Transcript: Gen. Petraeus' Questioned by Obama, Clinton, and McCain 4-8-08

The General still thinks things are going well in Iraq. Or he must say or lose his job. Read Petraeus' testimony:

Since Ambassador Crocker and I appeared before you seven months ago, there has been significant but uneven security progress in Iraq. Since September, levels of violence and civilian deaths have been reduced substantially, al-Qaida-Iraq and a number of other extremist elements have been dealt serious blows, the capabilities of Iraqi Security Force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security.

Nonetheless, the situation in certain areas is still unsatisfactory and innumerable challenges remain. Moreover, as events in the past two weeks have reminded us and as I have repeatedly cautioned, the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible. Still, security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional US forces to Iraq.

Then read the General's answers to the 3 presidential candidates:

SENATOR MCCAIN: News reports indicate that over a thousand Iraqi army and police deserted or underperformed during that operation. This is four months after Basra achieved provincial Iraqi control, meaning that all provincial security had been transferred to Iraqi security forces. What's the lesson that we're to draw from that, that a thousand Iraqi army and police deserted or underperformed?

SENATOR MCCAIN: Well, one lesson, Senator, is that relatively new forces -- what happened was in one case a brigade that literally had just come out of unit set fielding was pressed into operation.

The other lesson is a recurring one, and that is the difficulty of local police operating in areas where there is serious intimidation of themselves and of their families.

SENATOR MCCAIN: Suffice to say, it was a disappointment.

GENERAL PETRAEUS: It was, although it is not over yet, Senator. In fact, subsequent to the early days, they then took control of the security at the different ports. They continued to carry out targeted raids. The operation is still very much ongoing and it is by no means over.

SENATOR MCCAIN: The Green Zone has been attacked in ways that it has not been for a long time, and most of that is coming from elements that leave Sadr City or from Sadr City itself. Is that correct?

GENERAL PETRAEUS: That's correct, Senator.

SENATOR MCCAIN: And what are we going to do about that?

GENERAL PETRAEUS: Well, we have already taken control of the area that was the principal launching point for a number of the 107- millimeter rockets into Baghdad and have secured that area. Beyond that -- again, Iraqi security forces are going to have to come to grips both politically as well as militarily with the issue of the militia and more importantly the special groups.

Barack Obama had some questions:

With respect to Al Qaida in Iraq, it's already been noted they were not there before we went in, but they certainly were there last year and they continue to have a presence there now.

Should we be successful in Mosul, should you continue, General, with the effective operations that you've been engaged in, assuming that in that narrow military effort we are successful, do we anticipate that there ever comes a time where Al Qaida in Iraq could not reconstitute itself?

GENERAL PETRAEUS: Well, I think the question, Senator, is whether Iraqi security forces over time, with much less help, could deal with their efforts to reconstitute. I think it's...

SENATOR OBAMA: That's my point.

GENERAL PETRAEUS: I think it's a given that Al Qaida-Iraq will try to reconstitute just as any movement of that type does try to reconstitute. And the question is whether...

SENATOR OBAMA:I don't mean -- don't mean to interrupt you, but I just want to sharpen the question so that -- because I think you're getting right at my point here.

I mean, if one of our criteria for success is ensuring that Al Qaida does not have a base of operations in Iraq, I just want to harden a little bit the metrics by which we're measuring that.

At what point do we say they cannot reconstitute themselves or are we saying that they're not going to be particularly effective and the Iraqis, themselves, will be able to handle the situation?

For Hillary, The Defeat goes On

It seems like everything is going against Hillary Clinton. It looks like Obama is catching up with Ms.Clinton in Pennsylvania. And if she loses there it will definitely be over:

Barack Obama has gained support in the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking report for April 4-6, and now leads Hillary Clinton by a statistically significant margin, 52% to 43%.

Obama's current 52% support level matches his highest of the year, although his margin over Clinton was slightly larger, at 52% to 42%, in March 27-29 polling.

Obama is catching up to her in Pennsylvania:

New Quinnipiac poll in Pennsylvania (April 3-6, 1,340 Dem LV, MoE +/- 2.6%) showing Obama closing the gap slightly with Clinton:

Clinton 50 (nc vs. last poll April 2)
Obama 44 (+3)

Overall, Clinton's lead in the RCP Average for Pennsylvania slipped another half point down to 6.1%.

Some notes on the Quinnipiac results:

* Obama gained on Clinton across virtually every demographic group, including women.

Obama is leading in Oregon:

SurveyUSA is out with a new poll in Oregon (April 4-6, 597 LV): Obama 52, Clinton 42, Undecided 3

At least Hillary has the white vote:

Add this to the divisive debate over race in the presidential campaign: Whites who said race was important in picking their candidate have been about twice as likely to back Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as Sen. Barack Obama.

Exit polls of voters in Democratic primaries also show that whites who considered the contender's race - Clinton is white, Obama is black - were three times likelier to say they would only be satisfied with Clinton as the nominee than if Obama were chosen.

The figures shed some light on race's effect on a competition that moves to the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania, which has a slightly greater proportion of whites than average. The numbers also underscore the challenge Obama could face in the general election, when whites will comprise a larger share of voters and tend to be more conservative than those participating in the Democratic primaries.

And she is still trying to pander and granstand. All she left with jumping on the bandwagon coming out in favor of the boycotting of the China Olympics ceremony. If she were really sincere Hillary would've taken this stand earlier when Speaker Pelosi spoke out:

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton urged President George W. Bush on Monday to boycott the Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies this summer unless China improves human rights.

Clinton, in a statement, cited violent clashes in Tibet and the lack of pressure by China on Sudan to stop "the genocide in Darfur."

"At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government," the New York senator said.

Bush plans to attend the Summer Olympics ceremonies in Beijing in August and so far has resisted pressure to change his plans in response to a violent crackdown against protesters in Tibet by Chinese authorities.

China has also been accused of refusing to use its influence on the Sudanese government to get it to stop what the United States calls a genocide in the Darfur region.

Clinton has gone a step further than U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California who last week urged Bush to keep the option of boycotting the ceremonies on the table.

"I encourage the Chinese to take advantage of this moment as an opportunity to live up to universal human aspirations of respect for human rights and unity, ideals that the Olympic games have come to represent," Clinton said.

