Column/Legend
1 - Prefix  - L-Life,  H-Homosexual Behavior/Perversion, R-Religion/Legal Persecution/ACLU, E-Education, M-Media Bias, O-Other
2-7 - Yr, Mo, Dy
8 - L -Letter to Editor, C-Commentary, O-Op-Ed, M-Metro

Hotlink Index of this weeks's family values related news:  [Supreme Court Battle]   [Life]   [Homosexual Behavior/Perversion]   [Religion/Religious Persecution]   [Education]   [Media]   [Other]

SUPREME COURT BATTLE
S051114        Alito rejected abortion as a right
S051115        Alito papers evince a conservative
S051115        Liberals rap Alito's anti-Roe stance
S051116       Alito denies bias on abortion cases
S051116       Let the fun begin
S051116       Roles reversed with Specter judging Alito
S051117       Alito ad
S051117       Democrats say Alito not a sure thing
S051117L     'Judicial imperialism'
S051118       Democrat in 'Gang of 14' raises doubts about Alito


LIFE
L051115      Cloning project imperiled as chief faces accusations
L051115       Review process 'unusual,' GAO says of contraceptive

HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR/PERVERSION
H051118      HIV rate rises 8 percent among gay, bisexual men

RELIGION/RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
R051114        WASHINGTON School rescinds ban on rosary beads
R051114E      The church-chasing IRS
R051115        Bishops try to surpasss candal
R051116        Church departs Virginia Diocese
R051119        Atheist sues to bar 'In God We Trust'
R051119L      Growth of the American Anglican Church

EDUCATION
 

MEDIA
M051114      Return fire
M051116      Rumsfeld recalls words on Iraq of Clinton, aides
M051116E   Withdraw the Libby indictment
M051117E    A tangled web of lies
M051117E   Woodward and the Plame affair
M051119E    A columnist's convenience

OTHER
O051114Md No Dean apology for Steele
O051114Va  Kilgore lost GOP strongholds
O051116       Caesareans hit record high 3 in 10 births
O051116Va   Gilmore eyes another run
O051117        Georgia law on marrying age hit
O051117        More women want to adopt; few do
O051117L      Kilgore: Not conservative enough
O051117Va    Bolling vows to play 'loyal opposition' role
O051118        Council quits project on 'healthy marriage'
O051118        Fathers' role in rearing called key
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

S051117       Alito ad
    The conservative group Committee for Justice plans to release an advertisement today in support of the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    The ad -- designed for TV and radio -- highlights Judge Alito's qualifications before turning to the judge's attackers, specifically the liberal group People for the American Way, reports Charles Hurt of The Washington Times.
    The ad accuses the group of wanting to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, supporting partial-birth abortion and opposing pornography filters on public library computers.
    Sean Rushton, executive director of the Committee for Justice, said the ad will run Thanksgiving week in pro-Republican "red" states with Democrat senators.
    His group is spending a "modest six-figure" amount on the ad, which will continue to be aired in at least some places through the confirmation vote.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O051117   Georgia law on marrying age hit
November 17, 2005
 

ATLANTA (AP) -- Ever since her 13-year-old niece wed a 14-year-old boy last year, Sharon Cline has sent lawmakers a slew of letters begging them to change a Georgia law that allows children of any age to marry -- without parental consent -- as long as the bride-to-be is pregnant.
    "Some of the lawmakers just didn't believe this could happen," said Mrs. Cline, who lives in Weston, Fla. "It was very frustrating."
    They're believers now.
    Lisa Lynnette Clark, 37, was charged last week in Gainesville with child molestation, accused of having a sexual relationship with a 15-year-old friend of her teenage son. Just days before her arrest, she wed the boy under a Georgia law that allows pregnant couples to marry regardless of age and without consent of a minor's parents or guardians.
    Disturbed by the child groom, Georgia lawmakers may soon debate changing a law that many didn't know even existed. Geared toward preventing out-of-wedlock births, the law dates back to at least the early 1960s.
    "I never knew it was in the code until this morning," state Rep. Jerry Keen, leader of the legislature's Republican majority, said Tuesday. "Our legislative counsel -- the lawyers who draft the laws -- even had to look it up."
    Most states require minors to get their parents' permission before they marry. And if a person is 16 or under, many states require approval from parents and the court. But some states allow minors to marry without parental consent in the event of a pregnancy or birth of a child, although the couple may have to get permission from a court.
    Still, Mr. Keen and other leaders in the Republican-controlled Georgia General Assembly stopped short of endorsing a change to the state's marital requirements.
    "It's very difficult to govern by exception. You have to govern by rule," Mr. Keen said.
    Instead, Mr. Keen and Senate Majority Leader Tommie Williams said the state's lawmakers will focus on passing stricter penalties for those convicted of child molestation. Mr. Keen said the legislation would require convicts to spend at least 25 years in prison and wear an electronic tracking device within the state's borders after their release.
    Democratic lawmakers, recently in the minority after more than a century in power, may hope a proposal to change the marriage standards will drive a wedge in the Republican majority.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O051117   More women want to adopt; few do
By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 17, 2005
 

More women say they are interested in adopting children but fewer are taking steps to adopt, a study shows.
    About 18 million women expressed an interest in adoption in 2002, a 38 percent increase from 13 million in 1995, said the National Adoption Day Coalition's study, released yesterday.
    The "mystique" of adoption has dissipated, said Maxine Baker, coalition co-chairwoman.
    The coalition promotes adoption, especially of the 119,000 children in foster care who are in need of adoptive families.
    Government and private groups across the nation have done a good job raising awareness about the benefits and joys of adoptions, said Ms. Baker, an adoptive mother of two and president and chief executive of the Freddie Mac Foundation.
    Now it's time for the "call to action," moving from talking about "the concept" of adoption to "how to do" it, she said.
    The coalition's study, conducted by researchers with the Urban Institute, compares data from the 1995 and 2002 National Surveys of Family Growth (NSFG). It found that of the 18 million women interested in adoption, Protestants and blacks were the most interested, with more than a third of each group saying they had considered it.
    Of the 760,000 women who indicated they were "currently seeking to adopt" in 2002, many said they would consider adopting children with "special needs." For instance, 97 percent said they would consider a child of an ethnic or racial minority, 90 percent would consider a child with a mild disability and 75 percent would consider a sibling group.
    About a third said they would consider adopting teenagers or children with severe disabilities.
    However, between 1995 and 2002, the number of women who took steps to adopt declined significantly.
    In 1995, 16 percent, or 2.1 million, of women who expressed an interest in adoption started the process by contacting someone -- an agency, lawyer or other adoption source -- about adopting. In 2002, 10 percent, or 1.9 million women, took such action.
    Prospective adoptive families probably need more information about services, tax benefits, employer assistance and changes in adoption policies, Ms. Baker said. For instance, it used to be that to adopt, "you had to quit your job and stay home," she said. But today, single parents and working mothers can adopt, she said.
    On Saturday, about 3,100 adoptions will be finalized in hundreds of courts across the nation, including 30 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S051117   Democrats say Alito not a sure thing
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 17, 2005
 

Democrats said yesterday that Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s confirmation is not guaranteed as senators kept the focus on a 20-year-old document in which the Supreme Court nominee asserted that the Constitution "does not protect a right to an abortion."
    "Even at this early stage, I have a number of significant concerns," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday.
    Among the Nevada Democrat's concerns were that Democrats weren't consulted on the nomination, as well as Judge Alito's 20-year-old claim to be a conservative.
    Judge Alito's job-application essay "may explain why the extreme right wing is popping champagne corks," Mr. Reid said. "We learned of the 1985 memo in which he said, 'I am and always have been a conservative.'?"
    Two other top Democrats also registered their dismay with the Alito nomination on the Senate floor yesterday, kicking off the first concerted effort by leadership to sow doubts about the nomination.
    "Anyone who thinks that this nomination is a foregone conclusion is sadly mistaken," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "There are too many questions still to be answered."
    Mr. Schumer also mentioned the job application, first reported this week by The Washington Times.
    "He wrote, among other things, that he was particularly proud of his work to advance the position that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion," he said. "That statement cannot be dismissed as a personal view that will not affect how Judge Alito will approach the legal issue."
    Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and member of the committee, said, "Many of us have serious reservations about the Alito nomination."
    Republicans charged that the speeches were choreographed to mollify leaders of the liberal interest groups who will meet today with Mr. Reid and other Democrats to discuss their stated opposition to the Alito nomination.
    "Harry Reid: Puppet Politician" read the headline of a press release by the Republican National Committee. "Minority Leader Harry Reid once again caters to his liberal special-interest allies by attacking Judge Alito."
    Reid spokesman Jim Manley dismissed the accusation, saying that today's meeting originally had been scheduled for earlier this week.
    "So, that is just categorically false and ridiculous," he said.
    In recent weeks, liberal activists and some Democrats have quietly grumbled that Democratic leaders had not made a serious effort to undermine the nomination.
    Yesterday's speeches seemed to be aimed at allaying fears that the nomination was a done deal.
    In a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said he hopes senators won't "prejudge Judge Alito."
    "A lot of things have happened since 1985," the Pennsylvania Republican said, referring to Judge Alito's job application to become deputy assistant to the attorney general under President Reagan. "For one thing, Judge Alito has said that he believes in a right of privacy in the Constitution."
    Meanwhile, Judge Alito continued his private meetings with senators yesterday.
    Sen. Olympia J. Snowe, a Maine Republican who is pro-choice, said she remained undecided after meeting with the nominee yesterday.
    "He doesn't deny the fact that he obviously stated [his opposition to abortion] on the application," she said. "The question is how he would approach any of the cases coming before the court regarding abortion."
    She said Judge Alito agreed with the theory that even if a case had been wrongly decided, deference should be granted to any case that has become "embedded as part of national culture."
    Mrs. Snowe was asked whether she would oppose Judge Alito if she determined that he would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that established abortion rights.
    "Yeah," she responded. "That would be a serious issue for me."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M051116   Rumsfeld recalls words on Iraq of Clinton, aides
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 16, 2005
 

