As President Bush travels across the country proclaiming successes in Iraq, critics are getting louder in opposition.

Former Sen. George McGovern, a leading opponent of the Vietnam War, continues to speak out about Iraq, discussing it during a recent speech at the downtown library in Sioux Falls.

The Vietnam War was his issue when he won the 1972 Democratic Party nomination for president. He recently reviewed his campaign speeches focusing on that war, concluding, “Today, you can just cross out Vietnam and write in Iraq. It’s the same thing. That insurgency kept rolling in Vietnam the longer we stayed.”

The insurgency in Iraq has become a challenge too big for an outside power to handle, he said.

“They don’t have to win any battles. They just have to kill people. We are trying to do now what Nixon attempted in Vietnam. We are trying to turn security over to the Iraqi army – the same people in Saddam Hussein’s army and they have friends in the insurgency,” McGovern said.

The comparison also surfaces in debates by scholars. Writes Scott Laderman, assistant professor of history at the University of Minnesota on George Mason University's History News Network:

By now we have all seen the analogies drawn between the present war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam decades ago. Some of these analogies have been insightful. Some, to put it charitably, have not. Nearly all, however, have focused on how the United States entered and fought both wars. Little attention has been heeded to what the Vietnam war might tell us about the United States getting out of this one. It is an issue that deserves our attention.

More than thirty-five years ago, as American civilian and military opposition to the Vietnam war increased, those advocating continued warfare found themselves in something of a bind. The applicability of the domino theory to Vietnam had been persuasively challenged. The idea that America was fighting for democracy in Vietnam appeared to many observers, given the despotic nature of the successive Saigon regimes, risible. Yet despite the gap between the government’s rhetoric and observable reality, a minority of Americans clung to the idea of the war as a righteous and necessary cause. What little credibility the public explanations for American intervention enjoyed, however, was largely demolished when, in 1971, the top secret Defense Department history of American policymaking in Vietnam, the Pentagon Papers, was leaked to the press by Daniel Ellsberg and published in a number of outlets. It is no wonder, given the extent to which the government’s own analysts put the lie to what American officials had been telling the public for years, that the Nixon administration reacted so hysterically to this turn of events. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that, for much of the American public, the Pentagon Papers shattered what remained of their will to continue the fight in Southeast Asia. American policymakers determined to perpetuate the war were therefore confronted with a crisis.

Today, I would argue, American officials find themselves in a somewhat comparable position. Their public explanations for the Iraq invasion have nearly all been discredited. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Evidence of the Bush administration’s deception on this issue is voluminous.1 Iraq’s support for al Qaeda? Dick Cheney’s stubborn insistence notwithstanding, no such relationship existed.2 Freedom for the Iraqi people? As is clear from an examination of the factual record, the Bush administration opposed the 2005 election it now touts as perhaps its greatest democratic achievement.

In the angry life of Maryscott O'Connor, the rage begins as soon as she opens her eyes and realizes that her president is still George W. Bush. The sun has yet to rise and her family is asleep, but no matter; as soon as the realization kicks in, O'Connor, 37, is out of bed and heading toward her computer.

Out there, awaiting her building fury: the Angry Left, where O'Connor's reputation is as one of the angriest of all. "One long, sustained scream" is how she describes the writing she does for various Web logs, as she wonders what she should scream about this day.

She smokes a cigarette. Should it be about Bush, whom she considers "malevolent," a "sociopath" and "the Antichrist"? She smokes another cigarette. Should it be about Vice President Cheney, whom she thinks of as "Satan," or about Karl Rove, "the devil"? Should it be about the "evil" Republican Party, or the "weaselly, capitulating, self-aggrandizing, self-serving" Democrats, or the Catholic Church, for which she says "I have a special place in my heart . . . a burning, sizzling, putrescent place where the guilty suffer the tortures of the damned"?

Darfur, she finally decides. She will write about Darfur. The shame of it. The culpability of all Americans, including herself, for doing nothing. She will write something so filled with outrage that it will accomplish the one thing above all she wants from her anger: to have an effect.

"Darfur is not hopeless," she begins typing, and pauses.

"Ugh," she says.

"You are not helpless," she continues typing, and pauses again.

"Weak."

She deletes everything and starts over.

