A House Filibuster? Boehner Gets Help From a Leading Democrat in Effort to Kill Climate Bill

GOP Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio had a rare chance to filibuster the climate change bill tonight, and he got some help from the Democrats.

There cannot be a filibuster in the House of Representatives because House rules provide for limited amounts of time for each Representative to speak. In the Senate, there are no rules regarding how long a Senator may speak, so a filibuster may be used, unless three-fifths of Senators agree to invoke cloture, that is, end debate on an issue.

But in the House, the Speaker, Majority Leader and Minority Leader are given greater latitude to speak.

While Boehner was speaking (that is, actually reading part of the bill into record), House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., asked the chair if Boehner could continue to read and read and read. The concern was that Boehner was trying to delay the vote pass 6:30 p.m. Eastern to avoid an annoucement of an Obama victory on the network evening news shows.

“I know we have this magic minute that gives leaders a lot of extra time to speak. But I’m just wondering if there is some limit under the rules on the time that a leader may take, even though the time yielded was not 20 or 30 minutes?” Waxman asked.

Then, and here's the interesting part, instead of cutting Boehner off, the Speaker Pro Tempore, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a Democrat from California, then ruled that Boehner was in order.

That's right, a leading House Democrat ruled against her own party and her president, nearly derailing the bill by allowing the House minority leader to speak as long as he wanted to.

“It is the custom of the House is to listen to the leader’s comments,” Tauscher said to cheers of Republicans.

That could not have been comfortable for Democrats Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who was witnessing the events unfold from the back of the chamber.

Controversial Climate Bill Passes 219-212 in House

The House of Representatives passed the controversial Climate Change bill by a narrow vote tonight, 219-212. The vote on the more than 1,000-page bill was close because 44 Democrats voted against it due to fears that the cost in jobs and taxes would be overwhelming to the middle class.

The Waxman-Markey bill's ultimate cost was the center of the controversy, as described by Steven Mufson of The Washington Post.

The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that the bill would only cost U.S. households an average of $98 to $140 a year from 2010 through 2050. But government analysts acknowledged that estimates are highly uncertain and depend on such factors as the price of oil and the pace of innovation on energy efficiency, carbon capture and sequestration, as well as how people and businesses respond to higher fossil-fuel prices.

GOP leaders have tried to portray the proposal as placing a heavy cost on Americans. Boehner has asserted that the bill would raise annual energy costs by $3,128 per household in 2015 and would drive jobs out of the country. He said in an April 2 news release that that figure did not include higher costs for food and consumer goods and services. The conservative Heritage Foundation has asserted that the cost could reach $4,300 a year.

Boehner's office said that it extrapolated its per-household figure from a two-year-old study of a cap-and-trade bill co-sponsored by then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). That study, by John M. Reilly, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor, said that a cap-and-trade bill could generate $366 billion a year in revenue and that the GOP leader's office said it simply divided that by the number of households expected in 2015.

Afterward, Reilly sent a letter to Boehner accusing him of inflating the cost 10-fold by ignoring the offsetting benefits, such as tax cuts and free allowances, that are part of the current Waxman-Markey bill embraced by President Obama. Reilly said that the measure's cost for a family of four, in today's dollars, starts at about $75 in 2015, rises to nearly $510 by 2025, and then falls to $205 by 2050 as new technology works its way into power plants, building efficiency and automobiles. The average overall cost would be about $340 a year, he said.

"Concern about the cost impacts on middle and low income families needs to be focused on making sure allowance or tax revenue is used to offset cost impacts on these households rather than as an excuse for not proceeding with measures that would help avert dangerous climate change," Reilly said in an April letter.

Today's Wall Street Journal had pushed hard for rejection of the bill in this morning's editorial:

For starters, the CBO estimate is a one-year snapshot of taxes that will extend to infinity. Under a cap-and-trade system, government sets a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally; companies then buy or sell permits to emit CO2. The cap gets cranked down over time to reduce total carbon emissions.

