Americans may share a common mother tongue with their Canadian and British friends, but when it comes to health care, they're speaking different languages. Their national health systems, emphasizing preventive care, appear to provide much better outcomes at dramatically lower cost than the ad hoc market-driven approach in the U.S. That's the clear message from two recent studies showing that the people of Canada and the UK are far healthier than Americans.

A Harvard Medical School study in the upcoming issue of American Journal of Public Health reveals that Americans experience suffer from a range of ailments and diseases at substantially higher levels than our neighbors to the north. Phone surveys of 3,500 Canadians and 5,200 Americans showed Americans 12% more likely to suffer from arthritis, 32% more likely to be plagued by high blood pressure and a whopping 42% more likely to have diabetes. Despite spending nearly double on health care per capita and smoking less than Canadians, the Harvard study revealed that Americans experience "higher rates of nearly every serious chronic disease examined in the survey."

The study also dispels many of the negative myths perpetuated by American conservatives regarding a lumbering, unresponsive Canadian health care bureaucracy. Harvard's Karen Lasser noted that "most of what we hear about the Canadian health care system is negative; in particular, the long waiting times for medical procedures." The data simply does not bear that out; while Canadians much more frequently reported long waiting times as a barrier to care (3.5% to 0.7% for Americans), treatment delays were not a major factor for either nation.

The HMS study does, however, provide incontrovertible confirmation that high costs and the lack of insurance are undermining the health of Americans. Citizens in the United States, with 46 million uninsured among them, were almost 10 times more likely to report cost as a barrier to care (7.0% to 0.8%). That figure catapults to 30% for Americans without insurance. Poor Americans were 2.6 times more likely to go without a regular doctor than their more affluent counterparts, compared to only 1.7 times in Canada.

The Canadian results follow closely on the heels of major study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) similarly showing Americans' dismal health compared to their British friends across the Atlantic. Again, despite doubling the health care expenditure per Briton, Americans are less healthy at every level of income and education. More disturbing and more difficult to explain, wealthier Americans were sicklier than working class British.

Seeking to control for the different mix of immigrants and ethnic minorities in the two countries, researchers looked only non-Hispanic whites among people ages 55 to 64. Across the board, Americans were less healthy than the English:

Americans reported twice the rate of diabetes compared to the English: 12.5 percent versus 6 percent. For high blood pressure, it was 42 percent for Americans versus 34 percent for the English; cancer showed up in 9.5 percent of Americans compared to 5.5 percent of English.

And as with the Canadian study, Americans smoked less but were more obese and enjoyed shorter life expectancy than those in the U.K.

In response to the stunning findings, study co-author Dr. Michael Marmot asked in amazement, "Why isn't the richest country in the world the healthiest country in the world?"

The explanations vary and include both expected and surprising answers. The authors of both the Canadian and British comparisons stress the role that universal health coverage and preventive care play in producing healthier citizens. But given the superior health of lower class Britons relative to upper class Americans, universal coverage alone can't provide the explanation. Robert Blendon of the Harvard School of Public Health (and who did not participate in the U.K. study) suggests Americans' financial insecurity may play a key role. "The opportunity to go both up and down the socioeconomic scale in America may create stress," Blendon said. "Americans don't have a reliable government safety net like the English enjoy."

There can be no doubt, of course, that Americans share common roots and common law with the Canadians and the English. But apparently when it comes to health care, we don't share common sense.

Just 24 hours after the United States commemorated Memorial Day, the American people are being reminded once again of President Bush's folly in going to war in Iraq with too few troops. The American commander in Iraq General George Casey is dispatching up to 3,500 reinforcements from Kuwait to turbulent Anbar province in Iraq.

The troops from the 2nd Brigade of the 1st Armored Division are likely headed to Ramadi, where units from the Pennsylvania National Guard and the U.S. Marines are trying to stamp out yet another surge in violence by Al Qaeda elements. As a senior military official put it, "General Casey has been working with the government of Iraq, and he has asked permission to draw forward more forces that will be operating in Anbar."

With good reason. One Sunni sheik cooperating with American forces described the dismal situation on the ground in Ramadi:

"We hope to get rid of al-Qaeda, which is a huge burden on the city. Unfortunately, Zarqawi's fist is stronger than the Americans'. Zarqawi is the one who is in control. He kills anyone who goes in and out of the U.S. base. We have stopped meetings with the Americans, because, frankly speaking, we have lost confidence in the U.S. side, as they can't protect us."

Sheik Bashir Abdul Qadir al-Kubaisi of the Kubaisat tribe concurred regarding the deteriorating security situation there:

"Today, there is no tribal sheik or a citizen who dares to go to the city hall or the U.S. base, because Zarqawi issued a statement ordering his men to kill anyone seen leaving the base or city hall. We are very upset. But being upset is better than mourning the death of a sheik or tribal leader. Zarqawi has imposed himself on us. We started thinking of appeasing Zarqawi and his group, because rejecting them means death."

This latest deployment of reserve troops to Anbar province is part of a sadly familiar pattern for our overstretched military in Iraq. As I wrote last July, undermanned U.S. forces clear out a city or town and withdraw, only to find insurgents seeping back in to take control within days of their departure. Last summer's Operations Spear and Dagger sent American troops to the Syrian border and north of Baghdad to root out insurgent forces in areas the U.S. had, at least on paper, previously pacified.

The American armed forces are paying the price for the decision by President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld to fight wars on the cheap. Ignoring the pre-war advice of General Eric Shinseki to deploy an occupying force of "several hundreds of thousands" of troops to Iraq, the Bush administration has condemned our troops to multiple rotations in the combat zone to refight and retake previously conquered towns. (This arrogance of the Bush White House did not begin in Iraq; the New Republic reports that the U.S. turned down a British offer to send 6,000 UK troops to Afghanistan for what could have been the decisive battle against Osama Bin Laden in Tora Bora.)

