The New York Times Versus America By Michelle Malkin

CNSNews.com Commentary
December 28, 2005

2005 was a banner year for the nation's Idiotarian newspaper of record, the New York Times.

What's "Idiotarian"? Popular warblogger Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs and Pajamas Media coined the useful term to describe stubborn blame-America ideologues hopelessly stuck in a pre-September 11 mindset.

The Times crusaded tirelessly this year for the cut-and-run, troop-undermining, Bush-bashing, reality-denying cause. Let's review:

On July 6, Army reserve officer Phillip Carter authored a freelance op-ed for the Times calling on President Bush to promote military recruitment efforts. The next day, the paper was forced to admit that one of its editors had inserted misleading language into the piece against Carter's wishes. The "correction":

"The Op-Ed page in some copies yesterday carried an incorrect version of an article about military recruitment. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, 'Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday,' nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a 'surprise tour of Iraq.' That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error."

Carter told Times ombudsman Byron Calame: "Those were not words I would have said. It left the impression that I was conscripted" when, in fact, Carter volunteered for active duty.

Funny how the "production errors" of the Times' truth doctors always put the Bush administration and the war in the worst light.

Not content to meddle with the words of a living soldier, the Times published a disgraceful distortion of a fallen soldier's last words on Oct. 26.

As reported in this column and in the news pages of the New York Post, Times reporter James Dao unapologetically abused the late Corporal Jeffrey B. Starr, whose letter to his girl friend in case of death in Iraq was selectively edited to convey a bogus sense of "fatalism" for a massive piece marking the anti-war movement's "2,000 dead in Iraq" campaign.

The Times added insult to injury by ignoring President Bush's tribute to Starr on Nov. 30 during his Naval Academy speech defending the war in Iraq.

After Starr died, Bush said: "A letter was found on his laptop computer. Here's what he wrote. He said, '[I]f you're reading this, then I've died in Iraq. I don't regret going. Everybody dies, but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we're in Iraq; it's not to me. I'm here helping these people so they can live the way we live, not to have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. Others have died for my freedom; now this is my mark.'"

Stirring words deemed unfit to print by the Times.

The Times did find space to print the year's most insipid op-ed piece by paranoid Harvard student Fatina Abdrabboh, who praised Al Gore for overcoming America's allegedly rampant anti-Muslim bias by picking up her car keys, which she dropped while running on a gym treadmill:

" . . . Mr. Gore's act represented all that I yearned for -- acceptance and acknowledgment. . . . I left the gym with a renewed sense of spirit, reassured that I belong to America and that America belongs to me."

I kid you not.

In June, Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, pilot of downed American Airlines Flight 77, blew the whistle on plans by civil liberties zealots to turn Ground Zero in New York into a Blame America monument.

On July 29, the Times editorial page, stocked with liberals who snort and stamp whenever their patriotism is questioned, slammed Burlingame and her supporters at Take Back the Memorial as "un-American" -- for exercising their free speech rights.

Yes, "un-American." This from a newspaper that smeared female interrogators at Guantanamo Bay as "sex workers," sympathetically portrayed military deserters as "un-volunteers," apologized for terror suspects and illegal aliens at every turn, enabled the Bush Derangement Syndrome-driven crusade of the lying Joe Wilson and recklessly endangered national security by publishing illegally obtained information about classified counterterrorism programs.

So, which side is the New York Times on? Let 2005 go down as the year the Gray Lady wrapped herself permanently in a white flag.

(Michelle Malkin is author of the new book "Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild.")


New York Times Accused of Toying with Treason
by Jim Kouri

Source: http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_2122552.shtml

Dec 28, 2005

From our chutzpah file comes this story: today's New York Times reports that defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda.
In an article written by James Risen, who wrote the original NSA spy article, the lawyers said in interviews that they wanted to learn whether the men were monitored by the agency and, if so, whether the government withheld critical information or misled judges and defense lawyers about how and why the men were singled out. So Risen's article may actually help known terrorists -- including the one who planned to blowup the Brooklyn Bridge -- avoid prosecution. He should be proud.

It's been a long time coming, but finally someone from the mainstream news media had the wherewithal to use the words "New York Times" and "treason" in the same sentence. Although I thought the New York Post -- part of Ruppert Murdock's News Corp conglomerate -- didn't go far enough and may have hedged their accusations a bit, the editorial writers were the bold in their assertions. After the Times articles on top secret counterterrorism operations -- the NSA and FBI operations -- there remained little doubt that reporters at the Gray Lady had an agenda.

Here's the opening of their December 27 editorial titled, "Gray Lady Toys with Treason":

"Has The New York Times declared itself to be on the front line in the war against the War on Terror? The self-styled paper of record seems to be trying to reclaim the loyalty of those radical lefties who ludicrously accused it of uncritically reporting on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

"Yet the paper has done more than merely try to embarrass the Bush administration these last few months.

"It has published classified information -- and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat."

While the New York Post stopped short of calling the New York Times' actions treasonous, I for one won't. I believe that the Times should be investigated, prosecuted and suffer the consequences of their actions in a time of war. Whether they believe we are fighting a war or not, isn't the point. The point is they committed an act far worse than those accused leakers in the Valerie Plame investigation; an investigation that the NY Times championed. How many times during the course of the Plame investigation did the Times sanctimoniously fret over our national security? Does the word hypocrisy come to mind?

For too long, the so-called "newspaper of record" has played loose and fancy-free with the truth. Columnist and author Michelle Malkin caught them in a number of lies for which the Times editors offered tepid excuses and apologies. In her December 27 column she wrote:

"The Times crusaded tirelessly this year for the cut-and-run, troop-undermining, Bush-bashing, reality-denying cause. Let's review:

"On July 6, Army reserve officer Phillip Carter authored a freelance op-ed for the Times calling on President Bush to promote military recruitment efforts. The next day, the paper was forced to admit that one of its editors had inserted misleading language into the piece against Carter's wishes. The "correction":

"Carter told Times ombudsman Byron Calame: "Those were not words I would have said. It left the impression that I was conscripted" when, in fact, Carter volunteered for active duty."

This is only one example contained in Malkin's column.

Even more troubling is what isn't caught as untruthful in the pages of the New York Times. While many of the nation's news organizations are attempting to limit the use of "unnamed sources" or "anonymous sources," the Times will build an entire news story based on these nameless, faceless newsmakers. The Gray Lady has become the Kitty Kelly of the news business.

The problem is that most news organizations, including Fox News Channel, use the New York Times coverage as a template for what will be covered by their news people. Some editors, according the former CBS reporter and author Bernard Goldberg, will not cover a story unless it's already been covered by the New York Times. Why is so much respect lavished on this newspaper?

It's similar to the situation in academia where institutions such as Harvard and Yale are still held in the highest esteem, while the quality of their education has been in decline since the 1960s, when radical left-wing ideologues took over their campuses.

But the Times always had a left-leaning agenda. They were the primary apologists for the Soviet Union's brutal murderer and dictator Joseph Stalin. In fact, most of the left in the US were against entering World War II until Hitler attacked the USSR. Then the liberal-left began to call for action against the Nazis.

The left-wingers in politics, the media, academia and activism have turned the idea of treason on its head. Today, no one dares to voice their concerns about someone's patriotism or dare to use the term treasonous to describe the words or conduct of these America haters. They assert that they are patriots. And even conservative politicians and pundits fail to laugh in their faces when they utter such nonsense.

During a recent Fox News Channel debate between talk show host Mike Gallagher and left-wing columnist from The Nation, David Corn, something interesting occurred which went unnoticed. Usually, it's the liberal-left debater who resorts to name calling (i.e. racist, xenophobe, jingoist, etc.). After Corn's diatribe against the war and the Commander-in-Chief, Gallagher simply replied that Corn believed what he was saying because he's Un-American. For the rest of the debate all David Corn could do is protest that he indeed was not Un-American. And Gallagher laughed for the rest of the time he and Corn were on the air. A wise man once told me that most leftists are cowards, but hell hath no fury like that of a leftist uncovered.

Someday, hopefully soon, conservatives will stop pussy-footing around and call a traitor a traitor and treasonous behavor treason. Let's uncover them. Let the fury begin.

The Gray Lady Toys With Treason

New York Post
Tue Dec 27, 6:00 AM ET

Has The New York Times declared itself to be on the front line in the war against the War on Terror?

The self-styled paper of record seems to be trying to reclaim the loyalty of those radical lefties who ludicrously accused it of uncritically reporting on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Yet the paper has done more than merely try to embarrass the Bush administration these last few months.

It has published classified information — and thereby knowingly blown the covers of secret programs and agencies engaged in combating the terrorist threat.

The most notorious example was the paper's disclosure some 10 days ago that, since 9/11, the Bush administration has "secretly" engaged in warrantless eavesdropping on U.S.-based international phone calls and e-mails.

It's not secret anymore, of course — though the folks who reacted to the naming of Valerie Plame as a CIA operative aren't exactly shrieking for another grand jury investigation.

On the contrary: Democrats and their news-media allies — particularly on CNN and CBS — are openly suggesting that the president committed an impeachable offense and could (read: should) be removed from office.

In fact, the Times managed only to blow the lid off of what President Bush rightly calls "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists" — one that already has uncovered several terrorist plots.

Is it legal? The administration insists so, and notes that congressional Democrats got repeated briefings on the program, with few objections. Sure, the legality can be debated — but the case against it is far from a slam-dunk.

As for taking action without court-issued warrants, both the last two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, used warrantless searches — and strongly defended them as fully justified under the authority granted the president by the Constitution. In fact, the Washington Times reports that Clinton expanded their use to purely domestic situations — such as violent public-housing projects.

The Times says it held the story for more than a year, provoking a predictable uproar on the left. So why did it finally go ahead?

According to a Los Angeles Times report, New York Times editors knew that a book by the article's author was to be published in just a few weeks — and they feared losing their "exclusive" to their own reporter's outside work.

