<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Jake Tapper</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/jake_tapper/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 12:30:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Courage and malfeasance in Afghanistan: &#8220;Anyone we drop off will die&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/18/courage_and_malfeasance_in_afghanistan_anyone_we_drop_off_will_die/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/18/courage_and_malfeasance_in_afghanistan_anyone_we_drop_off_will_die/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Nov 2012 17:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Outpost]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jake Tapper]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=13100799</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Officers ordered an Afghanistan outpost built knowing it was vulnerable. Then the Taliban arrived and soldiers died]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It was madness.</p><p>At Jalalabad Airfield, in eastern Afghanistan in the summer of 2006, a young intelligence analyst named Jacob Whittaker tried with great difficulty to understand exactly what he was hearing.</p><p>The 10th Mountain Division of the United States Army wanted to do <em>what?</em></p><p>Whittaker had to choose his words carefully. He was just a low-ranking specialist with the Idaho National Guard, a very low man on a very tall totem pole. A round-faced twenty-six-year-old, Whittaker had simple tastes — Boise State football, comic books — and a reputation for mulishness belied by his innocent appearance.</p><p>Whittaker stared at his superior officer, Second Lieutenant Ryan Lockner, who was running this briefing for him and Sergeant Aaron Ives. Lockner headed intelligence for Task Force Talon, the Army’s aviation component at Jalalabad Airfield, in Nangarhar Province, adjacent to the Pakistan border. Military leaders considered this area, officially designated Regional Command East, the most dangerous part of an increasingly dangerous country.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/11/18/courage_and_malfeasance_in_afghanistan_anyone_we_drop_off_will_die/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/11/18/courage_and_malfeasance_in_afghanistan_anyone_we_drop_off_will_die/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>35</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The skeletons and suits in Sharpton&#8217;s closet</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/21/sharpton_7/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/21/sharpton_7/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Howard Dean]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John F. Kerry, D-Mass.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Edwards]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Joe Lieberman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Al Gore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HBO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rudy Giuliani]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/06/20/sharpton</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The controversial political leader and Democratic presidential candidate delivers a pointed warning: If you attack me, you risk being sued.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With the threat of a defamation lawsuit against an obscure GOP state representative from Michigan, the Rev. Al Sharpton officially gave the political and media worlds notice on Thursday: If you intend to write negative things about the activist and fledgling Democratic presidential candidate, you had better be certain that you have your facts straight. But it's unclear whether Sharpton's team has as firm a hold on the ugly realities of his past as their threat would seem to indicate. </p><p> Sharpton's attorney, Michael Hardy, told Salon on Thursday that Sharpton is serious about the lawsuit against Michigan state Rep. <a target="new" href="http://www.house.state.mi.us/rep.asp?DIST=039">Marc Shulman,</a> and will likely file it if Shulman doesn't apologize within the next month for the allegations he made in a letter to a fellow Michigan politician. </p><p> Shulman, offended by Sharpton's invitation to keynote a local African-American community dinner, cited actions and quotations attributed to Sharpton that, in his view, illustrated bigotry. They included seemingly anti-Semitic quotes by Sharpton from the 1991 Crown Heights affair where tensions between blacks and Hasidic Jews resulted in riots and a murder, as well as a reference to "Socrates and them Greek homos" allegedly from a 1994 speech. Hardy acknowledged that the threatened lawsuit was just as much -- if not more so -- about firing a warning shot across the bow of those who may attempt to use Sharpton's controversial, occasionally demagogic past against him. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/06/21/sharpton_7/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/21/sharpton_7/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The hyping of Saddam&#8217;s WMD</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/18/wmd_12/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/18/wmd_12/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2003 22:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/06/18/wmd</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last August, Bush said Saddam merely "desired" weapons of mass
 destruction. A month later, as he began selling the Iraq war, his tone suddenly changed.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After touring the Andrea Foods pasta factory Monday in Orange, N.J., President Bush spoke to Garden State business owners at the Wyndham Newark Airport Hotel, where <a target="new" href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030616-2.html">he decried</a> the "revisionist historians" who seemed to be questioning whether "Hussein was a threat to America and the free world in '91, in '98, in 2003," the president said. </p><p> "He continually ignored the demands of the free world, so the United States and friends and allies acted." One thing was certain, Bush said to applause, "Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States and our friends and allies." </p><p> A nonpartisan analysis of who, exactly, has been a "revisionist" on the subject of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, however, reveals that politicians from both parties have revised their positions -- and often more than once. Both Democrats and Republicans have displayed a constantly shifting rhetorical pattern that makes it impossible to figure out what, if anything, either side ever concretely knew about Saddam's weapons programs. </p><p> The one consistency: Their statements, miraculously, always seemed to fit their political agenda. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/06/18/wmd_12/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/18/wmd_12/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>McCain calls for hearings</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/13/mccain_130/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/13/mccain_130/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2003 00:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/06/12/mccain</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[He still believes weapons of mass destruction will be found -- but says Congress should investigate whether intelligence was cooked.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Wednesday evening, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the No. 2 Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, continued his call for hearings on prewar intelligence about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. But he's also downplaying it as a standard postwar congressional review. </p><p>"I hesitate to reach any conclusions until I have complete information and all sides of an issue are heard," McCain said in a telephone interview with Salon. </p><p>A supporter of the war, McCain says he is confident that evidence of WMD will be found. He allows, however, that media accounts of intelligence officials accusing the Bush administration of twisting intelligence to justify an invasion reinforced his belief that the Senate needs to review the entire war, top to bottom. This would include not just questions about WMD, but friendly-fire incidents, the president's use of discredited forged intelligence during his State of the Union address, the "brilliant" battle plan, and on and on. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/06/13/mccain_130/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/13/mccain_130/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What the definition of &#8220;WMD&#8221; is</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/11/wmd_10/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/11/wmd_10/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2003 23:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George W. Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[British Election]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/06/11/wmd</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The White House helpfully explains what the president meant when he claimed weapons of mass destruction had already been found.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When President George W. Bush says "cow," does he really mean "milk"? Does he use the terms "light bulb factory" and "light bulb" interchangeably? According to White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, when the president declared two weeks ago Friday that "weapons of mass destruction" had indeed been found in Iraq, he was merely using a term -- as he has on myriad occasions -- that he wields as a synonym for weapons of mass destruction <i>programs</i> as well. </p><p> This was a most remarkable <a href="/news/feature/2003/05/19/ari/index.html">Fleischerian pronouncement,</a> if for no other reason than it's been clear that the president, since making the May 30 <a target="new" href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60140-2003May30.html">declaration on Polish television</a> that WMD had been found, has been quite exact in not repeating the claim in his subsequent statements about WMD. Last week he told cheering soldiers in Qatar, with painstaking precision, that coalition forces had found "two mobile biological weapons facilities which are capable of producing biological agents," a distinctly ambiguous proclamation. On Monday, Bush stated with single-minded clarity that "Iraq had a weapons program; intelligence throughout the decade showed they had a weapons program," and he is "absolutely convinced with time we'll find out that they did have a weapons program." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/06/11/wmd_10/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/11/wmd_10/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Ashcroft beats a full House</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/11/ashcroft_19/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/11/ashcroft_19/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jun 2003 20:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/06/11/ashcroft</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Critics deride his appearances before Congress as "carefully orchestrated," but he manages to come away from every face-off stronger than before.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last Wednesday, Attorney General John Ashcroft had a challenge before him. He would appear the next day before a relatively hostile House committee, and he wanted to avoid any "Ashcroft Faces Intense Grilling" headlines in the papers. </p><p> The last time Ashcroft appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, Sept. 24, 2001, seems like a different era. The committee comprises members of Congress who had voted against the USA PATRIOT Act -- which gave law-enforcement agencies broad powers almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks in an attempt to prevent similar catastrophes -- as well as those who proudly voted for it, together with a few members whom he saw as revisionists: those who voted for the bill but who have since become critical of both it and Ashcroft. To add insult to injury, only two days before last week's testimony, the Department of Justice's inspector general issued a <a target="new" href="http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/0603/full.pdf">harshly critical review</a> of the Justice Department's post-9/11 detentions of illegal immigrants. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/06/11/ashcroft_19/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/11/ashcroft_19/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Weapons of mass deception</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/06/wmd_9/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/06/wmd_9/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2003 23:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq war]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iraq]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Middle East]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/06/06/wmd</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bush administration goes into full spin mode and Tony Blair battles to save his political life, as charges mount that they lied their way into war.