<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>3,554</span>
Iraq bombs kill 7 U.S. troops
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Seven U.S. troops were killed in Iraq on Saturday, bringing the U.S. military death toll so far in June to 77, the military reported.
Four of the troops were killed when a roadside bomb exploded near a coalition vehicle northwest of Baghdad on Saturday. An Iraqi interpreter riding with the soldiers was wounded.
The soldiers were with Multi-National Division-Baghdad, which has been conducting raids in the area north of the Iraqi capital to destroy insurgent safe havens, the military added.
Two other U.S. soldiers assigned to Multi-National Division-Baghdad were killed and three others were wounded when their unit was hit by a roadside bomb and small arms fire in eastern Baghdad early Saturday, the military said.
In the past month, the unit has been looking for cells that build homemade bombs.
Also Saturday, a U.S. airman died of his injuries after a homemade bomb went off near his vehicle in Tikrit, north of Baghdad.
Simultaneous operations are being carried out as a part of Operation Phantom Thunder, a "powerful crackdown to defeat extremists in Iraq," according to a U.S. military statement. U.S. and Iraqi military forces are focusing on insurgents in "Baghdad belts," a U.S. military commander told CNN this week.
Since the war began, 3,554 U.S. military personnel have died, including seven civilian employees of the Defense Department.
New Developments III
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8007
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
He'll never do that...Besides, the prisoners are just going to be sent to less obvious and harder-to-fnd location so it will be easier to avoid giving them their rights as human beings
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
99-1100896887
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8007
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
White House Near Decision to Close Guantanamo
Jun 21, 6:06 PM (ET)
By MATTHEW LEE
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detainee facility and move the terror suspects there to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.
President Bush's national security and legal advisers are expected to discuss the move at the White House on Friday and, for the first time, it appears a consensus is developing, senior administration officials said Thursday.
The advisers will consider a proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum security military prison at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where they could face trial, said the officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.
Officials familiar with the agenda of the Friday meeting said Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Peter Pace were expected to attend.
It was not immediately clear if the meeting would result in a final recommendation to Bush.
Previous plans to close Guantanamo have run into resistance from Cheney, Gonzales and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But officials said the new suggestion is gaining momentum with at least tacit support from the State and Homeland Security departments, the Pentagon, and the Intelligence directorate.
Cheney's office and the Justice Department have been dead set against the step, arguing that moving "unlawful" enemy combatant suspects to the U.S. would give them undeserved legal rights.
They could still block the proposal, but pressure to close Guantanamo has been building since a Supreme Court decision last year that found a previous system for prosecuting enemy combatants illegal. Recent rulings by military judges threw out charges against two terrorism suspects under a new tribunal scheme.
Those decisions have dealt a blow to the administration's efforts to begin prosecuting dozens of Guantanamo detainees regarded as the nation's most dangerous terror suspects.
In Congress, recently introduced legislation would require Guantanamo's closure. One measure would designate Fort Leavenworth as the new detention facility.
Another bill would grant new rights to those held at Guantanamo Bay, including access to lawyers regardless of whether the prisoners are put on trial. Still another would allow detainees to protest their detentions in federal court, something they are now denied.
Gates, who took over the Pentagon after Rumsfeld was forced out last year, has said Congress and the administration should work together to allow the U.S. to permanently imprison some of the more dangerous Guantanamo Bay detainees elsewhere so the facility can be closed.
Military officials told Congress this month that the prison at Fort Leavenworth has 70 open beds and that the brig at a naval base in Charleston, S.C., has space for an additional 100 prisoners.
The Guantanamo Bay prison, where some 380 alleged terrorists are now detained, has been a flash point for criticism of the Bush administration at home and abroad. It was set up in 2002 to house terror suspects captured in military operations, mostly in Afghanistan.
Because the facility is in Cuba, the administration has argued that detainees there are not covered by rights and protections afforded to those in U.S. prisons.
Human rights advocates and foreign leaders have repeatedly called for its closure, and the prison is regarded by many as proof of U.S. double standards on fundamental freedoms in the war on terrorism.
Some of the detainees come from countries that are U.S. allies, including Britain, Saudi Arabia and Australia. Each of those governments raised complaints about the conditions or duration of detentions, or about the possibility that detainees might face death sentences.
Rice has said she would like to see Guantanamo closed if a safe alternative could be found. She said during a trip to Spain this month that "the United States doesn't have any desire to be the world's jailer."
"I don't think anyone wants to see Guantanamo open one day longer than it is needed. But I also suspect nobody wants to see a number of dangerous people simply released out onto the streets," she said.
On Thursday, two Democratic lawmakers, Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida and Sen. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, told a human rights commission that Guantanamo must be closed if the United States is to regain credibility and authority on human rights.
"The damage done to the United States goes beyond undermining our status as a global leader on human rights," Cardin said. "Our policies and practices regarding Guantanamo and other aspects of our detainee policies have undermined our authority to engage in the effective counter-terrorism measures that are necessary for the very security of this country."
Officials say that Bush, who also has said he wants to close the facility as soon as possible, is keenly aware of its shortcomings.
His wife, Laura, and mother, Barbara, along with Rice and longtime adviser Karen Hughes, head of the public diplomacy office at the State Department, have told him that Guantanamo is a blot on the U.S. record abroad, particularly in the Muslim world and among European allies.
Bush has said the United States first has to determine what to do with the detainees there. The administration says some countries have refused to accept terror suspects from their territory.
Earlier this month, former Secretary of State Colin Powell called for the immediate closure of the prison, saying it posed an untenable foreign policy risk and was irreparably harming the U.S. image abroad.
Jun 21, 6:06 PM (ET)
By MATTHEW LEE
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detainee facility and move the terror suspects there to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.
President Bush's national security and legal advisers are expected to discuss the move at the White House on Friday and, for the first time, it appears a consensus is developing, senior administration officials said Thursday.
The advisers will consider a proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum security military prison at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where they could face trial, said the officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.