But the exact timing is highly suspect. The article appeared on the very day that the Senate was to vote on a Democratic filibuster against renewal of the anti-terrorist Patriot Act — a vote the Bush administration then lost. At least two previously undecided senators said they voted against the act precisely because of the Times piece.

BUT it's not just the National Security Agency story.

Last May, the Times similarly "exposed" — in painstaking detail — the fact that the CIA uses its own airline service, posing as a private charter company, as "the discreet bus drivers of the battle against terrorism."

In fact, as the Times itself reported, "the civilian planes can go places American military craft would not be welcome." In an unconventional war, like the one against terrorism, the ability to move personnel around quickly and inconspicuously — or to deliver captured terrorists to a third country — is indispensable.

Thanks to the Times, that ability has been irrevocably compromised — costing Washington yet another vital tool in the War on Terror.

Then, not content to merely sabotage the federal government, the Times last week blew the whistle on the fact that the New York Police Department has been using plainclothes officers during protest demonstrations.

In particular, the cops have been exercising their vigilance on the group called Critical Mass, which the Times refers to benignly as "a monthly bicycle ride."

Not quite. Yes, it began as peaceful, law-abiding rides — orderly protests. But it deteriorated last year into mass disruptions of traffic.

A federal judge unwisely refused the city's demand that the riders obtain a police permit in advance — but still admitted that the monthly protests were "spawning potential dangers."

All along, the NYPD has not been trying to shut the Critical Mass protests down or abridge anyone's First Amendment rights. It has only insisted on safeguards — like permits — to guarantee that no laws are broken and traffic disruptions are held to a minimum.

Unable to get the courts to agree, the cops instead used plainclothes cops "to prevent and respond to acts of violence and other unlawful activity."

In other words, to protect the people of New York.

Now, the Times has "exposed" this police work — and not just in words, but by splashing the pictures of these undercover officers across the pages of the newspaper, without making even the slightest effort to protect their identities.

And make no mistake: The result will be to compromise the ability of the NYPD to work undercover at a time of increasing danger to the city from back-pack-toting terrorists — a la Madrid and London.

Does The New York Times consider it self a law unto itself — free to subversively undercut basic efforts by any government to protect and defend its citizens?

The Times, it appears, is less concerned with promoting its dubious views on civil liberties than with undercutting the Bush administration. The end result of the paper's flagrant irresponsibility: Lives have been put in danger on the international, national and local levels.

The ability of the nation to perform the most fundamental mission of any government — protection of its citizens — has been pointlessly compromised.

The Jayson Blair and Judith Miller fias coes were high-profile embarrass ments for The Times, but at the end of the day mostly damaged the newspaper alone.

The NSA, CIA and NYPD stories are of a different order of magnitude — they place in unnecessary danger the lives of U.S. citizens.

The New York Times — a once-great and still-powerful institution — is badly in need of adult supervision.

Why In the World Would Anyone Support Senator McCain? by Russ Wilcox

Source: http://www.newsback.com/forums/news-379-.html

Senator McCain occupies an unusual position in American politics. Because of his military service, his unquestioned heroism and the agonizing, extended torture he endured for 5 years as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, he receives deserved acclaim from all sectors. Yet as a supposed Republican, he comes off as a liberal gadfly who will do almost anything to gain press coverage and face time on TV. There are six specific reasons why I oppose him, and certainly could not support him or almost anything he favors: 1. his membership in the Keating Five, 2. his potentially disastrous position on so-called torture, 3. his sponsorship of the ludicrous McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act, 4. his opposition to extending the tax cuts, 5. his opposition to drilling for oil and some measure of energy independence in ANWR, and, 6. his opposition to extending the Patriot Act.

I will discuss or list newspaper accounts of each of these subjects below:

THE KEATING FIVE

Is John McCain a Crook?
Chris Suellentrop
Posted Friday, Feb. 18, 2000

The controversial George W. Bush-sponsored poll in South Carolina mentioned John McCain's role in the so-called Keating Five scandal, and McCain says his involvement in the scandal "will probably be on my tombstone." What exactly did McCain do?

In early 1987, at the beginning of his first Senate term, McCain attended two meetings with federal banking regulators to discuss an investigation into Lincoln Savings and Loan, an Irvine, Calif., thrift owned by Arizona developer Charles Keating. Federal auditors were investigating Keating's banking practices, and Keating, fearful that the government would seize his S&L, sought intervention from a number of U.S. senators.

At Keating's behest, four senators--McCain and Democrats Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California, and John Glenn of Ohio--met with Ed Gray, chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, on April 2. Those four senators and Sen. Don Riegle, D-Mich., attended a second meeting at Keating's behest on April 9 with bank regulators in San Francisco.

Regulators did not seize Lincoln Savings and Loan until two years later. The Lincoln bailout cost taxpayers $2.6 billion, making it the biggest of the S&L scandals. In addition, 17,000 Lincoln investors lost $190 million.

"TORTURE"

Since 9/11, there have been many instances where rough questioning and tactics of embarrassment in questioning terrorists have saved American lives, and only the most naïve among us does not recognize the "ticking bomb" scenario. Why has Senator McCain gone on and on about this subject, and now has pushed through a bill (called by some the Al-Qaeda Bill of Rights) that puts our investigators and our troops at risk? One of the best discussions of this subject was by a renowned liberal, Alan Dershowitz, who said, "The treaties against all forms of torture must begin to recognize differences in degree among varying forms of rough interrogation, ranging from trickery and humiliation, on the one hand, to lethal torture on the other. They must also recognize that any country faced with a ticking-time-bomb terrorist would resort to some forms of interrogation that are today prohibited by the treaty.

International law must recognize that democracies have been forced by the tactics of terrorists to make difficult decisions regarding life and death. The old black-and-white distinctions must be replaced by new categories, rules and approaches that strike the proper balance between preserving human rights and preventing human wrongs. For the law to work, it must be realistic and it must adapt to changing needs."

NEWSMAX.com
John McCain: U.S. Still Torturing Terrorists
Thursday, Dec. 8, 2005 11:12 a.m. EST

Sen. John McCain claimed Wednesday that the U.S. is still torturing terrorist detainees, even as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visits with European leaders to assure them that the practice is banned under U.S. law.

"We've got to stop this torture," McCain told radio host Don Imus.

Sher Zieve
Senator John McCain Now Officially a Liberal Democrat
By Sher Zieve
www.MichNews.com
Dec 16, 2005

In the United States, we already have laws prohibiting torture. But, that wasn’t enough for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). McCain apparently “feels” (one of those liberal things) that torture is 'anything that makes terrorists uncomfortable’. Holy Smokes, Senator! Terrorists are supposed to be uncomfortable.

Not only does McCain not want those who blow up people, buildings and behead those they haven't already killed to be treated with a gentler and more soothing attitude, he has also managed to push this anti-American enemy bill through—with terrorists now being extended rights under the US Constitution!

MCCAIN-FEINGOLD

The McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill was supposed to reduce or limit the amount of money coming into election campaigns. In its first test it failed completely, as record amounts of money were raised and spent in the last election. Instead, it has placed limits on what certain groups can say, and when they can say it, but not on other groups.

Rocky Mountain News
Time to rescue political speech
Another court test of McCain-Feingold law
December 5, 2005

The plain meaning of the First Amendment as regards speech is that you don't need the government's permission to say what you want, and it shouldn't matter who you are or when you want to say it. Once the government sets itself up in the permission-granting business, as it has with "campaign finance reform" under the notorious McCain-Feingold law, you've lost an important part of that constitutional freedom…..

The primary purpose of the constitution's free-speech clause was to protect political speech, and yet the law now explicitly bans the political speech of certain groups. It only goes to show that the law was misguided from the start.

TAX CUTS

John McCain is also opposing continuation of the tax cuts which saved the American economy after the deep recession of 2000 and the devastating blows of 9/11 to the travel, tourism and airline businesses – and to the businesses which depend on them. As has always happened, these tax cuts revived the economy, led to continuing record levels of employment and low inflation, and resulted in huge increases in federal tax receipts – cutting the deficit.

SmartMoney.com, Sept 23, 2005

WILL BACK-TO-BACK HURRICANES be enough to blow away the goose that laid the golden egg? The answer to that question might hold the key to the stock market for the rest of the year.

The golden goose I'm talking about is the May 2003 cut in the tax rate on dividends and capital gains. As I explained at the time, it's a mathematical certainty that stock prices will move higher when investors know they will pay less in taxes on the dividends and capital gains they receive. Say a $10 stock pays a $1 dividend, and you have to pay a 50% tax on that income. The 50 cents you keep means you have an after-tax yield of 5%. If the tax is cut in half, to 25%, you would keep 75 cents, and your after-tax yield jumps to 7.5%. Do you think the stock will stay at $10? No way. It will immediately rise to $15, because that's the price that makes the after-tax yield 5% again.

But that's just the first step. When stock prices rise, the cost of capital falls. After all, the higher the price a company can sell its stock, the less it effectively pays to get the capital it needs to invest in new plants and equipment. So a lower tax rate on dividends and capital gains means more investment, which eventually translates into more productivity, innovation, employment and economic growth. And that suggests that the stock in my example should rise even further than $15 over time.

Want proof? That's easy. The S&P 500 today is more than 25% higher than it was when the tax cut on dividends and capital gains was enacted in May 2003.
And the same logic applies to income tax rates, which were also cut in 2003. When people get to keep more of the money they earn, they work more and they work harder. The result is the same: more productivity, innovation, employment and economic growth.

Want proof? Gross domestic product, after inflation, has risen 8.4% in the eight quarters since the tax cuts were enacted.

Now let me guess what some of you are thinking. What good does it do for stock prices to rise and economic growth to accelerate if government goes broke for lack of tax revenues? After all, if you cut taxes doesn't that mean the government will collect less?

If that's what's worrying you, then consider a few numbers. According to Treasury Department statistics, the federal government collected tax revenues of $1.79 trillion in the 12 months leading up to the enactment of the 2003 tax cuts. In the next 12 months, despite lower tax rates, the government took in more: $1.82 trillion. Then in the next 12 months — still with lower tax rates — it took in even more, at $2.06 trillion.

