White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said it's appropriate for the administration to know what reports go to Congress and to review them beforehand.

"There can be a discussion on whether to accept a change or a nuance," she said. "It could be any number of things."

The American Bar Association and members of Congress have said Bush uses signing statements excessively as a way to expand his power.

The Senate held hearings on the issue in June. At the time, 110 statements challenged about 750 statutes passed by Congress, according to numbers combined from the White House and the Senate committee. They include documents revising or disregarding parts of legislation to ban torture of detainees and to renew the Patriot Act.

Privacy advocate Marc Rotenberg said Bush is trying to subvert lawmakers' ability to accurately monitor activities of the executive branch of government.

"The Homeland Security Department has been setting up watch lists to determine who gets on planes, who gets government jobs, who gets employed," said Rotenberg, executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

He said the Homeland Security Department has the most significant impact on citizens' privacy of any agency in the federal government.

Homeland Security agencies check airline passengers' names against terrorist watch lists and detain them if there's a match. They make sure transportation workers' backgrounds are investigated. They are working on several kinds of biometric ID cards that millions of people would have to carry.

The department's privacy office has put the brakes on some initiatives, such as using insecure radio-frequency identification technology, or RFID, in travel documents. It also developed privacy policies after an uproar over the disclosure that airlines turned over their passengers' personal information to the government.

The last privacy report was submitted in February 2005.

Bush's signing statement Wednesday challenges several other provisions in the Homeland Security spending bill.

Bush, for example, said he'd disregard a requirement that the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency must have at least five years experience and "demonstrated ability in and knowledge of emergency management and homeland security."

His rationale was that it "rules out a large portion of those persons best qualified by experience and knowledge to fill the office."

The former FBI agent, Jack Cloonan, knew the list that was hastily assembled after 9/11, would be bungled. "When we heard the name list or no-fly list ... the eyes rolled back in my head, because we knew what was going to happen," he says. "They basically did a massive data dump and said, 'Okay, anybody that's got a nexus to terrorism, let's make sure they get on the list,'" he tells Kroft.

The "data dump" of names from the files of several government agencies, including the CIA, fed into the computer compiling the list contained many unlikely terrorists. These include Saddam Hussein, who is under arrest, Nabih Berri, Lebanon's parliamentary speaker, and Evo Morales, the president of Bolivia. It also includes the names of 14 of the 19 dead 9/11 hijackers.

But the names of some of the most dangerous living terrorists or suspects are kept off the list.

The 11 British suspects recently charged with plotting to blow up airliners with liquid explosives were not on it, despite the fact they were under surveillance for more than a year.

The name of David Belfield who now goes by Dawud Sallahuddin, is not on the list, even though he assassinated someone in Washington, D.C., for former Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini. This is because the accuracy of the list meant to uphold security takes a back seat to overarching security needs: it could get into the wrong hands. "The government doesn't want that information outside the government," says Cathy Berrick, director of Homeland Security investigations for the General Accounting Office.

Berrick says Homeland Security would probably agree that leaving such names off the list is a concern. The Transportation Security Administration is trying to fix the list through a program called "Secure Flight," says Berrick, but after three years and an estimated $144 million spent on the program, there's "nothing tangible yet," she says.

Even if the list is made more accurate, it won't help thousands of innocent travelers who share a common name on the list and who get detained, sometimes for hours, when they attempt to fly.

Gary Smith, John Williams and Robert Johnson are some of those names. Kroft talked to 12 people with the name Robert Johnson, all of whom are detained almost every time they fly. The detentions can include strip searches and long delays in their travels.

"Well, Robert Johnson will never get off the list," says Donna Bucella, who oversaw the creation of the list and has headed up the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center since 2003. She regrets the trouble they experience, but chalks it up to the price of security in the post-9/11 world. "They're going to be inconvenienced every time ... because they do have the name of a person who's a known or suspected terrorist," says Bucella.

Cloonan, when shown a copy of the list from March 2006, tells Kroft, "I did see Osama bin Laden, both with an "O" in the first name and "U" in the second...I was glad to see that. But some of the other names I see here...I just have to scratch my head and say, 'My God, what have we created here?'"