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld lashed out yesterday at critics of the Iraq war, citing the words of former President Bill Clinton and his aides, who, like President Bush, said intelligence reports showed that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and was a threat to the United States.
    Mr. Rumsfeld's statement was part of a coordinated White House offensive to blunt a continuous assault by Democratic Party leaders. For months, they have accused Mr. Bush of leading the nation to war by misstating the intelligence on the Iraqi dictator's suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.
    Not so, said Mr. Rumsfeld, who suggested that misstating the facts hurts the morale of service members now fighting a deadly insurgency in Iraq and trying to instill democracy.
    "We've got men and women serving in Iraq, risking their lives on the one hand and on the other hand, we have people suggesting that the reason we're there was because the president decided to go in based on information that was unique to him," the defense secretary said. "And it wasn't unique to him. The information that he based his decision on was the same information that President Clinton and the previous administration had. It's the same information members of the House and Senate had."
    He quoted directly from Mr. Clinton, former Vice President Al Gore, former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and former National Security Adviser Samuel R. Berger. All warned about the dangers of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, and all received basically the same intelligence on Iraq that Mr. Bush cited in justifying war after the September 11 attacks on the United States.
    In December 1998, Mr. Clinton ordered five days of bombing against Iraqi military targets. He explained why in a nationally televised speech: "Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. ... I have no doubt today that, left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again. ... The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government."
    Democrats kept up their attacks yesterday.
    "Why is this president striking out, trying to attack his critics?" said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat. "Because, frankly, he's vulnerable. He is vulnerable on the charge that his administration did not level with the American people when it came to the reality on the ground in Iraq before we invaded."
    Mr. Rumsfeld did not name administration critics, but several Democrats who voted for a resolution authorizing force against Saddam now say they were misled by the president. They include Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia. After reading the national intelligence estimate, the same report given to Mr. Bush, Mr. Rockefeller spoke of the danger Saddam presented to the world. Today, he accuses the Bush administration of misrepresenting the intelligence.
    He is the senior Democrat on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which is investigating in secret whether the Bush administration misrepresented the intelligence to Congress.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S051116   Roles reversed with Specter judging Alito
November 16, 2005
 

ASSOCIATED PRESS
    Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. is lucky that Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is not one to nurse a grudge.
    More than a dozen years ago, the Pennsylvania Republican was so incensed at government plans to close the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard that he filed a lawsuit and personally took the case all the way to the Supreme Court before ultimately conceding defeat.
    Along the way, Mr. Specter, a former Philadelphia district attorney, twice argued the case before a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and got favorable rulings, with one judge dissenting.
    That judge was Judge Alito.
    Now, the roles are reversed, and it is Mr. Specter who will wield the gavel when Judge Alito appears before the Judiciary Committee in January on his nomination to the Supreme Court.
    The senator has promised Judge Alito a "a very, very thorough review" and close questioning on the question of abortion rights. The shipyard case hasn't been an issue.
    "I'd forgotten about it. That was yesterday," Mr. Specter said last month after meeting with the judge.
    Judge Alito had been on the federal bench for just two years in 1992 when Mr. Specter's lawsuit first came before him, challenging a recommendation by the Base Closure and Realignment Commission to shut down the shipyard as part of a broader effort to close dozens of unnecessary bases and save $1.5 billion.
    Twice, Judge Alito sided with a district judge who wanted to dismiss the case, finding that the lawsuit would frustrate Congress' intention to avoid lengthy delays in base closures caused by litigation.
    "Congress was acutely aware that for more than a decade before the passage of these laws, every attempt to close or realign a major base in this country had been blocked by Congress itself or by the courts," he wrote in a 1992 dissent. "Congress undoubtedly recognized that objective and prompt decisions concerning base closings are vitally important, particularly at a time of budgetary problems and rapidly changing defense needs."
    Ultimately, although the 3rd Circuit Court's majority opinions supported Mr. Specter and a coalition of politicians, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 against them in May 1994, lining up in accord with Judge Alito's dissent.
    Mr. Specter attached great importance to the issue, writing in his memoir that "this was my case."
    "I had organized, nurtured and developed it. I was the lead plaintiff and had participated in the legal preparation and court arguments at every stage."
    Philadelphia attorney David Pittinsky, who worked with Mr. Specter on the case, recalls that the issue was a hot topic at the time.
    "Everybody was trying to save the shipyard," he said. "It was a big deal."
    About 7,000 civilian jobs were at stake, along with thousands more in support industries. The base ceased operations in 1995.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O051116   Caesareans hit record high 3 in 10 births
By Mike Stobbe
ASSOCIATED PRESS
November 16, 2005
 

ATLANTA -- The rate of Caesarean sections in the U.S. has reached a record high, despite efforts by public health authorities to bring down the number of such deliveries, the government said yesterday.
    Nearly 1.2 million Caesarean sections were performed in 2004, accounting for 29.1 percent of all births that year, the National Center for Health Statistics reported. That is up from 27.5 percent in 2003 and 20.7 percent in 1996.
    The increase is attributed to fears of malpractice lawsuits if a vaginal delivery goes wrong, the preferences of mothers and physicians and the risks of attempting natural births after Caesarean sections.
    The Caesarean-section rate increased for all births, even those that involved healthy pregnancies and a full-term, single child. In 2000, the government announced a national public health goal of reducing Caesarean sections for such births to 15 percent by 2010, but the rate is about 24 percent and rising.
    The government also reported that more than a half-million infants were born preterm -- at less than 37 weeks' gestation -- in 2004, which is another record. The proportion of infants with a low birth weight rose to 8.1 percent in 2004, from 7.9 percent the previous year.
    Increases in multiple-child pregnancies and in preterm Caesarean sections seem to help explain the preterm and low birth-weight numbers, said Joyce Martin, an epidemiologist who co-wrote the report.
    A Caesarean section is major surgery. A doctor cuts open a mother's abdomen to retrieve the baby. The risks include infection and, in rare cases, death. Recovery time is longer than with a vaginal delivery. Doctors often perform a Caesarean section when the baby lacks oxygen or is in some other kind of life-threatening distress.
    For decades, Caesarean sections were performed in only a small fraction of births. In 1970, the national rate was 5 percent. Then it rose, surpassing 20 percent by the mid-1980s.
    Officials and scholars say many factors drove the rate: Mothers increasingly preferred the convenience of Caesarean sections, which could be scheduled. Technological innovations let doctors better see problems before birth.
    The trend temporarily reversed in the early 1990s, partly because health maintenance organizations pressured doctors to curtail unnecessary procedures. But by the late 1990s, health insurers had cut back their Caesarean-section control efforts.
    Also, some doctors became worried that women who have had a Caesarean section during an earlier pregnancy can suffer a ruptured uterus if they later attempt a vaginal delivery -- a potentially lethal complication for both mother and child.
    Some hospitals have banned vaginal deliveries after Caesarean section, or VBAC, said Tonya Jamois, president of the International Cesarean Awareness Network, an advocacy organization.
    "Women are struggling to avoid unnecessary surgery, but the medical system has abandoned them. For many, they have to submit to major surgery in order to get medical care," she said.
    The VBAC rate has dropped to 9.2 percent of 2004 births after a previous Caesarean, compared with 28.3 percent in 1996.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R051116   Church departs Virginia Diocese
By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 16, 2005
 