To get support for his bill, Mr. Waxman was forced to water down the cap in early years to please rural Democrats, and then severely ratchet it up in later years to please liberal Democrats. The CBO's analysis looks solely at the year 2020, before most of the tough restrictions kick in. As the cap is tightened and companies are stripped of initial opportunities to "offset" their emissions, the price of permits will skyrocket beyond the CBO estimate of $28 per ton of carbon. The corporate costs of buying these expensive permits will be passed to consumers.

The biggest doozy in the CBO analysis was its extraordinary decision to look only at the day-to-day costs of operating a trading program, rather than the wider consequences energy restriction would have on the economy. The CBO acknowledges this in a footnote: "The resource cost does not indicate the potential decrease in gross domestic product (GDP) that could result from the cap."

But there was also a hard push for this bill's passage, not from the Democrats, but from the energy industry. Anne C. Mulkern of The New York Times reports:

E&E examined spending for 10 industries with stakes in climate and energy legislation: oil and gas, electric utilities, chemical and related manufacturing, agricultural services and products, alternate energy and production services, mining, environmental, forestry and forest products, and natural gas transmission and distribution. The industry data was compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, which uses reports filed with the House and determines the industry categories.

For half of those industries, funds for lobbying increased. For others, particularly those battered by the recession, spending stayed flat or fell. Mining spent about 24 percent less than it did a year earlier. Utility lobbying stayed about even with last year.

But for others, it was time to ramp up the persuasion.

Oil and gas companies, agricultural services and product makers, alternative energy producers, environmental groups, and those in the natural gas businesses spent more than they did last year. Within each of those categories are stories of individual companies and organizations laying out far more than they have in the past.

Those groups say they must educate Congress.

"We're spending that money to represent our member companies at a time when initiatives in the new administration and Congress will have an impact on the viability of the industry," said Robert Dodge, spokesman for the American Petroleum Institute, a trade group for about 400 small and large companies.

Others see advocacy spending more critically.

"It's influence peddling. What you're doing is trying to purchase influence," said Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program at Public Citizen, a watchdog group. "Most of the time there's a positive return on your investment."

Olbermann Mistaken in Calling Hoekstra Iraqi Trip 'Top Secret'

Keith Olbermann will stretch the facts every now and then to make a point. But last week his misuse of military terms was sloppy and incorrect; and ultimately damaging to any commentator's reputation.

Olbermann noted on June 18 that a Tweet by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., compared messages of disgruntled Republicans during a congressional squabble with the messages from bloodied Iranian protesters who say they were disenfranchised.

"This would be the same congressman who last year Tweeted the whereabouts of a top secret mission to Iraq," Olbermann said.

The problem is Hoekstra was not on a top secret mission, rather a congressional fact-finding tour. And while the military had asked that the media embargo news of the tour until it was over for security reasons, there were no restrictions on the congressional delegations to tell people about the trip. Their staff and families all knew beforehand where they were going and the reason for the trip.

During the trip, the congressman did post a number of Tweets about the trip, but none gave specific news of the delegation's whereabouts or business.

Here is PolitiFact's assessment:

Olbermann is wrong to characterize the delegation's trip as a "top secret mission to Iraq." The term "top secret" means something in military and government circles. There is a hierarchy of classified information, beginning with "confidential," graduating to "secret," "top secret" and "special classified information." You need varying levels of security clearance in order to be privy to classified information.

This trip was none of those. But more to the point, "top secret mission to Iraq" conjures images of rifle-toting troops on a highly sensitive military operation. This wasn't a military mission, it was a congressional visit. In fact, many in the news media knew about the trip, but just agreed to keep it embargoed. Hoekstra's staff knew about it. His wife knew about it.

"We're not talking about something that was classified," said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk. "Not at all. Top secret? No. We see these reported all the time in the press."

