No evidence of pump price profiteering: Bodman

No evidence of pump price profiteering: Bodman

Reuters

WASHINGTON - The Bush administration sees no direct evidence of profiteering by big U.S. oil companies and is doing all it can to tame near-record prices, U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said on Sunday.

With average U.S. gasoline pump prices near $3 a gallon and politicians clamoring to rein in record oil industry profits, President George W. Bush is trying to stave off a potential election-year problem for Republicans eager to hang on to control of the U.S. Congress.

Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if oil companies are exploiting consumers, Bodman said "we see no evidence of it, but this is one of those situations where I guess I would call it 'trust but verify."'

Bodman pointed to an ongoing probe by the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission into gasoline prices.

Bush last week unveiled a string of actions to tame energy prices, including suspending filling the U.S. emergency crude oil stockpile and taking a closer look at environmental rules that have limited gasoline supplies.

"This administration is doing everything it can do" Bodman said.

U.S. Senate Republicans last week unveiled their proposal to soften the gasoline price blow by giving taxpayers a $100 check and suspending an 18.4 cent-per-gallon federal tax.

Some Democrats and at least one Republican, Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, have said the government should tax "windfall" industry profits.

Exxon Mobil Corp. in January reported U.S.-record profits of $36 billion over the past year. Many Americans were stunned by the size of the $400 million retirement package for former Exxon chief Lee Raymond. The company also last week reported an $8.4 billion profit for the first three months of 2006, its biggest first-quarter profit ever.

"If you do not tax these corporations ... they will continue to run up the profits to sky heavens," said Sen. Richard Durbin, the No. 2 Senate Democrat.

Bodman reiterated that such a tax is a bad idea because it could spur the industry to produce less oil to avoid paying, which happened when such taxes were last enacted in the 1970s.
"That was tried 30 years ago -- it did not work," Bodman said. "That proposal does not hold water."

Separately, the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Friday he will head a task force of state governors to simplify "boutique fuel" rules that can exacerbate fuel shortages , and will soon cap the number of blends to comply with energy legislation signed last year.

Copyright 2006 Reuters News Service. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

In Leak Cases, New Pressure on Journalists

April 30, 2006

In Leak Cases, New Pressure on Journalists

By ADAM LIPTAK


Earlier administrations have fired and prosecuted government officials who provided classified information to the press. They have also tried to force reporters to identify their sources.

But the Bush administration is exploring a more radical measure to protect information it says is vital to national security: the criminal prosecution of reporters under the espionage laws.


Such an approach would signal a thorough revision of the informal rules of engagement that have governed the relationship between the press and the government for many decades.

Leaking in Washington is commonplace and typically entails tolerable risks for government officials and, at worst, the possibility of subpoenas to journalists seeking the identities of sources.
But the Bush administration is putting pressure on the press as never before, and it is operating in a judicial climate that seems increasingly receptive to constraints on journalists.

In the last year alone, a reporter for The New York Times was jailed for refusing to testify about a confidential source; her source, a White House aide, was prosecuted on charges that he lied about his contacts with reporters; a C.I.A. analyst was dismissed for unauthorized contacts with reporters; and a raft of subpoenas to reporters were largely upheld by the courts.

It is not easy to gauge whether the administration will move beyond these efforts to criminal prosecutions of reporters. In public statements and court papers, administration officials have said the law allows such prosecutions and that they will use their prosecutorial discretion in this area judiciously. But there is no indication that a decision to begin such a prosecution has been made. A Justice Department spokeswoman, Tasia Scolinos, declined to comment on Friday.

Because such prosecutions of reporters are unknown, they are widely thought inconceivable.

But legal experts say that existing laws may well allow holding the press to account criminally.

Should the administration pursue the matter, these experts say, it could gain a tool that would thoroughly alter the balance of power between the government and the press.

The administration and its allies say that all avenues must be explored to ensure that vital national security information does not fall into the hands of the nation's enemies.

In February, Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, asked Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales whether the government's investigation into The Times's disclosure of a National Security Agency eavesdropping program included "any potential violation for publishing that information."

Mr. Gonzales responded: "Obviously, our prosecutors are going to look to see all the laws that have been violated. And if the evidence is there, they're going to prosecute those violations."
Recent articles in conservative opinion magazines have been even more forceful.

"The press can and should be held to account for publishing military secrets in wartime," Gabriel Schoenfeld wrote in Commentary magazine last month.

Surprising Move by F.B.I.

One example of the administration's new approach is the F.B.I.'s recent effort to reclaim classified documents in the files of the late columnist Jack Anderson, a move that legal experts say was surprising if not unheard of.

"Under the law," Bill Carter, a spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, said earlier this month, "no private person may possess classified documents that were illegally provided to them."

Critics of the administration position say that altering the conventional understanding between the press and government could have dire consequences.

"Once you make the press the defendant rather than the leaker," said David Rudenstine, the dean of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York and a First Amendment scholar, "you really shut down the flow of information because the government will always know who the defendant is."

The administration's position draws support from an unlikely source — the 1971 Supreme Court decision that refused to block publication by The Times and The Washington Post of the classified history of the Vietnam War known as the Pentagon Papers. The case is generally considered a triumph for the press. But two of the justices in the 6-to-3 majority indicated that there was a basis for after-the-fact prosecution of the newspapers that published the papers under the espionage laws.