South Riding Church, a small Episcopal mission of about 150 members in eastern Loudoun County, has become the first church to secede from the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia.
    "Our church upholds the authority of Scripture, and the leadership of South Riding Church can no longer compromise our faith by remaining under the spiritual and jurisdictional authority of the Episcopal Church and this diocese," said the Rev. J. Philip Ashey, pastor of South Riding.
    Episcopal Bishop John B. Chane of Washington, who on Monday condemned the "provocation" of a new Anglican church founded in his diocese by conservatives, is seeking advice from the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the head of the worldwide Anglican Communion.
    Members of the church voted Sunday to leave the Virginia Diocese and affiliate with the Diocese of Ruwenzori, Uganda, under Bishop Benezeri Kisembo.
    Both the Washington and Virginia dioceses are embroiled in a war of parishes and property that threatens to split the denomination over the 2003 consecration of V. Gene Robinson as the world's first openly homosexual Episcopal bishop.
    Dozens of Episcopal churches have left the 2.2-million-member Episcopal Church over the Robinson consecration to affiliate themselves with overseas Anglican bishops.
    The Diocese of Virginia, the nation's largest at about 90,000 Episcopalians in 195 churches, until now has seen no defections.
    Its bishop, the Rt. Rev. Peter Lee, said yesterday he was "saddened that a member of the body has chosen to break with the body and feel that our community is diminished for it."
    While he praised Mr. Ashey for his "forthright manner," Bishop Lee said the priest remains under his ecclesiastical authority until "disciplinary action is taken, if any."
    Bishop Lee, who supported the Robinson consecration, has maintained an uneasy truce between himself and the conservative congregations in Northern Virginia that oversee some of the nation's most historic and most valuable church properties.
    By May, however, Falls Church Episcopal Church, the largest parish in the Virginia Diocese, had sent its former youth pastor, Bill Haley, across the Potomac River to found St. Brendan's, an Anglican mission in Northeast.
    On Saturday at a conference in Pittsburgh, Mr. Haley, 36, was ordained a deacon, along with three other men, by the Rt. Rev. Frank Lyons, Anglican bishop of Bolivia.
    Bishop Lyons said Saturday he grew up in the Washington Diocese and applied to the diocese in 1980 to enter the priesthood. He was rejected, he said, because he had attended two conservative institutions: Wheaton College, just outside of Chicago, and Nashotah House, a seminary in Wisconsin.
    A sympathetic Ecuadorean bishop ordained him, and he was assigned to Hispanic parishes in California, Honduras and Ecuador. He was made bishop of Bolivia in 2001.
    "As far as I am concerned," Bishop Lyons said Saturday, "there is not an Anglican representation in the United States. This is one great missionary territory up here," which means any overseas Anglican bishop can plant churches in the United States.
    "I don't recognize Bishop Chane as a representative of the Anglican church because of his stance on things like the Resurrection and basic creedal issues."
    On March 31, 2002, Bishop Chane preached an Easter sermon at St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral in San Diego, calling the Resurrection "conjectural."
    On Monday, Bishop Chane sent a letter to clergy and parish leaders saying Bishop Lyons' action "violates the ancient Catholic tradition regarding the integrity and authority of diocesan bishops."
    Mr. Haley's appointment, he said, violates the Windsor Report, a compromise struck in October 2004 instructing liberal bishops not to consecrate any more homosexuals and traditional bishops not to establish conservative bulkheads in liberal dioceses.
    "Keep in mind," he said, "that we have it within ourselves to respond to provocation with charity, with patience and with the sure knowledge that previous incursions of this sort have done little to diminish our witness to the Gospel."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S051116   Alito denies bias on abortion cases
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 16, 2005
 

Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. told senators yesterday that his personal pro-life views as a young lawyer have no bearing on how he would rule on abortion cases in a courtroom, according to several members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
    "It was different then. I was an advocate seeking a job. It was a political job," Sen. Dianne Feinstein said, paraphrasing Judge Alito's comments to her during an hourlong meeting yesterday. "I'm now a judge ... I'm not an advocate. I don't give heed to my personal views. What I do is interpret the law."
    Judge Alito's comments were in response to Mrs. Feinstein's questions about a 1985 essay written by the young Republican lawyer that was attached to a job application to become deputy assistant to the attorney general in the Reagan administration. Mrs. Feinstein, a Democrat from California, said she thought Judge Alito's response was "sincere."
    Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who also sits on the committee and met with Judge Alito yesterday afternoon, was less accepting of the nominee's explanation.
    "He indicated that [the] memoranda ... was written as a job application for a position, and he was writing as a member of the Justice Department that was interested in getting a job," Mr. Kennedy told reporters. "And so I asked him why shouldn't we consider that the answers you're giving today are an application for another job."
    Although Mr. Kennedy said the written statement "troubled" him, he did not make a big issue out of it with reporters crammed in his office.
    The unexpectedly favorable response to Judge Alito by Democrats on the Judiciary Committee raised eyebrows among some Democrats who had hoped that Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Kennedy would assess the nominee more harshly in light of his written, personal views about abortion.
    But Democrats apparently are focusing their efforts this week on criticizing the Bush administration for the Iraq war.
    "That is the stronger message right now," said one Democrat staffer, requesting anonymity. "But it doesn't mean this one falls by the wayside."
    Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Georgia Republican, who also met with Judge Alito yesterday, said the nominee's only sin is being a conservative.
    "This man is a conservative," he said. "He's been a conservative all his life, and in 1985 when he was applying for a job, he reiterated that fact in his application."
    "I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values," Judge Alito wrote in his job application 20 years ago.
    In the same paper, Judge Alito said it was his personally held belief that the Constitution does not contain a right to abortion as determined by the Supreme Court in the Roe v. Wade decision.
    But Mrs. Feinstein wasn't going to brand the nominee yesterday.
    "I'm not sure that with respect to Roe exactly what his personal view is," she said. "He's been a circuit court judge now for 15 years."
    Of the four abortion cases he has handled on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Mrs. Feinstein noted, Judge Alito has ruled with the pro-choice side three times and the pro-life side once.
    None of it amounts to a reason for filibustering him, she added.
    Still, her constituents back home are not thrilled with the nominee. She said her office has received 7,200 calls against the nomination and only 300 in favor. The negative-call volume is considerably less, however, than it was for the nomination of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., whom Mrs. Feinstein opposed.
    "My overall impression of him was he's very sincere. He was very direct in answering my questions," she said. "He clearly is well-steeped in the law, has a good mind, [and] is an able thinker."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S051116   Let the fun begin
    "This is going to be fun. Let's see if Democrats in the Senate are willing to stage an all-out assault on a nominee simply because he has expressed a personal opinion on whether the Constitution protects 'a right to an abortion.' That is certainly a view with which many of them disagree," New York Post columnist John Podhoretz writes, referring to a 1985 document in which Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. expressed opposition to abortion.
    "Funny. Last week, I could swear I heard Democrats all over the place celebrating the victory in Virginia of gubernatorial candidate Tim Kaine. He is pro-life. Do Kaine's views make him an extremist radical who cannot be allowed to decide important matters?" Mr. Podhoretz asked.
    "In Pennsylvania, Democrats are celebrating the poll numbers suggesting their senatorial candidate, Robert Casey Jr., is going to trounce sitting Republican Sen. Rick Santorum. Casey is pro-life. Should he be excluded from the company of acceptable policy-makers?
    "Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, has a pro-life voting record. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska is on the executive council of Democrats for Life of America. Are they, too, to be considered out of the mainstream?
    "Of course not. But they are Democrats, you see. And in that 20-year-old document, Alito described himself as a lifelong Republican and a conservative deeply influenced by, among other things, National Review magazine.
    "Horrors!"
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S051115   Liberals rap Alito's anti-Roe stance
By Bill Sammon and Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 15, 2005
 

Liberals said yesterday that Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s 1985 claim that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" proves that he would try to outlaw the practice.
    "He opposes a woman's constitutional right to reproductive freedom," said Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal People For the American Way.
    Mr. Neas cited a document, first reported in The Washington Times yesterday, in which Judge Alito said, "I personally believe very strongly" that no right to an abortion can be found in the Constitution. The document was part of a job application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.
    Democrats on Capitol Hill also reacted strongly, with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts saying the "extreme statements ... are deeply troubling."
    "Judge Alito was clearly trying to pass a litmus test to get a promotion," Mr. Kennedy said. "By his own admission, he was pledging his allegiance against established Supreme Court decisions on ... a woman's constitutional right to privacy."
    One Judiciary Committee liberal said the memo means Democrats should not accept refusals to answer hypothetical questions, a strategy used by nominees to deflect questions on abortion since the defeat of Judge Robert H. Bork, a Reagan nominee to the Supreme Court.
     "Past nominees have said they could not discuss these issues for fear of creating a perception of bias," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat. "Here, unfortunately, the memo itself creates the perception of bias, and it will be crucial for this nominee to address the issue head-on."
    Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican and Judiciary Committee chairman, partially agreed, saying that although senators should not "ask him head-on" about whether he would overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion a constitutional right, Judge Alito can expect closer questioning on the history of abortion jurisprudence.
    "I think that it is more reason to question him closely at the hearing as to what impact the 38 cases [on abortion] have had since Roe. He made that application in 1985, 12 years after Roe, and a lot has happened since then," Mr. Specter said.
    Republican supporters of Judge Alito said the nominee's sentiments were no different than those of another young lawyer who served in the Reagan administration, John G. Roberts Jr. In September, the Senate voted 78-22 to confirm him as chief justice.
    But liberals said documents from that era show a crucial distinction between the two men when it came to the issue of abortion.
    "Unlike Chief Justice John Roberts, Alito says these are his own strong personal views and not just those of the administration he was working for," Mr. Neas said.
    Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America Inc., added, "This document shows Judge Alito's judicial philosophy is far more dangerous to the health and safety of American women than the public may have thought."
    Conservatives countered that even many liberal legal scholars share Judge Alito's doubts about the constitutionality of Roe vs. Wade.
    "Judge Alito's statement in 1985 reflects a legal view that has been widely held among judges, lawyers, and legal scholars from across the political spectrum, who have widely divergent views on the proper abortion policy," said Wendy E. Long, counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network.
    The office of Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, distributed to reporters a list of quotes criticizing Roe as bad law or poor reasoning from such liberal icons as Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Harvard law professors Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe and New Republic legal writer Jeffrey Rosen.
    Steve Schmidt, who is leading the White House effort to secure Judge Alito's confirmation, said the candidate's political views have not manifested themselves in his rulings as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
    "Judge Alito has served on the federal bench for more than 15 years, and his record shows a clear pattern of modesty, respect for precedent and judicial restraint," he said.
    Mr. Schmidt added that Judge Alito is not nearly as conservative as some Supreme Court justices are liberal.
    "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had served as general counsel of the [American Civil Liberties Union] and had advocated liberal political positions, including the ideas that the age of consent should be 12, there was a right to prostitution and polygamy in the Constitution and Mother's Day should be abolished," he said.
    Abortion was not the only issue of concern for liberals who read about Judge Alito's 1985 job application in the Times.
    Judge Alito went on to say that "racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed" and that he strongly favors "limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values."
    Mr. Neas said this proves the nominee's "fervent allegiance to virtually every pet cause of the radical right" and "underscores our concern that he would vote to turn back the clock on decades of judicial precedent protecting privacy, equal opportunity, religious freedom, and so much more."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L051115   Review process 'unusual,' GAO says of contraceptive
By Cheryl Wetzstein
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 15, 2005
 

