[pjnews] The Next Bush Administration
Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this message. http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates.html The Next Bush Administration: While many Democrats are fleeing DC this week - too sad, depressed, and or aggravated to witness the 2nd Bush administration come back to town - now, more than ever, we need to stand up and take notice of whos replacing who in key posts. Nine of Bushs 15 Cabinet secretaries will be replaced - from a top polluter taking over as Energy Secretary to an Attorney General complicit with torture and a Secretary of State more concerned with touting missile defense than combating terrorism. This is no time to take our eyes off of what is happening in Washington. --Former National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice will take over for Secretary of State Colin Powell - from Bushs foreign policy tutor to close friend and confidant - Ms. Rice will become the 66th Secretary of State, following in the footsteps of Henry Kissinger, the last National Security Adviser to move on to head the State Department. Rice told senators at her confirmation hearing she would reinsert diplomacy in the Bush administrations foreign policy agenda. She like Powell, is expected to be equally vocal, though possibly more influential given the broad trust Bush places in her. At the same time, given her role in perpetuating false information on Iraqs WMD, the handling of terrorist warnings before Sept. 11, and the lack of diplomacy used in dealing with nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, its hard to tell what to expect. As Tom Barry of the International Relations Center points out, on an initially positive note, Rices selection of Robert Zoellick as her top deputy indicate that the ultra-hawks and neocon foreign policy revolutionaries wont completely dominate the second administration. But dont be fooled Barry warns, while Rice and Zoellick might not be ideologues, they arent moderate conservatives either. For more on Zoellick read Barrys No. 2 at Rices State Department, at rightweb.irc-online.org --The day Attorney General John Ashcroft announced his resignation, I jumped for joy - really. Now, with Alberto Gonzales almost certain to be confirmed for the post, my joy has subsided. Senators on both sides of the aisle were dissatisfied with Mr. Gonzales answers during his confirmation hearing. A Washington Post editorial cited his lack of responsiveness to questions about his judgments as White House counsel on the detention of foreign prisoners as cause for concern. The editorial also noted that some expressed dismay at his reluctance to state that it is illegal for American personnel to use torture, or for the president to order it. Although believed to be less ideological than his predecessor, Mr. Gonzales firmly backs the administrations aggressive policies and has a long history with the President - back in Texas, when President Bush was Governor Bush, Mr. Gonzales served as his General Counsel, followed by Secretary of State, and Supreme Court Justice. The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) urged senators to reject President Bushs nomination of his former chief counsel as an affront to the rule of law. CCR, which is the only organization in the country that actually represents men and women who were tortured in Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, charges that Mr. Gonzales knowingly and willingly provided counsel and advocated policies calculated to evade or circumvent domestic and international laws prohibiting the use of torture and inhumane treatment to extract information from soldiers or detainees held in U.S. custody, for more information go to www.CommonDreams.org --President Bush named Deputy Treasury Secretary Samuel W. Bodman as head of the Energy Department. Bodman is former chairman and chief executive of the Cabot Corporation. If confirmed by the Senate, Mr. Bodman will succeed Spencer Abraham, who resigned last month. The New York Times reported that Mr. Bodman will face many of the same issues that consumed Mr. Abraham: the future of nuclear power, the development of clean-coal technology, how to update an outmoded electricity industry and the battle over oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. President Bush said, In academics, in business and in government, Sam Bodman has shown himself to be a problem solver who knows how to set goals, and he knows how to reach them. He continued, hailing his nominee's great talent for management and . . . precise thinking of an engineer. Despite Bushs confidence in his nominee, many analysts were surprised that Bush did not appoint a nuclear weapons expert. Given Bodmans limited experience in energy policy, some maintain his selection is strategic and meant to allow Vice President Cheney to keep a firm grip on the department. Karen Wayland, legislative director for Natural Resources Defense Council, told Reuters, I think its pretty clear over the last four
[pjnews] The 55th Presidential Inauguration
Info about subscribing or unsubscribing from this list is at the bottom of this message. http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/updates.html The 55th Presidential Inauguration: Costly but Secure As Ralph Basham, the Secret Service chief told the Associated Press, We dont want to leave anything to chance. We want to make sure that everyone who comes to participate in these events can do so in a safe, secure fashion. Though there have been heightened security measures in the Capitol and other Washington locations since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Basham said that this is unprecedented when it comes to the level of security that will be in effect for the inauguration and those events that are surrounding it. And, in keeping with the theme of the campaign and conventions, the 55th Presidential Inauguration is shaping up to be the costliest one yet. Of course, topping the list of donors are companies from the energy, oil, and defense industry. The nation's top three defense contractors -- Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman -- each chipped in $100,000 for the event, while defense contractor United Technologies ponied up $250,000! For a full list of donors go to http://www.inaugural05.com Two Great Articles below, one from Knight-Ridder, the second from the Center for Responsive Politics Big Companies' Inauguration Donations Raise Eyebrows by Matt Stearns, Published on Monday, January 17, 2005 by Knight-Ridder WASHINGTON - Large corporations, many of which have enormous regulatory and policy interests in Washington, are paying for most of President Bush's inauguration. Critics call the arrangement too cozy, while others say the lavish spending is inappropriate in a time of war and as South Asia recovers from a devastating tsunami. Bush told reporters Thursday he sees no problem with either how the money is raised or how it is spent. There's no taxpayer money involved in this, he said. The inaugural celebration is expected to cost up to $40 million, with the money all raised from private donations. That would tie the record set by Bush's 2001 inaugural. Bill Clinton's 1993 inaugural cost $33 million, the previous record. That amount doesn't include the swearing-in itself, or security for inaugural events, two costs the government does cover. Officials say those will be in the millions of dollars, although they don't know how much yet. But for the associated celebrating, it's become common for private donations to pay for the ever escalating partying that is the biggest part of any inauguration. Of the more than $25 million raised so far by the Presidential Inaugural Committee, more than two-thirds came from corporate coffers. As of Jan. 14, 42 corporate contributors chipped in $250,000 each, the self-imposed maximum donation accepted by the committee. Unlike campaign contributions, there's no legal limit to how much a donor can give. Financial services companies and their executives have donated more than any other industry, with 26 financial services firms donating more than $4 million. The industry could reap a windfall if Congress approves Bush's plan for private investment accounts as part of Social Security. It also has an interest in Bush's goal of extending the tax cuts of his first term. Energy companies and their executives contributed more than $2.7 million. They've worked closely with the Bush Administration for years to pass an industry-friendly energy bill that remains stalled in Congress. Bush told reporters Thursday that the energy bill is a major goal of his second term. I feel good we'll be able to get one out of Congress this year, he said. The companies call the donations good corporate citizenship, saying they are merely participating in an important rite of democracy and enabling average Americans to enjoy events such as the inaugural parade and the inauguration eve fireworks. We view this as a patriotic event and a patriotic thing to do, said Terri McCullough, spokeswoman for Southern Co., an energy firm that gave $250,000 to the committee. Many donor companies have contributed to inaugurations in the past, for both Democrats and Republicans. Asked whether it was appropriate for companies with legislative and regulatory concerns to pay for his inauguration, Bush said, It's exactly what happened last inauguration, the inauguration before, the inauguration before. Bush said if he thought it was inappropriate, I wouldn't be doing it. But critics say that for-profit companies don't give money away without a reason involving self-interest. It's part of their government relations and influence program, said Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that monitors money in politics. They're doing it to gain access to the White House and to members of Congress. The access works on two levels, Noble said. First, there's the immediate access that donors get from rubbing shoulders with