Reading of Espionage Laws

Both critics and allies of the administration say that the espionage laws on their face may well be read to forbid possession and publication of classified information by the press. Two provisions are at the heart of the recent debates.

The first, enacted in 1917, is, according to a 2002 report by Susan Buckley, a lawyer who often represents news organizations, "at first blush, pretty much one of the scariest statutes around."

It prohibits anyone with unauthorized access to documents or information concerning the national defense from telling others. The wording of the law is loose, but it seems to contain a further requirement for spoken information. Repeating such information is only a crime, it seems, if the person doing it "has reason to believe" it could be used "to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation." That condition does not seem to apply to information from documents.

In the Pentagon Papers case, Justice Byron R. White, joined by Justice Potter Stewart, said "it seems undeniable that a newspaper" can be "vulnerable to prosecution" under the 1917 law.

Indeed, the Nixon administration considered prosecuting The Times even after the government lost the Pentagon Papers case, according to a 1975 memoir by Whitney North Seymour Jr., who was the United States attorney in Manhattan in the early 1970's. Mr. Seymour wrote that Richard G. Kleindienst, a deputy attorney general, suggested convening a grand jury in New York to that end. Mr. Seymour said he refused.

Some experts believe he would not have won. The most authoritative analysis of the 1917 law, by Harold Edgar and Benno C. Schmidt Jr. in the Columbia Law Review in 1973, concluded, based largely on the law's legislative history, that it was not meant to apply to newspapers.

A second law is less ambiguous. Enacted in 1950, it prohibits publication of government codes and other "communications intelligence activities." Andrew C. McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor who took part in terrorism investigations in New York after the Sept. 11 attacks, said that both The Times, for its disclosures about the eavesdropping program, and The Post, for an article about secret C.I.A. prisons, had violated the 1917 law. The Times, he added, has also violated the 1950 law.

"It was irresponsible to publish these things," Mr. McCarthy said. "I wouldn't hesitate to prosecute."

The reporters who wrote the two articles recently won Pulitzer Prizes.

Even legal scholars who are sympathetic to the newspapers say the legal questions are not straightforward.

"They are making threats that they may be able to carry out technically, legally," Geoffrey R. Stone, a law professor at the University of Chicago and the author of "Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime," said of the administration. The law, Professor Stone added, "has always been understood to be about spying, not about newspapers, but read literally it could be applied to both."

Others say the law is unconstitutional as applied to the press under the First Amendment.

"I don't think that anyone believes that statute is constitutional," said James C. Goodale, who was the general counsel of The New York Times Company during the Pentagon Papers litigation. "Literally read, the statute must be violated countless times every year."

Rodney A. Smolla, the dean of the University of Richmond law school, took a middle ground. He said the existing laws were ambiguous but that in theory it could be constitutional to make receiving classified information a crime. However, he continued, the First Amendment may protect newspapers exposing wrongdoing by the government.

The two newspapers contend that their reporting did bring to light important information about potential government misconduct. Representatives of the papers said they had not been contacted by government investigators in connection with the two articles.

That is baffling, Mr. McCarthy said. At a minimum, he said, the reporters involved should be threatened with prosecution in an effort to learn their sources.

"If you think this is a serious offense and you really think national security has been damaged, and I do," he said, "you don't wait five or six months to ask the person who obviously knows the answer."

Case Against 2 Lobbyists

Curiously, perhaps the most threatening pending case for journalist is one brought against two former lobbyists for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac. The lobbyists, Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, were indicted in August on charges of violating the 1917 law by receiving and repeating national defense information to foreign officials and reporters.

The lobbyists say the case against them is functionally identical to potential cases against reporters.

"You can't say, 'Well, this is constitutional as applied to lobbyists, but it wouldn't be constitutional if applied to journalists,' " Abbe D. Lowell, a lawyer for Mr. Rosen, said at a hearing in the case last month, according to a court transcript.

In court papers filed in January, prosecutors disagreed, saying lobbyist and journalist were different. But they would not rule out the possibility of also charging journalists under the law.

"Prosecution under the espionage laws of an actual member of the press for publishing classified information leaked to it by a government source would raise legitimate and serious issues and would not be undertaken lightly," the papers said. Indeed, they continued, "the fact that there has never been such a prosecution speaks for itself."

Some First Amendment lawyers suspect that the case against the lobbyists is but a first step.

"From the point of view of the administration expanding its powers, the Aipac case is the perfect case," said Ronald K. L. Collins, a scholar at the First Amendment Center, a nonprofit educational group in Virginia. "It allows them to try to establish the precedent without going after the press."


Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Powell Forces Rice to Defend Iraq Planning

Powell Forces Rice to Defend Iraq Planning

By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer

Just back from Baghdad and eager to discuss promising developments, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice found herself knocked off message Sunday, forced to defend prewar planning and troop levels against an unlikely critic — Colin Powell, her predecessor at the State Department.

For the Bush administration, it was a rare instance of in-house dissenter going public.

On Rice's mind was the political breakthrough that had brought her and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to Iraq last week and cleared the way for formation of a national unity government.

Yet Powell sideswiped her by revisiting the question of whether the U.S. had a large enough force to oust Saddam Hussein and then secure the peace.

He said he advised Bush before the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 to send more troops to Iraq, but that the administration did not follow his recommendation.

