Sunday, October 30, 2011

Is the 7 Billion or the 1% Causing Environmental Crises? / Common Dreams

October 28, 2011
12:33 PM
CONTACT: Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA)
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167

Is the 7 Billion or the 1% Causing Environmental Crises?

WASHINGTON - October 28 - According to the United Nations, world population will reach the 7 billion mark on Monday.
IAN ANGUS, ecosocialism at
Angus is the co-author of the recent book Too Many People?: Population, Immigration, and the Environmental Crisis. He has just published the piece “Is the Environmental Crisis Caused by the 7 Billion or the 1%?” which states: “[M]ost of the 7 billion are not endangering the earth. The majority of the world’s people don’t destroy forests, don’t wipe out endangered species, don’t pollute rivers and oceans, and emit essentially no greenhouse gases … [W]hile populationist groups focus attention on the 7 billion, protestors in the worldwide Occupy movement have identified the real source of environmental destruction: not the 7 billion, but the 1%, the handful of millionaires and billionaires who own more, consume more, control more, and destroy more than all the rest of us put together.”
CHRIS WILLIAMS, chriswilliams66 at
Williams is author of Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis and a professor of physics and chemistry at Pace University. He said: “It isn’t population growth that is causing food scarcity or is primarily responsible for the many accelerating global environmental crises. Even if population growth were to end today, worsening rates of starvation, the growth of slums, and ecosystem collapse would continue more or less unabated. Food production continues to outstrip population growth and therefore cannot be considered the cause of hunger. Clearly, there are very serious planetary problems of soil erosion, overfishing, deforestation and waste disposal, to name only a few, which are putting pressure on the sustainability of food production over the long haul. However, these are all inextricably bound to questions of power and a system run in the interest of a small minority — the 1% — where profit continually outweighs issues of hunger, waste, energy use, or environmental destruction. Concentrating on population confuses symptoms with causes.”
A nationwide consortium, the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA) represents an unprecedented effort to bring other voices to the mass-media table often dominated by a few major think tanks. IPA works to broaden public discourse in mainstream media, while building communication with alternative media outlets and grassroots activists.

Groups Call on Inspector General to Investigate State Department’s Keystone XL Review /

October 28, 2011
11:19 AM
CONTACT: Environmental Groups
Josh Mogerman, NRDC, or 312-651-7909
Eddie Scher, Sierra Club, 415-815-7027 or
Nick Berning, Friends of the Earth, 202-222-0748 or

Groups Call on Inspector General to Investigate State Department’s Keystone XL Review

Letter identifies specific regulations State Department officials appear to have violated

WASHINGTON - October 28 - National environmental groups today called on the State Department’s inspector general to investigate wrongdoing by department officials in its review of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline.
The groups sent Deputy State Department Inspector General Harold W. Geisel a letter identifying several U.S. Office of Government Ethics regulations that State Department officials appear to have violated.
“TransCanada hired good friends of Secretary Clinton to lobby for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and it seems to have paid off with access and patronage from the State Department,” said Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune. “This is surprising from Secretary Clinton, whom we’ve known as a champion of children’s health and the environment. It’s time to roll back the curtain on TransCanada, this dirty political insider game, and this dangerous and unnecessary pipeline.”
“The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has serious implications for our energy future, so it is important that Americans have confidence that it is not being pushed forward in abiased manner,” said Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke. “There is a very real, very loud drumbeat for clean energy and a healthy climate — and it is growing louder. Increasing our dependence on tar sands, the dirtiest oil on the planet, does not fit that clean energy future. The President should reject the Keystone XL pipeline.”
In recent months, evidence has mounted that the State Department’s review of the proposed pipeline has been corrupted by bias, lobbyist influence and conflicts of interest. Internal State Department emails show department employees cheering for, coaching and providing inside information to pipeline firm TransCanada. A document obtained via Wikileaks indicates that U.S. officials sought to “alleviate” Canadian officials’ concerns that the pipeline review might actually be impartial. And recent reports show that the contractor conducting the department’s review of the pipeline’s likely environmental impacts was recommended and paid for by TransCanada and that it has serious conflicts of interest, some of which it failed to disclose.
“The evidence is in and it’s clear that the State Department’s analysis is completely inadequate and has been irreparably tainted, but the White House appears to be in denial,” said Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth. “An inspector general’s investigation could force President Obama to face this sad reality and respond the only responsible way: either the permit should be rejected outright or the president needs to order a brand new environmental review with a new lead agency and new contractors involved.”
The letter sent today to Deputy Inspector General Geisel can be found at:

