US Military Says More of Baghdad Under Control, but Casualties Remain High,The commander of U.S. troops in Baghdad says al-Qaida cells are being cornered into fighting rather than fleeing the new offensive by his forces and the Iraqi army. Major General Joseph Fil says the result is continuing high U.S. casualties, but also progress toward taking control of previously hostile neighborhoods. VOA's Al Pessin reports from the Pentagon.


US soldiers prepare to search homes in the Dora neighborhood of Baghdad, June 28, 2007
Speaking via satellite from Baghdad, General Fil pointed to an insurgent attack on Thursday that involved a large bomb, rocket-propelled grenades and small arms fire, resulting in the deaths of five American soldiers and the wounding of six more.

"Well, it was a very violent attack," he said. "And we did think it showed a level of sophistication we had not often seen so far in this campaign."

General Fil says insurgents are confronting U.S. troops that way because their freedom of movement has been restricted by the surge of U.S. and Iraqi troops into the city and its surrounding areas.

"They have previously been, frankly, elusive when we actually got into an area and started to clear it," he added. "And we're seeing that in this area of East Rashid they're standing and fighting, and we're fully prepared for that."

General Fil provided statistics to back up his claim that the new Baghdad Security Plan is working. He said in April about 19 percent of the capital's neighborhoods were under control. He said that is up to 48 percent now, with another 36 percent of neighborhoods in the process of being cleared of insurgents.

Still, the general would not predict when the city might be fully under control, or how much of the job might be done by September, when senior officials are to make a progress report to the U.S. Congress.

"I am certainly cognizant of that, but I can tell you that we haven't altered any of our plans based on this date, which will be an important one, but it will come and go," he said.

General Fil says the number of insurgent attacks is down in Baghdad, and their overall impact has been reduced. But he says the insurgents are burying larger and larger bombs in the path of U.S. troops, like the one that exploded Thursday. That keeps the U.S. casualty rate high, but the general says casualties are not a good measure of success or failure, because they result in part from the higher operational tempo of his forces since the new security plan went into effect in January.

At a Pentagon news conference Friday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said a special Pentagon task force is working hard to find ways to protect troops from the bombs, through technology, neighborhood diplomacy and military operations.

"This is not a problem, I think, that's going to be confined to Iraq. And so we need to keep working on it and find ways to protect our soldiers and marines,"
Secretary Gates said that includes developing relationships with local leaders who can help monitor activities in their neighborhoods. General Fil says there is a major effort to do that in Baghdad, with a formal application and vetting process for former insurgents who want to cooperate with the government. He says the program gets 300 applicants a day who are willing to swear allegiance and come under Iraqi army or police control.

General Fil also says his forces are finding more Iranian munitions in Baghdad.

"There's no doubt that they're coming out of Iran," he noted. "Most of them are made fairly recently, in the past several years, and they have lot numbers that we can trace through to Iran."

The general says the Iranian weapons are mainly rockets and mortar shells, and many of them are being fired from the mainly Shi'ite Sadr City neighborhood into the heavily protected Green Zone, where the U.S. embassy and Iraqi government buildings are located.

Bush and Putin to pursue new detente over Maine lobster,US President George W. Bush will offer up lobster and Atlantic breezes as he seeks to ease relations with Russia Sunday when he welcomes President Vladimir Putin at the Bush seaside vacation home here.

With issues including the missile defense system the US wants to install in Eastern Europe and Kosovo's independence having taken the superpowers' relationship to the lowest point since the end of the Cold War, the leaders will seek to bridge the fissures which have grown over the past year.

The relationship appeared to plunge in recent months, with Putin suggesting in Red Square on May 9 that US policies were beginning to resemble those of Hitler's Third Reich.

One month later, while in Prague, Bush strongly assailed the state of democracy in Russia under Putin.

"Reforms that once promised to empower citizens have been derailed, with troubling implications for democratic development," he said.

The two leaders appeared to strike up a close bond after Bush became president in 2001. But their differences now dominate the relationship.

