In bland remarks delivered to a small audience of students at the Oxford Union, Richard Perle outlined the Bush administration's response to the crisis of 9/11 and the neoconservative doctrines of pre-emptive war. In a droning monotone designed to anaesthetize his keen academic audience, Perle explained the need for an invincible American military apparatus and a foreign policy predicated on the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war permitting direct and simultaneous interventions into multiple theatres.

While Perle stated his hope that the need for military interventions would be minimal, he left the impression that his definition of excessive use of military power might well differ from that of the average American or European citizen. Perle is on the public record advocating pre-emptive strikes against North Korea, Syria, Iran and a list of other countries. Some of his critics accuse Perle of darkly malignant machinations. (Richard N. Perle, Sourcewatch)

Citing Iraq as a glowing example of an obvious need for direct intervention, Perle admitted that he had long advocated military solutions for regime change in that theatre. In his talk, he reminded us that President Bush had launched the invasion on the basis of several triggering factors including Nigerian yellow cake, WMDs, terrorist connections, democracy-building and humanitarian issues. Thus, Perle was finally reduced to justifying the Iraq War as a humanitarian crusade - a theme that struck hollow in the midst of reports of civil war, torture and US war crimes against innocent civilians in Haditha.

Questioned by a largely supportive audience of admiring students willing to attend a late lecture on a Friday night, Perle touched upon the diplomacy between the West and Iran in the most insipid terms he could muster. Taking into account the latest diplomatic developments, he gave his Oxford audience the impression that the outcome remains obscure in spite of the fact that he is one of the principle architects - and the sternest - of the Iran negotiations.

Perle emphasised that President Ahmadinejad holds fanatical religious beliefs involving the necessity for an Armageddonite conflict to trigger the return of the Hidden Imam at the end of the world in the Shiite tradition for the Last Judgement and the Islamic Apocalypse. Perle singled out the fanaticism of Islamic terrorism as the most serious threat to international security, and he praised the Israeli air-strike against Saddam's nuclear reactor in 1981 as a model of pre-emptive military intervention. In his view, the threat of precision air-strikes against the nuclear infrastructure of Iran constitute the best negotiating option.

An Iranian student asked Perle whether he considered the Mearsheimer and Walt paper, "The Israel Lobby," to be, "anti-Semitic." Castigating the eighty-five page paper as, "bad scholarship," Perle admitted that he did not know what he was talking about when he confessed that he had not read it in its entirety. This question put Perle on the defensive, and he asserted that there was no secret agenda amongst America's plethora of, "Jewish groups," that sought to place the national security of Israel above that of the United States.

In the limited time available, no one was able to follow up Perle's pregnant point about the non-existence of a secret agenda with a question about the Israeli spy scandal that shook his own office at the Pentagon, when Larry Franklin was discovered to be the conduit between the Office of Special Plans and two Israeli officials who were later identified as espionage agents assigned to the embassy. Neither was he questioned about the incident that took place in 1970, when an FBI wiretap revealed that Perle discussed classified intelligence with an official at the Israeli embassy. Washington insiders have long considered Perle to be, "an Israeli agent of influence."

Another fact fuels these suspicions swirling around Perle since he serves as a director of Hollinger International which owns the Jerusalem Post. Perle has been paid millions for his "work" for Hollinger even though he is the only 'outside' director on the Executive Committee. Perle's complicated business dealings have brought him under suspicion for conflicts of interest and the charge that he is attempting to profit from wars that he was strenuously working to create and implement through his official capacity in the Department of Defense. In 2004, Perle's conflicts of interest resulted in his resignation from the Defense Policy Board. (ibid)

When a perceptive student asked about his preferences for the next president of the United States, Perle made some riveting remarks. He immediately stated his hope that Senator Joseph Lieberman would be the Democratic candidate. Failing that miracle, Perle hopes former Governor Mark Warner will win the Democratic nomination. Perle warmly praised both right-leaning Democrats who are doyens of the Democratic Leadership Council. Richard Giuliani is Perle's favourite Republican. When asked about potential presidential candidates who would cause him concern, Perle swiftly reeled off a long list of Democrats led by Governor Howard Dean, followed closely by Senator John Kerry, former Vice President Al Gore, former Senator John Edwards, and he finished his list of neoconservative hate figures with a revealing comment about Senator Hillary Clinton.

It is hardly secret that Senator Clinton has attempted to appeal to the Israeli right. When she visited Israel, she condemned the Palestinians, but Perle was not impressed. Quite the contrary, Perle said that while she had made some smart moves in her attempt to appeal to the right, the left did not believe her. This comment gave the clear impression that Perle did not believe her, either. Criticizing other Democrats, Perle said that Senator John Kerry, "did not understand power," and was not able to perform the duties of the president of America. In his form of damnation by faint praise, Perle said that Howard Dean was a much nicer man off the podium than on it - and he gave him pride of place at the top of his most worrisome Democratic politicians.