So Olbermann hasn't just exaggerated, he's incorrectly described the visit as a "top secret mission." Without knowing the background, you might think Hoekstra spilled the beans on some covert military operation. We rule Olbermann's statement False.

Iranian Cleric Supports Execution of Protest Leaders to 'Provide a Lesson'

The Associated Press is reporting this afternoon that a leading Iranian cleric, Ayatollah Ahmed Khatami, during his Friday sermon at Tehran University called for the execution of the protest leaders as a means to stopping dissent and to provide a lesson to the opposition.

"Anybody who fights against the Islamic system or the leader of Islamic society, fight him until complete destruction," he said in the nationally broadcast speech.

The cleric alleged that some involved in the unrest had used firearms.

"Anyone who takes up arms to fight with the people, they are worthy of execution," he said. "We ask that the judiciary confront the leaders of the protests, leaders of the violations, and those who are supported by the United States and Israel strongly, and without mercy to provide a lesson for all."

Khatami said those who disturbed the peace and destroyed public property were "at war with God," and said they should be "dealt with without mercy."

He reminded worshippers that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, rules by God's design and must not be defied.

The cleric also lashed out at foreign journalists, accusing them of false reporting, and singled out Britain for new criticism.

"In this unrest, Britons have behaved very mischievously and it is fair to add the slogan of 'down with England' to slogan of 'down with USA,'" he said, as his remarks were interrupted by worshippers' chants of "Death to Israel."

Meanwhile, USA TODAY's Ken Dilanian is reporting today that President Barack Obama is planning to fund groups that support Iranian dissidents. This would be a continuation of a program that became controversial when it was expanded by President George Bush, and would could contradict earlier administration statements that the United States is not providing support for the dissidents.

The U.S. Agency for International Development has for the last year been soliciting applications for $20 million in grants to "promote democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in Iran," according to documents on the agency's website. The final deadline for grant applications is June 30.

Dilanian reports:

U.S. efforts to support Iranian opposition groups have been criticized in recent years as veiled attempts to promote "regime change," said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, the largest Iranian-American advocacy group. The grants enable Iran's rulers to paint opponents as tools of the United States, he said.

Although the Obama administration has not sought to continue the Iran-specific grants in its 2010 budget, it wants a $15 million boost for the Near Eastern Regional Democracy Initiative, which has similar aims but does not specify the nations involved. Some of that money will be targeted at Iran, said David Carle, a spokesman for the appropriations subcommittee that oversees foreign affairs.

"Part of it is to expand access to information and communications through the Internet for Iranians," Carle said in an e-mail.

President Obama said this week the United States "is not at all interfering in Iran's affairs," rejecting charges of meddling that were renewed Thursday by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Asked how the democracy promotion initiatives square with the president's statement, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said, "Let's be clear: The United States does not fund any movement, faction or political party in Iran. We support . . . universal principles of human rights, freedom of speech, and rule of law."

State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said, "Respecting Iran's sovereignty does not mean our silence on issues of fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the right to peacefully protest." [The State Department oversees the USAID.]

The Bush program "was a horrible idea," Parsi said. "It made human-rights activists and non-governmental organizations targets."

Health Care: How Many Are Actually Uninsured?

We've all heard the number: 45.7 million Americans are without health care. This has been a driving argument for the passage of some kind of federally sponsored health-care program.

But is the number real? Is it overstated, or even understated?

FactCheck.org's Jess Henig took a look at the data, and comes to the conclusion that it may not be as high as that, but because of the job losses over the past months the number is likely to increase.

•The Census Bureau estimates that 45.7 million lacked health insurance at any given time in 2007. But fewer lacked coverage for the full year, and more did without for one or more months during the year. All three numbers are likely to be higher for 2008 due to massive job losses.

•Twenty-six percent of the uninsured are eligible for some form of public coverage but do not make use of it, according to The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation. This is sometimes, but not always, a matter of choice.

