This is good. While Hoekstra blames the NY Times and the IAEA for Hoekstra’s action in pushing for the Iraqi papers (containing information on how to make an atomic bomb) to be posted publicly, it turns out that US scientists had protested about the postings weeks ago—and were ignored, which seems to be the fate for all scientists under the Bush Administration:

Scientists at a U.S. weapons lab complained more than two weeks ago that captured Iraqi documents containing sensitive nuclear information were available on the Web site that the government shut down on Thursday, The New York Times reported on Saturday.

A senior federal official, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the Times that scientists at California’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory protested some of the weapons papers on the site to the National Nuclear Security Administration, an arm of the Department of Energy, in October. But the objections “never perked up to senior management,” the Times quoted the official as saying. “They stayed at the mid-levels.”

Managers at the security administration passed the warning to their counterparts at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which oversaw the Web site, the Times said, citing the official. And as a result, according to a nuclear weapons expert, the government pulled two nuclear papers from the Web site last month. The dangers of the documents, which were captured during the war, had been recognized at Livermore and in the wider community of government arms experts, he said.

“Those two documents were on everybody’s list,” the newspaper quoted him as saying.

The Times said federal officials were conducting a review to better understand how and when the warnings had originated and how the bureaucracy had responded.

The Bush administration set up the Web site in March at the urging of Republicans in Congress who said that public access to such materials from Iraq could increase the understanding of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein. It was shut down after the Times inquired about the disclosure of nuclear information and the experts’ complaints. Among documents posted were roughly a dozen that nuclear weapons experts said constituted a basic guide to building an atom bomb.

While Democrats have called for an investigation, the scientists’ two-week-old complaints, as outlined by federal officials on Friday, indicated for the first time that warnings about the site had come from the government’s own arms experts as well as from international weapons inspectors, the report said.

Now Condi Rice has been caught in yet another lie—a familiar situation for her:

Two weeks before crucial midterm elections that could tip the balance of power in Congress, Rice has been on a media blitz that appears aimed mainly at conservative media outlets, particularly radio talk shows. Secretary of state is traditionally a nonpartisan position, and Rice’s media itinerary differs sharply from the practice of her predecessors during election campaigns, according to State Department records.

Rice has given nine interviews on radio, starting with three appearances on Oct. 24 during “Radio Day,” when 42 radio hosts, most of them conservatives, were invited to the White House to spread the administration’s message to President Bush’s political base.

In the past two days, Rice has appeared on four radio shows, including that of Ingraham, a best-selling author for her books that attack liberal “elites”; Bill Cunningham, a Cincinnati conservative; and Glenn Beck, another conservative, who appears on nearly 200 stations.

Rice also appeared in the past week on CNBC’s “Kudlow and Company,” hosted by conservative economic commentator Lawrence Kudlow, and “Morning in America,” a radio show hosted by prominent Republican William Bennett. During this 12-day period, the only outlets Rice spoke to that did not have conservative leanings were Bloomberg TV, the Lebanese Broadcasting Corp. and the New York Times.

Many of the hosts lavishly praised Rice and her work as secretary of state. “As an American living in the heartland . . . which beats throughout America, I’m proud to have you as secretary of state,” Cunningham said, urging her to run for president. Beck called her “one of the most remarkable people of our age.”

Generally, the questions on even the conservative shows were devoted to foreign policy, allowing Rice to present a strong defense of the “really visionary” Bush and his policies, such as his “very skillful diplomacy” on the North Korean nuclear crisis. But sometimes the questioning veered toward the partisan, forcing Rice to do a quick tap dance away from the questioner’s opinions.

Kudlow quizzed her about whether she supported Bush’s formulation that terrorists will win if Democrats take control of Congress, which Rice ducked. Then he asked if Democratic control would “disrupt, interfere and stop the processes you’re describing” for leaving Iraq.

“The key to me is that this president has a program for the war on terror and it’s a program that is going to win, and he needs the support of everyone for that program,” Rice answered. “I frankly haven’t heard an alternative posed for how we fight the war on terror except on the offense.”

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the confluence of media spots with the election was coincidental. He said frequent appearances on radio and television simply reflect Rice’s style. “In her approach to the job, she believes a big part of the job is to talk about foreign policy to the American people and also to answer their questions,” he said, noting that Rice also travels across the country giving speeches more frequently than her predecessors did.

Bloomberg TV interviewer Al Hunt, who was once a liberal commentator for the Wall Street Journal and CNN, asked Rice about the rash of interviews for a program that will appear this weekend and whether they were tied to the election.

“No, I’m just out doing what I always do, just trying to explain American policy,” Rice said. “I’ve always thought that it’s an important part of the role of the secretary of state to get out and talk to Americans in any way possible about our foreign policy.”

As national security adviser during Bush’s first term, Rice drew fire for giving speeches around the country in crucial battleground states shortly before the 2004 election, a practice none of her predecessors had done. The White House at the time noted that Bush had directed the secretaries of state and defense to avoid getting enmeshed in the presidential campaign. But the White House defended Rice’s speeches, saying “part of the job today of national security adviser is to discuss our nation’s national security policy.”

During her confirmation hearings for the current job, Rice was asked in written questions about her speeches during the 2004 presidential campaign and was asked to confirm she would abstain from activity that might be construed as partisan. “If confirmed as secretary of state, I intend to continue the tradition in that position of not actively participating in public campaign or political events,” Rice wrote back to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Read the rest of this entry »