Needless to say, events on the ground call into question the ability of the United States in the near term to draw down its forces in Iraq. Unless and until Iraqi forces prove capable of controlling Baghdad and Anbar province, it will be difficult for U.S. troops to redeploy to bases elsewhere in Iraq and Kuwait. (For an interesting proposal of how that might come to pass, see "Strategic Redeployment 2.0" from the Center for American Progress.)

For more background on the perils of America's overstretched military, see:

• "An Army of One"


• "The Coming Draft Debate"


• "Getting Drafty: The Hybrid Model of National Service"


• "The War President?"

Memorial Day this year arrives at an especially painful time for Americans. Over 2,400 U.S. troops have been killed and another 17,000 wounded in Iraq. New allegations have come to light regarding the possible slaughter of Iraqi civilians in Haditha by United States Marines just as heart-breaking details emerge about the disgraceful cover-up of the death of Pat Tillman in Afghanistan. Painful times indeed.

But on this Memorial Day, we should set aside the shame of Haditha, the outrage over the stain of Abu Ghraib, and the manipulation of the memory of Pat Tillman. This Memorial Day, like every other, is to honor ours troop of all wars and remember and support their families. We are immensely privileged to live in a nation where a selfless few fight and sacrifice so that we might live in freedom. This is their day of tribute and remembrance.

For the other 364 days a year, we can and should ask why they died and what actions they and they leaders took in our name. But not on Memorial Day. Not for me.

Perrspectives has assembled a set of resources, most by way of the Defense Department, where you can help support the troops. This resource center provides links to lists and images of the fallen, sending messages and care packages to the troops, charities offering family services, facilitating donations, and providing care and comfort to the wounded.

Visit the Perrspectives Resource Center to access these and other resources to support our troops and their families.

A jury in Houston has just spoken and found former Enron CEO Ken Lay guilty on all six counts. Bush family sugar daddy Lay, who gave his close friend George W. Bush over $500,000 for his various campaigns, now faces a long stint in prison and perhaps the Grandma Millie treatment.

It will be interesting to see what President Bush has to say today, given his past denials regarding his long friendship with Lay. After all, when the Enron scandal first exploded, President Bush on January 10, 2002 offered one of the biggest whoppers of his presidency:

"I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the-what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994. And she had named him the head of the Governor's Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken."

Sadly, a mountain of correspondence between Bush and Lay suggests otherwise. For more on the close relationship between George W. Bush and Ken Lay, see the Smoking Gun archives.

New revelations in the NSA domestic spying scandal are now coming in a flood.

Today, the FCC announced it could not pursue an investigation into the role of American telecommunications companies in illegal domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency because it was not granted the necessary security clearances. That announcement came just two days after Attorney General Alberto Gonzales declared the Bush administration would track journalists' phone records and might prosecute reporters for publishing stories involving classified national security information. And just a week ago, the Department of Justice revealed it was dropping its inquiry into the NSA program because DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) too had been denied the required access to classified information.

Meanwhile, Perrspectives reader Jim has been following the lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) against AT&T over the company's role in the NSA program. Kudos to Jim for his heads up on the coverage of the case by Wired, including the latest revelations from AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein.

For the latest news, statutes and other key documents, visit the Perrspectives NSA Domestic Spying Scandal Resource Center.

On Sunday, the cancer of domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency continued to metastasize.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales declared that journalists can and should be prosecuted for publishing stories involving classified national security information. "There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility," Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions. "We have an obligation to enforce those laws." The Attorney General also made it clear that the Bush administration would not hesitate to track the phone calls of reporters as part of its campaign to crack down on leaks.

None of which is lost on ABC's Brian Ross. Last week, Ross wrote that he had been altered by sources within the government that his and other journalists' call records were being monitored. Appearing on CNN's Reliable Sources program on Sunday, Ross portrayed a Bush White House that equates with "drug dealers or terrorists trying to traffic in information." He described the chilling impact Bush's surveillance on a free press using his current reporting on the Federal Air Marshall Services, stating that his sources "were all alarmed that they might be exposed as talking with me in violation of rules. So it's of great concern."

President Bush and his Republican allies are, of course, unrepentant. As I wrote previously, the White House believes its confrontational approach on NSA spying is a winning strategy politically. The likely confirmation of former NSA head General Michael Hayden as CIA director and mixed support in the polls seem to bolster their confidence.

In the mean time, the carcinogen of domestic spying on the American body politic will proceed apace.

For the latest news, statutes, legal filings, timelines and other essential documents, visit the Perrspectives NSA Scandal Resource Center.

Last week, White House press secretary Tony Snow used his virgin press briefing to reintroduce the racial slur "tar baby" back into the vernacular. But while an unrepentant Snow attacked his critics as "unfamiliar with the pathways of American culture," it would appear that eBay offers a clear picture as to why Random House suggests "avoiding the use of the term in any context."

The point, of course, is not to stand in judgment of the eBay seller community. (In fact, its profile suggests that "Our Southern Collectibles" appears to have very satisfied customers.) Instead, it just goes to show the comfort Tony Snow and his amen corner in the Republican Party display in casually tossing out terms of racial derision and expressing fondness for Confederate nostalgia.

Now, at least, we know what Tony Snow should use to wash out his mouth.

Nothing seems to frustrate the White House and the Republican leadership more than their abysmal poll numbers on the economy at a time of booming GDP and a resurgent job market. It is, they claim, all about the war.

But as I wrote in the "Bush League Economy," the issue for the President and the GOP isn't the Iraq war overshadowing a robust economy, but the growing insecurity most Americans experience daily with surging energy prices, spiraling health care costs, stagnant incomes and mounting debt. The latest data on Americans' Consumer Comfort from the Washington Post and ABC News suggests that I have it about right and the Republicans, well, not so much.

