Merge with Saudi Arabia - They Own and Owe Us!

Power from 'Wind Farms' apparently a lot of hot air.

The key is nuclear but Obama is opposed to nuclear. Obama has not explained why he is opposed to nuclear but the utility industry is not likely to build many additional plants because regulatory constraints are too cumbersome, lawsuits from NIMBY's and resultant delays too costly and thus returns too low considering the huge investment required.

The government could build these plants and lease them to public companies but anything the government touches costs more and takes longer so not likely to get nuclear relief in the next 20 years.

Obama also does not like drilling for oil because it despoils the land, disturbs the animals and drilling for oil takes time and money and with the price of oil where it is there is no incentive to drill. In fact, many oil companies are shelving plans to explore and refiners are going to be cutting back because their profits are being reduced.

No relief from domestic drilling any time soon.

What does that leave - coal. Yes, we have plenty of that but it is deemed too dirty by "Greens' so we need to reduce coal production.

We could build more dams but then that would probably impact various fish species and of course the 'snail darter' crowd would not be happy so cancel that idea.

Well we still have the sun but it does not always shine where it would be useful so
that creates a problem.

I guess we will just have to start walking to work but then all the jobs are leaving to go overseas so even that is not a solution.

We really have a problem.

Maybe we could merge with Saudi Arabia? They already own a lot of our debt, they are dependent upon our military for their survival, owe us something for 9/11 (or were the Israelis behind that attack?) and they already fund many of our eastern elite colleges and, as I recently pointed out, fund our presidential libraries. (See 1 below.)

Russia needs money to offset the decline in their oil revenue so they are ramping up their weapons trade and there are always willing buyers with cash among Hezballah- the righteous defenders of Lebanon. Fearing Russians will gain an advantage as the weapon supplier of choice and needing money ourselves the U.S. is also competing for Hezballah dollars.

The fact that these American weapons might be used against Israel or even find their way deployed against our own forces seems to have escaped the "thinkers" in GW's administration.(See 2 below.)

Olmert has found a way to to accommodate Arab demands that Israel return territory. He simply has ceded land where Israelis once sought to live, raise families and work in peace. (See 3 below.)

Sometimes names describe a person very well. I recently read where a woman commented that Madoff made off alright.

Israel's Ambassadress to the U.N. reminds the Palestinians they have gained little for their efforts but then their needle seems to be stuck. (See 4 below.)

Out before he is in? (see 5 below.)

If you detect this memo has a harsh sarcastic edge to it then you are observant. The more I read and hear, the more I think about what I read and hear, the more bitter I become. Sorry, but that's the way I am feeling.



Dick

1) Wind Energy will be an early test of Obama's White House Staff
By Glenn R. Schleede

President-elect Obama has said that he would promote "wind farms" as one way to create more jobs. This idea is consistent with popular wisdom about wind energy and, therefore, sounded good while Mr. Obama was in the Senate and during his presidential campaign.


The problem for Mr. Obama now is that this popular wisdom is wrong. Contrary to reports issued by various wind energy advocates, "wind farms" provide few energy, environmental, or economic benefits and create very few jobs - far fewer than could be achieved if the money were used for other investments. Also, wind energy has adverse impacts that advocates like to ignore.


Difference between campaigning and governing


"Good ideas," even if costly, can be useful during a presidential campaign. Once elected, however, presidents typically find that they have many more "good ideas" thrust upon them by staffers, campaign contributors, special interest groups, and heads of departments and agencies than their Presidential budget can accommodate, or that have benefits outweighing true costs.


Therefore, all presidents need effective procedures and trusted staff with discernment skills near at hand who can tell them whether the claims made by proponents of various "good ideas" are really true and whether a proposal will be cost-effective in meeting his goals.


The question now is whether Mr. Obama's White House and Executive Office staff will have the capability and "clout" to protect him from being pressured to adopt unworthy proposals. This will be a test for NEC Director Larry Summers, Domestic Policy Director Melody Barnes, ERAB Staff Director Austan Goolsbee, and OMB Director Peter Orszag and their staffs.