The love affair between Perle's base in Likud on the hard line Israeli right and the neoconservatives of both US political parties is alive and kicking. Perle has long been associated with Likud that has been reduced to a weak rump huddling around Benjamin Netanyahu in the new Knesset. As a close associate of Netanyahu, Perle is seen as Likud's top-ranking advocate in Europe and America with his tentacles into both political parties, the Bush White House, the Pentagon and many other leading institutions. Next year, it would not be surprising to find Perle's name on contributors lists to Giuliani, Lieberman and Warner.

The morning after his Oxford talk, Perle appeared on the very influential BBC radio programme, Today, where he was interviewed by John Humphries, the ranking heavyweight commentator in Britain. Admitting President Bush's political weakness, Perle made a revealing comment when Humphries pressed him on US plans to bomb Iran. When Humphries pointed out that a unilateral US bombardment of Iran would be greeted with global howls of derision, Perle said,

"No American president who believes that there is a last opportunity to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state is going to be deterred by derision. He will do what he believes to be in the best interests of the protection of those who might come under attack from an Iranian nuclear weapon including the United States." (Today, BBC4, 3rd June 2006)

When Humphries pressed him harder by pointing out that the former British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, had termed the US bombing of Iran, "inconceivable," Perle shot back with a revealing retort. "Well, it's no longer conceivable that he's the Foreign Secretary." Humphries then asked whether Straw had been sacked over his offence putting Perle on the spot by asking, "You think there's a link there?" Perle replied,

"I don't know. He was expressing a view that the government had not concluded yet in a way that diminished the leverage to produce a political result, a diplomatic result. That's obviously unwise."(ibid)

This response left the clear impression that Straw had been removed specifically because he had ridiculed Washington's negotiating position and that Perle had been intimately involved in ordering and engineering the surprise sacking.

While Perle was undergoing his public interrogation before six million listeners on the BBC, Tony Blair was entering the Vatican for his long-awaited audience with Pope Benedict XVI. Blair's last papal audience occurred in early 2003 shortly before the launch of the Iraq War, when he pleaded with the late pontiff. John Paul II, to support the Crusade against Islamist terrorism.

The German Pope has been a strident critic of, "fundamentalist terror," the Vatican's code term for Islamism. According to the published accounts, Blair and the pope discussed the current negotiations with Iran. The Sunday Times reported, "Pope Benedict XVI pressed Tony Blair to find a diplomatic resolution to the Iran nuclear crisis." The Pope is more than well aware of the escalation of the military planning on both sides.

There can be little serious doubt that George Bush had given Tony Blair his marching orders - the assignment of negotiating a papal blessing for his pre-emptive bombing campaign against Iran. From the Pope's remarks, it is clear that Benedict dreads a new level of violence in Bush's wars in the Middle East. As a very public supporter of George Bush during the 2004 presidential campaign, the Pope rightfully fears the political consequences he will suffer in the aftermath of a new phase in what is seen globally as a western religious crusade against Islam. Smarting from a punishing round of criticism for ignoring the Anti-Semitic dimension of the Holocaust during his visit to Auschwitz only one week ago, Benedict XVI is praying to avoid any more political controversies that would undermine his increasingly challenged papacy.

Last week, Ray McGovern, a former high-ranking CIA intelligence analyst, appeared on the Alex Jones Show where he expressed his fears that staged terrorist attacks in Europe and America are being prepared to pave the way for public approval of pre-emptive air-strikes against Iran. McGovern said,

"There is already one carrier task force there in the Gulf, two are steaming toward it at the last report I have at least - they will all be there in another week or so. The propaganda has been laid, the aircraft carriers are in place, it doesn't take much to fly the bombers out of British and US bases - cruise missiles are at the ready, Israel is egging us on."(Former CIA Analyst Says Iran Strike Possibly Set For June Or July)

McGovern predicted dire consequences would result from Bush's policy of pre-emptive war. In McGovern's opinion, Iran would retaliate with a cruise missile attack against the US fleet then launch a military invasion of Iraq and simultaneously activate a world wide ring of terrorists that would make Al-Qaeda look like, "a girls netball team."

McGovern's predictions may be unfolding already. The London police raid that coincided with Perle's visit to Britain netted two men suspected of terrorist plotting to build a massive chemical bomb. But, after four days of excruciating forensic examination of their premises, the police found no evidence of bomb-building activities. Whether this "swoop" was staged or not remains to be seen, but this episode resonates with an official campaign to ratchet up the public concern about terrorism. The non-productive raid has produced a predictable backlash among the local residents who are demanding some form of official confirmation that the raid was based on credible evidence rather than a melange of Islamophobic paranoia.

Last week in Wales at the annual literary festival at Hay-on-Wye, Dr Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian Nobel Laureate for Peace in 2003, explained her opposition to western military intervention in Iran.

