Thursday, June 30, 2005
Iraq and September 11
Mr. Daalder: "Let’s, one more time, make clear why linking 9/11 to the Iraq War is a dangerous canard."Let's see what one US Senator said in October 2002 regarding the relationship of September 11 and Iraq as quoted in Best of the Web:
As Senator Kerry correctly stated, "The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable." Foreign Secretary Straw in his letter contained in the Downing Street Memo showed the impact of September 11 on President Bush's administration:
The Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence showed many contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda and various Palestinian terrorist groups. These contacts were acceptable prior to the events of September 11, but the British, Americans and other countries found them unacceptable after September 11.
Mr. Daalder and others may think that the countries should have continued to accept the risk of terrorist training camps and support for various terrorist groups by Iraq. They may argue that only if the US could prove in court of law under the rules of evidence that Saddam Hussein was complicit in September 11 could the US hold it as justifying an attack on Iraq. Oops. That seems to be Mr. Rove's point that Mr. Daalder seems to be supporting.
Simply because Mr. Daalder would accept such risk in a post-September 11 world does not mean that Senator Kerry, President Bush and PM Blair are wrong in concluding that the experience of September 11 justified military action against Iraq.
What Republican Senator spoke the words? None. Senator John Kerry was responsible for the words. His criticism of President Bush was not connecting the war on Iraq to September 11, but in not acting against Iraq quickly enough. Mr. Daalder seems to believe that only legal proof of the complicity of Iraq in September 11 would justify President Bush and Senator Kerry's connecting Iraq with September 11. He is gravely wrong.September 11 changed a lot, but other things have changed: Globalization, technology, a smaller planet, the difficulties of radical fundamentalism, the crosscurrents of religion and politics. We are living in an age where the dangers are different and they require a different response, different thinking, and different approaches than we have applied in the past....
A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation ... He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical
Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable.
As Senator Kerry correctly stated, "The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable." Foreign Secretary Straw in his letter contained in the Downing Street Memo showed the impact of September 11 on President Bush's administration:
"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq. ... Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnesse[d] on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate."
The Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence showed many contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda and various Palestinian terrorist groups. These contacts were acceptable prior to the events of September 11, but the British, Americans and other countries found them unacceptable after September 11.
Mr. Daalder and others may think that the countries should have continued to accept the risk of terrorist training camps and support for various terrorist groups by Iraq. They may argue that only if the US could prove in court of law under the rules of evidence that Saddam Hussein was complicit in September 11 could the US hold it as justifying an attack on Iraq. Oops. That seems to be Mr. Rove's point that Mr. Daalder seems to be supporting.
Simply because Mr. Daalder would accept such risk in a post-September 11 world does not mean that Senator Kerry, President Bush and PM Blair are wrong in concluding that the experience of September 11 justified military action against Iraq.
Iraq and Al Qaeda
Many on the left seem to hold as an article of faith that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had no connection with Al Qaeda. For them the War in Iraq has no relation to 11 September. How dare the President mention 11 September in a speach regarding the War in Iraq. The New York Times, Senator Harry Reid and David Gergen all find such mention extremely offensive.
Andrew C. McCarthy offers an excelent presentation in the National Review of the evidence connecting Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda. He challenges those who insist on no contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda to explain the many contacts between the two that he sets out.
For example, Mr. McCarthy asks the "no contact" crowd to explain
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir — the Iraqi Intelligence operative who facilitated a 9/11 hijacker into Malaysia and was in attendance at the Kuala Lampur meeting with two of the hijackers, and other conspirators, at what is roundly acknowledged to be the initial 9/11 planning session in January 2000? Who was arrested after the 9/11 attacks in possession of contact information for several known terrorists? Who managed to make his way out of Jordanian custody over our objections after the 9/11 attacks because of special pleading by Saddam’s regime?
He also points to "Saddam's intelligence agency's efforts to recruit jihadists to bomb Radio Free Europe in Prague in the late 1990's." In addition, he cites intelligence not from the period of the Bush presidency but from President Bill Clinton:
The continued insistence of high-ranking Clinton administration officials to the 9/11 Commission that the 1998 retaliatory strikes (after the embassy bombings) against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory were justified because the factory was a chemical weapons hub tied to Iraq and bin Laden?Top Clinton administration counterterrorism official Richard Clarke’s assertions, based on intelligence
reports in 1999, that Saddam had offered bin Laden asylum after the embassy bombings, and Clarke’s memo to then-National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, advising him not to fly U-2 missions against bin Laden in Afghanistan because he might be tipped off by Pakistani Intelligence, and “[a]rmed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad”? (See 9/11 Commission Final Report, p. 134 & n.135.)