But you can't blame a brother for trying. In an interview with NBC's David Gregory yesterday, President Bush blamed his dismal poll numbers on Americans being "unsettled" by the war in Iraq.

"Because we are at war, and war unsettles people. Listen, we got a great economy. We've added 5.2 million jobs in the last two and a half years. People are unsettled."

Bush's feeble attempt at spinning his weak approval ratings on the economy came just days after Karl Rove offered similar bromides to a gathering of conservative fellow travelers at the American Enterprise Institute. Asked what has gone wrong, Rove also blamed the conflict in Iraq:

"Look, we're in a sour time. I readily admit it. I mean, being in the middle of a war where people turn on their television sets and see brave men and women dying is not something that makes people happy and optimistic and upbeat."

Sadly for the President and his amen corner, the latest Consumer Comfort Survey shows that Americans are not clinically depressed when it comes to the economy, but instead are quite in touch with reality.

The 21 year-old weekly survey asks Americans three questions on the overall state of the economy, their personal finances and the buying climate for them as consumers. The resulting answers are averaged and produce values ranging from +100 (for positive answers on all three questions) to -100 (for negative answers). Historically, American Consumer Comfort Index (CCI) reached its pinnacle at +38 in January 2000 during the Clinton presidency, while bottoming out at -50 in February 1992 late in the term of George H.W. Bush.

The problems for George W. Bush and the GOP approaching the 2006 mid-term elections are just what you'd expect. The CCI has been negative for the entirety of Bush's two terms. And while the index has flirted with break-even over the past 52 weeks, high energy prices have driven it back down to -17. Even as Americans grow more optimistic about their personal finances, they remain downbeat about the economy overall and convinced that this is not a good time to buy the things they want and need.

Most striking are the disparities by income and political party. Every income group below $50,000 is strongly negative about the state of the economy and their ability as consumers to purchase life's necessities. In stark contrast, Americans making over $50,000 are more upbeat, with those earning over $100,000 a year downright giddy about their prospects. (With the extension just this week of low capital gains tax rates, their glee is apparently well founded.) The income numbers parallel part membership, with Republicans smiling at +22 last week, while Democrats and Independents were a gloomy -41 and -24, respectively. (For more on the glaring disparities in consumer comfort by race, geography and other factors, see the complete survey results. Other consumer confidence indicators are available here.)

In their May 18 interview, NBC's Gregory saw through President Bush's smoke-screen. "But they're not just unsettled sir," Gregory replied. "They disapprove of the job you're doing."

"That's unsettled," Bush replied.

In the latest flip-flop from President Bush, the administration is planning to reverse course on North Korea. After five-years of a failed policy that produced a nuclear-armed North Korea, Bush will give the go-ahead for direct bilateral negotiations with Pyongyang. Apparently, the President has finally decided to listen to John Kerry's advice in 2004.

The New York Times reports that President Bush will soon approve recommendations from top advisors which include "a broad new approach to dealing with North Korea that would include beginning negotiations on a peace treaty," even as the six-party talks on the North's nuclear disarmament continue.

If such a dual-track approach sounds familiar, it should. During the 2004 presidential campaign, John Kerry and other Democrats championed direct talks with North Korea on security guarantees and a final peace treaty to formally conclude the 1953 truce. With the multilateral talks including the U.S., Russia, China, Japan, Pyongyang and Seoul stalemated and North Korea on the verge of producing one to two nuclear devices per year, Kerry summed up the results of Bush's refusal to engage with the North:

"For two years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea. While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea. That happened on this president's watch."

But President Bush was having none of it. During their second presidential debate, a caustic Bush lambasted Kerry about the "mixed messages" bilateral talks would send:

"It is naive and dangerous to take a policy that he suggested the other day, which is to have bilateral relations with North Korea. Remember, he's the person who's accusing me of not acting multilaterally. He now wants to take the six-party talks we have -- China, North Korea, South Korea, Russia, Japan and the United States -- and undermine them by having bilateral talks.

That's what President Clinton did. He had bilateral talks with the North Koreans. And guess what happened? He [Kim Jong Il] didn't honor the agreement. He was enriching uranium. That is a bad policy."

Kerry, of course, was right and Bush was wrong. Bush memorably said he "loathed" Kim Jong Il and barred American personnel from direct discussions with their North Korean counterparts. But now, five years after crushing South Korea's "Sunshine Policy" of engagement with the North and embarrassing Korean President Kim Dae Jung during his March 2001 trip to Washington, President Bush is about to make a 180 degree turn.

And Bush claimed John Kerry was the flip-flopper.

During his opening comments in the CIA confirmation hearings of General Michael Hayden, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) returned to a favorite Republican sound bite in defense of illegal domestic surveiilance by the NSA. Roberts proclaimed:

"I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties. But you have no civil liberties if you are dead."

On February 3rd, Roberts, who has stonewalled the Phase II investigation into the misuses of pre-Iraq war intelligence, similarly claimed:

"You really don't have any civil liberties if you're dead."

But Roberts, who also authored a vitriolic 19-page letter defending the NSA domestic surveillance program, was merely following in the footsteps of Senator John Cornyn. Cornyn, a Texas Republican, said on December 20, 2005:

"None of your civil liberties matter much after you're dead."

During Senate testimony by Attorney General Gonzales in February, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions resorted to the now standard Republican defense of President Bush's illegal domestic spying program. Call it the "Give Me Death" strategy:

"Over 3,000 Americans have no civil rights because they are no longer with us."

Clearly, the Republican leadership is singing from the same Karl Rove fear-mongering hymnal to justify the President's lawbreaking.

