Washed It!

The first great American autobiographies both appeared in the 19th century, were born of conflict and written by public men — “The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass” and “The Personal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant.”

Since then, what we might call the publishing-industrial complex has turned the reminiscences of our public men and women into a never-ending stream. As former President George W. Bush — barely two years out of office — points out in the acknowledgement of his memoir, “Decision Points,” virtually every member of his extended, very political family has published a bestseller, including his parents’ dogs.

Where does Bush’s account of his astonishingly eventful eight years rank in such company? Probably far higher than many of his detractors expected. As Bush writes in “Decision Points,” he enjoys surprising those who underestimate him. As the title suggests, the former chief executive elected to abandon the usual chronological approach to these volumes (except for a brief, obligatory foray into childhood and school years) in favor of his recollection of his presidency’s key choices and the personal decisions that Bush says prepared him to make them.

Foremost among the latter were his conversion to active Christianity, which he attributes to an after-dinner talk that evangelist Billy Graham gave to the extended Bush family at their Maine compound, and to participation in his male friends’ Crawford, Texas Bible study group. According to Bush, he continued to read the Bible every morning of his presidency — like his daily run, a comforting habit. Bush credits his religious awakening, along with a growing sense of obligation to his wife and daughters, with his other foundational personal choice: the decision to quit drinking after a night of boorish overindulgence in celebration of his Laura’s 40th birthday. It’s a change Bush credits with making possible his subsequent public life.

Leaks and an active publicity campaign of television and radio appearances have made many of the substantial points Bush makes rather familiar. Essentially, “Decision Points” confirms many of the better nonfiction accounts of his presidency published while he was in office, particularly Bob Woodward’s four volumes and Robert Draper’s “Dead Certain.” The Bush White House may not have been given to doubts or its chief executive to indecision, but it did have a penchant for ad hoc deliberation, stubborn persistence in the face of failure — as in Iraq up to the surge — excessive personal loyalty and for being “blind-sided” by events beyond the unforeseeable tragedy of 9/11.

Nearly midway through “Decision Points,” Bush writes that, “History can debate the decisions I made, the policies I chose, and the tools I left behind. But there can be no debate about one fact: After the nightmare of September 11, America went seven and a half years without another successful terrorist attack on our soil. If I had to summarize my most meaningful accomplishment as president in one sentence, that would be it.”

For that reason, Bush is singularly unapologetic and clear about the fact that he personally ordered the torture of key Al Qaeda members, who CIA interrogators were convinced held information of other planned terrorist attacks. (Bush also continues to insist that waterboarding is not torture.) When then-CIA Director George Tenet asked whether he had permission to waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind, Bush replied, “Damn right.” Bush writes that about 100 “terrorists” were placed in the CIA interrogation program and that about a third “were questioned using enhanced interrogation”; three were waterboarded. All, according to Bush, gave up usable intelligence that thwarted other acts of terrorism. Other reports have contradicted that assertion, but Bush is firm on the point.

Similarly, he writes that his stomach still churns over the fact that he and the rest of the country were misled by faulty intelligence concerning Saddam Hussein’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, but that the nation and world still are better off with the Iraqi dictator deposed. His only real regret, in fact, is that he failed to act more rapidly and decisively when Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans.

Many readers will be surprised by Bush’s warm account of his cooperative relationship with the late Sen. Edward Kennedy and his disappointment that they were unable to push through comprehensive immigration reform, which both felt was within a vote or two of their grasp. Given the contentious political use Karl Rove and other Bush aides made of abortion, readers also may be interested in the former president’s unfailingly respectful discussion of the abortion-rights advocates with whom he disagrees. (There’s also something amusing about Bush’s account of urging the late Pope John Paul II not to waver in his pro-life convictions.)

Actually, one of the impressions that arises repeatedly in “Decision Points” is how much civility and bi-partisan cooperation matter to Bush. “The death spiral of decency during my time in office, exacerbated by the advent of 24-hour cable news and hyper-partisan political blogs, was deeply disappointing,” he writes.