Pro-Tibet Resistance Moves to Paris, U.S. Capitol

The pro-Tibet demonstrations against China don't seem to be ending soon. The Olympic flame procession has now been disrupted in France. And in the Congress, American politicians seem to have found a backbone...barely. They are voting on a toothless resolution, that nonetheless is a statement that the American are not going along with the brutality exhibited by the Chinese rulers towards Tibetans:

China on Monday slammed a proposed US Congressional resolution resolution on Tibet unrest and asked American lawmakers to refrain from doing anything that might harm Sino-US relations.

US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday tabled a resolution calling on Beijing to end its crackdown on peaceful protests in Tibet and begin a dialogue with the Dalai Lama to address the grievances of the Tibetan people.

The resolution proposed by a few US House of representatives neither condemned those responsible for the violence nor did it denounce the "Dalai Clique", Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu said.

There is some evidence that the Chinese authorities might be buckling under the weight of international pressure:

As unrest has spread among China's ethnic Tibetan population, Beijing has found itself caught between its desire to appear reasonable to the outside world and its tendency to come down hard when feeling threatened.
more stories like this

In recent days, the government's propaganda arm has grown shriller and its security arm tighter: The London-based Free Tibet Campaign, an activist group, reported late Friday that police in Sichuan Province had fired on hundreds of Buddhist monks and lay people, resulting in eight deaths. The Chinese government acknowledged unrest in the area and said police fired warning shots, but reported no deaths.

Yet too much has changed for the emerging world power and soon-to-be Olympic host to revert completely to the Communist Party playbook of old, analysts say.

"China is facing some traditional challenges and new types of conditions," said Shen Dingli, professor at Shanghai's Fudan University. "This is forcing it to deal with this mixture and adapt."

Viva La France:

Thousands of demonstrators from across Europe massed Monday around some of the most storied sights of Paris to protest the heavily guarded passage of the Olympic torch on what was supposed to be a majestic procession through France’s capital.

The Associated Press reported that at one point police officers in jogging gear briefly extinguished the torch and took it on board a bus, apparently to move it away from the crowds. CNN broadcast television images of the torch as it was loaded onto the bus, apparently showing the flame was out or had been lowered.

CNN claims the flame was extinguished unlike the NY Times coverage above:

The Olympic torch relay was disrupted Monday by protesters in Paris demonstrating against the Chinese government, causing authorities to twice extinguish the flame and put the torch on a bus, according to The Associated Press.

60 Minutes Exposes China's Control Over U.S. Economy

It is frightening. Communist China has so much influence over the American economy that they could bring us to our knees. It could potentially be more devastating than 9-11. And Our government sits idly by does very little to protect us. Just as they did very little prior to September 11th:

Over the winter, as Wall Street was losing tens of billions of dollars due to the mortgage and credit crises, it wasn’t the Fed or Congress that came to the rescue. It was something called sovereign-wealth funds -- pools of money controlled by foreign governments.

Desperate for cash, some of Wall Street’s ailing
mega-banks -- like Citigroup -- reached out to these funds. So, for instance, Abu Dhabi bought $7.5 billion worth of shares in Citigroup.

Altogether the sovereign-wealth funds of countries like Abu Dhabi and Kuwait have spent over $30 billion bailing out our financial system.

Which has raised troubling questions: are these mostly undemocratic regimes saving Wall Street … or invading it? As correspondent Lesley Stahl found out, one fund is of special concern. It's new, highly secretive, and the fifth largest in the world.

Welcome to the Beijing headquarters of the China Investment Corporation, where 180 employees are looking for companies to invest in in the West.

"How much do you have to invest?" Stahl asked the fund’s president, Gao Xiqing.

"$200 billion," Gao replied.

[...]"Now, some people consider what you're doing, as a huge threat," Stahl said. "Your real intention is to 'gobble us up,' you know. They see you as vultures, really. I mean, I’ve seen that word."

[...]the problem is that China has over $1.5 trillion in reserves, the world's largest currency surplus: and it’s growing by $1 billion a day.

"China has so much money that they can spend buying U.S. companies that the danger is that they can strip these companies," Navarro said. "They can strip the companies of jobs, research and development, technology."

[...]we’re all but dependent on Chinese investments. Beyond this fund, China holds half a trillion dollars in US Treasury bonds. For that reason economist Navarro says they have us over a barrel. If they don’t like our behavior, he says all, they have to do is dump all their U.S. investments. It’s known as the financial nuclear option.

"What would that do? That will cause interest rates to spike. Mortgage rates to spike. Inflation to spike. The dollar to go through the floor. The stock market to go into chaos," Navarro said. "We would be in deep, deep, deep trouble."

"The nuclear option, financial nuclear option is China’s pulling all its money out of U.S. treasuries," Stahl said to Gao.

Read the entire article/transcript...

Transcript: John McCain on 'FOX News Sunday' 4-6-08

Read the entire transcript here:

You're here today at the Civil Rights Museum, but it has come to our attention that in 1983 you voted against the federal holiday for Martin Luther King. You voted in 1990 against civil rights legislation.

Isn't it going to be hard to reach out to all those groups given your history and the history of the party?

MCCAIN: Well, let me say in 1983 I was wrong, and I believe that my advocacy for the recognition of Dr. King's birthday in Arizona was something that I'm proud of.

The issue in the early '90s was a little more complicated. I've never believed in quotas, and I don't. There's no doubt about my view on that issue. And that was the implication, at least, of that other vote.

But I was wrong in '83, and all of us make mistakes, and I think nobody recognized that more than Dr. King.

What about the quagmire in Iraq:

WALLACE: Let's turn to foreign policy. You acknowledge you were surprised by the recent Iraqi offensive in Basra. In the end, the Iraqi government failed to oust those Shiite militias.

Doesn't that raise serious questions about the continued weakness of the central government in Baghdad?

MCCAIN: Well, actually, when I say I was surprised, our authorities in Iraq were surprised, the State Department — it was about a 48-hour...

WALLACE: Right. The whole government was surprised.

MCCAIN: Yes, about a 48-hour window. It's interesting. We have asked the government time after time to act effectively, that we want this government to act. They acted.