Officials familiar with the agenda of the Friday meeting said Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Peter Pace were expected to attend.
It was not immediately clear if the meeting would result in a final recommendation to Bush.
Previous plans to close Guantanamo have run into resistance from Cheney, Gonzales and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But officials said the new suggestion is gaining momentum with at least tacit support from the State and Homeland Security departments, the Pentagon, and the Intelligence directorate.
Cheney's office and the Justice Department have been dead set against the step, arguing that moving "unlawful" enemy combatant suspects to the U.S. would give them undeserved legal rights.
They could still block the proposal, but pressure to close Guantanamo has been building since a Supreme Court decision last year that found a previous system for prosecuting enemy combatants illegal. Recent rulings by military judges threw out charges against two terrorism suspects under a new tribunal scheme.
Those decisions have dealt a blow to the administration's efforts to begin prosecuting dozens of Guantanamo detainees regarded as the nation's most dangerous terror suspects.
In Congress, recently introduced legislation would require Guantanamo's closure. One measure would designate Fort Leavenworth as the new detention facility.
Another bill would grant new rights to those held at Guantanamo Bay, including access to lawyers regardless of whether the prisoners are put on trial. Still another would allow detainees to protest their detentions in federal court, something they are now denied.
Gates, who took over the Pentagon after Rumsfeld was forced out last year, has said Congress and the administration should work together to allow the U.S. to permanently imprison some of the more dangerous Guantanamo Bay detainees elsewhere so the facility can be closed.
Military officials told Congress this month that the prison at Fort Leavenworth has 70 open beds and that the brig at a naval base in Charleston, S.C., has space for an additional 100 prisoners.
The Guantanamo Bay prison, where some 380 alleged terrorists are now detained, has been a flash point for criticism of the Bush administration at home and abroad. It was set up in 2002 to house terror suspects captured in military operations, mostly in Afghanistan.
Because the facility is in Cuba, the administration has argued that detainees there are not covered by rights and protections afforded to those in U.S. prisons.
Human rights advocates and foreign leaders have repeatedly called for its closure, and the prison is regarded by many as proof of U.S. double standards on fundamental freedoms in the war on terrorism.
Some of the detainees come from countries that are U.S. allies, including Britain, Saudi Arabia and Australia. Each of those governments raised complaints about the conditions or duration of detentions, or about the possibility that detainees might face death sentences.
Rice has said she would like to see Guantanamo closed if a safe alternative could be found. She said during a trip to Spain this month that "the United States doesn't have any desire to be the world's jailer."
"I don't think anyone wants to see Guantanamo open one day longer than it is needed. But I also suspect nobody wants to see a number of dangerous people simply released out onto the streets," she said.
On Thursday, two Democratic lawmakers, Rep. Alcee Hastings of Florida and Sen. Benjamin Cardin of Maryland, told a human rights commission that Guantanamo must be closed if the United States is to regain credibility and authority on human rights.
"The damage done to the United States goes beyond undermining our status as a global leader on human rights," Cardin said. "Our policies and practices regarding Guantanamo and other aspects of our detainee policies have undermined our authority to engage in the effective counter-terrorism measures that are necessary for the very security of this country."
Officials say that Bush, who also has said he wants to close the facility as soon as possible, is keenly aware of its shortcomings.
His wife, Laura, and mother, Barbara, along with Rice and longtime adviser Karen Hughes, head of the public diplomacy office at the State Department, have told him that Guantanamo is a blot on the U.S. record abroad, particularly in the Muslim world and among European allies.
Bush has said the United States first has to determine what to do with the detainees there. The administration says some countries have refused to accept terror suspects from their territory.
Earlier this month, former Secretary of State Colin Powell called for the immediate closure of the prison, saying it posed an untenable foreign policy risk and was irreparably harming the U.S. image abroad.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
criddic3 wrote:Partisan Hack might become your official title soon. Being a Democrat or an Independent or Libertarian or whatever in a family of Republicans may be amusing, but it doesn't win you any medals.
Oh my god. Did you really just call me a "hack"? Ew. I'd be offended if it were anyone else.
My cousin's humiliation while job-hunting was richly deserved. You're completely humorless, dude.
Edited By flipp525 on 1182458334
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8007
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Mental stress of troops in Iraq no bar to longer duty, US says
Simon Tisdall in Washington
Thursday June 21, 2007
The Guardian
The Pentagon could extend combat tours in Iraq despite an official report showing that hundreds of thousands of US troops who have been involved in at least one war zone in Iraq or Afghanistan are experiencing serious psychological problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder.
According to the Pentagon's own mental health taskforce, US troops have been undertaking higher levels of sustained combat duty than that experienced by soldiers during the war in Vietnam and in the second world war.
It found that 38% of soldiers, 31% of marines, 49% of national guard members and 43% of marine reservists showed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or other psychological problems within three months of returning from active duty. [That's almost twice what they were telling us initially.] Its report also noted inadequate mental healthcare and facilities, and prejudice over mental health problems.
The US has about 155,000 troops in Iraq, most of whom typically spend 15 months in combat zones with a guaranteed 12 months at home. But that is a breach of the Pentagon's own rules saying equal time should be spent on and off duty.
This week, Peter Geren, acting army secretary, told Congress that extended stints of frontline duty could be ordered if President Bush opted to push the 30,000-strong troop surge in Iraq beyond September. The senate armed services committee heard that while no decisions had been made, plans had to be started.
Yesterday, Vice-Admiral Donald Arthur, co-chairman of the Pentagon's mental health taskforce, said there was "no doubt" that more numerous and lengthier deployments were exacerbating mental health problems. "Not since Vietnam have we seen this level of combat," he said.
The taskforce's report said symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury - the two "signature injuries" associated with service in Iraq and Afghanistan - included anger and substance abuse. And soldiers' reticence meant the problem was probably greater than research indicated. The report also questioned the practice of returning troops to frontline duty while they were taking medication such as lithium or Prozac.