Looking back on his exit from office, Bush recalls, “I reflected on everything we were facing. Over the past few weeks we had seen the failure of America’s two largest mortgage entities, the bankruptcy of a major investment bank, the sale of another, the nationalization of the world’s largest insurance company, and now the most drastic intervention in the free market since the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. At the same time, Russia had invaded and occupied Georgia, Hurricane Ike had hit Texas, and America was fighting a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan. This was one ugly way to end the presidency.”

There’s a great deal in that statement of what this unexpectedly engrossing memoir suggests is the essential George W. Bush — a disarming candor, for example, combined with almost alarming off-handedness about the implications of what’s being said. The man and the president portrayed in these pages is, at the same time, passive and strong; intelligent but not curious; a public person apparently at his best in private; willing to admit shortcomings, but not particularly self-critical; unfailingly civil himself, but happily surrounded by bare-knuckle partisans. There is a kind of pragmatic courage that makes a leader fearless of contradictions. Bush, for his part, seems oblivious to them.

Immediately after the admission that his presidency was coming to an “ugly” end, Bush adds, “I didn’t feel sorry for myself. Self-pity is a pathetic quality in a leader…. As well, I was comforted by my conviction that the Good Lord wouldn’t give a believer a burden he couldn’t handle.”

One suspects that Bush hopes to have the way in which he bore his unexpected burdens compared to the service of another wartime president, Lincoln. “Decision Points” records that, during his eight years in the Oval Office, Bush read 14 books on the first Republican commander-in-chief.

Somehow, though, it isn’t the Great Emancipator who comes to mind at the end of this memoir, but Shakespeare’s Macbeth:

“To know my deed, ’twere best not know myself.”

timothy.rutten@latimes.com
Book review: ‘Decision Points’ by George W. Bush

They’re called “floating cities,” massive cruise ships that resemble skyscrapers and offer all the amenities of high-end resorts — spas and casinos, Broadway shows and amusement parks, fine dining and luxury shopping.

But the Carnival Splendor also offers a cautionary tale about just how vulnerable these mega-ships can be. Left powerless by an engine fire shortly after embarking on a seven-day cruise to the Mexican Riviera, the Splendor is expected to be towed into port in San Diego late Thursday. If the ship cannot make sufficient speed under tow, it is possible it will be taken to Ensenada, company officials said.

An early morning fire in the generator compartment Monday knocked out several of the ship’s operating systems and left the nearly 4,500 passengers and crew members without air conditioning, hot food and telephone service. Even the flush toilets were down for a while.

With communications largely cut off, it’s unclear what kind of hardship passengers have had to endure. But Carnival Chief Executive Gerry Cahill acknowledged in a statement that passengers were dealing with an “extremely trying situation.”

“Conditions on board the ship are very challenging, and we sincerely apologize for the discomfort and inconvenience our guests are currently enduring,” he said.

The “gourmet delicacies” of the “Manhattan chic” Pinnacle Steakhouse were replaced by 70,000 pounds of bread, canned milk and other emergency supplies, which were flown from the North Island Naval Air Station at Coronado to the U.S. aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan and then helicoptered out to the Splendor, stranded 160 miles southwest of San Diego. The company is paying the military for the food and supplies, officials said.

“There are significant risks as these ships get bigger and bigger,” said Kendall Carver, president of International Cruise Victims. “This one held over 4,000 people. The new ones owned by Royal Caribbean hold over 6,000 passengers and 2,000 crew members, over 8,000 people. A fire on a ship like that would be disastrous.”

The Carnival Splendor experienced its problems relatively close to several major ports, making rescue possible in only a few days.

“If it was hundreds of miles out, and you had a fire that wasn’t suppressed, and you had rough weather, you’d have a complete disaster,” said Jim Walker, a Miami-based attorney who specializes in cruise line litigation.

Although the $40-billion cruise ship industry — and its vessels — has been growing, it has been dogged in the last decade with controversies over passenger health and safety. Carver helped start International Cruise Victims after his daughter, Merrian, disappeared while on an Alaskan cruise in 2004.

The organization has pushed for stiffer laws regulating the cruise ship industry; just four months ago, President Obama signed into law tougher new rules for reporting crimes at sea, improving ship safety and training staff to collect evidence of crimes. The changes will go into effect in 2012.

But the new law makes only passing mention of fire safety issues, even though “the most serious event that can happen on a cruise ship is a main space fire, which is what happened on the Splendor,” said Mark Gaouette, former director of security for Princess Cruises and author of the recently released “Cruising for Trouble.”