The CIA confirmation hearings for General Michael are underway and the Bush administration is pulling out all the stops for their man. Yesterday, the White House flip-flopped and provided briefings on its illegal NSA domestic surveillance programs to the full Senate and House intelligence committees. And today, General Hayden showed he did his homework and finally learned the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

As the AP reported, Hayden today sought to defend the legality of the NSA domestic eavesdropping program:

He said the surveillance program used a "probable cause" standard that made it unlikely that information about average Americans would be scrutinized.

But back in January, the concept of "probably cause" was nowhere to be found in General Hayden's vocabulary:

Just to be very clear - and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me - and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one - what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is 'reasonable.'"

Much of Hayden's song and dance regarding his work at the NSA will take place in closed session. But from what we've seen in public so far, Hayden is already singing a different tune.

During his virgin White House briefing today, new press spokesman Tony Snow reverted to his Fox News roots with his casual use of a racial slur. But in referring to a thorny question regarding President Bush's illegal NSA domestic spying programs as a "tar baby," Snow is just the latest conservative to show why the Republican outreach effort to African-Americans seems doomed to fail.

Consider, for example, President Bush's own campaign to woo black voters during his calamitous campaign to sell Social Security privatization. Addressing a town hall meeting with African-American guests in January 2005, Bush was quick to turn to racial stereotypes:

"Another interesting idea...is a personal savings account...which can't be used to bet on the lottery, or a dice game, or the track."

"Secondly, the interesting -- there's a -- African American males die sooner than other males do, which means the system is inherently unfair to a certain group of people."

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman also displayed a staggering lack of sensitivity and common sense while addressing a primarily African-American audience. During a July 2005 speech to the NAACP, he confused victim and villain in the dragging death of James Byrd, one of the worst hate crimes in recent history. Mehlman described Byrd as "was a racist killer in east Texas, who the president brought to justice." Mehlman's error was sadly ironic, as it was Bush's bizarre, smirking comment about the Byrd case and hate crime legislation during his second debate with Al Gore in 2000 ("The three men who murdered James Byrd, guess what's going to happen to them? They're going to be put to death") that unnerved so many American voters.

In the states, the Republican Party isn't doing anything to help itself rise above single-digit support among black voters. GOP leading lights such as Senators George Allen, Trent Lott and Jim Demint, as well as Governors Matt Blunt and Haley Barbour publicly wax nostalgic about Confederate symbols, figures and values. Meanwhile, in Sonny Perdue's Georgia, Republican State Legislator Sue Burmeister led to the successful effort to impose a modern-day poll tax with a new voter ID program. The program was necessary to stop voter fraud, Burmeister explained, because when black voters in her black precincts "are not paid to vote, they don't go to the polls."

Conservative race-baiting, of course, is not limited to African-Americans. Just days ago, Snow's one-time Fox News colleague John Gibson appealed to white Americans to have more children to forestall a Hispanic demographic deluge. "Do your duty. Make more babies," Gibson asked of his viewers, because otherwise "twenty-five years and the majority of the population is Hispanic."

All in all, Tony Snow's first White House press briefing was par for the course when it comes to today's Republican Party and race relations. I can't wait for Snow's comments on the one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.

With the confirmation hearings for his CIA director nomination set to begin on Thursday, General Michael Hayden will no doubt be grilled on the broadening scope and dubious legality of the domestic surveillance programs during his tenure at the NSA. As we learned last week, Hayden's NSA not only conducted warrantless electronic eavesdropping on Americans, but clandestinely built a massive database of their phone records as well. And just today, Brian Ross of ABC News revealed that he had been tipped off that the Bush administration is tracking journalists' phone histories as part of its expanding campaign to crack down on whistle-blowers.

But if there is a single question that should be put to Hayden during his Senate confirmation hearings next week, it is this:

Do you believe FISA is unconstitutional?

As I wrote back in February ("The Republicans' Constitutional Crisis"), this for President Bush and his allies is the secret that dare not speak its name. By citing the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force and the President's commander-in-chief powers to justify NSA spying on Americans domestically, the administration has implied that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act poses no curb on unlimited, unitary executive power. Only the staunchest Bush supporters have had expressed what the White House clearly believes but for legal and political reasons will not say: FISA is unconstitutional.

As background for the upcoming Hayden testimony, here then is "The Republicans' Constitutional Crisis" in full...

The Avenging Angel, smiter of conservative evil doers, has had a very busy week. From the White House to the Kentucky State House, from Langley to K Street, the latest batch of Banana Republicans was exposed, indicted or jailed.

Let's start with Robert Ray, Kenneth Starr's successor as Bill Clinton Grand Inquisitor, who got his just desserts this week in New York. Ray, who famously said of Clinton, "no person is above the law," surrendered to the NYPD on charges of stalking his former girlfriend. Then again, the Angel muses, it all depends of what the meaning of "stalking" is.

Meanwhile, just days after his boss Porter Goss stepped down, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo, the CIA's #3 man, resigned amid allegations arising from the HookerGate scandal. On Friday, federal agents raided Foggo's home and CIA office. With jail time likely over his role in lobbyist-funded poker and prostitution parties, the Angel notes, Foggo will learn that it is better to give than receive.

In the heartland, Kentucky Governor Ernie Fletcher is just the latest to join the ranks of the Banana Republicans. Fletcher was indicted last week on conspiracy charges involving a scheme to award state jobs to his political supporters. The upside for Fletcher? Apparently he doesn't know Jack Abramoff or Duke Cunningham.

Back in Washington, HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson found himself in hot water this week over his claims in a May speech that he withheld contracts from critics of President Bush. Jackson's defense for his apparent law-breaking was that he was a liar. The claim, he says, was something he simply made up. Par for the course for the Bush administration.