[Gee, didn't Barbara Boxer bring that up in Congress, and the scumbag right-wing assholes attacked her for it? The Pentagon now says she was correct. Got anything to say about the Pentagon, you motherfucking liars?]
A cut in combat duties to lessen psychological stress was also urged by an army study based on research in Iraq last year. But that proposal was rejected this week by a senior aide to the ground forces commander in Iraq. Brigadier-General Joseph Anderson told USA Today: "We would never get the job done."
Simon Tisdall in Washington
Thursday June 21, 2007
The Guardian
The Pentagon could extend combat tours in Iraq despite an official report showing that hundreds of thousands of US troops who have been involved in at least one war zone in Iraq or Afghanistan are experiencing serious psychological problems, including post-traumatic stress disorder.
According to the Pentagon's own mental health taskforce, US troops have been undertaking higher levels of sustained combat duty than that experienced by soldiers during the war in Vietnam and in the second world war.
It found that 38% of soldiers, 31% of marines, 49% of national guard members and 43% of marine reservists showed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder or other psychological problems within three months of returning from active duty. [That's almost twice what they were telling us initially.] Its report also noted inadequate mental healthcare and facilities, and prejudice over mental health problems.
The US has about 155,000 troops in Iraq, most of whom typically spend 15 months in combat zones with a guaranteed 12 months at home. But that is a breach of the Pentagon's own rules saying equal time should be spent on and off duty.
This week, Peter Geren, acting army secretary, told Congress that extended stints of frontline duty could be ordered if President Bush opted to push the 30,000-strong troop surge in Iraq beyond September. The senate armed services committee heard that while no decisions had been made, plans had to be started.
Yesterday, Vice-Admiral Donald Arthur, co-chairman of the Pentagon's mental health taskforce, said there was "no doubt" that more numerous and lengthier deployments were exacerbating mental health problems. "Not since Vietnam have we seen this level of combat," he said.
The taskforce's report said symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury - the two "signature injuries" associated with service in Iraq and Afghanistan - included anger and substance abuse. And soldiers' reticence meant the problem was probably greater than research indicated. The report also questioned the practice of returning troops to frontline duty while they were taking medication such as lithium or Prozac.
[Gee, didn't Barbara Boxer bring that up in Congress, and the scumbag right-wing assholes attacked her for it? The Pentagon now says she was correct. Got anything to say about the Pentagon, you motherfucking liars?]
A cut in combat duties to lessen psychological stress was also urged by an army study based on research in Iraq last year. But that proposal was rejected this week by a senior aide to the ground forces commander in Iraq. Brigadier-General Joseph Anderson told USA Today: "We would never get the job done."
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8672
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Not quite 25%, but ever so close:
In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.
The new numbers—a 2 point drop from the last NEWSWEEK Poll at the beginning of May—are statistically unchanged, given the poll’s 4 point margin of error. But the 26 percent rating puts Bush lower than Jimmy Carter, who sunk to his nadir of 28 percent in a Gallup poll in June 1979. In fact, the only president in the last 35 years to score lower than Bush is Richard Nixon. Nixon’s approval rating tumbled to 23 percent in January 1974, seven months before his resignation over the botched Watergate break-in.
In 19 months, George W. Bush will leave the White House for the last time. The latest NEWSWEEK Poll suggests that he faces a steep climb if he hopes to coax the country back to his side before he goes. In the new poll, conducted Monday and Tuesday nights, President Bush’s approval rating has reached a record low. Only 26 percent of Americans, just over one in four, approve of the job the 43rd president is doing; while, a record 65 percent disapprove, including nearly a third of Republicans.
The new numbers—a 2 point drop from the last NEWSWEEK Poll at the beginning of May—are statistically unchanged, given the poll’s 4 point margin of error. But the 26 percent rating puts Bush lower than Jimmy Carter, who sunk to his nadir of 28 percent in a Gallup poll in June 1979. In fact, the only president in the last 35 years to score lower than Bush is Richard Nixon. Nixon’s approval rating tumbled to 23 percent in January 1974, seven months before his resignation over the botched Watergate break-in.
Oh, you deceiver, Petraeus!
Gen. Petraeus says there is progress being made in Iraq. That seems to be the truth.
This poll suggests that it is still a bad situation. That is also the truth.
What exacly is the deception here? Petraeus is not saying that Iraq has made a complete turnaround. He says some areas have made dramatic improvements. That seems to be true. So Sonic the Cynic may call that deception, but we'll see what happens.
--
Right now, flipp, you may be correct. Some people might not be so quick to hire a Rove assistant because of the upopularity of the administration. That doesn't mean that will always be true of every circumstance, especially as the Bush years draw to a close and the 2008 election passes. Personally I think its great if someone can get a job working for high-ranking officials who have not been convicted of crimes. Karl Rove may not be liked, but neither is Harry Reid. Would you laugh if someone got the same reaction applying for a job who had worked for Reid or Nancy Pelosi? I think not. Partisan Hack might become your official title soon. Being a Democrat or an Independent or Libertarian or whatever in a family of Republicans may be amusing, but it doesn't win you any medals.
My family is mixed with people who have voted for all sorts of candidates. My mother voted for Perot in '92, My cousin Mike loved Clinton but wound up voting for Bush in '04. Some of my friends voted for Clinton and Kerry, but so what? Everybody has a different political affiliation or outlook. It doesn't mean that someone else's humiliation while job-hunting should be seen as funny, unless the person adds an outrageous reference to their resume like a mobster. But most people have the sense not to do that anyway. If there was irony in the story, like she worked for Paul Wolfowitz, then it would be funny. It is quite reasonable to add that you worked for a high-profile man (Rove) who has won accolades in the past from his peers and fellow businessmen.
Funny, indeed.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
Just an off-the-cuff tidbit: my cousin has worked for Karl Rove for the past couple of years (my dirty little secret is that I'm the black sheep in a family full of Republicans) and she recently tried getting another job at a bank. They saw that she had worked in the White House for the Fat Pig himself and specifically informed her that she should be lucky the rest of her resume was accomplished enough to get her in for a second interview because the fact that she worked for Rove was definitely not something she should go around advertising. They suggested she put anyone else's name on her resume in the future -- his assistant or someone way below him who she might've reported to directly. I just thought that was kind of awesome.