•Twenty-one percent of the uninsured are immigrants, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. But that figure includes both those who are here legally and those who are not. The number of illegal immigrants who are included in the official statistics is unknown.

•Twenty percent of the uninsured have family incomes of greater than $75,000 per year, according to the Census Bureau. But this does not necessarily mean they have access to insurance. Even higher-income jobs don't always offer employer-sponsored insurance, and not everyone who wants private insurance is able to get it.

•Forty percent of the uninsured are young, according to KFF. But speculation that they pass up insurance because of their good health is unjustified. KFF reports that many young people lack insurance because it's not available to them, and people who turn down available insurance tend to be in worse health, not better, according to the Institute of Medicine.

Sanford Used State Funds to Visit Mistress in Argentina Last Summer

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford said he visited his mistress in Argentina last summer on a trip that was paid for by taxpayers, and that he plans to reimburse the state.

The visit was a taxpayer-financed trade mission to South America. The admission heighten calls for his resignation.

“While the purpose of this trip was an entirely professional and appropriate business development trip,” Mr. Sanford said in an e-mail statement issued by his office to The New York Times, “I made a mistake while I was there in meeting with the woman who I was unfaithful to my wife with.”

Jim Rutenberg and Robbie Brown of the Times write:

Mr. Sanford called questions about the trip to Argentina “very legitimate” and said he would reimburse its costs. Documents provided by the South Carolina Department of Commerce suggested that they totaled at least $12,000.

Coming one day after Mr. Sanford confessed that he had spent his week’s absence from the state in Argentina with the woman with whom he had been having a year-old affair, Thursday’s admission was yet another blow to his reputation and led several fellow South Carolina Republican leaders to say he could no longer serve as governor.

“I think he’s gone, it’s over,” said one of them, Harvey S. Peeler Jr., majority leader of the State Senate. “Leaving aside his personal life, when you use taxpayer dollars, that’s what Republicans are all about — spending tax dollars wisely. This was not spending tax dollars wisely.”

Mr. Peeler said calls from his constituents were running two to one in favor of the governor’s resignation, though he said that was ultimately Mr. Sanford’s call to make.

Robert W. Harrell Jr., speaker of the Republican-controlled House, said the governor would now have to decide whether he could remain effective in office. Glenn McCall, one of the two Republican national committeemen from South Carolina, called on him to resign, as did two newspaper editorial boards in the state.

But his spokesman, Joel Sawyer, said Mr. Sanford had “no plans to resign,” adding that the governor had called a cabinet meeting for Friday. And The Associated Press reported that Mr. Sanford himself, visiting his family at their beach house on Sullivans Island, near Charleston, shook his head no when, leaving the house by car, he was asked if he planned to step down.

“His next focus is going to be on building back the trust of South Carolinians,” Mr. Sawyer said.

State Senator Thomas C. Davis, the governor’s friend and former chief of staff, said, “Mark has never been one to bow to pressure, and I haven’t heard any calls yet for impeachment.”

Report: Michael Jackson Died After Taking Demerol

The Sun newspaper in London is speculating that the medication Demerol had a part to play in Michael Jackson's death today:

An Emergency Room source at UCLA hospital said Jackson aides told medics he had collapsed after an injection of potent Demerol — similar to morphine.

A Jacko source said: “Shortly after taking the Demerol he started to experience slow shallow breathing.

“His breathing gradually got slower and slower until it stopped.

“His staff started mouth-to-mouth and an ambulance was called which got there in eight minutes “But found he was in full respiratory arrest, no breathing and no pulse. They started full CPR and rushed him to hospital.

“When he arrived they started resuscitation, giving him heart shocks and inserted a breathing tube and other supportive measures to try and save his life.

“He never regained consciousness.The family was told that he had passed.”

WebMD describes Demerol as being used to treat moderate to severe pain. It is also used before and during surgery or other procedures with other types of pain medication. Meperidine (its generic name) acts on certain centers in the brain to give you pain relief. This medication is a narcotic pain reliever similar to morphine.

