Dobbs: Will the Democrats save their souls? - CNN.com

Dobbs:  Will the Democrats save their souls? - CNN.com

Dobbs: Will the Democrats save their souls?
By Lou Dobbs
CNN
Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is under way. And the outcome of this battle will likely not be determined by any one of the rising number of candidates for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, but rather by the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill.

The House of Representatives passed important legislation designed, at least politically, to focus on the needs of our middle class, beset by stagnating wages, failing public education, destructive so-called free trade policies, skyrocketing health care costs, out-of-control illegal immigration and the soaring price of higher education.

So in Congress' self-proclaimed first 100 hours, speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered on her promise to have the House pass bills raising the federal minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans and helping bring down the cost of prescription drugs. But none of that legislation has passed the Senate.

The ascension of the so-called Lou Dobbs Democrats in the November election gave hope to many that our representatives and senators were awakening to the need to represent the largest single group of voters in the country, 150 million working men and women and their families. The reality is, however, corporate America and special interests still dominate our legislative and electoral process.

A successful Democratic candidate running for his or her party's nomination is as dependent as any Republican seeking the nomination of his party, and $100 million is the price of the ticket. Who has the money? Corporate America and Wall Street, of course.

Corporate America will fight as hard to control the Democratic agenda as it has to control the Republican agenda in Washington. Of great service to their efforts will be the "think tanks" bent on preserving the status quo and the all-but-absolute domination of corporate America over our political process.

The Democratic Leadership Council is obviously frightened that my brand of independent populism is a threat. The council claims that I, and those who agree with me, "are simply, factually, decisively wrong about the strength of the U.S. manufacturing economy itself," and that the more than three million jobs lost in manufacturing are a testament to corporate America's technology-based efficiency, not outsourcing and offshoring to cheap foreign labor markets. Then why are foreign-produced imports rising so dramatically and taking an ever-larger share of many of the most important sectors of our economy?

The Third Way, which is supposedly a "strategy center for Progressives," has just published a new study called "The New Rules Economy: A Policy Framework for the 21st Century." Third Way's conclusion that the struggling middle class is a myth requires it to avoid the fact that the share of national income going to wages and salaries is now at the lowest level on record. At the same time, the share of national income captured by corporate profits is at its highest level in more than half a century.

In fact, wages from 2000 to 2006 for working men and women in this country increased at half the rate they normally do in a recovery. And, not surprisingly, corporate America's profits are increasing at double the historic rate in that six-year period.

The Third Way adds: "...While economic conservatism is premised on the myths of an infallible market and incompetent government, neo-populism is premised on the myths of a failing middle class, a declining America, and omnipotent corporations." I call that independent populism, not neo-populism. And I also call that truth.

The middle class is also working more hours than ever before: Thirty years ago Americans worked an average of 43 weeks, but now U.S. workers are putting in an average of 47 weeks per year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's in stark contrast to the rest of the industrialized world, where the number of hours worked in all other countries except for Canada has decreased over the past 30 years, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported.

About one-third of the families in this country bring in less than $35,000 of income each year, according to the Census Bureau, a figure that's nowhere close to ensuring the quality of life and standard of living to which many Americans have grown accustomed. I fear the American Dream may finally become the American Pipe Dream.

These families at the bottom of the wage scale are really struggling. According to the Federal Reserve's most recent comprehensive Survey of Consumer Finances (released every three years), average family income from 2001 to 2004 fell 2.3 percent, and the median net worth of the bottom 40 percent of families declined as well. And real median wages declined by more than 6 percent during the same period.

Why are the partisans of both political parties so committed to denying the economic and social reality we face? In the case of the Democratic Party, there seems to be a rising fear that more Lou Dobbs Democrats are on the way and are going to demand truth over slogans and an improving reality for working men and women rather than ideological posturing that will salve the corporate masters of both parties.

At least the Democrats still have a chance to save their souls.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/20/Dobbs.February21/index.html

Dobbs: Will the Democrats save their souls? - CNN.com

Dobbs:  Will the Democrats save their souls? - CNN.com

Dobbs: Will the Democrats save their souls?
By Lou Dobbs
CNN
Lou Dobbs' commentary appears weekly on CNN.com.

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is under way. And the outcome of this battle will likely not be determined by any one of the rising number of candidates for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, but rather by the Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill.

The House of Representatives passed important legislation designed, at least politically, to focus on the needs of our middle class, beset by stagnating wages, failing public education, destructive so-called free trade policies, skyrocketing health care costs, out-of-control illegal immigration and the soaring price of higher education.

So in Congress' self-proclaimed first 100 hours, speaker Nancy Pelosi delivered on her promise to have the House pass bills raising the federal minimum wage, cutting interest rates on student loans and helping bring down the cost of prescription drugs. But none of that legislation has passed the Senate.