"WAKE THE [expletive] UP," she writes next, and this time, instead of pausing, she keeps going, typing harder and harder on a keyboard that is surrounded by a pack of cigarettes, a dirty ashtray, a can of nonalcoholic beer, an album with photos of her dead father and a taped-up note -- staring at her -- on which she has scrawled "Why am I/you here?"

As Finkel notes, these are mean times. But does anger solve the problem? Writes Jim Geraghty of The National Journal on CBS.Com:

Today, there are still some blogs out there going out and doing reporting, or drawing on well-grounded experience in non-journalism fields or providing insightful analysis. But many, many more blogs are forsaking fact-gathering for the venting of straight-up, raw anger.

The blogosphere has always had heavily ideological conversational posting boards like Daily Kos and Eschaton on the left or FreeRepublic and LittleGreenFootballs on the right, where no holds are barred and no shot at the opposition is beyond the pale. On those sites, there's always a crowd of peers cheering you on, and reinforcing the perception that those who disagree with you are so wrong, mendacious, stupid or evil that no criticism is over the top or out of line.

After being surprised by her husband's role in the Dubai ports deal, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has insisted that Bill Clinton give her "final say" over what he says and does, well-placed sources said.

The former president agreed to give his wife a veto to avoid his habit of making controversial headlines that could hurt her chances of returning to the White House, multiple sources told the New York Daily News.

"He knows it's Hillary's time now," said an adviser close to both Clintons who expects to play a key role in her likely 2008 presidential campaign.

Hillary Clinton's handlers are keeping a close rein on the former president's schedule to try to prevent another embarrassing screwup like their competing roles in the Dubai ports deal.

While she was blasting the Bush administration for allowing Dubai to run six of the country's ports, he was advising Dubai on how to sell the deal.

"Hillary has final say," said the adviser, and the ex-president's staff has been warned not to do or say anything without running it by the senator's handlers.

"That was true in the White House during the (2000) Senate campaign," recalled another longtime aide who stayed close to the ex-president after he left office. "If he said the sky was blue and she said the sky was purple, then the sky was purple."

Hillary Clinton's aides denied that her husband's comments have been a liability but concede she is calling the shots.

"Since she got elected five years ago and given their hectic schedules, it is more interesting how little there has been of this," said the senator's campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis, referring to their contradictory statements. "She is the elected official. She makes the ultimate decisions," Lewis said.

Political reversals at home and continued bad news from Iraq have dragged President Bush's standing with the public to a new low, at the same time that Republican fortunes on Capitol Hill also are deteriorating, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found that 38 percent of the public approve of the job Bush is doing, down three percentage points in the past month and his worst showing in Post-ABC polling since he became president. Sixty percent disapprove of his performance.

With less than seven months remaining before the midterm elections, Bush's political troubles already appear to be casting a long shadow over them. Barely a third of registered voters, 35 percent, approve of the way the Republican-led Congress is doing its job -- the lowest level of support in nine years.

The negative judgments about the president and the congressional majority reflect the breadth of the GOP's difficulties and suggest that the problems of each may be mutually reinforcing. Although the numbers do not represent a precipitous decline over recent surveys, the fact that they have stayed at low levels over recent months indicates that the GOP is confronting some fundamental obstacles with public opinion rather than a patch of bad luck.

A majority of registered voters, 55 percent, say they plan to vote for the Democratic candidate in their House district, while 40 percent support the Republican candidate. That is the largest share of the electorate favoring Democrats in Post-ABC polls since the mid-1980s.

This grim news for the GOP is offset somewhat by the finding that 59 percent of voters still say they approve of their own representative. But even these numbers are weaker than in recent off-year election cycles and identical to support of congressional incumbents in June 1994 -- five months before Democrats lost control of Congress to Republicans.

As Bush and the Republicans falter, Democrats have emerged as the party most Americans trust to deal with such issues as Iraq, the economy and health care. By 49 to 42 percent, Americans trust Democrats more than Republicans to do a better job of handling Iraq.

Democrats also hold a six-percentage-point advantage over the GOP (49 percent to 43 percent) as the party most trusted to handle the economy. Their lead swells to double digits on such as issues as immigration (12 points), prescription drug benefits for the elderly (28 points), health care (32 points) and dealing with corruption in Washington (25 points).

The public divides evenly on only one issue: terrorism, with 46 percent expressing more confidence in the Democrats and 45 percent trusting Republicans on a top voting concern that the GOP counts on dominating.

Those who did appear were hardly defenders of the President's actions.