On a Navy ship, Gaouette notes, every person has a fire-fighting role, and the crew is trained constantly in how to respond to a fire. On a cruise ship, “two-thirds to three-quarters of the population are passengers. They become problems and liabilities in a major fire. They have to be shepherded to safe areas.”

Statistics are hard to come by for incidents on cruise ships, but Gaouette said the website cruisebruise.com lists eight major fires on cruise ships in the last five years, compared with just three in the previous seven years.

“As cruise ships become larger and their number increases on the high seas,” he said, “the threat of fire and other risks to passengers will increase proportionally.”

On the Splendor at 6:30 a.m. Monday, the 3,299 passengers were evacuated from their cabins and told to go to the ship’s upper deck. They were later allowed to return. By afternoon, the U.S. Coast Guard had dispatched three cutters and an HC-130 Hercules helicopter to the ship’s aid. The Mexican navy sent aircraft and a 140-foot patrol boat.

The Coast Guard has remained in contact with the ship throughout the ordeal, officials said. Whether the ship goes to San Diego or Ensenada, the company has promised to transport passengers back to Long Beach.

Miami-based Carnival Cruise Lines has promised a full refund for passengers and a complimentary future cruise equal to the amount paid for this voyage, which was scheduled to visit Puerto Vallarta, Mazatlan and Cabo San Lucas. The company, which along with its brands has 98 ships worldwide, announced that the Nov. 14 seven-day cruise from Long Beach to the same ports has been canceled.

“The safety of our passengers and crew is our top priority, and we are working to get our guests home as quickly as possible,” said Cahill of Carnival Cruise Lines. Carnival Corp. reported revenues of $13.2 billion in 2009.

A spokeswoman for the Cruise Lines International Assn. did not respond to requests for comment. The organization’s website says the U.S. Coast Guard calls cruising “one of the safest modes of transportation, and the industry is constantly striving to improve its safety procedures. Over the past two decades, an estimated 90 million passengers safely enjoyed a cruise vacation.”

But that is little comfort to Lynnette Hudson, whose father died of smoke inhalation during a fire on the Star Princess, which is operated by Carnival, in 2006. It was his first cruise, she testified to Congress, and he was celebrating his 72nd birthday.

Hudson pushed for the more stringent standards that were signed into law this summer and is still fighting for stiffer laws. “I think if there’s a major fire on a cruise ship, they’re not prepared,” she said in an interview. “They don’t have sufficient training.”

maria.laganga@latimes.com

tony.perry@latimes.com

Times staff writer Richard Marosi contributed to this report.

Stranded cruise ship offers lesson in huge vessels’ vulnerabilities

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clashed publicly with President Obama on Tuesday over Israeli construction in disputed East Jerusalem, throwing a teetering Mideast peace effort deeper in doubt.

Responding to criticism from Obama, Netanyahu struck a defiant tone in commenting on plans to build 1,300 more Jewish housing units in East Jerusalem, saying his government had never agreed to limit construction in the city.

“Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is the capital of the state of Israel,” Netanyahu said in a statement. “Israel sees no connection between the diplomatic process and the planning and building policy in Jerusalem.”

Netanyahu’s statement came hours after Obama warned that the new construction, announced by Israel on Monday, could harm a renewed Mideast peace effort began in early September. Obama made the remarks a few hours after arriving in Indonesia, his boyhood home for four years, where he was set to deliver the second major speech Wednesday in his outreach to the Muslim world.

“This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations, and I’m concerned that we’re not seeing each side make that extra effort involved to get a breakthrough,” Obama said. “Each of these incremental steps end up breaking trust.”

Israel also is moving ahead with 800 units in the West Bank settlement of Ariel, Israeli news reports said Tuesday.

Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, said Israel’s latest expansions are part of “a premeditated process to kill the possibility of an independent Palestinian state.” He said that if the Obama administration is unable to get peace talks back on track in the coming weeks, it should recognize an independent Palestinian state with pre-1967 borders.

Israel claims all of Jerusalem, but the Palestinians claim East Jerusalem, which was captured in the 1967 Middle East War, as the capital of their future state. The international community does not recognize Israel’s annexation of the city’s eastern sector, and a succession of American administrations have urged Israel not to build there.

