Other Political News

[Soldier4Christ]

Hizbullah wants soldiers moved to Iran

Unless you live on another planet, you are probably aware that things have escalated into full out war for Israel. In retaliation for the kidnapping of two soliders, Israel has declared war and already bombed Beirut Airport.

Iran is itching to get involved to the point of spreading the war all over the middle east. After all they do want to usher in the apocalypse and “wipe Israel off the map.” Well now it looks like Hizbullah wants to give them a chance to get involved.

    Israel has information that Hizbullah guerrillas who captured two Israeli soldiers are trying to transfer them to Iran, Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said.

    Regev did not disclose the source of his information.

    The IDF released the names of the two soldiers on Thursday. According to the IDF Spokesperson, the two reserve are Ehud Goldwasser, 31, from Nahariya, and Eldad Regev, 26, from Kiryat Motzkin.

    Hizbullah guerrillas, who are backed by Iran, seized the soldiers Wednesday in a cross-border raid.

    OC Northern Command Lt.-Gen. Udi Adam said Thursday evening that the army has hit hundreds of targets in Lebanon since Wednesday night.

    Adam added that Israel has not ruled out sending ground forces into Lebanon. He told reporters that even Northern Command had come under Katyusha fire during the day.

    “I imagine over time that we will be able to rid ourselves of this threat entirely,” he said.

Is it only a matter of time before we get pulled into this? I’m afraid to answer my own question.

Wizbang is following this closely.

Atlass Shrugs says that Iran is neck deep in all of this and the ultimate puppet master behind all of it. She also says that war with Iran has begun!

    Years from now, the kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit will be regarded like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand. Against the backdrop of Kassam rocket fire on Israelis living within range of the Gaza Strip, it was the fate of Corporal Shalit that triggered the Israeli return to Gaza, which in turn brought the Hezbollah forces into the game.NY Sun

A friend sends me this link which has all kinds of exclusive good information in it on the situation.

Captain’s Quarters:

    One has to wonder about the timing of these terrorist attacks on Israel. Either Syria or Iran, or both, have decided to start provoking Israel into some kind of response. Perhaps all they wanted was to force Israel to release Palestinian prisoners, and recalled that kidnappings have successfully done so with past Israeli administrations. In that case, they made a major miscalculation, and they may have a war for which they are unprepared. That would tend to indicate Bashar Assad’s incompetent handiwork.

    On the other hand, perhap the entire idea was to start a regional war. The flashpoints being in Gaza and Israel’s northern border, the conspiracy would have intended to paint this as Israeli aggression — and given Europe’s normal response to fighting in the region, that would have been a pretty good prediction. What purpose would a regional war serve? It might play into the hands of a regime needing an excuse to test out a missile program on Tel Aviv, and perhaps a new warhead, too — and that would point to Ahmadinejad and the mad mullahcracy.

    This could get ugly fast — and if it plays out like every other war against Israel in the last sixty years, it could clean up a lot of dictatorships.

Yes, I am afraid this could get very ugly indeed.

[Soldier4Christ]

Bush agrees to submit NSA wiretaps Program to FISA courts


Via Allahpundit

Can ACLU and liberals now rejoice???!!!

    Announced by Arlen Specter, reported by CNN and Fox. Hasn’t hit the wires yet but I should have a link soon. Specter called the negotiations with the White House “torturous.”

I’m waiting to see the actual news on the wire and digest this before I comment too much. I do agree with Allapundit that after giving Geneva rights to the terrorists, the administration are really taking it in the pants this week. My initial reaction is a bit of shock and some disappointment. I’m still digesting this.

Reuters

    The White House, in a policy reversal, has agreed to allow a federal court review of the National Security Agency’s domestic spying program, a top Senate Republican announced on Thursday.

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said he has negotiated a proposed bill with the White House that would do that and voiced hope his panel would approve it.

    “We have structured a bill which is agreeable to the White House and I think will be agreeable to this committee,” Specter told the panel.

Again, I’m still digesting this, but if Arlen Specter is happy about this it can’t be much of a good thing. Some of us are wondering what happened to Bush’s spine. This was an issue he was so stubborn on for so long. Why the sudden about face? It won’t take long for the ACLU to applaud this decision followed by how many other things they still have to work on.

Update: Maybe not.

AP seems to be saying that the deal is to submit the program itself to the FISA court to review its Constitutionality.

    The legislation would authorize the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review the constitutionality of the National Security Agency’s most high-profile monitoring operations, said the Pennsylvania Republican.

    “You have here a recognition by the president that he does not have a blank check,” Specter told his committee.

….