And on the Jack Abramoff front, Neil Volz, the former chief of staff for Ohio Congressman Bob Ney, pleaded guilty last week to conspiracy charges in the Abramoff case. Volz faces up to five years in prison and a fine of $250,000 for trying to bribe his former boss. Republican Ney, also known as "Representative #1" in court papers, may yet become his cell mate.

Fair and Balanced Note: These haven't exactly been banner days for ethics on the Democratic side of the aisle, either. West Virginia Congressman Alan Mollohan is under the microscope for apparently siphoning contributions to a network of supposed non-profit organizations. Meanwhile, down in the Big Easy, eight-term Congressman William Jefferson is up to his neck in a growing federal bribery probe.

Sunday's news contains a double-barrreled shotgun blast in the face courtesy of Vice President Dick Cheney. First, the New York Times detailed Cheney's post-9/11 insistence on far more invasive domestic spying by the National Security Agency. Apparently, it was only through the efforts of NSA lawyers that the Bush administration limited its illegal domestic eavesdropping program to calls involving a party outside the United States. Second, the latest filings by Patrick Fitzgerald in the Scooter LIbby case reveal that Cheney wanted to know more about Ambassador Joseph Wilson's trip to Niger immediately after his July 2003 NY Times op-ed was published:

"Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an amb[assador] to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?"

For the latest news, legal documents, statutes, timelines and other essential documents for the Bush White House scandals, visit:

• The PlameGate Scandal Resource Center.


• The NSA Domestic Spying Scandal Center.

A new poll from the Washington Post suggests that the President Bush may be winning a double victory with his illegal NSA domestic surveillance programs. Americans seem willing to buy the White House's "tough on terrorism" hype at the expense of the law and their own civil liberties. And as an added ironic bonus, the President gets another opportunity to decry leaks that supposedly jeopardize national security.

Surprisingly, the poll data show Americans even more content with revelations over government mining of their personal phone records than with its unlawful warrantless eavesdropping. 63% of those surveyed support the NSA's effort to track the phone calls of millions of Americans, with a staggering 44% strongly supporting the initiative. A shocking 66% of respondents said they would not be bothered "if you found out that the NSA had a record of phone numbers that you yourself have called." 42% of those surveyed backed the administration's claim that the media was wrong for having reported the story.

All of which is very good news for Karl Rove and the Republicans 2006 mid-term election prospects. Rove and the RNC have made it very clear that will ride "Brand W" and go to the well one more time on the GOP's supposed "tough on terrorists" advantage. Americans can expect a healthy dose of the endless Republican chant of the Democrats' supposed "pre-9/11 worldview." For the GOP, partisan political advantage, it would seem, trumps patriotism and the law.

Meanwhile, Congressmen from both parties howl over the NSA phone records scandal, promise hearings with the telecommunications companies, and raise the specter (no pun intended) of blocking the confirmation of General Hayden for the CIA. And in the White House, President Bush smirks and says, "bring it on."

For the latest news, legal documents, key statutes and other essential materials, visit the Perrspectives NSA Domestic Spying Scandal Resource Center.

It's been a banner week for the verbal incontinence of George W. Bush. Just days after telling a German reporter that the highlight of his presidency was "when I caught a 7.5 pound perch in my lake," President Bush made a bizarre remark certain to charm disability advocates everywhere. Pitching his troubled Medicare prescription plan in Florida, President Bush said to a man in a wheelchair, "You look mighty comfortable."

Just another example of "compassionate conservativism" in action. Hopefully, the White House staff will keep President Bush away from our troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

For more examples of President Bush's losing battle with the English language, see "Today's Mantra."

The Dallas Business Journal and later Reuters reported the Jackson incident, who may have well broken the law. During an April 28th event, Jackson told the tale of his response to an advertising contractor critical of President Bush:

"He didn't get the contract. Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

As ThinkProgress reported this afternoon, Jackson's partisanship may have violated the Federal Acquisition Regulations and Competition in Contracting Act. By the end of the day, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Representatives Barney Frank (MA) and Henry Waxman (CA) called for an investigation.

Jackson's patronage machine at HUD is just the latest example of the Bush cult of personality within the Bush cabinet. On Monday, the Washington Post revealed that career employees at the USDA are being forced to regurgitate White House talking points in every speech, including platitudes such as "President Bush has a clear strategy for victory in Iraq." In a May 2nd email, USDA speechwriter Heather Vaughn wrote:

"Please use these message points as often as possible and send Harry Phillips , USDA's director of speechwriting, a weekly email summarizing the event, date and location of each speech incorporating the attached language. Your responses will be included in a weekly account sent to the White House."

It should come as no surprise that the veneration of President extends to the homeland and national security leadership as well. On August 3rd, 2004, then Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge famously proclaimed "we don't do politics in the Department of Homeland Security." Yet only two days earlier, Ridge kowtowed before George W. Bush, declaring that "we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the President's leadership in the war against terror." And only last Friday, outgoing CIA Director Porter Goss praised the man who metaphorically just slit his throat:

"I honestly would report to you, sir, that we are safer for your efforts, your leadership and for the men and women in the community that are working so hard and doing so well."

Apparently, 31% of Americans agree with him.

The French paper Le Monde has just published the text of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter to President Bush. Ahmadjinejad's missive skirts the central issue of the Iranian nuclear program and has been met with disdain by both the administration and the mullahs in Tehran.

But in repeatedly calling upon the President to heed the teachings of Jesus, the letter reveals how completely Ahmadinejad misunderstands George W. Bush and his core supporters. As I've written before, the President's evangelical supporters are not so much concerned with bringing the word of Christ to the Middle East as much as they are focused on fulfilling biblical prophecy about the End of Times.