Negotiations were primarily over which information will be shared with the American counter-terrorist organisations such as the FBI or the CIA.

Negotiations collapsed last week, creating a legal vacuum where airlines risked losing landing rights in the US if they did not supply the data or legal action in the EU if they did.

The deal involves 34 pieces of data about passengers flying from Europe to US destinations, including addresses, telephone numbers and credit card numbers.

The data - including passengers' names, addresses and credit card details - must be transferred to US authorities within 15 minutes of a US-bound flight's departure.

EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini said new mechanisms had been agreed to distribute data from airlines to the US, the BBC reported.

US officials will now only be able to access data by having information "pushed" from airline computer systems. Previously the US could "pull" data from the systems whenever it was needed.

The new accord will expire at the end of July 2007 and negotiations over a permanent deal will start in November.

Seats are getting crowded on the anti-Chavez bandwagon as retailer 7-Eleven announced it will drop Venezuelan-owned CITGO gasoline from its 2,100 service stations in the United States in protest and Florida lawmaker Rep. Adam Hasner has called for CITGO to be kicked off of the state's turnpike.

But perhaps we should try to understand why so many people around the globe are upset with the United States rather than simply dismiss Chavez as a despot or off his rocker.

A quick glance at recent US policy and posture toward Venezuela gives us some clues as to why people in Venezuela are getting set to reelect a President who calls the United States an empire.

US role in 2002 coup

A good place to start is the short-lived 2002 coup in Venezuela. While the United States publicly denies any role in the coup, numerous published reports show that at the very least the United States had a cozy relationship with many of the opposition figures who allegedly planned the coup and immediately welcomed the overthrow of the democratically elected president.

The US government, through the National Endowment for Democracy and ominously named Office of Transition Initiatives, has funneled millions of dollars to some of the most radical elements of domestic opposition in Venezuela, including political parties.

Do you think President Bush and Karl Rove would be upset if the tables were turned and Chavez were funding a 527 group supporting the Democrats in the mid-term elections?

Few would praise Chavez for his diplomacy. But while Chavez' gaffe got non-stop play in the US media, the same media pay little attention as Washington pulls no punches in its rhetoric against the Venezuelan President. In February, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld equated Chavez to Hitler. ''We've got Chavez in Venezuela with a lot of oil money,'' said Rumsfeld. "He's a person who was elected legally, just as Adolf Hitler was elected legally.''

The 2006 National Security Strategy refers to Chavez as ''a demagogue awash in oil money'' who is undermining democracy and seeking to destabilize the region.

At the same time, the United States is stepping up its spying efforts in Venezuela. In August the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, announced the creation of a new ''mission manager'' position for Venezuela and Cuba. According to the State Department, the only other countries in the world with ''mission managers'' based out of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence are Iran and North Korea. Unconfirmed reports among security analysts suggest a recent 50% increase in CIA agents operating in Venezuela.

Let Venezuelans decide

Clearly the situation is not all rosy in Venezuela. Chavez recently admitted that the military was responsible for the killing of six miners in a clash in southern Venezuela. Yet he immediately called for a full investigation and punishment for those found responsible. ''This government isn't covering up, nor will it cover up any abuse,'' Chavez said.

At the same time, he has bolstered his popularity by using oil revenue -- long funneled into the pockets of bureaucrats -- to pay for arguably the most comprehensive social programs in South America.

Before making snap judgments based on Chavez's fiery rhetoric, we should ask the question: Why is Chavez so mad? The answer may be unsavory.

* Welcoming an unconstitutional coup, supporting radical domestic opposition and ramping up espionage would make any sane president upset.

Many in the United States and Venezuela have called on the US Congress and the Bush administration to let the Venezuelan people decide their fate, without interference from Washington.

When Venezuelans go to the polls on December 3, they are likely to reelect Chavez.

It is up to Venezuelans, and Venezuelans alone, to decide who leads their country, despite his strong words against Bush.

Venezuela says it will cut oil production 50,000 barrels a day to try to stem the recent fall in oil prices.

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Frias says he received warnings from within the White House that the Bush administration is plotting to assassinate him or topple his duly-elected government.

Chavez says Bush wants him killed before he leaves office...

* Mr. Chavez says there was a recent attempt to assassinate him and said those responsible had since fled to Colombia.

Mr. Chavez runs for president again on 12/3 and intends to rule for 14 more years.

First signs of impending overtures to Taliban from Washington came last month when Bush and his aides gingerly supported Pakistan's agreement with Taliban in the Waziristan province, a deal which was panned in strategic circles as a sell-out to extremists at the expense of US and NATO ground troops in Afghanistan.

Undeterred by the criticism, the Bush subsequently persuaded Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who is vehemently opposed to the deal, to 'wait and see' how the Pakistani deal works.

Now comes advice from Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist that the Bush administration should consider bringing Taliban back into the power equation in Kabul.

Arguing that Taliban fighters were "too numerous and too popular" to be defeated, Frist told reporters after a visit to Afghanistan last weekend that "You need to bring them (Taliban) into a more transparent type of government... And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful."

"Approaching counterinsurgency by winning hearts and minds will ultimately be the answer. Military versus insurgency one-to-one doesn't sound like it can be won. It sounds to me... that the Taliban is everywhere," he was quoted as saying.

The remarks sparked outrage in US political-strategic circles with critics panning Frist, who is a doctor by profession, of waving the white flag before elements who helped perpetuate 9/11.

"Senator Frist now suggests that the best way forward in Afghanistan is to coddle the Taliban by welcoming Taliban members into a coalition government, as if 9/11 had never happened," Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi chafed in a statement. Frist, who is a Republican Presidential aspirant in 2008, was also criticized by John Kerry.

Not that the Democrats have a great record with the fundamentalist yahoos first mid-wifed by the Pakistani military to get a foothold in Afghanistan and gain strategic depth against India, which prefers the more broad-based and pan-Afghan Northern Alliance.

In Thailand, where officials have been waging a bloody fight with Muslim separatists for the last two years, some teachers carry weapons for self defense as they are viewed as part of the government. In Israel, teachers are not allowed to carry weapons in the school, but security guards at the entrances are armed.

Lasee said he planned to introduce legislation that would allow school personnel to carry concealed weapons. He stressed that it would hinge on school staff members getting strict training on the use of the weapons, and he acknowledged he would have to work around a federal law that bans guns on school grounds.

The director of school safety for Milwaukee Public Schools, Pete Pochowski, opposed the idea.

"Statistically, the safest place for a child to be is in school," Pochowski said. "We have problems in our schools, but not to the point where we need to arm our teachers and principals."

Last week, a 15-year-old Wisconsin student was arrested in the shooting death of Weston Schools Principal John Klang. The criminal complaint said the teen brought guns to school to confront students, teachers and the principal.

A spokeswoman for the Louisiana Recovery Authority, Natalie Wyeth, called the results "the definitive, most precise set of numbers we've seen."

The survey was conducted for the authority and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals by the Louisiana Public Health Institute.

Population estimates have ranged widely for New Orleans.

For example, a recent report by a local demographer estimated there were about 230,000 people. Mayor Ray Nagin has cited a slightly higher figure, and last month said he believed the city was on track to reach 300,000 people by year's end.

The results are meant to help planners determine where clinics, schools, transit systems and other key infrastructure should be placed, Wyeth said.

Referring to the warning that a nuclear-armed DPRK would be "unacceptable," Snow said "It's a statement -- no, it's not a lethal threat."

"It's a statement of our policy, which is, we don't think they should have nuclear weapons," Snow said.

The United States has been pursuing diplomatic means to prevent the DPRK from pursuing its nuclear program, the spokesman said.

The DPRK announced Tuesday that it will undertake an unprecedented nuclear test. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that a nuclear test by the DPRK would be a "very provocative" act.

Pyongyang declared in February 2005 it had nuclear weapons, but there have been no reports of a test.