The ascension of the so-called Lou Dobbs Democrats in the November election gave hope to many that our representatives and senators were awakening to the need to represent the largest single group of voters in the country, 150 million working men and women and their families. The reality is, however, corporate America and special interests still dominate our legislative and electoral process.

A successful Democratic candidate running for his or her party's nomination is as dependent as any Republican seeking the nomination of his party, and $100 million is the price of the ticket. Who has the money? Corporate America and Wall Street, of course.

Corporate America will fight as hard to control the Democratic agenda as it has to control the Republican agenda in Washington. Of great service to their efforts will be the "think tanks" bent on preserving the status quo and the all-but-absolute domination of corporate America over our political process.

The Democratic Leadership Council is obviously frightened that my brand of independent populism is a threat. The council claims that I, and those who agree with me, "are simply, factually, decisively wrong about the strength of the U.S. manufacturing economy itself," and that the more than three million jobs lost in manufacturing are a testament to corporate America's technology-based efficiency, not outsourcing and offshoring to cheap foreign labor markets. Then why are foreign-produced imports rising so dramatically and taking an ever-larger share of many of the most important sectors of our economy?

The Third Way, which is supposedly a "strategy center for Progressives," has just published a new study called "The New Rules Economy: A Policy Framework for the 21st Century." Third Way's conclusion that the struggling middle class is a myth requires it to avoid the fact that the share of national income going to wages and salaries is now at the lowest level on record. At the same time, the share of national income captured by corporate profits is at its highest level in more than half a century.

In fact, wages from 2000 to 2006 for working men and women in this country increased at half the rate they normally do in a recovery. And, not surprisingly, corporate America's profits are increasing at double the historic rate in that six-year period.

The Third Way adds: "...While economic conservatism is premised on the myths of an infallible market and incompetent government, neo-populism is premised on the myths of a failing middle class, a declining America, and omnipotent corporations." I call that independent populism, not neo-populism. And I also call that truth.

The middle class is also working more hours than ever before: Thirty years ago Americans worked an average of 43 weeks, but now U.S. workers are putting in an average of 47 weeks per year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's in stark contrast to the rest of the industrialized world, where the number of hours worked in all other countries except for Canada has decreased over the past 30 years, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development reported.

About one-third of the families in this country bring in less than $35,000 of income each year, according to the Census Bureau, a figure that's nowhere close to ensuring the quality of life and standard of living to which many Americans have grown accustomed. I fear the American Dream may finally become the American Pipe Dream.

These families at the bottom of the wage scale are really struggling. According to the Federal Reserve's most recent comprehensive Survey of Consumer Finances (released every three years), average family income from 2001 to 2004 fell 2.3 percent, and the median net worth of the bottom 40 percent of families declined as well. And real median wages declined by more than 6 percent during the same period.

Why are the partisans of both political parties so committed to denying the economic and social reality we face? In the case of the Democratic Party, there seems to be a rising fear that more Lou Dobbs Democrats are on the way and are going to demand truth over slogans and an improving reality for working men and women rather than ideological posturing that will salve the corporate masters of both parties.

At least the Democrats still have a chance to save their souls.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/02/20/Dobbs.February21/index.html

Audit: U.S. anti-terror statistics inflated - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

Audit: U.S. anti-terror statistics inflated - U.S. Security - MSNBC.com

Audit: U.S. anti-terror statistics inflated

Marriage fraud, other non-terror issues counted in numbers since 9/11

The Associated Press
Updated: 11:05 p.m. ET Feb 20, 2007

WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors counted immigration violations, marriage fraud and drug trafficking among anti-terror cases in the four years after 9/11 even though no evidence linked them to terror activity, a Justice Department audit said Tuesday.

Overall, nearly all of the terrorism-related statistics on investigations, referrals and cases examined by department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine were either diminished or inflated. Only two of 26 sets of department data reported between 2001 and 2005 were accurate, the audit found.

Responding, a Justice spokesman pointed to figures showing that prosecutors in the department's headquarters for the most part either accurately or underreported their data — underscoring what he called efforts to avoid pumping up federal terror statistics.

The numbers, used to monitor the department's progress in battling terrorists, are reported to Congress and the public and help, in part, shape the department's budget.

"For these and other reasons, it is essential that the department report accurate terrorism-related statistics," the audit concluded.

Fine's office took care to say the flawed data appear to be the result of "decentralized and haphazard" methods of collection or disagreement over how the numbers are reported, and do not appear to be intentional.

Still, the errors led Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., to question whether the department had exaggerated the number of terror cases.