Federal health officials used an "unusual" review process last year when they decided to continue requiring a prescription for an "emergency" birth-control product considered by some to be an abortion drug, a federal watchdog said yesterday.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) findings lend credence to a former Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official who quit in August over the decision, saying scientific evidence on the Plan B drug was being "overruled."
    The FDA's May 2004 decision to refuse to allow Plan B to be sold over the counter like aspirin or cold tablets "was not typical" of earlier FDA decisions, the GAO said in its 62-page report, which was requested by nearly 50 Democratic lawmakers.
    Some of those Senate and House members said yesterday that the GAO report vindicates their claims that the agency's refusal was "a politically motivated decision" and a "subversion of science."
    The GAO said it found several areas of "unusual" activity surrounding the FDA's decision to reject Plan B, such as the involvement of "high-level management" in the matter and "conflicting accounts" about when the May decision was made.
    Susan F. Wood, FDA assistant commissioner for women's health, quit in August, saying upon her resignation that she was tired of seeing scientific evidence on Plan B "overruled," and that such decisions were causing "fairly widespread concern about FDA's credibility" on contraception.
    Miss Wood could not be reached for comment yesterday.
    An FDA spokeswoman questioned the integrity of the GAO report, saying it "mischaracterizes facts."
    In its written response in the GAO report, the FDA said it is "fairly typical" for upper management to be involved in a high-profile decision like that involving Plan B. The agency also said its decision to reject Plan B's switch from being a prescription-only drug to an over-the-counter drug was made in a timely manner.
    "We question the integrity of the investigative process that results in such partial conclusions by the GAO. The report mischaracterizes facts and does not appear to take into consideration the input provided by the FDA," an FDA spokeswoman said yesterday.
    Plan B is a prescription-only set of high-dose birth-control pills that can prevent pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse. Plan B marketers want their pills to be sold without a prescription so women can get it more easily in an "emergency."
    Conservative lawmakers and traditional-values groups say Plan B should not be sold like aspirin because of the health risks to women, especially teenage girls. Some religious leaders oppose Plan B altogether, indicating its effects are tantamount to abortion.
    In its May 2004 rejection letter to Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., Plan B's marketer, the FDA said the product application was "not approvable at this time" because there was insufficient data on how young teens would use Plan B safely without parental or medical supervision.
    Barr reapplied with a plan to sell Plan B over the counter to those 16 or older, and to younger teens only if they had prescriptions.
    However, in August, the FDA's then-commissioner, Lester M. Crawford, responded to the new Plan B request with a 60-day comment period, saying it was not clear how the FDA would enforce an age limit.
    Plan B supporters were galvanized by yesterday's GAO report.
    "The GAO report confirms what our lawsuit has argued all along -- the FDA broke its own rules ... and women have suffered the consequences," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York.
    In January, the center filed a lawsuit asking a federal court to order the FDA to make Plan B available, without a prescription, for women of all ages.
    "The GAO has confirmed what we have always suspected, that this was a politically motivated decision that came down from the highest levels at the FDA," Democratic Sens. Patty Murray of Washington and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York said in a joint statement.
    "We are deeply opposed to this subversion of science," Rep. Henry A. Waxman, California Democrat, and 17 other lawmakers wrote to Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt yesterday. "It appears that the decision ... was preordained."
    However, Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America praised the FDA's "great caution."
    "Thankfully, the FDA's leadership did what others refused to do -- consider whether a drug's easy availability would present unique health risks to women and girls," she said.
    • This article is based in part on wire service reports.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

L051115   Cloning project imperiled as chief faces accusations
November 15, 2005
 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- The work of the world's foremost human cloning researcher, Hwang Woo-suk, has been thrown under an ethical cloud, jeopardizing the international cloning project that he and several prominent U.S. researchers announced last month.
    Mr. Hwang has been accused of obtaining egg donations from a subordinate, which scientists say is unethical because of the potential for subordinates to feel coerced, and misleading a U.S. collaborator about it.
    Mr. Hwang, whose team at Seoul National University became the first to successfully clone a human embryo last year, yesterday denied the accusations, but U.S. support appears to be waning for the World Stem Cell Hub's plan to open cloning centers in San Francisco and London.
    The dustup also is renewing debate over the thorny issue of how scientists plan to collect women's eggs vital to their controversial work. Thousands of eggs are necessary to complete cloning projects, and there are few ethical guidelines to govern how donors should be treated.
    The San Francisco-based Pacific Fertility Center, which had said it would help the stem-cell hub collect eggs beginning in January, said yesterday that it has severed all ties with Mr. Hwang and dropped all involvement with cloning research.
    Center spokesman Scott Kaplan declined further comment.
    Meanwhile, the nonprofit Children's Neurobiological Solutions Foundation said it was putting on hold a grant application from the Korean-led stem-cell hub.
    "These are very serious claims being made," said Shane Smith, science director of the Santa Barbara, Calif., nonprofit that seeks treatments for childhood brain disorders. The official declined to give the amount of the grant request but said it exceeded the small nonprofit's usual maximum of $75,000.
    Stem-cell scientists hope to clone embryos to extract stem cells to watch how diseases develop and to create drugs.
    Gerald Schatten, a cloning researcher at University of Pittsburgh, said Saturday that he had resigned from the stem-cell hub and ended his 20-month-old collaboration with Mr. Hwang. Mr. Schatten accused Mr. Hwang of "unethical practices" in collecting eggs from a volunteer and then misleading Mr. Schatten about it.
    Since Mr. Hwang's team cloned a human embryo last year, rumors have swirled that some of the 242 eggs used in the experiment were donated by subordinate scientists in his famed cloning lab.
    Mr. Hwang has steadfastly denied the accusations.
    "All research up until now has been conducted in strict observance of the government-set guidelines," Mr. Hwang said, according to South Korea's Yonhap News Agency. He didn't elaborate, saying he would "divulge everything" at an appropriate time.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R051115   Bishops try to surpasss candal
By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 15, 2005
 

Catholic bishops distanced themselves from a nearly four-year-old sex-abuse crisis yesterday during opening sessions of their annual fall business meeting, but were foiled by demonstrators and a $1.8 million budget deficit.
    During Bishop William Skylstad's opening address, the president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) spoke highly of the nation's 43,422 Catholic priests, saying "a handful of our brother priests" were responsible for the crisis.
    "Perhaps never so much as during the scandals of the past four years has so much attention been focused on the priesthood," he told 280 bishops gathered at the Capitol Hyatt. This happened "not for all of its wonder, commitment, dedication and perseverance, but for the darkness and sin which overwhelmed some."
    "It has been a personally painful time for the vast majority of priests who did nothing to deserve that pain."
    The USCCB estimates that 5,148 priests were responsible for 11,750 instances of child sex abuse from 1950 to 2002.
    Also yesterday, bishops voted to transfer $1.8 million from an endowment fund to balance their $131 million 2006 budget.
    Dennis Schnurr, bishop of Duluth, Minn., and chairman of the budget committee, said the panel was "certainly alarmed by the magnitude of this deficit budget."
    Money has been depleted by more than $3 million for the USCCB's National Review Board, which monitors how well dioceses dealt with sexually abusive priests, and its Office of Child and Youth Protection.
    Across the street from the Hyatt, two Wisconsin families asked the bishops for tighter controls on what kinds of men are admitted to seminaries.
    The families said the Rev. Ryan Erickson, 31, showed many abusive and dangerous tendencies in the years before, authorities say, he killed Dan O'Connell, 39, and James Ellison, 22, at a Hudson, Wis., funeral home.
    On Oct. 3, St. Croix County Circuit Judge Eric Lundell ruled that the priest shot the two men in 2002 after Mr. O'Connell accused the priest of child molestation. Erickson killed himself in December after being questioned by police for a second time in the slayings.
    "Both the families believe this was a preventable homicide," said Tom O'Connell, brother of Dan O'Connell. "We believe the Vatican does not have an understanding of the extreme nature of the [clergy sex abuse] problem in the United States."
    In response, Tucson, Ariz., Bishop Gerald Kicanas said, "It's tragic to hear the pain of parents who've lost a son, and our hearts go out to them."
    In other business, the bishops began discussing an updated statement on the death penalty to be issued 25 years after the USCCB's first statement.
    "It is a way for us as a body to affirm our common commitment at a new time when there are more allies, arguments and momentum on this important matter of life and death," said Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn, N.Y., adding that fewer than 50 percent of U.S. Catholics approve of the death penalty.
    "We do not shape our teachings to fit the polls," the bishop said, although he added that the USCCB is happy to influence public attitudes.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S051115   Alito papers evince a conservative
By Charles Hurt
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 15, 2005
 

Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. is a lifelong Republican committed to federalism and other key conservative ideals, according to documents released yesterday by the White House.
    In one memo, Judge Alito urged President Reagan to veto a federal bill to require used-car dealers to keep track of the mileage of cars, saying that such a law would infringe upon states' rights.
    "My administration believes that the federal government should not intervene in matters that traditionally have been the responsibility of the states, and in which there is no overriding need for national policy uniformity," Judge Alito wrote in a Oct. 27, 1986, memo for Mr. Reagan's counsel. "Appropriately, the licensing and transfer of automobiles have been a matter of state concern since the inception of motor travel."
    As it turned out, Judge Alito apparently believed in the ideals of federalism even more strongly than Mr. Reagan, who signed the federal Truth in Mileage Act into law the next day.
    Such views place the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge at sharp odds with some Senate Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who combat states' rights arguments.
    "When he comes before the Senate, Judge Alito faces a heavy burden of demonstrating that he no longer holds these extremely troubling views and would bring an open mind and a real commitment to fundamental rights and freedoms if the Senate confirms him for the Supreme Court," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee.
    Judge Alito will appear before the panel in January.
    And, unlike many nominees to the federal courts who have hidden their personal views behind those of their clients, Judge Alito embraced conservatism.
    "I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values," he wrote in a 1985 essay accompanying his application to be deputy assistant attorney general.
    In that same essay, Judge Alito said the courts have overtaken much of the role reserved for elected officials.
    "In the field of law, I disagree strenuously with the usurpation by the judiciary of decision-making authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate," he wrote.
    Judge Alito noted that as a federal employee, he was barred from partisan politics, but that he had given modestly to the National Republican Congressional Committee, the National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC), and several other Republican campaigns.
    Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and ranking minority member on the Judiciary Committee, said Judge Alito "has many questions to answer."
    "I'm concerned about documents that show an eager and early partisan in the ranks of ideological activists in his party's extreme right wing," Mr. Leahy said yesterday. "He bragged about his support for the cut-throat politics of NCPAC, which largely invented the negative, slash-and-burn politics of the hard right and of the Republican Party's Southern Strategy."
    Mr. Kennedy said Judge Alito's conservative credentials contrast to the thin record of White House Counsel Harriet Miers, whose nomination to the Supreme Court fizzled last month.
    "This may explain why the right wing expressed such enthusiastic support for Judge Alito after campaigning against Harriet Miers," he said.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O051114Md   No Dean apology for Steele
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 14, 2005
 

The chairman of the Republican Party yesterday challenged his Democratic counterpart to condemn racist statements against Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele, but Howard Dean demanded his own apology and ignored the question.
    The former Vermont governor was asked by host Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" to respond to the statements, in an appearance that Mr. Dean insisted be separate from an interview with Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.
    Mr. Dean gave no response, aside from saying he didn't receive an apology for being called an anti-Semite by a member of the Republican Party.
    Mr. Steele, a Republican candidate for the Senate, is the first black elected to statewide office in Maryland, where Senate President Thomas V. "Mike" Miller Jr. labeled him an "Uncle Tom" in 2001. Some black political leaders maintain that Mr. Steele is not exempt from racial comments because of his political views.
    "There's been an utter silence in response to what have been vicious and racist attacks on Michael Steele in Maryland," Mr. Mehlman said.
    Mr. Mehlman on "Meet the Press" called on Mr. Dean to "condemn this kind of racist and bigoted activity. It's wrong."
    "He's had racial epithets thrown at him. He's been derided on a Web site that the Democrats have. And while some Democrats in Maryland have criticized it, there's been utter silence from national Democrats on this important issue," Mr. Mehlman said.
    "I would also hope he'd condemn the following: There are a whole bunch of Democratic candidates and Republican candidates around the country. But Charles Schumer and the [Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee] chose one candidate [Mr. Steele] to go after his credit report and engage in identity theft against him," Mr. Mehlman said.
    Mr. Russert put forth both questions to Mr. Dean, who said "moral values" should bring a "better tone in our political campaigns."
    "I don't like that stuff," Mr. Dean said of the credit-report incident.
    Mr. Dean declined to address the statements against Mr. Steele, but said, "I didn't hear Ken condemning the chairman of the Maryland party when he called me an anti-Semite."
    Mr. Dean, whose wife is Jewish, did joust with the head of the New York Republican party, but a LexisNexis search does not show that John M. Kane, Maryland's Republican Party leader, was involved.
    In February, New York Republican Party Chairman Stephen Minarik compared Mr. Dean to Lynne F. Stewart, a lawyer convicted for smuggling messages from her jailed client, a radical Egyptian sheik, to outside terrorist cells, the Buffalo News reported.
    "So far I've been called a racist, a terrorist, an abortionist, and anti-Semitic," Mr. Dean said.
    His communications office did not return a call for comment.
    Matt Drudge reported yesterday on his Web site that NBC producers have been pitching for a joint appearance between the two party leaders and that Mr. Mehlman also asked Mr. Dean to appear alongside him moments before the Sunday political talk show was taped.
    "I was hoping that Chairman Dean would be on sitting next to me this morning. Maybe we can do that on a future program," Mr. Mehlman said to Mr. Russert.
    Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe appeared five times on "Meet the Press" with former Republican leaders Ed Gillespie, Marc Racicot and James S. Gilmore III.
    Meanwhile, all four leaders of the House and Senate political campaign committees appeared together on ABC's "This Week."
    Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York and Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois squared off against National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman Sen. Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Reynolds of New York.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S051114   Alito rejected abortion as a right
By Bill Sammon
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 14, 2005
 

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, wrote that "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion" in a 1985 document obtained by The Washington Times.
    "I personally believe very strongly" in this legal position, Mr. Alito wrote on his application to become deputy assistant to Attorney General Edwin I. Meese III.
    The document, which is likely to inflame liberals who oppose Judge Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, is among many that the White House will release today from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.
    In direct, unambiguous language, the young career lawyer who served as assistant to Solicitor General Rex E. Lee, demonstrated his conservative bona fides as he sought to become a political appointee in the Reagan administration.
    "I am and always have been a conservative," he wrote in an attachment to the noncareer appointment form that he sent to the Presidential Personnel Office. "I am a lifelong registered Republican."
    But his statements against abortion and affirmative action might cause him headaches from Democrats and liberals as he prepares for confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, scheduled for January.
    "It has been an honor and source of personal satisfaction for me to serve in the office of the Solicitor General during President Reagan's administration and to help to advance legal positions in which I personally believe very strongly," he wrote.
    "I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government has argued in the Supreme Court that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion."
    A leading Republican involved in the nomination process insisted that this does not prove Judge Alito, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, will overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that made abortion a constitutional right.
    "No, it proves no such thing," said the Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "In fact, if you look at some of the quotes of his former law clerks, they don't believe that he'll overturn Roe v. Wade."
    Judge Alito sided with abortion proponents in three of four rulings during his 15 years as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, usually based on existing law and technical legal issues rather than the right to abortion itself.
    "The issue is not Judge Alito's political views during the Reagan administration 20 years ago," the Republican official said. "It's his 15 years of jurisprudence, which can be evaluated in hundreds of opinions. And in none of those opinions is it evident what his political philosophy is.
    "Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a long history of advocacy on behalf of liberal causes, but she was evaluated on her 13-year record as a federal judge and her jurisprudence, not her belief that there was a constitutional right to prostitution or polygamy."
    Although Judge Alito's conservatism has not been particularly evident in his legal rulings, it was abundantly clear in his job application 20 years ago.
    "I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values," he wrote.
    "In the field of law, I disagree strenuously with the usurpation by the judiciary of decision-making authority that should be exercised by the branches of government responsible to the electorate," he added.
    The document also provides the clearest picture to date of Mr. Alito's intellectual development as a conservative.
    "When I first became interested in government and politics during the 1960s, the greatest influences on my views were the writings of William F. Buckley Jr., the National Review, and Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign," he said. "In college, I developed a deep interest in constitutional law, motivated in large part by disagreement with Warren Court decisions, particularly in the areas of criminal procedure, the Establishment Clause, and reapportionment."
    Republicans are relishing the opportunity to defend Judge Alito's support for judicial restraint, saying it puts him squarely in the majority of American public opinion.
    As evidence, they pointed to public outrage over a 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that said the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. More recently, the Supreme Court has ruled that government can seize property and give it to a private party for the sake of the "public good." Other Supreme Court rulings have cited international law.
    "We're delighted to have a debate over judicial philosophy and the proper role of courts in America," a Republican strategist said. "That's a debate the Republican Party wins every time."
    Republicans also pointed out that Judge Alito's devotion to Reagan administration policy was reminiscent of those of Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who also served in the Reagan administration and was confirmed in September by all Republicans and half the Democrats in the Senate.
    "The notion that working for the Reagan administration is a disqualifier for serving on the Supreme Court was decisively refuted by 78 votes earlier in the summer when John Roberts was confirmed," said the official close to the Alito nomination process.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M051114   Return fire
    "Round 2 of the administration's attack on Democrats who backed the war in Iraq but now oppose it comes this week when the Republican National Committee releases a video of big-shot Democrats warning of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction," Paul Bedard writes in the Washington Whispers column of U.S. News & World Report.
    "President Bush fed the feud last week when he accused Democrats of trying to rewrite the history leading up to the war. Now the RNC will out the flip-floppers, featuring old comments from Dems like Bill Clinton, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi. One example: Clinton, warning that Saddam Hussein is ready to pull the WMD trigger, saying 'I guarantee to you he'll use the arsenal.'"
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

