Kerry's quip just before the November 7 midterm elections that those who don't study hard "get stuck in Iraq" not only forced him into isolation in the campaign's final days, it rekindled criticism about his failure to beat a war-plagued president two years ago. It also highlighted a shallowness to what he and his aides still considered to be widespread public support.

"The joke stopped that momentum in its track," said Jerry Crawford, a Des Moines attorney who was chairman of Kerry's Iowa campaign in 2004. "I don't think it was fair the way it was used against him, but it's nevertheless the reality. And it knocks him back to the place where he was shortly after the '04 election."

Crawford will be supporting Tom Vilsack, Iowa's outgoing governor, as he makes a run for the Democratic nomination in 2008. He said that is based on their longstanding relationship, not any falling out with Kerry.

Kerry dismissed the education comment as a "botched joke" directed at President Bush, who was two years behind him at Yale. He said Republicans inflamed the issue to try to curtail expected Democratic gains on Election Day.

Since then, Kerry has said it will be up to voters to decide what effect it may have on his presidential prospects.

"That was a slip-up of one word," he said Thursday on CNN's "The Situation Room." "I really think people have made much too much out of it."

Behind the scenes, Kerry apparently has been having doubts, calling current and former Democratic confidantes to inquire just how much his gaffe hurt his presidential chances, according to several Democrats who spoke on condition of anonymity because the conversations were private.

Kerry, who turns 63 next month, had been planning to announce a comeback campaign in December or January. He had thrown himself into helping his party reclaim Congress in the midterm election, campaigning for roughly 80 House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates.

He also has a political account of $14 million -- about the same as New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democratic front-runner.

Democrats' victory a factor
Two things have delayed Kerry's plans: fallout from the joke, and the Democrats' newfound control over the House and Senate.

As a member of the incoming majority party, come January Kerry will be chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee and the Foreign Relations East Asian and Pacific affairs subcommittee. He will be in attendance when the new Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Delaware, convenes hearings on the future of U.S. military action in Iraq.

These responsibilities will impede Kerry's ability to jet around the country, attending fundraisers and courting political operatives, as he did in 2002 and 2003 when Democrats were in the congressional minority and largely powerless.

"Everybody's clock's been slowed down by the move into the majority," said Edward Reilly, Kerry's top political consultant. "Clearly the election was about Iraq and people want change -- and this new Congress to deliver it."

Nonetheless, "We're still very much in a go-mode on this thing," Reilly said. Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, hope to boost their public reemergence with a book about the environment slated for publication next April.

It wasn't funny being a real TV reporter from Kazakhstan trying to cover Ohio's recent elections - at a time when the nation's top box-office comedy featured a fake Kazakh TV reporter humiliating Americans.

A TV crew from Kazakhstan's Channel 31 was in Columbus on Nov. 6 and 7 to make a real documentary on the U.S. political system, but the crew got a wary reception from press secretaries who feared public skewering by comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, star of the mockumentary "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan."

It didn't help that the Kazakh cameraman's first name was "Bolat," a name similar to Cohen's alias. In Cohen's movie, his character Borat goads subjects into making outrageous racist and sexist statements for a fake documentary about the United States.

When the real central Asian TV crew showed up in Ohio, press secretaries for the state's Republican and Democratic parties were suspicious enough to verify their credentials with the U.S. State Department.

"They were really adamant that they were not Borat," said Ohio Democratic Party press secretary Randy Borntrager, adding that the film crew told him that "Borat" "is giving Kazakhstan a bad name."

State Department officials who supervised the TV crew's two-week multistate trip say they got apprehensive phone calls wherever the real Kazakhs went. Even the FBI called them to make sure the crew was legitimate.

The Bush administration is unlikely to allow the incoming Democratic majority in Congress to learn details about its domestic spying program and interrogation policy, a Republican senator said on Thursday.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, who has criticized the Bush White House's secrecy about national security issues, said he would welcome detailed congressional oversight of the National Security Agency's warrantless eavesdropping.

"It would be ideal," said Specter, whose committee was blocked by the administration this year from conducting a full review of the program, despite an outcry among some lawmakers that the spying was illegal.

"We have to really get into the details as to what the program is, as to how many people they are tapping, what they're finding out," he told an American Bar Association conference on national security.

But he said he had "grave reservations" that Congress would end up getting the information from the administration.

The rules, approved by the Supreme Court in April, require companies and other entities involved in federal litigation to produce "electronically stored information" as part of the discovery process, when evidence is shared by both sides before a trial.

The change makes it more important for companies to know what electronic information they have and where. Under the new rules, an information technology employee who routinely copies over a backup computer tape could be committing the equivalent of "virtual shredding," said Alvin F. Lindsay, a partner at Hogan & Hartson LLP and expert on technology and litigation.

James Wright, director of electronic discovery at Halliburton Co., said that large companies are likely to face higher costs from organizing their data to comply with the rules. In addition to e-mail, companies will need to know about things more difficult to track, like digital photos of work sites on employee cell phones and information on removable memory cards, he said.

Both federal and state courts have increasingly been requiring the production of relevant electronic documents during discovery, but the new rules codify the practice, legal experts said.

Barry Zito is a better pitcher than Adam Eaton. Zito has, at times, been a very good pitcher, and he has always been an innings eater. He has thrown at least 213 innings every season in which he has been a full-time starter, his ERA has been better than league average in each of those seasons as well, often well above average. A big concern with Zito is that he has been considerably worse these past three seasons compared to his established level of performance from his previous three.

Zito's worth will vary depending on whom you ask. In a sane world, $12 million or so would be more than fair market for his services. In a world where Adam Eaton will make $8 million a year, who's to say that Zito isn't worth $18 million? Then, Johan Santana must be worth $30 million.

Zito — whose hobbies include yoga, rock guitar and surfing — is known for his idiosyncrasies. His personality has made him a media favorite.

He once made it a practice to buy his own autographed baseball cards on eBay; when asked why he bought them at auction for high prices rather than acquiring unsigned cards and signing them himself, Zito replied, "Because they're authenticated."

Zito carries satin pillows on the road, collects stuffed animals (which he used to travel with), and burns incense to relax.

Many Oakland fans first became aware of Zito when, early in his career, he dyed his hair blue. He has earned the nicknames "Planet Zito" and "Captain Quirk."