Back in 1981, Mary's mother Lynne Cheney published "Sisters," a tale of two women's hard lives and unspoken love in the Old West. The Second Lady showed could she could write - as well as talk - some trash:

"The women who embraced in the wagon were Adam and Eve crossing a dark cathedral stage - no, Eve and Eve, loving one another as they would not be able to once they ate of the fruit and knew themselves as they truly were."

But while it was Lynne Cheney who wrote "the novel of a strong and beautiful woman who broke the rules of the American frontier," it was daughter Mary who proclaimed to Diane Sawyer on ABC last week:

"Well, from my perspective, Heather and I already are married...The way I look at it, is we're just waiting for state and federal law to catch up with us."

As it turns out, this is just the latest case of life imitating art on the Right. (For more lewd and lascivious literary behavior from Scooter Libby, Bill O'Reilly and other conservative hard liners, click here.)

As predicted, President Bush nominated Air Force General Michael V. Hayden to replace Porter Goss as head of the CIA. And while the Hayden nomination brings with it a growing laundry list of problems, that's just fine with President Bush. After all, a fight is exactly what the Bush White House wants right now.

The smallest stumbling block comes from the President's own allies. House Intel chief Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) expressed concerns over putting a military person in charge of the civilian CIA:

"Bottom line, I believe he's the wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time. We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time."

Staunch Bush supporter Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia echoed Hoekstra's worries. Chambliss raised the issue of a direct Pentagon link to the CIA director's office, calling it a "major problem" and noting that "just resigning commission and moving on, putting on a pin-striped suit versus an Air Force uniform, I don't think makes much difference."

As its talking points suggest, the White House is no doubt confident that these initial qualms among its Congressional allies will quickly dissipate. But bigger battles remain with Democrats over Hayden's role as NSA domestic spymaster, his apparent disregard for the Constitution and his ties to disgraced defense contractor and Duke Cunningham sugar daddy MZM. Apparently, the Bush team sees its "terrorist surveillance program" as a winner politically and believes it can both win that fight and build on it for the 2006 mid-term elections. As Bush lapdog and Texas Senator John Cornyn put it:

"If Senate Democrats are looking to the Hayden nomination as an opportunity to attack the NSA's terrorist surveillance program, we welcome that debate. If the President's opponents hope to argue that we're doing too much to prevent terrorism, that the intelligence agencies are fighting too hard against terrorists around the world, then we look forward to taking that debate to the American people. Gen. Hayden and his colleagues in our intelligence forces need the right tools, the right focus and the right people to 'connect the dots' and prevent further attacks."

Recent opinion polls on the NSA program may seem to back Cornyn's claim, with a slight majority of Americans seemingly on board with the NSA's domestic spying. But Hayden's own words may come back to bite him. In October 2002, then NSA head Hayden may have broken the law when he denied under oath during Congressional testimony (ironically in response to a question from Porter Goss) that the NSA was eavesdropping within the United States, "That person would have protections as what the law defines as a U.S. person. And I would have no authorities to pursue it." That denial came even as the NSA program was underway for a year, a program about which Deputy Director of National Intelligence Hayden in January 2006 made the grandstanding claim:

"Had this program been in effect prior to 9/11, it is my professional judgment that we would have detected some of the 9/11 al Qaeda operatives in the United States, and we would have identified them as such."

Making matters worse are Hayden's flip comments about the Constitution's 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure. As the Carpetbagger Report noted in January, Hayden repeatedly stressed a "reasonableness: standard," without mentioning the amendment's clear "probable cause" language:

"Just to be very clear - and believe me, if there's any amendment to the Constitution that employees of the National Security Agency are familiar with, it's the Fourth. And it is a reasonableness standard in the Fourth Amendment. And so what you've raised to me - and I'm not a lawyer, and don't want to become one - what you've raised to me is, in terms of quoting the Fourth Amendment, is an issue of the Constitution. The constitutional standard is 'reasonable.'"

It's no wonder ranking House Intelligence Committee Democrat Jane Harman concluded Hayden "made a big mistake" when he so vociferously defended the NSA's domestic spying. "That program," Harman claims, "does not comply with law."

Even if the President's handlers are right in their reading of the public mood regarding domestic spying, Hayden may yet be ensnared by the mushrooming scandal surrounding defense contractor MZM. MZM's Mitchell Wade, as you'll recall, provided bribes and prostitutes to jailed Republican Congressman Duke Cunningham, illegal campaign contributions to Katherine Harris and poker parties to Porter Goss' #3 at CIA, Kyle Foggo. As it turns out, MZM was also well acquainted with General Hayden. As TPM Muckraker reports today:

While director of the National Security Agency, Gen. Michael V. Hayden contracted the services of a top executive at the company at the center of the Cunningham bribery scandal, according to two former employees of the company.

No doubt, the Hayden nomination doesn't smell good and all but assures a fight for President Bush and the Republican Party. But as Karl Rove, Elizabeth Dole and other GOP leaders are already making clear in the run-up to November, that fight once again will be about the fear of terrorism, not Michael Hayden.

One day after Cinco de Mayo, the puerile Michelle Malkin was once again on the culture warpath. The target of her outrage this time? Baseball's Texas Rangers, who donned uniforms on Friday bearing the text "Los Rangers."

While I'm no supporter of the Rangers pandering to their growing Hispanic fan base, I find the virtriol and venom that Malkin and her fellow travellers offer over the jersey episode both fatiguing and ironic. After all, a previous owner of the Texas Rangers was none other than George W. Bush. But it was this Malkinism that seems to most fitting:

Can you imagine if someone proposed changing the Rangers' jerseys to "Confederate Rangers" to celebrate Confederate Heroes' Day?