Rice, Bush's national security adviser during the run-up to the war, neither confirmed nor denied Powell's assertion. But she spent a good part of her appearances on three Sunday talk shows reaching into the past to defend the White House, which is trying to highlight the positive to a public increasingly skeptical in this election year of the president's conduct of the war and concerned about the large U.S. military presence.

"I don't remember specifically what Secretary Powell may be referring to, but I'm quite certain that there were lots of discussions about how best to fulfill the mission that we went into Iraq," Rice said.

"And I have no doubt that all of this was taken into consideration. But that when it came down to it, the president listens to his military advisers who were to execute the plan," she told CNN's "Late Edition."

Powell, in an interview broadcast Sunday in London, said he gave the advice to now retired Gen. Tommy Franks, who developed and executed the Iraq invasion plan, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld while the president was present.

"I made the case to General Franks and Secretary Rumsfeld before the president that I was not sure we had enough troops," Powell said in an interview on Britain's ITV television. "The case was made, it was listened to, it was considered. ... A judgment was made by those responsible that the troop strength was adequate."

In an interview with AARP The Magazine released Sunday, Powell did not say what advice he gave Bush about whether to go to war. Known to be less hawkish than Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and some other presidential advisers, Powell implied he had been more cautious.

"The decisions that were made were not made by me or Mr. Cheney or Rumsfeld. They were made by the president of the United States," he said.

"And my responsibility was to tell him what I thought. And if others were going in at different times and telling him different things, it was his decision to decide whether he wanted to listen to that person or somebody else."

Rice said Bush "listened to the advice of his advisers and ultimately, he listened to the advice of his commanders, the people who actually had to execute the war plan. And he listened to them several times," she told ABC's "This Week."

"When the war plan was put together, it was put together, also, with consideration of what would happen after Saddam Hussein was actually overthrown," Rice said.

In January, Pentagon officials acknowledged that Paul Bremer, the senior U.S. official in Iraq during the first year of the war, told Rumsfeld in May 2004 that a far larger number of U.S. troops were needed to effectively fight the insurgency, but his advice was rejected.

Bremer said his memo to Rumsfeld suggested half a million troops were needed — more than three times the number there at the time.

"There will be time to go back and look at those days of the war and, after the war, to examine what went right and what went wrong," Rice said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"But the goal and the purpose now is to make certain that we take advantage of what is now a very good movement forward on the political front to help this Iraqi government," she said.

Powell was chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the 1991 Gulf War and is known for his belief in deploying decisive force with a clear exit strategy in any conflict.

"The president's military advisers felt that the size of the force was adequate; they may still feel that years later. Some of us don't. I don't," Powell said. "In my perspective, I would have preferred more troops, but you know, this conflict is not over."

"At the time, the president was listening to those who were supposed to be providing him with military advice," Powell said. "They were anticipating a different kind of immediate aftermath of the fall of Baghdad; it turned out to be not exactly as they had anticipated."

Rumsfeld has rejected criticism that he sent too few U.S. troops to Iraq, saying that Franks and generals who oversaw the campaign's planning had determined the overall number of troops, and that he and Bush agreed with them. The recommendation of senior military commanders at the time was about 145,000 troops.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Grand jury probing '05 BP Texas blast -reports

Grand jury probing '05 BP Texas blast -reports

Sun Apr 30, 5:51 PM ET

A U.S. grand jury is probing the deadly 2005 blast that claimed 15 lives at BP Plc.'s giant Texas refinery, according to reports in two Texas newspapers.

The Galveston County Daily News and The Houston Chronicle said federal prosecutors filed motions in state and federal court late last week seeking to limit lawyers for blast victims suing BP from obtaining documents and discussing the federal investigation with witnesses.

State and federal judges will have to rule on the motions before they can take effect.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration fined BP a record $21.3 million in September for over 300 safety violations discovered during the investigation of the March 23, 2005 explosion at BP's Texas City, Texas, refinery.

After the fine was levied, OSHA turned the case over to the U.S. Justice Department for investigation of possible criminal violations.

BP has paid over $492 million to settle claims from people injured and relatives of those killed in the blast.

Some lawsuits stemming from the explosion are set to go to trial in the fall.

BP has claimed responsibility for the blast. An internal investigation found employees and supervisors failed to follow written procedures in restarting an octane-enhancing unit.

The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board continues to probe the explosion and has pointed to nonworking monitoring equipment and fatigued workers among factors that may have contributed to the blast.

On Tuesday, OSHA recommended a $2.4 million fine against BP for safety violations found at an Ohio refinery that the agency said were like those that led to the Texas City explosion.

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Chevron Earnings Soar 49 Percent to $4B

Chevron Earnings Soar 49 Percent to $4B


By MICHAEL LIEDTKE, AP Business Writer 23 minutes ago

SAN RAMON, Calif. - Chevron Corp.'s first-quarter profit soared 49 percent to $4 billion, joining the procession of U.S. oil companies to report colossal earnings as lawmakers consider ways to pacify motorists agitated about rising gas prices.

The San Ramon, Calif.-based company's net income, reported Friday, translated into $1.80 per share, two cents above the average estimate among analysts polled by Thomson Financial. It compared to a profit of $2.7 billion, or $1.28 per share, in the same January-March period last year.

Revenue totaled $54.6 billion, a 31 percent increase from $41.6 billion last year.