    Specter told the committee that the bill, among other things, would:

    • Require the attorney general to give the intelligence court information on the program’s constitutionality, the government’s efforts to protect Americans’ identities and the basis used to determine that the intercepted communications involve terrorism.

    • Expand the time for emergency warrants secured under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act from three to seven days.

    • Create a new offense if government officials misuse information.

    • At the NSA’s request, clarify that international calls that merely pass through terminals in the United States are not subject to the judicial process established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
    The administration official, who asked not to be identified because discussions are still ongoing, said the bill also would give the attorney general power to consolidate the 100 lawsuits filed against the surveillance operations into one case before the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

    Specter did not explain to his committee that detail, which is likely to raise the ire of civil liberties groups.

Oh!! We may have to hold that applause ACLU! As the details unfold, could it be that consolidating the lawsuits into a secret court like this would protect certain government secrets at the same time still reviewing its constitutionality? I’m still not convinced, but maybe this is more compromise than cave in? Something just doesn’t feel right about it all.

Lorie Byrd is still digesting all of this too:

    I have not digested the specifics yet (actually no real details are known yet) but this may end up being a smart move in some ways. The first thing that occured to me is that if the program gets the FISA court stamp of approval, the critics hollering that the President broke the law will look even more foolish than they currently do. If that is possible.

[Soldier4Christ]

Lawsuit challenges massive spotted owl 'habitat'
8 million acres in Arizona, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico at stake

The U.S. government broke the law when it designated more than eight million acres in the western United States as "critical habitat" for the Mexican spotted owl, charges a lawsuit filed today by Pacific Legal Foundation.

"The critical habitat designation for the Mexican spotted owl runs afoul of the law in a number of ways," claimed Pacific Legal attorney Damien Schiff. "Some of the areas that have been set aside by the regulators clearly don't have physical and biological features that are essential for the owl's conservation. Other areas are described in such vague terms that it's anyone's guess whether it's necessary to take them out of public use."

In addition, said Schiff, "the regulators ignored their legal duty to consider and factor in the economic impact of the designation."

The suit is being filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association, which claims the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, responsible for the August 2004 habitat designation, failed to abide by requirements of the Endangered Species Act in designating more than eight million acres in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as federally protected spotted owl habitat.

Back in 1990, as WND has reported, the designation of the northern spotted owl as a threatened species resulted in the closure of 187 mills throughout Oregon, Washington and California and the loss of 22,654 jobs. Over the next decade, the public timber harvest in the region plummeted by at least 80 percent, devastating Oregon's largely timber-based economy.

Today's lawsuit is being filed in an attempt to stave off a similar fate. "Shutting off these millions of acres will have substantial negative effects on many private citizens who make a living through cattle grazing and oil and gas appropriation," said Schiff.

Many members of the Arizona Cattle Growers' Association, said Schiff, "hold grazing permits and leases authorizing livestock grazing on national forest lands included within the owl's critical habitat. This habitat designation will hurt them because it could mean an end, or severe curtailment, to their grazing permits on public lands." According to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, a federal agency may not issue a grazing permit if the permitted activity will adversely modify terrain that has been designated as a species' critical habitat.

"It is important to note that this lawsuit is not about removing protections for the Mexican spotted owl," Schiff noted. "Rather, the case is about making sure that federal agencies abide by their statutory obligations so that the rights and economic interests of private citizens are not violated."

In 2004, as WND reported the federal government had seriously underestimated the cost of the Endangered Species Act to American taxpayers and businesses.

"The Fish and Wildlife Service report does not come close to accounting for the costs to taxpayers and to the private sector of complying with the ESA," said Randy T. Simmons of the Property and Environment Research Center. "A more accurate figure for the annual ESA costs would place those costs in billions, not millions, of dollars."

[Soldier4Christ]

Harris takes back $100,000 from campaign to renovate home


Katherine Harris gave her campaign more than $3 million to run for Senate, but then took back $100,000 to finish renovating her "historic home in Washington, D.C." her campaign revealed Friday.

The campaign said that the Republican congresswoman would sell the house, if necessary, to fund her embattled Senate race to unseat Democratic incumbent Bill Nelson. The decision was immediately questioned.

"I have never heard of a candidate taking money out of a campaign coffer like it's an ATM. It absolutely boggles my mind," said former Harris campaign manager Jim Dornan. "This is a woman who has completely lost touch with reality. You don't take your campaign contributors' money, whether it's yours or not, and spend it to renovate you house. This is absolutely insane."

The campaign announced Harris repaid some of the money she already gave the campaign in a press release detailing fundraising for the three months ending June 30.

Nelson's campaign manager Chad Clanton was almost speechless when he heard about the report.

"I don't know what to say. It's just another bizarre chapter in the Katherine Harris campaign," he said.