Netanyahu’s pronouncement was consistent with Israeli policy, yet his sharp tone may embarrass Obama at a moment of vulnerability. Obama is visiting the world’s largest Muslim country, and the rebuke may again raise questions in the Muslim world about how much influence the American leader really has on a priority issue.

The disagreement also comes a week after Obama suffered a setback in the midterm elections, which gave Republicans, who are likely to be sympathetic to Netanyahu’s point of view, majority control of the House of Representatives. Some Israeli officials and U.S. analysts had predicted before the election that Netanyahu might feel emboldened to push back on Obama if the Democrats fared poorly.

Obama launched a new peace effort Sept. 1, but it has been nearly stalled as the Palestinians refuse to negotiate unless Israel halts construction in the disputed areas. Palestinian leaders contend that the Jewish settlers are taking land whose ownership should be decided in negotiations.

Robert Danin, a former U.S. official and specialist on Arab-Israeli issues, said it may have been politically risky for Netanyahu to oppose the new construction project, since Israelis view such building as fully within their rights.

With Netanyahu planning to meet Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in Washington on Thursday, the strong words will not help the U.S. efforts to bring the two sides back to the peace table, said Danin, who is with the Council on Foreign Relations.

“For there to be a deal, the temperature has to come down,” he said.

Israel’s go-ahead to build 1,300 homes in East Jerusalem met with a storm of disapproval from around the world, including all four members of the diplomatic “quartet” that seeks to promote the Mideast peace talks: the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement that Russia views the announcement “with most serious concern.… We find it essential that the Israeli party refrain from the declared construction.”

Obama’s relationship with Netanyahu has gone through alternating periods of warm and cool. Obama was furious with Netanyahu in March, when new construction was announced in East Jerusalem just as Vice President Joe Biden was visiting. In July, Obama warmly welcomed Netanyahu to the White House.

Yet Obama has maintained pressure on the Israeli prime minister like few recent presidents. In September, he called on Netanyahu from the podium of the United Nations General Assembly to halt settlement construction in the name of peace, a plea Netanyahu has so far resisted.

cparsons@latimes.com

paul.richter@latimes.com

Parsons reported from Jakarta and Richter from Washington. Times staff writer Edmund Sanders in Jerusalem contributed to this report.

Netanyahu defiantly answers Obama’s warning over construction in East Jerusalem

A dispute among influential Republican lawmakers over a ban on “earmark” spending threatens an area of potential bipartisan agreement between the GOP and White House in the aftermath of last week’s midterm election.

The incoming House Republican majority has proposed extending a moratorium on earmarks, which are funds requested by individual lawmakers for specific projects back home. On Tuesday, conservative Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina said that he would press his GOP colleagues in the Senate to adopt a similar moratorium when lawmakers returned to Washington next week.

But several senior Republican lawmakers consider earmarks part of their constitutional obligation to determine how federal money is spent. They disagree with election-year rhetoric that government spending can be reined in with a strict earmark ban. A ban is an idea that “doesn’t save any money,” said Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader.

The disagreement is surfacing at a crucial point. Republicans, fresh from winning control of the House and gaining seats in the Senate, will make their first attempt next week to convert ideas from successful political campaigns into governing policy.

Earmark spending is a favorite campaign symbol of government excess. Examples of pork projects go back years — among the most well-known is the “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska.

Yet attempts to limit lawmakers’ ability to steer funding to their home states regularly runs into dissent. Popular Capitol wisdom holds that one lawmaker’s pork is another’s vital infrastructure project, representing a road or hospital that would not get built without federal government funds.

The House GOP this year imposed a moratorium on earmarks within its own ranks as a way to burnish its conservative credentials heading into campaign season, particularly among “tea party” voters. Earmarks soared to unprecedented levels prior to 2006, the last time the GOP had been in the majority.

Senate Republicans, though, did not agree to such a ban. DeMint proposed a halt on earmarks this spring, but senators voted it down.

Now, in a first test of their newly bolstered numbers in Congress, Republicans in both chambers are returning to the issue. The GOP is intent on showing voters it understood the lesson of the election and the message of tea party conservatives who helped propel the party to power.