If not for continuing production problems caused by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita last summer, Chevron said it would have made an additional $300 million — an amount that would have generated the highest quarterly profit in the company's 127-year history.

As it was, the performance marked the fourth consecutive quarter that Chevron has earned at least $3.6 billion as the company continued to capitalize on oil prices that have climbed above $70 per barrel since the first quarter ended.

The run-up recently has pushed gasoline prices above $3 per gallon, much to the frustration of consumers and politicians looking to win votes in an election year.

Chevron released its results after two of its biggest rivals, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil Corp., already provoked public outrage with similarly large first-quarter profits. Combined, the three oil companies earned $15.7 billion during the three months of the year.

Exxon's $8B 1Q Profit Is 5th Highest Ever

Exxon's $8B 1Q Profit Is 5th Highest Ever

By STEVE QUINN,
AP Business Writer

Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest oil company, reported Thursday the fifth highest quarterly profit for any public company in history, posting gains from higher oil prices that were likely to stoke the furor over outsized oil company earnings.

Despite the 7 percent gain in earnings to more than $8 billion in the first quarter, Exxon Mobil said its earnings came in below its record fourth-quarter because all three of its business — exploration and production; refining; chemicals — didn't perform as well.

The earnings report comes amid consumer outcry in the U.S. about soaring gasoline prices. The average retail price of gasoline in the U.S. is now $2.91 a gallon, or 68 cents higher than a year ago.

It also comes as Washington lawmakers are looking to appease consumers with various proposals to make big oil companies pay more taxes or provide consumers with some other relief.

In January, Exxon posted the highest quarterly profits of any public company in history: $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter of 2005 and $36.13 billion for the full year.

In the first quarter, net income rose to $8.4 billion, or $1.37 per share, from $7.86 billion, or $1.22 per share, a year ago. Excluding a gain on the sale of an interest in China's Sinopec, the company's year-ago profit was $7.4 billion, or $1.15 per share.

But analysts polled by Thomson Financial were looking for a higher profit of $1.47 per share for the latest quarter, and shares fell $1.02, or 1.6 percent, to $62.08 in morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Howard Silverblatt, a senior index analyst for Standard & Poor's, said the latest profit figure still places Exxon fifth historically among quarterly earnings. Exxon also holds the first, second and fourth spots; Royal Dutch Shell PLC has the third spot.

The company said its average sale price for crude oil in the U.S. during the quarter was $55.99 per barrel compared to $42.70 a year ago. It sold natural gas in the U.S., on average, for $8.31 compared to $6.18 during the same period one year ago.

Earnings from exploration and production of oil and gas rose to $6.4 billion from $5 billion a year ago. Refining profits fell from $1.4 billion to $1.2 billion and profits from its chemical business fell to 949 million from $1.4 billion

Revenue grew to $88.98 billion from $82.05 billion a year earlier. Higher crude oil and natural gas prices and improved marketing margins were partly offset by lower chemical margins.
Placed in perspective, Exxon's revenue for the three-month period was still greater than the annual gross domestic product of some major oil producing nations, including the United Arab Emirates ($74.67 billion) and Kuwait ($55.31 billion), according to statistics maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Exxon said it invested $4.8 billion in capital and exploration projects, a 41 percent increase from 2005.

"In the first quarter of 2006, the results of our continuing long-term investment program contributed to a 5 percent increase in production," Exxon chief executive said in a prepared statement.

Exxon also said it returned $7 billion to shareholders through dividends of $2 billion and buying back $5 billion worth of shares.


Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.


Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Oil Prices Drive Up Exxon Mobil 1Q Profit

Oil Prices Drive Up Exxon Mobil 1Q Profit

By STEVE QUINN, AP Business Writer

DALLAS - Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest oil company, said Thursday that higher oil prices drove first-quarter profit up 7 percent from the prior year.

Net income rose to $8.4 billion, or $1.37 per share, in the January-March period from $7.86 billion, or $1.22 per share, a year ago. Excluding a gain on the sale of an interest in China's Sinopec, the company's year-ago profit was $7.4 billion, or $1.15 per share.

But analysts polled by Thomson Financial were looking for a higher profit of $1.47 per share for the latest quarter, and shares fell $1.55, or 2.5 percent, to $61.55 in premarket trading.

Revenue grew to $88.98 billion from $82.05 billion a year earlier. Higher crude oil and natural gas prices and improved marketing margins were partly offset by lower chemical margins.

Its worldwide production of oil equivalent in the first quarter of 2006 rose 5 percent.

The earnings report comes amid consumer outcry in the U.S. about soaring gasoline prices. The average retail price of gasoline in the U.S. is now $2.91 a gallon, or 68 cents higher than a year ago.

It also comes as Washington lawmakers are looking to appease consumers with various proposals to make big oil companies pay more taxes.

In January, Exxon posted the highest quarterly and annual profits of any U.S. company in history: $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter of 2005 and $36.13 billion for the full year.

Exxon said it invested $4.8 billion in capital and exploration projects, a 41 percent increase from 2005.

"In the first quarter of 2006, the results of our continuing long-term investment program contributed to a 5 percent increase in production," Exxon chief executive said in a prepared statement.

Exxon also said it returned $7 billion to shareholders through dividends of $2 billion and buying back $5 billion worth of shares.