The campaign said Harris has raised $1.1 million in donations during the quarter and said she has $2.6 million remaining in her campaign account. By comparison, Nelson raised $2.5 million in the same quarter and has $12.1 million remaining in his account.

The announcement comes the same week Harris lost much of her core campaign staff for the second time since getting in the race last summer. Her campaign manager, Glenn Hodas, resigned after three months on the job, saying Harris was uncontrollable. He is the third person to hold the position.

Harris announced on national television that she would spend $10 million of her own money on the race, but Friday's press release referred to the money as a loan.

Harris trails Nelson by more than 30 points in most polls and has been plagued by problems. Fundraising has been slow, GOP leaders tried to find another candidate, and she has received more attention for her association with a corrupt defense contractor who gave her $32,000 in illegal campaign contributions than she has on issues.

Harris also faces surgery on Monday to remove an ovarian mass.

[Soldier4Christ]

Tennessee Supreme Court allows vote on gay marriage ban

The state Supreme Court said in a unanimous decision filed today that voters will be allowed to decide in November whether they want a constitutional ban on gay marriage in Tennessee.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice William M. Barker rejected a legal claim by the American Civil Liberties Union, three state legislators and others that would have prevented the amendment from being placed on the ballot, according to a news release from the Administrative Office of the Courts.

Gay marriage is banned by state law, but opponents said they want to protect that statute by putting it in the Tennessee Constitution with the proposed Tennessee Marriage Protection Amendment.

The ACLU filed an appeal challenging the way the General Assembly adopted the proposed amendment, saying notice of the measure was not officially published six months before the next election, as required by the state.

A Davidson County judge rejected the ACLU’s  claims in February, and the Supreme Court heard arguments in the case last month.

The proposed Tennessee  Marriage Protection Amendment, which the General Assembly in 2005 overwhelmingly voted to put before citizens in a referendum this year, states “the only legally recognized marital contract in this state” would involve one man and one woman.

[Soldier4Christ]

Appeals Court Upholds Gay Marriage Ban

A federal appeals court is acting to reinstate Nebraska's voter-approved ban on gay marriage.

The Eighth Circuit appeals court says Nebraska's constitutional amendment is a matter of state rights and not a violation of the US Constitution.

A lower federal court judge had struck down the same-sex marriage ban, saying it was too broad and, among other things, deprived gays and lesbians of participation in the political process.

More than two-thirds of Nebraska voters approved the ban in 2000.

Meanwhile voters in Tennessee will be able to decide in November on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

The state Supreme Court cleared the way for that vote Friday, ruling in a lawsuit by the ACLU.

The suit charged that the state hadn't met the requirements in the state constitution to put the issue on the ballot.

In a unanimous ruling, the state high court found that the ACLU didn't have the standing to file the suit.

The decision upholds an earlier one by a county judge.

The amendment would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

The state already has a statute banning gay marriages.

But lawmakers who support the amendment say they want to make sure judges can't find that law to be unconstitutional.

[Soldier4Christ]

Judge: No Prison Release for Ex-KKK Head

A judge Friday refused to release Edgar Ray Killen from prison while the former Ku Klux Klan leader appeals his conviction in the 1964 killing of three civil rights workers.

Killen, 81, was convicted of manslaughter in June 2005 in the slayings of James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman. He was sentenced to 60 years.

Neshoba County Circuit Judge Marcus Gordon said in his ruling Friday that there was "no evidence presented" that would compel him to release Killen on bond while the appeal is pending.

Gordon had already freed Killen on appeal bond once, last August, because of his health. Killen, who was injured early last year when a tree fell on him, swore he couldn't use his right arm and said he was permanently confined to a wheelchair.

But within weeks, deputies said they saw him filling his truck with gas and driving around. On Sept. 9, Gordon revoked Killen's bond and sent him to prison, saying a "fraud had been committed on this court."

On Friday, Killen's wife, Betty Jo, testified that his health had improved during the time he was free last year, but since has gotten worse.

Orthopedic surgeon Dr. George Russell, who treated Killen after he was injured and later when he developed an infection in his leg, described his condition as fair. Though he appeared for the defense, he testified Killen's chances of healing would not be any better if he were let out of prison.

Defense attorneys filed their appeal of Killen's conviction before the state Supreme Court last month, and the state recently asked for more time to respond. After the last brief is filed, the court has 270 days to rule.

Killen did not attend the hearing. His attorneys said he would have required an ambulance to bring him to the courthouse. The state Department of Corrections had said it would not provide one.

Killen was the only person to face state charges in the deaths, which were dramatized in the 1988 movie "Mississippi Burning."

He had been tried along with several other men in 1967 on federal charges of violating the victims' civil rights, but the jury deadlocked. Seven others were convicted, but none served more than six years in prison.

