Month: July 2005


  • Alaa Al-Marjani/Associated Press

    Iraqis gathered Sunday at the scene of an explosion in Musayyib, south of Baghdad, where a suicide bomber ignited a fuel tanker on Saturday.

    July 18, 2005
    Iraqis Stunned by the Violence of a Bombing
    By KIRK SEMPLE

    BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 18 – Even in Iraq, where shocking killings have become part of daily life, some acts are so profoundly violent that the country seems to pause, trying to fathom what happened.

    That was the case on Sunday, after a suicide bomber appeared in Musayyib, a poor town just south of Baghdad, and blew himself up under a fuel tanker on Saturday night, igniting a fireball that engulfed cars, shops and homes. At least 71 people died; 156 were wounded. Some bodies were badly charred, making identification difficult. Some senior elected officials and civic and religious leaders spoke out on Sunday, condemning the attack, one of a wave of suicide bombings that has shaken the greater Baghdad area in the past eight days. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most revered Shiite cleric in Iraq, asked the government “to defend this country against the mass annihilation,” according to Vice President Adel Abdul Mahdi, who led a delegation that visited the ayatollah on Sunday.

    But nothing has stopped the bombings. In Baghdad, four suicide bombers struck within a span of four and a half hours on Sunday.

    An Interior Ministry official listed the attacks: at 8 a.m., a car exploded at a checkpoint guarded by ministry commandos, killing three of them and wounding 10 civilians. Another car bomb killed a police commando and a civilian and wounded five civilians at 9:45 a.m. A third detonated near an office of the High Electoral Commission in Baghdad at 11:10 a.m., killing three and wounding one. The fourth struck at 12:30 p.m., killing one civilian and wounding another.

    Today, the police found three corpses in Baghdad with marks from apparent torture on their bodies, and the body of an old man near a highway, according to an interior ministry official. In separate attacks in and near Baghdad, three policemen were killed in shooting attacks, the ministry said.

    The surge of suicide attacks torturing the capital has seemingly confounded Iraqi and American forces, which have focused their Baghdad security efforts on stopping the bombers. Attacks are often undetectable until the last seconds before detonation, especially in the case of moving car bombs, and nearby civilians can slow the reaction of security forces.

    Additionally, no obvious pattern has appeared in the recent string of attacks except that, like the scores of others that have made suicide bombs a prominent feature of this war, they have often singled out Shiites in large numbers or Iraqi and international security forces.

    The National Assembly called for three minutes of silence nationwide on Wednesday to commemorate the Musayyib victims, as well as those in a suicide attack last Wednesday in Baghdad that killed more than two dozen people, mostly children.

    Early leads in the investigation into the Musayyib attack suggest that insurgents had carefully planned it for maximum civilian casualties.

    Several days earlier, the truck, which belonged to Iraq’s Oil Ministry, had been hijacked by armed insurgents and the driver kidnapped en route from Baghdad to Falluja, according to an official at the Interior Ministry, who requested anonymity for fear of administrative punishment or reprisals from the insurgents.

    “The only explanation the Interior Ministry has now is that the whole operation was arranged, and an insurgent was waiting in Musayyib to blow himself up at the location,” the official said in a telephone interview.

    “The situation is not good, and not what we hoped for,” Hussein al-Shaalan, a member of the National Assembly, said in a telephone interview. The National Assembly intends to question the interior and defense ministers in the coming days about ways to improve the nation’s domestic security.

    Since the insurgency coalesced in the months after the ouster of Saddam Hussein, the level of guerrilla violence in Iraq has been cyclical. Mindful that rebel activity sometimes spikes in the weeks or days leading up to specific political events, including elections and transfers of power, military officials predict a rise in insurgent attacks between now and the mid-August date set for the constitutional convention, and again before the mid-October constitutional referendum and in advance of the national elections in December.

    The current guerrilla campaign comes several weeks after the American authorities announced what they said was a successful effort to severely reduce the ability of insurgents to launch attacks in the capital — timing that suggests that the bombings may be a response to the American command’s claims.

    The attacks also come as most of the country’s major Sunni Arab communities have begun to coalesce around a commitment to get out the Sunni Arab vote in the December elections for a full government, a decision the government views as a further step toward solidifying a political process that the insurgency has been trying to undermine.

    Military analysts say that although it is difficult to assess the insurgency’s organization, they believe that the attackers have a flat structure without complicated hierarchies. Much of the violence is carried out by independent cells that may communicate on certain occasions with high-level leaders but mostly take broad guidance from Web sites and videos, and set up their own attack schedules within their own regions.

    According to military analysts, insurgents have learned in recent months that while attacking Iraqi or the American-led coalition forces has a certain propaganda payoff, it is much easier to strike civilian targets that have far less protection than troops or installations. And such attacks have the side effect of sowing chaos and distrust within the government.

    Nabeel Muhammad, senior lecturer in international relations at Baghdad University, said in a telephone interview on Sunday that the insurgency was “desperate to start a sectarian unrest in the country.”

    “They keep looking for new methods to attack, and the Iraqi people are the only victim.”

    The insurgents have shown a keen ability to adapt and strengthen their tactics. Saturday’s attack in Musayyib may be a case in point.

    Adnan Ahmed, 35, a local government official who saw the bombing, explained that a man wearing a body belt of explosives dove underneath a propane fuel tanker and detonated himself shortly after 8 p.m. as the street teemed with pedestrians, including Shiite worshipers heading to the mosque and shoppers in the nearby market.

    The explosion appeared to blow a hole in the bottom of the tank and ignite the fuel inside, officials say. Yet the resulting fireball left the huge fuel cylinder mostly intact.

    All night, rescuers and relatives rushed survivors to hospitals around the region and carted bodies to morgues, and others battled the fires that gutted buildings and left behind a junkyard of blackened cars.

    By late Sunday afternoon, an eerie, haunting quiet descended over the site. Few spoke at all.

    It was the most deadly suicide bombing since Feb. 28, when a driver detonated his sedan full of explosives in a crowd of Iraqi police and army recruits in Hilla, killing at least 122 people.

    Despite the huge toll in recent attacks, the Iraqi police have scored two victories against suicide bombers in the past week, capturing two men in the midst of separate suicide attacks.

    On Thursday, Iraqi guards at a checkpoint outside the Green Zone in central Baghdad captured a suicide bomber who was part of a triple suicide attack.

    And on Saturday, during a funeral for children who died in the bombing on Wednesday, a unit of the Iraqi police stopped a suspicious-looking man approaching the funeral procession and discovered that he was wearing a suicide vest filled with explosives and ball bearings, the American command reported Sunday.

    An explosives team disarmed the man, a Libyan, and no one was hurt, according to the American military.

    “The bomber was high on drugs and is being treated for the potential overdose,” said Col. Joseph DiSalvo, an American commander. The bomber, he said, “came here to kill the grieving parents of the children who were killed on Wednesday.”

    “I cannot imagine a worse crime.”

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top


  • Yannis Kontos/Polaris, for The New York
    Times



    Yannis Kontos/Polaris, for The New York Times
    Some of the visitors fascinated by the Thames River, and the history that surrounds it, took a boat ride Sunday. The Tower Bridge is in the distance



    Yannis Kontos/Polaris, for The New York Times

    The bombing of trains and buses in London did not deter this busload of casually attired tourists from getting a look at the House of Commons.


    Tourism slowed briefly in London  after the terrorist bombings, but has returned to normal levels.

    July 12, 2005
    Attacks Create Only a Brief Pause in the Tourist Swarm to London
    By HEATHER TIMMONS
    LONDON, July 11 – Hoping to reassure London visitors in the wake of last week’s attacks on trains and buses, the deputy chief constable of the British Transport Police, Andrew Trotter, declared the city “open for business” over the weekend.

    By some measures, it seemed that he really did not need to make the announcement.

    After a dip on Friday, attendance at London tourist attractions like the National Gallery and Madame Tussaud’s wax museum soon returned to normal levels. Warm and sunny weather drew crowds to the galleries, and Thames River boats and top-class hotels were mostly filled.

    Tour operators are reporting few or no cancellations, and some even said Monday that they had received more calls than usual about booking trips to London since Thursday’s attacks, particularly from Americans eager to turn their sympathy into something tangible.