ConocoPhillips Reports Record Oil Profits

Apr 26, 2006 7:36 pm

US/Central

ConocoPhillips Reports Record Oil Profits

(CBS) NEW YORK ConocoPhillips, the nation's third-largest oil and gas producer, said Wednesday that its profits rose 13 percent as stronger exploration and production results yielded the best first-quarter earnings since Phillips Petroleum Co. and Conoco Inc. combined in 2002.

Net income jumped to $3.29 billion, or $2.34 per share for the January-March period, from $2.91 billion, or $2.05 per share, in the year-earlier period. Those results were in line with analysts' expectations, according to Thomson Financial.

ConocoPhillips is the first of the three largest U.S. oil companies to report earnings this week. Exxon Mobil Corp. reports Thursday and Chevron Corp. on Friday. The three were expected this week to report a total of more than $16 billion in first-quarter profits.

Revenue at ConocoPhillips grew to $47.9 billion in the first quarter from $38.9 billion last year. The company said higher oil prices were partially tempered by lower natural gas prices compared with the fourth quarter.

Fadel Gheit, analyst with Oppenheimer & Co., said things will only get better for the company, citing its $33.9 billion acquisition of Burlington Resources completed March 31.

The swelling oil company profits and soaring gasoline prices have prompted both political parties to scramble to gain the high ground on an issue of extreme importance to many voters.

President Bush announced several initiatives Tuesday aimed at curbing the high price of filling up. He relaxed clean-fuel standards and ordered a temporary halt to deposits to the nation's strategic petroleum reserve — ostensibly making more oil available for consumer needs and relieving pressure on pump prices.

The president also vowed to pursue any collusion or price gouging and directed the Justice Department to help states pursue allegations that "gas prices have been unfairly manipulated."

Democrats dismissed Mr. Bush's actions as too little and too late.

Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said big oil companies were the culprits behind runaway gas prices, which, he says, go "way beyond what supply and demand would merit."

He said Mr. Bush refused to "get tough on big oil."

In an interview with CBS News, another Democrat, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, said taking action only after prices skyrocketed at the pumps showed a lack of preparation and insight by the Bush administration.

With daily global demand at roughly 85 million barrels per day, the world's oil producers have less than 2 million barrels per day of spare production capacity. This means that amid a tight global market, tensions with oil-rich nations and increased demand, particularly in China, have severe effects on the commodities market — and at the pump.

"I would suggest that in the international markets, there is a disequilibrium," Spitzer told CBS News correspondent Russ Mitchell. "We have seen demand for oil increase dramatically year after year, especially due to the increase in demand in the Asian markets," which the Bush administration could have anticipated, Spitzer claimed.

(© 2006 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)

China heckler at White House charged in court

China heckler at White House charged in court

Fri Apr 21, 2006 09:21 PM ET


By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A heckler from the Falun Gong spiritual movement who disrupted a White House appearance by Chinese President Hu Jintao was charged on Friday with harassing, intimidating and threatening a foreign official.

The federal misdemeanor charges against Wang Wenyi -- a 47-year-old who said she had carried out an individual act of conscience -- are punishable by up to six months in jail.

Wang entered the White House grounds as a reporter before interrupting the highly scripted welcome ceremony for Hu hosted by President George W. Bush on Thursday.

"President Hu, your days are numbered. President Bush, make him stop persecuting Falun Gong," she yelled, referring to the spiritual meditation movement that is banned in China.

Bush personally apologized to Hu for the incident, said by officials to have been deeply resented by the Chinese authorities.

Outside the courthouse after being charged, Wang said she was a physician who had decided to speak out as "an individual act of conscience."

"It is not a crime, but an act of civil disobedience," she said, reading from a prepared statement.
The law at issue bars willfully harassing, intimidating, coercing or threatening a foreign official in the performance of their official duties.

U.S. officials said Wang entered the White House grounds as a reporter with The Epoch Times, an English-language publication strongly supportive of the meditation movement that is banned in China.

Wang, in an interview on the CNN program "The Situation Room," said she had lived in the United States for nearly 20 years and was awaiting a naturalization ceremony to become a U.S. citizen.

She said she realized the charges might hurt her naturalization prospects but said it was worthwhile to call attention to what she called "unspeakable" human-rights abuses in China.

She said the news organization she had represented did not know that she would disrupt the event.

Wang did not speak during the court hearing, which lasted
about 30 minutes. But her court-appointed lawyer, David Bos, challenged the criminal charge on free-speech grounds.

"It's making the First Amendment rights of all Americans just evaporate," he said, calling Wang's remarks "relatively innocuous."

Angela George, from the U.S. attorney's office, said Wang had gone beyond political speech and that the verbal attack was personally directed at Hu.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson did not rule on the free-speech issue. She refused to dismiss the criminal complaint against Wang, saying it was too soon to make a decision about throwing out the case.

Robinson released Wang without bail, but ordered her to stay away from the White House.

© Reuters All Rights Reserved

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

China heckler at White House charged in court

China heckler at White House charged in court

Fri Apr 21, 2006 09:21 PM ET


By Peter Kaplan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A heckler from the Falun Gong spiritual movement who disrupted a White House appearance by Chinese President Hu Jintao was charged on Friday with harassing, intimidating and threatening a foreign official.

The federal misdemeanor charges against Wang Wenyi -- a 47-year-old who said she had carried out an individual act of conscience -- are punishable by up to six months in jail.