For background information about evidence of wrongdoing by State Department officials, visit:

Kneecapping the Environment / by Tom Engelhardt / Common Dreams

Kneecapping the Environment

If your child has asthma and it’s getting worse, then news about the White House’s recent retreat on ozone (that is, smog) standards for the air over your city wasn’t exactly cause for cheering. Thank our environmental president for that, but mainly of course the Republicans, who have been out to kneecap the Environmental Protection Agency since the 2010 election results came in. We may be heading for an anything-blows environmental future, even though it couldn’t be more logical to assume that whatever is allowed into the air will sooner or later end up in us.
With a helping hand from that invaluable website Environmental Health News, here’s a little ladleful of examples from the chemical soup that could be not just your air, soil, or water, but you. It's only a few days' worth of news reports on what’s in our environment and so, for better or mostly worse, in us: In Dallas-Ft. Worth, there’s lead in the blood of children, thanks to leaded gasoline, banned decades ago, but still in the soil. In New York’s Hudson River, “one of the largest toxic cleanups in U.S. history” (for PCBs in river sediments) is ongoing. Researchers now suspect that those chemicals, already linked to low birth weight, thyroid disease, and learning, memory, and immune system disorders,” are also associated with to high blood pressure. Then there’s mercury, that “potent neurotoxin that is especially dangerous to the developing brains of fetuses and children.” If allowed, it will enter the environment via a proposed open-pit gold and copper mine to be built in Alaska near “one of the world's premier salmon fisheries.”
And speaking of fish, there is ancient DDT, plus more modern PCBs and spilled oil in ocean sediments off California’s Palos Verdes Peninsula, a toxic superfund site, whose cleanup is now being planned. And don’t forget that uranium mill near CaƱon City, Colorado, which “has the state's backing to permanently dispose of radioactive waste in its tailings ponds, despite state and independent reports over a 30-year period showing the ponds' liners leak.” Or consider bisphenol-A, a chemical most of us now carry around in our bodies. It is used in the making of some plastic containers and “may cause behavior and emotional problems in young girls” according to a new study (as older studies indicated that it might affect “the brain development of fetuses and small children”). Or think about the drinking water tested recently by the University of Tennessee Center for Environmental Biotechnology from six of 11 Tennessee utilities statewide that “contained traces of 17 chemicals found in insect repellent, ibuprofen, detergents, a herbicide, hormones, and chemical compounds found in plastics.” And that's just to dip a toe in polluted waters.
Increasingly, with the environment a chemical soup of our industrial processes, so are our bodies. No wonder environmentalist Chip Ward suggests in his latest piece, “Occupy Earth,” that activists occupying Wall Street should think even bigger.

Killing Wolves: A Product of Alberta’s Big Oil and Gas Boom / by Ed Struzik / Common Dreams

Killing Wolves: A Product of Alberta’s Big Oil and Gas Boom

The development of the tar sands and other oil and gas fields in Alberta has carved up the Canadian province's boreal forest, threatening herds of woodland caribou. But rather than protect caribou habitat, officials have taken a controversial step: the large-scale killing of the wolves that prey on the caribou.

by Ed Struzik
In the spring of 1995, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service captured several wolves from west central Alberta and set them loose the next year in Yellowstone National Park, hoping they would fill in the missing link in the park’s complex system of predator-prey relationships.
In the last five years, Alberta has spent more than $1 million poisoning wolves and shooting them from the air. Wolves hadn’t been seen in Yellowstone in 70 years. Beyond anyone’s wildest expectations, and despite fierce opposition of some local ranchers and hunters, these and other wolves brought in from Alberta and British Columbia adjusted extremely well. Today, 11 packs, with nearly 100 wolves, are thriving in Yellowstone.
The fortunes of wolves in west central Alberta, however, have moved in a completely different direction. Over the past five years, the government of Alberta has spent more than $1 million poisoning wolves with strychnine and shooting them from the air. In all, more than 500 wolves in the Little Smoky River region have been destroyed in a controversial effort to save woodland caribou, whose numbers have plummeted as the oil, gas, and logging industries have increasingly carved up Alberta’s boreal forest in recent decades.
The killing of wolves in Alberta is not going to end any time soon. Indeed, if some wildlife managers get their way, the predator control program could be expanded to include several other areas of the province, including the heavily mined tar sands region, where four caribou herds are being squeezed by the massive, multi-billion dollar oil mining operations. Two of those herds are already at risk of disappearing if their habitat is not restored soon, according to the Alberta Caribou Committee, which is charged with helping recover caribou populations. All told, tar sands deposits in Alberta underlie 54,000 square miles — an area the size of New York State — and while only a small portion of this is currently being developed, the continued expansion of the tar sands will further destroy caribou habitat.

In its latest report, the Alberta Caribou Committee notes that three of the province’s 18 herds are at immediate risk of disappearing because of loss of habitat. Six are in decline, three are stable, and not enough is known about the remaining six to determine how well they are doing. Scientists are confident, however, that they are in decline as well, further fueling efforts to protect caribou by eradicating wolves.

“Wolf control can be an effective way of conserving dwindling caribou numbers,” says Stan Boutin, a University of Alberta biologist who has spent more than 20 years trying to prevent caribou from disappearing in the province. “But the province is kidding itself if it thinks that wolf control alone is the answer. It’s not.”

The answer, according to nearly every scientist involved in the debate, is habitat protection — something that has not been high on the list of the Alberta government as it has pushed energy development in the tar sands region and throughout the province.

Alberta officials have defended the killing of wolves in regions where woodland caribou numbers have plummeted, yet these officials acknowledge that preserving habitat is essential.

“Scientists recognize that wolf control is a legitimate means of managing caribou populations that are in trouble,” said Darcy Whiteside, spokesman for the Alberta Sustainable Resources Department. “This is definitely needed to save that [Little Smoky River caribou] population. It has definitely stabilized that population. However, we also recognize that it is only a short-term solution and that habitat protection is key to saving caribou in the long run.”

Wolves have long been used as scapegoats for wildlife management problems. For much of the 20th century, the U.S. and Canadian governments systematically targeted wolves. Initially, wildlife managers used bounties to encourage people to kill wolves. Then they used poison, leghold traps, and marksmen from helicopters to wipe out the predators. In extreme cases, such as in northern Minnesota, men were sent to dig out dens and strangle wolf pups.

Sometimes, these predator control programs worked too well, as in Yellowstone and Banff National Park in the Canadian Rockies, where wolves also were completely extirpated. (They have since come back to Banff, albeit in small numbers). Most times though, the programs failed because biologists underestimated just how quickly a wolf population can rebound as long as there is prey for them to exploit.

These heavily criticized wolf eradication programs were discontinued almost everywhere in North America — except in Alberta and Alaska. The only difference now is that wildlife managers think they have a better handle on how to make wolf control programs work: Kill at least 60 percent — 80 percent is preferable — of the wolves in an area, according to the formula that most predator control experts rely on, and you begin to see a rebound in prey species after several years, as long as there is suitable habitat in which the species can recover.

The issue in Alberta is much different than in Alaska, where wolf control is done largely to enhance hunting opportunities for caribou. Because of intense logging and oil and gas development in Alberta, there is too much good habitat for wolves and not enough for caribou. That may sound strange, but in the unprotected areas of Alberta the old growth forest that used to support moderate numbers of wolves and caribou is increasingly being carved up. At last count, 34,773 wells, 66,489 kilometers of seismic lines, 11,591 kilometers of pipelines, and 12,283 kilometers of roads had been built in caribou country in west central and northern Alberta. That doesn’t include the vast areas of forest that have been logged. Open areas such as these favor moose, elk, and especially deer. As the number of these creatures expand, so do the number of wolves. More often than not, caribou, which rely on old growth forests for lichen and predator protection, are nothing more than passing targets as wolves move easily from one clear cut to another through the shrinking old growth forest.