Clearly, the "no contact" crowd needs to explain how they can maintain their faith in light of the reality shown by these very real contacts between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. They seem to think that they can stonewall reality and speak from positions of authority as the "Newspaper of Record," the Minority Leader and Insider to Presidents of both parties.
Sorry, but that no longer suffices. You can no longer ignore substantial evidence and expect the rest of the country to blindly accept your arguments on faith alone.
If our intelligence operations learned the many points raised by Mr. McCarthy, how many other contacts occurred without our knowledge?
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
President's speech and 11 September
Some of the Left like to point to the Downing Street Memos as "proof" of various of their attacks against President Bush, yet they fail to read them very carefully. The memo from Foreign Secretary Straw contains very important insights into the relation of 11 September to the decision to intervene in Iraq. The Foreign Secretary wrote:
"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq. ... Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnesse[d] on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate."
While the Foreign Secretary indicated no connection between Iraq and UBL, that conclusion appears correct as to 11 September, but not generally. The Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found a great number of contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
The Downing Street Memos clearly show the honest belief of the British that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD and might use them on Israel or if he were attacked.
While Britain and the US were willing to allow Saddam to maintain those weapons in a pre-11 September world, they were not willing to do so in a post-11 September world. The convergence of WMD in Iraq and its contacts with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations could no longer be tolerated after the experience of 11 September.
The editorial writers of the LAT and NYT may have been willing to accept the risk of Saddam's placing bacteriolgical and chemical weapons in the hands of some of the terrorists with whom he had contact, the British and American administrations were not.
One may reasonably criticize the decision, but may not reasonably argue that 11 September cannot properly be argued as one of the reasons for the actions taken against Iraq. Therefore, the President quite properly reminded the American people of 11 September in his speech last night.
"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq. ... Objectively, the threat from Iraq has not worsened as a result of 11 September. What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially that of the US), the world having witnesse[d] on September 11 just what determined evil people can these days perpetuate."
While the Foreign Secretary indicated no connection between Iraq and UBL, that conclusion appears correct as to 11 September, but not generally. The Report of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found a great number of contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
The Downing Street Memos clearly show the honest belief of the British that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD and might use them on Israel or if he were attacked.
While Britain and the US were willing to allow Saddam to maintain those weapons in a pre-11 September world, they were not willing to do so in a post-11 September world. The convergence of WMD in Iraq and its contacts with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations could no longer be tolerated after the experience of 11 September.
The editorial writers of the LAT and NYT may have been willing to accept the risk of Saddam's placing bacteriolgical and chemical weapons in the hands of some of the terrorists with whom he had contact, the British and American administrations were not.
One may reasonably criticize the decision, but may not reasonably argue that 11 September cannot properly be argued as one of the reasons for the actions taken against Iraq. Therefore, the President quite properly reminded the American people of 11 September in his speech last night.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
The Times and three "facts" about Iraq
The New York Times informs us that in order to “have the sober conversation about the war in Iraq that America badly needs, it is vital to acknowledge three facts.” It then sets out three “facts;” however the “facts” are actually tendentious opinions which constitute important aspects of the debate rather than settled facts over which no one could differ.
First, the Times asserts that the
The Times may believe that the contacts were not sufficient to justify military action against Iraq. Reasonable minds may differ over such conclusions of policy. However, to suggest that no contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda constitutes a “fact” about which no one can differ is patently false.
I have a question for the Times and others. Many people attacked President Bush, Secretary of State Rice and others for their “failures” in not preventing September 11 in light of intelligence of possible future attacks in the US. What would have been their reaction if the President had left Saddam in power and an attack occurred from the sanctuary of Iraq? Would the intelligence showing connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda that they now denigrate suddenly have become so massive that no reasonable person could have missed? I suspect so.
Furthermore, the “Downing Street Memos” teach very strongly that “If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq.” (Straw to PM dated 25 March 2002) While this merely represents the conclusion of the British Foreign Secretary, it provides an important insight into the possible thinking of the American administration at the time. One may also contend that 11 September should not have impacted American decision making. However, to contend, as the Times does that the “war has nothing to do with Sept. 11” constitutes an unassailable “fact” simply cannot be supported.
The Times offers “The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism” as its second unassailable “fact.” How can anyone reasonably argue that a conclusion that the world is safer or less safe as a result of the war constitutes a fact? Certainly, terrorists are attracted to Iraq to kill innocent Iraqis; no one can deny that. However, that does not answer the question. It merely assumes facts not in evidence and that can never be known - that those individuals would not have turned to terrorism had the US not invaded Iraq.