Writes Nedra Pickler of The Associated Press:

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney should speak publicly about their involvement in the CIA leak case so people can understand what happened, a leading Republican senator said Sunday.

"We ought to get to the bottom of it so it can be evaluated, again, by the American people," said Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In a federal court filing last week, the prosecutor in the case said Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, testified before a grand jury that he was authorized by Bush, through Cheney, to leak information from a classified document that detailed intelligence agencies' conclusions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

A lawyer knowledgeable about the case said Saturday that Bush declassified sensitive intelligence in 2003 and authorized its public disclosure to rebut Iraq war critics, but he did not specifically direct that Libby be the one to disseminate the information.

"I think that it is necessary for the president and vice president to tell the American people exactly what happened," Specter told "Fox News Sunday."

"I do say that there's been enough of a showing here with what's been filed of record in court that the president of the United States owes a specific explanation to the American people ... about exactly what he did," Specter said.

Libby faces trial, likely in January, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for allegedly lying to the grand jury and investigators about what he told reporters about CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald did not say in the filing that Cheney authorized Libby to leak Plame's identity, and Bush is not accused of doing anything illegal.

"The president may be entirely in the clear, and it may turn out that he had the authority to make the disclosures which were made," Specter said. But, he added, "it was not the right way to go about it because we ought not to have leaks in government."

The investigation is looking into whether Plame's identify was disclosed to discredit her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, an Iraq war critic. Wilson had accused the administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

But Republicans willing to defend Bush's actions were nowhere to be found. Privately, they admit anger at the President for such an overt action.

Reports Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer in The Washington Post:

As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" -- using classified information -- to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.

Bluntly and repeatedly, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign. Citing grand jury testimony from the vice president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald fingered Cheney as the first to voice a line of attack that at least three White House officials would soon deploy against former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Cheney, in a conversation with Libby in early July 2003, was said to describe Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger the previous year -- in which the envoy found no support for charges that Iraq tried to buy uranium there -- as "a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife," CIA case officer Valerie Plame.

Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for denying under oath that he disclosed Plame's CIA employment to journalists. There is no public evidence to suggest Libby made any such disclosure with Cheney's knowledge. But according to Libby's grand jury testimony, described for the first time in legal papers filed this week, Cheney "specifically directed" Libby in late June or early July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents: an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and a March 2002 summary of Wilson's visit to Niger.

One striking feature of that decision -- unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it -- is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before.

United Nations inspectors had exposed the main evidence for the uranium charge as crude forgeries in March 2003, but the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair's role in promoting the story. With no ally left, the White House debated whether to abandon the uranium claim and became embroiled in bitter finger-pointing about whom to fault for the error. A legal brief filed for Libby last month said that "certain officials at the CIA, the White House, and the State Department each sought to avoid or assign blame for intelligence failures relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

It was at that moment that Libby, allegedly at Cheney's direction, sought out at least three reporters to bolster the discredited uranium allegation. Libby made careful selections of language from the 2002 estimate, quoting a passage that said Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium" in Africa.

So much for technology.

All of this came in the middle of one of the biggest debates in the history of our web site and we had to shut down comments during the changeover.

But we think all of that is fixed now. At least we hope so.

We'll finish up some fine tuning this weekend and then return in full-force on Monday.

Thanks for your patience. 

A former top aide to Rep. Tom DeLay pleaded guilty Friday to conspiracy and promised to cooperate with a federal investigation of bribery and lobbying fraud that has so far netted three convictions and prompted calls for ethics reform in Congress.

Tony Rudy, DeLay's former deputy chief of staff, admitted to conspiring with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff both while Rudy worked for DeLay and after he left the lawmaker's staff to become a lobbyist himself.

As a top aide to DeLay in his role as House majority leader, Rudy took payments from Abramoff in 2000, then helped stop an Internet gambling bill opposed by Abramoff's clients, according to court papers.

Later, while working as a lobbyist, Rudy also was extensively involved in arranging a golf trip to Scotland for Rep. Bob Ney, described as Representative 1, and congressional staffers, the court papers said.

Rudy, who resigned as DeLay's deputy chief of staff in 2001, is the first person to plead guilty in the case since Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud charges in January. Michael Scanlon, a former DeLay press secretary who later became a lobbying partner with Abramoff, pleaded guilty in November to conspiring to bribe public officials.

The plea agreement contains no allegations that DeLay, who it describes as Representative 2, did anything wrong.