Clearly, President Bush did not have effective procedures or staff in place to protect him from bad proposals, including those from his Department of Energy (DOE) and its constituents. DOE demonstrated that it could not be relied on to provide objective analysis -- or to put the public interest ahead of special interests. A recent, relevant example is the highly misleading report -- prepared by DOE, the National Renewable Energy "Laboratory" (NREL), and the wind industry - that suggested that the US could get 20% of its electricity from wind energy.


False Popular Wisdom about wind energy


The wind industry, its lobbyists, and other wind advocates have, for more than a decade, greatly overstated the environmental, energy and economic benefits of wind energy and understated or ignored the very high true cost of electricity from wind energy as well as its adverse environmental, ecological, economic, scenic and property value impacts. With assistance from DOE and NREL (using tax dollars), the industry has misled the public, media, and government officials. They have secured federal and state policies, tax breaks and subsidies that have:


Shifted billions of dollars in tax burden and other costs from "wind farm" owners to ordinary taxpayers and electric customers, and
Misdirected billions in capital investment dollars to energy projects ("wind farms") that produce very little electricity - which electricity is low in value because it is intermittent, volatile, unreliable with little of it, if any, available on hot weekday afternoons in July and August when electricity is most needed and has high value.


During the last 4 years, the facts about wind energy's true costs and benefits have begun to emerge, even in the media, but they have yet to be understood by most government officials who continue to parrot wind energy advocates.


False claims that "wind farms" provide large economic and job benefits


Quite likely, Mr. Obama's campaign statements about potential economic benefits and jobs from building "wind farms" were based on some of the misleading "reports," "analyses," or "studies" produced during the past year by the wind industry, other renewable energy advocacy groups, and DOE and NREL.


Such documents are a real disservice to sound government policy making because they are based on unrealistic assumptions and faulty economic analysis. They greatly overstate local and state job and other economic benefits. In the case of wind energy, they typically employ one or more of the following basic flaws and faulty assumptions:


1. Ignoring the fact that much of the capital cost of "wind farms" is for equipment purchased elsewhere, often imported from other countries. About 75% of the capital cost of "wind farms" is for turbines, towers and blades - many of which are imported and add to the outflow of wealth from the US.


2. Assuming that employment during project construction results in new jobs for local workers -- when most "wind farm" construction jobs are short term (6 months or less) and the overwhelming share of them are filled by specialized workers who are brought in temporarily.


3. Assuming that the very few permanent "wind farm" jobs are new jobs filled by local workers - when, in fact, these few permanent jobs are often filled by people brought in for short periods. Some "wind farm" owners contracts with suppliers of wind turbines and other equipment for maintenance work with the result that no "new" jobs for local workers are added.


4. Assuming that temporary workers who are brought in for short periods live and spend their pay checks -- and pay taxes -- locally when, in fact, these workers spend most of their wages where they and their families have permanent residences -- where the workers spend most of their weekends and where they pay nearly all of their taxes.


5. Assuming that the full purchase price of the goods and services purchased locally (often minimal in any case) has a local economic benefit. In fact, only the local value added may have a local economic benefit. This truth is illustrated by the purchase of a gallon of gasoline -- let's say for $2.00. Only the wages of the service station employees, the dealer's margin, and the taxes paid locally or to the state will have a local or state economic benefit. Economic benefits from the share of the $2.00 that pays for the crude oil (much of it imported), refining, wholesaling, and transportation generally flows elsewhere.


6. Assuming that land rental payments to land owners for allowing wind turbines all have local economic benefit. In fact, these payments will have little or no local economic benefit when the payments are to absentee landowners OR if the money is spent or invested elsewhere or is used to pay income taxes that flow to Washington DC or state capitals.


7. Using "input-output" models that spit out "indirect" job and other economic benefits that, in effect, magnify (a) all of the overestimates identified above, and (b) use unproven formula and data to calculate alleged "multiplier" effects.


8. Ignoring the environmental and economic costs imposed by "wind farm" development, which include but are not limited to (a) the environmental and ecological costs associated with the production of the equipment, (b) constructing and operating the "wind farm" (e.g., site and road clearing, wildlife habitat destruction, noise, bird and bat kills and interference with migration and refuges), c) scenic impairment, (d) neighboring property value impairment, and (e) local infrastructure costs.