President Obama identified the earmark ban as an issue “we can work on together.” Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 Republican in the House, said he would like to take Obama up on the offer.

Yet old spending habits are hard to break among Congress members who see the power of the purse as one of their greatest strengths. Although earmarks make up a tiny fraction of the federal budget, they are an enormous source of power for lawmakers to provide resources to constituents.

The Republican leaders of the main House and Senate spending committees are divided on the question. Rep. Jerry Lewis of Redlands supports an earmark moratorium, while Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi does not.

In recent days, Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) has appeared on 10 conservative radio talk shows across the country with an appeal about the importance of such spending.

“People now realize you can’t have a ban on earmarks,” Inhofe said.

If Congress chooses not to direct spending, Inhofe argues, the responsibility will fall to the administration, which already exerts influence over its own pet projects in the president’s annual budget. Inhofe said his aim was to reform the earmarking process, not eliminate it.

The conservative Oklahoman, who is perhaps most widely known for calling global warming a hoax, is intent on branding earmark foes as “goguers” — those who demagogue the issue to score political points.

“It’s the most demagogued thing I’ve run into in the years I’ve been in politics,” Inhofe said. “Many of the big-spending Republicans demagogue earmarks so people think they’re conservative.”

Inhofe will argue for new Senate rules to make the earmarking process more transparent, without an outright ban.

But he will face a challenge from fellow conservative DeMint, who will be seeking an unqualified ban next week from his peers.

The South Carolina senator counts support from several newly elected colleagues — including Rand Paul in Kentucky, Marco Rubio in Florida and Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania — and other tea-party-backed candidates he supported in the election.

“Many Republicans are still addicted to earmarks and won’t give them up without a fight,” DeMint wrote in a letter to supporters Tuesday. “I know it’s difficult to quit this habit.”

He should know. DeMint confided to supporters, “I used to request earmarks too.”

lmascaro@tribune.com
‘Earmark’ ban proves an early obstacle to GOP unity

Military and aviation officials say they don’t know who may have launched a mysterious object spotted in the sky late Monday off the Southern California coast, but said that whatever the projectile was, it did not pose a threat to national security.

A KCBS news helicopter spotted what appeared to be a missile traveling through the sky northwest of Catalina Island, about 35 miles west of Los Angeles.

Video posted online by the television station showed a luminous point hurtling through the sky followed by a long contrail.

Officials with the Defense Department, the Navy and the Air Force said did not have any details on the object or its launch site. Pentagon officials said that initial indications were that the military was not involved.

“We are aware of the unexplained contrail reported off the coast of Southern California yesterday evening,” according to a statement from the North American Aerospace Defense Command and the U.S. Northern Command, which operates the U.S. and Canadian missile warning system. “At this time, we are unable to provide specific details but we are working to determine the exact nature of this event.”

“We can confirm that there is no indication of any threat to our nation and we will provide more information as it becomes available,” the statement said.

The Federal Aviation Administration didn’t approve any commercial space launches in the area Monday, said spokesman Ian Gregor.

“We’re looking into this,” he said.

Updated at 9:55 a.m.: Naval Base Ventura County spokeswoman Teri Reid said the contrail seen off the Southern California coast Monday did not originate at Naval Air Station Point Mugu.

“It didn’t happen here,” she said. “There was no firing on the range yesterday.”

Nor was it Vandenberg Air Force Base, whose last launch was putting a satellite into orbit on Friday.
Mystery ‘missile’ launch near L.A. no threat to national security, government officials say

President Obama, challenged by Indian students Sunday to explain why the United States had not labeled Pakistan a terrorist state, defended his administration’s efforts to help the Pakistani government root out extremism and urged Indians to remember their own stake in promoting their longtime rival’s stability.

Obama’s call to India for a gradual rapprochement with Pakistan, made during a sometimes lively town hall-style meeting at St. Xavier’s College in the Indian city of Mumbai, is likely to be repeated at a speech Monday to the Parliament in New Delhi.

Despite the pointed exchange over Pakistan, Obama’s day with students included a session of impromptu dancing by the president and the first lady that offered personal images to balance the generally serious and carefully scripted elements in the Obamas’ first visit to this nation.

A day earlier, Obama met with survivors of the 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai by Pakistani extremists, but he was careful to avoid mentioning Pakistan.