Now, obviously, the results were mixed. Obviously, there were problems. And Maliki, in my view, should have waited until we had concluded the battle of Mosul which is going on as we speak.

They do have control of the port of Basra now. That's one of the major economic areas of Iraq because of the oil that goes through there. It was al-Sadr that declared a cease-fire, not Maliki, and they continue...

WALLACE: It was brokered by the Iranians, who actually may have more clout with both al-Sadr — I mean, let me just ask you the question from this point of view.

General Petraeus is coming to testify in the next couple of days. A lot of talk about the surge and how that's helped damp down the violence — some would say because there was a spike of violence during this Basra battle, maybe al-Sadr's decision to hold the cease- fire is as responsible as the surge is, and if he changes his mind, we're back in the frying pan.

MCCAIN: Well, in respect, I don't think Sadr would have declared the cease-fire if he thought he was winning. Most times in history of military engagements, the winning side doesn't declare the cease-fire.

The second point is that overall, the Iraqi military performed pretty well. Six months ago, it would have — or eight or nine months ago, it would have been unthinkable for Maliki to act this way.

WALLACE: We heard this week that 1,000 soldiers refused to fight or deserted.

MCCAIN: And there were many, many thousands who are fighting there. Compare that with two years ago when the army was basically unable to function in any way effectively.

Look, I didn't particularly like the outcome of this thing, but I am convinced that we now have a government that is governing with some effect and a military that is functioning very effectively. Up in Mosul where some of the best units are, they're functioning well.

I've always said, Chris, this is long and hard and tough. We're paying a huge penalty for four years of a failed strategy that I fought hard against, and I believe this strategy has succeeded and will succeed and can succeed. But it's long and hard and tough.

Meet The Press Transcript 4-6-08: Casey vs. Rendell

Supporters of Barack Obama (Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey) and Hillary Clinton (Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell) debate on Meet The Press. Read the complete transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Casey, less than a month ago this is what you said, you "won't take sides before his state voters head to the polls. `I said I'd be neutral throughout our primary, which I will maintain. ... The winner of this nomination will be the president. So, when that much is at stake ... we need people in the middle to bring people together.'" You changed your mind.

SEN. CASEY: I did, Tim. And the reason was because I was, when I said that, an undecided voter. I became a decided voter. And at that point, you have to make a decision when, when a competition is going on in your state. Do you sit on the sidelines as a public official when you have a strong feeling? And I'll tell you, I have never been more inspired by a candidate for president in my life. This is a candidate, in Barack Obama, who can bring about the change that we need in this country. He's someone who's inspired people of all ages. And I think the people of Pennsylvania are getting to know him now. I think we can make progress. It's certainly an uphill fight, but I'm very excited about his candidacy. I think he can win in November, and I also think he can become a great president.

[...]MR. RUSSERT: And Reverend Wright's comments have not hurt him in parts of Pennsylvania?

SEN. CASEY: Oh, I'm sure they, they might've, but I think what you saw there was a leadership test, and, in my judgment he got an A plus because he was honest about it, he was honest about his own, his own feelings. He was honest about the debate, and he lifted the debate on a very difficult issue. And I think it was a, it was a real demonstration of the new kind of leadership, the new kind of politics he brings even to tough issues.

Senator Rendell believes he knows better than the public:

MR. RUSSERT: Governor Rendell, The New York Times asked Democrats all across the country last week who will be the strongest Democrat, the "best chance at beating John McCain?" Look at this: Obama, 56%, Clinton, 32%. Those are Democrats across the country.

GOV. RENDELL: Well, Tim, I don't think they're doing the electoral math very well. We elect a president of the United States, as we learned in 2000, by the electoral college. And no Democrat can win the electoral college without carrying three of the four big states--Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. Assuming Senator Clinton wins in Pennsylvania, she will have demonstrated, and she's running way ahead of Obama against McCain in all four of those states, and those are crucial and that's why she's the strongest candidate in the fall, without question.

It looks like Mr.Rendell caught himself in a contradiction:

MR. RUSSERT: The, the Obama people counter, Governor, that they have a chance to win Virginia, they have a chance to win Colorado, they have a chance to win--they have a chance to win states, broaden the electoral college map, that Senator Clinton can't do.

GOV. RENDELL: Yeah, but I don't get that because some of those states are Arizona and New Mexico, and Senator Clinton won Arizona and New Mexico. She won Arizona pretty handily. So I don't understand that, that math that they're saying that they're the best candidate to carry those states. They didn't carry half of them in the primaries.

MR. RUSSERT: So Senator Clinton could not win, then, Missouri and Connecticut and Colorado and the 28 contests that Obama won in the fall?

GOV. RENDELL: Oh, Tim, don't, don't misunderstand me. I have disagreed with people who said that Senator Obama can't win Pennsylvania. He can, and if he's the nominee, Bob Casey and I will be working together with every ounce of energy we have. But Senator Clinton is more likely to carry Pennsylvania. She's more likely to carry Michigan and Ohio and Florida and the key states that we have to win. Senator Obama was losing, just 10 days ago, was losing New Jersey to Senator McCain and even in Massachusetts. No Democrat can survive with making those two states toss-ups.

The More Desperate Hillary Clinton Gets the Bigger the Lies

Under duress, the true Hillary is coming out. This one just yesterday:

[...]she reminded voters that Obama’s voting record on the war is not very different than hers.

“When you want to compare, compare decisions so when Senator Obama came to the Senate, he and I voted exactly the same except for one vote and that happens to be the facts.”

Obama has been credited with foreseeing a troublesome war in Iraq primarily due to a speech he gave in 2002 while he was a state senator, where he spoke out against the war. Clinton said, “I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did. So, I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and I give him credit for making that speech. But that was not a decision.”

This is another "story" from Hillary that offended the family of the supposed victim:

Hillary Rodham Clinton "misspoke" again on the campaign trail - and a distraught Ohio family is furious about it.

Several times in recent months while talking about her plan for universal health care, Clinton told a tale of woe about a young pregnant woman who sought medical care at a local hospital and was turned away for lack of insurance - and both she and the baby died.

But the family of the 35-year-old woman - Trina Bachtel - says the story is simply not true.

"Trina had good insurance. She was a good girl, and she worked hard. That story made her look like she was a welfare bum," her 80-year-old grandmother May Mayle told The Post yesterday.