"If the Department of Justice can't even get their own books in order, how are we supposed to have any confidence they are doing the job they should be?" said Schumer, who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the department. "Whether this is just an accounting error or an attempt to pad terror prosecution statistics for some other reason, the Department of Justice of all places should be classifying cases for what they are, not what they want us to think them to be."

Auditors looked at 26 categories of statistics -- including numbers of suspects charged and convicted in terror cases, and terror-related threats against cities and other U.S. targets -- compiled by the FBI, Justice's Criminal Division, and the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys.

Executive Office had most errors
It found that data from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys were the most severely flawed. Auditors said the office, which compiles statistics from the 94 federal prosecutors' districts nationwide, both under- and over-counted the number of terror-related cases during a four-year period.

The office has since agreed to change the way it counts and classifies anti-terrorism cases, said department spokesman Dean Boyd.

Boyd denied suggestions that the department pumped up its numbers. He said Criminal Division prosecutors at Justice headquarters and the FBI have overhauled their respective case reporting systems since 2004 for a more accurate picture of terror-related workloads. Both agencies, he said, were strained to accurately report terrorism data in the flood of cases immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"The notion that the Justice Department intentionally inflated its statistics is false and flatly contradicted by the OIG report itself," Boyd said.

In all but one area, Criminal Division prosecutors either accurately stated or underreported their data — the ones the department usually uses in public statements about its counterterror efforts, Boyd noted. He said the Justice Department has already completed most of the fixes recommended in the audit.

Much of the problem stemmed from how that office defines anti-terrorism cases.

Immigration arrests lumped in
A November 2001 federal crackdown on security breaches at airports, for example, yielded arrests on immigration and false document charges, but no evidence of terrorist activity. Nonetheless, the attorneys' office lumped them in with other anti-terror cases since they were investigated by federal Joint Terrorism Task Forces or with other counterterror measures.

Other examples, according to the audit, included:

Charges against a marriage-broker for being paid to arrange six fraudulent marriages between Tunisians and U.S. citizens.
Prosecution of a Mexican citizen who falsely identified himself as another person in a passport application.
Charges against a suspect for dealing firearms without a license. The prosecutor handling the case told auditors it should not have been labeled as anti-terrorism.
"We do not agree that law enforcement efforts such as these should be counted as anti-terrorism," the audit concluded.

© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17249651/

Britain announces Iraq withdrawal

(London-AP) February 21, 2007 - Britain is pulling some of its troops out of Iraq.

Wednesday's announcement by Prime Minister Tony Blair calls for about 1,600 of Britain's 7,000 troops in Iraq to be withdrawn in the "coming months."

Britain has been America's chief ally in the coalition since the 2003 invasion. Its forces have responsibility primarily for southern Iraq, which has not had nearly the turmoil other parts of the country have, most notably Baghdad and western Iraq's Anbar province. American troops there have had a particularly rough time of it.

The British drawdown is already getting a positive spin in Washington.

The White House says President Bush views it as "a sign of success." Still, the British scale-back is coming at a time when the US is boosting its troop commitment in Iraq by more than 21,000.

Iran vows to press on

Reuters
VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran vowed on Wednesday to press on with its nuclear fuel program, ignoring a U.N. deadline to freeze uranium enrichment or face broader sanctions, but offered to guarantee it would not try to develop atomic weapons.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remained defiant as a 60-day grace period Iran had been given on December 23 to stop enriching uranium for nuclear fuel was expiring.

"We ... will continue our work to reach our right (to nuclear technology) in the shortest possible time," Iranian student news agency ISNA quoted him as saying in the provincial town of Siahkal.

With the deadline running out, the International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been unable to verify Iran's program is wholly peaceful after three years of investigations, was expected to report to the U.N. Security Council by Thursday that Tehran was pursuing enrichment regardless of pressure to stop.

The West suspects Iran is trying to make atom bombs behind the facade of a civilian nuclear energy program. Tehran says it wants only an alternative source of electricity so it can maximize oil exports and prepare for when oil reserves run dry.

"Obtaining this technology is very important for our country's development and honor. It is worth it to stop other activities for 10 years and focus only on the nuclear issue," said Ahmadinejad.

A British Foreign Office official brushed off his comments.

"He has been saying this over and over and over again. Iran needs to restore confidence in its intentions regarding its nuclear program by complying fully with Security Council resolution 1737," the official said.

The Council, which two months ago banned transfers of nuclear technology and expertise to Iran, could consider wider sanctions if Tehran does not freeze enrichment work by February 21.

But it will not take action before the next meeting of the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors on March 5-9, leaving a little more time for dialogue to avert a feared U.S.-Iran conflict, said the diplomat close to the IAEA.