    To be sure, this is peak tourist season. Still, the quick bounce back for much of London’s tourist industry may signal a greater shift in the way that travelers, especially Americans, view the world nearly four years after the terrorist attacks of September 2001 ground the tourism industry to a halt, visitors and tourism industry professionals say.

    “People are more resigned to the existence of terrorism, and in turn are more conditioned to moving forward with their normal lives,” said Hank Phillips, president of the National Tour Association, which represents 600 United States tour companies. None of his members have reported cancellations of London trips, he said.

    This weekend, crowds were so thick on the north side of Westminster Bridge, near the Houses of Parliament, that bottlenecks formed at the crosswalks.

    Couples, families and school groups from around the world, lugging video cameras, water bottles and fold-out maps, pushed past honey-roasted nut peddlers and kiosks with postcards of the royal family and Union Jack T-shirts.

    The visitors posed in front of Big Ben, then clambered onto boats that cruise between the bridge and the Tower of London, or formed lines to board the London Eye, the 450-foot observation wheel that looms over the river.

    Some said they had considered canceling their trips after Thursday’s events, but then rejected the idea. “We said a few prayers, and then said ‘Let’s go,’ ” said Mark Jackson, a 42-year-old conferencing executive from Birmingham, Ala., who was cruising the Thames in a sightseeing boat with his wife, mother-in-law and sons (one sporting a Shrek mask).

    The family thought: “You want to stop us? Forget it,” Mr. Jackson said. Still, “I can tell you blindfolded where the American Embassy is,” he said.

    Britain’s booming tourism business brings in revenue of £74 billion a year ($130 billion). Tourism accounts directly for 7 percent of London’s jobs, according to VisitBritain, and 42,000 visitors a day stream into London, about one in five of them from the United States. Other industries are heavily dependent on tourism – for example, a third of the city’s theater tickets are purchased by visitors.

    John Boon, group tour manager at JAC Travel in London, said Monday that since the attacks last week, he had received 20 or 30 more calls than normal from Americans hoping to visit London.

    “British people went to the United States soon after the attacks there,” Mr. Boon said, and he thinks the Americans are returning the favor.

    London has also become an increasingly popular destination for visitors from the east. Russian restaurants and Russian-speaking clerks in designer-clothing shops are cropping up throughout West London, while European budget airlines are bringing new tourists on their return flights. London has just received “approved designation status” from China, which means that Chinese citizens can easily obtain visas for Britain.

    They may have to battle the Americans for tickets. Sue Hollinger and her son Trent were cruising the Thames on Sunday, with 35 high school students from Pennsylvania in matching sky blue T-shirts. The group, which is spending 19 days in France and England, is part of a program intended to increase American students’ appreciation for foreign cultures.

    None of the students were apprehensive about visiting London, although a few parents expressed some concern after the bombings, Mrs. Hollinger said. Fortunately, that day, the group was several hundred miles away.

    The attacks “have not dampened our enthusiasm at all” for travel, she added. Instead, her son said, they have given him a greater appreciation for the “courage of the English.”

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top


  • Saturday will be the 5th (Sunday will be the 6th) straight day with a high of at least 110. Back in July, 1961 we had 10 consecutive 110 degree days… and that’s the record. The slight bump in humidity Friday will dry out over the weekend. Here are the numbers (I hope you’re still sitting down): 114 Saturday, with some neighborhoods near 120. 113 Sunday and some neighborhoods will be near 118. Lows in the upper 80′s. But have a good weekend anyway,








  • Know When to Hold ‘Em
    Monday July 18, 2005 4:00AM PT





    Joseph Hachem
    Joseph Hachem
    Poker‘s popular. Duh, you say. You know it’s hot — you can’t turn on the TV without running into a televised tournament, can’t read a magazine without coming across an article about its elevated profile, and it’s been all-in on Buzz for the past couple of years.

    The buzz surrounding the felt, flop, and fickle fate of players reached new heights with this week’s World Series of Poker main event — the No-Limit Texas Hold ‘Em Championship. This year’s tourney pushed searches on the Series up 197% and into our top 200 searches. Related queries on “World Series of Poker results,” “World Series of Poker Live updates,” and “World Series of Poker standings” all soared mid-week as railbirds looked to see which card shark held the largest chip stack. Searches on WSOP (+258%), wsop.com (+110%), and WSOP results (+341%) finished out a royal flush of World Series related terms.

    The WSOP’s final event is Texas Hold ‘Em‘s holy grail. While the final table wasn’t blessed with any legendary names this year, searches on final table denizens Mike Matusow and Joseph Hachem were aces. Hachem took home the $7.5 million grand prize and will see his buzz profile rise if past champs Chris Moneymaker and Greg Raymer are any example.

    The just-finished finale won’t air on ESPN until mid-November, but judging by the buzz on the Series so far, it’ll be a full house in front of TV sets this fall.


  • July 17, 2005
    Follow the Uranium
    By FRANK RICH

    “I am saying that if anyone was involved in that type of activity which I referred to, they would not be working here.”
    - Ron Ziegler, press secretary to Richard Nixon, defending the presidential aide Dwight Chapin on Oct. 18, 1972. Chapin was convicted in April 1974 of perjury in connection with his relationship to the political saboteur Donald Segretti.

    “Any individual who works here at the White House has the confidence of the president. They wouldn’t be working here at the White House if they didn’t have the president’s confidence.”
    - Scott McClellan, press secretary to George W. Bush, defending Karl Rove on Tuesday.

    WELL, of course, Karl Rove did it. He may not have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, with its high threshold of criminality for outing a covert agent, but there’s no doubt he trashed Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. We know this not only because of Matt Cooper’s e-mail, but also because of Mr. Rove’s own history. Trashing is in his nature, and bad things happen, usually through under-the-radar whispers, to decent people (and their wives) who get in his way. In the 2000 South Carolina primary, John McCain’s wife, Cindy, was rumored to be a drug addict (and Senator McCain was rumored to be mentally unstable). In the 1994 Texas governor’s race, Ann Richards found herself rumored to be a lesbian. The implication that Mr. Wilson was a John Kerry-ish girlie man beholden to his wife for his meal ticket is of a thematic piece with previous mud splattered on Rove political adversaries. The difference is that this time Mr. Rove got caught.

    Even so, we shouldn’t get hung up on him – or on most of the other supposed leading figures in this scandal thus far. Not Matt Cooper or Judy Miller or the Wilsons or the bad guy everyone loves to hate, the former CNN star Robert Novak. This scandal is not about them in the end, any more than Watergate was about Dwight Chapin and Donald Segretti or Woodward and Bernstein. It is about the president of the United States. It is about a plot that was hatched at the top of the administration and in which everyone else, Mr. Rove included, are at most secondary players.

    To see the main plot, you must sweep away the subplots, starting with the Cooper e-mail. It has been brandished as a smoking gun by Bush bashers and as exculpatory evidence by Bush backers (Mr. Rove, you see, was just trying to ensure that Time had its facts straight). But no one knows what this e-mail means unless it’s set against the avalanche of other evidence, most of it secret, including what Mr. Rove said in three appearances before the grand jury. Therein lies the rub, or at least whatever case might be made for perjury.

    Another bogus subplot, long popular on the left, has it that Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, gave Mr. Novak a free pass out of ideological comradeship. But Mr. Fitzgerald, both young (44) and ambitious, has no record of Starr- or Ashcroft-style partisanship (his contempt for the press notwithstanding) or known proclivity for committing career suicide. What’s most likely is that Mr. Novak, more of a common coward than the prince of darkness he fashions himself to be, found a way to spill some beans and avoid Judy Miller’s fate. That the investigation has dragged on so long anyway is another indication of the expanded reach of the prosecutorial web.

    Apparently this is finally beginning to dawn on Mr. Bush’s fiercest defenders and on Mr. Bush himself. Hence, last week’s erection of the stonewall manned by the almost poignantly clownish Mr. McClellan, who abruptly rendered inoperative his previous statements that any suspicions about Mr. Rove are “totally ridiculous.” The morning after Mr. McClellan went mano a mano with his tormentors in the White House press room – “We’ve secretly replaced the White House press corps with actual reporters,” observed Jon Stewart – the ardently pro-Bush New York Post ran only five paragraphs of a wire-service story on Page 12. That conspicuous burial of what was front-page news beyond Murdochland speaks loudly about the rising anxiety on the right. Since then, White House surrogates have been desperately babbling talking points attacking Joseph Wilson as a partisan and a liar.

    These attacks, too, are red herrings. Let me reiterate: This case is not about Joseph Wilson. He is, in Alfred Hitchcock’s parlance, a MacGuffin, which, to quote the Oxford English Dictionary, is “a particular event, object, factor, etc., initially presented as being of great significance to the story, but often having little actual importance for the plot as it develops.” Mr. Wilson, his mission to Niger to check out Saddam’s supposed attempts to secure uranium that might be used in nuclear weapons and even his wife’s outing have as much to do with the real story here as Janet Leigh’s theft of office cash has to do with the mayhem that ensues at the Bates Motel in “Psycho.”

    This case is about Iraq, not Niger. The real victims are the American people, not the Wilsons. The real culprit – the big enchilada, to borrow a 1973 John Ehrlichman phrase from the Nixon tapes – is not Mr. Rove but the gang that sent American sons and daughters to war on trumped-up grounds and in so doing diverted finite resources, human and otherwise, from fighting the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. That’s why the stakes are so high: this scandal is about the unmasking of an ill-conceived war, not the unmasking of a C.I.A. operative who posed for Vanity Fair.

    So put aside Mr. Wilson’s February 2002 trip to Africa. The plot that matters starts a month later, in March, and its omniscient author is Dick Cheney. It was Mr. Cheney (on CNN) who planted the idea that Saddam was “actively pursuing nuclear weapons at this time.” The vice president went on to repeat this charge in May on “Meet the Press,” in three speeches in August and on “Meet the Press” yet again in September. Along the way the frightening word “uranium” was thrown into the mix.

    By September the president was bandying about the u-word too at the United Nations and elsewhere, speaking of how Saddam needed only a softball-size helping of uranium to wreak Armageddon on America. But hardly had Mr. Bush done so than, offstage, out of view of us civilian spectators, the whole premise of this propaganda campaign was being challenged by forces with more official weight than Joseph Wilson. In October, the National Intelligence Estimate, distributed to Congress as it deliberated authorizing war, included the State Department’s caveat that “claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa,” made public in a British dossier, were “highly dubious.” A C.I.A. assessment, sent to the White House that month, determined that “the evidence is weak” and “the Africa story is overblown.”

    AS if this weren’t enough, a State Department intelligence analyst questioned the legitimacy of some mysterious documents that had surfaced in Italy that fall and were supposed proof of the Iraq-Niger uranium transaction. In fact, they were blatant forgeries. When Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said as much publicly in the days just before “shock and awe,” his announcement made none of the three evening newscasts. The administration’s apocalyptic uranium rhetoric, sprinkled with mushroom clouds, had been hammered incessantly for more than five months by then – not merely in the State of the Union address – and could not be dislodged. As scenarios go, this one was about as subtle as “Independence Day” and just as unstoppable a crowd-pleaser.

    Once we were locked into the war, and no W.M.D.’s could be found, the original plot line was dropped with an alacrity that recalled the “Never mind!” with which Gilda Radner’s Emily Litella used to end her misinformed Weekend Update commentaries on “Saturday Night Live.” The administration began its dog-ate-my-homework cover-up, asserting that the various warning signs about the uranium claims were lost “in the bowels” of the bureaucracy or that it was all the C.I.A.’s fault or that it didn’t matter anyway, because there were new, retroactive rationales to justify the war. But the administration knows how guilty it is. That’s why it has so quickly trashed any insider who contradicts its story line about how we got to Iraq, starting with the former Treasury secretary Paul O’Neill and the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke.

    Next to White House courtiers of their rank, Mr. Wilson is at most a Rosencrantz or Guildenstern. The brief against the administration’s drumbeat for war would be just as damning if he’d never gone to Africa. But by overreacting in panic to his single Op-Ed piece of two years ago, the White House has opened a Pandora’s box it can’t slam shut. Seasoned audiences of presidential scandal know that there’s only one certainty ahead: the timing of a Karl Rove resignation. As always in this genre, the knight takes the fall at exactly that moment when it’s essential to protect the king.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top


  • At Sea



    Anyone daydreaming of solitude on a crowded beach this summer might wish to trade places with the bathers in these images, part of a series begun four years ago by Richard Misrach. All of the pictures were taken from a balcony of a Hawaiian island hotel that he previously discovered while on vacation. To create the feeling of hovering above the swimmers, he deliberately excludes the horizon line from the frame — he’s making art, not documentary photographs — and he reinforces the feeling of aloneness in some cases by digitally removing other swimmers from the water in the post-production phase of his picture-making.


    There’s another, more disquieting revelation in these photographs, one resulting from seeing these small human figures afloat in such vast seascapes. As in much of his other work — his images of the desert or of the sky above the Golden Gate Bridge, for example — Misrach here uses scale to put people in what he sees as their proper perspective. ”The huge scale enhances the beauty and the sense of the sublime,” he says of his pictures, ”but it also begins to expose our vulnerability and fragility as human beings.”



    Richard Misrach

    Untitled, 2003. Negative No. 1,123-03.


    Richard Misrach

    Untitled, 2003. Negative No. 260-03


  • Alexander Chadwick/Associated Press

    July 17, 2005
    Battlefields
    By RICHARD A. CLARKE

    The carnage in the London Underground follows an even more horrendous attack on Madrid commuters 16 months ago. When President Bush sought recently to reassure Americans about his Iraq policy, he emphasized that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so that we do not have to fight them here at home. Unfortunately for Britain and Spain, fighting terrorists in Iraq did not immunize them from attacks at home.

    Earlier this year the administration revealed that Osama bin Laden had communicated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of ”Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia,” urging him to send some of his many fighters to the homelands of the United States and its coalition allies. Zarqawi’s network has apparently been quite successful in recruiting new terrorists in Arab nations and in Islamic communities in Europe. Before the London attacks, the police arrested Zarqawi recruiters in Britain, Germany, Spain and elsewhere. (Among those arrested in Spain was a terrorist thought to be connected to the Madrid attacks.) Iraq acts both as a motivator for the new jihadis and as a training ground. It has replaced Afghanistan, Chechnya and Bosnia. Now, Muslim radical youth go to Iraq to prove themselves and learn the trade of terror.

    A recent C.I.A. analysis reportedly concluded that those being recruited by Zarqawi are receiving better training and preparation by fighting in Iraq than previous terrorists received from bin Laden in Afghanistan. The report went on to say that these new terrorists will probably leave Iraq and practice their skills elsewhere. A Canadian Intelligence Security Service analysis reportedly says that terrorists trained in Iraq are likely to be involved in attacks in other countries. Commenting on the report, a former Canadian security officer said that terrorists are ”still planning very imaginative actions like we saw on 9/11.”

    Although the United States made legal entry into the country more difficult after 9/11, it is still possible for potential terrorists to come here. Many of the new jihadis are citizens of European nations to which we grant visa-free entry. A jihadi might also come illegally, as millions of people do each year. Thus many security experts believe that it is only a matter of time until another attack occurs in the United States.

    Members of the 9/11 Commission recently warned that the absence of an attack here in the last four years has created an atmosphere of complacency in which needed security improvements are given inadequate attention. Their warning should be heeded. The London Underground bombings highlighted, for example, one of the many areas where we remain vulnerable. Although the federal government has spent approximately $18 billion since 9/11 upgrading airline security, it has spent only $250 million on passenger-rail security. Any regular traveler can see the results. While I have been unable to carry a small scissors onto an aircraft, I have successfully carried a gun onto a passenger train.

    In the hours after the London attacks, police officers flooded subway systems in the United States to beef up security. The fact that they had to do so is further evidence that these systems lack adequate protection. Increased use of closed-circuit cameras, uniformed guards and undercover officers in stations and on trains would reduce the likelihood of a successful attack on commuter rail lines.

    The best way, however, to stop such attacks is through intelligence penetrations of terrorist circles. Only last month, almost four years after 9/11, did the administration agree to create a National Security Service within the F.B.I. to enhance our ability to perform such penetrations. It will be more years before this service is fully operational.

    Why do we still find ourselves with so many domestic vulnerabilities? One major reason is that we have not spent what is necessary. When the Department of Homeland Security was created, the White House said it should be ”revenue neutral,” i.e., no new money. Since then, homeland security spending has grown very slowly. The amount budgeted has not been based on needs assessment but on arbitrary decisions in an overall fiscal environment made difficult by skyrocketing spending in Iraq. Unfortunately, spending in Iraq will not immunize America from terrorist attacks at home any more than it did Spain or Britain.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top


  • Andrea Mohin/The New York Times

    Though intended for patients who need help walking, M. J. Trans Corporation’s medical vans regularly transported people who required no assistance.

    July 18, 2005
    New York Medicaid Fraud May Reach Into Billions
    By CLIFFORD J. LEVY and MICHAEL LUO

    It was created 40 years ago to provide health care for the poorest New Yorkers, offering a lifeline to those who could not afford to have a baby or a heart attack. But in the decades since, New York State’s Medicaid program has also become a $44.5 billion target for the unscrupulous and the opportunistic.

    It has drawn dentists like Dr. Dolly Rosen, who within 12 months somehow built the state’s biggest Medicaid dental practice out of a Brooklyn storefront, where she claimed to have performed as many as 991 procedures a day in 2003. After The New York Times discovered her extraordinary billings through a computer analysis and questioned the state about them, Dr. Rosen and two associates were indicted on charges of stealing more than $1 million from the program.

    It has drawn van services, intended as medical transportation for patients who cannot walk unaided, that regularly picked up scores of people who walked quite easily when a reporter was watching nearby. In cooperation with medical offices that order these services, the ambulettes typically cost the taxpayers more than $50 a round trip, adding up to $200 million a year. In some cases, the rides that the state paid for may never have taken place.

    School officials around the state have enrolled tens of thousands of low-income students in speech therapy without the required evaluation, garnering more than $1 billion in questionable Medicaid payments for their districts. One Buffalo school official sent 4,434 students into speech therapy in a single day without talking to them or reviewing their records, according to federal investigators.

    Nursing home operators have received substantial salaries and profits from Medicaid payments, while keeping staffing levels below the national average. One operator took in $1.5 million in salary and profit in the same year he was fined for neglecting the home’s residents.

    Medicaid has even drawn several criminal rings that duped the program into paying for an expensive muscle-building drug intended for AIDS patients that was then diverted to bodybuilders, at a cost of tens of millions. A single doctor in Brooklyn prescribed $11.5 million worth of the drug, the vast majority of it after the state said it had tightened rules for covering the drug.

    New York’s Medicaid program, once a beacon of the Great Society era, has become so huge, so complex and so lightly policed that it is easily exploited. Though the program is a vital resource for 4.2 million poor people who rely on it for their health care, a yearlong investigation by The Times found that the program has been misspending billions of dollars annually because of fraud, waste and profiteering. A computer analysis of several million records obtained under the state Freedom of Information Law revealed numerous indications of fraud and abuse that the state had never looked into.

    “It’s like a honey pot,” said John M. Meekins, a former senior Medicaid fraud prosecutor in Albany who said he grew increasingly disillusioned before he retired in 2003. “It truly is. That is what they use it for.”

    State health officials denied in interviews that Medicaid was easily cheated, saying that they were doing an excellent job of overseeing the program.

    “This continues to be an area where we think that we have made substantial progress,” said Dennis P. Whalen, executive deputy commissioner of the State Health Department. “But by no means are we sitting back and resting on the accomplishments that we have made.”

    Nonetheless, after being informed of The Times’s findings, the Republican majority in the State Senate began a push recently to overhaul the system intended to protect Medicaid, which has been sharply reduced even as Gov. George E. Pataki and lawmakers have nearly doubled the program’s budget over the last decade. The Democratic majority in the Assembly has remained on the sidelines. So has Mr. Pataki.

    New York’s Medicaid program is by far the most expensive and most generous in the nation. It spends far more – now $44.5 billion annually – than that of any other state, even California, whose Medicaid program covers about 55 percent more people. New York’s Medicaid budget is larger than most states’ entire budgets, and it spends nearly twice the national average – roughly $10,600, more than any other state – on each of its 4.2 million recipients, one in every five New Yorkers.

    That generosity was born of good intentions when Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller signed the program into law in 1966, following the state’s tradition of creating big antipoverty programs. But Medicaid has become far more than the child of that altruism, having morphed into an economic engine that fuels one of the state’s biggest industries, leaving fraud and unnecessary spending to grow in its wake.

    There are no precise estimates for the cost to the state’s program. Officials who have spent their careers chasing unscrupulous doctors and other providers in New York Medicaid say the losses to taxpayers here are probably higher than typical estimates of overall health care fraud. The Government Accountability Office in Washington and others have estimated that 10 percent of all health care spending nationally is lost to “fraud and abuse.”

    James Mehmet, who retired in 2001 as chief state investigator of Medicaid fraud and abuse in New York City, said he and his colleagues believed that at least 10 percent of state Medicaid dollars were spent on fraudulent claims, while 20 or 30 percent more were siphoned off by what they termed abuse, meaning unnecessary spending that might not be criminal. “So we’re talking about 40 percent of all claims are questionable,” Mr. Mehmet said – an amount that would approach $18 billion a year.

    Despite the debate, and the enormous sums at stake, Albany has never formally studied how much of the huge government investment in Medicaid is lost to criminal activity and abuse.

    For their part, federal auditors have made New York a leading target for inspection as Washington has begun to crack down on Medicaid spending abuses. The federal government shares the cost of Medicaid with the states. In New York, it pays half the bill; Albany splits the rest of the cost with its counties and New York City.

    The lax regulation of the program did not come about by chance. Doctors, hospitals, health care unions and drug companies have long resisted attempts to increase the policing of Medicaid. The pharmaceutical industry, which has spent millions of dollars annually on political contributions and lobbying in Albany, has defeated several attempts to limit the drugs covered by Medicaid; other states have saved hundreds of millions of dollars annually with such restrictions.

    Earlier this year, after the Legislature agreed to impose such a limit and steer patients to generic drugs, the industry won a major loophole that allowed any doctor to substitute a higher-priced brand name with a simple phone call to the state.

    Governor Pataki would not be interviewed about Medicaid for this article, and his aides referred questions to the State Department of Health, which is part of his administration. The health commissioner, Dr. Antonia C. Novello, also declined to be interviewed.

    In defending the department’s performance, Mr. Whalen, the executive deputy commissioner, said it had saved $9.3 billion in recent years through investigations of providers, a new computer system and other measures.

    Asked repeatedly to provide an in-depth explanation of their claim of major savings or for any state records or other documentation to back up the figures, department officials would not supply any.

    The Times investigation drew upon interviews with scores of current and former officials and health-care providers, including several former investigators who say they left the state disillusioned about its commitment to fighting fraud. A review of thousands of pages of state, federal and local records turned up repeated examples of cost savings and waste reduction used by the federal government and other states, but not by New York.

    The investigation found audits on Medicaid spending that were brushed aside, and reports on waste that appear to have been shelved. There have been multiple warnings from watchdog agencies in New York and in Washington that indicate that the program is becoming increasingly porous. Prosecutors said state regulators had all but lost interest in bringing Medicaid thieves to justice, preferring instead to focus on recouping money through a few civil cases that have little deterrent value.

    The Dentist

    On the streets of Downtown Brooklyn, the young men would regularly fan out to drum up business for Fulton Gentle Family Dentistry.

    “Got a Medicaid card?” one of the men shouted one day last November. “Come in and get your free CD player right now!”

    But inside the office at 575 Fulton Street, Dr. Dolly Rosen seemed to make money whether or not the barkers did their job. She simply invented the dental work she did, according to state prosecutors alerted by The Times, and then billed it to Medicaid. And the breadth of her deception was enormous, the prosecutors said.

    In 2003, less than two years after joining Medicaid, Dr. Rosen and an associate reaped $5.4 million, more than the amounts garnered by 98 percent of providers of all types in the entire New York program, according to the analysis of Medicaid billings.

    Dr. Rosen claimed to be doing thousands of procedures every month, far more than any group of dentists could possibly perform, according to the analysis and interviews with dental experts.

    In September 2003, she charged Medicaid roughly $725,000 for 9,500 individual dental procedures, many of them expensive and complicated, such as filling cavities that had rotted away much of the tooth. On a single day that month, she billed for 991 procedures, or more than 100 an hour in a typical workday.

    In criminal complaints, an investigator said that more than 80 percent of the procedures for which the dental office billed were not performed, were unnecessary or were improper.

    Dr. Rosen, who is 48 and lives in Manhattan, was licensed in 1995 and joined the Medicaid program in 2002. Since then, she has billed taxpayers more than $7 million.

    She and her lawyer, Jeffrey A. Granat, would not comment.

    The allegations of fraud in this case involved dentistry, but in the world of New York Medicaid, this kind of scheme is not unusual in any specialty, although it rarely occurs on such a scale. Many doctors, clinics, pharmacists and other providers routinely exaggerate their billings, investigators say, often claiming to do more work than they really performed, or substituting an expensive procedure for a minor one. Others invent visits that never occurred.

    “This is an age-old problem in New York,” said Professor Malcolm Sparrow of Harvard, who has written extensively on health care fraud.

    Albany stood by as Dr. Rosen’s Medicaid billings went from zero in 2001 to $4 million in 2003, according to the analysis of her billing records.

    Her 2003 billings were by far the highest of the 50,000 dentists or doctors in New York Medicaid – $1 million more than those of the next highest, the records show.

    Dr. Rosen had an associate in the Brooklyn office, Dr. Alex Silman, who sent his own bills to Medicaid. His billings showed a similar spike, rising to $1.4 million in 2003 from $115,000 in 2002, records show.

    The Department of Health and the state attorney general’s office blamed each other for failing to stop Dr. Rosen and Dr. Silman. The department said it had alerted the office that it should investigate possible improprieties with their practices. The office said the department had botched its inquiry.

    Last fall, The Times brought its findings on Dr. Rosen and Dr. Silman to the attention of the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit, which is in the state attorney general’s office. On March 24, prosecutors in the unit had Dr. Rosen and Dr. Silman arrested.

    This month, the two were indicted on charges of first-degree grand larceny, each accused of stealing more than $1 million from the program. Another associate, David Ibragimov, who handled billing for the office, was also indicted. All three have pleaded not guilty.

    The Times found Dr. Rosen’s extraordinary billings using a laptop computer and commonly available software after spending a few hours studying New York Medicaid billings. And she was only one of scores of medical providers who turned up in the search with similar spikes in revenues, including three Brooklyn pharmacies, a Manhattan doctor and a Queens medical supply company. None had even been audited by the state.

    The AIDS Drug

    The woman said her name was Pamela Borden, but it was not. She told the doctor that she had AIDS and had been losing weight rapidly, but she did not have AIDS and was overweight. Yet when she walked out of Dr. Mikhail Makhlin’s Brooklyn office in February 2002, she was clutching a prescription for a very expensive synthetic growth hormone intended to treat wasting syndrome, a side effect of AIDS.

    The cost of the drug, entirely borne by taxpayers, was $6,400 a month.

    The woman’s real intention for the synthetic hormone, Serostim, had nothing to do with AIDS. Serostim is highly sought in a thriving black market among bodybuilders, who use it like a steroid to bulk up.

    And Dr. Makhlin wrote far more prescriptions for Serostim than any other Medicaid doctor in the state, more than even prominent AIDS specialists with large practices. From 2000 to 2003, Dr. Makhlin prescribed 12 percent of all the Serostim purchased by New York Medicaid, costing the program $11.5 million, according to the Times analysis of Medicaid billings.

    Medical records and interviews with state officials suggest that the woman’s visit was part of an elaborate series of scams involving Serostim that stole tens of millions of dollars from New York Medicaid, long after other states realized what was going on. In 2000, New York Medicaid paid $7 million for Serostim, but the following year, after the schemes took off, the state spent $50 million on the drug.

    The money was spent despite national publicity that had led other states to realize that Serostim was being abused, and to begin reining in their spending on the drug. Florida, for example, put restrictions on Medicaid payments for Serostim in 1997. The same year, federal officials broke up a Medicaid fraud ring that recruited people from Washington Square Park and paid them $20 to $50 to get Serostim illegally.

    At the Health Department, Mr. Whalen and his aides described the department’s handling of the drug as a success. They said they had detected the increase in Serostim prescriptions and required doctors to get special approval to prescribe the drug after January 2002. But billing records show that Dr. Makhlin wrote 80 percent of his Serostim prescriptions after the restrictions were adopted.

    Serostim was approved in the mid-1990′s to treat wasting syndrome, a side effect of AIDS. It is injected under the skin and causes a significant increase in lean body mass and weight.

    The drug’s manufacturer, Serono Laboratories, is the subject of an extensive federal criminal investigation into whether its executives paid kickbacks to doctors to prescribe Serostim. The company said it was cooperating with the inquiry.

    Federal authorities would not say whether Dr. Makhlin had been questioned in the federal inquiry. What is clear is that Dr. Makhlin played a pivotal role in the epidemic of Serostim abuse on the East Coast. Even now, he retains his Medicaid privileges and medical license, and has not been a subject of a state criminal inquiry.

    Dr. Makhlin, who was educated in Russia and arrived in New York in 1989, maintains that he was unwittingly duped by a parade of patients he tried to help, and that he received no benefit for prescribing a drug he considered necessary. But he and his lawyer, Nathan Dembin, will not explain how he ended up prescribing far more Serostim under Medicaid than any other doctor in the state. Thirty of his patients each received more than $100,000 worth of the drug.

    The State Department of Health did not try to discipline Dr. Makhlin until late 2003, seeking to suspend him from the program for five years and fine him $164,000. But Dr. Makhlin has successfully fought the penalties, and retains his Medicaid privileges while an administrative law judge in the department weighs his case.

    “I did not intentionally or knowingly violate any Medicaid regulations,” Dr. Makhlin said in court papers. “I was simply exercising my best medical, professional judgment.”

    It was not until 2004 that the amount of Serostim purchased by New York Medicaid returned to where it was before the spike.

    The true identity of the woman who received the prescriptions from him in February 2002 will probably never be known. The real Pamela Borden was found in Brooklyn and said her Medicaid card had been stolen in late 2001. She said no one from the state had contacted her about Dr. Makhlin.

    The Ambulettes

    With an immense public transit system and fleets of taxis and car services, New York is one of the nation’s easiest cities to get around in, even for the old and the sick. But instead of reimbursing patients for a $2 bus ride to their doctor’s office, or a $10 fare for a car service, Medicaid typically pays $25 or $31 each way for these rides, and it adds up.

    New York Medicaid paid far more than any other state to get patients to hospitals and doctor’s appointments: $316 million in 2003. The state accounts for about 15 percent of all the nonemergency Medicaid transportation spending in the country, according to a 2001 report by the Community Transportation Association of America, and spends more than the next three states – California, New Jersey and Florida – combined.

    The largest chunk of the $316 million spent on transportation went to some 450 ambulette services, about a fifth of which are clustered in Brooklyn.

    And much of that spending appears to be entirely unnecessary.

    That was clear on a recent afternoon in southern Brooklyn, when an elderly woman strolled out of a doctor’s office and clambered into the front seat of a van owned by M. J. Trans Corporation, a medical transport company that billed Medicaid for more than $2 million last year. After a 25-minute ride across the borough, she got out in front of her apartment, again without help, and walked inside.

    The van is called an ambulette, and Medicaid is supposed to pay for it only when a patient cannot walk without help or requires a wheelchair. In fact, the state refers to the service as an “invalid coach.” But on three days spent following M. J. vans over several months, a Times reporter found that almost all of the company’s passengers walked easily, without assistance. The pattern was repeated as recently as last month.

    Many doctors, therapists and clinics regularly order ambulette transportation for their patients when cheaper alternatives should have been used instead, according to a 2003 audit of Medicaid transportation expenses in New York City by the state comptroller, Alan G. Hevesi.

    The state has known about abuses in the ambulette industry for years, and about the neighborhoods where kickbacks and other questionable activity takes place. In the early 1990′s, regulators discovered that a quarter of the entire state’s transportation billings were coming from Brighton Beach, Brooklyn, where a few companies had cornered the market with an elaborate set of kickback arrangements, according to a 1996 report on waste in the industry by the New York City public advocate’s office. The report, along with others on the industry, suggested that many ambulette services billed Medicaid for rides that were never delivered.

    But even though these schemes date back years, government records show that the state has spent almost no time looking into the ambulette industry. Prosecutors and outside auditors say that fraud, including the kind in which van services pay kickbacks to medical offices that order rides, remains rampant.

    Only five ambulette providers who billed Medicaid in the 2004 state fiscal year had even a portion of their billings audited by state officials, according to state records.

    Mr. Whalen, the senior state health official, maintained that the industry was properly regulated, adding that in an effort to detect fraud, the department had begun requiring providers to supply more information on their operations. “Transportation and ambulettes are on our radar screen as an active area of inquiry,” he said.

    One of the ambulette companies that has never been audited is M. J. Trans, though it had more billings per vehicle than almost any other of its size in the state. Its Medicaid billings jumped to more than $2 million annually in 2004 and 2003 from $700,000 in 2001.

    Yuri Levitas, a manager at the ambulette company, said none of its billings were illegal or improper.

    “We do only legal business,” he said.

    In fact, an analysis of its Medicaid billings raises questions about whether the company is abusing the system, or possibly allowing individual patients and doctors to do so. The records indicate that the company has business relationships with medical practices in southern Brooklyn that often bill Medicaid for what seem an inordinate number of trips.

    A doctor at a pair of clinics that specialize in pain relief and massage therapy often ordered more than 90 trips a day, as did a colleague of his.

    At another doctor’s office, Medicaid was billed 153 times by M. J. for transporting a single passenger in 2003, or essentially two or three times a week for an entire year. Another recipient went 152 times. Still others made the trip in M. J. vans more than 130 times.

    M. J. Trans said most of those rides were ordered by the office for recipients receiving physical therapy there.

    “They order, and we go,” Mr. Levitas said, adding that he was not responsible for ensuring that the rides were necessary.

    Several physical therapists expressed skepticism that anyone would need so much therapy.

    “There is always the difficult or complicated case here and there that requires extensive and intensive therapy, but as a general rule, 153 visits would seem excessive,” said Gabriel E. Yankowitz, a physical therapist for more than two decades and an official with the New York Physical Therapy Association.

    But Gail Bednik, the manager of the office, at 280 Quentin Road in Gravesend, that is in the records as having ordered the 153 rides, said there was nothing surprising about the patients who took scores of ambulettes annually at taxpayer expense.

    “It’s old people,” Ms. Bednik said. “They want to come every day because they’re bored at home.”

    The School Districts

    In just a few hours on a single day in September 2000, a senior official in the Buffalo school system wielded a rubber signature stamp and cost millions of dollars in questionable Medicaid payments for children.

    Her name was Sheryl Carswell, and at the time she was Buffalo’s director of special education. Moving her rubber stamp with assembly-line speed that day, she put 4,434 special-education students on the Medicaid rolls by recommending that they receive speech therapy, according to a federal audit. That represented nearly 60 percent of the district’s special-education population, roughly twice the national average of special-education students who require speech therapy.

    Yet she had not evaluated more than a few of those 4,434 students, according to the audit, issued by the inspector general of the federal Department of Health and Human Services, nor had she reviewed their case files.

    Ms. Carswell was not stealing the money for herself or maliciously abusing the system. Instead, she was doing business in a way that has become increasingly common in Buffalo, New York City and around the state, collecting millions of Medicaid dollars for her school district by putting students into health and speech programs, often without any apparent effort to see if the students really needed them.

    All told, the schools in New York State misspent $1.2 billion in Medicaid payments on speech services from 1993 to 2001, federal audits concluded.

    In an interview, Ms. Carswell said she was simply following longstanding school procedures. “I just filled out the paper,” she said. “Nobody bothered me about it.”

    Since 1990, schools in New York have been able to bill Medicaid for speech, hearing, and other school health services, and the state has become the most aggressive in the nation at taking advantage of this benefit. Around the state, school districts short on cash discovered in Medicaid a new revenue source. As a result, in recent years, school health services have become an $800 million annual expense, rising to the point that New York accounts for 44 percent of this type of Medicaid spending nationally, according to federal statistics.

    Licensed speech professionals quickly realized what was happening, and many have complained that schools are cutting corners and using the funds to pay for services that have nothing to do with helping poor children speak or hear better. “We have been seeing a lot of very suspicious billing practices in New York,” said James G. Potter, director of government relations and public policy at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, which has 118,000 members. “At times, folks in the schools have been just plain making it up out there when it comes to billing.”

    This spending was routinely approved by the state, but the federal government was not as credulous. The questionable spending touched off two audits in 2002 by the inspector general, and a civil inquiry by the federal Department of Justice.

    In an audit released last month, the inspector general revealed that in New York City schools, 86 percent of the Medicaid claims that were paid from 1993 to 2001 lacked any explanation for why the services had been ordered or violated other program rules. In Buffalo and other upstate schools, the auditors concluded that the figure was 56 percent for the same period, according to a report released last year.

    The audits should not have come as a shock. In the mid 1990′s, a private consultant told New York City school officials that their record-keeping was in such disarray that 51 percent of attendance forms for speech students could not be found. Yet school officials did not change their practices, according to the subsequent audit.

    When the upstate school districts found out about the audits in 2002, some tried to cover their tracks, the inspector general found. Digging through their filing cabinets, they backdated records to justify Medicaid spending for services performed as many as eight years earlier.

    Now, after the audits, federal officials say Washington is likely to begin demanding its money back, and so this misuse of Medicaid money could haunt either the districts that spent it, or the state, or both. Many districts are worried that the repayment could devastate their education budgets.

    School officials, including those in New York City, have sharply disputed the audits, and called for them to be withdrawn.

    The Justice Department suspended its civil inquiry after complaints from Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and other politicians, and federal health officials have agreed, for now, not to seek restitution from school districts. But the state itself could still be liable, and could then in turn penalize the districts.

    Pataki administration officials say Washington has never been clear about what kind of school services it will pay for and how children should be referred to these programs, accusing Washington of changing the rules.

    “There is no question that school districts actually provided health services to poor, disabled children,” wrote Kathryn Kuhmerker, a deputy health commissioner, in her response to the upstate audit.

    The state, however, did not meet its responsibility to make sure the money was properly spent, the federal audit found. The State Health Department reviewed the books of the Buffalo district only once from 1993 to 2001, and told the district its records were “well organized.”

    The Executives

    Among the biggest beneficiaries of the Medicaid program have been executives of the state’s nursing homes and clinics, many of whom earn substantial salaries and profits from the program.

    According to records obtained from the Health Department under the Freedom of Information Law, 70 executives of nursing homes and clinics personally made more than $500,000 in 2002, the last year for which figures are available. Twenty-five executives made more than $1 million.

    For the nursing home executives, that money was earned in salaries and profits, most of which came directly from the daily fee that Medicaid pays for caring for each low-income patient, usually in the range of $200. Salaries are earned by employees of the homes, and profit is earned by owners, although owners are often executive directors or chief executives of the homes, allowing them to benefit in both ways.

    Consider three homes in the Bronx. The operator of the Laconia Nursing Home, which receives 90 percent of its revenues from Medicaid, earned $3 million in salary and profit. At the Grand Manor Nursing Home, also 90 percent financed by Medicaid, the operator and three family members earned a total of $2.4 million in salaries and profit. The owner and operator of the Morris Park home, 75 percent financed by Medicaid, took in $1.5 million in salary and profit.

    Advocates for nursing home residents acknowledge that the homes’ operators and executives are entitled to make decent profits and salaries. But the advocates insist that it is unseemly for the profits and salaries to reach such high levels, given what the advocates contend is the industry’s longstanding record of poor care. They point out that at New York nursing homes, the staffing levels are lower than the national average, a crucial indicator. All three of the Bronx homes have staffing levels lower than the national average, according to federal statistics.

    “It’s unconscionable to give yourself high salaries and not give some more money to hire people so some of these quality problems can be dealt with,” said Cynthia Rudder, executive director of the Long Term Care Community Coalition, an advocacy group for nursing home residents.

    Trade groups representing nursing homes counter that most homes in the state are actually in financial distress because Medicaid does not pay enough.

    Many hospital executives in New York also receive high salaries, but hospitals earn significant revenues from sources other than government social programs, including H.M.O.’s and private insurance. The 550 public, private and nonprofit nursing homes around the state, by contrast, earn more than two-thirds of their revenues from Medicaid, taking in roughly $6 billion last year from the program, according to state records. Many clinics receive most of their revenues from Medicaid as well.

    Morris Berkowitz, operator of the Morris Park home, said he deserved his profits because he worked long hours and provided excellent care.

    “Do you know how much I have invested in this place?” he said. “A lot of money. And I am constantly investing in this place.”

    Earlier this year, after residents repeatedly wandered from Morris Park, federal and state officials accused the home of grievously poor supervision, and it was fined $86,000.

    Mr. Berkowitz said the home had done nothing wrong. “It was a political thing, and we got caught up in it,” he said. “People with power, they abuse their power.”

    Martin Liebman, operator of Grand Manor, said it was misleading to focus on salaries and profits.

    “This is a family-owned business,” said Mr. Liebman, an officer of the state trade group of private nursing homes. “I’m third generation in the business. We have taken care of thousands of residents and given quality care for many, many years.”

    Barry Braunstein, operator of the Laconia home, did not respond to three calls seeking comment.

    Besides their high salaries, some executives profiting from Medicaid were also taking part in another tradition: cheating the program.

    In 2002, the two owners of the AllCity Family Healthcare clinics in Brooklyn collected a total of $1.4 million in salaries, according to state records. Last year, the company was forced to return $6 million to the state, and one of its owners, Rossia Pokh, pleaded guilty to grand larceny in a case brought by the attorney general.

    At the AllCity clinics, it turns out, thousands upon thousands of the Medicaid claims were fraudulent.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top


  • Lee Friedlander
    “New York City, 2002,” from “Friedlander,” at The Museum of Modern Art through Aug. 29

    IDENTITY IMPRINT
    The case for “implantable personal verification systems”:
    “Once implanted just under the skin, via a quick, simple and painless outpatient procedure (much like getting a shot), the VeriChip can be scanned when necessary with a proprietary VeriChip scanner. . . . VeriChip is there when you need it. Unlike traditional forms of identification, VeriChip can’t be lost, stolen, misplaced or counterfeited.”
    Source: VeriChip Corporation (www.adsx.com/investorrelations/
    pdfs/VeriBro.pdf)

    July 17, 2005
    A Pass on Privacy?
    By CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL

    Anyone making long drives this summer will notice a new dimension to contemporary inequality: a widening gap between the users of automatic toll-paying devices and those who pay cash. The E-ZPass system, as it is called on the East Coast, seemed like idle gadgetry when it was introduced a decade ago. Drivers who acquired the passes had to nose their way across traffic to reach specially equipped tollbooths — and slow to a crawl while the machinery worked its magic. But now the sensors are sophisticated enough for you to whiz past them. As more lanes are dedicated to E-ZPass, lines lengthen for the saps paying cash.

    E-ZPass is one of many innovations that give you the option of trading a bit of privacy for a load of convenience. You can get deep discounts by ordering your books from Amazon.com or joining a supermarket ”club.” In return, you surrender information about your purchasing habits. Some people see a bait-and-switch here. Over time, the data you are required to hand over become more and more personal, and such handovers cease to be optional. Neato data gathering is making society less free and less human. The people who issue such warnings — whether you call them paranoids or libertarians — are among those you see stuck in the rippling heat, 73 cars away from the ”Cash Only” sign at the Tappan Zee Bridge.

    Paying your tolls electronically raises two worries. The first is that personal information will be used illegitimately. The computer system to which you have surrendered your payment information also records data about your movements and habits. It can be hacked into. Earlier this year, as many as half a million customers had their identities ”compromised” by cyber-break-ins at Seisint and ChoicePoint, two companies that gather consumer records.

    The second worry is that personal information will be used legitimately — that the government will expand its reach into your life without passing any law, and without even meaning you any harm. Recent debate in Britain over a proposed ”national road-charging scheme” — which was a national preoccupation until the London Tube bombings — shows how this might work. Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, wants to ease traffic and substitute user fees for excise and gas taxes. Excellent goals, all. But Darling plans to achieve them by tracking, to the last meter, every journey made by every car in the country. It seems that this can readily be done by marrying global positioning systems (with which many new cars are fitted) with tollbooth scanners. The potential applications multiply: what if state policemen in the United States rigged E-ZPass machines to calculate average highway speeds between toll plazas — something easily doable with today’s machinery — and to automatically ticket cars that exceed 65 m.p.h.?

    There is a case to be made that only a citizenry of spoiled brats would fret over such things. Come on, this argument runs, anyone who owns an anti-car-theft device — LoJack in the United States or NavTrak in Britain — is using radio tracking to make a privileged claim on government services. If your LoJack-equipped Porsche is stolen, you can call the local police department and say, in effect, ”Go fetch.” Stolen cars with such devices are almost always recovered. Car theft has fallen precipitously, which benefits us all.

    For some time, the United States has required commercial trucks to register their mileage and routes. Last year, Germany initiated a new, more efficient G.P.S.-based truck-tracking system that seems intrusion-proof. Authorities discard the records after three months, which means they can’t use them to arrest criminal truckers or dun deadbeat ones. Can such forbearance last?

    In Germany, where history makes lax surveillance seem the lesser evil, yes. But not in the United States. Since the Warren Court, voters have, again and again, risen up against any libertarian trammeling of government in its fight against crime. People waver on whether to trade privacy for convenience, but they’re pretty untroubled about trading privacy for security. On occasion, E-ZPass records have been used to track down criminal suspects.

    When such crime-fighting aids are available, people clamor for them. In October, the F.D.A. approved, for medical use, the VeriChip, a device the size of a grain of rice. It can be implanted under a patient’s skin and activated to permit emergency personnel to gain access to personal medical records. It’s extremely useful when patients are unconscious, but there is a suspicion that the real application lies elsewhere. Similar devices can easily be fitted with other types of transmitters. ”Active” implants are already being put to other uses: to trace livestock and lost pets and, in Latin America, to discourage kidnappings. Those who can put two and two together will find this VeriUnsettling. Monitoring can quickly change from convenience to need. Would you support a chip-based security system for nuclear power plant employees? If you were in the Army Special Forces, wouldn’t you want a transmitter embedded in you?

    In more and more walks of life, if what you want to do is not trackable, you can’t do it. Most consumers have had the experience of trying to buy something negligible — a pack of gum, say — and being told by a cashier that it’s impossible because ”the computer is down.” It now seems quaint that after the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, Congress argued over whether ”taggants” should be required in explosives to make them traceable. Today everything is traceable. Altered plant DNA is embedded in textiles to identify them as American. Man-made particles with spectroscopic ”signatures” can be used, for example, as ”security tags” for jewels. The information collected about consumers is the most sophisticated and confusing taggant of all. It is a marvelous tool, a real timesaver and a kind of electronic bracelet that turns the entire world into a place where we are living under house arrest.


    Christopher Caldwell is a contributing writer for the magazine.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top

  •  











    Friday, July 15, 2005
    Rick McKay/Cox News Service

    At a demonstration outside the White House sponsored by MoveOn.org, the Democratic-leaning advocacy group, protesters called for the firing of Karl Rove, the presidential adviser.

    July 15, 2005
    Rove Reportedly Held Phone Talk on C.I.A. Officer
    By DAVID JOHNSTON
    and RICHARD W. STEVENSON

    WASHINGTON, July 14 – Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said.

    Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said.

    After hearing Mr. Novak’s account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: “I heard that, too.”

    The previously undisclosed telephone conversation, which took place on July 8, 2003, was initiated by Mr. Novak, the person who has been briefed on the matter said.

    Six days later, Mr. Novak’s syndicated column reported that two senior administration officials had told him that Mr. Wilson’s “wife had suggested sending him” to Africa. That column was the first instance in which Ms. Wilson was publicly identified as a C.I.A. operative.

    The column provoked angry demands for an investigation into who disclosed Ms. Wilson’s name to Mr. Novak. The Justice Department appointed Patrick J. Fitzgerald, a top federal prosecutor in Chicago, to lead the inquiry. Mr. Rove said in an interview with CNN last year that he did not know the C.I.A. officer’s name and did not leak it.

    The person who provided the information about Mr. Rove’s conversation with Mr. Novak declined to be identified, citing requests by Mr. Fitzgerald that no one discuss the case. The person discussed the matter in the belief that Mr. Rove was truthful in saying that he had not disclosed Ms. Wilson’s identity.

    On Oct. 1, 2003, Mr. Novak wrote another column in which he described calling two officials who were his sources for the earlier column. The first source, whose identity has not been revealed, provided the outlines of the story and was described by Mr. Novak as “no partisan gunslinger.” Mr. Novak wrote that when he called a second official for confirmation, the source said, “Oh, you know about it.”

    That second source was Mr. Rove, the person briefed on the matter said. Mr. Rove’s account to investigators about what he told Mr. Novak was similar in its message although the White House adviser’s recollection of the exact words was slightly different. Asked by investigators how he knew enough to leave Mr. Novak with the impression that his information was accurate, Mr. Rove said he had heard parts of the story from other journalists but had not heard Ms. Wilson’s name.

    Robert D. Luskin, Mr. Rove’s lawyer, said Thursday, “Any pertinent information has been provided to the prosecutor.” Mr. Luskin has previously said prosecutors have advised Mr. Rove that he is not a target in the case, which means he is not likely to be charged with a crime.

    In a brief conversation on Thursday, Mr. Novak declined to discuss the matter. It is unclear if Mr. Novak has testified to the grand jury, and if he has whether his account is consistent with Mr. Rove’s.

    The conversation between Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove seemed almost certain to intensify the question about whether one of Mr. Bush’s closest political advisers played a role in what appeared to be an effort to undermine Mr. Wilson’s credibility after he challenged the veracity of a key point in Mr. Bush’s 2003 State of the Union speech, saying Saddam Hussein had sought nuclear fuel in Africa.

    The conversation with Mr. Novak took place three days before Mr. Rove spoke with Matthew Cooper, a Time magazine reporter, whose e-mail message about their brief talk reignited the issue. In the message, whose contents were reported by Newsweek this week, Mr. Cooper told his bureau chief that Mr. Rove had talked about Ms. Wilson, although not by name.

    After saying in 2003 that it was “ridiculous” to suggest that Mr. Rove had any role in the disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s name, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, has refused in recent days to discuss any specifics of the case. But he has suggested that President Bush continues to support Mr. Rove. On Thursday Mr. Rove was at Mr. Bush’s side on a trip to Indianapolis.

    As the political debate about Mr. Rove grows more heated, Mr. Fitzgerald is in what he has said are the final stages of his investigation into whether anyone at the White House violated a criminal statute that under certain circumstances makes it a crime for a government official to disclose the names of covert operatives like Ms. Wilson.

    The law requires that the official knowingly identify an officer serving in a covert position. The person who has been briefed on the matter said Mr. Rove neither knew Ms. Wilson’s name nor that she was a covert officer.

    Mr. Fitzgerald has questioned a number of high-level administration officials. Mr. Rove has testified three times to the grand jury. I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, has also testified. So has former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. The prosecutor also interviewed Mr. Bush, in his White House office, and Mr. Cheney, but they were not under oath.

    The disclosure of Mr. Rove’s conversation with Mr. Novak raises a question the White House has never addressed: whether Mr. Rove ever discussed that conversation, or his exchange with Mr. Cooper, with the president. Mr. Bush has said several times that he wants all members of the White House staff to cooperate fully with Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation.

    In June 2004, at Sea Island, Ga., soon after Mr. Cheney met with investigators in the case, Mr. Bush was asked at a news conference whether “you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found” to have leaked the agent’s name.

    “Yes,” Mr. Bush said. “And that’s up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.”

    Mr. Novak began his conversation with Mr. Rove by asking about the promotion of Frances Fragos Townsend, who had been a close aide to Janet Reno when she was attorney general, to a senior counterterrorism job at the White House, the person who was briefed on the matter said.

    Mr. Novak then turned to the subject of Ms. Wilson, identifying her by name, the person said. In an Op-Ed article for The New York Times on July 6, 2003, Mr. Wilson suggested that he had been sent to Niger because of Mr. Cheney’s interest in the matter. But Mr. Novak told Mr. Rove he knew that Mr. Wilson had been sent at the urging of Ms. Wilson, the person who had been briefed on the matter said.

    Mr. Rove’s allies have said that he did not call reporters with information about the case, rebutting the theory that the White House was actively seeking to intimidate or punish Mr. Wilson by harming his wife’s career. They have also emphasized that Mr. Rove appeared not to know anything about Ms. Wilson other than that she worked at the C.I.A. and was married to Mr. Wilson.

    This is not the first time Mr. Rove has been linked to a leak reported by Mr. Novak. In 1992, Mr. Rove was fired from the Texas campaign to re-elect the first President Bush because of suspicions that he had leaked information to Mr. Novak about shortfalls in the Texas organization’s fund-raising. Both Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak have denied that Mr. Rove had been the source.

    Mr. Novak’s July 14, 2003, column was published against a backdrop in which White House officials were clearly agitated by Mr. Wilson’s assertion, in his Op-Ed article, that the administration had “twisted” intelligence about the threat from Iraq.

    But the White House was also deeply concerned about Mr. Wilson’s suggestion that he had gone to Africa to carry out a mission that originated with Mr. Cheney. At the time, Mr. Cheney’s earlier statements about Iraq’s banned weapons were coming under fire as it became clearer that the United States would find no stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons and that Mr. Hussein’s nuclear program was not far advanced.

    Mr. Novak wrote that the decision to send Mr. Wilson “was made at a routinely low level” and was based on what later turned out to be fake documents that had come to the United States through Italy.

    Many aspects of Mr. Fitzgerald’s investigation remain shrouded in secrecy. It is unclear who Mr. Novak’s other source might be or how that source learned of Ms. Wilson’s role as a C.I.A. official. By itself, the disclosure that Mr. Rove had spoken to a second journalist about Ms. Wilson may not necessarily have a bearing on his exposure to any criminal charge in the case.

    But it seems certain to add substantially to the political maelstrom that has engulfed the White House this week after the reports that Mr. Rove had discussed the matter with Mr. Cooper, the Time reporter.

    Mr. Cooper’s e-mail message to his editors, in which he described his discussion with Mr. Rove, was among documents that were turned over by Time executives recently to comply with a subpoena from Mr. Fitzgerald. A reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, who never wrote about the Wilson case, refused to cooperate with the investigation and was jailed last week for contempt of court. In addition to focusing new attention on Mr. Rove and whether he can survive the political fallout, it is sure to create new partisan pressure on Mr. Bush. Already, Democrats have been pressing the president either to live up to his promises to rid his administration of anyone found to have leaked the name of a covert operative or to explain why he does not believe Mr. Rove’s actions subject him to dismissal.

    The Rove-Novak exchange also leaves Mr. McClellan, the White House spokesman, in an increasingly awkward situation. Two years ago he repeatedly assured reporters that neither Mr. Rove nor several other administration officials were responsible for the leak.

    The case has also threatened to become a distraction as Mr. Bush struggles to keep his second-term agenda on track and as he prepares for one of the most pivotal battles of his presidency, over the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice.

    As Democrats have been demanding that Mr. Rove resign or provide a public explanation, the political machine that Mr. Rove built to bolster Mr. Bush and advance his agenda has cranked up to defend its creator. The Republican National Committee has mounted an aggressive campaign to cast Mr. Rove as blameless and to paint the matter as a partisan dispute driven not by legality, ethics or national security concerns, but by a penchant among Democrats to resort to harsh personal attacks.

    But Mr. Bush said Wednesday that he would not prejudge Mr. Rove’s role, and Mr. Rove was seated conspicuously just behind the president at a cabinet meeting, an image of business as usual. On Thursday, on the trip with Mr. Bush to Indiana, Mr. Rove grinned his way through a brief encounter with reporters after getting off Air Force One.

    Mr. Bush’s White House has been characterized by loyalty and long tenures, but no one has been at Mr. Bush’s side in his journey through politics longer than Mr. Rove, who has been his strategist, enforcer, policy guru, ambassador to social and religious conservatives and friend since they met in Washington in the early 1970′s. People who know Mr. Bush said it was unlikely, if not unthinkable, that he would seek Mr. Rove’s departure barring a criminal indictment.

    David E. Sanger contributed reporting for this article.

    Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections XML Help Contact Us Work for Us Back to Top