GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH - FMR US PRES DEAD AT 94 (R.I.P.)

GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH - FORMER US PRES DEAD AT 94 (R.I.P.):

BORN - JUNE 12, 1924 (MASSACHUSETTS)
DIED - NOV 30, 2018 (TEXAS)

SERVED AS 43rd VICE-PRES - 1981 to 1989

SERVED AS 41st PRES - 1989 to 1993.


Post Sources: CNN, Wikipedia, Youtube


Congressional leaders announced that an arrival ceremony will be held for Bush on Monday at 5 p.m. ET. The public will then be invited to pay their respects from 7:30 p.m. until 7:00 a.m. Wednesday. The statement said that the Bush family will provide additional details regarding arrangements beyond the ceremony at the Capitol.

Obama Closes Door On Bush's Costly "War On Terror" (Thank You!)

Tonight Pres. Barack Obama Will Finally Announce The End To Former President G.W. Bush's Very Expensive, Oil/ Government Contractor Scheme: His Fake "War On Terror".

Immediately After Sept. 11, 2011, No One Doubted Bush's Intent To Invade Iraq Because Practically Everyone In America Thought It Only Right To Get The "Bad Guys" (Al Qaeda) For Breaching Our Safety Net & Destroying Our Comfort.

We Sincerely Wanted To Show Terrorists & Extremists That NO ONE Can Attack America, On American Soil & Get Away With It!

NO ONE!

Thus When G.W. Bush Approached Congress With His LIE-Based ("Weapons Of Mass Destruction") Scheme To Invade Iraq, For Lawmakers On The Hill To Question His True Motives Would Have Appeared Anti-Patriotic.

Fast Forward To 8 Years Later.

There Were NO "Weapons Of Mass Destruction"!

It Was Later Discovered We Were ONLY There To Protect The Interests Of GOP-Registered, Oil Rich American "Powers That Be".

And Even After Capturing Saddam Hussein, U.S. Troops Are STILL In Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan.

Why?

Since Both Saddam & Bin Laden Are Now Dead, Why Are We STILL In Those Countries??

Why Are U.S. Military Generals STILL Insisting We Remain In Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan?

Could It The ONLY Foreign Policy Interests Our U.S. Troops Are Currently Protecting Are Those Of GOP Lawmakers Profiting In A HUGE Way Via Government Contractors?

i.e., Blackwater Now XE, Balfour Beatty, Dyn Corp, KBR, Halliburton, etc.,

YES!!!

This Is The ONLY Reason Why GOP Lawmakers On Capitol Hill & Pentagon Brass Are STILL Insisting U.S. Troops Remain In Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan.

Truth Be Told GOP Lawmakers Don't Give A Darn About The Lives Of Thousands Of U.S. Troops Lost In Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan!

They Just Want To Keep Their Pockets Fat At Any Cost!!

i.e., BLOOD MONEY!!

And To Make Matters Worst, Most Government Contractors (Blackwater Now XE, Balfour Beatty, Dyn Corp, KBR, Halliburton) Working In Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan Largely Practice Racial Discrimination By Hiring Very, Very Few Minority Veterans. (Almost Zero Black Veterans!)

Or If They Do Hire Any Minority Veterans, Those Minority Veterans Are Paid Much Lower Salaries Than White Veterans.

In Addition, Balfour Beatty A Construction Company Which Helps To Build & Manage U.S. Military Bases, Also Grossly OVERCHARGES Active Duty Soldiers & Veterans Residing On Those U.S. Military Bases.

So I Along With Millions Of Other American Voters (Democrats, Independents & Republicans) All Agree Its High Time This Government Contractor/ Oil-Rich Charade FINALLY Comes To An End!!

Like Yesterday!

For The Record, American Voters Are NOT Stupid!!!

We Know That George W. Bush Left Behind A Mess, In Fact Several Messes For Pres. Obama To Clean Up!

i.e., Deregulated Wall Street Mess, Subprime Housing Mess, Iraq Mess, Afghanistan Mess, Pakistan Mess, Osama Bin Laden Mess, TARP Mess, HUGE Unemployment Mess, etc.,

YES!

While Serving 8 Years In Office, George W. Bush Left Behind A Ton Of Serious Messes & Now The GOP Unrealistically Expects Barack Obama To Clean Up Those Serious Messes After Serving Just 2 Years In Office!

Well Its Time For Bush's Messes To Be Placed In The Trash Can Where They Belong!