IRAN OFFERS GUARANTEES AS PART OF NEGOTIATIONS

Ultimate authority on nuclear matters lies not with Ahmadinejad but Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But senior Iranian leaders have all ruled out halting nuclear work as a precondition for talks on trade benefits from the West.

"We would give the necessary assurances and guarantees (in negotiations) that there will be no deviation ever toward nuclear weapons (in Iran)," chief negotiator Ali Larijani said in Vienna on Tuesday after talks with the IAEA director.

"Maybe there are certain groups or countries willing to coerce Iran ... (but) Iran's nuclear dossier cannot be resolved through force and pressure," he said, alluding to the United States, which has built up strike forces in the Gulf near Iran.

Larijani said he had "constructive" talks with IAEA director Mohamed ElBaradei on ways of reviving talks with Western powers.

ElBaradei has urged both sides to take a mutual "timeout" to enable talks -- Iran would suspend enrichment rather than accelerate it from research level to "industrial scale" as planned at its Natanz plant, while sanctions would be suspended.

The diplomat close to the IAEA said Iranian officials were sounding positive in private about a "timeout" and hoped EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who led earlier talks with Larijani, would be authorized to discuss it with him.

Western officials have dismissed previous such signs of Iranian flexibility as stalling while it strives to master enrichment technology at its underground Natanz complex, ringed by anti-aircraft guns against feared U.S. assault.

As a possible compromise to jumpstart negotiations, Larijani has suggested Iran could pledge to refine uranium no higher than the 4-5 percent level, sufficient for power plant fuel but far below the 80 percent needed for the fissile core of bombs.

But diplomats and analysts have said there is no technical method to guarantee a cap on enrichment levels.

ElBaradei cites intelligence estimates that Iran remains 4-8 years away from learning how to build an atom bomb, assuming it wants one, leaving ample time for a diplomatic deal. He says neither sanctions nor war could erase Iranian nuclear ambitions.

******************************

CHRONOLOGY-Iran's nuclear program

Here are the main events since Iran's nuclear program, which it says is purely peaceful, first came to light:

August 2002 - Exiled opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran reports the existence of uranium enrichment facility at Natanz and heavy water plant at Arak.

June 2003 - International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report, after February inspection of Natanz and Arak, says Iran has failed to comply with nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

December 2003 - Iran signs protocol allowing snap inspections of nuclear facilities.

February 2005 - President Mohammad Khatami says no Iranian government will give up nuclear technology program.

September 2 - IAEA report confirms Iran has resumed uranium conversion at Isfahan.

January 10, 2006 - Iran removes U.N. seals at Natanz enrichment plant and resumes nuclear fuel research.

February 4 - IAEA votes to report Iran to U.N. Security Council. Iran ends snap U.N. nuclear inspections the next day. Ten days later Iran restarts small-scale feeding of uranium gas into centrifuges at Natanz after 2-1/2-year suspension.

March 8 - IAEA report to Security Council says it cannot verify Iran's atomic activities are peaceful.

April 11 - Iran announces it has produced low-grade enriched uranium suitable for use in power stations; IAEA confirms this.

April 28 - An IAEA report, sent to the Security Council, confirms Iran has flouted council demands to suspend enrichment.

July 31 - Security Council demands Iran suspend its nuclear activities by August 31. In a resolution, council for first time makes legally binding demands on Iran and threat of sanctions. Iran's ambassador to the U.N. rejects the resolution.

August 31 - IAEA announces Iran has not met deadline to suspend its program and has resumed enriching uranium.

September 19 - President Bush and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad clash over Iran's nuclear ambitions at the United Nations.

September 26 - Russia and Iran agree start-up date of September 2007 for Iran's first nuclear power station at Bushehr.

November 14 - A confidential IAEA report says Iran is pushing ahead with uranium enrichment and still stonewalling investigations by the agency despite the risk of sanctions.

-- The report also says Iran has started up second experimental chain of 164 interlinked centrifuge machines and has begun feeding uranium UF6 gas into them for enrichment.

December 23 - Security Council votes to impose sanctions and gives the country 60 days to suspend uranium enrichment. Iran calls the resolution an illegal measure.

January 22, 2007 - Iran says it has barred entry to 38 IAEA inspectors after hardliners demanded retaliation for sanctions.

February 9 - IAEA says it has cut back almost half its technical aid projects in Iran to uphold U.N. sanctions imposed on Tehran.

February 19 - Russia announces a delay in work the Bushehr reactor as Iran is behind with payments worth $73.75 million.

February 20 - Chief negotiator Ali Larijani announces in talks with IAEA that Iran will give necessary assurances and guarantees that there will be no deviation ever toward nuclear weapons.

February 21 - A 60-day grace period Iran had been given to stop enriching uranium expires. President Ahmadinejad remains defiant as Iran vows to press on with its program.