For more than two decades, scientists have been warning the Alberta government about the consequences of fracturing old growth forest in this way. The latest to weigh in on this issue was a team of 30 boreal forest scientists commissioned by the Canadian government to review the data and habitat conditions of caribou in Alberta. In 2008, they recommended that cut lines, well sites, and roads that favor wolves need to be reforested if caribou are going to have a chance of surviving in oil and gas country.

The Canadian government, which is ultimately responsible for the country’s endangered species, deferred taking action, claiming that not enough is known about the “spatial distribution” of caribou to warrant identification of critical habitat. But then last August, the federal government came up with a recovery plan that opened the door for the wolf control program in Alberta to continue. Noting that “human-induced habitat alterations have upset the natural balance between boreal caribou and their predators,” the report said that wolf eradication programs “will be required... to stabilize individual local populations in the short term.” In the long term, the report said, caribou populations can only be self-sustaining if their habitat is preserved.

Lu Carbyn, scientist emeritus with the Canadian Wildlife Service and adjunct professor at the University of Alberta, has been studying wolves in North America for more than 40 years. While he is not a big supporter of predator control programs, he says they can be a very effective way of reviving ungulate populations that are under stress. But Carbyn believes there is no sense killing wolves if habitat is not restored in highly disturbed oil and gas regions.

University of Alberta biologist Boutin notes that no matter how many wolves have been killed in the territory of the Little Smoky caribou herd, the wolves keep bouncing back. “They’re spending an awful lot of money killing a lot of wolves in order to keep a handful of caribou calves alive,” said Boutin. “Sooner than later, this strategy is going to fail them.”

Boutin; Richard Schneider, executive director of the Alberta Center for Boreal Research; and University of Alberta natural resource economists Vic Adamowicz and Grant Hauer have estimated that it would be possible to preserve half of Alberta’s caribou habitat while giving up less than 1 percent of potential revenues from resource development.

Recently, criticism of wolf eradication programs has come from an unexpected source — Bob Hayes, a biologist who led the Yukon government’s wolf control programs in the 1980s and 1990s. By his own count, Hayes has killed 851 wolves and sterilized many others in the name of science and conservation biology. Despite sharp professional disagreements, hate mail from environmentalists, and threats from eco-terrorists, Hayes says he has never doubted that he was doing what needed to be done to protect caribou, moose, and other prey species in the Yukon Territory.

But Hayes, author of Wolves of the Yukon, now believes that wolf eradication programs merely buy time and do little to address the real reason why ungulates are in decline. “I spent 18 years studying the effects of lethal wolf control on prey populations,” says Hayes. “The science clearly shows killing wolves is biologically wrong... When we kill wolves, we’re killing the very thing that makes the natural world wild.”

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Obama campaign hires corporate lobbyist By Justin Elliott

Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 3:09 PM 00:34:27 PDT

Obama campaign hires corporate lobbyist

D.C. lawyer Broderick Johnson worked on the Keystone XL pipeline and for Bank of America

obama alone
Meet the Obama reelection campaign’s newest senior advisor: corporate lobbyist and Washington lawyer Broderick Johnson.
Johnson’s client list is already raising eyebrows in progressive circles. The Los Angeles Times explains his link to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline project, currently the No. 1 target for environmentalists trying to stop climate change:
… [H]e worked for the powerhouse lobbying firm, Bryan Cave LLP, where his clients included Microsoft, Comcast and TransCanada, the company planning to build the $7-billion pipeline to carry crude from Alberta’s oil sands to the Texas Gulf Coast.
Johnson’s federal lobbyist filings indicate that TransCanada paid Bryan Cave at least $240,000 late last year and early this year for Johnson to work on supporting the “submission for a presidential permit for Keystone XL Pipeline.” He lobbied members of Congress, the filings show, as well as the administration and the State Department.
TransCanada spokesman Terry Cunha denied that Johnson lobbied on behalf of the Keystone project.
Justin Elliott
Justin Elliott is a Salon reporter. Reach him by email at and follow him on Twitter @ElliottJustin More Justin Elliott

The environmental movement takes on coal country By Andrew Leonard, Grist

Tuesday, Oct 25, 2011 12:58 PM 00:37:07 PDT

The environmental movement takes on coal country

Activist Flavia de la Fuente talks about why it's crucial to combat climate change in politically hostile areas

Flavia de la Fuente
Flavia de la Fuente (Credit: Fiorenza Comunian)
This article originally appeared on Grist.
There are probably easier things one could do than to organize against the construction of a coal-powered electricity plant near the Gulf Coast refinery town of Corpus Christi, Texas. But Flavia de la Fuente wouldn’t want to be doing them. After the life-long Californian graduated from UCLA in the spring of 2010, she applied for a job as an organizer with the Sierra Club. She was offered her pick of three options — San Francisco, Washington D.C., or Texas.
The choice was easy. “I firmly believe in going to the trenches and being where the fight is,” says de la Fuente. That meant Texas. In the 1960s, she points out, the civil rights movement flourished where it was “hardest” — in the Deep South. The same, she hopes, will be true for the environmental movement.
“If we can turn things around on climate change where things are the hardest, then we can win,” she says. “And there are a lot of people in Texas who really, really want to win.”
Andrew Leonard
Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21. More Andrew Leonard

The War Against Climate Science Unravels by Kelly Rigg

Published on Wednesday, October 26, 2011 by the Huffington Post

The War Against Climate Science Unravels
The skeptic case against climate change is unraveling before our eyes like someone walking away from an old sweater, thread in hand.
For those who have ever put the skeptic arguments to the test, it has always been clear that their criticisms rarely stand up to even the most basic level of academic rigor. But last week's release of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study delivered a decisive blow to the edifice of climate skepticism.
The key skeptic pillar, summarized by arch skeptic Anthony Watts, has always been this: "How do we know if global warming is a problem if we can't trust the temperature record?"
His 2009 study of US weather monitoring stations argued that many were located in areas where temperatures were likely to be higher than in surrounding areas, suggesting that estimates of warming were exaggerated. So the BEST study, partly funded by the climate denial industry, was undoubtedly meant to corroborate Watt's fundamental tenet.NASA Goddard, 2010
Instead, the BEST study confirmed quite the opposite -- that rapid warming trends found by previous studies of climate change are in fact correct. While the study must still undergo peer review, it is a climate change denial killer for two reasons:
• The research was led by a prominent climate skeptic with funding by denial bankroller Charles Koch. It was given the seal of approval by Watts and other skeptics. Watts: "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong." Fred Singer, another long-term denier said: "I applaud and support what is being done by the Project -- a very difficult but important undertaking."
• It annihilates the "climategate" accusations. Skeptics claimed that climate scientists had tried to hide discrepancies in the temperature record which were inconsistent with global warming trends. Even though every one of the six independent inquiries has exonerated the scientists as well as the science, deniers have been relentless. BEST shows that these discrepancies are inconsequential.
It's important to remember, however, that climate denial is not about getting at the truth. It is a well-funded, carefully orchestrated campaign to block regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. So once the skeptics realized their own study was going to fly in the face of their main talking points, they figured BEST would have to be neutralized somehow. Indeed, Watts has been back-pedaling for months, ever since the preliminary findings were known. Their counter-strategy generally went like this:
1) Create Confusion and Sow Doubt: On October 19, the day of BEST's release, climate denier command central Heartland Institute ran a story headlined: "GAO Confirms: Anthony Watts Is Right, UN Temperature Data Rigged To Show Warming"
Was the timing a coincidence? Hardly. The GAO study in question (PDF) was more than six weeks old and had already been reported widely in the blogosphere based on a distorted press release issued by the skeptics' very own Sen. James Inhofe. (And Heartland further distorted it beyond all recognition, I might add. Rigged data? GAO didn't even imply this, let alone confirm it.)
So why the sudden re-release of an old story, but this time focused specifically on vindicating Watts? Because it was his work that BEST eviscerates. As Watts himself admits, "I knew that behind the scenes, they were planning a media blitz" (and he of course is scrambling to cast doubt on the findings). It was a preemptive strike meant to imply that there were two sides to the story. And why refer to "UN temperature data" when the story had nothing to do with the UN? Because tapping into public mistrust of the UN is part of the denial narrative.
2) Change the Subject: The press didn't buy the standard "two sides" gambit. Virtually every major media outlet ran stories with headlines like this one from The Economist: "The heat is on: A new analysis of the temperature record leaves little room for the doubters. The world is warming."
So the next move was to pretend this was never a key tenet of the denier argument. The day after publication, Heartland's line was:
The mere assertion that the planet has warmed some tells us absolutely nothing we didn't already know... Few skeptics claim the earth has not warmed during the past 100 years...What defines global warming skeptics is the assertion that our present warming is not a crisis (human-induced or otherwise) - not an assertion that the planet has not warmed.
Um, right. I Googled "Earth is cooling not warming" and got 13 million results. The Urban Heat Island effect has been a lynchpin argument of the deniers, led by Watts, for years.

Perhaps the most blatant example comes from the very man who coined the term climategate, James Delingpole. Just one year ago, in a piece titled Global Cooling and the New World Order, he wrote "the global elite is perfectly well aware that global cooling represents a far more serious and imminent threat to the world than global warming..." The same guy last week?
'The planet has been warming,' says a new study of temperature records, conducted by Berkeley professor Richard Muller. I wonder what he'll be telling us next: that night follows day? That water is wet? That great white sharks have nasty pointy teeth? That sheep go "baaaa"? ...It has been a truth long acknowledged by climate sceptics, deniers and realists of every conceivable hue that since the mid-19th century, the planet has been on a warming trend."
Outright denial is increasingly hard to defend, so the new talking point is "Yes, there is some climate change, and yes, a little might be man-made, but don't worry, most of it is natural so we don't need to do anything about it." This friendly face of climate denial is backed up by Heartland's insidiously deceptive "Encyclopedia" on Climate Change.
3) Silence Climate Scientists: climate scientists have been subjected to a veritable witch hunt. As a bunch of people understandably deficient in PR craft, they've proved an easy target for the skeptics. The most recent attack can be found in an obscure amendment (SA 862) to a Senate "minibus" budget bill (HR 2112). The amendment would prohibit federal employees (including scientists from NOAA, NASA, and other government institutions) from participating "in any password-protected electronic forum that involves the participation in a process or production of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."
Of course the IPCC uses password-protected fora. Anyone who has ever used online tools (like Google docs) to work on joint papers knows they are far more efficient than using email. Having draft versions in the public domain would simply create confusion (see 1 above). It would be like conducting climate science as if it were a reality TV show, with every spat judged in the court of public opinion, although in this case the public is far less qualified to pass judgement than on whether Britney should be voted out of the house.

Lawmakers Seek Probe of Pipeline Project Senator Bernie Sanders

Lawmakers Seek Probe of Pipeline Project

Ask President Obama to Hold Off on Decision

WASHINGTON - October 26 - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was joined by other members of Congress today in asking the State Department inspector general to investigate whether conflicts of interest tainted the process for reviewing a proposed crude oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico.
In a separate letter to President Barack Obama, Sanders, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) and a dozen other senators and congressmen cited “serious concerns” about the integrity of the review and asked the White House to withhold any decision on the project until the inspector general’s investigation is completed, made public and evaluated.
TransCanada, the company proposing the Keystone XL pipeline project, reportedly was allowed to screen private firms competing to perform an environmental impact study on the pipeline. Cardno Entrix, the politically-connected firm ultimately selected to conduct the environmental impact study, had significant financial ties to TransCanada.
“Given the significant economic, environmental, and public health implications of the proposed pipeline, we believe that it is critical that the State Department conduct thorough, unbiased reviews of the project,” the lawmakers wrote to Deputy Inspector General Harold W. Geisel.
Their letter posed a series of detailed questions designed to determine whether the selection of the firm and the environmental review process was “free of actual or apparent conflicts of interest.”
The 1,700-mile pipeline would carry more than half a million barrels of oil a day from Canada’s tar sands to refineries in Texas. The State Department is reviewing the proposal because the pipeline would cross the international border between the United States and Canada.
To read the letter to the State Department office of the inspector general, click here.
To read the letter the President Obama, click here.
October 26, 2011
2:32 PM
CONTACT: Senator Bernie Sanders
Michael Briggs (202) 228-6492