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At the Senate Republicans' weekly policy lunch on Tuesday, Vice President Dick Cheney reassured the assembled lawmakers that the administration had credible evidence, in the months leading up to the war, to assert that Iraq did indeed harbor weapons of mass destruction. </p><p> Before the war, Cheney asserted, the administration was positive that the weapons were there and that Saddam Hussein was refusing to acknowledge that. It wouldn't make any sense otherwise, he said; why would Saddam refuse to cooperate with arms inspectors if he didn't have anything to hide? Why would he lead his country into war? </p><p> Cheney was received warmly, and it was pointed out in the meeting that new inspectors were heading over to Iraq. Maybe WMD would be found soon, after all. </p><p> That the supremely confident vice president even felt the need, in a room full of loyal Republican officials, to reassert that the administration wasn't lying is an acknowledgment that the as yet undiscovered WMD is emerging as a major problem, even if polls indicate that a majority of Americans still don't seem to care. And Cheney's attempt to allay any fears -- in what is, by all accounts, an extremely admiring coterie of senators -- is but one recent example of the administration's slow but steady realization that the failure to find any WMD could pose a real problem for the Bush administration and the United States in general. From the Pentagon to the British House of Commons to President Bush's appearance Thursday in Qatar, the American and British governments are responding, sometimes reeling, in the face of some harsh accusations. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/06/06/wmd_9/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/06/wmd_9/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;1:30-1:45: Rewind Ace Ventura&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/03/graham_7/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/03/graham_7/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2003 22:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democratic Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/06/03/graham</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Democratic hopeful Sen. Bob Graham keeps an incredibly detailed daily log. His rivals say it's weird, and they plan to use it against him.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The breathlessly comprehensive diaries of <a target="new'" href="http://graham.senate.gov/biography.html">Sen. Bob Graham,</a> D-Fla., may not reach the notoriety of, say, Ana&iuml;s Nin's. But the daily, hourly, sometimes minute-by-minute logs of the <a target="new" href="http://www.grahamforpresident.com/">presidential candidate</a> are generating some minor heat of their own. </p><p> A Graham spokesman tried on Monday to pooh-pooh their importance as an issue, noting that a Democratic rival keeps a campaign diary on his Web page. But Republican operatives are already pointing out an inaccuracy in how Graham has said he has archived the diaries, and suddenly the respected, mild-mannered candidate's personal "quirk" threatens to be a full-fledged story. </p><p> In Graham's journals -- which he's been keeping daily since 1977 -- the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee records everything about his day. Though Graham's notebooks are packed with important information about serious senatorial business, they are also interrupted by notations about the application of scalp ointment, the eating of tuna fish sandwiches and the rewinding of videotapes. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/06/03/graham_7/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/06/03/graham_7/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Allies: Where are the WMDs?!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/30/wmd_7/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/30/wmd_7/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2003 22:32:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/30/wmd</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Dems and the U.S. public may meekly accept the administration's ever-changing answers about Saddam's alleged weapons. But our foreign allies don't -- and the more the White House spins, the angrier they get.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Democratic Party officials, with few exceptions, seem unconcerned with the fact that the U.S. government has not yet been able to locate any direct evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq -- the declared reason for the war. But that fact is not going unnoticed by opposition parties in other countries whose leaders are allied with President Bush, especially in light of comments made Tuesday night by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld allowing that WMD may never be found, which is an apparent contradiction to previous administration remarks on the subject. </p><p> Polls indicate that the American people care little that such discoveries have not been made. Bush administration officials thus continue to act as if none of this is an issue, while moving on to focus on other conflicts, like Iran and the Israel-Palestine peace process. But in nations allied with the U.S. -- from Australia to Denmark to Ireland to the U.K. -- opponents of the war are using Rumsfeld's remarks about the MIA WMD as evidence of duplicity by the Bush administration. It all creates a sort of parallel-universe feel, where other men in far-off lands suffer recriminations because of remarks made here. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/05/30/wmd_7/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/30/wmd_7/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The corrections, continued</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/28/corrections_satire/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/28/corrections_satire/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2003 23:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The New York Times]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Satire]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/opinion//feature/2003/05/28/corrections_satire</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Just a few more dateline problems, editing errors and minor examples of moral turpitude from the nation's newspaper of record.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Due to <a target="new" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/23/pageoneplus/corrections.html">recent events,</a> the editorial staff at the New York Times has been reviewing a number of stories about which we have received complaints in order to verify their authenticity. The following is the first in a series of clarifications and corrections we are offering so as to continue to be the paragon of journalistic virtue everyone knows we are, despite all the carping, which mostly stems from envy and the occasional unavoidable error, including the following: </p><p>A picture caption on April 12, 2003, with an article about Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the prime minister of Turkey, featured a photograph of a turkey from the annual White House Thanksgiving "pardon the turkey" ceremony. Mr. Erdogan was Turkey's first Islamist prime minister, while the turkey pictured is a North American Meleagris gallopavo ultimately eaten by a family in Scranton, Pa., despite the presidential pardon it received. We regret the error. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/05/28/corrections_satire/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/28/corrections_satire/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Don&#8217;t ask &#8212; he won&#8217;t tell</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/23/foley_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/23/foley_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 May 2003 21:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roy Ashburn]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/23/foley</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[GOP Senate hopeful Mark Foley announces he won't answer questions about his sexuality. Should voters care?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Thursday afternoon, Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla. -- a possible candidate for the Senate in 2004 -- held a conference call with a handful of Florida reporters that perfectly captured a dilemma in which he finds himself. The subject of the call was the same matter that he refused to directly address within the call, and it is the one that has quietly dogged him for years: Is he, or is he not, a heterosexual? </p><p> Foley, according to a source familiar with the conference call, told reporters that he was hosting the call because he'd heard that one of the biggest newspapers in his district -- the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, whose reporters were not invited on the call -- planned on being the first newspaper in the "mainstream" press to write about his sexual orientation, following on the heels of some alternative newspapers that had raised the issue. Some things -- like a politician's religious affiliation -- are for public consumption even though there are people who don't think they should be, said Foley, a 48-year-old bachelor. But some things just aren't for public consumption, he said, and with that in mind, Foley declared that he was not going to answer the question as to whether he's gay. People have a right to privacy, he said, and that's his position on the matter and how it will remain throughout his campaign for the Senate. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/05/23/foley_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/23/foley_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bush&#8217;s EPA chief seeks greener pastures</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/22/whitman_6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/22/whitman_6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 May 2003 23:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/22/whitman</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tired of losing battles with far-right adversaries, Christine Todd Whitman hands in her resignation.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> It was pretty clear to Hazel Gluck, a friend and former New Jersey campaign official close to Christine Todd Whitman, that the woman in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency had grown "exhausted," in part because of her long-standing battles with pro-growth conservative forces in the administration -- forces that almost always won. </p><p> But it was with characteristic loyalty and abject refusal to admit anything but sheer delight with the Bush administration that Whitman finally resigned Tuesday, writing to President Bush that she wanted to "return to my home and husband in New Jersey, which I love just as you do your home state of Texas." </p><p> The letter, released Wednesday morning, claimed "significant improvements to the state of our Nation's treasured environment" and announced a departure date of June 27. In a statement, President Bush called Whitman "a trusted friend and advisor" and "a dedicated and tireless fighter for new and innovative policies for cleaner air, purer water, and better protected land." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/05/22/whitman_6/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/22/whitman_6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sleeper cell &#8212; or foolish pawns?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/19/buffalo_6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/19/buffalo_6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2003 22:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Osama Bin Laden]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/19/buffalo_6</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[They trained with al-Qaida and met with Osama. All but one member of  the so-called Lackawanna Six have pleaded guilty to lesser charges -- but insist they never meant anyone any harm.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For many Americans, one of the few, true, uncomplicated success stories of the war on terrorism would be the FBI's arrest last fall of a "sleeper cell": six young Yemeni-Americans from just south of Buffalo, N.Y., who had trained with al-Qaida and had even heard a lecture by Osama bin Laden himself. President Bush gave the arrests key billing in his January State of the Union speech, when he bragged about "al-Qaida cells" that had been "broken in Hamburg, Milan, Madrid, London, Paris, as well as Buffalo, New York." </p><p> The providence of that bust seems only to have grown over time, as five of the six, one after the other, have accepted guilty pleas with the U.S. government. Just last Monday, Yasein Taher -- voted "friendliest" of Lackawanna High School's class of '96 -- entered into his agreement, pleading "guilty to providing material support to al Qaeda, a designated foreign terrorist organization," according to the Justice Department, and prompting some chest thumping from Attorney General John Ashcroft. "With today's conviction, the Department of Justice continues to build on its strong record of prosecuting those who provide material support to our terrorist enemies," Ashcroft said. "The cooperation we secure from defendants who trained side by side with our enemies in Afghanistan and elsewhere is valuable as we continue to wage the war on terrorism." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/05/19/buffalo_6/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/19/buffalo_6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ari: Gone, but not forgotten</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/19/ari/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/19/ari/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2003 18:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/19/ari</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Bush spokesman leaves. The cheers are not all for his benefit.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Monday morning, White House spokesman Lawrence Ari Fleischer revealed to the Associated Press that he is heading out the door, seeking employment in the private sector. When he told his boss the news on Friday, the conversation ended with the president "kissing me on the head," Fleischer said. </p><p> Bush officials heralded his service. "Ari was a good soldier," said Bush media advisor Mark McKinnon. "He has been a very steadfast carrier of the Bush message and delivered a very solid performance across the board in one of the most difficult jobs in Washington. His message discipline was extraordinary." </p><p> Little such admiration awaited <a target="new" href="http://www.nybooks.com/gallery/2477">Fleischer,</a> 42, in the White House briefing room where the bald, bespectacled Bush-backer has been a controversial figure; by one account, the applause greeting Fleischer at his morning gaggle with reporters fit the very definition of "smattering." Some were sympathetic. Said one White House reporter, "Ari had an impossible job. He was supposed to talk to the press in a White House that does not talk to the press." A senior Republican congressional aide pointed to one of Fleischer's higher-ups as the reason so many reporters found Fleischer wanting. "All [Bush senior aide Karl] Rove wants is just a P.A. system," the aide said. "It's not really a job with a lot of art to it in this administration. Ari is just a guy who goes out there and reads some version of congressional campaign committee talking points. It's something that anybody with a larynx could probably do." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/05/19/ari/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/19/ari/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Painting the country red</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/15/deficit_3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/15/deficit_3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 May 2003 21:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/15/deficit</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How Republicans learned to stop worrying  and love the deficit.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Tuesday, President Bush's nominee for the Council of Economic Advisors, Harvard economics professor N. Gregory Mankiw, tried to defend his former adherence to fiscal responsibility before the Senate Banking Committee. </p><p>In his textbook, "Principles of Economics" -- a new edition of which was released just this year -- <a target="new" href="http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/mankiw.html">Mankiw</a> argued against Arthur Laffer's theory that tax cuts, in encouraging economic growth, are self-financing. Mankiw also argued in that book that rising deficits are extremely harmful to the economy, by driving up interest rates and severely inhibiting growth. </p><p>There was a time when such arguments weren't controversial -- and in fact, they were commonplace among Republicans. But times change. And Mankiw -- as a potential Bush administration official -- endorses the president's most recent tax-cut proposal, $550 billion in the House version and $350 billion in the Senate, saying that the slow economy necessitates bold action. </p><p>"I hate to see a highly competent professional turn himself inside out, twisting like a pretzel," said Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the committee. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/05/15/deficit_3/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/15/deficit_3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Democrats square off</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/04/democrats_44/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/04/democrats_44/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2003 22:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/04/democrats</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[And it's Joe Lieberman who stands out in a crowded field without, yet, a breakaway star.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> With the sight of that final third star in the sky, signifying the end of the Jewish Sabbath, Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., finally made his way to the University of South Carolina campus Saturday night for the first debate of all Democratic presidential candidates. And even top aides from opposing campaigns acknowledged that he shined more than the others, emerging as the event's twinkling star. </p><p> "If he'd done that in 2000 we wouldn't even be here tonight!" a non-Lieberman staffer snarled at a Lieberman spokesman after the debate, referring not just to the disappointing conclusion of the 2000 election but to Lieberman's oft-derided performance opposite Dick Cheney in their one debate face-off. </p><p> With a crowded field of nine sparring with each other, no one could really emerge as a clear victor. But Lieberman -- who caused the debate to be pushed back to a 9 p.m. start, after the sun had set and he had completed his weekly Sabbath observance -- strongly argued that he was the "one Democrat who can match George Bush in the areas where many think he's strong -- defense and moral values, and beat him where he's weak," on the economy and other domestic items -- and while doing so seemed to slightly rise above his peers, at least this night. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/05/04/democrats_44/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/04/democrats_44/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Santorum&#8217;s one-week scandal</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/01/gays_13/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/01/gays_13/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2003 23:08:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LGBT]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/05/01/gays</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The White House masters the art of saying little, and a would-be scandal about a senator's anti-gay remarks seems to fade away.