"America says that Iran would pose a threat if it gains access to nuclear weapons because it is not a democratic country, and because its government is fundamentalist, and this could pose a danger to the whole region, but America has forgotten that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and Pakistani Muslims are much more fundamentalist than Iranian Muslims, and Pervez Musharraf did not come to power as a result of an election. The only difference between Iran and Pakistan is that Pakistan is friendly towards America and obeys America, while Iran does not obey America. This double standard is something that the Iranian people cannot understand."

Exactly as Richard Perle intimated to the BBC, the world is witnessing the machinations in a game of geopolitical poker. The stakes are high. In spite of his perceived weakness, George Bush holds a very strong hand, The White House, the Pentagon, the Supreme Court and both houses of Congress. Yet his political weakness with the American public is the primary factor motivating him to launch a pre-emptive attack against Iran. With his approval rating falling into the low 30s, Bush has too little - if anything - to lose to worry about current public opinion.

Because of his chronic unpopularity, Bush is already in a complicated political predicament. Bush is facing the loss of his American political hegemony in the midterm elections this November. If Bush loses even one house of Congress, he will face the immediate threat of official probes led by partisan special prosecutors and a rising demand for his impeachment. In his game of poker with Ahmadinejad, Bush has nothing to lose by upping the ante and wrapping himself in the American flag while dropping a massive bombardment onto the primary vortex of his Axis of Evil, Iran.

However, if Bush were to attack Iran, he would instantaneously transform Ahmadinejad into the most powerful figure in the increasingly Anti-American world. With that transfiguration, Ahmadinejad would have nothing to constrain him from launching attacks not only against American targets as Ray McGovern suggests, but the Iranian Prime Minister would be free to join forces with Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad in an attack against America's primary ally in the region, Israel. Bristling with potential targets from its vulnerable nuclear facility at Dimona as well as its major population centers including Tel Aviv, Haifa and Elat, Israel would be in the frontline of any potential counter-attack by Ahmadinejad.

With leaders like Bush, Ahmadinejad, Blair, Olmert and Benedict XVI there can be little wonder why the world - driven by achingly inept religious fundamentalists holding the reigns of power in Washington, London, Tehran, Rome and Tel Aviv - is lurching forward into battle toward what can, indeed, be called a new Perle Harbor.

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty a distinction not shared with three nuclear states, India, Israel and Pakistan, who have declined to sign the document.

Michael Carmichael became a professional public affairs consultant, author and broadcaster in 1968. He worked in five American presidential campaigns for progressive candidates from RFK to Clinton. In 2003, he founded The Planetary Movement, a nonprofit public affairs organization based in the United Kingdom. He has appeared as a public affairs expert on the BBC's Today, Hardtalk, and PM, as well as numerous appearances on ITN, NPR and European broadcasts examining politics and culture. He can be reached through his website: www.planetarymovement.org

References

The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060606fege02
Richard N. Perle
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_N._Perle
Richard Perle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle
Former CIA Analyst Says Iran Strike Possibly Set For June Or July
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13481.htm
Terror raid: the backlash
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=389222&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5
Police 'had no choice' over terror raid
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1790820,00.html
'Trust at risk' after terror raid
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1791424,00.html
Intelligence behind raid was wrong, officials say
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1791110,00.html
Intelligence needed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1791188,00.html
A pantomime in Forest Gate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1790984,00.html
Pope calls on Blair to end Iran stand-off
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2210005,00.html
The troublemaker
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1788781,00.html
Nobel Prize winner accuses US of double standards over Iran
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article624193.ece
A giant awakes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1789542,00.html

Although she is known among activist groups as either Anna Davies or Anna Davidson, others know her as Grai Damiani. She focuses her efforts largely on "anarchist" groups.

The McDavid Case

In January 2006, Eric McDavid, Lauren Weiner, and Zachary Jenson were arrested in California and charged with knowingly conspiring to use fire or explosives to damage property. Their arrest was the direct result of work by Anna, who was "deeply embedded within the subjects' cell," according to FBI documents.

The FBI affidavit in support of the complaint against the three defendants states that they planned on their own to engage in "direct action" - which the FBI agent equated with criminal activity - apparently without Anna's input or guidance. The direct action involved bombing one or several locations in California.

However, McDavid's attorney, Mark Reichel, states that Anna was always pushing McDavid to do something criminal, taught the three how to make the bombs, supervised their activities, and repeatedly threatened to leave them if they didn't start doing "something."

McDavid allegedly wanted to target banks, commercial trucks, mountaintop removal projects in West Virginia, Communist party office, and the U.S. Forest Service Institute of Forest Genetics in California, according to the affidavit.

The affidavit, which was written by FBI Special Agent Nasson Walker, shows that the agency has identified the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) as "a recognized eco-terrorist group," which Walker states has been involved in over $100 million dollars worth of damage since 1997. Walker further notes that: "Environmental extremists under the ELF banner have been known to use arson and/or explosives to damage or destroy or attempt to damage or destroy government, commercial, and residential facilities." Walker also states that "ELF adherents share a strong philosophical connection to the anarchist movement," which he notes "seeks to end the current system of government, economy and replace them with systems characterized by a lack of authoritarian/hierarchical relationships." Walker states that all three of the defendants are anarchists.

The FBI claims that Anna has "provided information that has been utilized in at least twelve separate anarchist cases" and that her "information has proved accurate and reliable."

But just who is Anna and what makes her reliable?

Organization of American States (OAS) Protests

In June of last year, according to witnesses, Anna showed up in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida for an anti-OAS protest which drew approximately 1200 people. Wearing a shirt with a red cross on it and carrying a bag with the same logo, she appeared on the day the protests began and identified herself as a "medic" from California.

One protester who had become ill during the event was treated by Anna. "She was pushy," said Barbara Collins, a retired Miami resident who says Anna gave her Gatorade with water and then left. "She gave me that drink that made me sick, but later on she didn't seem that interested in treating me. She wanted to get back to the others." Collins was subsequently hospitalized for heat stroke.

Linda Belgrave, a sociology professor at University of Miami, who assisted Collins that day, had to go find Anna again when Barbara got worse. According to Belgrave, Anna told her she was "busy." Belgrave did not see Anna attending to any other person in need of medical attention. She was simply "hanging out" with the "kids."

Indeed, Anna was busy, according to other protesters at the OAS rally.

During the march to the rally where Collins fell ill, one Miami resident, who asked that her name not be used, heard people talking about doing a sit-in. Since the coalition had decided against sit-ins and had negotiated carefully with the police about routes and activities, she warned people individually not to participate in the sit-in. Most did not, but Ray Del Papa from Ft. Lauderdale subsequently saw Anna directing young people to sit down on the street directly in front of a line of police in riot gear. In describing what he saw, Del Papa motions with his arms to show how Anna instructed individuals to sit here and there. Del Papa felt that it was a "set-up," a "trap, similar to what the police did during the protests against the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) in Miami in 2003."

The fences penned the protesters in completely except where the riot police were, which was exactly where Anna instructed the young people to do their sit-in, according to Del Papa.

"She knew they could get their heads bashed in," notes Mark Reichel, based on conversations with the activists. "If you saw their faces as well, you would understand that these people were not lying."

Under the Attorney General's Guidelines, the FBI and prosecutors are required to keep secret the identity of a confidential informant. However, Anna was seemingly "outed" last year by activists who recognized what they saw as disruptive and provocative tactics and posted pictures of her on the internet.

The allegations were later confirmed by Reichel, who identified the unnamed FBI confidential source cited in the January 2006 complaint affidavit for the McDavid case as Anna.

Reichel also viewed hundreds of hours of surveillance tapes of Anna and McDavid and his cohorts. He notes that Anna's forte is identifying "radical" young men and women and "getting them" to fall in love with her.

The FBI will not discuss Anna's status or the specifics of her training or operations but denies that informants are trained to provoke. In response to RAW STORY's queries about Anna, FBI media representative Karen Ernst said that "Sources are admonished not to provoke criminal activity,"

"Sources operated by the FBI are closely monitored and the information received from them is corroborated through other investigative techniques."

Additionally, Ernst explains that the FBI corroborates information obtained from an informant "before charges are brought" against an individual. "Charges are brought when the totality of the evidence is sufficient for either a criminal complaint or indictment. Information from a source would never be the only evidence used to bring charges; other evidence would include recordings, surveillance video, results of witness testimony, etc.," adds Ernst.

Despite being outed, Anna continues to infiltrate groups and presently is living in a collective home with some young people in Iowa, according to Reichel.

Criminal Activity Plus Salary

According to the "Attorney General's Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants" (AG Guidelines), a "Confidential Informant" or "CI" is "any individual who provides useful and credible information to [the FBI] regarding felonious criminal activities, and from whom the [FBI] expects or intends to obtain additional useful and credible information regarding such activities in the future."

The FBI conducts a "suitability determination" for each informant, which includes consideration of the candidate's age, affiliations, motivations, reliability, truthfulness, and criminal and drug history.

Every informant receives and must acknowledge her understanding of a written set of instructions, which are reviewed by an agent with the CI. The CI is not allowed to engage in criminal activity without authorization. A CI who is authorized to engage in "Tier 1 Otherwise Illegal Activity" - which includes involvement with violent activities by other persons, corrupt conduct by officials, and trafficking of controlled substances - becomes a "High Level Confidential Informant."

Given Anna's involvement in the McDavid case, where she was involved in allegedly planning violent activities, she became a High Level CI.

According to Ernst, all sources are operated in accordance with the Attorney General's Guidelines. Sources are required to meet on a regular basis with an agent who provides them guidance and instructions.

Yet in a scathing report released by the Department of Justice in September of last year, DOJ inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, found "that FBI agents violated procedures in 87 percent of the cases, including some in which informants allegedly engaged in illegal activity without proper oversight or permission."

As for Anna, she receives about $37,500 a year, plus expenses, for her work. In the McDavid case, for example, in addition to her salary, the FBI paid for Anna to rent a house in California, paid for helicopter surveillance at her behest, and ostensibly also paid for the audio and video surveillance rigged in the rental house.

Are there other Annas?

Although the FBI states that it does not target lawful activity or activity protected by the First Amendment, in Florida alone, groups advocating against the invasion of Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, the OAS, and the FTAA have all been infiltrated, according to participants -- who cannot prove that the suspicious persons were infiltrators or informants. But documents released last year show that a counter-recruitment meeting at the Quaker House in Lake Worth, Florida was infiltrated by the Department of Defense. And the revelations about Anna, who participated in at least two of the major protests in Florida, further confirm activists' fears.

While officials have claimed that anarchists advocate violence, Fred Frost, President of the Florida AFL-CIO, stated in 2004 at public hearings after the FTAA demonstrations that anarchists "may look different from you and me, but they are some of the nicest, most peaceful people I've ever met, helping everyone - I have a great deal of respect for them."

None of the above-mentioned peace and justice groups advocates violence; all advocate using peaceful and lawful means of expression.
#

Jennifer Van Bergen is a freelance journalist with a law degree. Her book "The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America" is available on Amazon. Her book "Archetypes for Writers: Using the Power of Your Subconscious" will be out next year. She can be reached at jvbxyz@earthlink.net.

Before voting overwhelmingly by a show of hands on that one, there was a strong voice vote to censure the President - a resolution submitted on behalf of one of the keynote speakers, "red meat" Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold.

The censure motion contended Bush authorized the illegal wire-tapping of "perhaps more than 1 million Americans."

State Democratic Party Kathy Sullivan acknowledged that the two, taken together, may have been "a bit of overkill," but, she said, "You've got people here who are very angry with George Bush."

She did not speak against them. "It was not my job to speak in favor or against resolutions." But as a delegate, she voted against them because "I don't think the majority of voters want the Congress to be spending time on impeachment or censure."

The convention also backed resolutions:

* Calling for "responsible, prompt withdrawal" from Iraq while supporting the troops there.

* Supporting the state's first-in-the-nation primary.

The censure and impeachment resolutions were opposed by the convention's resolution committee, comprising state Rep. Jane Clemons of Nashua, Chaz Proulx of Exeter and Deb Crapo of Rye. The committee also said Democrats should focus on a positive agenda and leave such matters to the next Congress.

Who led the charge? The censure move was sponsored by Peter Somssich of Portsmouth and co-sponsored by Paul Wolfson of Hanover and Robert Padian of Portsmouth. The impeachment resolution was sponsored by Bob Perry of Stratford and co-sponsored by Manny Krasner of Farmington.

Sullivan said that for the fourth consecutive convention, an effort to add a pro-income tax plank to the party platform was rejected by voice vote.

"It was definitely an interesting convention," understated Nick Clemons, the state party executive director.

--
DEPOSING GILLESPIE?

The state Democratic Party yesterday made a bold move in its civil suit against the Republican Party over the Election Day 2002 phone-jamming scandal, the Granite Status has learned.

The party asked the Hillsborough County Superior Court to appoint commissioners to take out-of-state depositions of:

* Ed Gillespie, the former Republican National Commmittee Chair who authorized the RNC to pay the legal bills of now-convicted phone-jam conspirator James Tobin. Gillespie has said he spoke with someone in the White House about that decision, but could not remember who.

* Alicia Davis, who worked in the White House political affairs office in 2002 and received telephone calls from Tobin in the days and hours leading up to the phone-jam operation on the morning of election day.

* Chris Cupit, who worked with convicted conspirator Allen Raymond and allegedly helped Raymond and former state GOP executive director Chuck McGee plan the scheme.

* Terry Nelson, Tobin's boss at the RNC in 2002.

* Chris Lacivita, Tobin's boss in 2002 at the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

* Darrell Henry, a Washington lobbyist who allegedly was interested in continuing the phone jam after it was called off.

The Democrats also ask to subpoena the custodian of records for the Executive Office of the President. The want records of the White House political affairs office during the time the phone-jam was being planned. They also want the names associated with several telephone numbers called by Tobin, the state Republican Party and former party chairs John Dowd and Jayne Millerick.

The party also asks for all outgoing calls by Davis and former political affairs director Ken Mehlman, the current RNC chair, from Oct. 1, 2002 to March 1, 2003.

The party also asks for records of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which, Henry allegedly contacted to continue the phone jam after it had been called off.

--
THE ROVE VISIT

State GOP officials were a bit concerned for a while about the turnout for Monday's annual party dinner featuring controversial Bush White House political advisor Karl Rove. E-mails flew recruiting patrons, and at last report, between 400 and 500 are expected, with the number expected to increase.

Democrats intend to protest at Veterans Park, across the street from the dinner venue, the Center of New Hampshire Radisson Hotel. They'll call on Rove and the GOP to stop "stonewalling" the civil court process that could allow further investigation into the aforementioned phone-jamming scandal.

--
WHO'S RUNNING?

With the filing period under way, the biggest surprise of "opening day" yesterday were the decisions by two Democrats, Kathy Sgambati and veteran activist Harold Janeway, to run in state Senate Districts 4 and 7, respectively.

Sgambati, the former deputy Health and Human Services commissioner, would face the winner of an expected Republican primary between Sen. Bob Boyce of Alton and Rep. Jim Fitzgerald of Laconia, while Janeway would take on GOP incumbent Bob Flanders of Antrim.

It will be interesting to see how strongly "apolitical" Gov. John Lynch campaigns for the Democratic slate, particularly for Janeway, who is a veteran income tax proponent.

Six years ago, Janeway co-founded the Courage and Leadership PAC with Stonyfield Yogurt CEO Gary Hirshberg and was a member of pro-income tax candidate for governor Mark Fernald's exploratory committee.

Fernald that year lost a primary to anti-income tax Democratic incumbent Jeanne Shaheen. Several members of her former staff now work for Lynch.

In District 20, top Republicans this week were trying to talk veteran Goffstown Rep. Bob Wheeler into opposing Manchester Democrat Lou D'Allesandro.

Wheeler, however, is quite undecided.

--
A MESSY HOUSE

It could get interesting in the New Hampshire House by next December when the new speaker is chosen.

With Deputy House Speaker Ken Weyler announcing his candidacy yesterday (joining Reps. Mike Whalley and Betsey Patten), conservatives and moderate "Main Street" Republicans are contemplating their options.

While the "Main Streeters" are expected to float one of their own, some conservatives are hoping to exact pledges from the candidates that they won't "throw in" with the Democrats, as lame duck Doug Scamman did, if they don't win the GOP caucus vote. And they want their candidate for speaker to allow a rank-and-file vote for House majority leader, rather than having the speaker make the choice.

That will be tough for any candidates to swallow.

Veteran Exeter Republican Lee Quandt says he has received several emails asking him to run for the top spot. He believes if he does, he'll start out with about 20 votes.

But Quandt said he considers Weyler a friend, "so I'll stand back for a while and see what happens with him."

"This year," said a veteran House Republican, "is going to be as messy as the last one was."

--
THE GRIFFIN SEAT

GOP lobbyists/strategists Rich Killion and Erik Taylor of Elevare Communications are working for Republican District 3 Executive Council candidate Chuck Morse. The outgoing Senate Finance chair will formally announce his candidacy on June 20 at the Castleton in Windham.

Sean Mahoney of Portsmouth resigned as state GOP finance chair this week to run for the seat, while Dover businessman Dan Philbrick is still in the mix.

Philbrick said this week he was concerned that Mahoney may be disqualified because he may not have resided in the state for seven years prior to the election, as the law requires.

Mahoney is confident that he meets the law. Philbrick said, "It's a tough call. If I knew that Sean qualified time-wise I'd step behind him and even be his chairman." But he said he will run, if necessary, to try to ensure that the seat remains occupied by a Seacoast resident.

--
ALIVE AND WELL

National Democrats take notice. An '08 presidential primary campaign is shaping up here, despite efforts to "dilute" its impact.

Four national leaders will be here in the next two weeks, beginning today with former Sen. Tom Daschle, followed by Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh tomorrow and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden next week.

--
QUICK TAKES:

* Sen. Judd Gregg and his wife, Kathy, hosted a fundraiser for Republican Rep. Jeb Bradley at their Rye home last weekend. More than 200 attended and Bradley raised about $130,000.

* Former Democratic state Rep. Mike Downing is expected to run for Morse's seat, as a Republican.

* Lucky Craig and Tina Morshead won lunch with the governor, Scamman and Senate President Ted Gatsas in the State House cafeteria on Tuesday. The Bedford computer specialist and his wife won an auction by bidding $325, with proceeds going to the Friends of the Manchester Animal Shelter. Gatsas' wife, Cassandra, came up with the idea and the Senate president bought lunch.

* Potential 2008 Presidential hopeful Mark Warner's PAC noted in a recent report to supporters that "the Manchester Union-Tribune" covered the state Democratic convention, at which he appeared, last Saturday. Guys, what's a "Manchester Union-Tribune?"

* Bradley is trying to drum up a crowd for a rally on Monday morning at the State House before he files for reelection.

* GOP candidate for governor Jim Coburn will file on Wednesday (Flag Day) at high noon.

John DiStaso is senior political reporter of the New Hampshire Union Leader and Sunday News.

In its 2005 report to the president released last month, the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), a branch of the National Archives, provides a quantitative overview of hundreds of thousands of pages of classified and declassified documents. But the vice president's input consists of a single footnote explaining that his office failed to meet its reporting requirements for the third year in a row.

Open-government advocates say Cheney's refusal to divulge even basic information about classification activities reflects an alarming pattern of broadening executive privilege while narrowing public accountability.

"It's part of a larger assertiveness by the Office of the Vice President and a resistance to oversight," said Steve Aftergood of the Project on Government Secrecy, a division of the public-interest association Federation of American Scientists. "It's as if they're saying, 'What we do is nobody's business.'"

Though not the only government entity to shrug off the reporting duties, Cheney's office is unique in that it has actually issued a public justification for its non-compliance. Cheney's office argued on Monday that its dual role in the federal government places it above the reporting mandate.

"This matter has been carefully reviewed, and it has been determined that the reporting requirement does not apply to [the Office of the Vice President], which has both executive and legislative functions," Lea McBride, a spokesperson for Cheney's office, told The NewStandard.

Cheney's press aides declined to specify to TNS how the office's legislative role effectively exempted it from the executive order, or why the office had complied prior to 2003.

In a May 30 letter to J. William Leonard, director of the ISOO, the Project on Government Secrecy contended that Cheney's rationale was illogical, because additional legislative functions should have no bearing on the vice president's executive-branch obligations. Troubled by the continued non-compliance, the organization warned that if the ISOO did not act to enforce the vice president's responsibilities under the executive order, "every agency will feel free to re-interpret the order in idiosyncratic and self-serving ways."

Each year, the ISOO publishes data on the amount of information classified by government entities, such as the Department of Justice and the Pentagon, and broadly analyzes how the bureaucracy processes national-security secrets. Mandated by an executive order, the report is intended to encourage greater accountability and minimize secrecy.

In 2003 - around the time Cheney's office stopped reporting to the ISOO - the Bush administration affirmed and expanded the vice president's classification powers through a revision of Executive Order 12958, the same order mandating the yearly ISOO assessment. The amended order explicitly granted the vice president unprecedented authority to classify information "in the performance of executive duties," including the ability to label information "secret" and "top secret" on par with the heads of federal agencies and the president himself.

Critics also note another legal shield compounding the vice president's reticence about how he handles secrets: Cheney enjoys general immunity from the Freedom of Information Act, which empowers members of the public with a process for demanding the release of government documents.

Along with Cheney's office, the President's Foreign-Intelligence Advisory Board and Homeland Security Council - both advisory bodies attached to the White House - also failed to report classification activity in 2005. In the footnote of its report, the ISOO suggested that the loss of this information was inconsequential, because these entities "historically have not reported quantitatively significant data."

However, Aftergood argued that because the annual report is a statistical breakdown of information processed, the quantitative data merely reflects the volume, not the individual public-interest value, of the secrets withheld by the government.

The most recent report shows that decisions to classify information have declined by about 9 percent since 2004, and the volume of newly declassified information has risen slightly. But watchdogs say the government is still amassing secrets at a disturbing rate: total classification activity was over 60 percent higher in 2005 than in 2001. Overall, agencies reported 14.2 million classification decisions last year.

Though Cheney's obfuscation of his classification activity has been ongoing since 2003, the explosion of the Valerie Plame leak scandal, which centers on the suspected retaliatory leak of a CIA agent's identity by the White House, has invited fresh scrutiny of the administration's political opacity. Some question whether Cheney has wielded his power over secret government information to smear opponents.

In a February interview with Fox News, asked whether he had ever exercised declassification powers, Cheney replied, "I've certainly advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions," though he refused to elaborate on the nature of those decisions.

Aftergood said that the ISOO could try to compel Cheney to comply with the executive order through enforcement mechanisms. These could include sanctions, which under the ISOO's mandate might entail "termination of classification authority" or "denial of access to classified information" - or officially requesting an advisory ruling from the attorney general to clarify the vice president's obligations.

Since receiving the letter, Leonard of the ISOO told TNS that he is "currently pursuing the matter." Noting the novelty of Cheney's defense, he added, "I am not aware of any other entity claiming any such 'exemption.'"

Jennifer Gore, communications director for the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight (POGO), pointed to a precedent for public-interest advocates bringing legal challenges to curb executive secrecy. Referring to the Watergate scandal, which also involved a court battle over the White House's refusal to disclose incriminating documents, she said, "In the past, when members of the executive branch have voiced privilege as a reason not to turn something over, then it's time to go to the courts."

To counterbalance the expansion of secrecy under the current administration, POGO is also advocating the Executive Branch Reform Act of 2006. The bill, introduced by Representatives Tom Davis (R-Virginia) and Henry Waxman (D-California), targets new, vaguely defined categories that build on the regular classification system, mainly the "sensitive but unclassified" label that has enabled agencies to limit public access to counterterrorism-related information.

Aftergood said that systemic problems in the classification system undermine the public value of the ISOO's annual report, with or without full compliance from agencies. To move toward genuine transparency, he said, the ISOO's tracking should encompass more aggressive, in-depth reviews of classified materials to monitor whether federal operatives are overusing or abusing their privilege.

"What's really missing is a sense of the quality of the classification activity," Aftergood said. "You could tell me how many things you classify, but that doesn't give me any indication of whether you exercised good judgment or not."

"There are those here in Washington who say, 'Why don't we just find the folks and send them home,'" Bush said. "That ain't gonna work."

He said although it sounds simple, it is impractical to insist that the 12 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living in the U.S. leave and come back legally. Some prominent conservatives in his party say allowing those immigrants to become citizens without returning home would amount to amnesty.

Bush defined amnesty as allowing those immigrants to automatically become citizens. He said instead they first should be required to prove that they have been working and abiding the law, pay a fine, learn English and wait behind those who have been in the country legally.

"We don't have to choose between the extremes," Bush said. "There's a rational middle ground."

Bush is trying to get Congress to pass his immigration plan, but a block of conservative lawmakers have been firmly opposed to it and prefer legislation that would take a harder stance against those who break the law to sneak in the country. House and Senate negotiators have yet to meet to resolve the differences in the two different approaches.

Bush's remarks came during a 15-minute speech at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast in which he also talked about his faith in God. "I rely upon the Almighty for strength and comfort," Bush told the participants gathered in a hotel ballroom just a couple blocks from the White House.

"This morning we come together to give our thanks for all our blessings, and recognize our nation's continuing dependence on divine providence," he said.

"For the first time, if it passes, Hawaiians will have parity and be able to form a government entity to address their concerns, since the overthrow," Mr. Akaka said.

Republican senators annually have blocked the legislation, saying it would violate the Constitution by establishing a sovereign race-based government. It is only coming up now through a deal worked out between Democratic and Republican leaders to move other bills.

Opponents, including many native Hawaiians, say the bill opens up a "Pandora's box" of new race classifications and called the bill ambiguous as to what benefits it will bring.

The bill calls for an Office of Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of the Interior, and a Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group to administer programs, a commission that would certify who are indigenous Hawaiians, and provides a process of reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.

"The bill will not authorize gaming in Hawaii. The bill will not allow private lands to be taken. The bill will not create a reservation in Hawaii," Mr. Akaka said.

The legislation is supported by both Republican and Democratic senators, primarily those from states with substantial Native American and Eskimo populations, as well as the American Bar Association and Alaska Federation of Natives.

Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, who has kept the bill from coming to the floor, said the creation of a native Hawaiian government -- composed only of redefined natives and whose members can only be voted in by native Hawaiians -- could divide Hawaii's people.

"Unlike reservation Indians, Native Hawaiians do not live in one area of the State that is set aside for Indians; they live in the same cities and neighborhoods and on the same streets, as other Hawaiians do," Mr. Kyl said.

Reservation Indian tribes have the power to tax, regulate and make laws for members. There are an estimated 400,000 Native Hawaiians living throughout the United States.

Native Hawaiians also say it "too narrowly" redefines who is indigenous.

"It is only for people of Native Hawaiian blood," said 'Ehu Kekahu Cardwell, director of the Koani Foundation, a grass-roots group dedicated to restoring the Hawaiian nation.

"We want it to be for any descendants of kingdom nationals who were loyal to the queen during the time she was deposed. We want everyone to be able to have a say in how this turns out," Mr. Cardwell said.

Leon Siu, a Chinese Hawaiian lobbying against the bill on Capitol Hill, said it has already caused division in Hawaii.

"We reject a race issue being brought into our community; the bill will change the definition of who we are," he said. "Native Hawaiian is not a pure bloodline and ... this bill will introduce a new concept of racial apartheid."

Mr. Siu's father fled China in search of a better life and settled in Hawaii 70 years ago, as did hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals from America, Japan, China, Vietnam, and the Philippines who became Hawaiian citizens.

The Hawaiian monarchy historically never kept anyone from participating in its government structure and did not have a race-specific citizenship definition.

One of the most salient points in the debate will be a history lesson on how Hawaii became a U.S. territory and a state, which Native Hawaiians say was an "illegal annexation."

Queen Liliuokalani, the last Hawaiian monarch, was deposed in 1893 by a collection of sugar exporters doing business on the island with the complicity of the U.S. government.

Hawaii became a U.S. territory under a congressional resolution passed in the late 1890s, but the Constitution states that the U.S. can only acquire land held by sovereign foreign nations through a formal treaty.

The treaty authorized by the Safety Commission -- an illegitimate government established by the sugar plantation owners -- failed in Congress after 38,000 of the 40,000 natives living on the island in 1897 petitioned the Congress to reject it.

Congress formally acknowledged that the coup was unlawful in an apology resolution in 1993.

"This is just the next step in that process of acknowledging the wrong committed against the Native Hawaiian people and recognize them as a sovereign entity," said Donalyn Dela Cruz, spokeswoman for Mr. Akaka.