Drugs.com warns that dangerous side effects or death can occur when alcohol is combined with this narcotic pain medicine, and that Demerol may be habit-forming. It also notes that an overdose can cause death.

The State Reporter Describes How She Tracked Down Sanford at Airport on a Hunch

Reporter Gina Smith wrote a first-person piece in this morning's The State of Columbia, S.C., on how her hunch concerning Gov. Mark Sanford lead her to the airport and a meeting with the now-disgraced politician. (It could be that the newspaper had the e-mails from the governor describing the love affair six months ago, but there's more.)

“Is he there? Is he there?” I kept asking myself as I craned my neck, flipped on my digital recorder and booted up my digital camera.

It’s how you think when you’re playing a hunch, following an anonymous tip that Sanford would be on the plane and anonymous, unverifiable e-mails about an alleged affair between Sanford and woman from Argentina.

Then, my jaw dropped when Sanford appeared. My camera flashed, almost as a reflex.

“Governor,” I called. “Hey. It’s Gina with The State paper. Everybody’s been worried about where you’ve been. ... Have you been on the Appalachian Trail?”

“Well, that’s where I had planned to go when I decided to take a break ...” Sanford said, his voice trailing off. He suggested we grab a seat and have a talk.

Ahmadinejad Rejects Obama's Open Hand Gesture

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today rebuffed any notion of welcoming President Barack Obama's "open hand" gesture in remarks quoted in The New York Times and attributed to the Iranian Fars news agency.

Obama had sent a letter to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, before the election calling for an improvement in relations, The Washington Times reported on Wednesday.

The Fars news agency quoted Ahmadinejad today as saying in remarks addressed to Mr. Obama, “I hope you will avoid interfering in Iran’s affairs and express regret in a way that the Iranian people are informed of it.”

Apparently brushing aside Mr. Obama’s offers, made in the early days of his presidency, of a dialogue with Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad said, “Mr. Obama made a mistake to say those things.”

“Our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously Bush used to say,” he said, according to Fars, quoted in western news agency reports.

Meanwhile, Iranian opposition leader Mir-Hossein Moussavi told Reuters that despite the violence, he has no plans to give up the fight for an annulment of the election results:

I am pressured to abandon my demand for the vote annulment … a major rigging has happened … I am prepared to prove that those behind the rigging are responsible for the bloodshed … Continuation of legal and calm protests will guarantee achieving our goals.

Seventy Iranian academic leaders were arrested yesterday after they met with opposition leader Mir-Hossein Moussavi, the defeated presidential candidate's website says today.

It is unclear where they are being held or for how long they will be detained.
According to state media, 17 people have died in the violence that has gripped the country, and opposition forces say hundreds have been held.

The Times reported:

The official Iranian news agency reported that intelligence and security agents in Tehran concluded that a Moussavi campaign office was used for “illegal gatherings, the promotion of unrest, and efforts to undermine the country’s security,” leading to speculation that Mr. Moussavi could be arrested. The news agency reported that “the plotters have been arrested.”

How the Neda Video Became the Most Important Image of the Iranian Protests

Bill Mitchell, writing for Poynter, explains the impact of the video of Neda's death during a protest in Tehran has affected how news is being covered.

The mention of her name at a presidential news conference reflected the extent to which Neda Soltani had become, as Malveaux put it, "the human face" of the weekend's dramatic events in Iran.

But the brief exchange between correspondent and president also represented something of particular relevance to journalists: a big step in a process that transformed a horrible but isolated event in Iran into international news.

It's a process -- call it Next Step Journalism -- that will shape more and more of the news we need from around the block and around the globe.Journalists have relied on a process approach to writing for years.

The Next Step Journalism process practiced on the Neda story began with an event and is characterized by the collective sharing and enhancing of information.

Such a process provides lots of opportunities for journalists and non-journalists alike to assess what a story needs next, figure out what he or she is best equipped to contribute, and move the story along.