Wang entered the White House grounds as a reporter before interrupting the highly scripted welcome ceremony for Hu hosted by President George W. Bush on Thursday.

"President Hu, your days are numbered. President Bush, make him stop persecuting Falun Gong," she yelled, referring to the spiritual meditation movement that is banned in China.

Bush personally apologized to Hu for the incident, said by officials to have been deeply resented by the Chinese authorities.

Outside the courthouse after being charged, Wang said she was a physician who had decided to speak out as "an individual act of conscience."

"It is not a crime, but an act of civil disobedience," she said, reading from a prepared statement.
The law at issue bars willfully harassing, intimidating, coercing or threatening a foreign official in the performance of their official duties.

U.S. officials said Wang entered the White House grounds as a reporter with The Epoch Times, an English-language publication strongly supportive of the meditation movement that is banned in China.

Wang, in an interview on the CNN program "The Situation Room," said she had lived in the United States for nearly 20 years and was awaiting a naturalization ceremony to become a U.S. citizen.

She said she realized the charges might hurt her naturalization prospects but said it was worthwhile to call attention to what she called "unspeakable" human-rights abuses in China.

She said the news organization she had represented did not know that she would disrupt the event.

Wang did not speak during the court hearing, which lasted
about 30 minutes. But her court-appointed lawyer, David Bos, challenged the criminal charge on free-speech grounds.

"It's making the First Amendment rights of all Americans just evaporate," he said, calling Wang's remarks "relatively innocuous."

Angela George, from the U.S. attorney's office, said Wang had gone beyond political speech and that the verbal attack was personally directed at Hu.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Robinson did not rule on the free-speech issue. She refused to dismiss the criminal complaint against Wang, saying it was too soon to make a decision about throwing out the case.

Robinson released Wang without bail, but ordered her to stay away from the White House.

© Reuters All Rights Reserved

© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.

Air Force One Subject of Internet Hoax

Air Force One Subject of Internet Hoax



By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A startling Internet video that shows someone spraying graffiti on
President Bush's jet looked so authentic that the Air Force wasn't immediately certain whether the plane had been targeted.


It was all a hoax. No one actually sprayed the slogan "Still Free" on the cowling of Air Force One.

The pranksters responsible for the grainy, two-minute Web video — employed by a New York fashion company — revealed Friday how they pulled it off: a rented 747 in California painted to look almost exactly like Air Force One.

"I wanted to do something culturally significant, wanted to create a real pop-culture moment," said Marc Ecko of Marc Ecko Enterprises. "It's this completely irreverent, over-the-top thing that could really never happen: this five-dollar can of paint putting a pimple on this Goliath."

The video shows hooded graffiti artists climbing barbed-wire fences and sneaking past guards with dogs to approach the jumbo jet. They spray-paint a slogan associated with free expression.
After the video began circulating on the Web on Tuesday, the Air Force checked to see whether the plane had been vandalized.

"We're looking at it, too," said Lt. Col. Bruce Alexander, a spokesman for the Air Mobility Command's 89th Airlift Wing, which operates Air Force One. "It looks very real."

Alexander later confirmed that no such spray-painting had occurred.

Ecko acknowledged Friday that his company had rented a 747 cargo jet at San Bernardino's airport and covertly painted one side to look like Air Force One. Employees signed secrecy agreements and worked inside a giant hangar until the night the video was made. Ecko declined to say how much the stunt cost.

"It's not cheap," he said. "You have to be rich."
___
On the Net:
Hoax video: http://www.stillfree.com
Air Force One: http://public.andrews.amc.af.mil

$1 Trillion

The One Certainty About Iraq: Spiraling Costs for Americans

Poor Planning, Need for New Equipment Could Push War Costs to $1 Trillion

By KEITH GARVIN

April 20, 2006 — - There are many uncertainties about the progress made by coalition forces and the future prospects for stability and democracy in Iraq, but there is at least one indisputable fact: The Bush administration vastly underestimated the costs of the Iraq war.

Not only in human lives, but in monetary terms as well, the costs of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq far exceed the administration's initial projection of a $50 billion tab. While the number of American casualties in Iraq has declined this year, the amount of money spent to fight the war and rebuild the country has spiralled upward.

The price is expected to almost double after lawmakers return to Capitol Hill next week when the Senate takes up a record $106.5 billion emergency spending bill that includes $72.4 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The House passed a $92 billion version of the bill last month that included $68 billion in war funding. That comes on top of $50 billion already allocated for the war this fiscal year.

Poor Planning Could Push War Costs to $1 Trillion

ABC analyst Tony Cordesman, who also holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says the exorbitant costs come down to poor planning.

"When the administration submitted its original budget for the Iraq war, it didn't provide money for continuing the war this year or any other. We could end up spending up to $1 trillion in supplemental budgets for this war."

According to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, the United States spent $48 billion for Iraq in 2003, $59 billion in 2004, and $81 billion in 2005. The center predicts the figure will balloon to $94 billion for 2006. That equates to a $1,205 bill for each of America's 78 million families, on top of taxes they already pay.

Bill Will Linger Long After Withdrawal

Analysts say the increases can be blamed on the rising cost of maintaining military equipment and developing new equipment. As the cost of military equipment escalates, the cost of the war escalates. In fact, developing state-of-the-art weapons to defeat insurgents and their roadside bombs will hit the wallets of American taxpayers for years to come.