In 2008 Barack Obama Was Elected NOT To Continue George W. Bush's Political/ Deregulated Charades For Personal Gain.

Instead Obama Was Elected To Discontinue & Clean Up G.W. Bush's Messes So That America Could Begin To Heal.

Obama Was Elected To Discontinue Bush's Schemes & Bring Our Troops Home!

As It Relates To George W. Bush's Government Contractor, "Nation Building" Scheme, Let The Corrupt Leaders Of Afghanistan & Pakistan Build Their OWN Nations, With Their OWN Money!

Do We Need To Maintain Some Type Of Alliance With Pakistan Even Though Its Been Proven They Can't Be Trusted?

Yes Or They Will Build An Alliance With India & China Against America.

However.....

American Leaders Should NO Longer Allow Afghanistan & Pakistani Leaders To Make Fools Of Us Or Hold American Leaders Hostage!!!

Tonight During Pres. Obama's Anti-War/ Afghanistan U.S. Troop Withdrawal Speech American Voters Expect To NOT Only Hear That Our Soldiers Are Coming Home For Good!

But Also That America Will NEVER Again Use U.S. Military Troops For Personal Gain i.e., Oil & Government Contractors!

NEVER Again!!!

NO MORE BLOOD MONEY!!

Pres. Obama Should Also Apologize To All The Families Of U.S. Troops Serving Overseas, Including Those Who Lost Loved Ones During Combat And.....

YES Pres. Obama Should Apologize To Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan For What Past U.S. Leaders Did For The Sake Of Personal Gain.

Don't Get It Twisted!

Should We Have Caught & Killed Osama Bin Laden For What He Did To Our Country On 9-11??

YES! A Thousand Times Yes!

However Doing So Did NOT Take 8 Years!

I Repeat: It Did NOT Take 8 Years To Capture & Kill Osama Bin Laden!!

I Truly Believe Former President George W. Bush Knew Exactly Where Osama Was Hiding.

I Also Believe G.W. Bush & His Administration Was Somehow Involved In A Scheme To Pay Off Pakistani Leaders To Help Hide Bin Laden.

Why??

Oil & Government Contractors!!

Pres. George W. Bush Will One Day Pay For His LIES, Deceit & Sin But....

Tonight America Expects Pres. Barack Obama To End Bush's LIES & Start A New Chapter In American Foreign Policy Sans LIES!!!

Pres. Obama Please Don't Disappoint Us Tonight.

God Bless America Land That I Love & ALL U.S. Troops Everywhere!









Cost of Wars a Rising Issue as Obama Weighs Troop Levels


President Obama will talk about troop numbers in Afghanistan when he makes a prime-time speech from the White House on Wednesday night. But behind his words will be an acute awareness of what $1.3 trillion in spending on two wars in the past decade has meant at home: a ballooning budget deficit and a soaring national debt at a time when the economy is still struggling to get back on its feet.

As Mr. Obama begins trying to untangle the country from its military and civilian promises in Afghanistan, his critics and allies alike are drawing a direct line between what is not being spent to bolster the sagging economy in America to what is being spent in Afghanistan — $120 billion this year alone.

On Monday, the United States Conference of Mayors made that connection explicitly, saying that American taxes should be paying for bridges in Baltimore and Kansas City, not in Baghdad and Kandahar.

The mayors’ group approved a resolution calling for an early end to the American military role in Afghanistan and Iraq, asking Congress to redirect the billions now being spent on war and reconstruction costs toward urgent domestic needs. The resolution, which noted that local governments cut 28,000 jobs in May alone, was the group’s first venture into foreign policy since it passed a resolution four decades ago calling for an end to the Vietnam War.

And in a speech on the Senate floor on Tuesday, Senator Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, said: “We can no longer, in good conscience, cut services and programs at home, raise taxes or — and this is very important — lift the debt ceiling in order to fund nation-building in Afghanistan. The question the president faces — we all face — is quite simple: Will we choose to rebuild America or Afghanistan? In light of our nation’s fiscal peril, we cannot do both.”



Demonstrators describing themselves as “angry jobless citizens” said they would picket the Capitol on Wednesday to urge members of Congress to use any savings from Mr. Obama’s troop reductions to create more jobs. The group sponsoring the demonstration, the Prayer Without Ceasing Party, said in a statement on Tuesday that it was “urging the masses to call their congressmen and the president to ensure that jobs receive a top priority when the troops start returning to America.”

Spending on the war in Afghanistan has skyrocketed since Mr. Obama took office, to $118.6 billion in 2011. It was $14.7 billion in 2003, when President George W. Bush turned his attention and American resources to the war in Iraq.