In fact, with Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists, those individuals might have received training and gone to the US or Europe to conduct their bombing attacks rather than doing so in Iraq. We cannot know that they would have, but the Times cannot know that they would not have. This constitutes a matter of opinion over which reasonable people may differ rather than a fact beyond dispute.
The third “fact” seems to be that “If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan.” This tendentious statement merely seems to provide an opportunity for the Times to take a shot at Secretary Rumsfeld.
The Times correctly recognizes the need for sober debate over the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, it attempts to short circuit that debate by arbitrarily decreeing very contentious issues as being unassailable “facts” that cannot be discussed. A fair reading of the editorial suggests that it merely provides cover for yet another attack on the administration rather than attempting to encourage a fair discussion of the war in Iraq.
First, the Times asserts that the
war has nothing to do with Sept. 11. Saddam Hussein was a sworn enemy ofAs much as the Times pontificates regarding a lack of relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found the “most problematic area of contact between Iraq and al-Qaida were the reports of training in the use of non-conventional weapons, specifically chemical and biological weapons.” (p. 346) Although the Committee found no attempts by Saddam Hussein to use Al Qaeda in conducting terrorist attacks, it found a conclusion by CIA that he might “employ terrorists with a global reach - al-Qaida - to conduct terrorist attacks in the event of war, was reasonable.” (p. 348)
Washington, but there was no Iraq-Qaeda axis, no connection between Saddam
Hussein and the terrorist attacks on the United States.
The Times may believe that the contacts were not sufficient to justify military action against Iraq. Reasonable minds may differ over such conclusions of policy. However, to suggest that no contact between Iraq and Al Qaeda constitutes a “fact” about which no one can differ is patently false.
I have a question for the Times and others. Many people attacked President Bush, Secretary of State Rice and others for their “failures” in not preventing September 11 in light of intelligence of possible future attacks in the US. What would have been their reaction if the President had left Saddam in power and an attack occurred from the sanctuary of Iraq? Would the intelligence showing connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda that they now denigrate suddenly have become so massive that no reasonable person could have missed? I suspect so.
Furthermore, the “Downing Street Memos” teach very strongly that “If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq.” (Straw to PM dated 25 March 2002) While this merely represents the conclusion of the British Foreign Secretary, it provides an important insight into the possible thinking of the American administration at the time. One may also contend that 11 September should not have impacted American decision making. However, to contend, as the Times does that the “war has nothing to do with Sept. 11” constitutes an unassailable “fact” simply cannot be supported.
The Times offers “The war has not made the world, or this nation, safer from terrorism” as its second unassailable “fact.” How can anyone reasonably argue that a conclusion that the world is safer or less safe as a result of the war constitutes a fact? Certainly, terrorists are attracted to Iraq to kill innocent Iraqis; no one can deny that. However, that does not answer the question. It merely assumes facts not in evidence and that can never be known - that those individuals would not have turned to terrorism had the US not invaded Iraq.
In fact, with Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists, those individuals might have received training and gone to the US or Europe to conduct their bombing attacks rather than doing so in Iraq. We cannot know that they would have, but the Times cannot know that they would not have. This constitutes a matter of opinion over which reasonable people may differ rather than a fact beyond dispute.
The third “fact” seems to be that “If the war is going according to plan, someone needs to rethink the plan.” This tendentious statement merely seems to provide an opportunity for the Times to take a shot at Secretary Rumsfeld.
The Times correctly recognizes the need for sober debate over the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, it attempts to short circuit that debate by arbitrarily decreeing very contentious issues as being unassailable “facts” that cannot be discussed. A fair reading of the editorial suggests that it merely provides cover for yet another attack on the administration rather than attempting to encourage a fair discussion of the war in Iraq.
Rove struck a nerve
Karl Rove: "Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."
How does this translate into an accusation of "treason"? Are liberals so ashamed of their positions that they see accusations of treason where none exists? The basis of Senator Durbin's critique of Guantanamo is that it does not provide "due process" under American constitutional law.
In fact, the real point of the FBI agent's report, quoted by the Senator, was that the FBI interrogated terrorists in accordance with their normal criminal investigation methods, while stronger tactics were employed at Guantanamo.
What alternative to prosecuting the war in Iraq do opponents offer but criminal investigation and prosecution? That does not suggest that opposition to the war in Iraq and the alternative of criminal prosecution is treasonous, but merely that it suggests a different approach subject to debate as much as the war itself.