Edited By flipp525 on 1182293143
Edited By flipp525 on 1182293143
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
More Signs of Government Corruption:
Report: White House aides used GOP e-mail to skirt law
POSTED: 7:37 p.m. EDT, June 18, 2007
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- E-mail records are missing for 51 of the 88 White House aides with Republican Party accounts, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reported Monday.
The White House says the accounts were set up to keep political work separate from official business, but investigators concluded White House officials used the accounts to conduct official business in a way that circumvented the Watergate-era Presidential Records Act.
The 37 accounts the Republican National Committee did save include nearly 675,000 individual messages -- more than 140,000 of them from Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser.
"Whether intentionally or inadvertently, it appears that the RNC has destroyed a large volume of the e-mails of White House officials who used RNC e-mail accounts," the report states.
The committee found 88 officials who held GOP e-mail accounts; the White House had acknowledged 50.
In a deposition given to committee aides, former Rove deputy Susan Ralston listed a series of White House officials who used party accounts daily. But the RNC "has not retained a single e-mail to or from any of these officials," the report states.
Ralston testified that Ken Mehlman, former director of political affairs, used his account daily, but the RNC has no e-mail records for him.
Additionally, "there are major gaps in the e-mail records of the 37 White House officials for whom the RNC did preserve e-mails," the report states.
The committee, led by California Democrat Henry Waxman, began looking into the GOP e-mail accounts after messages from the accounts turned up in two cases -- the case of imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the 2006 firings of eight U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department.
The committee found that although then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales ordered presidential staff to preserve official e-mails from outside accounts, he failed to enforce that policy.
Ralston told investigators that Gonzales, now attorney general, knew Rove was using his party e-mail account for official business, "but took no action to preserve Mr. Rove's official communications," the report states.
GOP spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said the report "jumped the gun and appears to be representing Democrats' partisan spin as fact."
"Not only have we been clear that we are continuing our efforts to search for e-mails, but there is no basis for an assumption that any e-mail not already found would be of an official nature," Schmitt said in a statement issued Monday afternoon.
White House spokesman Tony Snow declined to comment on the report's specifics, but said separate accounts were set up under the Clinton administration to comply with the federal Hatch Act, which bars the use of federal resources for partisan political activity. Snow said e-mail sent to or from a White House e-mail account was automatically archived.
He said White House officials are willing to cooperate with congressional investigators, but he added, "We have seen a number of times right now where people have been putting together investigations to see what sticks."
"This is an administration that is very careful about obeying the law. We take it seriously. The White House legal counsel's office takes it seriously."
The committee also accused Bush's 2004 re-election campaign of failing to cooperate with the House investigation. Monday's report said the campaign acknowledged that at least 11 White House officials used campaign e-mail accounts, but said the organization refuses to identify all of them or provide "basic statistical information."
"This recalcitrance is an unwarranted obstacle to the committee's inquiry into potential violations of the Presidential Records Act," the report states, warning that it could subpoena campaign officials for the records.
In a statement released Monday evening, campaign lawyer Eric Kuwana said the documents "are from a limited period of time years ago, have no articulated connection to the investigations of the committee, and very well may be the type and nature of political documents that are specifically exempt from the Presidential Records Act." He said campaign officials have been discussing what information they would produce to Congress for more than a month.
Report: White House aides used GOP e-mail to skirt law
POSTED: 7:37 p.m. EDT, June 18, 2007
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- E-mail records are missing for 51 of the 88 White House aides with Republican Party accounts, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee reported Monday.
The White House says the accounts were set up to keep political work separate from official business, but investigators concluded White House officials used the accounts to conduct official business in a way that circumvented the Watergate-era Presidential Records Act.
The 37 accounts the Republican National Committee did save include nearly 675,000 individual messages -- more than 140,000 of them from Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser.
"Whether intentionally or inadvertently, it appears that the RNC has destroyed a large volume of the e-mails of White House officials who used RNC e-mail accounts," the report states.
The committee found 88 officials who held GOP e-mail accounts; the White House had acknowledged 50.
In a deposition given to committee aides, former Rove deputy Susan Ralston listed a series of White House officials who used party accounts daily. But the RNC "has not retained a single e-mail to or from any of these officials," the report states.
Ralston testified that Ken Mehlman, former director of political affairs, used his account daily, but the RNC has no e-mail records for him.
Additionally, "there are major gaps in the e-mail records of the 37 White House officials for whom the RNC did preserve e-mails," the report states.
The committee, led by California Democrat Henry Waxman, began looking into the GOP e-mail accounts after messages from the accounts turned up in two cases -- the case of imprisoned lobbyist Jack Abramoff and the 2006 firings of eight U.S. attorneys by the Justice Department.
The committee found that although then-White House counsel Alberto Gonzales ordered presidential staff to preserve official e-mails from outside accounts, he failed to enforce that policy.
Ralston told investigators that Gonzales, now attorney general, knew Rove was using his party e-mail account for official business, "but took no action to preserve Mr. Rove's official communications," the report states.
GOP spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt said the report "jumped the gun and appears to be representing Democrats' partisan spin as fact."
"Not only have we been clear that we are continuing our efforts to search for e-mails, but there is no basis for an assumption that any e-mail not already found would be of an official nature," Schmitt said in a statement issued Monday afternoon.
White House spokesman Tony Snow declined to comment on the report's specifics, but said separate accounts were set up under the Clinton administration to comply with the federal Hatch Act, which bars the use of federal resources for partisan political activity. Snow said e-mail sent to or from a White House e-mail account was automatically archived.
He said White House officials are willing to cooperate with congressional investigators, but he added, "We have seen a number of times right now where people have been putting together investigations to see what sticks."
"This is an administration that is very careful about obeying the law. We take it seriously. The White House legal counsel's office takes it seriously."