On the second day of a 10-day Asia trip, Obama was clearly ready for more direct engagement on the matter. “I must admit I was expecting it,” he said, eliciting laughter from the college audience assembled outdoors on a sunny afternoon.

Obama said the U.S. approach toward Pakistan on the issue of terrorism has been “to be honest and forthright … to say we are your friend, this is a problem and we will help you with it, but the problem has to be addressed.”

He said he was “absolutely convinced that the country that has the biggest stake in Pakistan’s success is India.”

“So my hope is, is that over time trust develops between the two countries,” he said, “that dialogue begins — perhaps on less controversial issues, building up to more controversial issues — and that over time there’s a recognition that India and Pakistan can live side by side in peace and that both countries can prosper.”

India was partitioned to create Pakistan at the time of independence from Britain in 1947, and the two neighbors have fought three major wars since.

Although Indian students also grilled him about his views on jihad and Afghanistan policy, as well as his take on the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, Obama kept at least a part of his message focused on the main aim of his second extended trip to Asia: opening up markets to create job opportunities for Americans.

Over the weekend, he spoke about the “enormous untapped potential” in trade, calling on India to lower barriers in everything from retail imports to telecommunications. On Sunday, he told students that Americans were frustrated with the U.S. economy and how the midterm election results had forced him to make “some midcourse corrections and adjustments.”

“So I want to make sure that we’re here because this will create jobs in the United States and it can create jobs in India,” Obama said. “But that means that we’ve got to negotiate this changing relationship.”

Some listeners were skeptical, aware that Obama and other Democrats often speak disapprovingly of U.S. companies that “ship jobs overseas.” India has long been a favored destination for American outsourcing of data processing, call centers and back office functions.

“It is offensive,” said Lopa Mullick, an owner of an events-management company who attended Obama’s session at St. Xavier’s College. “It hurts us…. You’re not looking at all the opportunities that India has created for the U.S., at the economic benefits both sides get.”

Still, the young entrepreneur said she came to listen to Obama because she believes he can “shift the focus” and that he may actually want to do so.

During an earlier visit with schoolchildren, Michelle Obama broke out into a lengthy dance that dominated TV and inspired local newspaper headlines such as “When Michelle Got Into the Groove.”

The president himself showed off his footwork as schoolchildren enticed him to join the first lady in a traditional Indian dance during a Diwali celebration. It inspired some low-key moves, though mostly unrelated to the elaborate steps everyone else was doing.

cparsons@latimes.com

don.lee@latimes.com

Parsons reported from Mumbai and Lee from Washington.
Obama fields tough questions from Indian students

President Obama visited the site of the 2008 terrorist attacks here Saturday, making it the first stop of his two-week trip to Asia in order to convey a message to plotters of that attack and others.

“In our determination to give our people a future of security and prosperity,” he said, “the United States and India stand united.”

Obama spoke with a group of hotel employees and other survivors gathered in a hotel courtyard shortly after checking into the hotel. He is the first foreign head of state to stay at the Taj Mahal Palace and Tower Hotel since the attacks, an event known in India by the shorthand 26/11.

In a scene some local newscasters compare to President Bush’s bullhorn declaration from the rubble of the World Trade Center, Obama then stood in a hotel plaza overlooking the Arabian Sea to issue his own defiant message.

“By striking the places where our countries and people come together,” he said, “those who perpetrated these horrific attacks hoped to drive us apart . . . (but) today the United States and India are working together more closely than ever to keep our people safe.”

Later the president visited a museum devoted to the life of Indian independence leader Mahatma Gandhi. He also plans to meet with some 200 American business leaders who have traveled to India to join Obama at a business roundtable promoting trade between the two nations.

First and foremost, said Obama’s economic point man, the trip is about improving trade relations and creating new opportunities for American jobs.

Nevertheless, as the first event of his four-day stay in India, Obama chose to highlight the terrorist attacks and what he said was a shared commitment to fighting extremists around the world.

During the attacks two years ago, millions watched horrific and vivid images of smoke pouring from the windows of this hotel, in a coordinated attack by a terrorist organization based in Pakistan. More than 170 people died.

Fully renovated since then, the Taj hotel now stands as a symbol of India’s resilience, administration officials say. Obama wanted to recognize India’s rejection of terrorism, according to close advisers.