Liberals seem quite prepared to offer up strong, some would suggest outrageous, metaphors and personal attacks on the President, Vice President, Republicans and the American military.
Guantanamo as evoking Nazi death camps and the gulag, President Bush as Hitler, Republicans as fascists and the administration as creating intelligence of WMD to justify a war solely to enrich Halliburton and other "Republican" companies represent standard bill of fare for many of those expressing outrage at Mr. Rove's comment.
I can imagine no worse accusation of treason than the charge of creating false intelligence to generate a war solely for personal financial gain. How disgusting! Yet that seems to be fair comment while quoting MoveOn.org is beyond the pale.
And do not point to the "Downing Street Memos" as support. Any fair reading of them shows clearly that the British believed Iraq possessed WMD and were concerned that Saddam would use them if attacked. The real concern expressed in the memos was not regarding WMD but whether a legal justification for war existed.
Amazing how a memo discussing concerns that Saddam would use his WMD if attacked has gotten twisted into the US creating WMD where they did not exist.
If liberals believe their positions, they need to forthrightly defend them rather than whining about accusations of treason where none exists while viciously attacking their opponents as traitors.
How does this translate into an accusation of "treason"? Are liberals so ashamed of their positions that they see accusations of treason where none exists? The basis of Senator Durbin's critique of Guantanamo is that it does not provide "due process" under American constitutional law.
In fact, the real point of the FBI agent's report, quoted by the Senator, was that the FBI interrogated terrorists in accordance with their normal criminal investigation methods, while stronger tactics were employed at Guantanamo.
What alternative to prosecuting the war in Iraq do opponents offer but criminal investigation and prosecution? That does not suggest that opposition to the war in Iraq and the alternative of criminal prosecution is treasonous, but merely that it suggests a different approach subject to debate as much as the war itself.
Liberals seem quite prepared to offer up strong, some would suggest outrageous, metaphors and personal attacks on the President, Vice President, Republicans and the American military.
Guantanamo as evoking Nazi death camps and the gulag, President Bush as Hitler, Republicans as fascists and the administration as creating intelligence of WMD to justify a war solely to enrich Halliburton and other "Republican" companies represent standard bill of fare for many of those expressing outrage at Mr. Rove's comment.
I can imagine no worse accusation of treason than the charge of creating false intelligence to generate a war solely for personal financial gain. How disgusting! Yet that seems to be fair comment while quoting MoveOn.org is beyond the pale.
And do not point to the "Downing Street Memos" as support. Any fair reading of them shows clearly that the British believed Iraq possessed WMD and were concerned that Saddam would use them if attacked. The real concern expressed in the memos was not regarding WMD but whether a legal justification for war existed.
Amazing how a memo discussing concerns that Saddam would use his WMD if attacked has gotten twisted into the US creating WMD where they did not exist.
If liberals believe their positions, they need to forthrightly defend them rather than whining about accusations of treason where none exists while viciously attacking their opponents as traitors.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
A review of the "Downing Street Memos" clearly show that Britain and the USA honestly believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD programmes. The memos provide helpful insights into the thinking of the two governments at the time:
Options Paper
“Saddam has used WMD in the past and could do so again if his regime were threatened.”
“The US has lost confidence in containment. … Washington believes the legal basis for an attack on Iraq already exists.”
“With his regime in danger, Saddam could use WMD, either before or during an invasion. Saddam could also target Israel as he did during the Gulf War.”
Ricketts Memo
“The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post-11 September.
Downing Street Memo
“For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.”
Straw Memo
“If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq. … What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially the US), the world having witnesses on September 11 just what evil determined people these days perpetuate.”
Those who believe the “Downing Street Memos” indicate that the US and Britain manufactured the existence of WMD out of nothing simply have not read the documents. Clearly, the British believed that Saddam possessed WMD and could use them at will. The Bush administration did not manufacture such evidence to justify its decisions to attack Saddam.
The Foreign Secretary believed that the US would not be considering military action against Iraq but for 11 September. Mr. Drum focuses on the Options Memo statement that “In the judgment of the JIC there is no recent evidence of Iraq complicity with international terrorism. There is therefore no justification for action against Iraq based on self-defence (Article 51) to combat imminent threats of terrorism as in Afghanistan.”
However, a fair reading of the section suggests that the words “recent” and “complicity” indicate the likelihood that British intelligence may have found links between Saddam and Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations in the past. Apparently, however, in the view of the British government those relationships were not recent enough or linked to actual violence (“terrorism”) to support a military response.