[Soldier4Christ]

Wis. Supreme Court Upholds Indian Gambling

Las Vegas-style gambling, from slot machines to craps, can continue on Indian reservations in Wisconsin under a state Supreme Court decision released Friday.

The court declined to curtail the gambling allowed on land held by 11 tribes, which operate 28 casinos.

Dairyland Greyhound Park, a Kenosha dog track, had argued that the Indian casinos were illegal because of a 1993 state constitutional amendment limiting gambling. The amendment says all types of gambling are prohibited in Wisconsin except bingo, raffles, pari-mutuel on-track betting and the state-run lottery.

Congress created a legal framework for tribal casinos in 1988, and the tribes in Wisconsin have compacts with the both the federal and state governments to operate them. The dog track argued that the state compacts, under which the tribes make large payments to the state, violated the Wisconsin law.

The high court disagreed.

"The state must honor its contractual obligations in their entirety," the state Supreme Court said in its ruling. It also affirmed the governor's right to renegotiate those contracts.

Dairyland officials did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Indian gambling is big business in Wisconsin. The tribal gambling industry there employs 35,000 people and last year generated $1.2 billion in sales. The state is expecting $114.6 million in payments from the casinos under the compacts this fiscal year.

Nationwide, tribal casinos pulled in $22.6 billion in gambling revenue, twice that of Nevada gambling, according to the National Indian Gaming Association. Currently, 223 Indian tribes in 28 states operate facilities.

[Soldier4Christ]

Redistricting Battle To Start Again

Remember those bloody political fights over how to carve up the state's congressional districts just three years ago?

The gloves are off again, and big changes could be on the way before the November election.

This new redraw is in response to a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that 2003 Congressional redistricting hurt minority voters in south Texas making one district unconstitutional.

Now several groups are submitting solutions to fix the problem to a panel of three federal judges for approval, and it's igniting a fierce new battle over who you may get to vote for.

Diehard Democrat Jeff Lewis is fuming over the state's plan to fix problems with Texas Congressional districts.

"I'm trying not to jump up and down and scream and holler," Lewis said.

The new, official state proposal pushes Democrat Lloyd Doggett's District 25 southeast, completely out of Austin and Travis County.

"How can a predominantly Democratic city have no Democrat representation whatsoever?" Lewis said.

The plan was drawn by Republican state leaders and would give Austin/Travis County three Republicans in Congress. With Doggett out, the reconfigured map moves San Antonio Republican Henry Bonilla's district into the Capital City.

"With a Republican president and Republican control of Congress, we think Republican representation of Travis County is in the best interest of all people," Reb Wayne with the Travis County Republican Party said.

Wayne says the Republican plan is the best answer to the court's concern over minority voting strength.

"The state defendant plan is excellent. It would elect seven Hispanics to Congress. The Jackson-Democrat plan would elect six. It's best for Texas, and it's what's best for Hispanics being represented in Washington," Wayne said.

Lewis argues it's not best for democracy or Democrats in Central Texas.

"I don't see any greater good coming out of it. There's got to be another way to fix it," Lewis said.

There are several ways folks want to fix it.

Late Friday, Doggett sent out a statement blasting the state plan, saying in part, "This map is designed to impose Republican rule on every Austin family and put an end to my service in Congress."

It may be that leaving "District 25 alone is the best choice available for those that I serve."

[Soldier4Christ]

Senate denies funds for new border fence


    Less than two months after voting overwhelmingly to build 370 miles of new fencing along the border with Mexico, the Senate yesterday voted against providing funds to build it.

    “We do a lot of talking. We do a lot of legislating,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican whose amendment to fund the fence was killed on a 71-29 vote. “The things we do often sound very good, but we never quite get there.”

    Mr. Sessions offered his amendment to authorize $1.8 billion to pay for the fencing that the Senate voted 83-16 to build along high-traffic areas of the border with Mexico. In the same vote on May 17, the Senate also directed 500 miles of vehicle barriers to be built along the border.

    But the May vote simply authorized the fencing and vehicle barriers, which on Capitol Hill is a different matter from approving the federal expenditures needed to build it.

    “If we never appropriate the money needed to construct these miles of fencing and vehicle barriers, those miles of fencing and vehicle barriers will never actually be constructed,” Mr. Sessions told his colleagues yesterday before the vote.

    Virtually all Democrats were joined by the chamber’s lone independent and 28 Republicans in opposing Mr. Session’s amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Only two Democrats — Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Thomas R. Carper of Delaware — supported funding the fence.

    All told, 34 senators — including most of the Republican leadership — voted in May to build the fence but yesterday opposed funding it.