The committee also accused Bush's 2004 re-election campaign of failing to cooperate with the House investigation. Monday's report said the campaign acknowledged that at least 11 White House officials used campaign e-mail accounts, but said the organization refuses to identify all of them or provide "basic statistical information."
"This recalcitrance is an unwarranted obstacle to the committee's inquiry into potential violations of the Presidential Records Act," the report states, warning that it could subpoena campaign officials for the records.
In a statement released Monday evening, campaign lawyer Eric Kuwana said the documents "are from a limited period of time years ago, have no articulated connection to the investigations of the committee, and very well may be the type and nature of political documents that are specifically exempt from the Presidential Records Act." He said campaign officials have been discussing what information they would produce to Congress for more than a month.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8007
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Iraqi Orphanage Nightmare
BAGHDAD, June 18, 2007
(CBS) It was a scene that shocked battle-hardened soldiers, captured in photographs obtained exclusively by CBS News.
On a daytime patrol in central Baghdad just over than a week ago, a U.S. military advisory team and Iraqi soldiers happened to look over a wall and found something horrific.
"They saw multiple bodies laying on the floor of the facility," Staff Sgt. Mitchell Gibson of the 82nd Airborne Division told CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan. "They thought they were all dead, so they threw a basketball (to) try and get some attention, and actually one of the kids lifted up their head, tilted it over and just looked and then went back down. And they said, 'oh, they're alive' and so they went into the building."
Inside the building, a government-run orphanage for special needs children, the soldiers found more emaciated little bodies tied to the cribs. They had been kept this way for more than a month, according to the soldiers called in to rescue the 24 boys.
"I saw children that you could see literally every bone in their body that were so skinny, they had no energy to move whatsoever, no expression on their face," Staff Sgt. Michael Beale said.
"The kids were tied up, naked, covered in their own waste — feces — and there were three people that were cooking themselves food, but nothing for the kids," Lt. Stephen Duperre said.
Logan asked: So there were three people cooking their own food?
"They were in the kitchen, yes ma'am," Duperre said.
With all these kids starving around them?
"Yes ma'am," Duperre said.
It didn't stop there. The soldiers found kitchen shelves packed with food and in the stockroom, rows of brand-new clothing still in their plastic wrapping.
Instead of giving it to the boys, the soldiers believe it was being sold to local markets.
The man in charge, the orphanage caretaker, had a well-kept office — a stark contrast to the terrible conditions just outside that room.
"I got extremely angry with the caretaker when I got there," Capt. Benjamin Morales said. "It took every muscle in my body to restrain myself from not going after that guy."
He has since disappeared and is believed to be on the run. But two security guards are in custody, arrested on the orders of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Two women also working there, who posed for pictures in front of the naked boys as if there was nothing wrong, have also disappeared.
"My first thought when I walked in there was shock, and then I got a little angry that they were treating kids like that, then that's when everybody just started getting upset," Capt. Jim Cook said. "There were people crying. It was definitely a bad emotional scene."
There was nothing more emotional than finding one boy who Army medics did not expect to survive. For Gibson, that was the hardest part:
Seeing a boy who was at the orphanage, where Logan reported from, "with thousands of flies covering his body, unable to move any part of his body, you know we had to actually hold his head up and tilt his head to make sure that he was OK, and the only thing basically that was moving was his eyeballs," Gibson explained. "Flies in the mouth, in the eyes, in the nose, ears, eating all the open wounds from sleeping on the concrete."
All that, and the boy was laying in the boiling sun — temperatures of 120 degrees or so, according to Gibson.
Looking at the boy today, as he sits up in his crib without help, it is hard to believe he is the same boy, one week later — now clean and being cared for along with all the other boys in a different orphanage located only a few minutes away from where they suffered their ordeal.
Another little boy right shown in the photos was carried out of the orphanage by Beale. He was very emaciated.
"I picked him up and then immediately the kid started smiling, and as I got a little bit closer to the ambulance he just started laughing. It was almost like he completely understood what was going on," Beale said.
When CBS News visited the orphanage with the soldiers, it was clear the boys had been starved of human contact as much as anything else, Logan said. Some still had marks on their ankles from where they were tied. Since only one boy can talk, it's impossible to know what terrible memories they might have locked away.
The memory of what he saw when he helped rescue the boys that night haunts Ali Soheil, the local council head, who wept during the interview.
Later at the hospital, Lt. Jason Smith brushed teeth and helped clean up the boys. He and his wife are both special education teachers, and he was proud to tell her what the soldiers had done.
"She said that one day was worth my entire deployment," Smith said. "It makes the whole thing worthwhile."
This is a tough test for the Iraqi government: How a nation cares for its most vulnerable is one of the most important benchmarks for the health of any society.
BAGHDAD, June 18, 2007
(CBS) It was a scene that shocked battle-hardened soldiers, captured in photographs obtained exclusively by CBS News.
On a daytime patrol in central Baghdad just over than a week ago, a U.S. military advisory team and Iraqi soldiers happened to look over a wall and found something horrific.
"They saw multiple bodies laying on the floor of the facility," Staff Sgt. Mitchell Gibson of the 82nd Airborne Division told CBS News chief foreign correspondent Lara Logan. "They thought they were all dead, so they threw a basketball (to) try and get some attention, and actually one of the kids lifted up their head, tilted it over and just looked and then went back down. And they said, 'oh, they're alive' and so they went into the building."
Inside the building, a government-run orphanage for special needs children, the soldiers found more emaciated little bodies tied to the cribs. They had been kept this way for more than a month, according to the soldiers called in to rescue the 24 boys.
"I saw children that you could see literally every bone in their body that were so skinny, they had no energy to move whatsoever, no expression on their face," Staff Sgt. Michael Beale said.
"The kids were tied up, naked, covered in their own waste — feces — and there were three people that were cooking themselves food, but nothing for the kids," Lt. Stephen Duperre said.
Logan asked: So there were three people cooking their own food?
"They were in the kitchen, yes ma'am," Duperre said.