Actually, I can imagine many potential proponents of veneration of all things Confederate in sports, virtually all of them leaders of the Republican Party. For example, Virginia Senator and 2008 GOP presidential hopeful George Allen supported "Confederate Heritage Month" while governor of the state. (Allen also famously displayed a Confederate flag and noose at his home.) Missouri Governor Matt Blunt ordered the Confederate flag flown during a ceremony at the Confederate Memorial State Historic Site in Higginsville. In addition to his tribute to the legendary segregationist Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott addressed the the Council of Conservative Citizens, a successor to the White Citizens' Councils of Jim Crow days. Lott's fellow Mississippi GOP stalwart Governor Haley Barbour sported a Confederate lapel pin during his campaign. And freshman South Carolina Senator Jim Demint said of his state's Confederate flag, "it should stay right where it is." (For more on Republican nostalgia for the Confederacy, see "Confederacy of Dunces.")

At the end of the day, the Rangers engaged in an act of well meaning if ill-advised political correctness with their jerseys. But in Michelle Malkin's camp, the good guys apparently wear white uniforms - and hoods.

Yesterday, I suggested that the spontaneous combustion of Porter Goss was a fitting end for the partisan hack installed by President Bush to lead the war-time CIA. But the jury is still out on the impetus for his sudden departure, what Goss himself today deemed "just one of those mysteries."

So far, the Washington Post and New York Times have focused on political intrigue. The Post cited administration officials who claimed "there has been an open conversation for a few weeks, through Negroponte, with the acknowledgment of the president." In this tale, the President had been long disappointed with Goss' performance, while the CIA director himself was disgruntled over his reduced role following the creation of the new post of Director of National Intelligence now held by John Negroponte.

But speculation continues to grow that Goss' implosion is tied to the mushrooming HookerGate scandal. The New York Daily News pointed to a senior law enforcement official who reported that "It's all about the Duke Cunningham scandal." Former CIA agent Larry Johnson gives Goss the benefit of the doubt, but concluded that his relationship with the CIA's #3 Kyle "Dusty" Foggo was inescapable :

"Dusty was a big poker player, and it's my understanding that Porter Goss was also there [at Wilkes' parties] for poker. It's going to be guilt by association."

The San Diego Union Tribune, which won a Pulitzer prize for its coverage of the Duke Cunningham case, also raised the specter of HookerGate. The paper noted that Foggo and Cunningham bagman Brent Wilkes were friends dating back to junior high and that "some sources said Goss' position as head of the CIA was weakened by the latest bout of negative publicity."

While the Goss embarrassment is still unfolding for the CIA, early predictions regarding his successor suggest the situation may go from bad to worse. The Times and the Post are each reporting that President Bush may tap Air Force General Michael Hayden to replace Goss, putting the architect of the illegal NSA domestic spying program in charge of the CIA.

UPDATE: Both the Washington Post and the New York Times are now reporting President Bush will name General Hayden head of the CIA on Monday.

In a surprising and welcome announcement today, CIA Director Porter Goss abruptly tendered his resignation to President Bush. Effective immediately, Goss' quick exit was unusual, to say the least.

But not necessarily totally unexpected. Since the story broke about Republican congressmen involved in the Hookergate scandal of Duke Cunningham moneymen Mitchell Wade and Brent Wilkes, rumors have swirled around not-so-clandestine rendezvous involving top CIA figures. Goss' #3 at the agency, Kyle Foggo, admitted to playing poker during the Watergate sessions, if not dallying with prostitutes. And while Goss previously denied as "flatly untrue" allegations he joined the Wilkes' parties, stories have circulated describing FBI pursuit of "current and former lawmakers on Defense and Intelligence committees - including one person who now holds a powerful intelligence post."

The downfall of Porter Goss couldn't be more fitting. In the wake of the CIA's utter failure on 9/11 and its abdication to the White House on Iraq WMD, President Bush appointed a partisan hack to lead the American intelligence effort during the war against Al Qaeda. During the 2004 election, then Congressman Goss and House intelligence committee leader repeatedly attacked Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, including a bilous op-ed piece titled "Need Intelligence? Don't Ask John Kerry." Upon taking the reins of the CIA, Goss started a politically motivated purge, driving essential senior analysts and leaders out of the agency. And back in February, Goss penned a cynical New York Times op-ed ("Loose Lips Sink Spies") threatening to prosecute leakers and claiming that he "filed criminal reports with the Department of Justice because of such compromises," while maintaining silence of the outing of CIA agent and Iran nuclear program expert Valerie Plame. As Goss put it in 2004, "Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation."

We don't yet know for certain if Porter Goss is going down (so to speak) over Hookergate. In any event, good riddance.

Conservatives, to paraphrase Art Linkletter, say the darndest things. The past several days have been no exception, as the denizens of the right have served up a steady of diet of contradictory claims, egregious gaffes and downright disturbing ditties.

Here, then, for your entertainment pleasure are the latest installments of "Today's Mantras."

"Well, from my perspective, Heather and I already are married...The way I look at it, is we're just waiting for state and federal law to catch up with us."
- Mary Cheney, May 4, 2006.

"What's the point of having a statute if . . . the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like?"
- Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), May 3, 2006.

"I have said on many occasions I don't think we had enough force there [Iraq] at that time to impose order."
- Colin Powell, April 30, 2006.

"George Bush has become something of an embarrassment."
- Tony Snow, November 11, 2005.

"[The] Strategic Reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election. It should not be used for short-term political gain at the cost of long-term national security."
- Candidate George W. Bush, September 21, 2000.

"I base a lot of my foreign policy decisions on some things that I think are true. One, I believe there's an Almighty. And, secondly, I believe one of the great gifts of the Almighty is the desire in everybody's soul, regardless of what you look like or where you live, to be free."
- President Bush, April 24, 2006.

For more of the alarming, banal, hateful and bizarre commentary from the conservative chattering class, see the complete list of Today's Mantras.