R051114   WASHINGTON   School rescinds ban on rosary beads
    CHELAN -- A high school has rescinded a rule that prohibited students from wearing rosary beads.
    Officials at Chelan High School said they acted too hastily a week earlier when they imposed the ban after a training session with a police officer, who warned that rosary beads worn around the neck can be a sign of gang activity, particularly among Hispanics.
    Several students challenged the new dress code, sparking debate among school officials, parents and members of the clergy.
    From wire dispatches and staff reports
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O051114Va   Kilgore lost GOP strongholds
By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 14, 2005
 

Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry W. Kilgore lost four of Virginia's congressional districts that President Bush won a year ago, according to an analysis of Tuesday's poll results.
    Democrat Timothy M. Kaine, who was elected governor, won six of the state's 11 congressional districts, two of which are Republican strongholds in Northern Virginia. Mr. Kaine received 52 percent to Mr. Kilgore's 46 percent.
    In November 2004, Mr. Bush beat Sen. John Kerry by nine points in the state, claiming victory in nine of the state's congressional districts.
    The turnover in the two Northern Virginia districts could spell trouble for Republican incumbents Reps. Frank R. Wolf and Thomas M. Davis III, whose districts voted for Mr. Kaine on Tuesday, even though voters there chose Mr. Bush in 2004.
    The other districts that switched from Mr. Bush in 2004 to Mr. Kaine this year were the 2nd District that includes Virginia Beach and the 5th District that includes Southside Virginia.
    The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is analyzing the results and working on recruiting candidates to challenge Mr. Wolf and Mr. Davis, said committee spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg.
    "We're actively talking to folks in those districts," she said. "The American people are pretty sick and tired of a status quo Congress that is not moving in the right direction for the country. ... They are ready for a change."
    Virginia has three Democrats and eight Republicans in the state's delegation to Congress and two Republicans in the U.S. Senate.
    Mr. Davis and Mr. Wolf successfully fought off challenges in the 2004 elections, but Democrats are hoping the 2006 races will knock out the incumbents.
    Last year, Mr. Wolf beat his Democratic opponent, James Socas, with 64 percent of the vote. Mr. Wolf, who is serving his 13th term, represents the 10th District, which includes Clarke, Loudoun, Frederick and Warren counties, the cities of Manassas, Manassas Park and Winchester and parts of Fairfax, Fauquier and Prince William counties.
    Mr. Davis, who is serving his sixth term, beat his challenger, Democrat Ken Longmyer, with 60 percent of the vote.
    Mr. Davis, who is chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, represents the 11th District, which includes parts of Fairfax and Prince William counties, and Fairfax City.
    Mr. Kaine said Wednesday that many Democrats had ignored the outer suburbs of Northern Virginia and that he reached out to voters there by talking to them about smart growth and homeowner tax relief.
    "We worked" the outer suburbs, Mr. Kaine told reporters. "A lot of Democrats have ignored Prince William and Loudoun. I recognized, as did some good staffers, that they would be very important areas for us."
    In the 2nd District, Rep. Thelma Drake, a Republican, was elected last year to a first term in Congress after Rep. Edward L. Schrock retired. A former state delegate, Mrs. Drake beat her Democratic opponent, 55 percent to 45 percent.
    In the 5th District, Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr., a Republican, defeated his challenger last year with more than 65 percent of the vote.
    Mr. Kaine said the open discussion of his Catholic faith helped him win regions such as Virginia Beach, which usually is a reliable Republican stronghold. The Rev. Pat Robertson, an outspoken Christian broadcaster, lives there.
    "Virginia Beach is the home of a lot of people who take their faith seriously, and I do, too. And I think that may also have been a reason we did well in Virginia Beach," Mr. Kaine said.
    The analysis also suggests that many Bush voters either switched and voted for Mr. Kaine or did not go to the polls on Election Day.
    "I know people stayed home," said Chris LaCivita, a longtime Republican strategist who ran George Allen's successful Senate campaign in 2000.
    Only 45 percent of the state's 4.4 million voters cast ballots Tuesday.
    The Republican candidates for lieutenant governor and attorney general both outpolled Mr. Kilgore, the candidate at the top of the GOP ticket.
    Many observers think Republican Party loyalists voted for Republicans William T. Bolling and Robert F. McDonnell for those spots but not for Mr. Kilgore, because they were turned off by Mr. Kilgore's ads that attacked Mr. Kaine on the death penalty.
    Mr. Kilgore received 912,048 votes. Mr. Bolling, who won his race for lieutenant governor over Democrat Leslie L. Byrne, received 979,014 votes.
    Mr. McDonnell, who ran against Democrat R. Creigh Deeds, received 970,635 votes.
    The attorney general's race is being recounted because the two candidates are about 400 votes apart, according to unofficial results posted last night on the Virginia State Board of Elections' Web site (sbe.vipnet.org/index.htm).
    Mr. Bolling and Mr. McDonnell won the 2nd and 5th districts by large margins, but narrowly beat the Democrats in the 10th District.
    Mrs. Byrne and Mr. Deeds won the 11th District.
    Democrats are looking for a candidate to challenge Mr. Allen's re-election bid next year.
    Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat with more than 70 percent approval ratings, has decided not to run against Mr. Allen.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O051116Va   Gilmore eyes another run
By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 16, 2005
 

Former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III yesterday said he will be a candidate for public office again because Republicans are losing elections by giving inconsistent messages on taxes.
    Mr. Gilmore, the last Republican to hold the state's top job, said Republican gubernatorial nominee Jerry W. Kilgore was not critical enough of the $1.38 billion tax increase championed by Gov. Mark Warner last year.
    "I'm frankly concerned," Mr. Gilmore told The Washington Times. "My intention is to speak out on these issues and help provide leadership any way I can and speak up on what direction I think the state should be going."
    Lt. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine, a Democrat who ran as Mr. Warner's logical successor, was elected governor last week by a six-point margin.
    Under Mr. Warner, the Republican-controlled General Assembly last year narrowly passed the largest tax increase in state history, raising the sales, cigarette and real estate transaction taxes and cutting the food tax and income taxes for the poorest Virginians.
    Mr. Kilgore opposed the tax increase and pledged to veto any others unless they had been put to voters in a referendum. However, his reluctance to try to repeal the 2004 tax increases cost him support among proponents of fiscal restraint.
    Mr. Gilmore said the state Republican Party must develop a message that protects taxpayers.
    "The Republican Party is going to have to make a decision that it will have to make a stand on principles and values," he said. "It is about what they can do for the taxpayers and working people of the state. We have to speak up for the people. If we don't do that, they may as well elect Democrats."
    After lawmakers passed the tax increase to fund the state's growing budget, Virginia officials announced a large surplus. The state has a surplus of more than $2 billion leading into the next two-year budget cycle.
    Mr. Gilmore accused Mr. Warner of deceiving Virginians in order to pass the "unnecessary" tax increase.
    However, Mr. Warner has said that he inherited a fiscal crisis from the Gilmore administration, which had grossly underestimated the cost of eliminating the state's car tax.
    Mr. Warner, a Democrat with more than 70 percent statewide approval ratings, will submit his final budget next month and will include a proposal for spending the surplus. The legislature will consider the plan during its 2006 session.
    The Virginia Constitution bars governors from serving a second consecutive term, although they may seek office again after sitting out a term.
    Mr. Gilmore has hinted that he might be interested in a gubernatorial encore or a run for the U.S. Senate when Republican John W. Warner retires.
    "I'm sure I'll be a candidate at some point," Mr. Gilmore said yesterday.
    In 1997, Mr. Gilmore was propelled to victory in the governor's race with his pledge to end the car tax.
    The former governor joined Mr. Kilgore's gubernatorial campaign kickoff tour in March but was not seen with the Republican candidate on the campaign trail after that.
    "I did everything I was asked to do, and I think I could have made a larger contribution than I was asked to do," Mr. Gilmore said.
    Kilgore campaign manager Ken Hutcheson said Mr. Gilmore did not offer further help. "I don't think he ever made it known he was interested in campaigning," Mr. Hutcheson said.
    Mr. Gilmore said Republican William T. Bolling, who last week was elected as lieutenant governor, delivered the right campaign message.
    Mr. Bolling, who will take office in January, agreed with Mr. Gilmore's assessment that Republicans must focus on low taxes.
    "If there is one issue that separates the Republican Party from the Democratic Party it is our belief that working men and women know how to spend their money better than the government," Mr. Bolling said. "If we ever become the party of higher taxes, then we have taken away the most important issue that separates our philosophy with their philosophy."
    Mr. Bolling said Mr. Gilmore has been an "effective leader" in the past and that "no doubt he can be an effective leader for our party and our commonwealth in the future."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O051117Va   Bolling vows to play 'loyal opposition' role
By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 17, 2005
 