    The overall bill, which appropriates more than $32 billion to the Homeland Security Department, including $2.2 billion for border security and control, passed on a 100-0 vote last night.

    Sen. Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who historically has fought to increase border security and enforcement of federal immigration laws, was among those who opposed Mr. Session’s amendment.

    “We should build these walls; there’s no question about it,” he said. “But the real issue here is the offset that’s being used, and the offset creates a Hobson’s choice for almost everyone here.”

    Mr. Session’s amendment would have required across-the-board cuts to the rest of the Homeland Security appropriations bill, Mr. Gregg said, which would mean cutting 750 new border-patrol agents and 1,200 new detention beds for illegal aliens that he included in the bill.

James at A Shining City Atop A Hill is quite upset. He points out one paragraph of the article in particular.

    Kris Kobach, who was a counsel to the attorney general under John Ashcroft, told a House subcommittee last week that one of the most unusual aspects of the Senate bill is a provision — slipped into the more-than-800-page bill moments before the final vote — that would require the United States to consult with the Mexican government before constructing the fencing.

James rightly points out how distrubing this is.

    Ah, so now we are asking a foreign power for its approval before we take steps to defend this country??

    Enough is enough. The Republicans are treating their conservative base like fools. I encourage true conservatives, ones who actual value protecting this country from invaders, to stay home this coming Congressional election.

I agree this is something to be upset about, however I don’t think staying at home is going to solve anything. I agree with California Conservative on this one.

    Only two Democrats voted to fund the border fencing. Anyone who thinks that staying home this November will send people a message is kidding themselves. You think we’d get serious border enforcement with Democrats running the Senate? Get serious. Do you think they wouldn’t pass a toothless, no prevention bill sometime in the next two years? If you think they wouldn’t get something wimpy passed, then you’re delusional.

    By the way, it’s time to start thinking of primary challenger so we can get rid of idiots like Chuck Hagel, Arlen Specter and George Voinovich. It’s time they got ‘retired’. Additionally, find GOP candidates capable of defeating Jay Rockefeller and some of these ultralibs in 2008.

[Soldier4Christ]

UN may be close to deal on N.Korea resolution

Japan and the United States insisted on a U.N. Security Council vote on Saturday on a resolution condemning North Korea's barrage of missile launches amid signs of a compromise with China.

The reclusive Stalinist state has rebuffed worldwide criticism of its July 5 missile tests and has resisted pressure to return to talks on winding up its nuclear arms programme, but its neighbours pressed on with diplomacy to resolve the crisis.

Kyodo news agency -- quoting a Japanese minister in Beijing -- said that a Chinese government delegation had returned from Pyongyang carrying a message from North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, whose closest ally is China. It gave no details.

South Korean Vice Foreign Minister Lee Kyu-hyung arrived in Beijing on Saturday for talks with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wu Dawei, who was part of the mission to North Korea.

Seoul's diplomatic effort came after Pyongyang stormed out of cabinet-level talks with the South on Thursday.

Meanwhile, South Korea's JoongAng Ilbo newspaper said Kim had called the country's 30 top foreign envoys back to Pyongyang for a meeting next week, the first of its kind in five years.

Amid a flurry of negotiations at the United Nations on Friday, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told reporters his instructions were to get a vote by Saturday and Japanese Ambassador Kenzo Oshima said Japan stood on the same ground.

Japan produced a new draft resolution that sought to bridge its differences with China. Beijing's ambassador said he would still veto it without further changes, which many diplomats expect when council members resume negotiations on Saturday.

The key obstacle is whether the resolution should invoke Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter, which can lay the groundwork for military force. But China and Russia, who on Wednesday introduced a rival draft, reject any mention of Chapter 7.

Bolton indicated he was open to other wording that would make the resolution mandatory as Chapter 7 does, but Japan's Oshima was silent and his last draft still included Chapter 7.

"TOO MANY FIRES"

When Britain and France suggested alternative wording, Chinese ambassador Wang Guangya was in agreement, and said he would check with his government, diplomats told Reuters.

The Security Council has wrangled for days over the response to North Korea's seven missile tests, which raised international tensions, mainly because of its development of nuclear weapons.

Japan wanted to have the resolution adopted before a summit of the Group of Eight industrialised nations, which opened on Saturday and is expected to issue a statement on North Korea.

But Wang said "the important thing is not the deadline. It is the unity of the council."

"There are too many fires there. We don't need to put oil on all those fires," he said, in an apparent reference to the Middle East crisis and debates over Iran's nuclear ambitions.

The latest text circulated by Japan and its supporters condemns the missile launches and demands that North Korea suspend "all activities" on its ballistic missiles.