With all these kids starving around them?
"Yes ma'am," Duperre said.
It didn't stop there. The soldiers found kitchen shelves packed with food and in the stockroom, rows of brand-new clothing still in their plastic wrapping.
Instead of giving it to the boys, the soldiers believe it was being sold to local markets.
The man in charge, the orphanage caretaker, had a well-kept office — a stark contrast to the terrible conditions just outside that room.
"I got extremely angry with the caretaker when I got there," Capt. Benjamin Morales said. "It took every muscle in my body to restrain myself from not going after that guy."
He has since disappeared and is believed to be on the run. But two security guards are in custody, arrested on the orders of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Two women also working there, who posed for pictures in front of the naked boys as if there was nothing wrong, have also disappeared.
"My first thought when I walked in there was shock, and then I got a little angry that they were treating kids like that, then that's when everybody just started getting upset," Capt. Jim Cook said. "There were people crying. It was definitely a bad emotional scene."
There was nothing more emotional than finding one boy who Army medics did not expect to survive. For Gibson, that was the hardest part:
Seeing a boy who was at the orphanage, where Logan reported from, "with thousands of flies covering his body, unable to move any part of his body, you know we had to actually hold his head up and tilt his head to make sure that he was OK, and the only thing basically that was moving was his eyeballs," Gibson explained. "Flies in the mouth, in the eyes, in the nose, ears, eating all the open wounds from sleeping on the concrete."
All that, and the boy was laying in the boiling sun — temperatures of 120 degrees or so, according to Gibson.
Looking at the boy today, as he sits up in his crib without help, it is hard to believe he is the same boy, one week later — now clean and being cared for along with all the other boys in a different orphanage located only a few minutes away from where they suffered their ordeal.
Another little boy right shown in the photos was carried out of the orphanage by Beale. He was very emaciated.
"I picked him up and then immediately the kid started smiling, and as I got a little bit closer to the ambulance he just started laughing. It was almost like he completely understood what was going on," Beale said.
When CBS News visited the orphanage with the soldiers, it was clear the boys had been starved of human contact as much as anything else, Logan said. Some still had marks on their ankles from where they were tied. Since only one boy can talk, it's impossible to know what terrible memories they might have locked away.
The memory of what he saw when he helped rescue the boys that night haunts Ali Soheil, the local council head, who wept during the interview.
Later at the hospital, Lt. Jason Smith brushed teeth and helped clean up the boys. He and his wife are both special education teachers, and he was proud to tell her what the soldiers had done.
"She said that one day was worth my entire deployment," Smith said. "It makes the whole thing worthwhile."
This is a tough test for the Iraqi government: How a nation cares for its most vulnerable is one of the most important benchmarks for the health of any society.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8007
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
But it's imperative that we protect our nation from mothers with sippy-cups!
Bush, Industry Block Anti-Terror Regulations For Chemical Plants
by Thomas B. Edsall
The Huffington Post
For nearly seven years, the chemical, oil and gas industries have successfully fought proposals to require stringent anti-terror security measures at facilities storing poisonous materials such as chlorine and methyl mercaptan.
These industries have been especially opposed to legislation requiring "inherently safer technology," a policy industry officials and the Bush administration view as both setting an excessively high standard and as leaving companies more vulnerable to lawsuits for failing to comply.
The chemical, oil and gas lobbies have successfully fended off regulation even under a Democratic Congress. A provision adamantly resisted by the industry was included in the first Iraq supplemental appropriation, which was vetoed by President Bush. The House added it again to the second Iraq supplemental appropriation, but it was quietly removed during final negotiations between top officials of the House and Senate at the request of Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, whose staff said he was acting at the behest of the White House.
Advocates of regulating chemical manufacturers and users have faced an uphill fight from the start.
This dispute began less than two months after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, when publicly released government documents disclosed the existence of more than 100 factories and other facilities where a successful attack would produce toxic clouds with the potential to severely sicken or kill at least a million people.
Then-Democratic Senator Jon Corzine of New Jersey, a state with more than its share of such facilities, introduced the Chemical Security Act in November, 2001. With environmental groups warning of the danger of a domestic Bhopal, the 1984 Union Carbide Corp. disaster which killed more than 3,000 in India, the Environment and Public Works Committee approved the Corzine Bill unanimously, 19-0.
Facing the threat of aggressive government oversight, Frederick L. Webber, then-chairman and chief executive of the American Chemistry Council, mobilized industry forces in a lobbying campaign that legislative strategists in Washington recall as one of the most effective in the past decade.
Webber joined forces with the American Petroleum Institute and formed a broad-based coalition that included truckers, railroads, the Fertilizer Institute, the National Propane Gas Association and the Chlorine Chemistry Council.
All these groups had particularly strong leverage in both the Republican Congress and the Bush administration because they had lined up firmly in the GOP corner before the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.
In 1994, the oil and gas industry contributed a total of $17.5 million to Congressional candidates, with two thirds of it, $11 million, going to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. By 2002, the industry gave a total of $25 million, with 80 percent, $19.9 million, going to Republicans. From 1990 to 2006, the chemical industry contributed $3 to Republicans for every $1 to Democrats, or $46 million to $14.2 million.
Similarly, at least 85 of Bush's major fundraisers - "Pioneers" who collected at least $100,000 and "Rangers" who collected $200,000 or more - were corporate officials in oil, gas, chemical and fertilizer companies.
Although industry forces with the backing of the administration were able to fend off the Corzine bill, pressure to require new security measures at facilities housing dangerous chemicals continued. In 2006, the Republican Congress authorized the Department of Homeland Security to oversee this sector.
That legislation and the regulations growing out of it, issued two months ago, met with the approval of the industry.
On September 30, 2006, American Chemistry Council President and CEO Jack N. Gerard declared that the "ACC would like to thank Congress for their work in accomplishing our shared objective of passing meaningful chemical security legislation this year." When the actual regulations were issued last April, the Council released a statement declaring: "New DHS Regulations Represent a Major Step Forward For Chemical Security."