9. Ignoring the fact that electricity produced from wind turbines, has less real value than electricity from reliable generating units -- because that output is intermittent, volatile and unreliable. Also, the electricity is most likely to be produced at night in colder months, not on hot weekday late afternoons in July and August when demand is high and the economic value of electricity is high.


10. Ignoring the "backup power" costs; i.e., the added cost resulting from having to keep reliable generating units immediately available (often running at less than peak efficiency) to keep electric grids in balance when those grids have to accept intermittent, volatile and unreliable output from "wind farms."


11. Ignoring the fact that electricity from "wind farms" located in remote areas generally results in high unit costs of transmission due to (a) the need to add transmission capacity, (b) the environmental, scenic and property value costs associated with transmission lines, (c) the electric transmission "line losses" (i.e., the electricity that is produced by generating units but is lost during transmission and never reaches customers or serves a useful purpose), and (d) inefficient use of transmission capacity because "wind farms" output is intermittent and unpredictable and seldom at the capacity of the transmission line that must be built to serve the "wind farm."


12. Ignoring the fact that the higher true cost of the electricity from wind is passed along to ordinary electric customers and taxpayers via electric bills and tax bills which means that people who bear the costs have less money to spend on other needs (food, clothing, shelter, education, medical care -- or hundreds of other things normally purchased in local stores), thus reducing the jobs associated with that spending and undermining local economies that would benefit from supplying these needs.


13. Perhaps most important, ignoring the fact that the investment dollars going to "renewable" energy sources would otherwise be available for investment for other purposes that would produce greater economic benefits. "Wind farms" have very high capital costs and relatively low operating costs compared to generating units using traditional energy sources. They also create far fewer jobs, particularly long-term jobs, and far fewer local economic benefits. "Wind farms" are simply a poor choice if the goals are to create jobs, add local economic benefits, or hold down electric bills.


Unfortunately, many of the faulty assumptions and incorrect economic analyses described above are present in an "economic model" called JEDI (for Jobs and Economic Development Impact model) that was developed for NREL by a wind industry consultant-lobbyist. This "model," paid for with tax dollars flowing through DOE, has been widely promoted by NREL and DOE. Outputs from the model are being used by developers to mislead citizens and local governments in areas where developers wish to build "wind farms."


The upcoming test


In summary, the facts about wind energy - yet to be acknowledged by many DOE and other government officials -- demonstrate that "wind farms" with their huge (40+ story) wind turbines produce relatively little electricity; the electricity that is produced is intermittent, volatile, unreliable and low in value; and the true economic and environmental costs of electricity from wind is high.


Because wind turbines cannot be counted on to produce electricity at the time of peak electricity demand, areas experiencing growth in peak demand or needing to replace old generating units will have no choice but to add reliable generating units - whether or not they add wind turbines. If wind turbines are built, electric customers will end up paying twice; once for wind turbines and again for reliable generating capacity.


In fact, "wind farms" are being built primarily because of extraordinarily generous federal and state tax breaks and subsidies available to their owners - not because of their environmental, energy or economic benefits. Wind industry spokesmen have indicated that two-thirds of the economic value of "wind farms" is derived from just two federal tax breaks (i.e., wind Production Tax Credit and 5-year double declining balance accelerated depreciation). Other federal and state tax breaks and subsidies add to benefits enjoyed by "wind farm" owners - all with the costs borne by taxpayers and electric customers.


The wind industry lobbyists and other wind energy advocates have already mounted efforts to expand or extend the huge wind energy tax breaks and subsidies that are already costing taxpayers billions of dollars. The weeks and months ahead will reveal whether President-elect Obama and his White House and Executive Office staff will develop an accurate understanding of the true costs and benefits of wind energy - or whether they will be guided by the false "popular wisdom" that has been promoted by the wind industry, DOE, NREL, and other wind energy advocates.

2) US-Russian race to arm Lebanon with heavy weapons


The United States and Russia are bidding hard against each other to give the Lebanese army heavy weapons, a contest which Israeli diplomacy has failed to deter,

Defense ministry official Amos Gilead arrived in Moscow Friday, Dec. 19 only to watch his train leaving the station: Sophisticated Russian S-300 air defense systems were already speeding toward Tehran to guard its nuclear sites and MiG-29 fighter jets had been pledged to Lebanon.