It includes sanctions by requiring that all U.N. member states prevent any imports to or exports from North Korea of missiles and missile-related items and materials that could be used in weapons of mass destruction.

The new language from Britain and France highlights the council's "special responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security," said one diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the secret negotiations.

Japan has come under harsh criticism from China and South Korea for its stern stance on the missiles, which splashed into the sea off its west coast.

Tokyo's ties with both countries are bedevilled by bitter memories of Japanese wartime aggression, while Sino-Japanese relations are also strained by rivalry for regional dominance. (Additional reporting by Isabel Reynolds in Tokyo, Jack Kim in Seoul and Brian Rhoads in Beijing)

[Soldier4Christ]

United States set to veto UN action to halt Israeli strikes on Lebanon


ISRAEL came under fire from world leaders yesterday for using "disproportionate" force in its aerial bombardment and blockade of Lebanon, but the United States appeared set to veto any action to halt the blitz at an emergency meeting of the United Nations' Security Council.

France was among Israel's toughest critics, with the president, Jacques Chirac, yesterday terming Israel's actions "completely disproportionate".

"One can ask oneself whether there isn't a sort of desire to destroy Lebanon," he said.

Mr Chirac also condemned Hezbollah and the Palestinian militant group Hamas for abducting Israeli soldiers and provoking the Israeli response.

The UN Security Council convened in emergency session yesterday, with Lebanon urging it to call for a ceasefire and an end to Israeli attacks.

But a spokesman for George Bush said while the US president wanted Israel to minimise the risk of casualties in its campaign, he would not pressurise Israel to halt its military operation.

The White House spokesman, Tony Snow, said Mr Bush "believes the Israelis have the right to protect themselves and that in doing that they should limit as much as possible so-called collateral damage, not only to facilities but also to human lives".

Asked whether he agreed to Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora's request to tell the Israelis to limit their military operations, Mr Snow said: "No. The president is not going to make military decisions for Israel."

The European Union voiced concern that the fighting in Lebanon could spread, drawing in Syria. "The consequences could be totally uncontrollable," said foreign minister Erkki Thomioja of Finland, which holds the EU presidency.

Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Angelo Sodano said Pope Benedict "deplores the attack on Lebanon, a free and sovereign nation".

And in Geneva, the UN's top humanitarian official, Jan Egeland, criticised Israel for sealing off the borders and blockading harbours.

"It is wrong. It is in violation of international law and it is also in violation of common sense," he said.

"You are supposed to do something to the armed group. You are not supposed to hurt the children of people who have nothing to do with this."

Mr Egeland said innocent civilians and children "cannot receive goods, cannot travel, cannot get to health facilities, cannot get their daily needs met".

[Soldier4Christ]

South Korean foreign minister nominated to lead UN

South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon has been formally nominated to succeed Kofi Annan as U.N. secretary-general, his government said in a letter circulated at the United Nations on Friday.

Ban, whose nomination was widely expected, became the fourth official candidate for the post opening up in January 2007, when Annan's second five-year term runs out.

The three others are Thai Deputy Prime Minister Surakiart Sathirathai, Sri Lankan disarmament specialist and government adviser Jayantha Dhanapala, and Indian novelist Shashi Tharoor, the U.N. undersecretary-general for public information.

But more names are expected to surface in coming weeks, diplomats say.

"Over a career spanning more than 37 years, Minister Ban has provided distinguished service both to the government of the Republic of Korea and on the international stage," South Korean U.N. Ambassador Choi Young-jin said in a letter to the Security Council dated Thursday.

His reform initiatives at the Foreign Ministry over the past three years would help him lead management reform efforts at the United Nations, Choi said.

Ban, 62, has been South Korea's foreign minister since January 2004 and has also served as ambassador to the United Nations. Analysts call him a consensus builder who shuns the limelight for quiet diplomacy, rather than an impassioned public speaker.

A career diplomat, he came from a poor rural background but is fluent in English and also speaks French, a job skill that France, with veto power in the selection process, insists upon for any potential U.N. leader.

The United States, like France another key player in the competition as a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, acknowledged for the first time this week that the next secretary-general was likely to be an Asian. Russia, China and Britain are also permanent council members.

"As I understand it, traditionally ... regions rotate, and we're really looking in the Far East right now to be the secretary-general," President George W. Bush said on Monday.

U.S. officials previously had said the best possible candidate should fill the job, regardless of region.

The Security Council plays the central role in picking a secretary-general, nominating a candidate who is then submitted to the 192-nation U.N. General Assembly for final approval.

Council members are expected to start conducting informal polls this month to get an idea of how much support the individual candidates have.