Democratic legislators, especially those from New Jersey, were highly skeptical, however. Corzine, now N.J. Governor, Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representative Steve Rothman all warned that their state's tough regulations could be preempted by weaker federal rules.
Both Rothman and Lautenberg sought to firmly establish the authority of New Jersey and other states to set more stringent regulations than the federal government by attaching language to the Iraq supplemental. After that maneuver failed, both legislators attached similar language to the House and Senate versions of the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, on the theory that it is the kind of measure Bush cannot afford to veto.
"Allowing the State of New Jersey to protect its chemical plants from al Qaeda attacks is one of the most important provisions in this legislation. It took a great deal of effort to overcome the chemical plant lobby, but so far so good," said Rothman. "The Bush Administration should not be stopping our states from protecting themselves from chemical attacks," said Lautenberg. "I am proud we fought back the chemical industry lobbyists."
The two New Jersey legislators have not, however, won their fight. Both Bush and House Republican whip Roy Blunt warn that Bush could well veto the Homeland Security appropriations bill. A recent Blunt statement carried the headline, "DEMOCRATS FAIL TO SECURE VETO-PROOF MAJORITY ON BLOATED HOMELAND BILL"
Bush, who is adamantly opposed to the Rothman-Lautenberg language, declared in his June 16 radio address: "I will use my veto to stop tax increases and runaway spending," suggesting the fight over chemical plant security will not end soon.
Bush, Industry Block Anti-Terror Regulations For Chemical Plants
by Thomas B. Edsall
The Huffington Post
For nearly seven years, the chemical, oil and gas industries have successfully fought proposals to require stringent anti-terror security measures at facilities storing poisonous materials such as chlorine and methyl mercaptan.
These industries have been especially opposed to legislation requiring "inherently safer technology," a policy industry officials and the Bush administration view as both setting an excessively high standard and as leaving companies more vulnerable to lawsuits for failing to comply.
The chemical, oil and gas lobbies have successfully fended off regulation even under a Democratic Congress. A provision adamantly resisted by the industry was included in the first Iraq supplemental appropriation, which was vetoed by President Bush. The House added it again to the second Iraq supplemental appropriation, but it was quietly removed during final negotiations between top officials of the House and Senate at the request of Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell, whose staff said he was acting at the behest of the White House.
Advocates of regulating chemical manufacturers and users have faced an uphill fight from the start.
This dispute began less than two months after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, when publicly released government documents disclosed the existence of more than 100 factories and other facilities where a successful attack would produce toxic clouds with the potential to severely sicken or kill at least a million people.
Then-Democratic Senator Jon Corzine of New Jersey, a state with more than its share of such facilities, introduced the Chemical Security Act in November, 2001. With environmental groups warning of the danger of a domestic Bhopal, the 1984 Union Carbide Corp. disaster which killed more than 3,000 in India, the Environment and Public Works Committee approved the Corzine Bill unanimously, 19-0.
Facing the threat of aggressive government oversight, Frederick L. Webber, then-chairman and chief executive of the American Chemistry Council, mobilized industry forces in a lobbying campaign that legislative strategists in Washington recall as one of the most effective in the past decade.
Webber joined forces with the American Petroleum Institute and formed a broad-based coalition that included truckers, railroads, the Fertilizer Institute, the National Propane Gas Association and the Chlorine Chemistry Council.
All these groups had particularly strong leverage in both the Republican Congress and the Bush administration because they had lined up firmly in the GOP corner before the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.
In 1994, the oil and gas industry contributed a total of $17.5 million to Congressional candidates, with two thirds of it, $11 million, going to Republicans, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. By 2002, the industry gave a total of $25 million, with 80 percent, $19.9 million, going to Republicans. From 1990 to 2006, the chemical industry contributed $3 to Republicans for every $1 to Democrats, or $46 million to $14.2 million.
Similarly, at least 85 of Bush's major fundraisers - "Pioneers" who collected at least $100,000 and "Rangers" who collected $200,000 or more - were corporate officials in oil, gas, chemical and fertilizer companies.
Although industry forces with the backing of the administration were able to fend off the Corzine bill, pressure to require new security measures at facilities housing dangerous chemicals continued. In 2006, the Republican Congress authorized the Department of Homeland Security to oversee this sector.
That legislation and the regulations growing out of it, issued two months ago, met with the approval of the industry.
On September 30, 2006, American Chemistry Council President and CEO Jack N. Gerard declared that the "ACC would like to thank Congress for their work in accomplishing our shared objective of passing meaningful chemical security legislation this year." When the actual regulations were issued last April, the Council released a statement declaring: "New DHS Regulations Represent a Major Step Forward For Chemical Security."
Democratic legislators, especially those from New Jersey, were highly skeptical, however. Corzine, now N.J. Governor, Senator Frank Lautenberg and Representative Steve Rothman all warned that their state's tough regulations could be preempted by weaker federal rules.
Both Rothman and Lautenberg sought to firmly establish the authority of New Jersey and other states to set more stringent regulations than the federal government by attaching language to the Iraq supplemental. After that maneuver failed, both legislators attached similar language to the House and Senate versions of the Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill, on the theory that it is the kind of measure Bush cannot afford to veto.
"Allowing the State of New Jersey to protect its chemical plants from al Qaeda attacks is one of the most important provisions in this legislation. It took a great deal of effort to overcome the chemical plant lobby, but so far so good," said Rothman. "The Bush Administration should not be stopping our states from protecting themselves from chemical attacks," said Lautenberg. "I am proud we fought back the chemical industry lobbyists."
The two New Jersey legislators have not, however, won their fight. Both Bush and House Republican whip Roy Blunt warn that Bush could well veto the Homeland Security appropriations bill. A recent Blunt statement carried the headline, "DEMOCRATS FAIL TO SECURE VETO-PROOF MAJORITY ON BLOATED HOMELAND BILL"
Bush, who is adamantly opposed to the Rothman-Lautenberg language, declared in his June 16 radio address: "I will use my veto to stop tax increases and runaway spending," suggesting the fight over chemical plant security will not end soon.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8007
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
Oh, you deceiver, Petraeus!