Mayle confirmed that Bachtel died last August from complications related to a late-pregnancy miscarriage, but said she was never turned away from a hospital.

"The family is real torn up about it. I can't understand why they'd make her out to look like she was so unstable," said Mayle.

As Clinton told the story during campaign rallies, the young, pregnant woman in difficulty was turned down for treatment because she was uninsured and couldn't pay $100 up front.

She didn't name Bachtel or the hospital involved, but after the Washington Post ran a story identifying her and where she worked - a Pizza Hut in Pomeroy, Ohio - local papers made it front-page news, horrifying her still-grieving family.

...But the public has caught on to her lies:

Ever since she stepped onto the national stage when her husband ran for president in 1992, she's found her honesty challenged along with his _ sometimes thanks to her failure to tell the truth and sometimes thanks to the eagerness of her critics to portray innocent misstatements as lies.

Either way, the issue has helped to define her and put a drag on her political standing.

"This is a real difficulty for her," said independent pollster John Zogby. "With Bill Clinton, there was always an honesty problem. But he always was able to overcome it through charm and brilliance. ... It doesn't look like she is able to transcend those fundamental problems that she has with the truth."

A recent Gallup Poll found that 53 percent of Americans think Clinton isn't "honest and trustworthy." Just 29 percent said the same of her Democratic rival Barack Obama, and 27 percent said it of Republican John McCain.

Gallup analyst Jeffrey Jones called the credibility gap between Clinton and McCain "the largest between any two candidates for any dimension tested."

Another recent poll, this one conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center before Clinton had to back down from her account of her Bosnia trip, found that 29 percent of white Democrats considered her a "phony," almost twice as many as the 15 percent who described Obama that way.

Related Links:

• Hillary's Thirty Five Years of Lies and Coverups
• ABC: Oops, Clinton did it again: Facts Questioned
  
• Does Hillary Have Any Shame?
• Hillary's Lies Guranteeing Her Defeat
• Hillary Clinton's Positive Ratings Hit New Low
• Hillary Clinton Lies Caught on Tape

Hillary's Thirty Five Years of Lies and Coverups

No family in American politics have told more lies than Clintons, including the Bushs and Kennedys. This article comes from Blogcritics:

More and more evidence is coming to light that not only is Hillary Clinton a chronic liar, but that her lies and ethical breaches are so frequent and often so unnecessary that her urge to lie may be an uncontrollable pathological condition.

The history of Hillary Clinton's lies and unethical conduct has been well documented over the years, from covering for her priapic husband to the Whitewater, Travelgate and Rose law firm scandals. More recently a lot of attention has been paid to her lies about being under fire in Bosnia and even about what Chelsea was doing on 9/11. But the most recent revelation may be the most troubling because it shows that her pattern of unethical conduct and lying to cover it up goes back farther and is a more basic element of her character than anyone had realized.

The story of her time on the staff of the Judiciary Committee during Watergate has not been getting coverage in the mainstream media, but the story has been getting out through the work of columnists like Dan Calabrese who have picked up and looked into comments by former Chief Democratic Counsel for the Judiciary Committee Jerry Zeifman which reveal some very troubling aspects of Hillary Clinton's history.

Zeifman goes into detail on Clinton's history at the Judiciary Committee on his website and in a recently released book, where he relates the story of how she abused her authority, engaged in a coverup and an attempt to violate President Nixon's civil rights under the Constitution, expressly disobeyed the instructions of her superiors and was ultimately fired for cause without receiving a recommendation by Zeifman himself. Clinton may have conveniently forgotten this bit of history, but Zeifman has all the details because he kept detailed notes in a personal diary at the time.

The basic story is that Clinton (then Rodham) was assigned the job at the Judiciary Committee of "establishing the legal procedures to be followed in the course of the inquiry and impeachment." Zeifman ultimately fired her because "a number of the procedures she recommended were ethically flawed" and because "she had violated House and committee rules by disclosing confidential information to unauthorized persons." Beyond that, she also engaged in personally unethical behavior by obscuring her activities by removing files without permission so they would no longer be available to the public.

[...]The picture of Clinton which emerges from Zeifman 's first-hand accounts of why she was ultimately fired after Nixon's resignation show her as a vicious partisan activist, willing to bend and break the law, discard the Constitution, distort the truth, conceal evidence and commit almost any crime to bring down Nixon and claim as much of the credit as possible for herself. This picture of Clinton, coming as it does from a fellow Democratic insider, carries the weight of authenticity and shows the early genesis of the character flaws of which she still displays today. She is vindictive, unethical and a chronic liar, so twisted and egomaniacal that she ought to be automatically disqualified from any serious consideration for the presidency or any other public office.

Greatest Threat to America: An Overstretched Military

This is a transcript of a Lou Dobbs report on how we are facing a serious problem of an overstretched military. We might not be able to stop our enemies. The root of the problem is a war in Iraq that is bleeding America dry:

BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): At the end of the NATO summit in Bucharest, President Bush committed a new round of U.S. troops to the war in Afghanistan. According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Mr. Bush told other heads of state that in 2009, the United States would make a significant, additional contribution of forces to fight the Taliban. U.S. commanders want another 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, so why not send them now to join the 31,000 U.S. troops already there -- the answer, Iraq.

ADMIRAL MIKE MULLEN, JOINT CHIEFS CHAIRMAN: There are force requirements there that we can't currently meet, so having forces in Iraq don't -- at the level they're at don't allow us to fill the need that we have in Afghanistan.

STARR: Finding enough troops for Afghanistan and Iraq is proving to be increasingly difficult. A new classified national intelligence estimate on Iraq, which Congress requested before General David Petraeus testifies next Tuesday is now on Capitol Hill. It reportedly says the surge is working, but analysts say the recent fighting in Basra may have changed everything.

MICHAEL O'HANLON, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: I would say that any report done before Basra is already obsolete, at least to an extent. And so in that regard it's not going to be a definitive word anyway.

STARR: The latest fighting in Basra could temper Petraeus' view that the surge has worked. The U.S. now has more than 500 troops in the south helping Iraqi security forces, but U.S. officials note 1,000 Iraqi troops deserted their post during the fighting.

In September the first post surge brigade is due to come home. Petraeus has to decide within the next several weeks if he still wants replacement troops or if he is going to begin a new draw down.