In Washington, too, Israeli diplomats pleaded in vain with Bush administration leaders to refrain from giving Lebanon tanks and a fleet of combat helicopters. Ten Cobras have led the way. They argued that there are no safeguards against American hardware falling into the hands of the Lebanese terrorist Hizballah, whose leaders vowed again Friday to destroy the Jewish state by launching a regional conflagration.

The spillover has a precedent: In the Israel-Hizballah war of 2006, the Lebanese army, then only lightly armed, let the Shiite terrorists fire missiles at Israel's Mediterranean naval ships from its coastal radar positions.

Next time round, Israel faces a far tougher, upgraded arsenal of anti-air missiles made in Iran and Russia -supplied in the last two years by Tehran and Damascus, plus the new influx of US-made tanks and helicopters.

Israel's strategic standing has thus been allowed to drop another notch thanks to the spineless incompetence of Israel's current leaders, Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and Ehud Barak.

David Hale of the state department announced the US package for Lebanon Friday, Dec. 19, while denying Washington was competing with Moscow after the Russians gave Beirut a gift of 10 MiG fighters. After meeting Lebanese prime minister Fouad Siniora in Beirut, Hale said that, in addition to M-50 Supersherman tanks, the US package under preparation included "air support capabilities (helicopters) with precision weapons and urban combat gear." He did not go into numbers or types of weaponry.

The US was helping the Lebanese army "to maintain internal security and fighting terrorism in Lebanon," Hale said.

al Qaeda has relocated some of its Iraq terror force to Lebanon and that UNIFIL's peacemakers had been placed on the alert in the southern Sidon-Ain Hilwa region where the incoming jihadis were preparing attacks for Lebanon and across the border into Israel as well.


American official visits to Beirut have become more frequent in recent weeks.

In late November, the head of the US Central Command, Gen. David Petraeus, held talks with Lebanese leaders, followed on Dec. 10, by the coordinator of anti-terror operations at the state department, Dell Dailey.

The last arrival, Hale, may choose to play down the competition with Moscow, but military sources see American and Russian military instructors working cheek by jowl to teach the Lebanese army how to use their respective weapons, especially air defense tactics. Close competition in these circumstances is bound to lead to the piling on of advanced hardware offers by the contestants. The big American military mission in Beirut at the moment will no doubt be followed by a Russian delegation of comparable size.

Washington has not prevented Moscow from building up a rival military presence in Lebanon capital, a development in which Israel has a high security stake. Whereas Russia's strategic orbit focused earlier on new naval bases in Syria's Mediterranean ports of Latakia and Tartous, it has since stretched to a military foothold 250 km to the south, right up to Israel's back door from Lebanon.

While the tanks America is giving Lebanon are ageing models, Israeli military experts comment that they form the nucleus of the Lebanese army's first tank corps, along with its first helicopters – two valuable resources coming within the Hizballah's grasp and in whose use Iranian officers will quickly instruct them.

A group of Hizballah operatives recently paid a secret visit to Moscow and asked for Russian hardware. The Russians did not respond. But by supplying the Lebanese army with heavy equipment along with experts and instructors, it has opened the way for these assets to be diverted to the Shiite terrorists.

Jerusalem is too busy spinning fairy tales about the feasibility of peace with Syria to pay proper attention to the hectic, hostile activity on Israel's northern border.

3) 'Israel has given up its sovereignty over territory near Gaza'
By Yanir Yagna and Barak Ravid



Residents of a Gaza-area community on Saturday accused the government of having abandoned them in the face of ongoing cross-border attacks by Palestinian militants.

"The state of Israel ceded its sovereignty over Gaza-area communities because of electoral considers dictate to the Israel Defense Forces what to do," fumed a resident of Kibbutz Kfar Aza.

He made the comments at a ceremony to mark the birthday of kibbutz member Jimmy Kedoshim, who was killed in May in a mortar attack launched by Hamas militants.


The Kfar Aza resident added: "We entered the truce from a position of weakness, they told us that this is because of Gilad Shalit. 180 days have passed and Gilad Shalit is still in captivity and the mortar shells are still hitting the kibbutz."

Earlier Saturday, Vice Premier Haim Ramon blasted Defense Minister Ehud Barak's policy on the Gaza Strip as a "total failure" as Palestinian militants in the coastal territory pounded southern Israel with a barrage of rocket and mortar fire.