So everything's been going just fine. Revenues are pouring in, the economy has been doing great, and until several weeks ago stocks were making new four-year highs. You have to admit, those are some pretty golden eggs. Now why would anyone want to kill the goose that lays them? Why would anyone want to take back those tax cuts? Well, that's where Katrina and Rita enter the picture.

If it hadn't been for these hurricanes, Congress was all set to extend the cuts on dividends and capital-gains taxes by two years. As originally enacted, they automatically expired in 2008, and this year they were to be extended to 2010. But with the huge costs of federal assistance to the disaster-struck Gulf Coast, there are plenty of people in Congress who suddenly think extending the tax cuts isn't such a good idea.

Of course the Democrats think that. But they did even before the hurricanes — partly because they are sincerely opposed to tax cuts that they see benefiting only "the rich," and in part simply because the tax cuts were advocated by their political nemesis, George W. Bush. Now that the hurricanes have damaged Bush's reputation, they're in even less of a mood to compromise with him.

DRILLING IN ANWR

McCain is also one of six Republican senators stopping drilling in ANWR (Chafee (R-RI) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) DeWine (R-OH) McCain (R-AZ) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME)).

hughhewitt.com

ANWR is a national security issue. In a time of war, the actual production from ANWR is not as important as taking the steps necessary to get the oil to a position where it would be available to us if we were to need it because of supply disruption or, worse, a catastrophic attack on our facilities for importing oil.

Stand-by production potential is as necessary to the economic health and defense capability of the United States at least as important to the national security as any other element in hour national defense. It is just not obviously so. Congressmen are supposed to have the intellect to get beyond the obvious.

THE PATRIOT ACT

Senator McCain is also leading the opposition to our primary defense against domestic acts of terrorism, extending the Patriot Act. It is no accident that thus far there have been no repeats of the horrors of Sept. 11, 2001. The Patriot Act gave our government a fighting chance to detect and deter Islamic terrorists from operating in this country, and it removed the wall between intelligence agencies that the Clinton Administration had foolishly erected. It must be renewed.

Peggy Noonan sums up:

"Noonan is correct to dismiss concerns about McCain's age, but she doesn't deal with his almost compulsive need to distance himself from the base --voting this week against exploration in ANWR, leading the Gang of 14 instead of leading the fight to confirm Judge Alito, refusing to bring up the obvious disaster that was his masterpiece of campaign finance reform. McCain's candidacy will not survive a string of GOP-only primaries, and anyone who pretends shock at that result in '08 will have refused to collect or study the obvious data."

I believe that Senator McCain's meddling and bumbling in these matters will eventually be overcome, but, in the meantime, a large price is going to be paid by innocent Americans just to satisfy his enormous ego.


Sen. McCain Wants To Be President
Check-out his unpresidential credentials


Source: http://www.usvetdsp.com/story22.htm

January-February 1997 Issue
By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch


Citing his 5-1/2 years as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam, columnists and journalists freehandedly describe Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona as a war hero.

Washington Post columnist George Will wrote about McCain in 1988, "He was a prisoner for 5-1/2 years. Because he was properly obstinate, he was in solitary confinement most of that time . . . Every day for two years, one of his guards ordered him to bow, and then knocked him down."

Joseph Spear, an awestruck columnist who wanted presidential candidate Bob Dole to pick McCain for vice president wrote, "McCain is a war hero . . . He was tossed into the infamous 'Hanoi Hilton' prison camp, where he was hung by his fractured arms for hours at a time." Many have written columns suggesting that McCain is presidential material and advocate his running for the nation's highest office.

McCain obviously agrees.
Reuter's News Service reported in January that the 60 year old McCain says he wants to be President of the United States.

McCain also thinks President Clinton, who dodged the draft rather than serve in Vietnam, is the perfect presidential role model. He recently told the press that Clinton "is the best politician I have ever seen."

McCain, however, does not think so highly of the POW/MIA families and activists who openly challenge the U.S. government's POW/MIA policy, many of whom walked the halls of Congress during the Vietnam War years demanding America's prisoners of war, including POW McCain, not be forgotten.

McCain, as a member of the 1992 Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, took the lead in demanding a U.S. Justice Department investigation of the POW/MIA activists and their organizations. He accused the activists of fraud because in some of their fund-raising literature the activists claimed the U.S. government knowingly left U.S. POWs behind after the Vietnam War and that some remain alive today.

McCain openly attacked the activists telling the press, "The people who have done these things are not zealots in a good cause. They are the most craven, most cynical and most despicable human beings to ever run a scam." The Justice Department did investigate the POW/MIA activists and their organizations and found no reason to charge any POW/MIA activist.

McCain's use of the words craven, despicable and scam are mighty powerful and poisonous words from a man who admittedly traded "military information" to his communist captors in exchange for better medical treatment--or who divorced the wife that stood by him while he was a POW, after she became crippled in an accident.

Those words are hypocritical from a man whose younger and richer wife (she's an heir to Hensley & Co., the second largest Anheuser-Busch beer distributor in the United States) got caught after stealing drugs for two years from a charitable organization of which she was president.

Editor's note: The U.S. military Code of Conduct is the definitive code specifying the responsibilities of American military personnel while in combat or captivity.

Article V of the Code is very specific in ordering U.S. military personnel to avoid answering questions to the utmost of their ability and to make no oral or written statements disloyal to the United States and its allies or harmful to their cause. Any willful violation of the Code is considered collaborating with the enemy.

U.S. Navy pilot John McCain was shot down on his 23rd mission over North Vietnam, October 26, 1967. He was released March 1973 after being held captive by the North Vietnamese for 5-1/2 years.

Within days of his release, McCain wrote the following account of his captivity, which was published in U.S. News and World Report - May 14, 1973:
"I think it was on the fourth day [after being shot down] that two guards came in, instead of one. One of them pulled back the blanket to show the other guard my injury. I looked at my knee. It was about the size of a football . . . when I saw it, I said to the guard, 'O.K., get the officer' . . . an officer came in after a few minutes. It was the man that we came to know very well as 'The Bug.' He was a psychotic torturer, one of the worst fiends that we had to deal with. I said, 'O.K., I'll give you military information if you will take me to the hospital.'"

McCain now says it was only a coincidence that at the same time he was offering "military information" in exchange for special medical treatment, his captors discovered that his father was Adm. John S. McCain Jr., commander of all U.S. forces in Europe and soon-to-be commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific, including Vietnam.

Upon learning about McCain's father, the communists, in an unprecedented move, rushed McCain to one of their military hospitals where he received treatment not available for other U.S. prisoners of war.

Read following news excerpts that chronicle McCain and his associations:

"Nhan Dan today published answers to questions by one of its correspondents made by a U.S. air pirate detained in North Vietnam. "He is Lt. John Sidney McCain . . ." Hanoi VNA International Service in French - November 9, 1967

"To a question of the correspondent, McCain answered: 'My assignment to the Oriskany, I told myself, was due to serious losses in pilots which were sustained by this aircraft carrier due to its raids over North Vietnam territory and which necessitated replacements. From 10 to 12 pilots were transferred like me from the Forrestal to the Oriskany . . . upon arrival near the target, our formation, with six bombers, would mount the attack according to the following order: I would be number three, and the chief of the formation, number one. Each pilot would have to approach the target from a different direction, the choice of which would be left to him.'" A November 9, 1967 declassified Department of Defense document

"A meeting which will leave its mark on my life: My meeting with John Sidney McCain was certainly one of those meetings which will affect me most profoundly for the rest of my life. I had asked the North Vietnamese authorities to allow me to personally interrogate an American prisoner. They authorized me to do so. When night fell, they took me--without any precautions or mystery--to a hospital near the Gia Lam Airport reserved for the military. (Passage omitted) The officer who receives me begins: I ask you not to ask any questions of political nature. If this man replies in a way unfavorable to us, they will not hesitate to speak of "brainwashing" and conclude that we threatened him. (Passage omitted) "This John Sidney McCain is not an ordinary prisoner. His father is none other than Admiral Edmond John McCain, commander in chief of U.S. Naval forces in Europe." Written by "prominent" French television reporter Francois Chalais - January 1968

"Reds Say PW Songbird Is Pilot Son of Admiral
. . . Hanoi has aired a broadcast in which the pilot son of United States Commander in the Pacific, Adm. John McCain, purportedly admits to having bombed civilian targets in North Vietnam and praises medical treatment he has received since being taken prisoner." Saigon-UPI, June 4, 1969

"The English-Language broadcast beamed at South Vietnam was one of a series using American prisoners. It was in response to a plea by Defense Secretary Melvin S. Laird, May 19, that North Vietnam treat prisoners according to the humanitarian standards set forth by the Geneva Convention." The Washington Post - June 5, 1969

"Dr. Fernando Barral, a Spanish psychiatrist residing in Cuba, returned from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam . . . he brought back some journalistic news: an interview with a North American pilot captured in the DRV after bombing Hanoi on 26 October 1967. The meeting between him and the pilot took place in an office of the Committee for Foreign Cultural Relations in Hanoi. The pilot interviewed is Lt Cmdr John Sidney McCain, son and grandson of American Navy Admirals . . . "In the course of the interview, on various occasions he showed that knowledge of the language, saying some words, dates, and so forth in Spanish, or [using it] when he thought the interpreter was seeking the corresponding French word. "Naturally, from the beginning this established a more direct communication between us, and more than one question or my response was made directly in Spanish." Havana Granma - January 24, 1970

"Let me emphasize that there were many, many fine women who supported what they knew their husbands believed in. My wife, Carol, was one of those and I am proud of her." U.S. New and World Report - May 14, 1973

Editor's note: In 1980, McCain's personal life soured. He divorced Carol, who had been seriously injured and crippled in a motor vehicle accident, and married Cindy Hensley, whose father Jim is an Arizona "beer baron."