The Report of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found many connections between Iraq and various terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. While such contacts may not rise to the level of complicity in the perpetration of terrorist bombings to justify the invasion of Iraq from a legal standpoint, they may have given great concern to both the British and the American governments in a post-11 September world.
Options Paper
“Saddam has used WMD in the past and could do so again if his regime were threatened.”
“The US has lost confidence in containment. … Washington believes the legal basis for an attack on Iraq already exists.”
“With his regime in danger, Saddam could use WMD, either before or during an invasion. Saddam could also target Israel as he did during the Gulf War.”
Ricketts Memo
“The truth is that what has changed is not the pace of Saddam Hussein’s WMD programmes, but our tolerance of them post-11 September.
Downing Street Memo
“For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.”
Straw Memo
“If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the US would now be considering military action against Iraq. … What has however changed is the tolerance of the international community (especially the US), the world having witnesses on September 11 just what evil determined people these days perpetuate.”
Those who believe the “Downing Street Memos” indicate that the US and Britain manufactured the existence of WMD out of nothing simply have not read the documents. Clearly, the British believed that Saddam possessed WMD and could use them at will. The Bush administration did not manufacture such evidence to justify its decisions to attack Saddam.
The Foreign Secretary believed that the US would not be considering military action against Iraq but for 11 September. Mr. Drum focuses on the Options Memo statement that “In the judgment of the JIC there is no recent evidence of Iraq complicity with international terrorism. There is therefore no justification for action against Iraq based on self-defence (Article 51) to combat imminent threats of terrorism as in Afghanistan.”
However, a fair reading of the section suggests that the words “recent” and “complicity” indicate the likelihood that British intelligence may have found links between Saddam and Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations in the past. Apparently, however, in the view of the British government those relationships were not recent enough or linked to actual violence (“terrorism”) to support a military response.
The Report of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence found many connections between Iraq and various terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda. While such contacts may not rise to the level of complicity in the perpetration of terrorist bombings to justify the invasion of Iraq from a legal standpoint, they may have given great concern to both the British and the American governments in a post-11 September world.
House Ethics - A little Sanity
Representative Tom Delay has been attacked for accepting trips paid for by Jack Abramoff, a lobbyist with the Seattle law firm of Preston Gates. House Ethics Committee rules permit corporations to pay for travel expenses, but some ethics purists have argued that lawyers representing corporations can not ethically do so even though they are reimbursed by their client.
This struck me as being absurd. I have no problem with a rule that would disallow payment of travel expenses by corporations, labor unions and other entities. That is perfectly defensible. However, permiting such payments directly by corporations et al, but disallowing them by their agents who receive reimbursement seems strange.
It puts the Congressperson in an untenable position. He/she must determine who pays for the travel expenses. If the client pays directly, it can be accepted; if reimbursed, no. Does the rule require the Congressperson to demand copies of payment vouchers, credit card slips or what?
The New York Times indicates that Preston Gates contacted two lawyers with the House Ethics Committee in 1996 for clarification as to the travel rules. According to documents from Preston Gates, Ellen L. Weintraub and John Vargo, the two Ethics Committee lawyers, "told a partner at the firm that it would probably be acceptable for a lobbyist to pay for a lawmaker's travel as long as clients quickly reimbursed the lobbyist."
Tim Pechinpaugh, the partner with Preston Gates who talked to the Ethics Committee lawyers, emailed Mr. Abramoff that Ms. Wientraub had said that "as a practical matter, the ethics cmte expects that lobbyists may sometimes end up paying for travel costs with their credit cards to be reimbursed by the client."
What a breath of fresh air. Of course they do. What rational regulatory scheme would determine otherwise?
The real issue, of course, is whether the client should be permitted to pay such travel costs at all, not whether their lawyers can do so. But that is not the issue before us. The ethics rules, rightly or wrongly, permit such payments.
According to the Times report, "A House ethics manual issued in April 2000 specifically barred the practice." Thus, the House clarified its rules in 2000 in a direction opposite of that suggested by the Ethics Committee lawyers. This clarifies the rule in a direction that introduces great difficulties in administration of travel rules as pointed out above.
However, prior to 2000, the rules were unclear. The Times quotes Jan Baran, a Republican lawyer spicializing in ethics law, as indicating that the documents available indicate that "Preston Gates 'undertook due diligence and that they reasonably relied on those assurances.'" This should provide Mr. Delay and the firm with adequate defenses for charges as to travel prior to April 2000.