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tuesday marked a week and a day since the Associated Press published the controversial remarks of Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Penn., in which he seemed to equate gay sex with incest and possibly even bestiality. It was the fourth day since President Bush said, through a spokesman, that Santorum was an "inclusive man" who was "doing a good job as senator -- including in his leadership post." (Santorum is the No. 3 in the Senate GOP.) And it was the day Santorum himself was enthusiastically welcomed at a Senate GOP lunch, after which Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee declared him to have "the full, 100 percent confidence of the Republican leadership in the United States Senate." </p><p> And with that, the furor seems all but over. A <a target="new" href="http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/5747130.htm">story broke</a> in the Wednesday Philadelphia Inquirer that showed Santorum -- shortly after 9/11 -- fundraising for an anti-gay group promising to protect heterosexual marriage from "homosexual activists." The letter, mailed in early 2002, could be "truly the most important letter I ever write you," Santorum said, acknowledging that that "may sound like a huge exaggeration, particularly in light of the attack on America." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/05/01/gays_13/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/05/01/gays_13/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lowered WMD expectations</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/04/30/wmd_6/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/04/30/wmd_6/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Apr 2003 22:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/30/wmd</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Before the war, the Bush administration said the weapons existed and we would find them. Now, it's saying maybe we won't find them after all -- and the rest of the world smells a rat.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In his NBC interview last Thursday, President Bush set off critics by citing what appeared to be a new standard of proof for Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. </p><p> No longer was the U.S. necessarily on the hunt for the <a href="/news/feature/2003/04/16/wmd/index.html">actual weapons of mass destruction,</a> or WMD, the president said. Rather, the investigation of suspect sites in Iraq by coalition forces would prove that Saddam Hussein "had a weapons of mass destruction program." The same day as the interview, at an Abrams Army Tank plant in Lima, Ohio, Bush noted that "whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth." </p><p> This, of course, follows months of reassuring Americans that WMD would be found. Earlier this month, Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer called the weapons "what this war was about"; and just Tuesday, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that with the help of captured Iraqi leaders, the WMD "will be found." But now the administration seems to be preparing the country for news of evidence that WMD once existed in Iraq -- with no actual WMD -- and calling it a victory. </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/04/30/wmd_6/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/04/30/wmd_6/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bad information</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/04/28/rugh/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/04/28/rugh/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:09:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/28/rugh</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Veterans of  U.S. foreign information campaigns of both parties critique the administration's  current efforts and bemoan the "one-liners coming out of Washington."]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> William Rugh, former ambassador to both Yemen and the United Arab Emirates, was disappointed. </p><p> Having served as director of the United States Information Agency's Near East and South Asia bureau, with previous posts in Cairo, Egypt, Damascus, Syria, and both Jedda and Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, <a target="new" href="http://www.amideast.org/about/president.htm">Rugh</a> is an expert on "public diplomacy" -- providing information to foreign audiences that casts the U.S. in the most favorable light. He and several of his fellow USIA alumni were chagrined at how the government had slowly been destroying the USIA in the past 15 years or so, and how worldwide public opinion was turning against the United States. So long before the war in Iraq -- before 9/11, even -- they scheduled a meeting with undersecretary of state for public diplomacy Charlotte Beers. </p><p> But Beers, former chairwoman of both J. Walter Thompson and Ogilvy & Mather, was a product of Madison Avenue, and didn't know what she was doing, Rugh felt. "Beers was in way over her head," he tells Salon. "My understanding was that she knew she was a square peg in a round hole from the very beginning," he says. "She was not happy from day one in the job, and the people who worked for her were not entirely happy. She was from an entirely other culture." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/04/28/rugh/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/04/28/rugh/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Would you buy a U.S. foreign policy from this man?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2003/04/25/propaganda_10/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2003/04/25/propaganda_10/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/25/propaganda</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why the State Department's propaganda campaign to win the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims is a mess.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When the State Department launched a propaganda TV campaign in the Arab and Muslim world last year, two of its Muslim-American stars were <a target="new" href="http://www.opendialogue.com/english/ismail.html">Rawia Ismail,</a> a public school teacher born in Lebanon, and <a target="new" href="http://www.opendialogue.com/english/hammuda.html">Abdul Hammuda,</a> a bakery owner originally from Libya. Both live in Toledo, Ohio, and spoke lovingly of their adopted country in the ads, part of the <a target="new" href="http://www.state.gov/r/pa/obs/vid/16555.htm">"Shared Values Initiative."</a> </p><p>"I wear a hijab in the classroom where I teach. I have never had any child that thought it was weird or anything like that," Ismail says in the TV spot. "Islam in the United States could be followed just as well as I can follow it in my village where I was raised." Adds Hammuda in the commercial: "Religious freedom here is something very important, and no one ever bothered us. Since 9/11, we've had an overwhelming sense of support from our customers and clients." </p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2003/04/25/propaganda_10/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2003/04/25/propaganda_10/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