"The Department of Defense has increased its investment in new equipment from $700 billion to $1.4 trillion in the coming years," Cordesman said.

Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker recently warned lawmakers that the cost of upkeep and replacement of military equipment would continue even after U.S. forces withdrew from Iraq. To fully reequip and upgrade the U.S. Army after the war ends will cost $36 billion over six years, and that figure assumes U.S. forces will start withdrawing from Iraq in July, and be completely out of the country by the end of 2008.

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

Sums It Up REAL Nice.....

It says:

MISTAKES

It Could Be That The Purpose Of Your Life Is

Only To Serve As A Warning To Others.

So Close, So Far

Well, on eBay, I sold 10 of my items for $420.31. So that is great!

Angi's stuff is still for sell, but at the moment, she has 12 items that will sell for $87.50.

I relisted more of my stuff that did not sell, and I probably will put more up for sell tomorrow, (We have a holiday from work on Monday). Which I guess is really today.
We are well on our way to get more money to put with our tax return ,(which should be coming in the next few weeks), and the trade in money from our Yukon, and stuff.

My mom is leaving today (monday), she has a holiday also. She bought the kids a couple of Easter baskets, and suprised them, and they said "WOOOOOOOOOOOW", it was so cute!! The kids have yet to be in a Easter egg hunt, does that make us bad parents, considering they are two??

I Am Happy And I Know It (Clap My Hands!)

Life is awesome! Our stuff on eBay is selling well, and we are going to take our tax return, and use it towards a bigger family roadster. Maybe a GMC Yukon XL. Maybe a (who gives a shit??) . Well, we will trade our 1996 Yukon in (with 150,000 miles) towards a vehicle, use the tax return for the rest, and finance what's left over. My mom is visiting us this weekend, just her. She is very pleasant to be around by herself!!!! She is SO NICE when she is not around my dad. She is also nice enough to co-sign on a small loan if I need it, to get said family roadster. We might sell the Jeep outright also. I am on my way to restoring my credit. I got a secured credit card through my bank, and I will use it to buy gas, and pay it 100% EVERY MONTH, which will help my credit out big time!! Not to mention a small loan for a newer vehicle, it will help my credit SO MUCH, so I hope this works out!!!! Our kids had SO MUCH FUN today!!!!! The weather was around 75, MAYBE one small wisp of a cloud in the sky, got the lawn mowed for the first time this year, I LIVE FOR DAYS LIKE THESE!!!! Me and ANG are better than ever! We get along so well, and are closer than we have EVER been, even before the Nov. incident that was four years ago (or around there), we are so close!!!! The kids had a MAJOR a fit when we brought them back in, (it was HILARIOUS!!!! seriously!!!!) after being outside, they were having SO much fun!!!!!


HAPPY EASTER!!!!

HAPPY SPRING!!!!

Life is just awesome!

Suprise!

Well, Ang talked to her mom yesterday, and she said I DON'T THINK SO! ANGI WAS DEAD ON!! She was so upset, she was balling ( SHE NEVER EVER CRIES!!), and she got diarreah, and she about puked. WHY?? You might ask?? Because her brother has been the following:

drug addict

in and out of jail a LOT

welfare fraud

grand theft auto

steal and pawn his parent's stuff

bring drugs and sell drugs in their house

married a dipfuck of a woman after :

SIX YEARS, TWO KIDS, ONE ABORTION

and that is the TIP OF THE ICEBURG!!!!!!

Everytime he needs anything, he runs to them, and sucks on mommy's tit, and they treat him as if he is GOD'S gift to earth. Angi, is nothing to them. They would'nt come out to see the kids if WE PAID THEM. In fact, they (her mom) were supposed to come out and watch and help with the kids once last yaer, and she called at the last second to say she could'nt because they were getting their big screen $4,000 TV delivered that day. She would'nt change the delivery day, she shrugged us off, and that has happened SO MANY times........... that is just one example.

Angi told me herself, the ONLY time her mom has come out, it is because she needed her help with a computer program they both use, and I WON'T EVEN GO THERE ABOUT HER DAD. They go to Mexico two or three times a year, but they can't think about us, especially our kids if their life depended on it. But her brother's kids, they take in, and watch, and take them out ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

FUCKING ASSHOLES.

Fuck them.

For Sale!

Well, a couple of days ago, our neighbor directly across from us is taking the GM buyout package, and according to them, they are moving back to California. SOOO, he walked over and rang our doorbell, and told my wife Ang all of that, and get this...... if we are interested, they will give us first choice on their house!!!!!!!! COOL HUH?! That means NO realtor fees, just lawyer fees for the sale contract!! WOOHOO!!! The house is awesome!!







We are currently raising the money to cover the down payment. We have our tax return, and we can sell our Yukon, and we need just a tad bit more. So we are selling our stuff! CHECK IT OUT HERE !!!! We are definantly going to be able to have enough money for the down payment so that is not a problem. The only problem is financing. We MIGHT be able to do it with a co-signer, but I really doubt it. HOWEVER, Ang's parents might help us out. You see, they helped out her older brother by buying their house, renting it to them until they can get a loan with a half way decent interest rate. So the question here is...........