[Soldier4Christ]

Plame faults Bush aides for 'shameful conduct'

Valerie Plame yesterday accused the Bush administration of "shameful conduct" in the leak of information to reporters about her job at the CIA, saying the "outing" forced a premature end to her career at the agency.
    "I and my former CIA colleagues trusted our government to protect us as we did our jobs," Mrs. Plame said during a press conference formally announcing her filing of a lawsuit seeking damages in the leak against Vice President Dick Cheney, White House aide Karl Rove and Mr. Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
    "That a few reckless individuals within the current administration betrayed that trust has been a grave disappointment to every patriotic American," she said. "Joe and I have filed this action with heavy hearts but with a renewed sense of purpose."
    Mrs. Plame and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, said in a lawsuit filed Thursday in U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia that Mr. Cheney and the White House aides violated their rights by leaking her name and CIA role to reporters and did so to "discredit, punish and seek revenge against" Mr. Wilson for disputing President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address justifying the war in Iraq.
    Mr. Wilson said he undertook "two discrete missions" to the Republic of Niger to look into uranium-related matters, investigating accusations that Iraq had purchased or was in the process of buying uranium yellowcake. He said he found no evidence to support the accusations but contends Mr. Bush ignored the finding when he decided to go to war against Iraq.
    Questions have since been raised on Mr. Wilson's accuracy of statements that Mr. Cheney's office had requested he be sent to Niger, whether Mr. Cheney and other senior White House aides were briefed on his report, whether the report was conclusive and significant, and who suggested he travel to Niger.
    The couple's attorney, Christopher Wolf, said the lawsuit "seeks to vindicate the wrongs that were done against the Wilsons," adding that it asks for an unspecified amount of money "to be determined" during trial. He declined to comment on accusations that the Wilsons feared for their safety and that of their children, or whether any specific threats had been made.
    Mr. Wolf told reporters that prior to the disclosure in the press, Mrs. Plame "worked secretly and privately and with protection of privacy in her job at the CIA," which would be the case today had the leak not occurred.
    "She was literally dragged into the public square by the leak to the media of her classified employment status," he said. "That is a bell that can't be unrung. ... Having been outed by the administration, she can't now be criticized for speaking out ... for pursuing this lawsuit to vindicate that invasion of her privacy."
    Mrs. Plame's CIA role was revealed in a July 14, 2003, article by syndicated columnist Robert Novak eight days after Mr. Wilson wrote an article for the New York Times saying the Bush administration ignored intelligence on Iraq to justify going to war.

[Soldier4Christ]

Stem Cell Veto Is Possible

Before Sept. 11 changed everything, President Bush wrestled publicly with the issue of embryonic stem cell research, then opened the door to federal financing for the science in the first major decision of his nascent administration.

Now, five years later, the stem cell debate is about to thrust Mr. Bush into a decision that could lead to another first for him: a legislative veto.

On Monday, the Senate will take up a measure approved by the House that would loosen the carefully calibrated research restrictions that Mr. Bush outlined on Aug. 9, 2001, in his first prime-time television address to the nation. If the bill passes, as expected, Mr. Bush says he will veto it, making good on a promise he made five days after that televised speech from his ranch in Crawford, Tex.

“I spent a lot of time on the subject,” Mr. Bush said at the time. “I laid out the policy I think is right for America. And I’m not going to change my mind.”

The president’s mind has not changed; his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, reiterated the veto threat this week. That keeps Mr. Bush in good stead with the religious conservatives who make up an important part of his base, but at odds with other leading Republicans, including Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, who is a heart-lung surgeon and has pushed to bring the measure to a vote.

“I think he has gotten some advice from the beginning from his advisers, and he knows that not to stick with that advice just means a lot of extra criticism,” Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, a leading Republican supporter of embryonic stem cell research, said of the president. “I have high hopes that down the road, we’ll be able to convince him that he’s on the wrong side of this issue.”

The bill would expand Mr. Bush’s policy by allowing the government to pay for studies on stem cell colonies, or lines, derived from embryos that are in cold storage at fertility clinics and scheduled for destruction. The current policy allows financing only on lines created before Aug. 9, 2001, Mr. Bush has said, so as not to encourage further destruction of embryos.

The coming week’s reprisal of a debate that Mr. Bush thought he had put to rest is exposing deep fissures among Republicans as the November elections draw near. Polls show that a majority of Americans support the research, and stem cells already figure prominently in several key races, among them a hard-fought re-election battle by Senator Jim Talent, Republican of Missouri, who opposes a state ballot initiative to protect the research and plans to vote against the Senate bill.

Nancy Reagan became an advocate for the research while caring for her husband, former President Ronald Reagan, who suffered from Alzheimer’s disease and died in 2004. Mrs. Reagan spent this week calling undecided senators to urge them to vote for the bill. While supporters say they have the 60 votes needed for approval, they are trying to secure 67, the number necessary to override a veto.