Study: Iraq Second Most Unstable Country
Jun 18, 12:45 PM (ET)
By BARRY SCHWEID
WASHINGTON (AP) - Iraq is now the second most unstable country in the world, a private survey finds, its standing deteriorating from last year's fourth place on a list of the 10 nations most vulnerable to violent internal conflict and worsening conditions.
In the third annual "failed state" index, analysts for Foreign Policy magazine and the not-for-profit Fund for Peace said that Iraq and Afghanistan, which ranked eighth, show that billions of dollars in development and security aid may be futile without a functioning government, trustworthy leaders and realistic plans to keep the peace and develop the economy.
Preventing Iraq from becoming a failed state is a key part of the Bush administration's argument for keeping U.S. troops in the country. The administration says the troops are needed to keep Iraq from becoming a breeding ground for international terrorists.
The ratings are based on 12 social, economic, political and military indicators.
Sudan, which topped the list, and seven other sub-Saharan African countries are among the top 10. Violence in the Darfur region was the main contributing cause to Sudan's top position.
As evidence that troubles in failing states often cross borders, the report cited violence spilling from Darfur into the Central African Republic and Chad.
The five other African nations found most vulnerable were Somalia, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Democratic Republic of Congo and Guinea.
Another African country, Liberia, was credited as the most improved, partly because an election in 2005 brought stability after more than a decade of civil war.
[Wait? Wasn't that supposed to happen in Iraq?]
Liberia's economy is growing at 7 percent a year and it has disbanded its militia. Still, it ranked as 27th most failing state.
The growth of China's economy and a lull in violence in Chechnya helped China and Russia, respectively, to move out of the category of the 60 worst states.
Lebanon experienced the biggest slide, winding up in 28th place. War in the Middle Eastern country reversed much of the progress made since the end of its 15-year-long civil war in 1990.
Israeli air strikes last summer drove 700,000 Lebanese from their homes and caused an estimated $3.8 billion (euro2.85 billion) in damage to the country.
Usually, long-serving strongmen preside over a nation's collapse, the report said. For instance, it said, three of the five worst performing states - Chad, Sudan and Zimbabwe - have leaders who have been in power for more than 15 years.
On the other hand, effective leadership can pull a nation from the brink of failure, the report said. It cited Indonesia's first directly elected president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, as helping to steer the Southeast Asian country to stability after corruption and the devastation of the 2004 tsunami.
Pauline H. Baker, president of the Fund for Peace, said 12,000 sources were used to compile the ratings.
In an interview, she said foreign aid remained necessary even though spending alone will not prevent failure.
"You just cannot turn your eyes away from mass atrocities, which often accompany failing states," she said.
As examples of long-range impact of failure, Baker cited the effect turmoil in Sudan, an oil-producing state, could have on world oil supplies and mentioned the massive migration from Somalia, predominantly across Africa.
"The world's weakest states aren't just a danger to themselves," the report said. "They can threaten the progress and stability of countries half a world away."
Study: Iraq Second Most Unstable Country
Jun 18, 12:45 PM (ET)
By BARRY SCHWEID
WASHINGTON (AP) - Iraq is now the second most unstable country in the world, a private survey finds, its standing deteriorating from last year's fourth place on a list of the 10 nations most vulnerable to violent internal conflict and worsening conditions.
In the third annual "failed state" index, analysts for Foreign Policy magazine and the not-for-profit Fund for Peace said that Iraq and Afghanistan, which ranked eighth, show that billions of dollars in development and security aid may be futile without a functioning government, trustworthy leaders and realistic plans to keep the peace and develop the economy.
Preventing Iraq from becoming a failed state is a key part of the Bush administration's argument for keeping U.S. troops in the country. The administration says the troops are needed to keep Iraq from becoming a breeding ground for international terrorists.
The ratings are based on 12 social, economic, political and military indicators.
Sudan, which topped the list, and seven other sub-Saharan African countries are among the top 10. Violence in the Darfur region was the main contributing cause to Sudan's top position.
As evidence that troubles in failing states often cross borders, the report cited violence spilling from Darfur into the Central African Republic and Chad.
The five other African nations found most vulnerable were Somalia, Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Democratic Republic of Congo and Guinea.
Another African country, Liberia, was credited as the most improved, partly because an election in 2005 brought stability after more than a decade of civil war.
[Wait? Wasn't that supposed to happen in Iraq?]
Liberia's economy is growing at 7 percent a year and it has disbanded its militia. Still, it ranked as 27th most failing state.
The growth of China's economy and a lull in violence in Chechnya helped China and Russia, respectively, to move out of the category of the 60 worst states.
Lebanon experienced the biggest slide, winding up in 28th place. War in the Middle Eastern country reversed much of the progress made since the end of its 15-year-long civil war in 1990.
Israeli air strikes last summer drove 700,000 Lebanese from their homes and caused an estimated $3.8 billion (euro2.85 billion) in damage to the country.
Usually, long-serving strongmen preside over a nation's collapse, the report said. For instance, it said, three of the five worst performing states - Chad, Sudan and Zimbabwe - have leaders who have been in power for more than 15 years.
On the other hand, effective leadership can pull a nation from the brink of failure, the report said. It cited Indonesia's first directly elected president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, as helping to steer the Southeast Asian country to stability after corruption and the devastation of the 2004 tsunami.
Pauline H. Baker, president of the Fund for Peace, said 12,000 sources were used to compile the ratings.
In an interview, she said foreign aid remained necessary even though spending alone will not prevent failure.
"You just cannot turn your eyes away from mass atrocities, which often accompany failing states," she said.
As examples of long-range impact of failure, Baker cited the effect turmoil in Sudan, an oil-producing state, could have on world oil supplies and mentioned the massive migration from Somalia, predominantly across Africa.
"The world's weakest states aren't just a danger to themselves," the report said. "They can threaten the progress and stability of countries half a world away."
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler