 | 
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times Relatives of four security guards killed in Iraq in 2004 spoke at a House hearing Wednesday. The guards were employed by Blackwater USA. February 8, 2007 Army Says It Will Withhold $19.6 Million From Halliburton, Citing Potential Contract Breach WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — The Army announced during a House oversight committee hearing on Wednesday that it would withhold $19.6 million from the Halliburton Company after recently discovering that the contractor had hired the company Blackwater USA to provide armed security guards in Iraq, a potential breach of its government contract. The Army has said that its contracts with Halliburton, which has a five-year, $16 billion deal to support American military operations in Iraq, generally barred the company and its subcontractors from using private armed guards. But in a statement, Halliburton disagreed with the Army’s interpretation and suggested that there was nothing to prohibit Halliburton’s subcontractors from hiring such guards. The announcement came during a hearing of the House Government Oversight Committee that included emotional testimony about the killing of four Blackwater employees in Falluja, Iraq, in 2004. In an e-mail message made public in the hearing and written only hours before the four were killed, another Blackwater worker told the company to end the “smoke and mirror show” and provide its employees in the war zone with adequate weapons and armored vehicles. “I need ammo,” the worker, Tom Powell, said in an e-mail message dated March 30, 2004, to supervisors at Blackwater, which is based in North Carolina. “I need Glocks and M4s — all the client body armor you got,” he wrote. “Guys are in the field with borrowed stuff and in harm’s way.” Mr. Powell said he had requested heavily armored vehicles “from the beginning, and from my understanding, an order is still pending.” “Why? I ask,” he added. The next day, a mob in Falluja attacked a supply convoy that was being guarded by Blackwater employees and killed four guards, later stringing up two of the mutilated, charred bodies from a bridge. The men were riding in vehicles that were only lightly armored, and their families have claimed in a lawsuit against Blackwater that the company failed to provide basic protective equipment. Blackwater’s general counsel, Andrew G. Howell, told the House panel on Wednesday that the company, which also had a State Department contract to provide security services, believed that it had had an appropriate number of armored vehicles in Iraq. He said, “We have not skimped on equipment — no sir.” The panel is investigating Blackwater and the work of other large American military contractors in Iraq. In the dispute with Halliburton, the Army insisted repeatedly to Congressional investigators last year that it could find no evidence that Blackwater had been hired by Halliburton and its subcontractors in Iraq for security. But in a letter dated Tuesday and made public on Wednesday, Army Secretary Francis J. Harvey said that additional investigation showed that Blackwater had provided private security guards for a Halliburton subcontractor, ESS Support Services, a construction and food services business, and that the costs “were not itemized in the contracts or invoices” prepared by ESS. “The Army is continuing to investigate this matter and we are committed to providing full disclosures of the results of our investigations to the committee,” he wrote to the chairman of the oversight committee, Henry A. Waxman, a California Democrat. “We share your commitment to ensuring that contractors supporting the military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq comply with the terms and conditions of these contracts.” In a statement, Halliburton insisted that it was not in breach of its contract with the government. “Nowhere does it prohibit subcontractors from supplementing that protection with private security,” Halliburton said. “It is unrealistic to think that the military can both wage a war and at the same time protect every necessary civilian movement in Iraq.” The company said it would “sit down with the Army to discuss and resolve these issues.” The committee also heard from family members of the four security guards. “Why did Blackwater choose to make a profit over the safety of our loved ones?” asked Kathryn Helvenston-Wettengel, the mother of one of the men. “Blackwater gets paid for the number of warm bodies it can put on the ground in certain locations throughout the world. If some are killed, it replaces them at a moment’s notice.” “Although everyone remembers those images of the bodies being burnt, beaten, dragged through the streets and ultimately hung from a bridge, we continue to relive that horror day after day, as those men were our fathers, sons and husbands,” she said. 5 Charged in Iraq Bribery Scheme WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 (Reuters) — Three Army Reserve officers and two American civilians have been charged with taking or arranging for more than $1 million in cash, sports cars, jewelry and other items to be used as bribes in rigging bids on Iraqi reconstruction contracts, United States officials said Wednesday. They said the five have been indicted by a federal grand jury in New Jersey in a scheme that involved the theft of millions of dollars of Iraq reconstruction money and the awarding of contracts to Philip Bloom, who doled out the bribes. The officials said the agency in charge of Iraqi reconstruction lost more than $3.6 million because of the corruption scheme that began in December 2003 and lasted two years. Mr. Bloom, who has already pleaded guilty, received more than $8.6 million in rigged contracts, the officials said. They said more than $500,000 was smuggled into the United States. “They stole the money in Iraq and then smuggled vast sums into the United States to support lavish lifestyles,” said Mark W. Everson, the Internal Revenue Service commissioner. The 25-count indictment charged Col. Curtis Whiteford, Lt. Col. Debra Harrison and Lt. Col. Michael Wheeler, and two civilians, Michael Morris and William Driver. Colonel Whiteford was once the second-most senior official in the Coalition Provisional Authority for the South Central Region in Iraq, while Colonel Harrison was its acting comptroller. Colonel Wheeler was an adviser for Iraqi reconstruction projects. Mr. Driver is married to Colonel Harrison. Mr. Morris, who was living in Romania, was accused of helping Mr. Bloom funnel money to the military officials.
|
|
| 
Carlos Osorio/Associated Press Mitt Romney gave the first major policy speech of his presidential campaign Wednesday in an address to the Detroit Economic Club. February 8, 2007 Mormon Candidate Braces for Religion as Issue WASHINGTON, Feb. 7 — As he begins campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, is facing a threshold issue: Will his religion — he is a Mormon — be a big obstacle to winning the White House? Polls show a substantial number of Americans will not vote for a Mormon for president. The religion is viewed with suspicion by Christian conservatives, a vital part of the Republicans‘ primary base. Mr. Romney’s advisers acknowledged that popular misconceptions about Mormonism — as well as questions about whether Mormons are beholden to their church’s leaders on public policy — could give his opponents ammunition in the wide-open fight among Republicans to become the consensus candidate of social conservatives. Mr. Romney, in an extended interview on the subject as he drove through South Carolina last week, expressed confidence that he could quell concerns about his faith, pointing to his own experience winning in Massachusetts. He said he shared with many Americans the bafflement over obsolete Mormon practices like polygamy — he described it as “bizarre” — and disputed the argument that his faith would require him to be loyal to his church before his country. “People have interest early on in your religion and any similar element of your background,” he said. “But as soon as they begin to watch you on TV and see the debates and hear you talking about issues, they are overwhelmingly concerned with your vision of the future and the leadership skills that you can bring to bear.” Still, Mr. Romney is taking no chances. He has set up a meeting this month in Florida with 100 ministers and religious broadcasters. That gathering follows what was by all accounts a successful meeting at his home last fall with evangelical leaders, including the Rev. Jerry Falwell; the Rev. Franklin Graham, who is a son of the Rev. Billy Graham; and Paula White, a popular preacher. Mr. Romney said he was giving strong consideration to a public address about his faith and political views, modeled after the one John F. Kennedy gave in 1960 in the face of a wave of concern about his being a Roman Catholic. Mr. Romney’s aides said he had closely studied Kennedy’s speech in trying to measure how to navigate the task of becoming the nation’s first Mormon president, and he has consulted other Mormon elected leaders, including Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, about how to proceed. Mr. Romney appears to be making some headway. Several prominent evangelical leaders said that, after meeting him, they had grown sufficiently comfortable with the notion of Mr. Romney as president to overcome any concerns they might have about his religion. On a pragmatic level, some said that Mr. Romney — despite questions among conservatives about his shifting views on abortion and gay rights — struck them as the Republican candidate best able to win and carry their social conservative agenda to the White House. “There’s this growing acceptance of this idea that Mitt Romney may well be and is our best candidate,” said Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal advocacy group, and a prominent host on Christian radio. Mark DeMoss, an evangelical public relations consultant who represents many conservative Christian groups, said it was “more important to me that a candidate shares my values than my faith,” adding, “And if I look at it this way, Mr. Romney would be my top choice.” Mormons consider themselves to be Christians, but some beliefs central to Mormons are regarded by other churches as heretical. For example, Mormons have three books of Scripture other than the Bible, including the Book of Mormon, which Mormons believe was translated from golden plates discovered in 1827 by Joseph Smith Jr., the church’s founder and first prophet. Mormons believe that Smith rescued Christianity from apostasy and restored the church to what was envisioned in the New Testament — but these doctrines are beyond the pale for most Christian churches. Beyond that, there are perceptions among some people regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the church is formally known, that account for at least some of the public unease: that Mormons still practice polygamy (the church renounced polygamy in 1890), that it is more of a cult than a religion and that its members take political direction from the church’s leaders. Several Republicans said such perceptions could be a problem for Mr. Romney, especially in the South, which has had a disproportionate influence in selecting Republican presidential nominees. Gloria A. Haskins, a state representative from South Carolina who is supporting Senator John McCain for the Republican nomination, said discussions with her constituents in Greenville, an evangelical stronghold, convinced her that a Mormon like Mr. Romney could not win a Republican primary in her state. South Carolina has one of the earliest, and most critical, primaries next year. “From what I hear in my district, it is very doubtful,” Ms. Haskins said. “This is South Carolina. We’re very mainstream, evangelical, Christian, conservative. It will come up. In this of all states, it will come up.” But Katon Dawson, the state Republican chairman, said he thought Mr. Romney had made significant progress in dealing with those concerns. “I have heard him on his personal faith and on his character and conviction and the love for his country,” Mr. Dawson said. “I have all confidence that he will be able to answer those questions, whether they be in negative ads against him or in forums or in debates.” Mr. Romney’s candidacy has stirred discussion about faith and the White House unlike any since Kennedy, including a remarkable debate that unfolded recently in The New Republic. Damon Linker, a critic of the influence of Christian conservatism on politics, described Mormonism as a “theologically unstable, and thus politically perilous, religion.” The article brought a stinging rebuttal in the same publication from Richard Lyman Bushman, a Mormon who is a history professor at Columbia University, and who said Mr. Linker’s arguments had “no grounding in reality.” Mr. Romney is not the first Mormon to seek a presidential nomination, but by every indication he has the best chance yet of being in the general election next year. His father, George Romney, was a candidate in 1968, but his campaign collapsed before he ever had to deal seriously with questions about religion. Senator Hatch said his own candidacy in 2000, which was something of a long shot, was to “knock down prejudice against my faith.” “There’s a lot of prejudice out there,” Mr. Hatch said. “We’ve come a long way, but there are still many people around the country who consider the Mormon faith a cult.” But if Mr. Romney has made progress with evangelicals, he appears to face a larger challenge in dispelling apprehensions among the public at large. A national poll by The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg News last June found 37 percent said they would not vote for a Mormon for president. Mr. Romney offered assurances that seemed to reflect what Kennedy told the nation in discussing his Catholicism some 50 years ago. Mr. Romney said the requirements of his faith would never overcome his political obligations. He pointed out that in Massachusetts, he had signed laws allowing stores to sell alcohol on Sundays, even though he was prohibited by his faith from drinking, and to expand the state lottery, though Mormons are forbidden to gamble. He also noted that Mormons are not exclusively Republicans, pointing to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader. “There’s no church-directed view,” Mr. Romney said. “How can you have Harry Reid on one side and Orrin Hatch on the other without recognizing that the church doesn’t direct political views? I very clearly subscribe to Abraham Lincoln‘s view of America’s political religion. And that is when you take the oath of office, your responsibility is to the nation, and that is first and foremost.” He said he was not concerned about the resistance in the polls. “If you did a poll and said: ‘Could a divorced actor be elected as president? Would you vote for a divorced actor as president?’ my guess is 70 percent would say no. But then they saw Ronald Reagan. They heard him. They heard his vision. They heard his experience. They said: ‘I like Ronald Reagan. I’m voting for him.’ “ Adam Nagourney reported from Washington, and Laurie Goodstein from New York.
|
|
| Winter Storm Moves to East Coast 
Tyler Hicks/The New York Times Neither Snow Nor Rain . . . A postal worker braves the wind and snow along Henry Street in Brooklyn today 
Peter Morgan/Associated Press
A winter storm with strong winds hit New York today.
February 14, 2007 Winter Storm Moves to East Coast Schools were closed, airline flights were delayed and commuters were miserable today as a snow and ice storm reached the East Coast after paralyzing parts of Midwest on Tuesday. Cities along the I-95 corridor from Washington to New York braced for a second dose of sleet and freezing rain during the evening commute while areas near Boston are expected to get some snow before sleet and freezing rain are added to the mix. The precipitation is expected to end over night as the storm moves up the Northeast coast. The National Weather Service predicted that wind chills in the New York area will be below zero tonight and Thursday night due to low temperatures and blustery winds accompanying the first substantial winter storm of the season. Winds tonight are forecast to reach 25 to 35 miles per hour with gusts up to 50 miles per hour in the region. The weather service warned that the sub-zero wind chills can cause the life-threatening health conditions of frostbite and hypothermia. The weather service issued blizzard warnings for parts of New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Maine, where as much as two feet of snow was considered possible. As much as 20 inches of snow was forecast for upper New York State, which was already groaning under more than 10 feet of lake-effect snow deposited earlier this year. Northern Pennsylvania was forecast to get 18 to 24 inches of new snow. Snowfall in the coastal areas was expected to amount to a few inches, but sleet and freezing rain made travel treacherous. Dozens of schools in the New York metropolitan area were closed while others, particularly on Long Island were scheduled to open late. Philadelphia schools were closed as were hundreds more across Pennsylvania. The weather service issued a flood watch from 9 a.m. to this evening for areas near Philadelphia, including northern Delaware, northeast Maryland, southern New Jersey and southeast Pennsylvania. The weather service said some of these areas may see as much as two inches of rain, which will not be absorbed by the frozen ground. Major airlines canceled half their flights today at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport and half the flights were called off at Philadelphia Airport. Amtrak reported delays on its main line between Baltimore and Philadelphia due to signal problems. Sheriffs in several counties in Ohio closed roads to all but emergency workers today, extending a ban begun on Tuesday, and said anyone caught driving could be arrested. As many as 100,000 homes and businesses in the state were without power as the storm downed tree limbs and electrical lines.
|
|
| 
Frederic J. Brown/AFP — Getty Images The deal was called “a very solid step forward” by the chief American envoy at the talks in Beijing, Christopher R. Hill. February 14, 2007 News Analysis Outside Pressures Broke Korean Deadlock WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — It is hard to imagine that either George W. Bush or Kim Jong-il would have agreed even a year ago to the kind of deal they have now approved. The pact, announced Tuesday, would stop, seal and ultimately disable North Korea‘s nuclear facilities, as part of a grand bargain that the administration has previously shunned as overly generous to a repressive country — especially one that has not yet said when or if it will give up its nuclear arsenal. But in the past few months, the world has changed for both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kim, two men who have made clear how deeply they detest each other. Both are beset by huge problems, and both needed some kind of breakthrough. For Mr. Bush, bogged down in Iraq, his authority undercut by the November elections, any chance to show progress in peacefully disarming a country that detonated a nuclear test just four months ago could no longer be passed up. As one senior administration official said over the weekend, the prospect that Mr. Bush might leave Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea more dangerous places than he found them “can’t be very appealing.” Still, the accord came under fast criticism from right and left that it was both too little and too late. For years, Mr. Bush’s administration has been paralyzed by an ideological war, between those who wanted to bring down North Korea and those who thought it was worth one more try to lure the country out of isolation. In embracing this deal, Mr. Bush sided with those who have counseled engagement, notably his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and her chief negotiator, Christopher R. Hill. Mr. Bush took the leap in the hope that in a few months, he will be able to declare that North Korea can no longer produce fuel for new nuclear weapons, even if it has not yet turned over its old ones. For Mr. Kim, the nuclear explosion — more of a fizzle — that he set off in the mountains not far from the Chinese border in October turned out to be a strategic mistake. The Chinese, who spent six decades protecting the Kim family dynasty, responded by cutting off his military aid, and helping Washington crack down on the banks that financed the Cognac-and-Mercedes lifestyle of the North Korean leadership. “As a political statement, their test was a red flare for everyone,” said Robert Gallucci, who under President Clinton was the chief negotiator of the 1994 agreement with North Korea, which collapsed four years ago. “It gave President Bush and the Chinese some leverage.” Mr. Gallucci and other nuclear experts agree that the hardest bargaining with world’s most reclusive, often paranoid, government remains ahead. Over the next year, under the pact, the North must not only disable its nuclear reactors and reprocessing facilities, it must lead inspectors to its weapons and a suspected second nuclear weapons program. And to get to the next phase of the agreement, the one that gives “disarmament” meaning, North Korea will have to be persuaded to give away the country’s crown jewels: the weapons that make the world pay attention to it. But before the administration faces off against Mr. Kim in Pyongyang, it will have to confront the many critics of the deal here at home. As the White House took credit on Tuesday for what it called a “first step,” it found itself pilloried by conservatives who attacked the administration for folding in negotiations with a charter member of what Mr. Bush called the “axis of evil,” and for replicating key elements of Mr. Clinton’s agreement with North Korea. At the same time, Mr. Bush’s advisers were being confronted by barbs from veterans of the Clinton administration, who argued that the same deal struck Tuesday had been within reach several years and a half-dozen weapons ago, had only Mr. Bush chosen to negotiate with the North rather than fixate on upending its government. In fact, elements of the new decision closely resemble the Clinton deal, called the Agreed Framework. As it did in that accord, the North agrees to “freeze” its operations at Yongbyon, its main nuclear facility, and to allow inspections there. And like that agreement, the new one envisions the North’s ultimately giving up all of its nuclear material. In two respects, however, the new accord is different: North Korea does not receive the incentives the West has offered — in this case, about a year’s supply of heavy fuel oil and other aid — until it “disables” its equipment at Yongbyon and declares where it has hidden its bombs, nuclear fuel and other nuclear facilities. And the deal is not only with Washington, but with Beijing, Moscow, Seoul and Tokyo. “We’re building a set of relationships,” Ms. Rice argued Tuesday, saying that the deal would not have been possible if she and President Bush had not been able to swing the Chinese over to their side. Mr. Bush has told colleagues that he believes the turning point came in his own blunt conversations with President Hu Jintao of China, in which, the American president has said, he explained in stark terms that a nuclear North Korea was more China’s problem than America’s. But the administration was clearly taken aback on Tuesday by the harshness of the critique from the right, led by its recently departed United Nations ambassador, John R. Bolton, who charged that the deal “undercuts the sanctions resolution” against the North that he pushed through the Security Council four months ago. Democrats, in contrast, were caught between enjoying watching Mr. Bush change course and declaring that the agreement amounted to disarmament-lite. “It gives the illusion of moving more rapidly to disarmament, but it doesn’t really require anything to happen in the second phase,” said Joel Wit, who was the coordinator of the 1994 agreement. The Bush administration is counting on the lure of future benefits to the North — fuel oil, the peace treaty ending the Korean War it has long craved, an end to other sanctions — to force Mr. Kim to disclose where his nuclear weapons and fuel are stored. Mr. Bush’s big worry now is that Mr. Kim is playing the administration for time. Many experts think he is betting that by the time the first big deliveries of oil and aid are depleted, America will be distracted by a presidential election. But Mr. Bush could also end up with a diplomatic triumph, one he needs desperately. To get there, he appears to have changed course. Asked in 2004 about North Korea, he said, “I don’t think you give timelines to dictators and tyrants.” Now he appears to have concluded that sometimes the United States has to negotiate with dictators and odious rulers, because the other options — military force, sanctions or watching an unpredictable nation gain a nuclear arsenal — seem even worse.
|
|
| Memo From Italy 
Orietta Scardino/European Pressphoto Agency A policeman was killed recently in a riot at a stadium in Sicily despite a law requiring measures against hooliganism. February 14, 2007 Memo From Italy Breaking All the Rules, With a Shrug and a Sigh ROME, Feb. 13 — The shrugged shoulder is real, a daily reminder here that part of Italy‘s charm rests in the fact that it does not much care for rules. Italians can be downright poetic about it, this inclination to dodge taxes, to cut lines, to erect entire neighborhoods without permits or simply to run red lights, while smoking or talking on the phone. “We undervalue the law of cause and effect,” said Lisa Tumino, who runs a bed-and-breakfast here near the Vatican. “We overvalue the law of the universe.” This nugget was mined with a single, simple question: Why were Ms. Tumino, in her beat-up white Nissan, and two dozen other Roman drivers parked on Via delle Fornaci on a recent rainy day when parking there clogged traffic, made the roads more dangerous and was, in fact, illegal? Boiled down, she was saying: No sterile, one-size-fits-all rule book applies here. Italians prefer a more individual justice for their reality and the long history that shaped it. In this case, ancient streets do not allow for adequate parking. But every now and again, Italians wake up to the unpleasant reality that whatever the reasons, however lightly it can be explained, breaking the rules is also part of Italy’s malaise. Two weeks ago, a 38-year-old policeman with two children was killed during a riot at a soccer stadium in Sicily — two years after a law mandating antihooliganism measures was passed and widely ignored. Of 31 stadiums surveyed after the killing, only six were found to comply with the law. In this case, a life was lost (though some skeptics noted that compliance might not have saved that life, because the riot happened outside the stadium). But in this and scores of other ways, contempt for rules ends up to be not so charming. Beppe Grillo, the Italian political satirist, keeps a running list on his Web site of members of the Italian Parliament or Italian representatives to the European Parliament, 25 in all, who have been convicted of crimes. Just last week, an Italian newspaper reported the existence of a new little town outside Naples, of 50 structures and 435 apartments, for which not a single building permit had been issued. About 31,000 illegal structures reportedly went up in 2005 alone. Just last year, Italy slid into the last place in Europe for direct investment from the United States, with an economy that has struggled for years. Business people complain about a complicated culture of rules — those broken, as well as those impossible to understand. Paolo Catalfamo, now the managing director of the American Chamber of Commerce in Italy, recalled the six years he spent managing an American investment fund here. “The issue I spent most of my time on was trying to explain to my headquarters in San Francisco why the rules they received had to be interpreted,” he said. “They didn’t get the concept that rules don’t have one meaning only, that they have many meanings.” Like most things in this nation, built on layers of the past, physical and mental, it is not always easy to explain. The standard answer encompasses Italy’s fragmented history, of often arbitrary regional rule by foreigners, local nobles and a church with claims of the blessing of God. Some experts contend that the Roman Catholic Church holds no small responsibility: Sins can be forgiven. No single standard exists for salvation; each person’s life is weighed on its own. Relatives of the dead can pray for intervention from about 2,500 saints — a system perfectly calibrated for Italy’s individualistic ethos. Faced with greedy and hostile authority over many chaotic centuries, it is argued, Italians fell back into the idea that only the family can be trusted. Everything outside the family and clan can be ignored, or tricked into submission. “We are a people of saints, heroes, improvisers and artful fixers; above all, we are cunning,” a 1986 study on Italian values concluded, finding the nation’s mind-set little changed over time. “Our cunningness consists of believing that others will take advantage of us if we do not first take advantage of them.” The state responded to its own weakness by imposing too many laws. Alexander Stille, a professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism who has written books about Italy, cited figures from several years ago showing that Italy had some 90,000 laws on the books, while France had 7,325 and Germany, 5,587. But Italy’s laws are poorly enforced. The country also has the slowest courts in Europe. “The problem is with so many rules, it’s almost impossible to obey them all, and they are applied badly,” he said. “Italians are almost forced into illegality by a poorly functioning system.” While the centrist politicians who ruled Italy since World War II were plenty corrupt, many experts say the antirules culture reached it apex in the political career of Silvio Berlusconi. Mr. Stille argues that Mr. Berlusconi, twice elected prime minister, created a political constituency of tax cheats and people with illegally built houses. “If you ask me for 50 percent or more in taxes,” Mr. Berlusconi once said, “it’s unjust, and I feel morally justified, if I have the possibility, to evade them.” And, dutifully, after each of his elections, in 1994 and 2000, he introduced amnesties for people with unpaid taxes and illegal houses. In the last two weeks, in the anger over the death at the stadium, some Italians have asked whether anything can be done. The short answer, most experts say, is probably not. The government of the new prime minister, Romano Prodi, is weak. And in Europe, national culture has proved resistant to change, frustrating backers of a tighter, more coherent European Union of 27 idiosyncratic states. Still optimists hold out hope: Mr. Catalfamo, of the Chamber of Commerce, says that even if foreign investment is low, it is easier to do business in Italy now than it was 10 years ago. Others note that the nation’s political class is old and cannot hold on forever. Many argue that Italy’s young people are different from their parents. “Young Italians are traveling more,” said Carlo Alberto Morosetti, 44, a business editor at one of Italy’s public television stations. “They surf the Web. They speak more languages.” Plus, life here is very good — the food, the sea, an unhurried way of living, at a standard that may have slipped in recent years but remains remarkably high. The question, with so much so good, is whether there is any will to change. Peter Kiefer and Elisabetta Povoledo contributed reporting. |
|
| Today’s Papers The Iraqi House Rules
By Daniel Politi
Posted Wednesday, Feb. 14, 2007, at 5:38 AM E.T. The New York Times leads, and the Wall Street Journal tops its world-wide newsbox, with news that the Iraqi government announced measures that will be implemented as part of the new security crackdown. In a televised address, Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, who is in charge of the new plan, ordered those who are occupying homes illegally to leave and announced a 72-hour closing of Iraq’s borders with Iran and Syria, an expanded curfew in Baghdad, and the suspension of weapons licenses. The Washington Post leads with the House of Representatives beginning to debate the nonbinding resolution against President Bush’s new plan for Iraq. USA Today leads with a Homeland Security assessment that says tests to try to find a new technology to successfully screen subway and rail passengers for bombs have failed. All the “futuristic screening equipment” tested as part of the $7 million program had problems, and they would all be expensive to implement. The Los Angeles Times leads locally but goes high with complaints springing from Bank of America’s announcement that it is giving credit cards to immigrants who may not have a Social Security number. The WSJ reported on the cards Tuesday, which led to complaints and government officials saying criminals could exploit the program. The program is being tested in 51 Los Angeles County branches but it could go national this year. The paper sees this as another sign of how businesses are trying to turn the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants into customers. As part of the new security measures, Qanbar also said the government reserves the right to listen in on phone calls, open mail, and break into homes and cars. The NYT focuses on the announcement, which apparently surprised even American officers, that those who illegally occupied homes have 15 days to leave. The Times characterizes it as “a monumental task,” and even that might be an understatement. There’s no telling how many people have actually occupied homes, there’s no system in place to verify people’s claims, and, quite simply, there don’t seem to be enough security forces to carry out the work. It is unclear what the role of U.S. forces would be in all this. The paper talks to genocide expert Samantha Power, who says either the plan will never be enforced, or it could be the beginning of more killings. “Unless you create security first, you are paving the way for a potential massacre of returnees,” says Powers. The LAT puts a human face to the issue of occupied homes with a Page One first-person piece by one of the paper’s Iraqi translators. Said Rifai tells of how she felt completely powerless when she got word that gunmen had “house-jacked” her childhood home. Even after she finds out U.S. forces raided her house, her troubles aren’t over, as Rifai now has to worry officers will think her family provided a safe house for insurgents. As a side note, the LAT continues to be the only major paper to regularly give prominent placement to these types of stories written by Iraqis. Why? Democrats in the House urged lawmakers to send a clear signal to the White House that there will be “no more blank checks for President Bush on Iraq,” as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said. The NYT notes that as part of the “tightly choreographed” debate, members of Congress who are veterans were among the first to speak. Meanwhile, many Republicans found themselves in the unenviable position of trying to argue that the resolution is insignificant but, at the same time, very damaging to U.S. interests. The papers report that senior administration officials claim Shiite cleric Muqtada Sadr has been living in Iran for the past few weeks. The officials were careful to note Sadr has family in Iran and he has left before. But that didn’t stop officials from speculating his trip might be related to the new security crackdown. The LAT catches word from Sadr’s aides, who insist the cleric has not left Iraq. The WP and NYT front attorneys for I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby announcing they won’t call either Libby or Vice President Dick Cheney to testify. This sudden change in the expected strategy seems to show defense attorneys think having Libby and Cheney on the witness stand could do more harm than good. The Post fronts, and everyone else mentions, news that federal prosecutors have indicted the former No. 3 official at the CIA and a defense contractor. Prosecutors allege Kyle Foggo used his seniority to hand over contracts to his longtime friend Brent Wilkes, who bribed the former CIA official. This is all related to a criminal investigation of former Rep. Randy Cunningam, who is currently serving eight years in prison for accepting bribes. Wilkes allegedly bribed Cunningham with trips, prostitutes, lavish meals, and various other goodies. The Post and NYT mention the indictment came days before a key U.S. attorney involved in the investigation, Carol Lam, is set to step down. Some Democrats in Congress say Lam was forced out by the Justice Department for political reasons. Over in the Post‘s op-ed page, former Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith defends himself from accusations that he inappropriately handled pre-war intelligence. Feith says that if the inspector general’s report, which chastised his role in intelligence activities before the Iraq war, hadn’t become “part of a political battle” then it would have never turned into a big deal. “Sensible people recognize the importance of vigorous questioning of intelligence by the CIA’s ‘customers,’ ” Feith writes. He also claims only four senior administration officials received the briefing and they could have never confused it for an intelligence product since they knew it was coming from the Pentagon. Daniel Politi writes “Today’s Papers” for Slate. He can be reached at todayspapers@slate.com.
|
|
| 
Pablo Martinez Monsivais/Associated Press I. Lewis Libby Jr. and one of his lawyers, William H. Jeffress Jr., arriving Tuesday at court in Washington February 14, 2007 Libby and Cheney Won’t Testify, Says the Defense WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — Lawyers defending I. Lewis Libby Jr. against perjury charges surprised the courtroom on Tuesday by saying that they would rest their case this week and do so without putting on the stand either Mr. Libby or Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Libby was Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff. The decision means that Mr. Libby’s defense, which will formally end on Wednesday, will have spanned barely three days. Mr. Libby’s chief defense lawyer, Theodore V. Wells Jr., told Judge Reggie B. Walton that Mr. Libby had accepted the defense team’s recommendation to end their presentation swiftly and send the case to the jury by next week. The decision could be viewed as a sign that Mr. Libby’s lawyers are confident that the prosecution failed to make its case. Mr. Wells had earlier signaled strongly that he intended to call Mr. Libby and Mr. Cheney to testify, which suggests that the defense team recently analyzed the costs and benefits of putting them on the stand and concluded that their testimony would not, on balance, help Mr. Libby. One likely factor in that calculation is that putting Mr. Libby on the stand would expose him to a cross-examination by Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the chief prosecutor, that could be withering. Mr. Fitzgerald complained that the defense had engaged in a “bait and switch” tactic by keeping Mr. Libby off the stand after repeatedly suggesting that he would testify. Mr. Cheney’s testimony, which was much anticipated, would have set a precedent as the first appearance of a sitting vice president as a witness at a criminal trial. It was also expected to bolster a major part of Mr. Libby’s defense: that he was so consumed by the crush of high-stakes issues like global terrorism and Iraq that he might not have remembered all the details of his conversations. But the trial threw up numerous instances in which Mr. Cheney took a personal role in managing the White House response to accusations from Joseph C. Wilson IV, a prominent critic of the Iraq war, that the evidence for going to war had been knowingly overstated. Mr. Cheney could have been exposed during cross-examination to uncomfortable questions about his close involvement in trying to undermine Mr. Wilson’s criticisms. Mr. Wilson also said the identity of his wife as a Central Intelligence Agency operative was purposely leaked to the press in retaliation for his criticism. Mr. Libby is charged with lying to a grand jury and to F.B.I. agents investigating that leak. The jury is expected to hear final arguments from both sides beginning next Tuesday. Although the jury will not hear Mr. Libby in person, during the trial, prosecutors played eight hours of audiotapes in which Mr. Fitzgerald questioned him before the grand jury. The jury heard Mr. Libby giving his version calmly in the first two-thirds of the tapes and then seeming to become uneasy and less confident as Mr. Fitzgerald bore in. Prosecutors have said Mr. Libby learned of the identity of Mr. Wilson’s wife, Valerie Wilson, from fellow administration officials in the summer of 2003 and discussed her with reporters. Mr. Libby swore that he had not discussed Ms. Wilson with reporters and believed that he had learned about her in a conversation on July 10 or 11 with Tim Russert of NBC News. Judith Miller, formerly of The New York Times, and Matthew Cooper, formerly of Time magazine, testified for the prosecution that Mr. Libby had discussed Ms. Wilson with them. Mr. Russert testified that he never