As part of the deal, Rudy pleaded guilty to the single conspiracy count and prosecutors agreed not to pursue other possible charges against him or his wife.

"The American public loses when officials and lobbyists conspire to buy and sell influence in such a corrupt and brazen manner. By his admission in open court today, Mr. Rudy paints a picture of Washington which the American public and law enforcement will simply not tolerate," said Alice Fisher, assistant Attorney General in charge of the Justice Department's Criminal Division.

Rudy, 39, stood with his head slightly bowed and his hands clasped in front of him as the judge detailed how he took free trips, tickets, meals and golf games from Abramoff while working for DeLay.

Rudy, a lawyer, answered the judge's questions in a strong voice but seemed more subdued when Huvelle asked if he understood that he was pleading guilty to a felony and would lose some rights.

"Yes your honor," he said quietly.

His lawyer, Laura Ariane Miller, objected when Huvelle described the allegation that he took things "in exchange" for official acts. Instead, Miller said that her client sought and received gifts.

Huvelle said that under the sentencing guidelines, which are not mandatory but often used by judges, Rudy could receive 24 to 30 months in prison because he does not have a criminal record and acknowledged his crime.

The judge said that prosecutors could ask for a lower sentence, depending on his cooperation. Rudy was allowed to remain free pending the sentencing

Rudy and his lawyer left the courthouse without commenting to reporters.

Ney's lawyer, Mark Tuohey, said a guilty plea by Rudy doesn't change Ney's situation. The congressman continues to maintain his innocence. Tuohey said he hadn't seen the court papers filed Friday and couldn't comment in detail on them.

Court papers say Rudy sent an e-mail inviting Ney and his then-chief of staff Neil Volz to Scotland in 2002, promising golf and "drinking and smoking Cubans." Ney contends he thought the trip was properly paid for by a GOP policy group for a legitimate international parliamentary event.

"Mr. Rudy had nothing to do with Mr. Ney's Scotland trip at all, nothing," Tuohey said. When asked whether Rudy could have sent the e-mail invite, he said, "If he did, I haven't seen it."

Ney is cooperating with Justice Department requests for information. For example, Ney spokesman Brian Walsh said the Ohio Republican has provided prosecutors with stacks of receipts to prove he and his staff paid for their own food at Abramoff's downtown Washington restaurant. Ney also has said he was duped by Abramoff into entering statements on the Congressional Record in support of Abramoff's purchase of a fleet of Florida casino boats.

After leaving DeLay's office, Rudy first joined Abramoff's lobbying team at the Greenberg Traurig law firm. Soon after, he signed on with another former DeLay staffer, Ed Buckham, at the Alexander Strategy Group.

___

Associated Press writers Gina Holland and David Hammer contributed to this report.

While the Republicans are seeking to heal the wounds of divisiveness caused by the immigration issue and the president's falling ratings, Democrats are hard at work trying to convince the nation they can be trusted with national security. It is clearly a theme that will be aired over and over in the coming election as the minority party in Congress tries to regain control of one or both houses lost more than a decade ago.

Democrats clearly view George Bush's downward spiral of approval as a rare opportunity to take back what they came to believe was their political birthright during 40 years of ruling the House _ if only they can overcome what has been their Achilles heel the last two presidential elections, an impression that they are weak on defense. Having suffered the indignities of impotency, they are pulling out all the stops to bolster their own security image while painting the situation in Iraq as a quagmire from which only they can extricate the nation.

Four of the party's top leaders, including House and Senate Democratic chiefs Nancy Pelosi of California and Harry Reid of Nevada, and two Democratic military experts from the Armed Services Committees of both houses, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, laid out their main mission to reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast Wednesday. The message: The way out of both Iraq and the terrorist dilemma is a rejuvenation of congressional oversight and that can come only by restoring the Democrats to their rightful control. No more rubberstamping the policies of the current president as they charge Republicans have done.

They said nothing about whether rubberstamping might return should the next president be a member of their own party. Nor did they have a better timetable for leaving Iraq than the 2008 predicted by Bush at a press conference recently. In fact, they pretty much reiterated all those things the administration has been saying are necessary to end U.S. military participation with the creation of a lasting democracy over there. These are the illusive three Vs of Iraq policy, military victory, economic victory and political victory, none of which seem near achievement.

The first stage, they all agreed, was something called "redeployment," allowing U.S. troops to move away from hot zones that would be left to the Iraqi military to cool down and control. Infantry troops would be gradually withdrawn while logistical support forces would remain to help the Iraqis. The nation would have to improve economically and there would have to be a viable Iraqi government.

So what's new? This has been the goal all along. Reaching it is what has been difficult. Without a stable Iraqi government, any withdrawal would be disastrous. Reid agreed with the 2008 date for total withdrawal "as long as it is in an orderly fashion." Well, good luck to that.

The truth of the matter is that the Democrats have no easy solution to the Iraq problem nor do they offer much of one to the failures of the Department of Homeland Security, which, by the way, they had a leading hand in creating. They talked about the weakness of port security without outlining how that can be fixed. They failed to even discuss the problem of porous borders and immigration problems as they apply to possible terrorist activities. Beyond saying their party has a strong record on defense and in safeguarding the American people, which no one will dispute, they presented little else that would convince voters they have any more of an answer to the current situation than the Republicans.

In any event, they may not need to do much more than stay out of the line of fire if Republicans continue to blast away at each other and the White House over immigration and other issues. The president's naming of a new chief of staff was aimed, among other things, at calming his own forces on Capitol Hill. That's bureaucratic medicine that may be too little too late.

(Dan K. Thomasson is former editor of the Scripps Howard News Service.)

The heated issue of what to do about the influx of illegal immigrants into America is threatening to become a dominant issue in presidential politics. That would be dreadful for this nation.

With 8 million to 12 million immigrants illegally living in the United States, the clamor is loud for changes in immigration law. But there is no consensus on whether there should be a guest-worker program or a dramatic new effort to keep out immigrants through enhanced border security or an all-out push to force those here without documentation to leave.

Other Republicans, such as Sen. John McCain of Arizona, also a likely candidate, warn that the nation needs immigrants as well as a secure border. McCain argues that those here illegally should have the option to work toward citizenship if they register.

Others say illegal immigrants should register, pay fines and work here temporarily but eventually go back to their own countries.

Some Republicans, who see the huge potential in winning over Latino voters, are worried that a harsh approach on all illegal immigrants, no matter where they are originally from, would send Hispanics into the arms of Democrats, who have traditionally wooed them more vigorously than Republicans. But the nation's 42 million Hispanics are increasingly politically sophisticated, with the result that neither party has a lock on their vote.

In the middle is President Bush, who says that, yes, the nation needs tougher laws to deal with illegal immigrants, but that, yes, the nation needs some form of accommodation to help employers unable to supply their labor needs with legal U.S. citizens.

The chaos on Capitol Hill over immigration is a sign of how extensive the discipline breakdown has become in the Republican Party, with the White House no longer able to control what happens in the GOP-dominated Congress.

The Senate appears to prefer a moderate approach that would permit illegal immigrants to get in line to become citizens, meanwhile working, paying taxes, contributing to Social Security and learning English. The House wants to make it a serious crime to be in this country illegally or even to go to the aid of illegal immigrants. Thus, someone who rents to illegal immigrants, treats them medically without reporting them, or employs them could be subject to jail time. Millions of people in this country without the right papers would be permanently ineligible to become citizens. What hope would they have for a better tomorrow?

Naturally, the debate is spurring protests around the country. The last thing we need right now as we fight a war abroad that many people find chillingly and uncomfortably close to breaking out into a religious war, is a nation torn apart by violent clashes over who should be permitted to be a U.S. citizen and who should be kicked out.

Already a survey of Latin Americans legally living in this country reports a new rise of anti-immigrant sentiment. That should worry everyone who lives in this polyglot of cultures that long has viewed itself as a melting pot and gold standard for the world on how to get along. Do we no longer welcome those who want to work hard, contribute, improve the lives of their children and help make this country great?

On the other hand, a post-9/11 nation cannot permit its borders to continue to be sieves, letting in anyone who wants to scramble under a fence in the Vermont woods or cross a dry riverbed from Mexico.

In all this turmoil there are a few certainties emerging. It is physically, morally and politically inconceivable that the United States will or can eject the bulk of foreigners already here illegally. Even if the House bill became law, it could not be enforced fairly and would merely cause widespread fear, anger and revolt.

However, some sort of national identity card is coming. So is a form of temporary-worker status. And it will become more difficult to become a U.S. citizen.

But any presidential candidate in 2008 who makes it his or her business to inject vitriol into the emotional immigration debate and divide the country even more should be scornfully rejected.