One of the Right's favorite bogeymen is the trial lawyers, the ambulance chasers supposedly behind skyrocketing health care costs and bankrolling the Democratic Party. But as Bush family consigliere James Baker III showed once again on the Larry King show last night, Republicans are just fine with trial lawyers when they need one.

Baker and his daughter-in-law Nancy used the CNN setting to tell the story of the tragic death of his 7-year old granddaughter Graham, who drowned in a hot tub accident. They used the "emotional hour of heartbreak and hope" to warn parents of the dangers of unsupervised hot tubs and their often dangerous drains, which according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission have claimed the lives of 36 children. The former Secretary of State also called for passage of the "Pool and Spa Safety Act."

Jim Baker the lawyer, of course, is best known for his work for George W. Bush. His one-time associates from the firm of Baker Botts helped Bush the Younger escape penalties from the SEC for insider trading in the Harken Energy affair. And it Baker who led the successful GOP legal fight during the 2000 Florida recount which resulted in Bush's elevation to the presidency. (It does not appear that Baker helped Dubya win his 1999 lawsuit against Enterprise Rent-a-Car for a fender bender involving one of the Bush twins.)

But when it comes to tort reform, this Republican family apparently sides with the trial lawyers. As Nancy Baker told a caller:

"Yes, we did pursue litigation. There was a settlement, mediation that resulted in a settlement with one defendant and we're delighted because that has enabled us to go on and given us the opportunity to pursue this whole educational program."

If the heartbreaking story of the loss of a child to a hot tub tragedy sounds familiar, it should. After all, it was the centerpiece of the Republican attack in 2004 on Democratic vice presidential candidate and trial lawyer John Edwards. (Mississippi Republican Trent Lott famously described Edwards as "a charming guy who was a suing lawyer -- that's S-U-I-N-G lawyer.") During his 2004 debate with Dick Cheney, Edwards was forced to defend his role in a $25 million award given the family of five-year old Valerie Lakey, who was grievously injured in a faulty hot tub.

If the call for regulation and damage awards coming from high profile Republicans seems like hypocrisy, it should. But then again, what else would you expect from the Party of James Baker, George W. Bush and "Hot Tub" Tom Delay?

As the AP reported today, the Bush administration once again appears to be standing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 on its head. In an unusual lawsuit, the Justice Department is bringing action against Ike Brown, the African-American head of the Democratic Party in sparsely populated Noxubee County. Brown, the suit contends, used coercion and intimidation to prevent the white voters, who make up only 30% of the county, from going to the polls.

This is neither to suggest that Brown did or did not undertake the suppression of the white vote in Noxubee County nor to deny the possibility of voter suppression by entrenched African-American political machines. But given the track record of George W. Bush and the Civil Rights Division in his Department of Justice, Americans should be very suspicious indeed.

The Bush DOJ, after all, has not brought a suit on behalf of disenfranchised black voters since 2001. Far from backing African-American claims of voter suppression and intimidation, Alberto Gonzales has spurned enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in Mississippi, Texas, and Georgia. This despite promises from both Bush and Gonzales that the administration supported the extension of the 1965 Act.

The Georgia case is particularly instructive. As I wrote back in January, Gonzales overruled a review team of his own Civil Rights Division, which voted 4-1 not to grant Georgia's new ID card law the "pre-clearance" required by the DOJ under the Voting Rights Act. Ultimately, a U.S. District Court last October blocked the law passed by Georgia Republicans to smother black voter turnout. Eventually, the Georgia legislature approved and Governor Sonny Perdue signed a revised voter ID law. (In a bitter twist of irony, the late Coretta Scott King would lay in state in the Georgia House just days after the bill's passage.)

Judging from the AP story, Ike Brown sounds like quite the character and something may very well be rotten in Noxubee County. But when it comes to rights of African-American voters, the rot is usually coming from the Bush White House.

The tensions between the United States and Iran reached a new level over the past week. Following a series of announcements regarding its nuclear program and tests of new weapons systems, Tehran announced on Tuesday that it was purchasing the sophisticated Tor M1 anti-aircraft missile system from Russia. On Friday, the IAEA released its highly anticipated report on the Iranian nuclear program and its failure to meet UN Security Council deadline to stop its uranium enrichment efforts. Secretary of State Condi Rice warned Sunday that it was time for Iran and its President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to stop "playing games."

But while the differences between Washington and Tehran are threatening and growing, there are eerie similarities between presidents Bush and Ahmadinejad and their respective fundamentalist followers. For each, the strikingly analogous views regarding religious prophecy, second comings and the end of times for their respective Christian and Shiite eschatologies may be pushing Ahmadinejad and Bush inexorably towards war.

A recent piece by Matthias Kuntzel in the New Republic ("Ahmadinejad's Demons") presents a frightening picture of the Iranian side of the equation. Kuntzel portrays the Ahmadinejad as a "child of the revolution" fostering the cult of martyrdom and mass sacrifice that killed tens of thousands of young Iranians - the Basiji - during the war with Iraq in the 1980's. Just as Ayatollah Khomeini in 1980 called on Iranian children to martyr themselves in battle in the name of Hussein, the third imam and murdered grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, today's Iran of Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khameini have created for a special military unit called "Commando of Voluntary Martyrs." The Martyrs unit now boasts 52,000 members and will soon be in place in every Iranian province.

On this the third anniversary of President Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, the American people have grown cynical over prospects in Iraq. A new CNN poll shows only 9% of Americans believe the mission in Iraq has been accomplished; 44% believe it never will be. Meanwhile, ThinkProgress has catalogued just what President Bush has accomplished in Iraq so far.

Here, then, is a look back at the Bush speech and its aftermath. Three years later, the administration still can't come clean with the American people:

Click here to view the full Bush quotes and sources.