"Republican Sen. John McCain reported a net worth of at least $830,705 but possibly as much as $1.2 million or more, excluding personal residences . . . McCain listed his wife, Cindy, as the source of most of his assets. . . the bulk of McCain's assets consisted of stock in three Glendale firms - Hensley & Co., a beer distributorship headed by his father-in-law; Western Leasing Co., which leases trucks and equipment; and Eagle Enterprises, which invests in real estate and stock." The Phoenix Gazette - May 19, 1987

"So why has Sen. McCain, R-Ariz., gone to unprecedented lengths to block reform of the Senate campaign finance system? Why does he oppose letting this important matter even come to a vote? Perhaps it's because he is a prime beneficiary of the special interest funding of congressional elections. "McCain raised over $2.5 million for his 1986 election . . . more than $760,000 of his campaign funds came from political action committee (PACs) . . . especially disturbing are the contributions to McCain's campaign coffers from PACs outside of Arizona." The Phoenix Gazette - December 8, 1987

"While Sen. John McCain's wife and father-in-law were investing with Charles H. Keating, Jr. in a shopping center, McCain was helping Keating battle federal regulators who questioned his operation of Lincoln Savings and Loan . . . [photo caption] Documents show that Sen. John McCain's wife, Cindy, and father-in-law, James W. Hensley (second from right) are the largest investors in Fountain Square Shopping Center. Their partnership is managed by subsidiaries of American Continental Corp., run by Charles H. Keating, Jr. (right). But John McCain contends there was no conflict in his helping Keating battle federal regulators." The Arizona Republic - October 8, 1989

"Sen. John McCain had more than a constituent relationship with Charles H. Keating, Jr. prior to 1987 . . . the McCains - sometimes with their daughter and baby sitter - made at least nine trips at Keating's expense from August 1984 to August 1986 aboard either Keating's American Continental Corporation's jet or chartered planes and helicopters owned by Resorts International. Three of the trips were for vacations at Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas." The Arizona Republic - October 8, 1989

"McCain, in a radio talk-show appearance last week condemned disclosures of his family's ties to Keating as "irresponsible journalism." The Arizona Republic - October 17, 1989

" . . . both in telephone conversations with reporters and on a live radio talk show, the Republican senator was far from calm. He was agitated. Angry. And the way he dealt with unpleasant questions was to bully the questioners . . . 'You're a liar,' McCain snapped Sept. 29 when an Arizona Republic reporter asked him about business ties between his wife, Cindy McCain, and Keating . . . 'That's the spouse's involvement, you idiot,' McCain sneered later in the same conversation. 'You do understand English, don't you?' ". . . Not content with just bullying reporters, McCain tried belittling them: 'It's up to you to find that out, kids.' . . . McCain wasn't talking to liars. He wasn't talking to juveniles. The senator was talking to two reporters." The Arizona Republic - October 17, 1989

"Employees at Hensley & Co., a $100 million Anheuser-Busch distribution firm, also say that during McCain's first campaign for Congress, some workers were pressured into going door-to-door in neighborhoods to hand out McCain election pamphlets . . . Hensley employees say they must take the checks to work, where they are collected by supervisors. I asked one person if employees were assured that all contributions were voluntary . . . 'no way,' I was told. 'And my (spouse) and I aren't even registered (to vote). That's what makes us so mad." The Arizona Republic - November 1, 1989

"As a 100 percent, service-connected, disabled ex-prisoner of war, I sought help from John McCain when he was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives and I needed help in regard to a claim for back service-connected disability compensation. I did so because I thought that as an ex-POW himself he could relate to my problem. When I could not reach him via letters to his office, I wrote to his home address. That was a very enlightening experience . . . my letter, addressed to the congressman, was opened by his wife, Cindy. She didn't like what she read, so she wrote me a nasty letter. Apparently John McCain isn't even capable of communicating on a one-to-one basis with someone who was a POW and returned from his experience in far worse physical condition than John McCain returned from his experience . . . M. "Shane" Schoenborn." The Phoenix Gazette - November 4, 1989

"Reporters also 'discovered' that the senator's wife and father-in-law invested $359,100.00 in one of Mr. Keating's projects in 1986 . . ." The Phoenix Gazette - November 13, 1989

"The liquor case is particularly intriguing as it resulted in criminal charges against Marley's subordinates, James and Eugene Hensley. If the last name sounds familiar, it's because James is papa to Cindy McCain, who is wife of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who is infamous lately as a member of the Keating Five . . . Marley also has been a shadow figure in the 1976 slaying of Republic reporter Don Bolles. Bolles wrote extensively about Marley's lucky past. And about how the Hensleys (Marley's managers) bought Ruidso Downs racing track in New Mexico. He wrote about Eugene Hensley spending five years in federal prison for a skimming scam. And about the Hensleys selling their track to a buyer linked with Emprise Corp. And about Marley's liquor ties with Emprise . . . one of Bolles' final dispatches appeared as Marley was about to become a member of the Arizona Racing Commission - the agency that regulates racetracks, including those run at the time by Emprise . . . the story dispatched Marley's appointment. Two months later, a car bomb killed Bolles." The Phoenix Gazette - January 4, 1990

"Bradley J. Funk, an antique dealer linked to the 13-year-old Don Bolles murder case through his family's former ownership of dog-racing tracks, has died of a heart attack, authorities said Jan. 2 . . . Bolles, 47, a former investigative reporter with the Arizona Republic, died June 13, 1976, about 11 days after a dynamite-based bomb blew up beneath his car . . . in his last statement before lapsing into unconsciousness, he mentioned the Mafia, John Adamson and Emprise Corp., a Buffalo, N.Y. company with a far-flung sports empire which once included ownership of the Boston Bruins hockey team and the former Cincinnati Royals basketball franchise . . . now known as Delaware North Cos., Emprise was convicted in 1972 of a federal charge of conspiring to hide Mafia interest in a Las Vegas, Nev., casino . . . Emprise and the Funk family were partners in six dog-racing tracks in the state and the Prescott Downs horse track, and Bolles had ripped their operations in print." Arizona Business Gazette - January 5, 1990

"McCain's involvement with Keating . . . when reporters called him with questions last year about previously unknown ties to Keating, an investment by wife Cindy McCain in a Keating shopping center and trips to Keating's Bahamas home, McCain went into a rage." The Arizona Republic - April 29, 1990

"Cars, homes and bank accounts of 18 people, including eight state legislators, were confiscated in a civil racketeering lawsuit that paints a portrait of lawmakers eager to sell their influence for as little as $660 and as much as $750,000 . . . Richard Scheffel, another lobbyist indicted but not targeted in the civil racketeering suit, is reputed to have been paid $20,000 to identify and approach lawmakers interested in trading votes for money . . . in a bid to establish his professional credentials with Stedino, Scheffel is reported to have boasted that '(U.S.) Sen. John McCain's father-in-law gives money to politicians through him' . . . Bauer, in his report, said Scheffel claimed that 'each January he receives $30,000 from the local Anheuser-Busch distributor, Jim Hensley,' adding that Hensley also supplied him with names of people to list as contributors." The Phoenix Gazette - February 6, 1991

". . . Bob Delgado, executive vice president for Hensley. He also pointed out that Scheffel was a lobbyist for Anheuser-Busch Inc. and not Hensley & Co . . . Hensley & Co. has a pattern, according to state campaign filings, of registering key executives as lobbyists." The Phoenix Gazette - February 9, 1991

"Hensley & Co., a Phoenix-based beer distributor, rewards its drivers and sales people with parties at Phoenix Greyhound Park . . . 'It's been an excellent motivator for us to use for incentive contests,' said Dave Daulton, assistant vice president at Hensley." The Arizona Republic - February 15, 1991

"Don't overlook that multifaceted beer distributor Jim Hensley, father-in-law to Republican Sen. John McCain of modest Keating fame. According to current AzScam records, Hensley is a financial godfather to hosts of lobbyists." The Phoenix Gazette - March 16, 1991

"McCain, meanwhile, reported assets of more than $5.4 million, much of it held jointly with his wife, Cindy. The couple reported holding at least $2 million in stock in Hensley & Co., a beer distributorship owned by Cindy McCain's father, Jim Hensley . . . John McCain, R-Ariz., also reported at least $500,000 in Anheuser-Busch debentures, with most of the rest of the assets primarily in land holdings that his wife has invested in with her family . . . last year, McCain's wealth was estimated by Roll Call at closer to $2.9 million." The Arizona Republic - May 16, 1991

"At the time, Devereux stumbled upon Bolles' notes concerning Charles C. Morgan, a Tucson escrow agent who took a bullet to the head in 1977 while wearing a bulletproof vest. According to Devereux, Morgan worked for organized crime figures . . . Devereux says, Danny Casolaro called 'out of the blue' to ask about laundering operations, a Tucson bank, the Bonanno family and Reagan administration officials . . . a few weeks after that conversation, Casolaro was found in a West Virginia motel room with his wrists slashed. The case, initially ruled a suicide . . . The Phoenix Gazette - March 28, 1992

"Miller blamed the car-bomb slaying on former greyhound owner John Harvey Adamson, who has confessed to murdering Bolles; Phoenix lawyer Neal Roberts; and the late Bradley Funk, whose family used to race greyhounds in Arizona . . . 'this is a case of two contracts, a contract to kill and a contract to cover up who ordered the killing,' he said . . . Granville contended that Dunlap plotted with Adamson to have Bolles killed in behalf of Kemper Marley Sr., a Phoenix land and liquor baron." The Arizona Republic - February 10, 1993