The increase is easy to explain. When Mr. Obama took office, he vowed to aggressively pursue what he termed America’s “war of necessity” (Afghanistan) and to withdraw from America’s “war of choice” (Iraq). He has done so; the lines on Iraq and Afghanistan war spending crossed in 2010, when the United States spent $93.8 billion in Afghanistan versus $71.3 billion in Iraq, according to the Congressional Research Service.

But the White House is keenly aware that the president is heading into a re-election campaign; with the country’s jobless rate remaining high, topping 9 percent, his poll numbers on his handling of the domestic economy have plummeted.

“Do we really need to be spending $120 billion in a country with a G.D.P. that’s one-sixth that size?” asked Brian Katulis, a national security expert at the Center for American Progress, a policy group with close ties to the Obama administration. “Most Americans would be shocked to know that we’re spending that kind of money for jobs programs for former Taliban, and would wonder where are our jobs programs for Detroit and Cleveland?”

In 2010, Congress — at the Obama administration’s request — set aside $100 million to support programs in Afghanistan aimed at moving former insurgents off the battlefields and into the country’s mainstream economy. Those efforts — similar to what the Bush administration did in Iraq — have yet to bear much fruit; the 1,700 fighters who have enrolled in the reintegration program represent only a fraction of the estimated 20,000 to 40,000 Taliban insurgents, The New York Times reported Monday.

Most American aid bypasses the Afghan government and goes to international companies, a practice that, according to a June 8 report by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, can undercut the Afghan government and lead to redundant and unsustainable donor projects. But Obama administration officials complain that the Afghan government of President Hamid Karzai has, thus far, been unwilling to tackle corruption in any meaningful way, making it hard to argue that it should get more money directly.

In Washington, the argument over whether the United States should be building bridges in Kandahar or Cleveland is bound to grow even louder as the 2012 election campaign heats up.

After Senator Manchin made his speech on Tuesday calling for an end to nation-building in Afghanistan, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, took to the floor to rebuke him, calling Mr. Manchin’s remarks characteristic of the “isolationist-withdrawal-lack-of-knowledge-of-history attitude that seems to be on the rise.”

But in Mr. McCain’s own Republican Party, which has historically been more supportive of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars than Democrats, there is clearly some queasiness about war spending during a period of economic distress.

Four years ago, Representative Ron Paul of Texas was the only Republican presidential candidate raising concerns about the costs of the Afghanistan or Iraq wars. But last week, Mr. Paul was joined explicitly by another contender, Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the former governor of Utah and the Obama administration’s former ambassador to China, who said that the cost of a continued military presence was a leading factor in his belief that a major troop drawdown should begin in Afghanistan.

“Very expensive boots on the ground may be something that is not critical for our national security needs,” Mr. Huntsman said.

Even when Mr. Obama does withdraw the bulk of troops from Afghanistan, Americans will still be footing the bill for years, argued William R. Keylor, an international relations professor at Boston University.

“The total cost of the war, the longest in American history and one that was paid for by borrowing rather than by increased taxation, should not be measured solely by the costs of financing the troops and the extensive aid programs administered by the State Department,” Mr. Keylor said. “It should also include long-term costs of the war, primarily veterans’ benefits for the returning soldiers, who will require medical and mental health services for many years to come. Long after the last troops depart from the country, that hidden part of the bill will come due.”


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, NY Times, Washington Post, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

GOP's War Hypocrisy! Bush's Iraq Vs Obama's Libya (McCain Defends Obama)

The Level Of Hypocrisy Demonstrated By Republican Party Leaders Over Pres. Obama's Decision To Help NATO Forces Get Rid Of Moammar Gadhafi's Genocidal Reign In Libya Amazes Me!

I Mean Speaker John Boehner Is Even Threatening To Sue Pres. Obama Over The Use Of U.S. Forces In Libya.

Can You Believe It??

I Don't Know How Most GOP Lawmakers Can Even Sleep At Night.

Considering How Badly They Have Treated America's First BLACK President Since His Election In 2008.

Such Hypocrisy!!!

Especially When GOP Leaders Didn't Seem To Mind Former Pres. George W. Bush's 8-Year Iraq Invasion Which Was Based SOLELY On Lies!! ("Weapons Of Mass Destruction"). i.e., "WAR ON TERROR"

In Fact G.W. Bush Wasted Billions Upon Billions Of Dollars In Iraq Even AFTER Saddam Hussein Was Captured & Killed!