One of those who met with Obama today was Karambir Singh Kang, the hotel manager. He lost his wife, Niti, and their two sons in the attacks, but then went on to help save others.

“Mumbai is a symbol of the incredible energy and optimism that defines India in the 21st century,” Obama said. “And ever since those horrific days two years ago, the Taj has been the symbol of the strength and the resilience of the Indian people.”
Obama visits site of Mumbai attacks, praises India’s resilience

In a blow to the state’s civil lawsuit charging eight current and former Bell city leaders with plotting to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge warned Thursday that Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown’s case is in jeopardy of being dismissed.

Brown appears to have overreached his authority in the lawsuit, which seeks to force the city leaders to pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars in back salaries and slash their future pensions, Judge Ralph W. Dau said.

The judge also questioned whether the suit, filed at the height of Brown’s contentious run for governor, was more about politics than law.

“There is a real question of authority here,” said Dau during a hearing Thursday. “You say they’re looting the city and you can enforce it, but where is the case that says the attorney general can enforce it?”

Dau added, “So I’m wondering, is this just a political lawsuit?”

On Thursday, the attorney general’s office responded, telling the judge the state has the authority to pursue a civil claim on behalf of residents and taxpayers.

The sweeping civil lawsuit was the first legal action taken against the city and its current and past leaders. The suit contends former City Administrator Robert Rizzo and others conspired to drive up their salaries, inflate their future pensions and conceal how much it was costing the city.

“They engaged in a collaboration that amounted to a civil conspiracy to defraud the public, Brown said when he announced the suit at a Los Angeles news conference in mid-September.

Besides Rizzo, the suit named former Assistant City Administrator Angela Spaccia, ex-Police Chief Randy Adams, Mayor Oscar Hernandez and council members Teresa Jacobo and George Mirabal. The suit also named George Cole and Victor Bello — both former council members. Rizzo was being paid nearly $800,000 a year and stands to collect about $1 million annually in retirement.

Dau ruled that some of the claims in the lawsuit, including an allegation that Bell’s leadership conspired to waste public funds, could proceed, but that other allegations would have to be revised. Still, the judge cautioned that the entire case is in doubt.

Dau agreed the lucrative salaries paid to Rizzo and others were outrageous and said he appreciated the depth of anger that Bell residents now feel. But, he said, the place to resolve those concerns should be the “ballot box and criminals courts,” not civil court.

Outside the downtown Los Angeles courtroom, Rizzo’s attorney predicted the state’s widely publicized lawsuit will be dismissed.

“This case is dead, ” James Spertus said.

When the suit was filed, some legal experts called it an unprecedented tactic by a government agency, and Brown himself conceded his office was exploring a “novel” area of the law.

“We’re testing the proposition of what public officials can pay themselves,” he said. “The fact that someone is elected doesn’t mean they get a license to steal.”

Even if Brown’s lawsuit is ultimately dismissed, it would have no bearing on the felony fraud and theft charges filed against Rizzo and others. The U.S. attorney’s office, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the state controller’s office and the state Department of Corporations also are investigating the city’s financial activity.

Dau also rejected an effort by Spertus to prevent the city from obtaining Rizzo’s private e-mails. The city has already received about 4,000 e-mails from Rizzo’s private e-mail provider. The city contended Rizzo used his private e-mail to conduct city business in an effort to conceal his activities.

About 10 of the e-mails involved potential attorney-client privilege issues, defense attorneys told the judge.

City Atty. James Casso agreed to delete one e-mail involving Spertus and Rizzo, but the city will be able to retain e-mails between Rizzo and Tom Brown, a former attorney for the city.

Casso said his office is interested in determining whether the city — in effect — paid for Rizzo’s defense costs in a drunk-driving case. Rizzo was arrested of suspicion of drunken driving after crashing into a neighbor’s mailbox in Huntington Beach.

richard.winton@latimes.com

Attorney general’s lawsuit against Bell officials could be in jeopardy

Jerry Brown returned to Sacramento on Thursday as California’s next governor, forging relationships and crunching numbers as he anticipates his first budget, which will set the tone for a new administration that he says will be characterized by his trademark frugality.