(Scripps Howard columnist Ann McFeatters has covered the White House and national politics since 1986. E-mail amcfeatters(at)nationalpress.com.)

House conservatives criticized President Bush, accused the Senate of fouling the air, said prisoners rather than illegal farm workers should pick America's crops and denounced the use of Mexican flags by protesters Thursday in a vehement attack on legislation to liberalize U.S. immigration laws.

"Anybody that votes for an amnesty bill deserves to be branded with a scarlet letter A," said Rep. Steve King of Iowa, referring to a guest worker provision in the Senate measure.

Their news conference took place across the Capitol from the Senate, where supporters and critics of the legislation seemed determined to heed admonitions from both Bush and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to conduct a dignified, civilized debate.

The House has passed legislation to tighten border security, while the Senate approach also includes provisions to regulate the flow of temporary workers into the country and control the legal fate of millions of illegal immigrants already here. Bush has broadly endorsed the Senate approach, saying he wants a comprehensive bill.

It was the second day in a row that congressional Republicans aired their differences on an issue that directly affects the fastest growing segment of the electorate. Under Bush's leadership, the Republicans have made dramatic inroads among Hispanic voters, and party strategists fret that the immigration debate could jeopardize their gains.

On Wednesday, leading GOP senators disagreed whether the legislation amounted to amnesty.

There was no such debate at the news conference in the House, where not a word was spoken in defense of the Senate bill and even Bush was not spared criticism.

"I don't think he's concerned about alienating voters, he's not running for re-election," said Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado. He said Republicans could lose the House and Senate over the immigration issue, and he said of the president: "I wish he'd think about the party and of course I also wish he'd think about the country."

Referring to a wave of demonstrations in recent weeks, Rep. Virgil Goode of Virginia said, "I say if you are here illegally and want to fly the Mexican flag, go to Mexico and wave the American flag."

King analyzed the issue in class terms.

"The elite class in America is becoming a ruling class and they've made enough money by hiring cheap illegal labor that they think they also have some kind of a right to cheap servants to manicure their nails and their lawn, for example.

"So this ruling class, this new ruling class of America, is expanding a servant class in America at the expense of the middle class of America, the blue collar of America that used to be able to punch a time clock, buy a modest house and raise their families. ... Those young people are cut out of this process."

Rep. J.D. Hayworth of Arizona and others said Republicans would pay a price in the midterm elections if they vote for anything like the Senate legislation. "Many of those who have stood for the Republican Party for the last decade are not only angry. They will be absent in November," he said.

Rohrabacher said Americans should be able to "smell the foul odor that's coming out of the U.S. Senate."

Asked a few moments later whether the same odor was emanating from the president, he said, "I have no comment."

Rohrabacher, King and others stood at a podium decorated with a bumper sticker reading "Say No to Amnesty," as the Senate slogged through a second suspenseless day of debate.

The only vote of the day came on a proposal by Frist for a study of the number and causes of deaths at the U.S.-Mexico border. It passed 94-0.

The more difficult choices lie ahead next week, when critics of the bill are expected to try to strip out the guest worker provision and roll back the provisions relating to 11 million illegal immigrants already here.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has said repeatedly he hopes to find a compromise that is more broadly acceptable than the legislation that cleared his committee over the objections of six Republicans.

"There's a movement afoot to find consensus," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who voted for the bill that cleared committee.

He said the president's statements "have been hugely helpful."

© 2006 The Associated Press

Sen. Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, introduced the resolution earlier this month.

He argues that the program, which allows eavesdropping on international telephone calls and e-mails involving Americans when one party is suspected of links with terrorism, violates the law because it is conducted without court warrants.

Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, contends there are no grounds for censure, but has agreed to hold the hearing to debate the matter.

"I think that there's absolutely no merit in it, and that the hearing will expose it because of the president's broad (constitutional) authority," Specter said.

Feingold's censure resolution has rallied the support of a number of liberal groups, but it has also galvanized conservatives in support of the embattled war-time president.

Republicans have dismissed the resolution as a political stunt, while many Democrats have distanced themselves from it as they jockey for position for the November congressional elections.

So far, just two of Feingold's 43 fellow Senate Democrats, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Barbara Boxer of California, have co-sponsored his resolution.

Nixon became the first president to resign from office in August 1974 after a congressional impeachment investigation aided by Dean, who had earlier been his White House counsel.