discussed Ms. Wilson with Mr. Libby. The defense has argued that the three reporters have remembered their conversations incorrectly. And, if Mr. Libby testified incorrectly, it was because his memory was faulty because of the press of official business. Mr. Libby’s lawyers were able to glean what would have been some of the benefits of Mr. Cheney’s testimony through another witness on Tuesday. The witness, John Hannah, a former deputy to Mr. Libby who is now a national security adviser to Mr. Cheney, took the jurors on a tour of Mr. Libby’s concerns in the summer of 2003, including the Iraq war, Islamic extremists’ threat of a biological attack, Iranian and North Korean nuclear capabilities and diplomatic crises with Liberia and Turkey. In Mr. Hannah’s account, Mr. Libby had barely time to draw an extra breath, starting with an early morning C. I. A. briefing “that covers the waterfront of the world.” Mr. Hannah also provided testimony for another defense argument when he said Mr. Libby had a notoriously bad memory. “On certain things, Scooter just had an awful memory,” he said, using Mr. Libby’s nickname. He said that on occasion Mr. Libby would tell him some idea in the afternoon, having forgotten that he, Mr. Hannah, had given him the idea in the morning. Mr. Libby, sitting at the defense table, laughed. Mr. Hannah said in response to a question from a juror — an unusual procedure used by Judge Walton — that Mr. Libby had a good memory for ideas and concepts. Although Mr. Hannah testified for the defense for nearly two hours, the prosecutor, Mr. Fitzgerald, seemed to cut down much of the significance of his testimony in five minutes of cross-examination. Noting that Mr. Hannah had testified that he could usually have a few minutes alone with Mr. Libby only in the evening after the crush of business, Mr. Fitzgerald suggested that Mr. Libby would have devoted time only to matters of great concern to him in the week of July 6, 2003. “If he gave something an hour or two that week, it would be something Mr. Libby thought was important, right?” asked Mr. Fitzgerald. “Well, with regard to me, yes,” Mr. Hannah replied. Left unsaid in the exchange was undisputed testimony that Mr. Libby spent nearly two hours on Tuesday, July 8, with Ms. Miller, then a Times reporter. Ms. Miller has testified that Mr. Libby told her in detail about Ms. Wilson at the meeting. Mr. Libby acknowledged meeting Ms. Miller to counter Mr. Wilson’s accusations, but said he did not discuss Ms. Wilson. Underlying Mr. Hannah’s testimony was a fierce legal battle between the defense team and prosecutors over how much the jury should be told of Mr. Libby’s busy schedule now that he is not going to testify. One of his lawyers, John Cline, said, “We want to show he was caught in a tornado of information.” Judge Walton ruled that without Mr. Libby’s live testimony he would not allow Mr. Wells to argue in his closing that the issue of Ms. Wilson was far less important than the national security issues on his agenda. “I’ve said that relative importance is not going to be an issue on the table if Mr. Libby doesn’t testify,” he said. Jill Abramson, managing editor of The New York Times, testified earlier on Tuesday that she could not remember a conversation with Ms. Miller after the July 8 meeting with Mr. Libby. Ms. Miller had testified earlier in the trial that she had suggested to Ms. Abramson that day that The Times assign someone to look into the role of the Wilsons. Ms. Abramson, who was on the witness stand for less than five minutes, said, “It’s possible I occasionally tuned her out,” but said she had no recollection of the conversation.
|
|
| Great Safe Sex 
Don Hogan Charles/The New York Times Monique Binford told residents of two Queens co-ops that older people today were more sexually active, and ought to be prepared. February 14, 2007 Greatest Generation Learns About Great Safe Sex The sex educators had come to a Queens housing complex to discuss condoms and foreplay and sexually transmitted diseases. Those assembled were told that their demographic was showing increases in sexual activity and an accompanying rise in promiscuity, homosexuality and H.I.V. infection. As the teacher, Monique Binford, delved into an unexpurgated discussion covering issues from vaginal dryness to Viagra, one student’s cane clattered to the floor, another student adjusted his hearing aid and a third fidgeted in her orthopedic shoes. By the time Ms. Binford got around to describing a safe sexual act involving Saran Wrap, a woman shouted, “Enough, already!” and the room erupted in laughter. The sex educators had news for this class of 40 people in their 70s and 80s, just in time for Valentine’s Day: Older folks are friskier than ever, and it’s never too late to learn about safe sex. Sexually speaking, said Norm Sherman, who organized the presentation, “It ain’t over till it’s over.” The class last Wednesday, for residents of what is known as a “naturally occurring retirement community” at the Queensview and North Queensview co-op complexes in Long Island City, was run by Selfhelp Community Services, a nonprofit agency that provides services for the elderly across New York City. The group’s leaders said they started sex-education courses in January after noticing an increase in sexual activity among their elderly clients, something they attribute to the popularity of Viagra and testosterone supplements as well as women shedding the idea that sex is shameful. Along with the increase in sexual activity at senior residences, nursing homes and assisted living facilities, there are increased complications because of lack of knowledge, said Becky Bigio, another of the educators. A recent survey of people 45 and older, conducted by AARP, reported a sharp increase over the past several years of men using sex-enhancing drugs, and observed a corresponding “re-awakening” among women, who said their own sexual satisfaction had been enhanced. The study concluded that health care providers and patients were in need of sex education. Indeed, not one of the students raised a hand when Ms. Binford asked who had been to a class before where someone had demonstrated how to put on a condom. Ms. Bigio said many older people experience problems when resuming sexual activity after a long layoff, as when widows begin new relationships after long marriages that had perhaps slowed down sexually. Then there are sexually transmitted diseases spread by newly promiscuous Viagra takers, often undetected by doctors presuming that older patients are not sexually active. “We feel this is getting to be an area you can no longer ignore,” Ms. Bigio told the group. In her presentation, Ms. Binford said she had also seen an uptick in homosexual activity among the elderly, and that more and more older people were being diagnosed with H.I.V., citing the recent case of an 82-year-old woman in the Bronx. While teenagers might be advised to rein in raging hormones, this class was warned about how incontinence, heart disease, diabetes and medication can contribute to erectile dysfunction; how a collapsed uterus can complicate penetration; and how vaginal dryness can lead to increased incidence of sexually transmitted disease. “I’m telling you right now I’m going to say the word penis and the word vagina because those are the anatomical terms and I hope you’re O.K. with that,” Ms. Binford said as she showed a model of the female genitalia, reproductive and excretory systems. Out of a pink Victoria’s Secret shopping bag, Ms. Binford and Ms. Bigio pulled out lubricant and condoms. “You can actually get this in drugstores, so you don’t have to go to sex shops or anything,” Ms. Binford said of the lubricant, noting there were also coupons in her pink bag. “You can even get your lube flavored. After I get finished with you, you’re all going to rush out and buy condoms.” Bella Cohen, an 89-year-old widow in the front row, scoffed, “Oh yeah, by the thousands.” Then, she inquired: “We can only use it if we have intercourse?” Ms. Binford replied, “We can talk later if you’re thinking of other uses.” Urging her charges to meet potential partners at senior centers, social functions and places of worship, Ms. Binford recommended carrying a “bag of tricks” containing condoms, lubricant and wipes. She explained where the clitoris is and how to achieve an orgasm by masturbation and mentioned the Saran Wrap maneuver, which provides protection for oral sex on a woman. “You’re making us into sex queens,” Mrs. Cohen said. Warning of the danger of taking Viagra with some heart medications, Ms. Binford recommended “cheap man’s Viagra” — a metal ring that slides onto the penis to maintain the erection. “You can get them at the Eighth Avenue sex shops,” she said. “It’s a good field trip. Put your dark glasses and hat on.” She recommended similar outings to stock up on condoms and exhorted the women to build sexual confidence and self-esteem by undressing in front of the mirror. “You’ve got to love you,” she said. The condom-stuffed goodie bags were grabbed eagerly as class ended. Afterward, Barbara Gerbers, 89 and widowed, said she enjoyed the presentation, but would probably not put the knowledge into action. “No, I’m through with sex in my life,” she said. “I grew up in a different era. The kids today are having more fun than I had, but they’re also having abortions and all kinds of diseases.” Mrs. Cohen, though, called the meeting “enlightening,” saying she had been “brought up in a household where you never talked about sex,” and the class “reminded us that sex is not a dirty word.” “I came in thinking that sex is the furthest thing from my mind, it’s just not important anymore,” Mrs. Cohen added. “But, you know, we’re not dead. There’s still a chance to learn.”
|
|
| Valentines Day The Shape of My Heart
Where did the ubiquitous Valentine’s symbol come from?
By Keelin McDonell
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 13, 2007, at 5:20 PM E.T. Americans will dole out countless Valentine’s Day paraphernalia today, a good portion of which will be in the shape of hearts. In an “Explainer” column printed last year and reproduced below, Keelin McDonell attempted to track down the origin of the Valentine’s Day symbol and explain how it got its familiar shape. It’s Valentine’s Day, and as usual, people are presenting their loved ones with heart-shaped cards, candy, and trinkets. How did the heart shape become the symbol of true love? Nobody’s quite sure, but it might have to do with a North African plant. During the seventh century B.C., the city-state of Cyrene* had a lucrative trade in a rare, now-extinct plant: silphium. Although it was mostly used for seasoning, silphium was reputed to have an off-label use as a form of birth control. The silphium was so important to Cyrene’s economy that coins were minted that depicted the plant’s seedpod, which looks like the heart shape we know today. The theory goes that the heart shape first became associated with sex, and eventually, with love. The Catholic Church contends that the modern heart shape did not come along until the 17th century, when Saint Margaret Mary Alocoque had a vision of it surrounded by thorns. This symbol became known as the Sacred Heart of Jesus and was associated with love and devotion; it began popping up often in stained-glass windows and other church iconography. But while the Sacred Heart may have popularized the shape, most scholars agree that it existed much earlier than the 1600s. Less romantic ideas about the heart-shape’s origin exist as well. Some claim that the modern heart-shape simply came from botched attempts to draw an actual human heart, the organ which the ancients, including Aristotle, believed contained all human passions. One leading scholar of heart iconography claims that the philosopher’s physiologically inaccurate description of the human heart—as a three-chambered organ with a rounded top and pointy bottom—may have inspired medieval artists to create what we now know as the heart shape. The medieval tradition of courtly love may have reinforced the shape’s association with romance. Hearts can be found on playing cards, tapestries, and paintings. Hearts proliferated when the exchange of Valentines gained popularity in 17th-century England. At first the notes were a simple affair, but the Victorians made the tradition more elaborate, employing the heart shape in tandem with ribbons and bows. Bonus Explainer: Why do we single out Feb. 14 to celebrate romance? It’s said to be the day St. Valentine, a Roman priest during the third century, was executed. Legends about Valentine vary. Some say he was killed for illegally marrying Roman soldiers; others claim it was for helping Christians escape punishment at the hands of the pagan emperor. Just before his death, it’s believed that he sent an affectionate note to the beautiful daughter of his jailer—the very first Valentine. Got a question about today’s news? Ask the Explainer. Explainer thanks Professor Eric Jager of UCLA. Correction, Feb. 15, 2006: This piece originally misspelled the name of the ancient city-state that traded in the plant silphium. It is Cyrene, not Cylene. (Return to the corrected sentence.) Keelin McDonell is an assistant editor at the New Republic.
|
|