He is known for his very simple lifestyle, living in a small apartment with no TV or real furniture (he sits on the lawn chairs that were left on the balcony).

Without notifying the public, federal agents for the past four years have assigned millions of international travelers, including Americans, computer-generated scores rating the risk they pose of being terrorists or criminals.

The travelers are not allowed to see or directly challenge these risk assessments, which the government intends to keep on file for 40 years.

The scores are assigned to people entering and leaving the United States after computers assess their travel records, including where they are from, how they paid for tickets, their motor vehicle records, past one-way travel, seating preference and what kind of meal they ordered.

The program's existence was quietly disclosed earlier in November when the government put an announcement detailing the Automated Targeting System, or ATS, for the first time in the Federal Register, a fine-print compendium of federal rules. Privacy and civil liberties lawyers, congressional aides and even law enforcement officers said they thought this system had been applied only to cargo.

The Homeland Security Department notice called its program "one of the most advanced targeting systems in the world." The department said the nation's ability to spot criminals and other security threats "would be critically impaired without access to this data."

Still, privacy advocates view ATS with alarm. "It's probably the most invasive system the government has yet deployed in terms of the number of people affected," David Sobel, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group devoted to electronic data issues, said in an interview.

Government officials could not say whether ATS has apprehended any terrorists. Customs and Border Protection spokesman Bill Anthony said agents refuse entry to about 45 foreign criminals every day based on all the information they have. He could not say how many were spotted by ATS.

A similar Homeland Security data-mining project, for domestic air travelers — now known as Secure Flight — caused a furor two years ago in Congress. Lawmakers barred its implementation until it can pass 10 tests for accuracy and privacy protection.

In comments to the Homeland Security Department about ATS, Sobel said, "Some individuals will be denied the right to travel and many the right to travel free of unwarranted interference as a result of the maintenance of such material."

Sobel said in the interview the government notice also raises the possibility that faulty risk assessments could cost innocent people jobs in shipping or travel, government contracts, licenses or other benefits.

The government notice says ATS data may be shared with state, local and foreign governments for use in hiring decisions and in granting licenses, security clearances, contracts or other benefits. In some cases, the data may be shared with courts, Congress and even private contractors.

"Everybody else can see it, but you can't," Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration lawyer who teaches at Cornell Law school, said in an interview.

[snip]

In a privacy impact assessment posted on its Web site this week, Homeland Security said ATS is aimed at discovering high-risk individuals who "may not have been previously associated with a law enforcement action or otherwise be noted as a person of concern to law enforcement."

Dear Cary,

I'm in my late 40s. My interests and personality traits span those of the baby boomers (activism, idealism, community) and those of Gen Xers (technology, new music, adaptation).

I work in a trendy Internet firm with people who are 15-25 years younger than I am. I love working with the younger 20-somethings, but I find myself increasingly frustrated with the Gen Xers -- those from 28 to 39. The stereotypes seem to be true: They're cynical, selfish, noncommittal, addicted to pop culture, oddly nostalgic, smart but not wise, suspicious of sentimentality but hypersensitive to criticism.

To work effectively with this group, I've had to tone down my natural openness and honesty (it's interpreted as weakness) and tread lightly in any political discussion. (Most of my 30-something co-workers are resigned and apathetic libertarians.) I avert my eyes during their flames and outbursts. I ignore their gross misunderstandings of history and their lapses in logic. I'm not intellectually superior; they're much quicker and brighter than I am, but it's an odd sort of knowledge -- broad but not deep.

So, my co-workers drive me nuts, but it gets worse. My beloved Internet is filling up with blogs, columns and essays by Gen Xers who don't seem to have any framework for their arguments and who are militantly post-feminist (embrace your inner slut), post-hippie (I care only about my family -- fuck the community), post-vegan (I raise my own meat, slaughter it lovingly, then serve it up to my foodie friends).

I don't want to quit my job and go work for a nonprofit like all the other boomers. I love this brave new world. My hardcore hippie friends seem naive and outdated.

Does every generation decry the upcoming one? Or are the Xers some sort of aberration -- a blot on humanity that will be overcome by the millennial generation (who, by the way, seem to be a fine, innovative, idealistic and hopeful group of kids)?

Cautiously Optimistic Boomer

Dear Cautiously Optimistic,

Your observations are keenly stated. I do not know how to answer your questions. But it is a topic of endless fascination.

That is one reason Salon published its bracing exchange on the topic of contemporary generational differences in 2002. Of particular interest to you may be this memorable letter that I recall simply as the "I Hate You Guys" letter, and this one, fondly recalled as the "We're Sick of You" letter.

What was interesting in that exercise was the animosity. It wasn't just that certain Gen Xers thought differently or wished to live differently -- they think we suck. A certain cohort live in overt and uncomplicated hostility toward the generation they think of as boomers and hippies.

You may feel that like a good child of the '60s you must try even harder to empathize, to understand. That may not help.

I continue to believe that at the heart of this is the difference between us, the last high modernist generation, and them, the first postmodern generation. See Fredric Jameson on this.

Since you sound like you are pretty smart, I predict that if you begin to read about postmodernism you will get a sense of what I think is going on between generations. Here is a précis, or summation, of Jameson's "big book on postmodernism," "The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism." It touches on many of the differences in perspective that one encounters today. It is a dizzying sensation to find that someone only a few years distant in age has a radically different conception of the world. But that is the change that seems to have occurred. And without a shared intellectual basis, how can you talk about it? Perhaps you can say, "You are obviously a postmodernist and I am a modernist and each of us takes certain truths -- or untruths! -- to be self-evident," but where does that lead you? This is complicated material -- that's part of the problem. It's not simple to understand.

I don't know what you can do about it. Our cherished world of consensus, my friend, is gone! Maybe it will come back. I don't know. I always liked that line from Theodore Roethke, "A lively understandable spirit Once entertained you. It will come again. Be still. Wait."

But now I'm not so sure it's worth waiting around for. This may be as good as it gets. Mind you, I had a sleepless night and seem to be running a fever, so this could all be the ravings of a disturbed mind -- which sounds so very '60s, doesn't it?