(END VIDEOTAPE) STARR: The need for more troops in Afghanistan is going to put pressure on the administration to begin a further troop draw down in Iraq because after all, Kitty, there really are only so many boots you can put on the ground in either country.

PILGRIM: Well that's exactly right, Barbara, so where in the world is the Pentagon going to find all these extra troops to fight in Afghanistan next year?

STARR: That's going to be a fairly significant problem for a couple of reasons. First, when troops come home from Iraq, the Pentagon has made an absolute pledge to give them at least 12 months with their families to rest and recuperate before they go off to a war zone again. So that's going to put some pressure on it.

Iraq is not exactly getting better anytime soon as we've seen with the fighting in Basra. And finally what Admiral Mullen said was absolutely vital. Look at it this way. They need the troops in Afghanistan now; they're not sending them until next year because they don't have them to send.

PILGRIM: Thanks very much, Barbara Starr. Thanks Barbara.

A B-1 bomber supporting U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan today caught fire today in Qatar. The bomber caught fire after it landed at a U.S. air base. Now all the airmen onboard escaped without injury. Meanwhile, an airman has been killed in a bomb attack in Baghdad. The airman is the first U.S. fatality in Iraq this month. Thirty-eight of our troops were killed in Iraq last month; 4,013 of our troops have been killed since this war began; 29,628 troops wounded; 13,264 seriously.

Voters are very pessimistic about the direction this country is taking. A "New York Times"/CBS poll says 81 percent of voters believe this nation is on the wrong track. One major reason is the economic downturn. A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll says 42 percent of voters believe the economy is the number one issue. That's double the number of voters who think the war in Iraq is the top issue.

New evidence today of the magnitude of the economic crisis facing this nation, employers slashed 80,000 jobs last month. That's the most in five years. The unemployment rate jumped to 5.1 percent. That's the highest level in nearly three years.

Chinese Repression of Tibetan Monks Worsens

The questions is will the butchers of China get away with it as they always have. It really is up to you:

New violence has broken out in a volatile Tibetan region of western China, leaving eight people dead, an overseas Tibet activist group said Friday. China's official Xinhua News Agency said a government official was seriously injured.

The London-based Free Tibet Campaign said police opened fire on hundreds of Buddhist monks and lay people who had marched on local government offices to demand the release of two monks detained for possessing photographs of the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled Buddhist leader.

[...]The report indicates continuing unrest in Tibetan areas despite a massive security presence imposed after sometimes violent anti-government demonstrations broke out last month in Tibet's capital Lhasa and neighboring provinces.

There are some showing leadership by not participating in China's Olympic propaganda:

India's soccer captain has refused to carry the Olympic torch during its passage through India to protest the recent Chinese crackdown on anti-government protests by Buddhist monks in Tibet. As Anjana Pasricha reports from New Delhi, Tibetan activists have welcomed the decision.

[...]President of the New Delhi-based Tibetan Youth Congress, Tsewang Rigzin, welcomed the Indian soccer captain's decision.

"It sends out a strong signal to the rest of the world that when it comes to principle[s], people should abide by their principles, and that they should stand up for what they truly believe in," he said.

Bhutia is the second person to refuse to take part in the Olympic torch relay. Last month, a Thai environmentalist, Narisa Chakrabongse, also withdrew from the relay to protest human-rights violations in Tibet.

...Including the President of France:

French President Nicholas Sarkozy stepped up the pressure on China Saturday over its handling of the Tibet crisis by warning he may boycott the Olympic opening, following fresh violence.

If Sarkozy can do it, why not you Mr.President:

Hundreds of protesters and members of the Tibetan-American diaspora gathered Monday in rain-soaked Lafayette Park in front of the White House to appeal to President Bush to speak out on behalf of Tibet and to boycott the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic Games in August. Leaders of Tibetan advocacy groups and a congressman also joined the rally.

[...]Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) attended the rally and told the crowd that he has begun to work with House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to press for an American boycott of the Olympics opening ceremony. Abercrombie told Cybercast News Service that he hopes to create a subcommittee, possibly under the Human Rights Caucus, to explore the idea.

Passport Official Quits Amid Probes

More from that passport scandal involving Obama, Clinton, and McCain:

The State Department official in charge of U.S. passport services stepped down yesterday amid investigations into security breaches in the document records and overcharges for blank passports.

In the latest blow against the agency, court documents show a State Department employee provided personal information from passport applications for use in a credit-card fraud scheme.

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Passport Services Ann Barrett left her post yesterday, a move that State Department Spokesman Tom Casey attributed to management changes.

The personnel move comes after The Washington Times first reported last month that three State Department contract employees were being investigated for improperly accessing the passport data of three presidential candidates. The Times also has reported on overcharges for blank passports produced by the U.S. Government Printing Office.

Asked whether the move of Ms. Barrett is linked to the improper file searches and other reports, Mr. Casey said: "I wouldn't ascribe it to any individual incident."

"There are management changes that go on in this bureau and consular affairs and others all the time," he said but declined to elaborate.

Meanwhile, a State Department employee who was not identified in documents filed in U.S. District Court, was implicated in a credit-card fraud scheme after 24-year-old Lieutenant Quarles Harris Jr. told federal authorities he obtained "passport information from a co-conspirator who works for the U.S. Department of State."

The investigation began after Metropolitan Police on March 25 pulled over Mr. Harris in Southeast on suspicion that the windows of his vehicle were tinted too darkly.

Our government does not exist to serve the people but to facilitate profits for big business:

The annals of incompetent federal empire-building have a new entry: the Government Printing Office's e-Passport program. As a three-part series by Bill Gertz of The Washington Times shows, this little-known near-monopoly of U.S. government printing earned tidy "profits" by charging the State Department 85 percent over production costs of U.S. passports. In the meantime, it made a fine mess of passport security with the help of its friends at Foggy Bottom. (See today's front page for the last installment of "Outsourcing Passports.")

The pricing shell game is contrary to the spirit and possibly the letter of the laws that govern GPO operations. "Profit" is prohibited: This is taxpayer money, whether it is coming or going. Price-gaming distorts incentives and fuels empire-building. This, of course, is just what the GPO did under a guise of purported "private sector" management techniques. It enabled bonuses for budding agency entrepreneurs, funded a new production facility and yielded a $100 million bonanza over 16 months for which the GPO has not fully accounted.