"An Oregon racing regulator who has been offered the top post in the Arizona Racing Department thwarted in 1990 a Portland newspaper's investigation of a possible link between an Oregon track and an alleged organized-crime figure . . . on Friday, Gov. Fife Symington offered Barham the position of director of the Arizona Racing Department. Barham also would become director of the State Gaming Agency, which regulates Indian gaming . . . the Oregonian was looking into a possible connection between Oregon Racing, Inc. and the Emprise Corp., which had been forced out of Oregon because of allegations involving organized crime . . . the Oregonian became curious about Oregon Racing after learning that one of its early investors shared an office in Kenner, La., with John G. Masoni, a longtime Emprise partner . . . the Oregonian said Florida officials consider Masoni an 'associate' of the Detroit Mafia . . . Emprise, now called Delaware North Cos., long has had an interest in Arizona racing. At one time, the company had a virtual monopoly on dog and horse racing in the state in partnership with the Funk family of Phoenix . . . in the mid- '70s, the state moved to break the monopoly in light of a 1972 felony conviction of the company. Emprise was convicted in U.S. District Court in California of conspiring with racketeers to hide an ownership interest in the Frontier Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas." The Arizona Republic - June 23, 1993

Photo caption: "Below, Charles Keating III and McCain, then a member of the U.S. House, celebrate their August birthdays at the Keating's beachside estate at Cat Cay in the Bahamas." The Phoenix Gazette - September 12, 1993

"Cindy McCain, the wife of U.S. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, admitted in a series of media interviews Monday that she became addicted to the painkillers Percocet and Vicodin. She said that she used the drugs from 1989 to 1992 and acknowledged that she had stolen some pills from the American Voluntary Medical Team, a charitable organization of which she is president . . . at one point, McCain, 40, was ingesting 15 to 20 pills a day . . . the normal dosage for seriously ill patients is 6 to 10 a day for a short period." The Arizona Republic - August 24, 1994

"Cindy McCain, who admitted to drug addiction this week, faces more problems, this time involving the adoption of a Bangladeshi baby two years ago.
"Sources confirmed Wednesday that a former employee of McCain's volunteer medical team has accused her of demanding that he commit perjury in adoption proceedings for her daughter, Bridget." The Phoenix Gazette - August 25, 1994

"Her husband is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz."
"Cindy McCain was investigated recently by the Drug Enforcement Administration for stealing and using Percocet and Vicodin, both narcotic painkillers from her aid organization . . . the county attorney's report provides a window to drug dealings within Cindy McCain's nonprofit corporation . . . Gosinski also alleged that Cindy McCain abused her husband's office and diplomatic privileges by transporting illegal substances overseas. He also claimed, according to her lawyers, that Cindy McCain tried to prevent him from providing accurate information to the DEA." The Phoenix Gazette - August 25, 1994

"About 300 guests turned out Saturday night to celebrate the 90th birthday of Joseph 'Joe Bananas' Bonanno, retired boss of New York's Bonanno crime family. He retired to Tucson in 1968 . . . John McCain, R-Ariz., and Gov. Fife Symington sent their regards by telegram." The Arizona Republic - January 17, 1995

Remember the Keating Five?: McCain’s own standards would have hung him by Mark R. Levin

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/levin040501.shtml

Mr. Levin is also president of the Landmark Legal Foundation.
April 5, 2001 9:15 a.m.


For too long, McCain has been given a free pass by the media, which promotes campaign-finance reform to silence other voices, and by his Republican colleagues, who are concerned about alienating McCain given the GOP's tenuous majority in the Senate.

In John McCain's America, any politician who accepts a large contribution or gift from a donor, and then takes steps consistent with the donor's interests — even though there is no legal quid pro quo — is corrupt. Well, then, by his own standard, McCain is corrupt.

McCain was one of the so-called "Keating Five" senators. He was investigated by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics in 1991 regarding the acceptance of favors from Lincoln Savings & Loan Association (Lincoln) and its owner, Charles H. Keating, Jr. Simply put, the issue was whether McCain and the other senators used their official positions to attempt to pressure Federal Home Loan Bank Board officials to go easy on the troubled institution. Eventually Lincoln went bust, costing depositors and taxpayers millions.

In its final report (November 20, 1991), here is what the Senate Select Committee on Ethics concluded about McCain's conduct:

"Mr. Keating, his associates, and his friends contributed $56,000 for Senator McCain's two House races in 1982 and 1984, and $54,000 for his 1986 Senate race. Mr. Keating also provided his corporate plane and/or arranged for payment for the use of commercial or private aircraft on several occasions for travel by Senator McCain and his family, for which Senator McCain ultimately provided reimbursement when called upon to do so. Mr. Keating also allowed Senator McCain and his family to vacation with Mr. Keating and his family, at a home provided by Mr. Keating in the Bahamas, in each of the calendar years 1983 through 1986.

"…[F]rom 1984 to 1987, Senator McCain took actions on Mr. Keating's behalf or at his request. The Committee finds that Senator McCain had a basis for each of these actions independent of the contributions and benefits he received from Mr. Keating, his associates and friends.

"Based on the evidence available to it, the Committee has given consideration to Senator McCain's actions on behalf of Lincoln. The Committee concludes that, given the personal benefits and campaign contributions he had received from Mr. Keating, Senator McCain exercised poor judgment in intervening with the regulators without first inquiring as to the Bank Board's position in the case in a more routine manner. The Committee concludes that Senator McCain's actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him. The Committee finds that Senator McCain took no further action after the April 9, 1987 meeting when he learned of a criminal referral.

"The Committee reaffirms its prior decision that it does not have jurisdiction to determine the issues of disclosure or reimbursement pertaining to flights provided by American Continental Corporation while Senator McCain was a Member of the House of Representatives. The Committee did consider the effect of such on his state of mind and judgment in taking steps to assist Lincoln.

"Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate; therefore, the Committee concludes that no further action is warranted with respect to Senator McCain on the matters investigated during the preliminary inquiry."

McCain was the only Republican implicated in the Keating Five scandal, yet today he lectures his party and his president about "the corrupting influence" of money in politics. He rails against the so-called "wealthy special interests" and their ability to buy access to elected officials, yet this is precisely what the Keating Five scandal was all about. And, of course, under McCain's current standard, a politician who takes a principled position that may benefit a donor is corrupt, even if no law has been violated.

The John McCain of old should be thankful that his political fate wasn't determined by John McCain the reformer.

The Keating Five Investigation (McCain)

Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a389c4d3151b5.htm

THE KEATING FIVE INVESTIGATION (Senate - October 22, 1990)

[Page: S16326]

Mr. McCAIN: Mr. President, I rise this morning to address the Senate with great reluctance and many other emotions, because in my belief the process the Senate uses to judge the ethical conduct of a Member's action should be respected. Mr. President, that respect, by me, a majority of the American people, and other Members of the Senate, is now seriously in jeopardy.

I rise with reluctance, Mr. President, because some of my closest friends and supporters have advised me not to rise and make this speech this morning, saying that the remarks I am about to make may upset the very powerful Ethics Committee, which could, in turn, cause me some political damage for speaking out with criticism and dismay of a process that has evolved over the last year in the adjudication of the allegations before the Ethics Committee concerning me and four other Members of the U.S. Senate.

Mr. President, this could jeopardize my political career. The fact is, that is not my concern as I stand here this morning. My concern is about my honor, my integrity, and my reputation.

Given the present circumstances, it is imperative that I do rise. There comes a time when you can no longer hold your tongue in the face of things that are wrong, especially when those wrongs can be righted. The Senate now faces this kind of problem, and now is the time to fix it.

Mr. President, not only am I personally frustrated by the failure of the Senate Ethics Committee to act on its year-long Keating Five investigation, there are growing allegations in the media of a coverup. The process has a credibility problem. Headlines read, `Keating Coverup?' `Panel Again Delays `Keating 5' Decision.'

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Wall Street article of October 17, entitled 'Keating Coverup'; a Saturday, October 20, 1990, Washington Post article headlined 'Panel Again Delays 'Keating 5' Decision'; concerning remarks of one member of the Ethics Committee; a New York Times editorial, Friday, October 19, 'How Many in the Keating Crew?' be printed in the Record at this time.

There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [Page: S16327]

[FROM THE NEW YORK TIMES, OCT. 19, 1990]

'How Many in the Keating Crew?'

The Senate Ethics Committee will soon disclose whether the `Keating Five' will be reduced to a smaller group of Senators accused of ethical improprieties in a major savings and loan scandal. Each Senator's involvement was different and each is entitled to an unbiased hearing, but if the committee plans to exonerate any of the five, it had better be prepared to explain its action.

The Keating Five earned their name and notoriety because they met three years ago with Federal regulators who were closing in on Charles Keating, a powerful California S.&L. operator. Mr. Keating had made contributions to the Senators' political campaigns. According to reports from Washington, Robert Bennett, the committee's special counsel, is recommending further investigation of Senators Alan Cranston, Donald Riegle and Dennis DeConcini, but would drop charges against Senators John Glenn and John McCain.

Senators Cranston, Riegle and DeConcini may indeed have been more deeply involved in questionable dealings with Mr. Keating, who now confronts various legal proceedings and languishes in a Los Angeles jail. They received more money from him than the others did, and seem to have done him more favors in his battle against what he deemed oppressive regulation. In addition, Senators Glenn and McCain were more successful in distancing themselves from Mr. Keating after the first two meetings with the regulators. Four of the Five attended the first meeting; all of them attended the second.

Should a senator be disciplined just for showing up at a meeting that advances the interest of a constituent or donor? The answer may depend on the size, timing and context of the meeting--all factors for the Ethics Committee to weigh. Senators Glenn and McCain may not have been ringleaders in the drive to get regulators off Mr. Keating's back. But they must have understood the significance of an imposing gathering of five powerful Senators.

Congress, which sets its own ethical rules, bears heavy responsibility for the S.&.L. debacle. It's not always easy to draw clear lines between improper influence-peddling and valid constituent services. But the Ethics Committee has the duty to try. That means reaching a verdict on each member of the Keating crew, publishing the evidence against each and explaining why it chose to treat some differently from others. Only then can the committee define right and wrong--and point the way to higher standards of behavior.