Will they help US also?????? Ang is very doubtful. She has always played second fiddle to her older brother. They have helped him time after time after time his whole life. She however, well that is a differant story all together. But that is her story to tell........

"The Lifeline"

Whether or you, or I for that matter, agree or disagree, or agree to disagree with the wars in Iraq, and Afghanistan, I found this story about what is happening over there. This trans-sends WAY past what you, I, or whoever else believes what is right and wrong. It's a "A three-part Los Angeles Times series following the lives of soldiers wounded in Iraq", and it is really, really intense. It might make you cry, or just feel a little nausiated, or maybe nothing at all. I guess that depends on your own self. It follows a military hospital with a 96% success rate, and a soldier who got hit with FOUR IED's IN SEVEN DAYS, among other things.



"The Lifeline" (story link)



It covers the lives of soldiers from the battlefield, to the moment when their life changes, or sometimes ends, forever. It JUST only shows the true ugliness of war. It is not saying whether the war is right or wrong, or anything like that........ it is just showing what is going on to OUR soldiers, OUR countrymen, and women.


About This Series (story link)


"Reporter David Zucchino and photographer Rick Loomis spent several weeks in October and November embedded with Army and Air Force medical units in Baghdad and Balad, Iraq, and with two Army air ambulance medical companies at the Balad military air base north of Baghdad. This series, The Lifeline, is the result of those assignments.The two journalists were provided complete access to the work of doctors, surgeons, nurses and Black Hawk medevac helicopter crews as they evacuated and treated wounded U.S. troops, Iraqi military and police, and Iraqi civilians. The access extended to helicopters and operating rooms."



I think maybe I just need a couple of days without getting blown up.
— Army Spc. Corbin Foster


(STORY LINKS:)

• Improved care


• Wounded in Iraq


• In harm's way


• How they were hurt


• Treatment in Iraq


• The road back



PART ONE OF THREE:
Bringing Back the Wounded

• GALLERY: VOICES FROM THE FRONT

PART TWO:
Journey Through Trauma

• GALLERY: VOICES FROM THE FRONT

PART THREE:
Battle on the Home Front

• GALLERY: VOICES FROM THE FRONT

FOR THE WEB
Produced by Diana Swartz
Designed by Stephanie Ferrell
Multimedia produced by John Vande Wege
Interactive design by Bill Bergren

Homeland Deputy Arrested in Seduction Case

Homeland Deputy Arrested in Seduction Case (story link)

By MICHELLE SPITZER,

Associated Press Writer


MIAMI (AP) — The deputy press secretary for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was arrested Tuesday for using the Internet to seduce what he thought was a teenage girl, authorities said.

Brian J. Doyle, 55, was arrested at his residence in Maryland on charges of use of a computer to seduce a child and transmission of harmful material to a minor. The charges were issued out of Polk County, Fla.

Authorities said he was online with the "girl," a Florida undercover sheriff's deputy, when police arrived at his Silver Spring, Md., house to arrest him.

Doyle had a sexually explicit conversation with what he believed was a 14-year-old girl whose profile he saw on the Internet on March 14, the Polk County Sheriff's Office said in a statement.
The girl was really an undercover Polk County Sheriff's Computer Crimes detective, the sheriff's office said.

Doyle sent pornographic movie clips and had sexually explicit conversations via the Internet, the statement said.

During other online conversations, Doyle revealed his name, that he worked for the Homeland Security Department, and offered his office and government issued cellphone numbers, the sheriff's office said.

Doyle also sent photos of himself that were not sexually explicit, authorities said. One photo, which authorities released to the news media, shows Doyle in what appears to be homeland security headquarters. He is wearing a homeland security pin on his lapel and a lanyard that says "TSA."

The Transportation Security Administration is part of the Homeland Security Department.
On several occasions, Doyle instructed the girl to perform a sexual act while thinking of him and described explicit activities he wanted to have with her, investigators said.

Doyle later had a telephone conversation with an undercover deputy posing as the teenager and encouraged her to purchase a webcamera to send graphic images of herself to him, the sheriff's office said.

Carrie Rodgers, a sheriff's spokeswoman, said an undercover detective posing as the girl call Doyle at work Tuesday and said "she had gotten the webcamera like he told her and her mom wouldn't be home that night and she wanted to try it out."

"He said he would get on the computer when he got home from work so we knew he would be on," Rodgers said. "When (police) went to his door, he was on the computer in the middle of a conversation with the girl."

He was booked into Maryland's Montgomery County jail where he was waiting to be extradited to Florida, the sheriff's office said.

There was no immediate response to messages left on Doyle's government-issued cellphone and his e-mail, and he could not be reached by phone at the jail for comment.

Homeland Security press secretary Russ Knocke in Washington said he could not comment on the details of the investigation. "We take these allegations very seriously, and we will cooperate fully with the ongoing investigation," Knocke said.

Washington television stations showed footage of police escorting Doyle from his home in handcuffs. One arresting officer carried a large box. Doyle was bent over in the front seat of the police vehicle in an apparent attempt to hide his face.

Doyle, who is the fourth-ranking official in the department's public affairs office, was expected to be placed on administrative leave Wednesday morning.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Posted 4/4/2006 10:13 PM

Updated 4/5/2006 2:25 AM

Baseball Is Here!!!!!!

It's about time!!!!!!!


I am happy!




Also, you should use this to occupy your brain.