Does Hillary Have Any Shame?

This article from Beth Arnold (Huffington Post) says it well:

I'm asking. Does Hillary Clinton feel any shame at all? She was just on the Leno show to publicly announce--again--that she had a "lapse" and that was the reason she repeatedly lied in stump speeches about running from sniper fire in Tuzla, Bosnia. Obviously, the point of her appearance was to offset the political nightmare that ensued after the print media (including Frank Rich's great column)/TV/Internet pandemonium--the almost 2,000,000 views of this video--that forced her hand.

So the way she and her staff cleverly addressed this fabrication and others--like her non-support of NAFTA--was by lying again? Hillary walked on Leno's set and sat down in his chair. She was laughing while she dismissed herself from responsibility. She looked down instead of facing the audience, which she seemed unable to do (not a good sign in the truth department, if you ask me, but might show a smidgeon of shame), while she repeated her dog-ate-my-homework excuse. Hillary: "It's such a mismatch of words and actions...I wrote about this in my book, and I obviously just had a lapse...."

Uh-huh. Well, she's having another one now. We might say that Hillary is "prevaricating," since this word's meaning is all about trying to dodge the bullet or confuse the issue. Certainly, she has "rationalized" through her whole campaign--including about having 35 years of experience. We have gotten enough confirmation to ascertain that she didn't bring peace to Northern Ireland as she had claimed. And she did this pointedly without shame?

We can solidly say Hillary was "misleading" the American public about her Bosnia escapade, although the videotape and other first person accounts of Sinbad and some journalists who were with Hillary in Tuzla definitely support the notion that she told a "bold-faced lie" about it. In Wikipedia:

A bold-faced (or barefaced) lie is a lie told when it is obvious to all concerned that it is a lie. For example, the child with chocolate all over her face who denies having eaten the cake is a bold-faced liar. The adjective "bold-faced" indicates that no attempt has been made to hide the fact that it is a lie.


"Why Did It Take Sinbad to Expose Hillary Clintons' Misstatement?," as Eric Deggans wrote in this blog. The answer appears to be because the American media--even the journalists who had been with Hillary--didn't bother to either research/write/talk/blog it. And so what is with the big whine from Hillary and Bill that the press is so unfair to her? Seems like they've given her an almost free ride in plenty of important areas. Not surprisingly, after being accused of this unfairness the traditional press then worked up enough shame to condemn themselves and turn on Obama. But as George W. proved, it is easy enough to lead them around like they have rings in their noses.

Read more...

States may Free Inmates to Save Millions

A sign of the times. It is also spells a return to the rise in the crime rate. The government is endangering families because they determine priorities. Public safety is a priority. You have to wonder how much of this can be attributed by a wasteful war in Iraq. It is no coincidence that the crime rate exploded during the Vietnam War:

Lawmakers from California to Kentucky are trying to save money with a drastic and potentially dangerous budget-cutting proposal: releasing tens of thousands of convicts from prison, including drug addicts, thieves and even violent criminals.

Officials acknowledge that the idea carries risks, but they say they have no choice because of huge budget gaps brought on by the slumping economy.

"If we don't find a way to better manage the population at the state prison, we will be forced to spend money to expand the state's prison system — money we don't have," said Jeff Neal, a spokesman for Rhode Island Gov. Don Carcieri.

At least eight states are considering freeing inmates or sending some convicts to rehabilitation programs instead of prison, according to an Associated Press analysis of legislative proposals. If adopted, the early release programs could save an estimated $450 million in California and Kentucky alone.

A Rhode Island proposal would allow inmates to deduct up to 12 days from their sentence for every month they follow rules and work in prison. Even some violent offenders would be eligible but not those serving life sentences.

A plan in Mississippi would offer early parole for people convicted of selling marijuana or prescription drugs. New Jersey, South Carolina and Vermont are considering funneling drug-addicted offenders into treatment, which is cheaper than prison.

The prospect of financial savings offers little comfort to Tori-Lynn Heaton, a police officer in a suburb of Providence whose ex-husband went to prison for beating her. He has already finished his prison term, but would have been eligible for early release under the current proposal.

"You're talking about victim safety. You're talking about community member safety," she said. "You can't balance the budget on the backs of victims of crimes."

But prisons "are one of the most expensive parts of the criminal-justice system," said Alison Lawrence, who studies corrections policy for the National Conference of State Legislatures. "That's where they look to first to cut down some of those costs."

[...]"To open the prison door and release prisoners back into communities is merely placing a state burden onto local governments and will ultimately jeopardize safety in communities," said Fresno Police Chief Jerry Dyer, who could see 1,800 inmates released in his area.

In Kentucky, which faces a $1.3 billion deficit, lawmakers approved legislation Wednesday to grant early release to some prisoners. Initial estimates were that the plan could affect as many as 2,000 inmates and save nearly $50 million.

Chinese Spying on the U.S. on the Rise

Eventually we will figure out that Communist China is a greater threat to America than al Qaeda:

Prosecutors called Chi Mak the "perfect sleeper agent," though he hardly looked the part. For two decades, the bespectacled Chinese-born engineer lived quietly with his wife in a Los Angeles suburb, buying a house and holding a steady job with a U.S. defense contractor, which rewarded him with promotions and a security clearance. Colleagues remembered him as a hard worker who often took paperwork home at night.

Eventually, Mak's job gave him access to sensitive plans for Navy ships, submarines and weapons. These he secretly copied and sent via courier to China -- fulfilling a mission that U.S. officials say he had been planning since the 1970s.

[...]The Chinese government, in an enterprise that one senior official likened to an "intellectual vacuum cleaner," has deployed a diverse network of professional spies, students, scientists and others to systematically collect U.S. know-how, the officials said. Some are trained in modern electronic techniques for snooping on wireless computer transactions. Others, such as Mak, are technical experts who have been in place for years and have blended into their communities.

[...]Recent prosecutions indicate that Chinese agents have infiltrated sensitive military programs pertaining to nuclear missiles, submarine propulsion technology, night-vision capabilities and fighter pilot training -- all of which could help China modernize its programs while developing countermeasures against advanced weapons systems used by the United States and its allies.