Yet There Was NO Pressure From GOP Lawmakers To Pull Out.

NONE!

Nada!

Zero!

NO PRESSURE AT ALL!

Could It Be There Was NO Pressure To Leave Iraq Because Millions Upon Millions Of Dollars Were Being Awarded To Government Contractors?

Many Of Whom Were Friends Of Some GOP Lawmakers On Capitol Hill?

Could It Also Be That The Iraq Invasion Was More About OIL Than About A TRUE Humanitarian Effort?

Inquiring Minds Would Really Like To Know!

Well Now Suddenly The GOP Wants To Cry Foul On Pres. Obama Regarding His TRUE Humanitarian Effort To Help Libya's Citizens.

Thank God U.S. Senator John McCain (R) Has Enough Intelligence & Boldness To Call Out The Foolish Behavior Of His Fellow Republicans On This Issue.

In Fact McCain Said If Congress Attempts To Prohibit U.S. Ground Troops In Libya, Such Actions Could Be A Violation OF The U.S. Constitution.

So Is It Safe To Say That Republicans LOVE War For ANY Reason ONLY But If Its Enacted By A Republican President?

Yes!

As It Relates To The War Powers Act Of 1973, This Resolution is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

Despite the apparent non-ambiguity of its language, the War Powers Resolution has been regularly ignored by presidents of both parties,some even declaring their belief that the act is unconstitutional.









War Powers Act Does Not Apply to Libya, Obama Argues

The White House is telling Congress that President Obama has the legal authority to continue American participation in the NATO-led air war in Libya, even though lawmakers have not authorized it.

In a broader package of materials the Obama administration is sending to Congress on Wednesday defending its Libya policy, the White House, for the first time, offers lawmakers and the public an argument for why Mr. Obama has not been violating the War Powers Resolution since May 20.

On that day, the Vietnam-era law’s 60-day deadline for terminating unauthorized hostilities appeared to pass. But the White House argued that the activities of United States military forces in Libya do not amount to full-blown “hostilities” at the level necessary to involve the section of the War Powers Resolution that imposes the deadline.

“We are acting lawfully,” said Harold Koh, the State Department legal adviser, who expanded on the administration’s reasoning in a joint interview with White House Counsel Robert Bauer.

The two senior administration lawyers contended that American forces have not been in “hostilities” at least since April 7, when NATO took over leadership in maintaining a no-flight zone in Libya, and the United States took up what is mainly a supporting role — providing surveillance and refueling for allied warplanes — although unmanned drones operated by the United States periodically fire missiles as well.

They argued that United States forces are at little risk in the operation because there are no American troops on the ground and Libyan forces are unable to exchange meaningful fire with American forces. They said that there was little risk of the military mission escalating, because it is constrained by the United Nations Security Counsel resolution that authorized use of air power to defend civilians.

“We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own,” Mr. Koh said. “We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of ‘hostilities’ envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.”

The administration unveiled its argument at a time when members of Congress have shown increasing skepticism about the Libya operation. On June 3, the House of Representatives passed a resolution declaring that the mission had not been authorized.

On Wednesday, the Speaker of the House, John Boehner, Republican of Ohio, sent Mr. Obama a letter pointing out that even under a flexible interpretation of War Powers Resolution that would allow hostilities to last 90 days without Congressional authorization, Mr. Obama was out of time. Mr. Boehner demanded a legal explanation by Friday.

“Given the mission you have ordered to the U.S. Armed Forces with respect to Libya and the text of the War Powers Resolution, the House is left to conclude that you have made one of two determinations: either you have concluded the War Powers Resolution does not apply to the mission in Libya, or you have determined the War Powers Resolution is contrary to the Constitution,” Mr. Boehner wrote. “The House, and the American people whom we represent, deserve to know the determination you have made.”




It remains to be seen whether majorities in Congress will accept the administration’s argument, defusing the confrontation, or whether the White House’s response will instead fuel greater criticism. Either way, because the War Powers Resolution does not include a definition of “hostilities” and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue, the legal debate is likely to be resolved politically, said Rick Pildes, a New York University law professor.

“There is no clear legal answer,” he said. “The president is taking a position, so the question is whether Congress accepts that position, or doesn’t accept that position and wants to insist that the operation can’t continue without affirmative authorization from Congress.”