"Barak's policy has suffered a total failure, is seriously harming the residents of the South and the national security of the State of Israel, and is causing inestimable political damage," said Ramon.

The Vice Premier also said he demands that outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert hold an urgent discussion in order to immediately change Israel's policy with regard to Gaza.

In light of the upsurge in cross-border attacks from Gaza, Kibbutz Movement Secretary-General Ze'ev Shor called on Barak and Olmert to declare the reinforcement of homes in Gaza-area Israeli communities as a national priority.

"A general [Israel Defense Forces reservist] call-up order needs to be issued in order to finish this within two months," said Shor, speaking at a conference in the North on Friday.

4) Undaunted diplomacy
By ALLISON HOFFMAN

The wood-domed meeting chamber of the UN was mostly empty of delegates when Ambassador Gabriela Shalev took the podium a few weeks ago at a session devoted to expressing solidarity with the plight of the Palestinians.

Shalev, wearing her customary tailored black pantsuit, was undaunted. With aplomb, she began her retort to a series of speeches from Arab ministers decrying Israel as an apartheid state.

"Some may feel satisfaction at repeatedly passing General Assembly resolutions or holding conferences that condemn Israel's behavior, but one should also ask whether such steps bring any tangible relief or benefit to the Palestinians," she said. "Has any of this had an effect on Israel's policies, other than to strengthen the belief in Israel, and among many of its supporters, that this great organization is too one-sided to be allowed a significant role in the Middle East peace process?"

She looked up, narrowing her eyes as she gauged her audience, and then dropped her punch line: The words weren't hers, but instead belonged to former secretary-general Kofi Annan. Somewhere in the hall, someone coughed. Quickly, Shalev read through the rest of her address, pleading with her colleagues to stop "bashing" Israel and instead - in a sly reference to Barack Obama - "discard the politics of blame and engage in politics of hope."

The message wasn't new: In a similar speech last year, former ambassador Dan Gillerman - widely known as a charmer with an almost Borscht Belt sense of humor - drew on Marilyn Monroe's infamous "Happy Birthday, Mr. President" performance to call on his colleagues to celebrate Israel's birth, rather than focus on the failure to redress the claims of the Palestinian people.

But Shalev, frank almost to a fault and blessed with a contract lawyer's eye for tactical advantage, saw the opening to make a new point. At 67, she is old enough to remember dancing in the streets of Tel Aviv with her father after the newly created UN voted to support the creation of the Israeli state on November 29, 1947 - and, as one of Israel's foremost legal minds, she was canny enough to spot an opening to remind the gathered delegates that they had every power to help the Palestinians toward the same goal by backing the bilateral peace process.

"This is diplomacy, but this is also lawyering," Shalev, who came to the UN after a distinguished career as a law professor, told The Jerusalem Post a few days later in her office at the Israeli mission. "You talk to people you don't agree with. Contract law is all about finding out what the other party is interested in, and then figuring out how to use it to get what you want."

Though her speech didn't appear to have any immediate effect - the assembly delegates went ahead and voted to renew a series of resolutions condemning Israel - Shalev said she was undeterred in her goal of cultivating support wherever she could find willing partners.

Shalev said her main objective in the coming months will be to broaden the scope of the country's portfolio at the world body, continuing a push to be increasingly vocal on issues from economic aid for Africa to women's rights, and find new friends along the way.

"There are 194 countries in the UN, and there are so many whom we never reach out to," she said, naming New Zealand and other Pacific Rim countries among her first targets.

Shalev's charm offensive has also included delegates of moderate Arab countries - Qatar and Bahrain among them - whose leaders are being assiduously courted by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and President Shimon Peres from Jerusalem for help supporting the bilateral peace talks with the Palestinians.

"We can offer them help on different issues, and despite the image of the UN as just talk, it is important - they realize that we are just human beings, as they are," Shalev said. She quoted the novelist Amos Oz, who inverted the famous hippie dictum "make love not war" into "make peace not love."

In many ways, it's a continuation of the strategy employed by Gillerman, a businessman who left the UN in July after five years as Israel's envoy during which he cultivated close personal friendships with his counterparts from hostile countries to lay the groundwork for progress in committee chambers.