The Judiciary Committee will decide whether to send the censure resolution against Bush to the Republican-led Senate where it seems to have virtually no chance of being approved.

The Senate has censured a president, which amounts to a formal rebuke, only once before and that was Andrew Jackson in 1834 in a banking dispute.

Dean was one of five witnesses called to testify before the Judiciary Committee -- two by Democrats, three by Republicans.

© 2006 Reuters

Army officials told The Associated Press on Thursday the order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies _ including the popular Dragon Skin gear made by California-based Pinnacle Armor.

"We're very concerned that people are spending their hard-earned money on something that doesn't provide the level of protection that the Army requires people to wear. So they're, frankly, wasting their money on substandard stuff," said Col. Thomas Spoehr, director of materiel for the Army.

Murray Neal, chief executive officer of Pinnacle, said he hadn't seen the directive and wants to review it.

"We know of no reason the Army may have to justify this action," Neal said. "On the surface this looks to be another of many attempts by the Army to cover up the billions of dollars spent on ineffective body armor systems which they continue to try quick fixes on, to no avail."

Spoehr said he doesn't recall any similar bans on personal armor or devices. Such directives are most often issued when there are problems with aircraft or other large equipment.

Some veterans denounced the decision. Nathaniel R. Helms, editor of Defense Watch, the online magazine for the group Soldiers for the Truth, said he has already received a number of e-mails from soldiers complaining about the policy.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who wrote legislation to have troops reimbursed for equipment purchases, said soldiers "haven't been getting what they need in terms of equipment and body armor. That's totally unacceptable, and why this directive by the Pentagon needs to be scrutinized in much greater detail."

But another veterans group backed the move.

"I don't think the Army is wrong by doing this, because the Army has to ensure some level of quality," said Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. "They don't want soldiers relying on equipment that is weak or substandard."

Rieckhoff said, the military is partially to blame for the problem because it took too long to get soldiers the armor they needed. "This is the monster they made," he said.

Early in the Iraq war, soldiers and their families were spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars on protective gear that they said the military was not providing. Body armor generally includes armor and ceramic plates that cover the front, back and sides of a soldier's torso.

Last October, after months of pressure from families and members of Congress, the military began a reimbursement program for soldiers who purchased their own protective equipment.

The Army ban covers all commercial armor. It refers specifically to Pinnacle's armor, saying, "In its current state of development, Dragon Skin's capabilities do not meet Army requirements."

The Marine Corps has not issued a similar directive, but Marines are "encouraged to wear Marine Corps-issued body armor since this armor has been tested to meet fleet standards," spokesman Bruce Scott said.

Military officials have acknowledged that some troops _ often National Guard members or Reservists _ went to war with lesser-quality protective gear than other soldiers were issued.

"We'll be upfront and recognize that at the start of the conflict there were some soldiers that didn't have the levels of protection that we wanted," Spoehr said. Now, he added, "we can categorically say that whatever you're going to buy isn't as good as what you're going to get" from the military.

In interviews Thursday, Army officials said aggressive marketing by body armor manufacturers was fueling public concerns that troops are not getting the protection they need.

Army Lt. Col. Scott Campbell said the Army has asked Pinnacle to provide 30 sets of the full Dragon Skin armor so it can be independently tested. He said Pinnacle has indicated it won't be able to provide that armor until May, and the company said that is still the plan.

Campbell said initial military tests on small sections of the Dragon Skin armor had disappointing results. He said Pinnacle has received $840,000 in research funding to develop improved armor.

Spoehr said he believes the directive will have little impact on soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan because it's likely that nearly all are wearing the military-issued body armor.

___

On the Net:

Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil

Pinnacle Armor: http://www.pinnaclearmor.com/

© 2006 The Associated Press

Much of New Orleans' rebirth from Hurricane Katrina hinges on factors beyond the government's control and could take up to a quarter-century to complete, the Bush administration's Gulf Coast recovery chief said Thursday.

The call for an additional funding requirement infuriated Louisiana lawmakers who said they fear the levees won't be ready to protect New Orleans by the June 1 start of the 2006 hurricane season.

Powell said luring homeowners and businesses back to the hurricane-ravaged city "depends on a lot of factors that, I think, are out of our control." Issues with housing, public safety and private investment are largely being decided by local authorities who Powell said "will be in control of their destiny."

"We kind of want it to happen overnight, or I do, but it's going to take some time," he said. "This could be five to 25 years for it all to fit into place."

Powell said it was unclear how much of the $5.9 billion Washington will agree to pay for levee work as the Army Corps of Engineers seeks to build them higher and stronger. The Corps' certification of the levees is crucial for drawing new city flood maps, which will determine insurance rates. Without the flood maps, many homeowners and businesses have been reluctant to rebuild.

The new funds, which the Army Corps now estimates will be needed, would come on top of $108 billion the White House has requested in aid _ including $3.5 billion to repair and strengthen levees battered by Katrina.

"We haven't decided what to ask for," Powell said, leaving open the possibility that the federal government may not agree to fund the entire bill, and will look to Louisiana and New Orleans to share some of the costs.

But he said that decision and the release of new flood maps would probably happen in a "relatively short period of time _ in a matter of days."

Louisiana officials fumed over the talk of a new funding requirement, coming 60 days before the hurricane season begins.

"This is enormously frustrating to me," said Sen. David Vitter, R-La. "I've been telling them since last November that they've sought way too little money for essential levee work, and this finally confirms that. Only it comes after months of stonewalling, with the new hurricane season right around the corner."

In Baton Rouge, Gov. Kathleen Blanco, a Democrat, called the new costs "an outrage" and demanded that Congress come up with the money.

Without the additional cash, Blanco said, some of the hardest-hit areas probably wouldn't receive the levee repairs needed to give them the protection they had before Katrina.

"Obviously all sections will not be secure," she said.

But Powell said all levees will be rebuilt at least to pre-Katrina levels, and perhaps even stronger, by June 1. Over the next 60 days, he said, the Corps will put armor on levees and build storm-proof pumping stations and flood gates that would close certain parts of New Orleans' canals if there were a major storm.

"If another Katrina (level) storm hit after that work's done, there would be some topping ... but the flooding would be all manageable," Powell said. "I think New Orleans is always subject to some kind of flooding, but it would not be catastrophic-type flooding."

In a conference call with reporters, Army Corps of Engineers Maj. Gen. Don Riley said the new costs are the result of ongoing repairs and studies of the levees.

"As we learn, we will adjust our methodology and our estimate," Riley said. "To do it properly, it takes time. Our main interest is in getting this right for the people of New Orleans."

What the storm-ravaged region will look like in coming years is largely up to state and local officials, Powell said, though the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development will have authority to "tweak" some of the housing plans.

He also said he hoped the city's full recovery would take far less than 25 years, "but to be realistic and very honest, I don't know."

"It really depends upon the local people in the area and how they plan their destiny," he said. "It could be much shorter than that, depending upon how they plan their future."

___

Associated Press Writers Brett Martel in New Orleans and Melinda Deslatte in Baton Rouge contributed to this story.

© 2006 The Associated Press

Asked on-camera Thursday by WSB-TV of Atlanta whether she intended to apologize, McKinney refused to comment. Her office said she was planning to hold a news conference Friday morning. She issued a statement late Wednesday saying she regretted the confrontation.

"I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, and I appreciate the work that they do. I have demonstrated my support for them in the past and I continue to support them now," she said in the statement on her Web site.

Capitol Police were considering Thursday whether to ask the U.S. Attorney's office to file charges against McKinney, a Democrat who represents Atlanta suburbs that make up one of Georgia's two black-majority districts.

Democrats and Republicans, meanwhile, engaged in a rhetorical scuffle over the incident.

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday labeled it "a mistake, an unfortunate lack of recognition of a member of Congress." She added that the police officer was not at fault.

"I would not make a big deal of this," said Pelosi, D-Calif.

Ron Bonjean, spokesman for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., responded: "How many officers would have to be punched before it becomes a big deal?"

The dustup is the latest in a series of tangles for the roughly 1,200-officer Capitol Police department.

The department faces a difficult task _ protecting 535 members of Congress and the vast Capitol complex in an atmosphere thick with politics and privilege.

The safety of its members became a sensitive issue after a gunman in 1998 killed two officers outside the office of then-Republican Whip Tom DeLay of Texas.

More recently, police obeyed an order by an angry House Ways and Means Committee chairman, Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., to remove Democrats from a hearing room. Thomas later tearfully apologized on the House floor.

This year, during President Bush's State of the Union address, police drew criticism for first kicking antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan out of the House gallery, and then for evicting the wife of Rep. Bill Young, R-Fla.