Ten members of Congress — led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Democrat of Ohio, and Rep. Walter Jones, Republican of North Carolina — filed a lawsuit on Weednesday asking a judge to order Mr. Obama to stop the air war. The suit asserts that the operation is illegal because Congress did not authorize it. That lawsuit faces steep challenges, however, because courts in the past have dismissed similar cases on technical grounds.

The administration had earlier argued that Mr. Obama could initiate the intervention in Libya on his own authority as commander-in-chief because it was not a “war” in the constitutional sense. It also released a memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel agreeing that he could do so unilaterally because he anticipated that its nature, scope, and duration would be limited.

Since then, the conflict in Libya has dragged on longer than expected, and the goal of the NATO allies has all but openly shifted from merely defending civilians to forcing the Libyan dictator, Col. Muammar Qaddafi, from power. But Mr. Koh and Mr. Bauer said that while regime change in Libya may be a diplomatic goal, the military mission is separate, and remains limited to protecting civilians.

The administration legal team considered other approaches, including a proposal to stop the use of armed drones after May 20 in order to bolster the case that United States forces were no longer engaged in hostilities. But the White House ultimately decided not to make any changes in the military mission.

While many presidents have challenged the constitutionality of other aspects of the War Powers Resolution — which Congress enacted over President Nixon’s veto — no administration has said that the section imposing the 60-day clock was unconstitutional. In 1980,the Office of Legal Counsel concluded that it was within Congress’s constitutional power to enact such a limit on unauthorized hostilities.

Mr. Bauer and Mr. Koh said the 1980 memorandum remains in force, but that their legal argument does not invoke any constitutional challenge to the act.

It was not clear whether the Office of Legal Counsel has endorsed the White House’s interpretation of what “hostilities” means. Mr. Bauer declined to say whether the office had signed off on the theory, saying he would not discuss inter-agency deliberations.

Mr. Koh argued that the administration’s interpretation of the word was not unprecedented, noting that there have been previous disputes about whether the 60-day-clock portion of the War Powers Resolution applied to deployments where — unlike the Libya operation — there were troops on the ground and Americans suffered casualties.

Still, such previous cases typically involved peacekeeping missions in which the United States had been invited to take part, and there were only infrequent outbreaks of violence, like those in Lebanon, Somalia and Bosnia. Libya, by contrast, is an offensive mission involving sustained bombardment of a government’s forces.

The closest precedent was the NATO-led air war over Kosovo in 1999. In that case, the Clinton administration’s legal team characterized the campaign, which involved many piloted American warplanes, as “hostilities” even though there was little exchange of fire from Serb forces after their air defenses were destroyed and there were no United States casualties.

In Kosovo, however, Congress appropriated specific funds for the mission before 60 days had passed. The Clinton administration decided that by providing the money, Congress had satisfied the requirements of the War Powers Resolution.


View Larger Map

Sources: CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, Wikipedia, Youtube, Google Maps

Baghdad Suicide Bombers Kill 37, Injures 70 Prior To Elections

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Iraq Capital Baghdad Rocked By Deadly Triple Bombing


At least 36 people have died in three large explosions apparently targeting hotels in the heart of Iraq's capital.

More than 70 people were injured in the Baghdad blasts, which officials said were caused by suicide car bombers.

They struck near the Sheraton, Babylon and Hamra hotels, which are popular with Western businessmen and media.

They came as the government announced Saddam Hussein's ex-defence minister, Ali Hassan al-Majid - also known as Chemical Ali - had been executed.

Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said the bombs "represent an extension" of activities by insurgents linked to Saddam Hussein's regime, Associated Press news agency reported.

But he stopped short of directly connecting the blast with the hanging of Majid.

The man known as Chemical Ali had received several death sentences, including for the mass killing of Iraqi Kurds in the village of Halabja in 1988.

The BBC's Jim Muir in Baghdad says it is clear Monday's bombs were co-ordinated and intended to undermine recent security gains as Iraq prepares for a March general election.

The first explosion toppled large concrete blast-walls like dominoes outside the Sheraton, by the Tigris River, causing a huge cloud of dust to envelop the hotel.

Ceiling collapses

An Iraqi journalist, Zina Tareq, who was in her office at the time, told how she dived under a desk with the five-year-old daughter of a colleague.

"We heard a deafening sound. The ceiling collapsed on us and the windows shattered," she told Reuters news agency.

The second and third bombs went off within minutes near the Babylon Hotel in the central district of Karrada, and close to the Hamra Hotel in the southern district of Jadriyah.

The Iraqi military spokesman in Baghdad, Maj Gen Qassim Atta, said all three attacks were suicide car bombs, reports AFP news agency.