The former two-term governor has little time. He must present a spending plan within days of taking office in January, when the state will probably be grappling with a new deficit as well as with the new restrictions that voters placed on how revenue can be raised and used. Throughout his campaign, Brown offered few specifics on how he would balance the state’s books, focusing instead on an “exhaustive” collaborative process that he says will include all stakeholders, including labor unions and business.

The spending plan is typically sent to the printer in late December, meaning Brown won’t even be governor by the time his initial draft must be finished. Brown said his transition team is working with the staff at the state Department of Finance.

On Thursday, Brown met with the state budget director, Ana Matosantos. Addressing reporters, Brown described the meeting as “very sobering” and vowed to start working full-time on a budget after he returns from a weeklong vacation.

“I think the problems we face are as bad as anyone could imagine, and it’s going to take a lot of very tough decisions,” Brown said. “It’s very daunting. It’s certainly as bad as it’s ever been, and it’s going to take people in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party” to produce a viable budget.

He added: “The people of California, they’ll have a chance to see in great depth what it is we’re doing and what kind of money we have to do it and what the gap is. And it’s certainly considerable.”

By next Tuesday, Brown’s transition team will probably be sitting in on a key meeting that takes place at this time every year, when leading state economists come to Sacramento to offer revenue projections. The governor’s office uses those projections to come up with its own forecasting model, on which the proposed budget is based. One of the economists, Stephen Levy, director of the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy in Palo Alto, said all the early signs suggest no major improvements.

“The budget will include some very difficult revenue numbers,” he said. “We’ll be back in the soup.”

Legislative leaders have estimated that the state will face a deficit of at least $12 billion.

Brown flew with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to Sacramento on Thursday from San Diego, where the two attended the funeral of a police officer. Later, Brown worked the halls of the Capitol, meeting with Matosantos, Assembly Speaker John P

In a number of key races around the country, aggressive and meticulously targeted spending by independent conservative groups appears to have helped produce dramatic results for Republicans.

Unlike Democrats, who relied heavily on financial assistance from unions and Democratic Party committees, Republican candidates got their boost from advertising, mailers and get-out-the-vote drives financed by more than a dozen newly formed conservative groups.

Those groups employed a two-pronged strategy: First, they poured much-needed cash into districts where Republican candidates lagged behind in fundraising. Second, they sent millions into what were once considered safe Democratic districts in an attempt to thin out Democrats’ resources.

The strategy appears to have been a success. In an election cycle where Democratic candidates and party committees had out-raised Republicans by about $168 million, outside conservative groups, armed with $187 million, were able to strategically and successfully leverage that money to produce results for the GOP.

In the 74 House and Senate seats that had switched party hands by early Wednesday morning, 57 were won by Republicans who held the advantage in spending by outside groups, according to an analysis by the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen.

Republican Mark Kirk enjoyed the greatest advantage in non-party outside spending in his winning bid to represent Illinois in the Senate. Thanks to large and consistent ad buys by groups such as American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS — big spenders that were formed this year by Karl Rove and other GOP strategists — Kirk held an $8-million advantage in outside money over his Democratic opponent, Alexi Giannoulias.

In the House, Republican Mick Mulvaney topped the list of outsider support with his successful bid to replace 14-term incumbent and chair of the powerful House Budget Committee, John M. Spratt Jr.

In the final two weeks of the campaign, non-party groups opposing Spratt spent nearly $500,000 in his South Carolina district, compared with just $6,000 spent by groups in support, according to data compiled by the Sunlight Foundation

In southern Virginia, 14-term incumbent Rick Boucher was defeated after conservative groups waged a costly ad campaign that went unmatched by groups on the left.

On the Iron Range of Minnesota, 17-term incumbent James L. Oberstar, chair of the House Transportation Committee, was swept from office after a late October storm of conservative group advertising on Duluth television.

“We were able to go places where Democrats were comfortable and require them to start spending money,” said Carl Forti, political director at the Crossroads groups, citing Oberstar’s district and others. “For us, it was an effort to expand the field.”

Liberal groups did not spend a single dollar advertising in Oberstar’s district, according to the Public Citizen analysis. But the onslaught forced Oberstar to run the first negative ad of his career.

kim.geiger@latimes.com

Times staff writer Tom Hamburger contributed to this report.
Outside groups made the difference for some Republicans