Virginia Lt. Gov.-elect William T. Bolling says he will fight for conservative social values and low taxes and hold Gov.-elect Timothy M. Kaine accountable to his own election promises.
    Mr. Bolling, a Republican state senator from Hanover, said he will "play the part of loyal opposition" when working with Mr. Kaine, a Democrat who is the current lieutenant governor. He said he will resist tax increases but thinks that the state must invest in its transportation and higher education systems.
    "When Mr. Kaine governs consistent with the principles and values we believe in, and consistent with his campaign promises, we will stand with him in that effort for the good of Virginia," Mr. Bolling said. "However, should Mr. Kaine depart from these principles, values and promises, we will hold him accountable for his actions."
    Delacey Skinner, a spokeswoman for the governor-elect, said Mr. Kaine will meet with Mr. Bolling during the transition period to discuss the upcoming legislative session, which begins Jan. 11.
    "He looks forward to working with the lieutenant governor-elect to hammer out some bipartisan paths for Virginia to move forward," she said.
    Mr. Bolling, 48, captured 979,226 votes in last week's election, beating Democratic opponent Leslie L. Byrne by about 23,000 votes.
    Political observers are examining his victory, particularly since he was the top Republican vote-getter, receiving more total votes than Republican gubernatorial candidate Jerry W. Kilgore and winning eight of the state's 11 congressional districts.
    The attorney general's race is being recounted, with about 350 votes currently separating Republican Robert F. McDonnell and Democrat R. Creigh Deeds.
    Mr. Bolling said he won because he spoke the language voters wanted to hear during the campaign.
    "When Republicans stand up and speak out in support of the conservative principles we believe in, people will trust us and they will give us the opportunity to lead," he said. "The vast majority of Republicans believe in the same principles and values and are not always willing to talk about them as clearly as we should."
    During the campaign, Mr. Bolling reminded voters of his opposition to the $1.38 billion tax increase package passed by the Republican-controlled General Assembly in May 2004. He said low taxes must continue to be the "fundamental principle" of state Republicans.
    "We believe in keeping government small and focused on its core responsibilities, and we believe in keeping taxes low," Mr. Bolling said.
    The package, which also cut taxes, created more funding for education, health care and public safety. The state's rosy economic picture has contributed to a more than $2 billion budget surplus since the tax package was approved.
    Mr. Bolling said his legislative priorities include tackling the big challenges in Virginia's future, namely building a transportation system for the 21st century.
    "It's going to take money to do that," he said. "I want to take advantage of this tremendous economic growth and I think we can do it without raising taxes."
    Some Republicans are already talking about a Bolling gubernatorial bid in 2009, even though he will not be sworn in until Jan. 14 to the No. 2 post in state government.
    Many governors have moved up out of the largely ceremonial No. 2 post in Virginia, where chief executives are limited by the state constitution to a one four-year term.
    Virginia lieutenant governors serve as president of the Senate and succeed the governor in case of emergency or resignation. The part-time position pays $36,321 a year.
    Mr. Bolling, a state senator since 1996, considered a bid for the position in 2001, but withdrew from consideration for the nomination.
    Mr. Bolling, who is an executive in the insurance industry, also served five years on the Hanover County Board of Supervisors, with two years as chairman.
    Mr. Bolling will resign from his Senate seat, and a special election will be held to fill the vacancy.
    Delegate Ryan T. McDougle, Mechanicsville Republican, is interested in the seat and has Mr. Bolling's support. The election cannot take place until the recount in the attorney general's race is complete. It will likely be held next year before the legislative session begins.
    Mr. Bolling was raised in the coal fields of West Virginia and was the first in his family to graduate from college.
    U.S. Sen. George Allen, a Republican and former Virginia governor, nicknamed Mr. Bolling "fireball" for his spirit during the campaign.
    Mr. Allen said he expects Mr. Bolling to bring "common-sense conservative principles" to Virginia as an "inspired, energetic" leader.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M051116E   Withdraw the Libby indictment
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
November 17, 2005
 

Bob Woodward's just-released statement, suggesting that on June 27, 2003, he may have been the reporter who told Scooter Libby about Joseph Wilson's wife, blew a gigantic hole in Patrick Fitzgerald's recently unveiled indictment of the vice president's former chief of staff.
    While that indictment did not charge Mr. Libby with outing a CIA covert operative, it alleged that he lied to investigators and the grand jury. As we have stated earlier on this page -- and unlike many conservative voices then -- we believe perjury is always a serious offense (even in a political setting). And if sufficient evidence exists to support a conviction, then Mr. Fitzgerald's indictment of Mr. Libby was fully warranted.
    However, the heart of his perjury theory was predicated upon the proposition that Mr. Libby learned of Valerie Plame's identity from other government officials and not from NBC's Tim Russert, as claimed by Mr. Libby. Indeed, Mr. Fitzgerald seemed to have a reasonable case because Mr. Russert, a respected and admired journalist, with no vested interest of his own, denied that he discussed the Mr. Wilson's matter with Mr. Libby.
     However, given Mr. Woodward's account, which came to light after the Libby indictment was announced, that he met with Mr. Libby in his office -- armed with the list of questions, which explicitly referenced "yellowcake" and "Joe Wilson's wife" and may have shared this information during the interview -- it is entirely possible that Mr. Libby may have indeed heard about Mrs. Plame's employment from a reporter. Given the fact that the conversations in issue -- the one with Tim Russert and the one with Bob Woodward -- were separated by less than two weeks, and that officials like Mr. Libby juggle literally hundreds of matters on a daily basis, it is entirely plausible that he confused the two reporters. There certainly was no possible reason for him to mislead Mr. Fitzgerald on this issue, since the point he was trying to make, originally to the FBI investigators in October 2003, and later on to the grand jury, that Valerie Plame's identity was known to a reporter who imparted it to him was equally compelling, no matter what the identity of that reporter.
     In light of these facts, it is at least doubtful whether a reasonable jury would find Mr. Libby guilty. Moreover, as argued by Washington lawyers David Rivkin and Lee Casey in an article appearing on today's op-ed page, under the U.S. Attorney's Manual provisions, no prosecution should be commenced unless the attorney representing the government believes that he has evidence that will probably be sufficient to obtain a conviction. Accordingly, Mr. Fitzgerald should do the right thing and promptly dismiss the indictment of Scooter Libby.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M051117E   A tangled web of lies
By Suzanne Fields
November 17, 2005
 

Lies are deadly stuff. Like all poisons, they have to be handled carefully. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave/ When first we practice to deceive," wrote Sir Walter Scott. Mark Twain was practical about it, too: "If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything." Lies are particularly lethal in politics. They create a cauldron of double toil and trouble, nearly always in unpredictable ways.
    When a president lies, he's asking for it. "I am not a crook," said Richard Nixon, and he was driven from office. "I did not have relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky," said Bill Clinton, and he was impeached. Now we're told, and told and told, that George W. Bush lied to get us into a war in Iraq. Lies like that could be impeachable stuff, too. A poll taken for the Wall Street Journal/NBC News suggests that 57 percent of Americans believe that George W. "deliberately misled people to make the case for war with Iraq." In Europe the percentage is even greater, and in the Middle East nobody ever believes anybody about anything (and with good reason).
    Somebody is clearly lying to somebody, proving that "A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on." But even a casual examination of the public record demonstrates that the president is not the liar.
     The lied-about president finally pulled his boots on with a speech on Veterans Day, reproaching not just the liars but those who listen to lies: "It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began." He reminded those with short memories that a bipartisan Senate investigation found that no pressure had been applied to alter the intelligence findings about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Look again, he said, at more than a dozen U.N. resolutions citing Saddam Hussein's possession and development of chemical, nuclear and biological weapons of mass destruction.
     John Bolton, the new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, cites the record of the Iraqis' own admission that they had developed chemical weapons, and their later assertion that they had destroyed them.
    "They were obstructing the inspectors and it was perfectly reasonable to think that they still had those capabilities," the ambassador told me over lunch (of roast chicken) this week in Washington. "In retrospect we should have done better at probing that assumption."
     But that doesn't diminish what was once reasonable to believe. He calls attention to the remarks of Chief Inspector Hans Blix in a briefing to the Security Council in 2002, that it was imperative that Iraq furnish strong proof of the claim that there were no biological, chemical or nuclear weapons left in Iraq.
     "[I]t would need to provide convincing documentary or other evidence," Mr. Blix said of Iraq at the time. "Production of mustard gas is not exactly the same as production of marmalade." Only months before we went to war against Iraq, Mr. Blix found 122-mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker 105 miles southwest of Baghdad, and wrote that "they could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg." (Icebergs in the desert? But we got his point.) If, as Mr. Blix now claims, he was only being cautious and that the president "misled himself," Mr. Blix gave the president considerable assistance.
     Norman Podhoretz notes in Commentary magazine that the chief of staff for Colin Powell, when he was the secretary of state, said "the consensus of the intelligence services 'was overwhelming' in the period leading up to the invasion of Iraq that Saddam definitely had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, and that he was also in all probability well on the way to rebuilding the nuclear capability that the Israelis had damaged by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981." There was also a credible belief that Iraq would be able to make a nuclear weapon in months to a year after it acquires 'sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.' "
     The list of Democrats who believed as the president did, and fell all over themselves saying so, is a long one, and includes Bill Clinton, Madeleine Albright, his secretary of state; Sens. Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the current leader of the Democrats in the House. As Casey Stengel might say, you could Google it.
    The warning by William James has a particular resonance for our time: "There is no worse lie than a truth misunderstood by those who hear it."
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

M051117E   Woodward and the Plame affair
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
November 17, 2005
 