Gillerman's approach was a break from strategies employed by previous ambassadors - among them Binyamin Netanyahu, whom veteran UN-watchers described as a "clever, avuncular, funny" but "needlessly abrasive" diplomat.

"That was a mixture of his style and his intellect and his stances," said Thomas Weiss, a political scientist at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. "But he was unwelcome in so many places and unwelcome negative publicity outshone whatever he did."

Shalev, by contrast, is routinely described as polite and humble - and also as quietly brilliant. Lawyers recount the story of an exam she aced as a third-year student in a class taught by Aharon Barak, former president of the Supreme Court - despite finishing only one out of three questions in the time allotted. The tale has acquired the air of urban legend, but Shalev, when pressed, admits it is true - though she coyly claims it says more about the mind-set of the professor than about her own talent.

Former students also describe her as relentlessly curious. One said he proposed a paper comparing Dutch and Jewish law, and found Shalev receptive despite her lack of expertise in either subject.

"She knew nothing about it but she really was interested," said Raffi Kornitzer, now a lawyer in Jerusalem. "She is open-minded and always willing to hear and to learn new things."

But the same spirit of curiosity that served her well as an academic sometimes looks a little like naivete at the UN, where last night's avid conversationalist can become a stone-faced stranger in the General Assembly hall.

"I thought this would be much smoother and not so much double-speak - there is this difference between the small talk at the champagne receptions and what goes on in the chambers," Shalev said, noting an experience with one Arab diplomat in particular who would not be seen speaking to her in public.

When asked whether there was anyone she would not want to try to speak with, she demurred, saying that of course she would not sit down with ambassadors from sworn enemies of Israel like Iran and Libya - but noted that it would be an interesting conversation to have one day, if circumstances changed.

"Maybe one day - why not? It's engagement," she said. "Whom do you want to talk to, your friends? The ones who already agree with you? No."

5) Senate-for-sale case threatens new chief of staff
By BRETT J. BLACKLEDGE and TAMMY WEBBERCHICAGO

Gov. Rod Blagojevich is legendary in Illinois political circles for not picking up the phone or returning calls, even from important figures like the state's senior senator, Dick Durbin.

But there was always one call Blagojevich regularly took, say his aides, and that was from Rahm Emanuel — his congressman, his one-time campaign adviser and, more recently — and troubling for Emanuel — one of his contacts with President-elect Barack Obama's transition staff.

The friendly rapport Blagojevich and Emanuel shared over the years has suddenly become a troubling liability for Emanuel and the new president he will serve as chief of staff.

Emanuel and Obama have remained silent about what, if anything, Emanuel knew of the governor's alleged efforts to peddle Obama's vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Emanuel did contact the governor's office about the appointment and left Blagojevich with the impression that he was pushing Valerie Jarrett, a close Obama friend, so he wouldn't have to compete with her in the White House for Obama's attention, said a person close to Blagojevich. The person was not authorized to talk about the governor's discussions regarding the vacancy and requested anonymity.

It was not clear whether Blagojevich inferred Emanuel's motive for advocating Jarrett, or whether Emanuel discussed the appointment with Blagojevich directly or with John Harris, the governor's then-chief of staff who also is charged in the case, according to the source.

Emanuel's refusal to discuss the matter publicly, and the few comments offered by Obama to date, have prompted questions about Emanuel's ties to Blagojevich and what fallout he'll face as the criminal case unfolds, although sources have said he is not a target of prosecutors. Even so, any hint of scandal for Emanuel threatens to tarnish Obama's promise of new political leadership free of scandal and corruption.

Obama has said he will release a full accounting of his transition staff's interaction with Blagojevich and his aides over his Senate replacement once he receives the OK from prosecutors sometime this week. Until then, Obama has said it would be inappropriate for him or his aides to comment further.

Prosecutors refer in the 76-page complaint to the governor's discussions on FBI tapes about a "president-elect advisor," believed to be Emanuel, but they do not specifically cite contacts with Emanuel or anyone on Obama's transition staff.

Instead, the taped conversations reveal Blagojevich telling others to float his idea by the president's adviser of forming a nonprofit that he hoped would, with Obama's help, receive millions of dollars that the governor could tap later.