The blasts differed from others recently in that they appeared to target hotels rather than government buildings.

Attacks in August, October and December last year - which killed nearly 400 people - rocked the ministries of finance, foreign affairs and justice.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki blamed the bombs in August and October on groups loyal to Saddam Hussein's now-banned Baath Party.

There have been fears of more violence ahead of the 7 March election, seen as important for consolidating Iraq's democracy and keeping a US military exit by the end of 2011 on schedule.

Our correspondent says the latest attacks come against a background of generally improved security in the country.

But insurgents are clearly bent on trying to shake stability before the election, he adds.

It is to be the second parliamentary ballot since the 2003 US-led invasion that ousted Saddam Hussein.



View Larger Map


Sources: BBC News, MSNBC, Google Maps

Anne Tompkins Nominated As Charlotte's Next U.S. Attorney

Charlotte Lawyer Nominated As U.S. Attorney


Charlotte lawyer Anne Tompkins put away a serial killer, dismantled drug trafficking rings and helped Iraqis prosecute Saddam Hussein.

Now, the 47-year-old former state and federal prosecutor has been nominated as Charlotte's next U.S. attorney.

President Obama announced the Christmas Eve nomination of Tompkins to head the U.S. attorney's office for the Western District of North Carolina, the White House confirmed.

U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan, D-N.C., said Thursday morning, “Today, the President nominated a fine North Carolinian to serve our state as U.S. Attorney in the Western District.

“Anne Tompkins has extensive experience, including five years in the U.S. Attorney’s office, and was detailed to Baghdad to help prosecute Saddam Hussein. Anne is incredibly qualified for this important position, and I look forward to her swift confirmation by the U.S. Senate.”

Charlotte's new U.S. attorney will oversee more than 30 prosecutors in Charlotte and Asheville who prosecute everything from drug trafficking conspiracies, mail fraud and bank robberies to racketeering, carjackings and business fraud. The Western District of North Carolina stretches from Charlotte to the Tennessee border.

Tompkins has worked as a prosecutor under U.S. attorneys Mark Calloway, Bob Conrad and Gretchen Shappert.

"Anne is a natural leader," said Conrad, now a U.S. district judge. "She is decisive, visionary and able to get along with people from all walks of life. She will lead effectively from day one. ... When she talks, people will listen."

Tompkins, now a partner in a prestigious law firm, has prosecuted some of Charlotte's biggest cases.

She helped win death sentences in 1997 against serial killer Henry Louis Wallace for the murders of nine Charlotte women.

She also helped prosecute Fred Coffey, who was sentenced to life in prison for the 1979 murder of 10-year-old Amanda Ray, whose abduction and slaying horrified the city.

As a federal prosecutor, Tompkins supervised the U.S. attorney's office's violent crimes unit and led prosecutions of drug trafficking organizations. She handled everything from white collar and environmental crimes to a death penalty case.

In 2004, Tompkins went on an eight-month assignment in Iraq. She was part of a team of American lawyers who advised the tribunal that would prosecute Saddam.

Tompkins saw mass graves in the Iraqi desert littered with bones, flesh and clothing. She talked to Iraqis victimized by Saddam's regime.

Whenever she left the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, she packed a 9 mm pistol. In bed at night, she heard the mortar rounds exploding.

"The risks I take by living in Baghdad are made worth it by the possibility that we can bring justice to people who never thought they would see justice," she told the Observer at the time.

"It's the biggest thing I've ever done. This is a case involving international humanitarian law and the prosecution of the former leaders of Iraq. How much bigger can it get?"

Tompkins is now a partner in the law firm of Alston & Bird in Charlotte, where she focuses on white-collar criminal defense and internal corporate investigations.

She is listed in "The Best Lawyers in America" in 2008 and 2009 for white-collar criminal defense.

Mecklenburg District Attorney Peter Gilchrist called Tompkins "an exceptional choice" for Charlotte's U.S. attorney. "Anne is experienced. She's smart. She's got incredible people skills," Gilchrist said. "She understands and knows people. She's got great insight."

Charlotte lawyer Jim Cooney believes that Tompkins' service in Iraq is "an important window into her values."

"She volunteered for dangerous duty when she did not have to. She did it because she felt it was important," he said.

"I think that when she came back she appreciated the rule of law and its importance to our society even more and understood that power is best exercised with a great deal of humility - that is, an understanding of its limits."



View Larger Map


Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, Google Maps