Men still far outnumber women in prisons and jails, but the female population is growing faster. Over the past year, the female population in state or federal prison increased 2.6 percent while the number of male inmates rose 1.9 percent. By year's end, 7 percent of all inmates were women. The gender figures do not include inmates in local jails.

"Today's figures fail to capture incarceration's impact on the thousands of children left behind by mothers in prison," Marc Mauer, the executive director of the Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group supporting criminal justice reform, said in a statement. "Misguided policies that create harsher sentences for nonviolent drug offenses are disproportionately responsible for the increasing rates of women in prisons and jails."

From 1995 to 2003, inmates in federal prison for drug offenses have accounted for 49 percent of total prison population growth.

Certain states saw more significant changes in prison population. In South Dakota, the number of inmates increased 11 percent over the past year, more than any other state. Montana and Kentucky were next in line with increases of 10.4 percent and 7.9 percent, respectively.

First, don’t listen to your consultants. Over the next few months, pollsters are going to pick out the key demographic groups (left-handed Catholic orthopedists) and offer advice on how to kiss up to those people. Majorities are never built that way. You end up proposing inconsequential micropolicies and selling your soul.

Don’t focus on groups, focus on problems. If you have persuasive proposals to address big problems, the majority coalition will build itself.

Second, be policy-centric, not philosophy-centric. American conservatism grew up out of power and has always placed great emphasis on doctrine. Today, in the wake of this month’s defeat, Republicans are firing up the old debate among social conservatives, free-market conservatives and others about the proper role of the state. This stale, abstract debate will never lead anywhere and only inhibits creative thinking.

The Republican weakness is not a lack of grand principles, it’s a lack of concrete policies commensurate with the size of 21st-century problems. If they would shelve the doctrinal debate for a second, Republicans — while not doing violence to their belief in the market, traditional values or anything else — could find plenty of policy ideas to deal with China and India, the entitlement crisis and so on.

Third, create a Republican Leadership Council. In the realm of ideas, Democrats own the center. Moderate Democrats have the Democratic Leadership Council, the Third Way and various cells within the Brookings Institution, such as the Hamilton Project. Republican moderates are intellectual weaklings. They have no independent identity, so it’s no wonder centrist voters prefer Democrats on one domestic issue after another.

Fifth, support free trade, while responding to the downside of globalization. When the industrial age kicked in, many European nations built an elaborate welfare state, but didn’t aggressively expand educational opportunity. Americans didn’t build as big a welfare system, but, as the blogger Reihan Salam pointed out recently, we spent a lot on schools to foster social mobility.

The American way is to help people compete, not shield them from competition. Today that means nurturing stable families in which children can develop the social and cultural capital they need to thrive. (A significant expansion of the child tax credit would ease the burden on young parents.) It means publicly funded, though not necessarily publicly run, preschool programs in which children from disorganized homes can learn how to learn. It means radical school reform: performance pay for teachers, an end to the stupid certification rules, urban boarding schools where educators can set up local cultures of achievement, locally run neighborhood child centers to service an array of health and day-care needs.

The bipartisan Iraq Study Group reached a consensus on Wednesday on a final report that will call for a gradual pullback of the 15 American combat brigades now in Iraq but stop short of setting a firm timetable for their withdrawal, according to people familiar with the panel’s deliberations.

The report, unanimously approved by the 10-member panel, led by James A. Baker III and Lee H. Hamilton, is to be delivered to President Bush next week. It is a compromise between distinct paths that the group has debated since March, avoiding a specific timetable, which has been opposed by Mr. Bush, but making it clear that the American troop commitment should not be open-ended. The recommendations of the group, formed at the request of members of Congress, are nonbinding.

A person who participated in the commission’s debate said that unless the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki believed that Mr. Bush was under pressure to pull back troops in the near future, “there will be zero sense of urgency to reach the political settlement that needs to be reached.”

The report recommends that Mr. Bush make it clear that he intends to start the withdrawal relatively soon, and people familiar with the debate over the final language said the implicit message was that the process should begin sometime next year.

The report leaves unstated whether the 15 combat brigades that are the bulk of American fighting forces in Iraq would be brought home, or simply pulled back to bases in Iraq or in neighboring countries. (A brigade typically consists of 3,000 to 5,000 troops.) From those bases, they would still be responsible for protecting a substantial number of American troops who would remain in Iraq, including 70,000 or more American trainers, logistics experts and members of a rapid reaction force.

British Airways has been accused of treating all men passengers as potential sex offenders after it was revealed it has banned children from sitting next to male strangers - even if their parents are on the same flight.

The bizarre regulation came to light when a nine-year-old girl was moved from her seat next to a 76-year-old passenger and his wife on a flight from Malaga to London.

Instead her mother was told by a stewardess to take the seat next to retired journalist Michael Kemp and his wife Frances, and the girl was moved to the back of the plane.

Mrs Kemp had booked an aisle seat because a bad leg meant she needed extra space. But as the Airbus A320 filled up, she was asked to swap seats with her husband so that she, not he, would be sitting next to the girl.

Mrs Kemp politely declined, explaining to the stewardess that she had asked for an aisle seat to avoid discomfort during the three-hour flight.

But when Mr Kemp offered to move to the window seat so that the girl could sit between him and his wife, the stewardess said it would still breach the airline's child-welfare regulations.

Mr Kemp, from Kensington, West London, said last night: "The little girl's mother put her in the window seat next to me and then went to her own seat further back.

"When everyone was seated, the stewardess asked my wife if she would sit next to the girl. Frances explained why she couldn't move and I thought I could resolve the problem by moving up and letting the girl sit between us.

"To my amazement, the stewardess said BA had a rule that no unaccompanied child under 16 may be seated next to an adult male stranger - even if there's a woman on the other side.

"The discussion went on for several minutes but she refused to back down and said we could not take off until the problem was sorted out. I heard her muttering to a colleague that everyone would have to disembark.

"She didn't seem embarrassed - just rather irritated that it was taking up so much time.

"The whole thing caused a good deal of inconvenience which could have been avoided if BA had spotted the problem when we booked our tickets."

Leading child protection campaigner Michele Elliot, director of the children's charity Kidscape, said she was astonished by the BA rule.

"It is utterly absurd. It brands all men as potential sex offenders," she said.