Blagojevich said he didn't want the idea associated directly in conversations about the Senate appointment or filling Emanuel's seat in the House, according to the complaint. However, Blagojevich is quoted as saying "I want it to be in his head" for later discussions about Emanuel's successor.

It was Blagojevich who, seemingly out of nowhere, yanked Emanuel into his scandal when answering reporters' questions the day before his Dec. 9 arrest, invoking his name in an apparent attempt to shrug off any perception of wrongdoing.

He said he wasn't concerned about a report in the Chicago Tribune that confidant and former aide John Wyma's cooperation had helped lead federal prosecutors to tape the governor's conversations.

Big deal, Blagojevich said. He said he's "always lawful" whenever he speaks, and he was confident Wyma has been "an honest person who's conducted himself in an honest way. That's the John Wyma I know and it's the John Wyma that Rahm Emanuel knows and a lot of other people know."

Blagojevich is right. Wyma does have ties to both him and Emanuel, those close to both have said. And Wyma's clients contributed to both — more than $100,000 to Emanuel's campaigns and causes, and more than $445,000 to Blagojevich's, according to campaign finance records reviewed by The Associated Press.

Wyma and his attorney, Zachary Fardon, did not respond to interview requests.

Emanuel's defenders say he is hardly an ally of Blagojevich.

"They were in different worlds personally and politically," said Peter Giangreco, a political consultant on Blagojevich's 1996 congressional campaign and his two gubernatorial races. "They only dealt with each other because they occupied the same political geography."

Emanuel's effort to promote Jarrett or anyone else for Obama's vacant Senate seat was more a part of his new job description and less a reflection of close ties, Emanuel's supporters have said.

But there was more to their relationship than a polite acquaintance. The two share a political past, rooted on Chicago's North Side, and a friendly relationship — although not a close friendship — that made Emanuel the obvious choice to push Obama's preferences to fill his vacant Senate seat, current and former Blagojevich aides said.

They at times joined forces politically, like in 2005 to promote importing prescription drugs from Canada and in 2006 to push for an increase in the state's minimum wage. Blagojevich, his aides say, wasn't shy about seeking the help of Emanuel, referred to in a 2006 Tribune article as his "Washington-based mentor."

Blagojevich was a congressman before he was governor and he represented the Fifth District, a small but heavily populated district in Chicago's northern and western suburbs, not far from O'Hare International Airport. His rise to Congress has been well documented of late, including the help he received from powerful Chicago Alderman Dick Mell — his now-estranged father-in-law.

When Emanuel returned to politics in 2002 after some years spent in investment banking, he targeted Blagojevich's Fifth District seat as he launched his reformist campaign for governor.

Due to his personal wealth and his national fundraising base dating to his work in the Clinton administration, Emanuel didn't have to go to Mell or to powerful unions because he already had acquired political clout.

Nancy Kaszak, who ran for Congress against Blagojevich in 1996 when both were state representatives and had a nasty battle against Emanuel in 2002, said she believes Mell quietly backed Emanuel. On Election Day that year, she recalls, Mell's poll workers passed out literature for both Blagojevich and Emanuel. Mell declined to be interviewed for this story.

Emanuel has described himself as a one-time adviser to Blagojevich. David Wilhelm, one of Emanuel's close friends who worked with him in the Clinton White House, informally assisted on that campaign for Blagojevich.

Emanuel, who has declined to comment since Blagojevich's arrest, told The New Yorker magazine over the summer that he, Wilhelm and Obama met once a week during the 2002 race to plot campaign strategy for Blagojevich. Wilhelm has said Emanuel overstated the group's role.

Also, Emanuel, Blagojevich and Obama all have hired David Axelrod, the Chicago political consultant who helped engineer Obama's presidential victory. Axelrod helped Blagojevich in 1996 and Emanuel in 2002.

The coming days will offer the first answers about Emanuel's recent interaction with Blagojevich and discussions about filling Obama's Senate seat.

Obama already has insisted that his aides did no bartering with Blagojevich to advance candidates for the appointment. But refusing the deal is only the first step to fighting corruption in a political culture that promotes it when others look the other way, U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said earlier when announcing the charges against Blagojevich.

"We're not going to end corruption in Illinois by arrests and indictments alone," the prosecutor said. "What's going to make the difference is when people who are approached to 'pay to play' first say no, and, second, report it."