--

[FROM THE WASHINGTON POST, OCT. 20, 1990]

'Panel Again Delays 'Keating Five' Decision' (BY HELEN DEWAR)

The Senate ethics committee yesterday delayed a decision on five senators under investigation for their ties to failed savings and loan executive Charles H. Keating Jr., prompting a bitter protest from member Trent Lott (D-Miss.) that the five are being victimized by the panel's 'fear of acting.'

Describing himself as `furious' at what he said was the committee's inability to decide how to proceed in the case, Lott said he is pessimistic about chances for action before Congress adjourns next week and added, 'I feel like I've become an accomplice to a crime.'

If he were one of the so-called 'Keating Five,' said Lott in a rare departure from the usual reticence of members of the Select Committee on Ethics, 'I would have gone ballistic. It's just not fair.'

The six-member panel is considering a recommendation from its special counsel, Robert S. Bennett, that it take no further action against Sens. John Glenn (D-Ohio) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) but proceed to a full investigation of Sens. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), Dennis DeConcini (D-Ariz.) and Donald W. Riegle Jr. (D-Mich.)

After brief meetings the last two days to decide what to do, the committee, distracted by other business and apparently split over how quickly to act, put off a decision until Monday or Tuesday at the earliest, with no firm commitment to act then.

While Bennett saw no reason to proceed against Glenn and McCain, he found critical links between Keating's contributions to the other three senators and their intervention with thrift industry regulators on behalf of Keating's failed Lincoln Savings and Loan of Irvine, Calif. Keating gave $1.3 million to campaigns and causes of the five senators.

Documents being examined by the committee indicate that Cranston, DeConcini and Riegle had more extensive dealings with Keating than they have acknowledged, including a relationship that continued after regulators warned them that Keating faced a criminal probe.

Sources have indicated that there is at least some doubt on the committee about the fate of Riegle, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, who, like Glenn and McCain, apparently did not continue his intervention with regulators on Keating's behalf after the warning of possible criminal activity.

Collapse of Lincoln is estimated to cost taxpayers about $2 billion. Keating was released on $300,000 bond after a month in jail in California, where he faces charges of fraud in the sale of junk bonds issued by his American Continental Corp., which owned Lincoln.

Lott's angry outburst to two reporters came as pressure for action by the committee mounted among Republicans in the Senate, many of whom are complaining that Democrats on the panel are waiting until after the Nov. 6 congressional elections to act. If Glenn and McCain are dropped from the probe, the bipartisan `Keating Five' would become the all-Democratic `Keating Three,' they note.

Sen. Howell T. Heflin (D-Ala.), chairman of the ethics panel, expressed frustration as he left the meeting, but his annoyance was directed at leaks to newspapers of documents that have been compiled in the case.

Asked if the slow pace were attributable to Heflin, who is known for his deliberate way of doing business, Lott said, `I can't say it' one or two [members] or even that it's partisan, quite frankly.' Instead, he said, `I'm afraid it's the Senate . . ., which is completely incompetent to let go of anything.'

Colleagues have said that Glenn and McCain are intensely frustrated by the delay in committee action. `I've been frustrated for a year,' Glenn said yesterday. McCain, who has been more outspoken, said, `Frankly, I'm deeply disappointed they haven't been able to act. I think they owe the American people an explanation.'

--

[FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, OCT. 17, 1990]

'Keating Cover-Up?'

This week the Keating Five--the leading symbols of Congress's abdication of responsibility in the S&L mess--will learn if they have to face a full Senate probe into their efforts on behalf of Charles Keating's infamous Lincoln Savings. If the Ethics Committee's track record is any indication, citizens should demand that the evidence gathered so far be published.

To its credit, the committee retained Robert Bennett, a veteran ethics investigator, as outside counsel to investigate the case. In September, Mr. Bennett submitted a report that said there was enough evidence to suggest that Senators Dennis DeConcini of Arizona, Alan Cranston of California and Donald Riegle of Michigan may have violated federal or Senate rules in intervening with federal regulators to keep Lincoln open. If the committee accepts his 350-page report, the three Senators will face further investigation. Mr. Bennett recommended no further action against Senators John Glenn of Ohio and John McCain of Arizona.

The committee has delayed action on Mr. Bennett's report until now. There is wide speculation the delay is due to efforts by some to put all five Senators on trail, thereby avoiding political embarrassment for Democrats just before November's election. Senator McCain is a Republican. The other four are Democrats.

It is just as likely that the Senate Ethics Committee is trying to draw a distinction between the kind of `influence peddling' at HUD that was so polloried by Congress and what Members of Congress do daily to push the interests of campaign contributors and favored constitutents. Senator Terry Sanford of North Carolina, a member of the Ethics Committee `jury,' has been indiscreet enough to announce a conclusion in advance. The Keating Five `did exactly what every Senator is called on to do every day,' he told constitutents earlier this year.

We wonder if Senator Sanford still feels that way after reports surfaced in the Washington Post about what Mr. Bennett had uncovered. The Post reported that Joy Jacobson, a fund raiser for Senator Cranston, wrote him a memo in early 1987 on Mr. Keating's complaints about a federal crackdown on Lincoln's controversial business practices. Mr. Keating `will rightfully expect some kind of resolution' to his cocnerns, she wrote. Senator Cranston met several times with Mr. Keating and then joined the four other Senators in meeting with federal regulators on his behalf. In September 1987, Ms. Jacobson wrote again to set up another meeting with Mr. Keating and added, `You should ask Keating for $250,000.' Mr. Cranston did, and in November he pocketed a $250,000 check for his voter-registration efforts from a Keating aide in his office.

The public has a right to know the background behind any decision the Ethics Committee makes on the Keating Five. The committee doesn't follow judicial standards of openness, and Congress of course has exempted itself from the Freedom of Information Act. In the Jim Wright case, outside counsel Richard Phelan's preliminary report was released despite initial attempts to claim it was privileged. A spokesman for the Senate Ethics Committee told us it has never released equivalent reports from its outside counsels. That means the committee can agree with Senator Sanford's conclusion, end the probe of any or all of the Keating Five, and release none of the evidence. This of course would directly contradict the practice of independent counsels who've made public their reports on investigations of virtually all members of the exective branch.

Mr. Bennett's findings are cruical because they are a serious, independent exploration of the Beltway's business-as-usual practices. Mr. Phelan concluded Speaker Wright had improperly intervened on behalf of broken Texas S&Ls. The House Ethics Committee ducked the awful implications of that charge by delcaring that such actions were an integral part of a Member's job and that it couldn't second-guess `the technique and personality of the legislator.'

This week's decision on the Keating Five gives Congress and the voters another chance to debate the vailidty of that decision. Taxpayers, who will be shelling out an average of $2,000 apiece for the S&L mess, deserve the full story of Congress's involvement. [Page: S16328]

Mr. McCAIN: Mr. President, a well-respected member of the Ethics Committee has publicly stated he is essentially frustrated, saying he is furious with the process and that 'he feels like he has become an accomplice to a crime.'

Mr. President, why would a member of the Ethics Committee say that he feels he has become an accomplice to a crime? The only reason why a Member of this body would say that is because he is aware of the Constitution in this country that states unequivocally that justice delayed is justice denied.

Mr. President, justice delayed is justice denied. It is clear to any observer that this system is incredibly and inexcusably delayed.

Mr. President, the Senate does not need this at this particular time in American political history, when our credibility and the confidence of the American people has been so badly eroded. What the Senate needs to do is act. The Senate Ethics Committee needs to act.

What am I seeking, Mr. President? I am seeking two things, which I think are entirely reasonable. One, the outside special counsel's 354-page report, which took 9 months to complete, should be made public immediately.

Mr. President, if the Senate Ethics Committee cannot make a judgment on a special counsel of unimpeachable integrity and reputation, then I think the American people can. I do not know what famous jurist said that `sunshine is the best detergent.' Who said that I do not know, but sunshine remains the best detergent.

The American people have a right to know, I believe, and have a right to inspect this special counsel's report and recommendations on which millions of taxpayers' dollars were expended, and which took 9 months to complete, by one of the most reputable and experienced outside counsels in America.

Mr. President, let the American people decide, if the Senate Ethics Committee cannot.

Second, this committee should decide whether to accept or reject that report before we adjourn this week.

As a person identified as one of the `Keating 5,' I would like to give you a brief, firsthand chronology of this investigation.

The Ethics Committee was first asked to look at all of this a year ago, in October of 1989. I responded to the allegations immediately. In December of last year, the committee retained an outside special counsel.

Let me point out that the organization that demanded this investigation also demanded that a special counsel be appointed, so that there would be objectivity and credibility to whatever decision was eventually made by the Ethics Committee. This special counsel, Mr. President, has been involved in several other investigations, always with great credibility. I personally have the highest regard for his reputation and for the way he has conducted this investigation. That is why the committee picked an outside counsel.

As I said, Mr. Robert Bennett is well respected. He is one of the most experienced and most credible men in Washington, DC, much less America.

I cooperated fully with that process. I produced every document when it was requested. I answered every question asked. I was interviewed in February. I was deposed in April. I was hopeful of judgment in May and then June and then July and then August and September. Time went by; so did the summer. On September 10, over 6 weeks ago, he gave the committee a 354-page report with his findings and his recommendations.

I was convinced, perhaps naively and foolishly, that a judgment would clearly be rendered as a result of this investigation. It now appears that perhaps my hopes were unjustified.

Mr. President, my lawyer and I wrote to the committee on three occasions, seeking action and seeking publication of the investigation, including seeking an open meeting with the Ethics Committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those letters be printed in the Record at this time.

There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follow:

U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, June 5, 1990.

Hon. Howell Heflin, Chairman,

Hon. Warren Rudman, Co-Chairman,
Select Committee on Ethics,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman and Co-Chairman: By your letter to me of October 16, 1989, you notified me that the Committee desired a response to the complaint filed by Common Cause regarding my participation in two meetings with representatives of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board concerning Lincoln Savings and Loan. In my letter to the Committee of November 21, 1989, I gave a detailed response to all the allegations which had been raised concerning those meetings.