Putin opposes the US fight in Iraq; Washington wants to see Kosovo move toward independence under the UN's guide, while Moscow is deeply opposed; and Russia sees the US's proposed deployment of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic as a threat.

Washington insists that the system is targetted at possible missile attacks from a rogue state such as Iran. But the Kremlin does not believe the threat exists.

"The stationing of new military devices in Europe will lead to a debalancing of a very fragile balance of security," Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told foreign journalists Friday.

"If the US is deploying a radar in the Czech Republic this radar will be aimed against us, because there won't be any other targets for that radar," Peskov said.

Both sides say not to expect any formal agreements out of the summit at the Bush family holiday home on a rocky outcrop overlooking the Atlantic, where former president George H.W. Bush is also present. The disagreements are too strong for that, experts say.

The White House emphasized that areas of positive cooperation between the superpowers, such as stifling Iran's and North Korea's nuclear ambitions, could also be part of discussions.

But the time together between the two leaders -- though less than 24 hours over Sunday and Monday -- could serve to strengthen their personal rapport toward the end of improving the tone of diplomatic relations.

Bush wants to meet in an informal setting "so that the two leaders could interact more informally, and that's what the meeting at Kennebunkport will facilitate," said a senior Bush administration official.

"So it is not a formal summit where you should be looking for communiques, joint statements, major initiatives -- that's not its purpose," the official said.

Locals have branded it "the lobster summit" -- a reference to the local specialty, which will be one the menu when the two leaders dine.

As Bush prepared for his meetings with Putin he took a fishing excursion with his father Friday and a mountain bike ride Saturday.

He made no comment on the two car bombs discovered and defused in London on Friday or the attempt to crash a blazing vehicle into the Glasgow airport terminal Saturday.

But White House spokesman Tony Snow said that Bush was kept current with the news from Britain, as the government beefed up security at US airports.

"The president was briefed before, during and after the bike ride on ongoing developments in London, and continues to be briefed during the day regardless where he may be," Snow said.

Kennebunkport, one of Maine's chic coastal tourist towns, prepared for the Russian leaders' arrival as well, with one local establishment offering up a new drink, "Putin Punch," made with rum and pineapple and orange juice.

The town is also expecting a group of protesters to descend on Sunday, demonstrating against Bush, the Iraq war and Russia's policy towards rebellious Chechnya.

Bush defeated on immigration,The US Senate dealt a fatal blow on Thursday to President George Bush's planned overhaul of immigration policy, dashing the hopes of millions of immigrants seeking legal status.In a make or break vote that exposed deep lack of support among Bush's own Republicans, the legislation fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed in the 100-member Senate to advance toward a final vote.

A visibly crestfallen Bush conceded defeat and said he was moving on to other issues like balancing the federal budget when it became clear the bill would not be revived during his presidency.

"A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground (on immigration), it didn't work," Bush said during a visit to the Naval War College in Rhode Island.

Supporters of the bill, fruit of months of negotiations between a group of Republican and Democratic senators and the White House, were dismayed by the vote and said it was unlikely Congress would tackle comprehensive immigration reform before next year's presidential election.

"No one benefits now, there is nothing to look forward ... it's very disappointing," Rosa Rosales, the national president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, told Reuters.

Bush has sought to overhaul US immigration laws for years and this bill was seen as his last chance for a significant domestic legislative victory before leaving office at the end of his second term in January 2009.

The president was unable to overcome fierce opposition from fellow Republicans who said it was an amnesty that rewarded an estimated 12 million immigrants for taking up residence in the United States illegally. A majority of Republicans in the US House of Representatives also opposed the Senate bill.

Even the promise of an additional $4.4 billion to pay for more border security and enforcement did not quell Republican opposition.

"We tried and we failed," said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who helped negotiate the compromise bill.

The bill failed to garner even a simple Senate majority. Only 46 senators - 33 Democrats, 12 Republicans and 1 independent - voted to advance the bill. Some 15 Democrats joined 37 Republicans and 1 independent to block the legislation.