He breaks it down into seven steps: documentation, context. transmission and distribution, verification, correction, analysis and sense-making.

In his piece, Mitchell dissects the process and how a short 30-second video made from a cell phone became the journalistic focus of what could be the biggest story of the year.

The State Publishes Excerpts of Sanford's E-mails to Lover in Argentina

The State of Columbia, S.C., published excerpts of e-mails sent by S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford to Maria, a woman in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

They were sent on Standofrd's personal e-mail account and obtained by The State in December. The newspaper did not explain why it held the e-mails for six months. It will publish the full exchange tomorrow.

The State removed the woman's full name and other personal details, including her address, e-mail address and children's names.

You have a particular grace and calm that I adore. You have a level of sophistication that so fitting with your beauty. I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night’s light - but hey, that would be going into sexual details.

S.C. Governor Sanford Admits Affair With Woman in Argentina; Wife Cites Trial Separation

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford tearfully admitted today to having an extramarital affair with a woman from Argentina, where he spent the Father's Day weekend without apparently telling his wife and staff.

The admission jeopardizes his marriage as well as his political aspirations, especially for the presidential race in 2012. He also faces the possibility of losing his position as governor.

Sanford has already resigned as chairman of the Republican Governors' Association and was replaced by Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, another possible 2012 candidate.

"Any aspirations for 2012, if he had any, are certainly out of the question," Robert Oldendick, a political scientist at the University of South Carolina, told Matthew Bigg of Reuters.

When he first went missing, his staff had said that the governor was hiking on the Appalachian Trail. His wife Jenny Sanford, when contacted by a reporter, had said she did not know where he was.

His wife laste this afternoon in which she said that she asked her husband to leave two weeks after learning about his infidelity. She calls it a "trial separation."

She also said she remained "willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance." Here is her statement:

I would like to start by saying I love my husband and I believe I have put forth every effort possible to be the best wife I can be during our almost twenty years of marriage. As well, for the last fifteen years my husband has been fully engaged in public service to the citizens and taxpayers of this state and I have faithfully supported him in those efforts to the best of my ability. I have been and remain proud of his accomplishments and his service to this state.

I personally believe that the greatest legacy I will leave behind in this world is not the job I held on Wall Street, or the campaigns I managed for Mark, or the work I have done as First Lady or even the philanthropic activities in which I have been routinely engaged. Instead, the greatest legacy I will leave in this world is the character of the children I, or we, leave behind. It is for that reason that I deeply regret the recent actions of my husband Mark, and their potential damage to our children.

I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity, dignity and importance of the institution of marriage. I believe that has been consistently reflected in my actions. When I found out about my husband's infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage. We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago.

This trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage. During this short separation it was agreed that Mark would not contact us. I kept this separation quiet out of respect of his public office and reputation, and in hopes of keeping our children from just this type of public exposure. Because of this separation, I did not know where he was in the past week.

I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal. I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage.

Psalm 127 states that sons are a gift from the Lord and children a reward from Him. I will continue to pour my energy into raising our sons to be honorable young men. I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.

This is a very painful time for us and I would humbly request now that members of the media respect the privacy of my boys and me as we struggle together to continue on with our lives and as I seek the wisdom of Solomon, the strength and patience of Job and the grace of God in helping to heal my family.

Obama Sent Letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Urging Cooperation, Report Says

President Barack Obama sent a letter to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, calling for an improvement in relations, according to interviews and the leader himself, Barbara Slavin of The Washington Times is reporting.

Ayatollah Khamenei confirmed the letter toward the end of a lengthy sermon last week, the Times said, in which he accused the United States of fomenting protests in his country in the aftermath of the disputed June 12 presidential election.

Obama's olive branch offer is consistent with his campaign promise to sit down with leaders of nations that sponsor terrorism without preconditions. It is also in alignment with his inauguration day promise "that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."