On December 7, 1989, the Committee requested that I produce various documents concerning Charles Keating, Lincoln Savings and Loan, and related matters. On December 22, 1989, the Committee announced that it was conducting a preliminary inquiry into this matter, with the assistance of Special Counsel Robert Bennett. On January 10, 1990 I produced two boxes of documents which were responsive to the Committee's document request. Additional information in the form of responses to interrogatories was provided by me to the Committee on January 25, 1990.

My counsel, John M. Dowd, advised Mr. Bennett on several occasions of my desire to cooperate in any way possible to expedite the Committee's inquiry. Accordingly, my counsel suggested that Mr. Bennett interview me at his earliest convenience. Mr. Bennett agreed, and I was interviewed by him in his office for several hours on February 12, 1990.

On February 15, 1990 my counsel provided additional documents to Mr. Bennett which he requested on February 12. On February 20, 1990 my administrative assistant, Christopher Koch, and my legislative assistant, Gwendolyn Van Paasschen, were interviewed by Mr. Bennett and his staff.

On March 12, 1990, I testified before the Committee for approximately three hours, answering all questions posed by Senators Rudman and Pryor and by Mr. Bennett. The following day I produced an additional document to the Committee. On April 12, 1990, Ms. Van Paasschen testified before the Committee. On April 13, 1990, Mr. Koch testified before the Committee.

I recite the above events in order to demonstrate that I have fully cooperated with the Committee and its Special Counsel. I have produced all documents requested and made my staff available for examination by you and your staff. I have answered Mr. Bennett's questions on two separate occasions, and I have testified under oath before the Committee and answered the questions of Senators Rudman and Pryor. In short, I have done everything I can to facilitate the work of the Committee so that the Committee can efficiently and expeditiously address the allegations made against me.

I am very disappointed that the Committee has not reached a decision on these allegations so that a conclusion can be reached. Accordingly, I request an immediate meeting with the full Committee so that I may address the concerns, if any, that the Committee may have. It is clear that there is no merit to the allegations. At the present time this is the only recourse I have to resolve this matter. Justice delayed is justice denied.

I believe that whatever standards are ultimately chosen by the Committee to evaluate my conduct, they must be easily understood and fair at the time the activities under investigation occurred, as well as generally applicable to all Senators' activities on behalf of constituents or others who come to them with requests for assistance.

I take this opportunity to provide the Committee with my observations on the issues concerning my conduct which I am prepared to discuss withe the Committee. I believe these issues involve the following three questions. [Page: S16329]

1. Why did I meet with Edwin Gray on April, 2, 1987?

As I have testified, I attended the meeting with Mr. Gray because American Continental Corporation, the parent of Lincoln Savings and Loan, is a major employer in my state. Like any Senator, I am responsive to the needs of my constituents. I was informed that Lincoln Savings had been undergoing an unusually long examination by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. I had received a letter from a very reputable accounting firm, Arthur Young & Co., raising questions about the Bank Board's examination. I attended the meeting with Mr. Gray for informational purposes only, that is, to inquire why the examination was taking so long and to learn more about the examiners' appraisals of Lincoln's real estate investments.

I have stated clearly and unequivocally that I did not attend the meeting with Mr. Gray because of past campaign contributions received from Charles Keating. The evidence before the Committee supports this fact. On March 24, 1987--prior to the meeting with Mr. Gray--I met with Mr. Keating and advised him that I would not agree to negotiate for him or interfere with the actions being taken by the Bank Board. My staff has described this meeting to the Committee as being `tense'--a description to which I concur, because I let Mr. Keating know in no uncertain terms that I would not pursue the course he requested. My relationship with Charles Keating ended at that time.

I said 'no' to Mr. Keating at a time when his reputation was untarnished, unlike it is today. While Mr. Keating had been a fundraiser for me in my past campaigns, he was not involved in any fundraising activities for me after 1986. Furthermore, I have no reason to conclude that any past contributions he raised were in reality improperly funded corporate contributions. Nevertheless, on my own initiative, I have asked the Federal Election Commission to review the contributions and determine if they are legal and proper. The FEC has not yet issued a ruling.

I do not believe that my decision to meet with Mr. Gray created even the appearance that it was because of Mr. Keating's past fundraising. The undisputed facts are that I ended my relationship with Mr. Keating on March 24, 1987. Senator DeConcini subsequently set up the meeting with Mr. Gray. I attended because I saw it was an opportunity to make some inquiries to determine if a major Arizona employer's allegations regarding some specific issues were well-founded. I believe it was appropriate to make such and inquiry of an agency on behalf of a constituent.

2. What did I do at the meeting with Mr. Gray and the other regulators?

I attended the meeting to try to determine whether or not the allegations of bureaucratic maltreatment were well founded. During the meeting with Mr. Gray, he advised us that he was not familiar with the specifics of the Bank Board's examination of Lincoln Savings and Loan. Therefore, he suggested that we meet with the regulators from the Bank Board's San Francisco office. At that point, out of concern about the possible appearance of such a meeting, I specifically asked Mr. Gray if such a meeting would be proper. He assured me that it would. I made it clear that I sought no special favors for Lincoln Savings and wanted nothing improper done on its behalf. These actions demonstrate that, not only did I exert no inappropriate pressure, I acted affirmatively to make sure that my actions not be misinterpreted.

Since, Mr. Gray was unable to answer questions about the Bank Board's inquiry of Lincoln and since he suggested meeting with the San Francisco regulators the following week, I attended the second meeting on April 9, 1987 which was again set up by Senator DeConcini. At this meeting I made it clear that I was attending because American Continental Corporation was large employer in Arizona, but wanted no special favors for them. As reflected in the notes taken by William Black of the San Francisco FHLBB office, I said:

`One of or jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion. ACC is a big employer and important to the local economy. I would not want any special favors for them.

I also said:

'I do not want any part of our conversation to be improper. We asked Chairman Gray about that and he said it was not improper to discuss Lincoln.'

Mr. Black has since said, on the ABC Nightline program:

'I have never, and I do not believe that any other member of the San Francisco District, not Chairman Gray, have suggested that Senator McCain said anything improper at that meeting.'

In short, at neither meeting did I intervene of interfere in any way with the Bank Board's actions regarding Lincoln Savings and Loan. I did not negotiate for Lincoln Savings or Charles Keating. Rather, I used the meetings only to gain information about the matter, and as soon as I received that information, I was convinced that the Bank Board's actions were proper. When I was informed that the Board suspected criminal activity on the part of Lincoln Savings and was referring the matter to the Department of Justice, it was clear to me that my constituent's complaints were not well founded and that there was no further action I should take on its behalf.

3. What did I do after the meetings with the Bank Board officials?

Since the April 9, 1987 meeting, when I was first told of the regulators belief of improper activities at Lincoln, I have done nothing further for Lincoln, ACC, or Mr. Keating. I did not notify Mr. Keating, or anyone else affiliated with American Continental Corporation or Lincoln Savings and Loan, of what I had learned in the meetings. I told my staff that there was nothing more we should do. Since April 9, 1987, I have not discussed ACC or Lincoln Savings matters with any federal or state regulators. Since then I have no professional or official contact with Mr. Keating or Lincoln or ACC. Since 1986, I have neither solicited, nor accepted political contributions from Mr. Keating, Lincoln or ACC.

Mr. Gray has confirmed that this has been the course I have taken:

`. . . Senator John McCain--who I consider to be decent and honorable public servant--has taken a far different tack than (others attending the meetings). Having learned from the San Francisco regulators of Lincoln's misdeeds, he refused to continue any efforts to intervene on its behalf. Public reports claim that Mr. Keating judged Senator McCain a wimp because of this. Senator McCain is an authentic American hero, not a wimp. * * * he has chosen to take the high road.

I believe it is the responsibility of the Committee, not me, to discuss and evaluate the conduct of Senators DeConcini, Glenn, Riegle and Cranston. I have only addressed my conduct, because when I attended the meeting I spoke for myself, and no other Senator spoke for me. Therefore, the committee should judge me on the basis of my actions, and not the actions of my fellow Senators. If the Committee determines that it needs more time to evaluate the conduct of the other Senators, then it should take that time. But the Committee should not delay its decision on my conduct because it needs more time to evaluate others' conduct.

Your Committee has always understood and taken special notice of the fact that a Senator's reputation is adversely affected by being referred to in the kind of inquiry you are conducting. Each Senator must be responsible for his or her own conduct. But, I believe the Committee has an obligation to act in a way that its deliberations and conduct avoid causing additional damage to a Senator whenever that is possible.

With all due respect, the Committee has all of the information to determine that there is no reason to believe that I engaged in any improper conduct or violated any rule of the United States Senate. It would be very unfair for the Committee to postpone making a decision about my conduct because of a desire to continue reviewing the actions of another Senator. Therefore, I request an immediate meeting with the full Committee to discuss how and why this inquiry as to me should be concluded.

Sincerely,

John McCain,
U.S. Senator.

--

AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
Washington, DC, September 24, 1990.

Hon. Howell Heflin, Chairman,

Hon. Warren Rudman, Co-Chairman,
Select Committee on Ethics,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman and Co-Chairman: I have the privilege of representing Senator John McCain before your Committee. Kindly refer to Senator McCain's letter to you of June 5, 1990 and your reply of June 8, 1990.

I am in receipt of Mr. Bennett's letter of September 21, 1990 enclosing the materials developed during your Preliminary Inquiry and notifying us that we will meet with the Committee shortly in Executive Session.

I have reviewed all of the materials Mr. Bennett sent to me and have discussed these matters with Senator McCain. It is clear from a review of the materials and the testimony there is no reason or cause for a further hearing or proceeding involving Senator McCain. The evidence before you clearly demonstrates that Senator McCain did not engage in any improper conduct and did not violate the rules of the United States Senate. I am confident, knowing the integrity and exceptional ability of Mr. Bennett, that he must have arrived at the same conclusion.

It is time to free John McCain from this process and your inquiry. The failure to resolve this case now because of the activities of others would be a grave injustice to Senator McCain, his family and the people of Arizona.