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald should drop his prosecution of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. In light of Bob Woodward's recent revelations, suggesting that he could have told Mr. Libby of Valerie Plame's CIA employment, Mr. Libby's conviction seems unlikely.
    Although Mr. Fitzgerald was exempted from the normal Department of Justice regulations governing the conduct of a special counsel, he should nevertheless follow the requirements of the U.S. Attorneys Manual, which provides that "both as a matter of fundamental fairness and in the interest of the efficient administration of justice, no prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the government believes that the person probably will be found guilty by an unbiased trier of fact." Mr. Fitzgerald may well have believed this standard met when he sought the indictment; he should now reconsider.
    Mr. Fitzgerald was originally tasked to investigate whether the revelation, reported by Robert Novak in July 2003, that Bush critic Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA violated the law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) was enacted in 1982, and criminalizes the exposure of "covert" American agents. However, to fall within this protected category, an individual in Mrs. Plame's situation must: (1) be employed in a classified status; (2) either be serving overseas or have served overseas within five years; and (3) the government must be taking affirmative measures to conceal its relationship to the individual. Although Mrs. Plame's employment was allegedly "classified," her husband's own published memoirs suggest that she returned to Washington more than five years before her status was revealed. Moreover, the government was not taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her employment within the IIPA's meaning. In fact, she was living openly under her own name and working at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. Significantly, nowhere does the indictment claim that any government official informed Mr. Libby even that Mrs. Plame's employment was "classified."
    Not surprisingly, Mr. Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with an IIPA violation. Instead, he sought an indictment against Scooter Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice. The core of this case is the claim that Mr. Libby misled investigators, and the grand jury, about having been told of Mrs. Plame's CIA employment by journalists. In particular, the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby claimed to have been informed of Mr. Plame's status by NBC's Tim Russert in July 2003, and that he later told both Time Magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller he had heard this fact from other reporters. Evidently, each of these journalists remembers things differently, and that is the foundation of Mr. Fitzgerald's case against Mr. Libby.
    Enter Bob Woodward, the Pulitzer Prize-winning (for reporting the Watergate scandal with Carl Bernstein) assistant managing editor of The Washington Post. Mr. Woodward has told prosecutor Fitzgerald that he was informed of Mrs. Plame's CIA connection by another government official in mid-June 2003 ("the reference seemed to me to be casual and offhand, and it did not appear to me to be either classified or sensitive"). Moreover, Mr. Woodward has also stated that he met with Mr. Libby on June 27, taking with him a list of questions which included references to "yellowcake" and to "Joe Wilson's wife." Mr. Wilson, of course, was sent to Niger by the CIA (evidently at his wife's recommendation) to investigate whether Saddam Hussein tried to buy nuclear weapons (yellowcake) material there. Responding to Mr. Fitzgerald's questions, Mr. Woodward also stated that it was possible (although he does not recall) that he discussed Mr. Wilson or Mrs. Plame with Mr. Libby.
    Truth, as they say, is the daughter of time. It is entirely plausible that, whatever the recollections of Mr. Russert, Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, a journalist did raise Valerie Plame's CIA connections with Mr. Libby -- who simply confused Bob Woodward with Tim Russert, both of whom are prominent Washington media figures. A reasonable jury could certainly reach this conclusion and, at a minimum, the possibility should raise a reasonable doubt in their minds regarding whether Mr. Libby has perjured himself or obstructed justice. Conviction beyond a reasonable doubt has been variously defined, but generally requires an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. Is it morally certain that Mr. Libby lied, or did he simply not remember correctly?
    Moreover, perjury is not just lying under oath; it is lying under oath about something material. The other counts against Mr. Libby similarly depend upon a material misrepresentation of fact. In this case, the critical fact was that Mr. Libby heard of Mrs. Plame's CIA employment from media, as well as from government, sources. The precise media source is irrelevant.
    Mr. Fitzgerald could, of course, insist on proceeding with a criminal trial. However, in the interests of justice, and especially since the identity of a covert agent was not revealed in this case, he should simply drop the prosecution now. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, it is increasingly evident that there is just no there there.

    David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey are partners in the Washington office of Baker & Hostetler LLP, and served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.

Woodward and the Plame affair
TODAY'S COLUMNIST
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
November 17, 2005
 

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald should drop his prosecution of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff. In light of Bob Woodward's recent revelations, suggesting that he could have told Mr. Libby of Valerie Plame's CIA employment, Mr. Libby's conviction seems unlikely.
    Although Mr. Fitzgerald was exempted from the normal Department of Justice regulations governing the conduct of a special counsel, he should nevertheless follow the requirements of the U.S. Attorneys Manual, which provides that "both as a matter of fundamental fairness and in the interest of the efficient administration of justice, no prosecution should be initiated against any person unless the government believes that the person probably will be found guilty by an unbiased trier of fact." Mr. Fitzgerald may well have believed this standard met when he sought the indictment; he should now reconsider.
    Mr. Fitzgerald was originally tasked to investigate whether the revelation, reported by Robert Novak in July 2003, that Bush critic Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA violated the law. The Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) was enacted in 1982, and criminalizes the exposure of "covert" American agents. However, to fall within this protected category, an individual in Mrs. Plame's situation must: (1) be employed in a classified status; (2) either be serving overseas or have served overseas within five years; and (3) the government must be taking affirmative measures to conceal its relationship to the individual. Although Mrs. Plame's employment was allegedly "classified," her husband's own published memoirs suggest that she returned to Washington more than five years before her status was revealed. Moreover, the government was not taking "affirmative measures" to conceal her employment within the IIPA's meaning. In fact, she was living openly under her own name and working at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. Significantly, nowhere does the indictment claim that any government official informed Mr. Libby even that Mrs. Plame's employment was "classified."
    Not surprisingly, Mr. Fitzgerald has not charged anyone with an IIPA violation. Instead, he sought an indictment against Scooter Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice. The core of this case is the claim that Mr. Libby misled investigators, and the grand jury, about having been told of Mrs. Plame's CIA employment by journalists. In particular, the indictment alleges that Mr. Libby claimed to have been informed of Mr. Plame's status by NBC's Tim Russert in July 2003, and that he later told both Time Magazine's Matthew Cooper and The New York Times' Judith Miller he had heard this fact from other reporters. Evidently, each of these journalists remembers things differently, and that is the foundation of Mr. Fitzgerald's case against Mr. Libby.
    Enter Bob Woodward, the Pulitzer Prize-winning (for reporting the Watergate scandal with Carl Bernstein) assistant managing editor of The Washington Post. Mr. Woodward has told prosecutor Fitzgerald that he was informed of Mrs. Plame's CIA connection by another government official in mid-June 2003 ("the reference seemed to me to be casual and offhand, and it did not appear to me to be either classified or sensitive"). Moreover, Mr. Woodward has also stated that he met with Mr. Libby on June 27, taking with him a list of questions which included references to "yellowcake" and to "Joe Wilson's wife." Mr. Wilson, of course, was sent to Niger by the CIA (evidently at his wife's recommendation) to investigate whether Saddam Hussein tried to buy nuclear weapons (yellowcake) material there. Responding to Mr. Fitzgerald's questions, Mr. Woodward also stated that it was possible (although he does not recall) that he discussed Mr. Wilson or Mrs. Plame with Mr. Libby.
    Truth, as they say, is the daughter of time. It is entirely plausible that, whatever the recollections of Mr. Russert, Mr. Cooper and Ms. Miller, a journalist did raise Valerie Plame's CIA connections with Mr. Libby -- who simply confused Bob Woodward with Tim Russert, both of whom are prominent Washington media figures. A reasonable jury could certainly reach this conclusion and, at a minimum, the possibility should raise a reasonable doubt in their minds regarding whether Mr. Libby has perjured himself or obstructed justice. Conviction beyond a reasonable doubt has been variously defined, but generally requires an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. Is it morally certain that Mr. Libby lied, or did he simply not remember correctly?
    Moreover, perjury is not just lying under oath; it is lying under oath about something material. The other counts against Mr. Libby similarly depend upon a material misrepresentation of fact. In this case, the critical fact was that Mr. Libby heard of Mrs. Plame's CIA employment from media, as well as from government, sources. The precise media source is irrelevant.
    Mr. Fitzgerald could, of course, insist on proceeding with a criminal trial. However, in the interests of justice, and especially since the identity of a covert agent was not revealed in this case, he should simply drop the prosecution now. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, it is increasingly evident that there is just no there there.

    David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey are partners in the Washington office of Baker & Hostetler LLP, and served in the Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

S051117L   'Judicial imperialism'
    White House strategist Karl Rove's speech to the Federalist Society, in which he slammed court activism, was a "slam-dunk" ("Rove slams court activism in speech to lawyers' group," Nation, Friday) . "Judicial imperialism" is certainly at odds with the U.S. Constitution, and when carried too far, it is un-American. It has not only dangerously divided American society, but, as Mr. Rove said, has "created a sense of disenfranchisement among a very large segment of American society." Mr. Rove's comment that "Issues not addressed by the Constitution should be decided by elections, rather than by nine lawyers in robes," seems to be the essence of a sound judicial philosophy.
  It was necessary to shift the courts to the right because too many decisions have been questionable and "fundamentally out of touch with our Constitution." I think the legal reasoning in the Roe v. Wade decision, for instance, was fundamentally flawed because a right to privacy does not guarantee a woman an abortion on demand, unless her life is at stake.
    The liberal media will try to downplay the correct shift of the courts and continue to discredit, hector and embarrass President Bush. The failed nomination of Harriett Miers is a prime example of the liberal press's handiwork. The obvious mistake was hyped way out of proportion.

    DONALD RICE
    Silver Spring
  vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

O051117L    Kilgore: Not conservative enough
    I must respond to John S. Gray's Friday letter with regard to the recent Virginia elections. Mr. Gray, although entitled to his opinion, offers a typically liberal — and decidedly wrong — analysis of why Jerry Kilgore lost t