The bill tied tough border security and workplace enforcement measures to a plan to legalize illegal immigrants and create a temporary worker program sought by business groups. It also would have created a new merit-based system for future immigrants, something conservative Republicans sought.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, called the bill's defeat "a profound disappointment" and said it amounted to a "silent amnesty" for illegal immigrants.

Most Americans agree it would be impossible to deport all illegal immigrants. Businesses say massive deportations would create a huge labour shortfall.

Farmers have warned of rotting crops if Congress failed to enact the bill.

Some supporters of the bill, referring to strong emotions among constituents on the immigration issue, blamed radio talk show hosts for whipping up the opposition.

But Republican opponents of the bill said Bush should give up on broad immigration reform and concentrate on keeping illegal immigrants out.

The bill that ran aground on Thursday was also opposed by some labour unions, who said its temporary worker program would have created an underclass of cheap labourers. Immigrant groups opposed measures in the bill that limited migration on the basis of family ties.

Supporters of the bill were crushed.

"We were looking to politicians for leadership on this issue, and there has been none and it's deeply disappointing," said Sheridan Bailey, president of Ironco Enterprises in Phoenix and a co-founder of Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform.

Los Angeles Roman Catholic Cardinal Roger Mahony, who has emerged as a national religious champion of efforts for immigration reforms, said, "Each day that this status quo is permitted to exist is a moral failure for our nation, as well as a legislative one."

1985: Beirut ordeal ends for US hostages,All 39 Americans being held captive by the Shia Muslim Amal militia in Lebanon have been released, after almost three weeks in captivity.
Their freedom was secured after intervention by the Syrian President Hafiz al-Assad. The White House said no deal had been done with the captors.

The hostages were driven in a Red Cross convoy from Beirut to Syrian capital Damascus, 17 days after the plane they were on was hijacked by two members of the extremist Islamic Jihad group.

Most of the passengers were freed hours after the Lebanese gunmen diverted the TWA Rome - Athens flight to Beirut on 14 June, demanding the release of 766 Shia Muslims imprisoned in Israel.

But 40 Americans were forced to remain on the plane. One of their number - US Navy diver Robert Stethem - was killed on the first day of the crisis and his body dumped on the airport tarmac.

Thirty-five of the Americans were imprisoned in various Beirut safe-houses by the Amal militia for most of their ordeal, but four were being held by the radical Hezbollah group.

The freedom of these men is reported to have been obtained by President Assad, who contacted two of the most extreme Shia leaders to order their release.


We thank you from the bottom of our hearts

Hostage Allyn Conwell

The group finally left for Damascus at 1545 (1245 GMT) after 24 hours of confusion and uncertainty about whether they would be freed.

Some of the hostages praised their treatment by the Amal militia, saying it had guaranteed the group's safety and looked after their welfare.

The hostages' spokesman, Allyn Conwell, told reporters at a news conference they were all very relieved to be free.

"For anyone and everyone who has prayed for us, talked for us, waited for us or hoped for us - we thank you from the bottom of our hearts,

Subpoena scuffle could play out in court, Dick Cheney, top left, told Justice Department officials in March 2004 he disagreed with their objections to secret surveillance. The White House dispatched then Chief of Staff Andrew Card, bottom left, and Alberto Gonzales, to get approval disclosed this and that eight Justice officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller, top center, were ready to resign if the White House pursued the issue

Q&A EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE

It's not in the Constitution and there's no law on the books. But ever since George Washington refused to release his War Department correspondence, presidents have asserted their authority to keep Congress from probing into presidential affairs.

The skirmish is part of a long-standing power struggle between the executive and legislative branches, a fight that the courts have historically tried to avoid joining.

Despite more than a century of wrangling, the line between executive power and congressional oversight remains blurry.

Q: If executive privilege isn't a law, how can the president just refuse to comply with a congressional subpoena?

A: It's a principle rather than a law. It's rooted in the idea that the three branches of government must be independent. The president is basically telling Congress that, to do his job, he needs to be able to have private conversations with his advisers without having those conversations picked apart by Congress.

Q: Didn't the Supreme Court already settle this when it ordered President Nixon to surrender his Watergate tapes?