"The intelligence services of the People's Republic of China pose a significant threat both to the national security and to the compromise of U.S. critical national assets," said William Carter, an FBI spokesman. "The PRC will remain a significant threat for a long time as they attempt to develop their military capabilities and to develop their economy in order to compete in today's world economy."

[...]While military technology appears to be the top prize, the Chinese effort is also aimed at commercial and industrial technologies, which often are poorly protected, several officials said. "Espionage used to be a problem for the FBI, CIA and military, but now it's a problem for corporations," Brenner said. "It's no longer a cloak-and-dagger thing. It's about computer architecture and the soundness of electronic systems."

[...]In another recent case, former Northrop Grumman scientist Noshir Gowadia, who helped build the B-2 bomber, was indicted last fall for allegedly sharing cruise missile data with the Chinese government during a half-dozen trips to China. He is scheduled to go on trial in October.

Hillary Clinton Plagiarizes Ronald Reagan

Hillary made a big deal about Barack Obama's plagiarizing a speech. Here she is doing the same. In this case it's a joke told by President Ronald Reagan.

Jesse Ventura on Larry King: We Must Overthrow the Two-Party System

This is the message that I've been arguing for decades. Jesse Ventura, who is a leader in the struggle against the corrupt two-party system, appeared on Larry King yesterday making his case. For those who don't remember, Jesse "The Body" Ventura, former wrestler became Governor of Minnesota by way of the Reform Party. He argues as I do that the time has come for our nation to throw off the chains of the tyranny of the duopoly. Read the entire transcript of the show. Here are some excerpts below:

VENTURA: I wrote the book because I was down there and I met the writer Dick Russell a few years ago. And he lives down there part- time, too. And we would get together every Wednesday. And we wrote the book together. And I wrote the book, hopefully, to awaken America, the United States, to what I believe we need a revolution here.

KING: What kind of revolution?

VENTURA: Well, when I say revolution, I don't say a violent one, because I'm not for violence. But we need a revolution to get rid of the Democratic and Republican two-party dictatorship that goes on in this country. Larry, they've got us $9 trillion in debt now, these two parties. Trillion.

I can't fathom what a trillion is. Can you?

[...]VENTURA: -- I believe there shouldn't be parties. I believe that --

KING: No parties?

VENTURA: No parties, that you should run on ideas and who you are and not be part of these two...

KING: But who does the backing? Who forms the groups? Who -- how do you get elected?

VENTURA: That's the problem.

KING: Yes.

VENTURA: That's the problem. The problem is these groups. You know, as I would get in trouble with before, I used to call them the Democrips and the Rebloodlicans. They're the same as the street gangs, only these guys wear Brooks Brothers suits.

KING: All right, what do you think of what we -- what do you think of Hillary Clinton? You met her.

VENTURA: I met her. She's a very intelligent woman. I don't take anything away from her. But, let's look at -- are we a dual monarchy now, Larry?

I mean we've had only Bushes and Clintons for the majority of my voting life have been running this country. So the two elitist parties -- that's all they give us are Bushes and Clintons, because you technically could go back to 1980, when Bush was with Ronald Reagan. So from 1980 to 2008, 28 years it's been Bushes and Clintons...

KING: We had --

VENTURA: ... and if Hillary wins, it will be another eight.

KING: All right.

So does Barack Obama bring you a degree of hope?

VENTURA: Barack Obama, to me, is the best of what they're offering us because he's new. He's got fresh ideas. But he's still going to get his strings pulled by the Democratic Party. He's talking about all this change. There won't be change happening.

Look it, OK, 2006 -- the voters clearly sent a mandate to the spineless Democrats. They sent a mandate to them saying get us out of Iraq.

Have they done it? No. Are they even close to doing it? No. All we're getting is cheap talk from them.

There is an alternative. The revolution that Mr.Ventura is talking about will come in the form of The People's Platform. Start today.

Hillary's Lies Guranteeing Her Defeat

The whole truth is finally coming out. And Hillary Clinton can't blame some vast right wing conspiracy. She and her famous lying husband, Bill Clinton, have a long history of telling fibs. Americans have been lied to for so long we are beginning to learn to spot a phony. It is that phoniness that is bringing down Hillary Clinton:

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Typical of her shameless pandering:

Clinton added, "When it comes to finishing the fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit, I never give up and I know that were going to make it together, not just up those stairs, but were going to climb that mountain for a better day for America."

She's lying about her opposition to NAFTA. And she is lying about paying her bills:

Gerry McEntee, Clinton's loyal surrogate and AFSCME president, defended Clinton's hesitency about NAFTA when she served as first Lady. McEntee said she called him when it was passed and she said, "We lost," while the candidate, in her speech, said she "raised a big yellow caution flag" about the trade bill.

On a separate subject, when asked in a press availability about the financial state of her campaign, Clinton replied, "We are raising the money we need and we are paying our bills."

That might explain why potential voters in Pennsylvania are turning for Obama. And if she loses that State it is definitely over:

Barack Obama has cut deeply into Hillary Rodham Clinton's lead in Pennsylvania, coming to within 5 percentage points in a new poll as the two rivals fought toe-to-toe over the same turf yesterday.

Sen. Clinton leads Sen. Obama by 47-42 percent in a new Rasmussen Reports survey. Just a week ago, Clinton was up 10 percentage points, and in early March she was ahead by 15.

"If Obama is able to pull off an upset in the Keystone State, it would effectively end the race for the Democratic nomination," wrote Scott Rasmussen in an analysis of the poll.

Clinton has been slipping over the past 10 days since her story that she came under sniper fire during a visit to Bosnia in 1996 was debunked.

Even Clinton's supporters think she will lose:

A key Hillary Clinton supporter appeared to be a bit off message during a recent interview with a Canadian radio station.

"If I had to make a prediction right now, I'd say Barack Obama is going to be the next president," Missouri Rep. Emanuel Cleaver said in a Canadian public radio interview this weekend. "I will be stunned if he's not the next president of the United States."

Clinton Strategy: If I Can't Win Neither Will You, Barack

It's an obvious point the press keeps missing. Hillary wants to beat up Obama so that if she doesn't win Obama will be too weak to beat McCain in November. Then she'll be able to run in 4 years. Therefore, the arguments calling for Ms.Clinton to step down are missing the point. Hillary doesn't give a damn that her staying in the race is hurting the Democratic Party. Remember: the Clintons destroyed the Dems when Bill was President:

The analysis was conducted by Matt Seyfang, an attorney and a former delegate counter for past Democratic presidential candidates including Bill Clinton in 1992 to Bill Bradley in 2000. According to his projections and a calculation of the number of committee seats that each candidate is entitled to based on their proportion to the statewide vote or the relevant caucus rules, Obama holds roughly 65 seats and Clinton 56. There are slightly more than 23 seats still to be decided in the remaining contests.

Seyfang’s findings reveal that Clinton faces an uphill battle if, as she signaled on Saturday, her campaign decides to take her fight to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations to the Credentials Committee.

“I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan,” she told the Washington Post. “And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention — that's what credentials committees are for.”

She can't even pay her bills:

Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose health-care plan would require every American to get insurance, owes health-insurance companies nearly $300,000 in payments to cover her own campaign staff, records reveal.

Clinton's campaign owes $229,000 to health-insurance giant Aetna and another $63,000 to CareFirst, which provides insurance coverage for her staff.

The debts, first reported by Politico.com, are part of a $9 million debt her campaign disclosed in documents filed with the feds.

[...] The potentially damaging revelation came as Barack Obama delivered yet another blow to her campaign - by scoring the endorsement of Minnesota's first-term senator, Amy Klobuchar.

Klobuchar, a superdelegate who gets to cast a vote at the party's national convention this summer, is the second female senator to endorse Obama.

She said the candidate speaks in a "different voice" and noted his impressive victory over Clinton in the Minnesota caucuses.

"Between Barack and a hard place, I chose Barack," she said, adding that she also likes Clinton.

"I believe that Sen. Clinton has every right to continue her campaign," she said, days after Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont urged Clinton to get out of the race.

Obama has now equaled Clinton in the number of endorsements received from fellow senators - 13 each.

And the arguments for her continued candidacy don't wash:

Myth: Very well, then, Mr. Smarty-Math. But if we counted Michigan and Florida, then Hillary would be winning!

Nooo, she wouldn't. The margin would depend on how you allocate the delegates, but Obama would still be ahead. And he'd still be about 100,000 ahead in the popular vote, too, despite not even being on the ballot in Michigan. However, it would enhance Hillary's chances of catching up in the remaining races.

Andrew Sullivan: Hillary C. Flings the Dirt but it’s Sticking to Her

This scorching critique comes from blogger Andrew Sullivan:

Hillary Clinton started throwing some stink bombs at Obama months ago; then, after New Hampshire, she threw the kitchen sink; and in the past week, as cable news threw the boiler, she gave it an extra push.

“I wouldn’t have Jeremiah Wright [Obama’s preacher friend who made embarrassing/incendiary comments] as a pastor,” she told Richard Scaife in an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which just happens to be in Pennsylvania, which just happens to be the next primary state.

Clinton wins even more chutzpah points when you recall who Scaife is. He is the far-right media magnate who made a fortune in the 1990s running the most irresponsible antiClinton stories in The American Spectator, who broke Troopergate, who promoted the notion that Clinton had her best friend Vince Foster murdered and fanned the idea that Bill Clinton was a drug dealer. Still, Clinton managed to sit down with him and discuss the real enemy: Obama. Machiavelli would understand, although one has to think he would be a teensy bit more subtle about it.

[...]This is now Clinton’s best hope of beating Obama. The woman who has a great and admirable record on racial issues, whose husband was described as the country’s “first black president”, the candidate with the strongest Hispanic support . . . now needs the votes of older conservative whites, who are uncomfortable with the idea of a black president and suspicious of Latino immigration.

This might explain why Obama's lead continues to grow:

Barack Obama now has a 10-percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton in a national tracking poll conducted by Gallup, the largest lead he has posted in the poll this year.

Gallup reported Obama now leads among Democrats 52 percent against 42 percent for Hillary Clinton, the third day in a row he has held a statistically significant lead against Clinton in the poll.

The movement in the national poll follows a week in which Clinton was widely lampooned for exaggerated accounts she gave of a visit to Bosnia in which she claimed she ran for cover under sniper fire. After the pilot of her plane and reporters who were on the trip with her disputed the account, she conceded she her account was a "mistake" and chalked the incident up to campaign-trail fatigure. But the exaggeration rapidly became fodder for late-night comics and video spoofs on the Internet.

Food Stamp Use Is at Record Pace

While the establishment quibble over whether we are in a recession, Main St. certainly feels like things are going badly. And it's only going to get worse:

Driven by a painful mix of layoffs and rising food and fuel prices, the number of Americans receiving food stamps is projected to reach 28 million in the coming year, the highest level since the aid program began in the 1960s.

The number of recipients, who must have near-poverty incomes to qualify for benefits averaging $100 a month per family member, has fluctuated over the years along with economic conditions, eligibility rules, enlistment drives and natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, which led to a spike in the South.

But recent rises in many states appear to be resulting mainly from the economic slowdown, officials and experts say, as well as inflation in prices of basic goods that leave more families feeling pinched. Citing expected growth in unemployment, the Congressional Budget Office this month projected a continued increase in the monthly number of recipients in the next fiscal year, starting Oct. 1 — to 28 million, up from 27.8 million in 2008, and 26.5 million in 2007.

The percentage of Americans receiving food stamps was higher after a recession in the 1990s, but actual numbers are expected to be higher this year.

Federal benefit costs are projected to rise to $36 billion in the 2009 fiscal year from $34 billion this year.

“People sign up for food stamps when they lose their jobs, or their wages go down because their hours are cut,” said Stacy Dean, director of food stamp policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, who noted that 14 states saw their rolls reach record numbers by last December.

One example is Michigan, where one in eight residents now receives food stamps. “Our caseload has more than doubled since 2000, and we’re at an all-time record level,” said Maureen Sorbet, spokeswoman for the Michigan Department of Human Services.

The climb in food stamp recipients there has been relentless, through economic upturns and downturns, reflecting a steady loss of industrial jobs that has pushed recipient levels to new highs in Ohio and Illinois as well.