By E&P Staff
Published: June 24, 2007 8:20 PM ET

NEW YORK As E&P has noted in the past week, the U.S. military has increasingly referred to insurgents in Iraq as "al-Qaeda fighters" or "Qaeda militants." When and why this is happening is not certain, although linking the insurgents to those who attacked us on 9/11 would appear to have certain benefits in the court of public opinion.

In the past, however, both military and outside observers have long stated that so-called "foreign fighters" or members of the group Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia have made up only a tiny fraction of those who are actively battling the U.S. occupation.

Blogging at Salon.com this weekend, Glenn Greenwald has a lengthy take on this issue. "What makes this practice all the more disturbing is how quickly and obediently the media has adopted the change in terms consciously issued by the Bush administration and their military officials responsible for presenting the Bush view of the war to the press," he concludes.

On Sunday, however, Mike Drummond from the Baghdad bureau of McClatchy, observes, "U.S. forces continue to battle Shiite militia in the south as well as Shiite militia and Sunni insurgents in Baghdad. Yet America’s most wanted enemy at the moment is Sunni al Qaida in Iraq. The Bush administration's recent shift toward calling the enemy in Iraq 'al Qaida' rather than an insurgency may reflect the difficulty in maintaining support for the war at home more than it does the nature of the enemy in Iraq.

Mercer ducks out on the members of the Senate judiciary committee - Republicans and Democrats both- and their embarrassing questions. The heat of the spotlight a la Schlozman is not for him. But of course he knew long ago that he had little chance of being confirmed. He has too much to answer for, too much he wishes not to tell.

Note that he has waited until the last minute before withdrawing his nomination. This dodge will delay his testimony for a while, but he will be summoned again because investigators have lots of questions that they are eager to ask. Obfuscation and delay is the administration's watchword for now.

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post
Friday, June 22, 2007

In late 2003, the first four commissioners of the newly formed, bipartisan Election Assistance Commission were given a tall order: Help states overhaul their election procedures so that the acrimony that followed the contested 2000 presidential election would not be repeated...

But, three years later, as it prepares for its second presidential election, the agency is facing far more serious problems: inquiries over a rash of allegations of partisan decision making...

Activist groups have raised questions about whether, in response to pressure from the Justice Department, the commission altered or delayed research to play down findings on sensitive topics such as voter fraud and voter identification laws that many Republican figures and appointees would have found objectionable.

"There has been increasing evidence of improper attempts to exert political pressure on the EAC to influence the agency's decisions on election-related matters," said Wendy Weiser, deputy director of the Democracy Program at the liberal Brennan Center of Justice at New York University School of Law, who has reviewed thousands of pages of the commission's internal documents.

Meanwhile, the agency's inspector general, Curtis Crider, is investigating the agency's research into voter fraud, voter intimidation and voter identification laws.

The House Administration Committee and the Senate Rules Committee are planning to hold oversight hearings this summer, with House staff members closely studying the links between the EAC and Justice Department, which itself is under scrutiny over partisanship concerns...

The most recent controversy stemmed from last summer, when two reports were prepared for the agency, one about voter fraud and intimidation, the other about voter identification laws. But they did not see the light of day for several months.

Facing multiple open-records requests, the panel released its voter intimidation and fraud report in December. The report said that "there is a great deal of debate" about the topic. Later, it was revealed that the original report had been changed; it had said that voter fraud was virtually nonexistent. Commissioners say the original report went too far in reaching its conclusions about voter fraud.

In March, after lawmakers demanded a copy, the panel also released its voter identification report.

Civil rights groups suspected undue influence from the Justice Department, echoing allegations in the controversy over the firings of U.S. attorneys.

"Is it an attempt by you to put pressure on me -- or the EAC?" asked one disclosed 2005 e-mail from Paul S. DeGregorio, then the EAC chairman, to Hans A. von Spakovsky, at that time counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights and a member of the agency's advisory board.

June 22, 2007, 10:14PM
By BEN FOX Associated Press Writer

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — An Army officer who played a key role in the "enemy combatant" hearings at Guantanamo Bay says tribunal members relied on vague and incomplete intelligence while being pressured to rule against detainees, often without any specific evidence.

His affidavit, submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and released Friday, is the first criticism by a member of the military panels that determine whether detainees will continue to be held.

Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a 26-year veteran of military intelligence who is an Army reserve officer and a California lawyer, said military prosecutors were provided with only "generic" material that didn't hold up to the most basic legal challenges.

Despite repeated requests, intelligence agencies arbitrarily refused to provide specific information that could have helped either side in the tribunals, according to Abraham, who said he served as a main liaison between the Combat Status Review Tribunals and the intelligence agencies.

"What were purported to be specific statements of fact lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence," Abraham said in the affidavit submitted on behalf of a Kuwaiti detainee, Fawzi al-Odah, who is challenging his classification as an "enemy combatant."

Abraham's affidavit "proves what we all suspected, which is that the CSRTs were a complete sham," said a lawyer for al-Odah, David Cynamon.

Mercer certainly bailed out from the Senate committee for nomination. He was afraid of being under oath for his nomination and any possible question regarding his role in the USA firing scandal. Regardless, Mercer will be called to the Senate committee sooner or later for questioning. Look for Fridays to be the day for possible bailouts from WH employees and employees connected to Bush.

SP Biloxi
Justice League

Things don't seem to be improving much at DOJ. Will Congress act to rescue this situation so that Justice can handle the huge work load that is coming? Maybe Gonzales hopes to stay until he sees DOJ wrecked beyond repair. Could be that the only thing that will save Bushco is such disarray in DOJ that it can't function.