A: No. The 1974 decision in U.S. v. Nixon held the president could not withhold the tapes from federal prosecutors as part of a criminal investigation. The high court made it clear it wasn't wading into the thorny issue of whether presidents can refuse demands from Congress.

Q: What happens now?

A: As a practical matter, the two sides will likely keep negotiating until they reach a compromise. That's how it normally has worked, because neither side wants this to escalate into a court battle.

Q: But could it?

A: The Judiciary Committee and the full Senate could vote to cite witnesses for contempt and refer the matter to the local U.S. attorney to bring before a grand jury. Since 1975, 10 senior administration officials have been cited but the disputes were all resolved before getting to court. No president has mounted a court fight to keep his aides from testifying on Capitol Hill.

Q: If the line is so murky, why not fight this out and resolve it for good?

A: Nobody wants to lose. The White House knows that the judicial branch has not recently been kind to the presidency in fights over subpoenas, and the privilege they are asserting is not rooted in the Constitution. Lawmakers, meanwhile, risk seeing a judge permanently curtail their power to summon presidential aides to Capitol Hill. That would take away a lot of their power in political disputes.

Q: Is this just a partisan dispute, a Republican/Democrat thing?

A: Presidents of both parties have asserted the privilege. But political gamesmanship usually dictates how these disputes are resolved. Sometimes the president wins, such as when President Eisenhower kept officials from testifying at Sen. Joe McCarthy's hearings. Other times, Congress wins, such when Nixon reluctantly let aides testify about the Watergate break-in.

President Bush moved closer Thursday to a legal showdown with Congress over investigations of the White House.
For only the second time since he's been in office, Bush formally invoked executive privilege, blocking congressional subpoenas for two former top aides involved in the disputed dismissals of U.S. attorneys.

Now Congress must decide whether to take Bush to court or seek contempt citations against former White House counsel Harriet Miers and ex-political director Sara Taylor.

"We will take the necessary steps to enforce our subpoenas," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Leahy described the executive privilege claim as "Nixonian stonewalling."

White House counsel Fred Fielding, echoing the arguments of previous presidents, said Congress does not have the right to compel information about internal administration deliberations.

"Presidents must be able to depend upon their advisers and other executive branch officials speaking candidly," Fielding said in a letter to Leahy and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

The White House is still offering Miers and Taylor for private interviews with Congress, provided it withdraw the subpoenas. Leahy and Conyers have called that option unacceptable, in part because the White House has forbidden transcripts of the interviews.

The House and Senate judiciary panels are investigating the White House's role in the dismissals. Leahy and Conyers say those firings were politically motivated. Fielding noted that U.S. attorneys serve at the discretion of presidents.

Bush's executive privilege claim came a day after Leahy's panel said it would subpoena White House documents on Bush's warrantless wiretapping program. White House officials did not say how Bush would respond, but it is likely executive privilege would be invoked again. White House spokesman Tony Fratto called the latest subpoenas a "gross overreach."

This turf war between the executive and legislative branches of government is as old as the presidency. In 1796, George Washington refused to give Congress documents about treaty negotiations with England.

The most famous executive privilege case involved President Nixon's unsuccessful efforts to shield White House tapes from Watergate investigators. The Supreme Court ruled that the needs of a criminal probe outweighed the president's privilege. Similar rulings were made against President Clinton during the investigation into his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky.

Vice President Cheney beat back efforts by Congress to get him to disclose information about his energy task force, though he did not specifically invoke executive privilege in that instance.

In 2001, Bush invoked the claim for the first time to keep Congress from reviewing prosecutors' notes from past federal investigations. Bush and Congress eventually cut a deal for some of the information.

Mark Rozell, author of Executive Privilege: Presidential Power, Secrecy and Accountability, said Bush must prove "the necessity of presidential secrecy under these circumstances" if this dispute goes to the courts. Congress, he said, must show the information sought is "absolutely necessary."

White House press secretary Tony Snow said it's too early to discuss potential court action. "It's really up to Congress now," he said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.