Accordingly, Senator McCain respectfully requests:

1. A meeting with the Committee this week.

2. A final resolution of his case this week.

3. Release of Mr. Bennett's report to the public this week.

Thank you for your courtesy and consideration. I look forward to your reply.

Sincerely,

John M. Dowd.

--

AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER & FELD, ATTORNEYS AT LAW,
Washington, DC, September 28, 1990.

Hon. Howell Heflin, Chairman,

Hon. Warren Rudman, Cochairman,
Select Committee on Ethics,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

[Page: S16330]

Dear Mr. Chairman and Cochairman: Unfortunately, I have not received a response to my letter of September 24, 1990. However, I did receive a call from Mr. Bennett inviting Senator McCain to appear before the Committee at 2:30 p.m. on October 4, 1990.

Senator McCain accepts your invitation and requests that the meeting with the Committee be open to the public and not in Executive session. Senator McCain renews his request that you release Mr. Bennett's report to the public and that you resolve his case on October 4, 1990.

I thank the Committee and its staff for all of the materials developed during this lengthy and difficult inquiry. The materials demonstrate clearly Mr. Bennett and his staff have turned over every stone. It is time for a decision.

Senator McCain has patiently cooperated with you during this lengthy process while being subjected to public obloquy in Arizona. Thus, he has paid a handsome price for the privilege of being investigated. I respectfully submit you now owe him a decision on his case and the opportunity to account to the people of Arizona for the questions raised by your inquiry.

At the beginning of this process, you committed to deal with each Senator on an individual basis. The Committee's failure to decide this matter when the evidence clearly indicates no misconduct by Senator McCain will undermine that committment and public confidence in the process.

Thank you again for your courtesy and cooperation.

Sincerely,
John M. Dowd.

--

Mr. McCAIN: Mr. President, I have never seen Mr. Bennett's report. I do not know what it says. I am sure of what it does say, though, because I have had three meetings with the committee. I have answered every question clearly to their satisfaction and, obviously, the media reports are clear that I will be relieved of any culpability in this matter.

Let ms just say a few words about the investigation, as far as my relationship with Mr. Keating.

Mr. President, I will not go into a lot of detail. I had a 90-minute press conference in Phoenix, AZ, when this started a year ago. I have visited virtually every major editorial board in America. I have been on every talk show in America. I have had the allegations reviewed time and time again. I would be glad, if any Member of this body has any questions about my involvement with him, to go over them again.

But the key and crucial aspect of this investigation, Mr. President, was that when Mr. Keating asked me to do something that was improper, I walked away from Mr. Keating. Yes, we had been friends; he had been a supporter of mine; and, yes, he was a hot property around the State of Arizona and one of the wealthiest men. But I never lifted a finger for him. When he asked for my help in an improper fashion, I walked away. Maybe that is why he and his family have called me `the biggest disappointment in their lives.'

Those are the facts. That is what the outside special counsel has been looking into, and that is what he must have found in this investigation.

Mr. President, the special counsel's report has been gathering dust in the Ethics Committee for 6 weeks. I might remind you that after 3 weeks, the Ethics Committee had done nothing. Then the Ethics Committee released a press release saying that the 345-page document had to be examined by the committee.

Mr. President, we are going to vote, probably in a day or 2, on a few thousand page document that none of us have read. We routinely vote on appropriations bills of hundreds of pages around here, affecting the lives of virtually every American, which none of us have even read.

Mr. President, the Ethics Committee has had ample time to examine this report of the special counsel, and now they must act. Let us make the special counsel's report public. It is not some incomplete preliminary investigation, as it was advertised. It is a total, complete, thorough, multimillion dollar 9-month investigation. It is a complete investigation. The American people have the right to scrutinize it.

I believe, Mr. President, that the Ethics Committee must act before we adjourn. I will accept whatever judgment the Ethics Committee makes. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Mr. President, if the Ethics Committee cannot act, then we do not have an Ethics Committee. I have cooperated with the process at every turn. I have no quarrel with it. The problem is the conscious failure to end the process.

I note, for example, that the Ethics Committee has not even scheduled to meet today, despite nationwide questioning of whether there may be a coverup here. I am seeking, Mr. President, justice and fairness. I am concerned about the integrity of this institution, and I can accept any finding or any judgment. But I cannot accept a deliberate effort to withhold the truth, and the continued suspicion of a coverup.

Mr. President, there is far more at stake here than just my reputation; it is the reputation of the U.S. Senate. I am very concerned about that, too, as it has been a great honor and privilege for me to be a part of this body.

Mr. President, I would like to make a couple more comments, and I know that I am running out of time here. This is a very important issue.

Mr. President, I have four questions for my colleagues. If you were in my shoes, what would you do? Someday there my be an allegation against any Member of this body, with a claim that raises issues about your integrity. I patiently cooperated and held my tongue for 9 months while I was being investigated, fending off report after report, allegation after allegation, which clearly has done enormous damage to my political standing, but more importantly my reputation.

Yet after the completion 6 weeks ago of the investigation and the recommendation of the special counsel, no action has been taken. I ask my colleagues, if you were in my shoes, what would you do? I ask my colleagues a second question: If you were on the Ethics Committee and you had the report of an outside special counsel, after a 9-month investigation, that called for exoneration of some of your colleagues, a counsel who is well-respected and whose recommendations have always been followed in the past, how would you vote? Would you delay?

By the way, I want to say a word about Senator Warren Rudman, who I believe has made every effort as the vice chairman of this committee to get this thing resolved, and I am deeply appreciative of his efforts.

Mr. President, if you were in my shoes, what would you say to your constituents at home if we went out of session and this body did not act? How would you explain this to the American people, who have some questions about the credibility of this institution; how it is that after a 9-month investigation this body still fails to act?

Finally, if you were in my shoes, what would you tell your family? What would you tell your family when you go home to see them on weekends: that an investigation has been conducted in the most painful experience of your life, and yet with all the evidence in, with the investigation completed, that still the committee and the body fails to act?

Mr. President, my family has served this Nation with honor and sometimes distinction for over 200 years. My direct forebear was a member of General Washington's staff. My family has had the honor and privilege to serve this Nation from generation to generation, usually in defense of freedom.

I, myself, Mr. President, for 35 years have served this Nation, always with honor, always with integrity. I deserve an adjudication and a judgment in this issue. I do not deserve--and I only speak for myself--to be strung out week after week, month after month. The evidence is there; the American people deserve to know it; the evidence is there and the judgment must be made. Otherwise, it will reflect very badly, not only on me, but on this institution.

So my appeal is for fairness, justice, and decency, and I urge my colleagues to join me in seeking action on the part of the Ethics Committee.

I appreciate the indulgence of the distinguished President, and I yield the remainder of my time. [Page: S16331] END

The New York Times' Christmas Gift By Michael Barone

Source: http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-12_26_05_MB.html

The New York Times' Christmas gift -- sorry, holiday gift -- to the nation's political dialogue was its Dec. 16 story reporting that the National Security Agency has been intercepting telephone conversations between terrorism suspects abroad and U.S. citizens or legal residents in the United States.

What the Times didn't bother telling its readers is that this practice is far from new and is entirely legal. Instead, the unspoken subtext of the story was that this was likely an illegal and certainly a very scary invasion of Americans' rights.

Let's put the issue very simply. The president has the power as commander in chief under the Constitution to intercept and monitor the communications of America's enemies. Indeed, it would be a very weird interpretation of the Constitution to say that the commander in chief could order U.S. forces to kill America's enemies but not to wiretap -- or, more likely these days, electronically intercept -- their communications. Presidents have asserted and exercised this power repeatedly and consistently over the last quarter-century.

To be sure, federal courts have ruled that the Fourth Amendment's bar of "unreasonable" searches and seizures limits the president's power to intercept communications without obtaining a warrant. But that doesn't apply to foreign intercepts, as the Supreme Court made clear in a 1972 case, writing, "The instant case requires no judgment on the scope of the president's surveillance power with respect to the activities of foreign powers, within or without this country." The federal courts of appeals for the 5th, 3rd, 9th and 4th Circuits, in cases decided in 1970, 1974, 1977 and 1980, took the same view. In 2002, the special federal court superintending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wrote, "The Truong court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue, held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information. ... We take for granted that the president does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the president's constitutional power."

Warrantless intercepts of the communications of foreign powers were undertaken as long ago as 1979, by the Carter administration. In 1994, Bill Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, testified to Congress, "The Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

In the Dec. 15 Chicago Tribune, John Schmidt, associate attorney general in the Clinton administration, laid it out cold: "President Bush's post-Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents."

"News stories" in the Times and other newspapers and many national newscasts have largely ignored this legal record. Instead, they are tinged with a note of hysteria and the suggestion that fundamental freedoms have been violated by the NSA intercepts.

Earlier this month, a Newsweek cover story depicted George W. Bush as living inside a bubble, isolated from knowledge of the real world. Many of the news stories about the NSA intercepts show that it is mainstream media that are living inside a bubble, carefully insulating themselves and their readers and viewers from knowledge of applicable law and recent historical precedent, determined to pursue an agenda of undermining the Bush administration regardless of any damage to national security.

And damage there almost certainly would be were the program to be ended, as many Democrats and many in the mainstream media would like. Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of NSA and now deputy national intelligence director, has come forward to say, "This program has been successful in detecting and preventing attacks inside the United States."

The Constitution, Justice Robert Jackson famously wrote, should not be interpreted in a way that makes it "a suicide pact." The notion that terrorists' privacy must be respected when they place a cell-phone call to someone in the United States is in the nature of a suicide pact. The Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures in the United States should not be stretched into a ban on interceptions of communications from America's enemies abroad.

The mainstream media, inside their left-wing bubble, evidently thinks that there is not much in the way of danger. They should take a trip to Ground Zero, to the Sept. 11 memorial at the Pentagon, to Shanksville, Pa., where the heroes of United flight 93 prevented the terrorists from hitting their target in Washington.