"What message does it send out to children - that men are not to be trusted? Women also abuse children. This is just totally lacking in common sense."

The memo delivered to children by BA's policy is: Men are scary and not to be trusted. As Wendy McElroy reasoned on libertarian feminist site iFeminists, "[Kids] may hesitate to approach a policeman or fireman who are, after all, still men...And how is that message being heard by the boys who will grow into men?" Not to mention that preventing kids from being seated next to strangers probably isn't the best way to prevent sexual assault; a mere 10 percent of child sex-abuse cases are perpetrated by strangers.

A Pagosa Springs subdivision may have some peace again after a homeowners' association threatened to fine a resident for putting up a Christmas wreath shaped like a peace sign.

But the Loma Linda subdivision is now scrambling to assemble a new association board after the three members resigned today.

The directors of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association apologized Monday to Lisa Jensen and Bill Trimarco for threatening to fine the couple $25 a day if they didn't remove their lighted wreath. The wreath had been characterized as a divisive symbol that violated the subdivision rules against displaying signs or advertisements.

This morning, e-mails were sent to Loma Linda residents announcing that board

members Bob Kearns, Tammy Spezze and Jeff Heitz had resigned.
"We need to get our subdivision back in gear now," said Loma Linda resident Nancy Dunbar, who had to remove a wooden peace sign from in front of her home the week before Thanksgiving.

She said several members of association's architectural-control committee, who had resigned earlier in protest the board's actions, are working to form an ad hoc board before association elections next month.

Jensen and Trimarco said they have had hundreds of e-mails and phone calls since the wreath flap garnered headlines around the world.

Most have been supportive of their simple message of peace, they said - a message they did not intend to be a statement against the war in Iraq.

Kearns had said that some people with children serving in Iraq had complained about the peace sign, prompting his order that it be removed.

"The next six months in Iraq—which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there—are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time."
(New York Times, 11/30/03)

"What I absolutely don't understand is just at the moment when we finally have a UN-approved Iraqi-caretaker government made up of—I know a lot of these guys—reasonably decent people and more than reasonably decent people, everyone wants to declare it's over. I don't get it. It might be over in a week, it might be over in a month, it might be over in six months, but what's the rush? Can we let this play out, please?"
(NPR's Fresh Air, 6/3/04)

"What we're gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war."
(CBS's Face the Nation, 10/3/04)

"Improv time is over. This is crunch time. Iraq will be won or lost in the next few months. But it won't be won with high rhetoric. It will be won on the ground in a war over the last mile."
(New York Times, 11/28/04)

"I think we're in the end game now…. I think we're in a six-month window here where it's going to become very clear and this is all going to pre-empt I think the next congressional election—that's my own feeling— let alone the presidential one."
(NBC's Meet the Press, 9/25/05)

"Maybe the cynical Europeans were right. Maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. That will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the Sunnis in Iraq intend to be. If they come around, a decent outcome in Iraq is still possible, and we should stay to help build it. If they won't, then we are wasting our time."
(New York Times, 9/28/05)

"We've teed up this situation for Iraqis, and I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse into three parts or more or whether it's going to come together."
(CBS's Face the Nation, 12/18/05)

"We're at the beginning of I think the decisive I would say six months in Iraq, OK, because I feel like this election—you know, I felt from the beginning Iraq was going to be ultimately, Charlie, what Iraqis make of it."
(PBS's Charlie Rose Show, 12/20/05)

"The only thing I am certain of is that in the wake of this election, Iraq will be what Iraqis make of it—and the next six months will tell us a lot. I remain guardedly hopeful."
(New York Times, 12/21/05)

"I think that we're going to know after six to nine months whether this project has any chance of succeeding. In which case, I think the American people as a whole will want to play it out or whether it really is a fool's errand."
(Oprah Winfrey Show, 1/23/06)

"I think we're in the end game there, in the next three to six months, Bob. We've got for the first time an Iraqi government elected on the basis of an Iraqi constitution. Either they're going to produce the kind of inclusive consensual government that we aspire to in the near term, in which case America will stick with it, or they're not, in which case I think the bottom's going to fall out."
(CBS, 1/31/06)

"I think we are in the end game. The next six to nine months are going to tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in Iraq."
(NBC's Today, 3/2/06)

"Can Iraqis get this government together? If they do, I think the American public will continue to want to support the effort there to try to produce a decent, stable Iraq. But if they don't, then I think the bottom is going to fall out of public support here for the whole Iraq endeavor. So one way or another, I think we're in the end game in the sense it's going to be decided in the next weeks or months whether there's an Iraq there worth investing in. And that is something only Iraqis can tell us."
(CNN, 4/23/06)

"Well, I think that we're going to find out, Chris, in the next year to six months—probably sooner—whether a decent outcome is possible there, and I think we're going to have to just let this play out."
(MSNBC's Hardball, 5/11/06)

we need to face our real choices in Iraq, which are: 10 months or 10 years. Either we just get out of Iraq in a phased withdrawal over 10 months, and try to stabilize it some other way, or we accept the fact that the only way it will not be a failed state is if we start over and rebuild it from the ground up, which would take 10 years. This would require reinvading Iraq, with at least 150,000 more troops, crushing the Sunni and Shiite militias, controlling borders, and building Iraq’s institutions and political culture from scratch.

Anyone who tells you that we can just train a few more Iraqi troops and police officers and then slip out in two or three years is either lying or a fool. The minute we would leave, Iraq would collapse. There is nothing we can do by the end of the Bush presidency that would produce a self-sustaining stable Iraq — and “self-sustaining” is the key metric.

[snip]

On Feb. 12, 2003, before the war, I wrote a column offering what I called my “pottery store” rule for Iraq: “You break it, you own it.” It was not an argument against the war, but rather a cautionary note about the need to do it with allies, because transforming Iraq would be such a huge undertaking. (Colin Powell later picked up on this and used the phrase to try to get President Bush to act with more caution, but Mr. Bush did not heed Mr. Powell’s advice.)

But my Pottery Barn rule was wrong, because Iraq was already pretty broken before we got there — broken, it seems, by 1,000 years of Arab-Muslim authoritarianism, three brutal decades of Sunni Baathist rule, and a crippling decade of U.N. sanctions. It was held together only by Saddam’s iron fist. Had we properly occupied the country, and begun political therapy, it is possible an American iron fist could have held Iraq together long enough to put it on a new course. But instead we created a vacuum by not deploying enough troops.

That vacuum was filled by murderous Sunni Baathists and Al Qaeda types, who butchered Iraqi Shiites until they finally wouldn’t take it any longer and started butchering back, which brought us to where we are today. The Sunni Muslim world should hang its head in shame for the barbarism it has tolerated and tacitly supported by the Sunnis of Iraq, whose violence, from the start, has had only one goal: America must fail in its effort to bring progressive politics or democracy to this region. America must fail — no matter how many Iraqis have to be killed, America must fail.

This has left us with two impossible choices. If we’re not ready to do what is necessary to crush the dark forces in Iraq and properly rebuild it, then we need to leave — because to just keep stumbling along as we have been makes no sense. It will only mean throwing more good lives after good lives into a deeper and deeper hole filled with more and more broken pieces.

A federal judge struck down President Bush's authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutionally vague, according to a ruling released Tuesday.


The Humanitarian Law Project had challenged Bush's order, which blocked all the assets of groups or individuals he named as "specially designated global terrorists" after the 2001 terrorist attacks.

"This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists," said David Cole, a lawyer for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Constitutional Rights that represented the group. "It was reminiscent of the McCarthy era."

The case centered on two groups, the Liberation Tigers, which seeks a separate homeland for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, and Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan, a political organization representing the interests of Kurds in Turkey.

U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins enjoined the government from blocking the assets of the two groups. The same judge two years ago invalidated portions of the Patriot Act.

Both groups consider the Nov. 21 ruling a victory; both had been designated by the United States as foreign terrorist organizations.

Cole said the judge's ruling does not invalidate the hundreds of other designated terrorist groups on the list but "calls them into question."

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich yesterday said the country will be forced to reexamine freedom of speech to meet the threat of terrorism.

Gingrich, speaking at a Manchester awards banquet, said a "different set of rules" may be needed to reduce terrorists' ability to use the Internet and free speech to recruit and get out their message.

"We need to get ahead of the curve before we actually lose a city, which I think could happen in the next decade," said Gingrich, a Republican who helped engineer the GOP's takeover of Congress in 1994.

President Bush has pledged to work with the new Democratic majorities in Congress, but he has already gotten off on the wrong foot with Jim Webb, whose surprise victory over Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) tipped the Senate to the Democrats.

Webb, a decorated former Marine officer, hammered Allen and Bush over the unpopular war in Iraq while wearing his son’s old combat boots on the campaign trail. It seems the president may have some lingering resentment.

At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing.

Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb.

“I didn’t ask you that, I asked how he’s doing,” Bush retorted, according to the source.

Despite significant gains in 2004, the total income Americans reported to the tax collector that year, adjusted for inflation, was still below its peak in 2000, new government data shows.

Reported income totaled $7.044 trillion in 2004, the latest year for which data is available, down from more than $7.143 trillion in 2000, new Internal Revenue Service data shows.

Total reported income, in 2004 dollars, fell 1.4 percent, but because the population grew during that period average real incomes declined more than twice as much, falling $1,641, or 3 percent, to $53,974.

Since 2004, the Census Department has found, the income of the typical American household has grown along with the rise in average incomes but at a slow pace that, until recent months, had barely kept ahead of inflation.

The tax data, while not as up to date, helps spell out whose incomes were most affected in the recent downturn and why.

The overall income declines of that extended era came despite a series of tax cuts that President Bush and Congressional Republicans promoted as the best way to stimulate both short- and long-term growth after the Internet bubble burst on Wall Street in 2000 and the economy fell into a brief recession in 2001.

The tax cuts contributed to a big decline in individual income tax receipts, which fell at a rate 14 times that of the drop in incomes.

In 2004 individual income tax receipts were 21.6 percent smaller than in 2000 — and indeed smaller than they were in 1997, the new I.R.S. report shows. The government collected $831.8 billion in individual income taxes in 2004, down from $980.4 billion in 2000 and $848.6 billion in 1997.

Those figures have risen since then, but rather than pay for themselves through economic growth, the Bush tax cuts, at least through 2004, were financed with borrowed money.

A White House spokesman, Tony Fratto, said the decline in income through 2004 was a predictable result of “what we all know now was a bubble economy with inflated asset values, which is why $7 trillion of equity in the stock markets evaporated.”

Mr. Fratto said that the benefits of lowered tax rates were shown by more recent gains in incomes and tax receipts and the creation of more than 6.5 million jobs since 2003, the year that he contended should be used as the benchmark to assess the value of the Bush tax cuts on incomes, jobs and increased wealth.

Incomes in 2004 did rise above those in 2003, with an overall average gain of 6.8 percent. The average year-over-year increases from 2003 to 2004 ranged from 1.8 percent for the poorest fifth of Americans to a 27.5 percent increase for the top tenth of 1 percent.

But those gains were not enough to make up for the drop in 2001, the further drop in 2002 and the almost unchanged overall income total in 2003, when only the top 1 percent made any significant gains, primarily by selling assets at a profit to take advantage of lowered tax rates on capital gains that took effect that year.

Analysis of the I.R.S. data by The New York Times found that average reported incomes fell or were virtually flat at the end of the period at every level of income except for the poorest 26 million taxpayers, the bottom fifth. Those impoverished taxpayers made less than $11,166 each in 2004 and had an average income of $5,743, up $135 or 2.4 percent, from the year 2000.

LIMBAUGH: So anyway, [This Week host George] Stephanopoulos asks King Abdullah II of Jordan if this is the case:

ABDULLAH [audio clip]: George, the difficulty that we're tackling with here is we're juggling with the strong potential of three civil wars in the region. Whether it's the Palestinians of Lebanon or of Iraq, and I hope my discussions at least with the president --

LIMBAUGH: [heavy sigh]

ABDULLAH [audio clip]: -- will be to provide whatever we can do for the Iraqi people, but the same time we do want to concentrate ourselves on the core issues which we believe are the Palestinians and the Palestinian peace process, because that is a must today --

LIMBAUGH: Oh, give me a break.

ABDULLAH [audio clip]: -- as well as the tremendous concern we have had over the last several days with what's happening in Lebanon. And we could possibly imagine going into 2007 and having three civil wars on our hands.

LIMBAUGH: All right, well, let's just have them. Let's just have the civil wars and let the crumbs crumble and the cookie crumble where -- because I'm fed up with this. The Palestinian situation -- for 50 years we've had the Palestinian situation, and it's not going to be solved until the Limbaugh Doctrine is imposed or tried. And that is, this is a war, and until somebody loses it, it isn't going to stop. And now, you know, we've done everything we can to make Lebanon a democracy, and it's crumbling because Syria keeps killing the popular leaders there. Meanwhile, the Hezbos [Hezbollah] keep expanding their influence in Lebanon.

But what the hell! We're going to bring Syria and Iran in to fix Iraq, why not let them just fix the whole region? If we're heading to civil war -- I mean, everybody comes to us: "You got to fix this and you got to fix that." So we go and try to fix it, and our own people, Democrats and the left in our country do their best to sabotage our efforts, and then we get blamed for trying to clean up the messes that these people start. And then they come on our television show: "[Gibberish] George [gibberish] civil war [gibberish] we gotta do something. Palestinians it's a must, it's a must, we must [gibberish] right now [gibberish] war."

Fine, just blow the place up. Just let these natural forces take place over there instead of trying to stop them, instead of trying to use -- I just -- sometimes natural force is going to happen. You're going to have to let it take place. You can spend all the time you like with diplomacy, and you can spend all the time you want massaging these things with diplomatic -- you're just -- you're just delaying the inevitable.

Former first daughter Chelsea Clinton has joined Avenue Capital Group, a hedge fund manager whose founder has contributed to many Democratic Party campaigns, a person familiar with the matter said on Friday.

People familiar with the matter reported that Clinton, 26, is quitting her job at the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. and will take a position at the New York-based hedge fund Avenue Capital Group.

Amid a growing barrage of front-page headlines, U.S. embassy officials "strongly suggested" President Bush's twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara Bush, cut short their trip to Buenos Aires because of security issues, U.S. diplomatic and security sources tell ABC News.

But the girls have stayed on, celebrating their 25th birthday over the weekend and producing even more headlines about their activities.

[snip]

Stories of the twins' visit took on wild proportions in the Argentinean press. One tabloid headline had the young women running nude in the hallway of their hotel, a report the hotel staff denied to ABC News.

According to sources, the U.S. embassy encouraged the two girls to cut their stay short because the added attention was making their security very difficult.

But to the dismay and anger of some U.S. embassy and security staff, the girls stayed on.

Thursday night, an ABC News producer was able to walk into their hotel unchecked and engage Barbara Bush in conversation while she checked her e-mail on a computer in the lobby. Jenna sat talking with friends on a sofa nearby. No Secret Service agents were anywhere to be seen in the lobby, according to ABC News' Joe Goldman.

And yesterday the Bush twins were spotted at the Sunday soccer matches, wearing team jerseys and sitting in the owner's box, watching Argentina's top team Boca Juniors compete. Several games have been canceled due to violence in the crowds this year. In fact, last weekend no spectators were allowed to attend the match other than season ticket holders.

Sources tell ABC News the twins plan to stick to their original itinerary and stay in Buenos Aires until Thursday.

...at some point, you put aside your tiara as most powerful brat in the world and start acting like an adult. But not in the Bush family. Oh no. The US embassy warned that they could not provide adequate security for the Bush twins during their current visit, and the Bush twins basically told the embassy to go to hell. They're staying anyway.

Let me repeat that. George Bush's daughters are in a developing country where American officials cannot guarantee their safety. What does George Bush do? Absolutely nothing And before anyone says this is his daughters and not Bush, bull. He is the president of the United States. These are his children. They are traveling as representatives of the US whether they like it or not. They are traveling with American Secret Service protection, whether they like it or not. They are tying up the resources of the US Embassy whether they like it or not. And if they get shot and killed, or kidnapped, or drugged while they are in Argentina, that will directly affect the national security of the United States because our president will be subject to blackmail or worse.

Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. ... -- Luke 2:14

A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti- Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.

Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs. He said some residents have also believed it was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said.

"Somebody could put up signs that say drop bombs on Iraq. If you let one go up you have to let them all go up," he said in a telephone interview Sunday.

Lisa Jensen said she wasn't thinking of the war when she hung the wreath. She said, "Peace is way bigger than not being at war. This is a spiritual thing."

Jensen, a past association president, calculates the fines will cost her about $1,000, and doubts they will be able to make her pay. But she said she's not going to take it down until after Christmas.

"Now that it has come to this I feel I can't get bullied," she said. "What if they don't like my Santa Claus."

The association in this 200-home subdivision 270 miles southwest of Denver has sent a letter to her saying that residents were offended by the sign and the board "will not allow signs, flags etc. that can be considered divisive."

The subdivision's rules say no signs, billboards or advertising are permitted without the consent of the architectural control committee.

Kearns ordered the committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn't say anything. Kearns fired all five committee members.

The competing television news images on the morning after Thanksgiving were of the unspeakable carnage in Sadr City — where more than 200 Iraqi civilians were killed by a series of coordinated car bombs — and the long lines of cars filled with holiday shopping zealots that jammed the highway approaches to American malls that had opened for business at midnight.

A Wal-Mart in Union, N.J., was besieged by customers even before it opened its doors at 5 a.m. on Friday. “All I can tell you,” said a Wal-Mart employee, “is that they were fired up and ready to spend money.”

There is something terribly wrong with this juxtaposition of gleeful Americans with fistfuls of dollars storming the department store barricades and the slaughter by the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, including old people, children and babies. The war was started by the U.S., but most Americans feel absolutely no sense of personal responsibility for it.

Representative Charles Rangel recently proposed that the draft be reinstated, suggesting that politicians would be more reluctant to take the country to war if they understood that their constituents might be called up to fight. What struck me was not the uniform opposition to the congressman’s proposal — it has long been clear that there is zero sentiment in favor of a draft in the U.S. — but the fact that it never provoked even the briefest discussion of the responsibilities and obligations of ordinary Americans in a time of war.

With no obvious personal stake in the war in Iraq, most Americans are indifferent to its consequences. In an interview last week, Alex Racheotes, a 19-year-old history major at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, said: “I definitely don’t know anyone who would want to fight in Iraq. But beyond that, I get the feeling that most people at school don’t even think about the war. They’re more concerned with what grade they got on yesterday’s test.”

His thoughts were echoed by other students, including John Cafarelli, a 19-year-old sophomore at the University of New Hampshire, who was asked if he had any friends who would be willing to join the Army. “No, definitely not,” he said. “None of my friends even really care about what’s going on in Iraq.”

This indifference is widespread. It enables most Americans to go about their daily lives completely unconcerned about the atrocities resulting from a war being waged in their name. While shoppers here are scrambling to put the perfect touch to their holidays with the purchase of a giant flat-screen TV or a PlayStation 3, the news out of Baghdad is of a society in the midst of a meltdown.

According to the United Nations, more than 7,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in September and October. Nearly 5,000 of those killings occurred in Baghdad, a staggering figure.

In a demoralizing reprise of life in Afghanistan under Taliban rule, the U.N. reported that in Iraq: “The situation of women has continued to deteriorate. Increasing numbers of women were recorded to be either victims of religious extremists or ‘honor killings.’ Some non-Muslim women are forced to wear a headscarf and to be accompanied by spouses or male relatives.”

Journalists in Iraq are being “assassinated with utmost impunity,” the U.N. report said, with 18 murdered in the last two months.

Iraq burns. We shop. The Americans dying in Iraq are barely mentioned in the press anymore. They warrant maybe one sentence in a long roundup article out of Baghdad, or a passing reference — no longer than a few seconds — in a television news account of the latest political ditherings.

Is it just me or has George W. Bush checked out of the stumbling national crisis we know as 'Iraq'?

I know his name shows up in the headlines. He's meeting Iraq Prime Minister Maliki next week in Amman. Vice President Cheney is shuttling to Saudi Arabia. And all of this is being billed as a part of a new and broader 'regional' approach to getting the conflict under some measure of control.

But I don't hear the president. Not his voice. The one thing that's been a constant over the last three and a half years is the president as the voice of American Iraq policy. Whether he's the author of it is another question entirely. But the voice and pitbull of it, always.

And yet since the election he seems to have disappeared from the conversation entirely. Like he's just checked out. It's not his thing anymore.

To a degree, this has been the case since early 2004 -- the point by which it was clear the entire effort was a failure. But politics -- first his reelection and then the 2006 election -- has kept him powerfully in the game, constantly arguing staying the course or cutting and running or how a rebuke for his policies would amount to a win for the terrorists.

But now the rebuke has been given. And what is more than that he validated it, confirmed the rejection by summarily firing his Defense Secretary. By doing so, he admitted (even if he can't quite admit it to himself) that his war policy has been a failure.

With that admission out of the way, there's really no more cheerleading to be done for the whole effort. It's a hard slog, a tortuous battle to find some least bad outcome to the whole affair.

Back when he was riding high President Bush used to say that he 'didn't do nuance' -- a point on which he was unquestionably right. And that being the case, there's just nothing left for him to say. No more chest-thumping or rah-rah or daring his opponents to say he's wrong. So he's just gone silent. Like it's not his problem any more.

THE DEBATE about Iraq has moved past the question of whether it was a mistake (everybody knows it was) to the more depressing question of whether it is possible to avert total disaster. Every self-respecting foreign policy analyst has his own plan for Iraq. The trouble is that these tracts are inevitably unconvincing, except when they argue why all the other plans would fail. It's all terribly grim.

So allow me to propose the unthinkable: Maybe, just maybe, our best option is to restore Saddam Hussein to power.

Yes, I know. Hussein is a psychotic mass murderer. Under his rule, Iraqis were shot, tortured and lived in constant fear. Bringing the dictator back would sound cruel if it weren't for the fact that all those things are also happening now, probably on a wider scale.

At the outset of the war, I had no high hopes for Iraqi democracy, but I paid no attention to the possibility that the Iraqis would end up with a worse government than the one they had. It turns out, however, that there is something more awful than totalitarianism, and that is endless chaos and civil war.

Nobody seems to foresee the possibility of restoring order to Iraq. Here is the basic dilemma: The government is run by Shiites, and the security agencies have been overrun by militias and death squads. The government is strong enough to terrorize the Sunnis into rebellion but not strong enough to crush this rebellion.

Meanwhile, we have admirably directed our efforts into training a professional and nonsectarian Iraqi police force and encouraging reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites. But we haven't succeeded. We may be strong enough to stop large-scale warfare or genocide, but we're not strong enough to stop pervasive chaos.

Hussein, however, has a proven record in that department. It may well be possible to reconstitute the Iraqi army and state bureaucracy we disbanded, and if so, that may be the only force capable of imposing order in Iraq.

Chaos and order each have a powerful self-sustaining logic. When people perceive a lack of order, they act in ways that further the disorder. If a Sunni believes that he is in danger of being killed by Shiites, he will throw his support to Sunni insurgents who he sees as the only force that can protect him. The Sunni insurgents, in turn, will scare Shiites into supporting their own anti-Sunni militias.



And it's not just Iraqis who act this way. You could find a smaller-scale version of this dynamic in an urban riot here in the United States. But when there's an expectation of social order, people will act in a civilized fashion.

Restoring the expectation of order in Iraq will take some kind of large-scale psychological shock. The Iraqi elections were expected to offer that shock, but they didn't. The return of Saddam Hussein — a man every Iraqi knows, and whom many of them fear — would do the trick.

Crime


Police shooting leaves groom dead, two injured
BY DEBORAH S. MORRIS
NEWSDAY STAFF WRITERS


November 26, 2006, 12:01 AM EST

In a fusillade of 50 gunshots, undercover police officers shot and killed a Queens man who had been celebrating at his bachelor's party and shot and injured two of his friends after the three left a Jamaica strip club early Saturday morning, police said.

Circumstances before and during the shooting, just after 4 a.m. near the Kalua Cabaret at 143-08 94th Ave. in Jamaica, remained murky late Saturday night.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, at a 7:30 p.m. news conference, said the shots were fired by five officers. Asked if the shootings were justified, he said, "We're not in a position to characterize the shooting at this time."

Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said there "will be a full, fair and complete investigation of this incident. . . . I would urge everyone to withhold judgment as well until all the facts are known."

Sean Bell, 23, of Far Rockaway, who had planned to marry his longtime girlfriend in an Ozone Park restaurant Saturday night, was shot in the neck and arm. He was taken to Jamaica Hospital Medical Center, where he died.

Bell's two friends were at Mary Immaculate Hospital. Joseph Guzman, 31, who Kelly said has 11 gunshot wounds, was in critical condition. Trent Benfield, 23, was shot three times and was in stable condition. Both are from Queens.

None of the three were armed.

Two police officers were taken to local hospitals. One was treated and released for an abrasion to his right shin, and another was held for observation at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset. Two Port Authority officers -- they worked at the AirTrain across the street, at the Long Island Rail Road's Jamaica terminal -- were treated and released for minor facial injuries from flying glass from vehicles at the scene.

Throughout the day, family members, the Rev. Al Sharpton and local elected officials expressed outrage and bewilderment and called for answers.

"We don't want any cover-up on either side of this," Sharpton said Saturday night outside the Far Rockaway home that Bell shared with his fiancee, Nicole Paultre, 22, and their two young daughters. He said police had incomplete information and were presenting an incomplete version of events.

Sharpton said a prayer vigil and rally would be held Sunday at noon in a park across the street from Mary Immaculate Hospital in Jamaica.

Police did not issue a report about the shooting, a departure from standard practice, and would make no official comment throughout the day.

"It's confusing as hell," said one police supervisor involved in the investigation, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The officers -- all in plainclothes -- were part of a team led by a lieutenant, carrying out what the police supervisor described as a joint narcotics/vice operation targeting the club, he said.

The supervisor said police have interviewed cops who were there but did not fire their weapons. Their accounts conflict, he said.

"It's not intentional," the supervisor said. "It's just one guy saying he didn't see anything. Another guy saying he wasn't in position. Another guy saying he only heard things."

Kelly, at his news conference, said the Kalua club had been a hot spot for trouble. "It had a chronic history of narcotics, prostitution and weapons complaints," he said.

Just before the shooting, Kelly said, one undercover officer in the club overheard a dancer who worked there complaining to a man that a patron was bothering her. The man she complained to patted his waist, Kelly said.

"He said he would take care of the problem," the commissioner said.

The officer, believing the man was armed and trouble was imminent, left the club to warn his superior and other cops, Kelly said.

Outside, the undercover cop came upon a group of eight men who seemed to be harassing a lone man. One of the men in the group, whom Kelly identified as Guzman, said, "Yo, go get my gun." Another man, whom Kelly identified as Bell, said, "We're going to -- -- you up."

Next, Kelly said, the group of eight stopped harassing the lone man and split into two groups of four, with Bell, Guzman and Benfield and a fourth man heading to Liverpool Street to a car, a Nissan Altima. The undercover officer followed them on foot, he said.

In quick succession, Kelly said, the following happened: The four men got into the Nissan just as an unmarked police Toyota Camry passed them. The undercover cop crossed Liverpool from west to east and was standing in front of the Nissan. Then, an unmarked police Ford minivan rounded the corner from 94th Avenue onto Liverpool. The Nissan pulled forward, struck the undercover cop, scraping his shin, and then crashed into the minivan. The Nissan backed up and then struck the minivan again.

That's when the shooting started, Kelly said. Kelly and other police sources said the fourth man fled the scene.

Appearing with the commissioner at One Police Plaza were seven high-ranking NYPD officials. On one easel was a large photograph of the street where the shooting occurred, taken from overhead, and on another easel was a diagram of the scene.

"The reason all these executives are here is because we've been looking at the facts of the case all day," Kelly said.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg issued a statement after Kelly's news conference.

"Although it is too early to draw conclusions about this morning's shootings in Jamaica, Queens, we know that the NYPD officers on the scene had reason to believe that an altercation involving a firearm was about to happen and were trying to stop it," Bloomberg said. "Commissioner Kelly, Deputy Mayor Wolcott and I have been in touch with community leaders throughout the day to hear their concerns and update them on what we know, and we will keep them informed as this investigation continues."

One detective on the scene shook his head as he told The Post that the shooting was "a major screw-up."

Another cop later said, "It could be like the guy with the wallet" - referring to unarmed Bronx man Amadou Diallo, who in 1999 was hit by 19 of 41 bullets fired by cops as he grabbed for his wallet.

[snip]

Among unanswered questions are:

* Why did Guzman spend half of yesterday handcuffed to his hospital bed?

* And why was Benefield shackled hand and foot to his?

Relatives said the two were initially placed under arrest, but the cuffs were removed after press inquiries.

Club photographer Roy Brown said the three friends were having a quiet, well-behaved evening at Kalua. He said they didn't have any drinks and were just enjoying the entertainment, at one point posing for pictures.

"They were just in there like the other guys, watching the girls, all having fun," he said. "None of them seemed drunk to me. They were just regular guys."

Witnesses told of chaos, screams and a barrage of gunfire near Club Kalua at 143-08 94th Avenue in Jamaica about 4:15 a.m. after Mr. Bell and his friends walked out and got into their car. Mr. Bell drove the car half a block, turned a corner and struck a black unmarked police minivan bearing several plainclothes officers.

Mr. Bell’s car then backed up onto a sidewalk, hit a storefront’s rolled-down protective gate and nearly struck an undercover officer before shooting forward and slamming into the police van again, the police said.

In response, five police officers fired at least 50 rounds at the men’s car, a silver Nissan Altima; the bullets ripped into other cars and slammed through an apartment window near the shooting scene on Liverpool Street near 94th Avenue.

[snip]

One neighbor said his car was hit by three bullets and a fourth smashed through his front window, piercing a lamp in the living room. “There was bullets all over the place,” said Paul Gomes, 31, who awoke to the barrage of gunfire and pulled his wife and children onto the floor.

Robert and Vivian Hernandez, residents of Liverpool Street, were watching television when they heard the crashing of bullets and people yelling. When the gunfire finally died down, they went outside and saw a man leaning on a fence and moaning, “They shot me in the leg.”

Mr. Kelly said that two Port Authority Police Officers suffered minor facial injuries at a nearby AirTrain facility when one of the bullets shattered a window.