The letter was sent before the election, and its exact contents are not known. Administration officials have been reluctant to talk about the letter a day after Obama gave his strongest condemnation yet of the Iranian crackdown against protesters.

The Washington Times quoted an anonymous Iranian government source as saying that the letter was sent between May 4 and May 10, and laid out the prospect of "cooperation in regional and bilateral relations" and a resolution of the dispute over Iran's nuclear program.

The Iranian told the Times the letter was given to the Iranian Foreign Ministry by a representative of the Swiss Embassy, which represents U.S. interests in Iran in the absence of U.S.-Iran diplomatic relations. The letter was then delivered to the office of Ayatollah Khamenei, the Times said.

Swedish Ambassador to North Korea Visits Euna Lee and Laura Ling

Euna Lee and Laura Ling, the two detained American journalists in North Korea, were visited by the Swedish ambassador in Pyongyang, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said in Washington.

The United States has not received a full report on the meeting from Mats Foyer, the ambassador, Kelly said. He reiterated that Washington continues to press Kim Jong Il’s regime to release the pair.

Sweden represents U.S. interests in North Korea in the absence of diplomatic relations.

The two women were abducted along the Chinese border on March 17 while reporting for Current TV, co-founded by former Vice President Al Gore, on the human trafficking of women. They were sentenced to 12 years of hard labor for "hostile acts," presumably crossing the border. Diplomats in Beijing have said that it is questionable that the pair actually crossed the border.

Globe, Unions Reach Tentative Deal on $10 Million in Cuts

The Boston Globe and the Guild reasched a tentative agreement last night on $10 million in wage and benefit cuts. The unratified deal is structured to make the 137-year-old newspaper more attractive to a buyer.

It provides a smaller pay cut - 5.9 percent - in exchange for deeper benefit reductions. It eliminates lifetime job guarantees for about 170 veteran Boston Newspaper Guild employees, and freezing the pension plan.

“Our aim throughout our negotiations has been to achieve the necessary savings in a way that causes the least hardship for our employees,’’ said Globe publisher P. Steven Ainsley in a statement. “We’re very pleased to have reached an agreement that accomplishes those goals.’’

Union president Daniel Totten was quoted in the Globe as saying: “It’s been an exhausting process and a very difficult process for the members."

The Guild represents nearly 700 editorial, advertising, and business office employees. A vote has been set for July 20. The first offer failed by 12 votes out of more than 500 cast.

Obama Moves Press Conference Inside, TelePrompter and All

It was a mad scramble yesterday as President Barack Obama decided at the last moment to move the press conference from the Rose Garden to the White House briefing room.

Flags and podiums had to be moved back and forth. But most importantly, Obama’s TelePrompters were relocated so the president would know what to say in his opening remarks.

The hot, humid weather prompted the move. Presidential aides said it was uncomfortable for everyone, but it's also sure that they didn't want any images of Obama with sweat stains on a white shirt.

Obama's Words: What He Doesn't Mention Is Just as Important

So, what did President Barack Obama fail to mention during his 55-minute press conference yesterday? Mike Allen of POLITICO has an interesting take this morning:

A couple of surprising words were missing from President Barack Obama’s 55-minute news conference on Wednesday: “Iraq” — and “Afghanistan.”

Also MIA: “Korea,” “Pakistan,” “soldiers,” “surge” and “war” — as well as the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

The omissions were partly a result of the short attention span of the press, which did not ask about those topics after the president did not mention them in his opening statement.

But the silence on those subjects also provides a striking illustration of one of the singular differences between Obama and his predecessor.

Whereas President George W. Bush invoked his status as wartime commander in chief so often that it seemed like a crutch, Obama has much more of a domestic focus, and resists rhetorical calls to arms like “war on terror.”

It’s the Mars and Venus of the 43rd and 44th presidencies.

David Axelrod, Obama’s senior adviser, said the president’s aides have never had a conversation about balancing the role of commander in chief with domestic-policy priorities.

