request when, late last year, it argued a separate lawsuit over the Patriot Act that the ACLU filed in Michigan.
Mark Corallo, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said yesterday that the disclosed memo does not establish whether the FISA court has ever granted such a request, or even whether the agency forwarded the FBI's request to that court. Asked whether that request -- or any others since -- had been made to or approved by the court, Corallo replied, "That's classified."
Corallo said that in Ashcroft's September memo saying the provision had never been used, the attorney general was "not only . . . being technically accurate. He was being completely accurate."
Thursday, June 17, 2004
washingtonpost.com: Retired Envoys, Commanders Assail Bush Team
washingtonpost.com
Retired Envoys, Commanders Assail Bush Team
Administration Unable to Handle 'Global Leadership,' 27-Member Group Asserts
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A22
The Bush administration does not understand the world and remains unable to handle "in either style or substance" the responsibilities of global leadership, a group of 27 retired diplomats and military commanders charged yesterday.
"Our security has been weakened," the former ambassadors and four-star commanders said in a statement read to a crowded Washington news conference. "Never in the 2 1/4 centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted."
The statement fit onto a single page, but the sharp public criticism of President Bush was striking, coming from a bipartisan group of respected former officials united in anger about U.S. policy. The commentary emerges as public doubts about the Iraq invasion and Bush's handling of national security have risen.
The new group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, believes Bush should be defeated in November if the United States hopes to rebuild its credibility and strengthen valuable foreign alliances.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, speaking later in the day to al-Jazeera, rejected the criticism as a political act. He said the signers, most of whom he knows personally, "made it clear what they wish to see -- they wish to see President Bush not reelected."
"I do not believe that will be the judgment of the American people," Powell added.
"I disagree that the United States is so isolated, as they say," he told the Qatar-based satellite television network. "I mean, the president has gone to the United Nations repeatedly in order to gain the support of the international community. We are in Iraq with many other nations that are contributing troops. Are we isolated from the Brits, from the Poles, from the Romanians, from the Bulgarians, from the Danes, from the Norwegians?"
Among the retired officials signing the statement were Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan and U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James's under President Bill Clinton, and Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, named by President George H.W. Bush to lead U.S. forces in the Middle East.
The participants also include a pair of former ambassadors to the Soviet Union, two former ambassadors to Israel, two former ambassadors to Pakistan and a former director of the CIA.
On a day when the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks said it found "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein worked with al Qaeda on any missions in the United States, the 27 signers accused the Bush administration of a "cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda and the attacks of Sept. 11."
The group said it did not coordinate its statement with the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), who shares many of its views. One signer, retired Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, former U.S. Air Force chief of staff, described himself as a Kerry adviser.
McPeak was the Oregon chairman of Republican Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, and he joined Veterans for Bush in 2000.
"This administration has gone away from me," McPeak told reporters at the National Press Club, "not vice versa."
The former officials said the administration "adopted an overbearing approach to America's role in the world, relying on military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations. . . . Motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, it struck out on its own."
Charles W. Freeman Jr., former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, cited a "post-9/11 atmosphere of hysteria."
"I think we will in time come to be very ashamed of this period in history," Freeman said, "and of the role some people in the administration played in setting the tone and setting the rules."
Donald F. McHenry, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, answered a question about U.S. public diplomacy, a topic of special Bush administration focus, especially in the Muslim world.
"You can embark on all the public diplomacy you wish, but if there is no substance to the policy, it's very difficult to sell," he said.
washingtonpost.com
Retired Envoys, Commanders Assail Bush Team
Administration Unable to Handle 'Global Leadership,' 27-Member Group Asserts
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A22
The Bush administration does not understand the world and remains unable to handle "in either style or substance" the responsibilities of global leadership, a group of 27 retired diplomats and military commanders charged yesterday.
"Our security has been weakened," the former ambassadors and four-star commanders said in a statement read to a crowded Washington news conference. "Never in the 2 1/4 centuries of our history has the United States been so isolated among the nations, so broadly feared and distrusted."
The statement fit onto a single page, but the sharp public criticism of President Bush was striking, coming from a bipartisan group of respected former officials united in anger about U.S. policy. The commentary emerges as public doubts about the Iraq invasion and Bush's handling of national security have risen.
The new group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, believes Bush should be defeated in November if the United States hopes to rebuild its credibility and strengthen valuable foreign alliances.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, speaking later in the day to al-Jazeera, rejected the criticism as a political act. He said the signers, most of whom he knows personally, "made it clear what they wish to see -- they wish to see President Bush not reelected."
"I do not believe that will be the judgment of the American people," Powell added.
"I disagree that the United States is so isolated, as they say," he told the Qatar-based satellite television network. "I mean, the president has gone to the United Nations repeatedly in order to gain the support of the international community. We are in Iraq with many other nations that are contributing troops. Are we isolated from the Brits, from the Poles, from the Romanians, from the Bulgarians, from the Danes, from the Norwegians?"
Among the retired officials signing the statement were Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under President Ronald Reagan and U.S. ambassador to the Court of St. James's under President Bill Clinton, and Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, named by President George H.W. Bush to lead U.S. forces in the Middle East.
The participants also include a pair of former ambassadors to the Soviet Union, two former ambassadors to Israel, two former ambassadors to Pakistan and a former director of the CIA.
On a day when the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks said it found "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein worked with al Qaeda on any missions in the United States, the 27 signers accused the Bush administration of a "cynical campaign to persuade the public that Saddam Hussein was linked to al Qaeda and the attacks of Sept. 11."
The group said it did not coordinate its statement with the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), who shares many of its views. One signer, retired Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak, former U.S. Air Force chief of staff, described himself as a Kerry adviser.
McPeak was the Oregon chairman of Republican Robert J. Dole's presidential campaign in 1996, and he joined Veterans for Bush in 2000.
"This administration has gone away from me," McPeak told reporters at the National Press Club, "not vice versa."
The former officials said the administration "adopted an overbearing approach to America's role in the world, relying on military might and righteousness, insensitive to the concerns of traditional friends and allies, and disdainful of the United Nations. . . . Motivated more by ideology than by reasoned analysis, it struck out on its own."
Charles W. Freeman Jr., former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, cited a "post-9/11 atmosphere of hysteria."
"I think we will in time come to be very ashamed of this period in history," Freeman said, "and of the role some people in the administration played in setting the tone and setting the rules."
Donald F. McHenry, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, answered a question about U.S. public diplomacy, a topic of special Bush administration focus, especially in the Muslim world.
"You can embark on all the public diplomacy you wish, but if there is no substance to the policy, it's very difficult to sell," he said.
The New York Times > Science > Scientists Teleport Not Kirk, but an Atom
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 17, 2004
Scientists Teleport Not Kirk, but an Atom
By KENNETH CHANG
nd the beryllium atom said to the Starship Enterprise, beam me up!
Two teams of scientists report today that for the first time they have teleported individual atoms, taking characteristics of one atom and imprinting them on a second.
In physics, teleportation means creating a replica of an object, or at least some aspect of it, at some distance from the original. The act of teleporting always destroys the original - not entirely unlike the transporters of the "Star Trek" television shows and movies - so it is impossible produce multiple copies.
The prospect of using teleportation to move large objects or people remains far beyond the current realm of possibility. But it could prove an important component of so-called quantum computers. Scientists hope that one day such computers will tap quantum mechanics to solve complex problems quickly by calculating many different possible answers at once; computers today must calculate each possibility separately.
The two teams, one at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colo., and one at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, worked independently, but the experiments were similar, using a process proposed by Dr. Charles H. Bennett, a scientist at I.B.M., and others in 1993.
"This will be an important part of attempts to build quantum computers," said Dr. H. Jeff Kimble, a professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology. He co-wrote a commentary accompanying the two research papers on the experiments, which appear today in the journal Nature.
"This is a complicated thing that begins to work," Dr. Kimble said. "We've reached this point on our journey and it's really quite significant."
Several scientific groups, including one led by Dr. Kimble, previously teleported photons, and scientists at the University of Aarhus in Denmark reported in 2001 that they had teleported the magnetic field produced by clouds of atoms.
In the new experiments, both teams of scientists worked with triplets of charged atoms trapped in magnetic fields. The Colorado team used beryllium; the Innsbruck researchers used calcium.
The feat of teleportation is transferring information from atom A to atom C without the two meeting. The third atom, B, is an intermediary.
The three atoms can be thought of as boxes that can contain a 1 or a zero, a bit of information like that used by a conventional computer chip. The promise of quantum computers is that both a zero and a 1 can exist at once, just like the perplexing premise described by the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in which a cat in a box can be simultaneously alive and dead until someone looks inside.
First, atoms B and C were brought together, making them "entangled" and creating an invisible link between the two atoms no matter how far apart they were. Atom C was moved away. Next, A and B were similarly entangled.
Then the scientists measured the energy states of A and B, essentially opening the boxes to see whether each contained a 1 or a zero. Because B had been entangled with C, opening A and B created an instant change in atom C, what Albert Einstein called "spooky action at a distance," and this, in essence, set a combination lock on atom C, with the data in A and B serving as the combination.
For the final step, the combination was sent and a pulse of laser light was applied to atom C, almost magically turning it into a replica of the original A. Atom A was teleported to atom C.
"It's a way of transferring the information," Dr. Rainer Blatt, leader of the Innsbruck team, said.
A quantum computer could use teleportation to move the results of calculations from one part of the computer to another. "Teleportation in principle could be done pretty quick," said Dr. David J. Wineland, head of the Colorado team, noting that directly moving atoms containing intermediate results would almost certainly be too slow.
In the current experiments, the teleportation distances were a fraction of a millimeter, but in principle, the atoms could be teleported over much longer distances. The teleportation was also not perfect, succeeding about three-quarters of the time.
"We're not doing very well yet," Dr. Wineland said. "All of these operations have to be improved."
Teleporting a much larger object, like a person, appears unlikely, if not entirely impossible, because too much information would have to be captured and transmitted.
"It's certainly not useful for any beaming in the 'Star Trek' sense," Dr. Blatt of the University of Innsbruck said. "Consider even some molecules or something small like a virus. I cannot imagine it. As far as I can see, it's not going to happen."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 17, 2004
Scientists Teleport Not Kirk, but an Atom
By KENNETH CHANG
nd the beryllium atom said to the Starship Enterprise, beam me up!
Two teams of scientists report today that for the first time they have teleported individual atoms, taking characteristics of one atom and imprinting them on a second.
In physics, teleportation means creating a replica of an object, or at least some aspect of it, at some distance from the original. The act of teleporting always destroys the original - not entirely unlike the transporters of the "Star Trek" television shows and movies - so it is impossible produce multiple copies.
The prospect of using teleportation to move large objects or people remains far beyond the current realm of possibility. But it could prove an important component of so-called quantum computers. Scientists hope that one day such computers will tap quantum mechanics to solve complex problems quickly by calculating many different possible answers at once; computers today must calculate each possibility separately.
The two teams, one at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colo., and one at the University of Innsbruck in Austria, worked independently, but the experiments were similar, using a process proposed by Dr. Charles H. Bennett, a scientist at I.B.M., and others in 1993.
"This will be an important part of attempts to build quantum computers," said Dr. H. Jeff Kimble, a professor of physics at the California Institute of Technology. He co-wrote a commentary accompanying the two research papers on the experiments, which appear today in the journal Nature.
"This is a complicated thing that begins to work," Dr. Kimble said. "We've reached this point on our journey and it's really quite significant."
Several scientific groups, including one led by Dr. Kimble, previously teleported photons, and scientists at the University of Aarhus in Denmark reported in 2001 that they had teleported the magnetic field produced by clouds of atoms.
In the new experiments, both teams of scientists worked with triplets of charged atoms trapped in magnetic fields. The Colorado team used beryllium; the Innsbruck researchers used calcium.
The feat of teleportation is transferring information from atom A to atom C without the two meeting. The third atom, B, is an intermediary.
The three atoms can be thought of as boxes that can contain a 1 or a zero, a bit of information like that used by a conventional computer chip. The promise of quantum computers is that both a zero and a 1 can exist at once, just like the perplexing premise described by the Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger in which a cat in a box can be simultaneously alive and dead until someone looks inside.
First, atoms B and C were brought together, making them "entangled" and creating an invisible link between the two atoms no matter how far apart they were. Atom C was moved away. Next, A and B were similarly entangled.
Then the scientists measured the energy states of A and B, essentially opening the boxes to see whether each contained a 1 or a zero. Because B had been entangled with C, opening A and B created an instant change in atom C, what Albert Einstein called "spooky action at a distance," and this, in essence, set a combination lock on atom C, with the data in A and B serving as the combination.
For the final step, the combination was sent and a pulse of laser light was applied to atom C, almost magically turning it into a replica of the original A. Atom A was teleported to atom C.
"It's a way of transferring the information," Dr. Rainer Blatt, leader of the Innsbruck team, said.
A quantum computer could use teleportation to move the results of calculations from one part of the computer to another. "Teleportation in principle could be done pretty quick," said Dr. David J. Wineland, head of the Colorado team, noting that directly moving atoms containing intermediate results would almost certainly be too slow.
In the current experiments, the teleportation distances were a fraction of a millimeter, but in principle, the atoms could be teleported over much longer distances. The teleportation was also not perfect, succeeding about three-quarters of the time.
"We're not doing very well yet," Dr. Wineland said. "All of these operations have to be improved."
Teleporting a much larger object, like a person, appears unlikely, if not entirely impossible, because too much information would have to be captured and transmitted.
"It's certainly not useful for any beaming in the 'Star Trek' sense," Dr. Blatt of the University of Innsbruck said. "Consider even some molecules or something small like a virus. I cannot imagine it. As far as I can see, it's not going to happen."
Scientific American: New Gravity Measurements Constrain String Theory Forces
February 27, 2003
New Gravity Measurements Constrain String Theory Forces
Ever since the proverbial apple fell on Sir Isaac Newton's head, scientists have been able to calculate the force of gravity over a variety of distances. The first measurement of the gravitational constant came more than 100 years later, but testing gravity over very short distances has proved difficult. Now scientists have examined the gravitational attraction between two objects just a tenth of a millimeter apart--the smallest gap yet for such trials. The findings, published today in the journal Nature, set upper limits for some of the forces predicted by string theory.
String theory has emerged as the most promising approach to unifying quantum mechanics--the laws governing very, very small things such as atoms, nuclei and quarks--with general relativity, which describes the world on a scale as large as that of stars and galaxies. It holds that what appear to be pointlike elementary particles are instead tiny one-dimensional strings whose vibrations give rise to fundamental particles. The hypothesis calls for six or more spatial dimensions (on top of the three that we can observe) that are curled up into tiny spaces. This so-called compactification generates a number of "modulus" forces, some of which would be comparable to gravity at distances approaching a tenth of a millimeter under certain string theory scenarios.
To investigate the forces at work over such small distances, Joshua C. Long and his colleagues at the University of Colorado at Boulder designed a new device containing at its core a tungsten metal strip. The diving board-like plank can vibrate up and down and a second metal strip lies 0.1 millimeter below it. The researchers found that gravity performed pretty much as predicted by Newton. Furthermore, they did not observe any new forces at work. String theory's modulus forces must therefore have a range shorter than 0.1 millimeter. The next step, the authors say, will be to further narrow the gap between the objects in such gravity tests, perhaps to 0.01 millimeter. --Sarah Graham
February 27, 2003
New Gravity Measurements Constrain String Theory Forces
Ever since the proverbial apple fell on Sir Isaac Newton's head, scientists have been able to calculate the force of gravity over a variety of distances. The first measurement of the gravitational constant came more than 100 years later, but testing gravity over very short distances has proved difficult. Now scientists have examined the gravitational attraction between two objects just a tenth of a millimeter apart--the smallest gap yet for such trials. The findings, published today in the journal Nature, set upper limits for some of the forces predicted by string theory.
String theory has emerged as the most promising approach to unifying quantum mechanics--the laws governing very, very small things such as atoms, nuclei and quarks--with general relativity, which describes the world on a scale as large as that of stars and galaxies. It holds that what appear to be pointlike elementary particles are instead tiny one-dimensional strings whose vibrations give rise to fundamental particles. The hypothesis calls for six or more spatial dimensions (on top of the three that we can observe) that are curled up into tiny spaces. This so-called compactification generates a number of "modulus" forces, some of which would be comparable to gravity at distances approaching a tenth of a millimeter under certain string theory scenarios.
To investigate the forces at work over such small distances, Joshua C. Long and his colleagues at the University of Colorado at Boulder designed a new device containing at its core a tungsten metal strip. The diving board-like plank can vibrate up and down and a second metal strip lies 0.1 millimeter below it. The researchers found that gravity performed pretty much as predicted by Newton. Furthermore, they did not observe any new forces at work. String theory's modulus forces must therefore have a range shorter than 0.1 millimeter. The next step, the authors say, will be to further narrow the gap between the objects in such gravity tests, perhaps to 0.01 millimeter. --Sarah Graham
Wednesday, June 16, 2004
Sunday, June 13, 2004
Gay News From 365Gay.com
Bush Asks Pope's Help Using Gay Marriage As Wedge Issue In Campaign
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: June 13 2004 5:01 pm. ET
(Vatican City) New details are emerging on this month's meeting between the Pope and President Bush.
While it was known that the two discussed among other issues, same-sex marriage, (story) the full extent of the conversation had been shrouded in diplomatic secrecy.
But, one of the most experienced journalists at the Vatican reports this week that Bush implored the Pope to increase Catholic condemnation of gay marriage in the weeks leading up to the election, and that the request also was made by the president to senior Vatican officials..
John Allen Jr., writes in the National Catholic Reporter, an independent journal for Catholics, that Bush specifically "asked the Vatican to push the American Catholic bishops to be more aggressive politically on family and life issues, especially a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman."
Allen, the most senior reporter at the Vatican, and considered the dean of the press corps, says that in a private meeting "with Cardinal Angelo Sodano and other Vatican officials, Bush said, 'Not all the American bishops are with me' on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism."
Allen reports that Sodano did not respond to the request.
The head of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the report "mind-boggling."
"It is just unprecedented for a president to ask for help from the Vatican to get re-elected, and that is exactly what this is," the Rev. Barry W. Lynn told the New York Times.
Even liberal Catholics said they were shocked.
"For a president to try to get the leader of any religious organization to manipulate his fellow clergymen to support a political candidate crosses the line in this country," Linda Pieczynski, a spokesperson for Call to Action, a Catholic advocacy group, said.
©365Gay.com® 2004
Bush Asks Pope's Help Using Gay Marriage As Wedge Issue In Campaign
by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff
Posted: June 13 2004 5:01 pm. ET
(Vatican City) New details are emerging on this month's meeting between the Pope and President Bush.
While it was known that the two discussed among other issues, same-sex marriage, (story) the full extent of the conversation had been shrouded in diplomatic secrecy.
But, one of the most experienced journalists at the Vatican reports this week that Bush implored the Pope to increase Catholic condemnation of gay marriage in the weeks leading up to the election, and that the request also was made by the president to senior Vatican officials..
John Allen Jr., writes in the National Catholic Reporter, an independent journal for Catholics, that Bush specifically "asked the Vatican to push the American Catholic bishops to be more aggressive politically on family and life issues, especially a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a union between a man and a woman."
Allen, the most senior reporter at the Vatican, and considered the dean of the press corps, says that in a private meeting "with Cardinal Angelo Sodano and other Vatican officials, Bush said, 'Not all the American bishops are with me' on the cultural issues. The implication was that he hoped the Vatican would nudge them toward more explicit activism."
Allen reports that Sodano did not respond to the request.
The head of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the report "mind-boggling."
"It is just unprecedented for a president to ask for help from the Vatican to get re-elected, and that is exactly what this is," the Rev. Barry W. Lynn told the New York Times.
Even liberal Catholics said they were shocked.
"For a president to try to get the leader of any religious organization to manipulate his fellow clergymen to support a political candidate crosses the line in this country," Linda Pieczynski, a spokesperson for Call to Action, a Catholic advocacy group, said.
©365Gay.com® 2004