Whether they will succeed is unclear. With 55 Republicans, including staunch abortion opponents like Senators John Thune of South Dakota and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, the Senate has become more conservative since the 2004 elections. Even so, Republicans across the spectrum, from Senator John W. Warner of Virginia to Senator Gordon H. Smith of Oregon, have signed on to the bill.

With a vote scheduled for Tuesday, the Republican-controlled Congress could soon be in the uncomfortable position of sending Mr. Bush a measure he will not sign.

Some, like Mr. Frist, seem resigned to it. “I have not tried to lobby him,” Mr. Frist said.

Others have, with little success. Mr. Hatch said he had tried indirectly, asking mutual friends to raise the issue with Mr. Bush. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and the lead Senate sponsor of the bill, said he had brought up the issue “when I’ve been alone with him, on the plane or in the car.”

The Republican sponsor of the bill in the House, Representative Michael N. Castle of Delaware, and his Democratic co-sponsor, Representative Diana DeGette of Colorado, asked in June to meet with Mr. Bush. They got a note back this week saying the president did not have time.

“I feel like the Titanic — somebody better throw me a lifeline real fast,” said Mr. Castle, who has pressed the issue for years. “This has become an intractable situation. I’ve been through a lot of political battles, but I don’t know quite how to turn this one around.”

The embryonic stem cell debate has yielded a complex collision of politics, religion and science since 1998, when James A. Thomson, a developmental biologist at the University of Wisconsin, became the first person to isolate the cells from human embryos.

Because the cells have the potential to grow into any tissue or organ in the body, scientists believe that they hold great promise for treatments and cures. But because human embryos are destroyed in extracting the stem cells, the studies draw intense objections from abortion opponents, including leaders of the Roman Catholic Church.

“It’s a very clear issue to the pro-life community,” said Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican and a leading opponent of the research. “Is the youngest human a person or a piece of property?”

Mr. Brownback and other opponents argue that adult stem cell research, in which cells are drawn from blood and bone marrow rather than from embryos, is more ethical and has yielded encouraging results. But scientists say embryonic stem cell research, still in its early stages, holds far greater potential.

In 2001, before the Sept. 11 attacks turned him into a wartime president, Mr. Bush grappled deeply with these issues, inviting scientists and ethicists into the Oval Office to discuss them.

“He was gathering information,” said Douglas A. Melton, director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, who met with Mr. Bush then. “I saw my job as to explain to the president the scientific potential and to make clear that this was an important issue. I’m not sure I succeeded.”

Those meetings stood in stark contrast to one held in March this year. Dr. Russell A. Foulk, a fertility specialist in Reno, Nev., said Mr. Frist invited him to lunch along with experts on other issues, including agriculture and weapons defense, and then arranged for the group to see the president in the Oval Office.

Much of the meeting was spent talking about the war, Dr. Foulk said. “My audience in regards to stem cell issues was very minor,” he said.

In the five years since the president’s decision, states, companies and private philanthropies have poured money into embryonic stem cell research. Scientists, including many outside the United States, have grown new lines that are more robust and easier to analyze.

Dr. Melton said he had developed 30 such lines, all from embryos collected for in vitro fertilization that would have been destroyed. All such embryos will be available to government-financed researchers if the pending Senate bill becomes law.

“Everything we’ve learned suggests that the goal of using stem cells to learn about disease and treat disease is very real and promising,” Dr. Melton said. “We haven’t learned anything that makes us think this won’t work, but it’s going to take time and resources.”

In the coming Senate debate, the bill to expand the president’s 2001 policy will be paired with two others. One would encourage the National Institutes of Health to finance alternatives to develop embryonic stem cell colonies without destroying embryos. The other, a so-called fetal farming bill sponsored by Mr. Brownback, is intended to prevent scientists from trying to grow fetuses outside human wombs for the purpose of harvesting body parts.

Mr. Brownback said he expected all three to pass.

Republicans who do not plan to vote for the bill to expand the 2001 policy say they believe that by voting for the other two, they can make a reasonable argument to voters that they support stem cell science. Among them is Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, who said, “I think it is very defensible, and I don’t think it will hurt anybody.”

Democrats say they intend to exploit the stem cell issue at every turn. “The Republican senators are torn between their evangelical constituency and their moderate constituency,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. “Whichever way they vote, they’re in trouble.”

Some supporters of the research, like Mr. Specter, are holding out the slim hope that if the bill passes, Mr. Bush will find a way to sign it into law. Opponents say that notion is too far-fetched to contemplate.

As Mr. Brownback put it, “I can’t imagine that scenario.”