“He feels equally comfortable on each role,” Axelrod said. “His focus isn’t just solving the problems as we find them, but hopefully forestalling some for the future.”

Obama aides say that the attack of 9/11 made war central to Bush’s presidency, whereas a twice-in-a-century recession has forced them to multitask — restoring the economy at the same time the president was engineering a surge of troops into Afghanistan.

CNN Looks at Neda, the Person

CNN takes a look at who was Neda Agha Sultan, the Iranian woman whose death was caught on a cell phone video and who has becaome a rallying point for protesters in that country.

The second of three children, Neda lived with her parents in a middle-class neighborhood east of Tehran.

She was a happy, positive person. Though she studied philosophy and religion at the Azad Islamic University, she was more spiritual than religious. She also loved music. She once studied violin but had given it up and was planning to take up piano next. She had just bought a piano, but it had not yet been delivered.

Her demeanor was typically calm, even serene, but she had a quirky, playful sense of humor. A friend recalled that once, when Neda was visiting her friend's house, she picked up a white Teddy bear, took off her big, purple-studded earrings and put them on the bear. Then she removed a necklace from around the neck of a friend and put it around the bear's neck, taking delight in the bear's transformation.

She liked to travel, having visited Turkey three months ago with a tour group. And she believed in human rights, her friend said.

Reports: U.S. Strike in Pakistan Kills 50 Taliban Militants at Funeral Procession

At least 50 people have been killed and scores others injured after U.S. drones fired several missiles on what Washington calls insurgents' targets in the troubled northwest Pakistan, accroding to PressTV, a news network funded by the Iranian government that broadcasts in English.

Western media, including the BBC, have identified the dead as Taliban militants.

The causalities occurred when three drones fired missiles on Tuesday afternoon at the funeral procession in the South Waziristan bordering Afghanistan, according to the Iranian report. The missiles hit the funeral of people who were killed earlier in the day during a similar strike in the volatile region, the report said.

At least eight people were killed and a dozen other injured in the first U.S. strike by an unmanned drone aircraft hit near Makeen village, 60 kilometres (37 miles) northeast of Wana, the main town in South Waziristan, the report said.

The Khaleej Times, an English language daily newspaper published from Dubai, United Arab Emirates,
has this report:

The attacks came hours after a militant leader who had defected from Pakistani Taliban head Baitullah Mehsud was assassinated by an “infiltrator” in the adjoining district of North Western Frontier Province.

A pilotless aircraft on Tuesday morning fired three missiles to target a hideout used regularly by Mehsud’s fighter in South Waziristan, a security official said on condition of anonymity.

“The missiles hit a Taliban markaz (centre) in the Makeen (area), killing at least seven Taliban,” the official said. Four more militants were injured and two vehicles were destroyed by the strike.

Later, as Taliban members were attending the funeral of their dead comrades, another suspected US drone fired four guided missiles at them.

“Our local sources are saying that 45 people have died and more than 60 are injured,” said the official.

“Almost all of those killed and injured are Taliban and a senior commander of Mehsud’s, Sangeen Khan is confirmed dead, while there are reports that Mehsud’s deputy, Qari Hussain, might also have died.

It seems that Taliban have suffered huge losses, its a major setback for them, he added.

Another intelligence official put the death toll at 50 and claimed that Taliban chief Mehsud himself was attending the funeral. “We are trying to confirm whether he died in the strike or managed to survive it.”

The first drone strike came around two and half hours after Taliban commander, Qari Zainuddin, who had defected Mehsud was shot dead in his compound in the town of Dera Ismail Khan, located adjacent to South Waziristan.

Obama on Iran Riots: 'It's heartbreaking'

President Barack Obama expressed his disappointment at the situation in Iran. "It's heartbreaking, and I think that anybody who sees it knows there's something fundamentally unjust" going on, he said.

Here is video of his comment on Iran: