Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Earthquake hits Paducah
Depleted Uranium Weapons and Acute Post-War Health Effects
U.N. Presses Bush On Iraq
U.N. Says Iran Not Complying on Nuke Info
Iran says ready to sign protocol on nuke fuel return with Russia
Russia to send nuclear fuel to Iran - Itar-Tass
Questions loom regarding whereabouts of WMDs
Health crisis looms over looted Iraqi nuclear plant
U.S. limits search by Vienna nuke team
International Inspection of Iraqi Nuclear Facility Set To Begin
U.N. nuclear experts back in Iraq
UN nuclear experts arrive in Iraq
Blix: Better chances exist now in Iraq to find out the truth
Blix: America jumped to a conclusion over weapons
US, British spy data on Iraq left UN arms chief disappointed
Blix Questions Credibility Of U.S.-British Inspectors
Row over Iraq's weapons grows
Japan's war policy upsets neighbours
U.S. Troops Will Leave Korean DMZ
Fallout of shuffling US forces in Korea
G.I.'s Will Gradually Leave Korea DMZ to Cut War Risk
Moscow to keep helping Tehran
Official doubts existence of Iran nuke program
Rocky Flats Nuclear Factory to Become Wildlife Refuge
NRC Gives Early Nod to Renewal of Nuclear Plant License
EPA flays OR health report
Repair Plan for Reactor With Leaks
Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
US hints at force to disarm rogue states
Cheney's CIA visits pressured us: analysts
U.S. Secret Report Raises Questions Over Iraqi Weapons
Iraqi gov't can't be rushed: U.S.
MILITARY
Recycling Wars
Africa's Women Beginning To See Progress in Politics
French Troops Arrive in Congo War Zone
Western Sudan rebels say killed many soldiers in attack on army position
ASIA Chinese Firm Denies Aiding Iran on Weapons
Thailand, US launch another round of joint military exercises
Iraqi military officer 'source for weapons claim'
Weapons dossier 'sent back six times'
Sensytech awarded $4.4 million contract
Canada Scales Back Military Activities in Gulf
Experts Warn Congress About Iranian Exile Groups
Iranians don't need American kingmakers
Iraqi Sevenfold Council Insignificant: Kubaissi
Leading Iraqi Shiite Cleric Emerges to Meet U.S. Ally
British beat my father - then he died
In Iraqi town, misery and despair add to hatred of US troops
Hamas Halts Truce Talks With Abbas
Abdullah 'Nearly Pulled Out of Summit Over Ties With Israel'
Iran will have WMDs by 2006: Israeli FM
Analysis: Poles nudge NATO toward Iraq
Macedonia Sends Troops To Iraq To Prove 'Commitment To NATO'
Manila Rules Out Bases as U.S. Shifts Forces in Asia
Russia OKs Amnesty for Chechen Rebels
Now the US wants control of space
NASA to Send Rover to Study Mars
Mars rovers' plutonium not a threat, NASA says
Intelligence Historian Says CIA 'Buckled' on Iraq
U.S. Seeks to Clarify Iraq Weapons Report
Ukraine joins peacekeeping force
Navy Intends to Expand Seals Force
What Is Patriotism?
LIARS 'R US
WMD Quotes Before & After The Invasion
U.S. Seeks to Extend Int'l Court Deal
Liberian Denounces War Crimes Indictment
Deal Reached on Cambodian Genocide Trials
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Withholding of Lee Report Is Defended
FIGHT PATRIOT ACT II
Ashcroft Wants Stronger Patriot Act
Ashcroft Calls For Expanding Death Penalty To Terrorists
No Excuses From Ashcroft
Government Creates New Cybersecurity Office
Ashcroft Seeks More Power to Pursue Terror Suspects
Man Acquitted in Terror Case Says Co-Defendants Will Be Cleared
For enemy combatant, speaking with lawyer is impossible
Seeking the Roots of Terrorism
ENERGY AND OTHER
Senate Adds Rule to Energy Bill to Double Ethanol in Gasoline
Unions Back Research Plan for Energy
Oregon's Powerdale Hydroelectric Project to Shut Down
World marks environment day "dying for water"
Putin tells govt to get environment act together
USDA to Urge Greenhouse Gas Reduction
Plants Prospering From Climate Change
ACTIVISTS
'Admit your lies', former UN inspector Ritter tells US, Britain
Peace advocates in Egypt revive efforts
Bechtel getting flak over Iraq
Zimbabwe's Main Opposition Leader Arrested
U.N. Envoy Presses Myanmar to Release Dissident
U.N.'s Annan Presses for Suu Kyi Release
Greenpeace stages UK protest over Indonesian wood
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- accidents and safety
Earthquake hits Paducah
From: Hannah Burdine <stoples2002@yahoo.com>
Fri, 6 Jun 2003
Some of you may not know this, but there is a uranium enrichment plant in Paducah, and lots of aging, nuke-waste filled containers. Not only is there DU here, but also plutonium. Hannah
A minor earthquake occurred Fri Jun 6, 2003 at about 07:29:33 CDT (Jun 6, 2003 12:29:33 GMT). The event was 2.82 km ( 1.75 mi) west of Cunningham, KY (Carlisle). The magnitude was 4.5.
Origin Time: 2003/06/06 12:29:33.33
Magnitude: 3.7
Hypocenter: 36.90 deg latitude -88.92 deg longitude
Depth: 2.62 km
Number Picks: 30
Closest Station: 62 km
RMS: 0.33 sec
Gap: 140 deg
Quality: B
Error Ellipsoid, axis #1: azm> 123 dip> 10 len> 2.79 km axis #1: azm> 215 dip> 13 len> 2.44 km
This is a preliminary location and magnitude determined from data provided by the Central and Southeast U.S. Cooperative Seismic Network and by the U.S. Geological Survey. Magnitude and location may change slightly as more data become available.
Additional information on the CUSSN is available at: http://folkworm.ceri.memphis.edu/recenteqs
-------- depleted uranium
Depleted Uranium Weapons and Acute Post-War Health Effects
by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
Friday June 06, 2003
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1613322_comment.php#1617905
An IPPNW Assessment
The US-led military coalition that fought the 1991 Gulf War is reported to have used about 300 tons of ammunition containing depleted uranium (DU) against Iraqi tanks and other armored vehicles. During the 1999 war in the Balkans, NATO forces used about 11 tons of DU in missiles that were fired into the former Yugoslavia [1]. DU weapons have military utility because the density and tensile strength of uranium (which is relatively cheap and abundant) give it unusual armor-piercing capabilities. Concerns about the potential health effects of DU weapons arise primarily from immediate and long term uranium contamination in the areas where they are used. On penetration, for example, about 20% of the DU burns spontaneously, creating a fine aerosol smoke of uranium oxide that can be easily inhaled and lodge itself in the lungs. Fragments of DU weapons are scattered around battlefields, and can become embedded as shrapnel in human and animal flesh.
In the months and years following both of these armed conflicts, a large number of soldiers, UN peacekeepers, and civilians have exhibited unexpected and unexplained health problems, including excess leukemias and other cancers, neurological disorders, birth defects, and a constellation of symptoms loosely gathered under the rubric "Gulf War Illnesses." Depleted uranium, because of its radioactivity and chemical toxicity, has been linked to these acute health effects in the press and in public forums. Some opponents of DU weapons have categorically asserted that exposure to depleted uranium is the direct cause of these excess cancers. US and NATO officials, citing the published research on the health effects of uranium, have dismissed DU as a potential cause of the acute health effects for which it has been blamed.
IPPNW deplores the use of depleted uranium weapons and supports the calls in the European Union and elsewhere for a ban on their use. We urge caution, however, in making categorical assertions or denials about health effects until systematic, independent, peer-reviewed studies of depleted uranium exposure have been conducted. The US government and NATO have an absolute obligation to provide independent, unbiased researchers with the funding, data, and access required to conduct such studies. The World Health Organization has requested $2 million as an immediate payment toward a four-year $20 million clinical study of DU health effects in Iraq and the Balkans. The US and NATO have an obligation to promptly and unconditionally fund the WHO's work in this area.
While the peer-reviewed studies of health effects from natural uranium exposure are weighted against the probability that DU exposure, in and of itself, is likely to have caused an increase in leukemias or other cancers in the relatively short time since it has been dispersed in the Balkans environment, the science is controversial and the possibility cannot be ruled out. The Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses, which reports to the US Department of Defense, has itself stated that DU can pose a chemical toxicity and radiological hazard under specific conditions [2]. Moreover, any impurities that may have found their way into the DU munitions used in either the Gulf or the Balkans -- including plutonium, actinides, and the highly radioactive manufactured isotope U-236 [3] -- pose unquestionably serious health threats, and the extent to which at-risk populations may have been exposed to these substances must be studied promptly and thoroughly by unbiased investigators.
Allied soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and civilians were exposed to many other health hazards before, during, and after the Gulf War. These included multiple vaccines, insecticides, and chemical weapon protectives. Any chemical weapons released as a result of the bombing of Iraqi munitions-dumps would be an additional hazard (as would chemical weapon residues from the prior Iran-Iraq war). The petrochemical fires that raged for weeks at the conclusion of the war added to the toxic burden. In the former Yugoslavia, chemical factories were targeted and destroyed during NATO air strikes, and large amounts of toxic chemicals, some of them known carcinogens, were released. Risk factors can interact (e.g., smoking compounds the risk of radiation exposure among uranium miners).
The British Medical Journal, in a recent editorial, concluded that "the argument for uranium being the cause of leukaemia in peacekeeping forces is thin, notwithstanding the short latencies implied, even by the standards of haematological malignancies," and that, with regard to non-cancer illnesses, "no single candidate hazard...serves as its unifying explanation, depleted uranium included" [4]. To point to these other exposures as possible contributors to post-war health problems is not to exonerate DU weapons in the absence of independent clinical study of the populations that were actually exposed.
Depleted Uranium: The Facts in Brief Natural uranium is composed of three isotopes: U-238 (99.3%), U-235 (0.7%), and U-234 (0.006%). These isotopes decay at different rates, expressed in scientific parlance as half-lives. A shorter half-life means more intense radiation and, in general, greater potential to damage or destroy cells. The half-life of U-238 -- the time in which its radioactivity is reduced by half -- is 4.5 billion years; that of U-235 is 710 million years; and that of U-234 is 250 thousand years. For comparison, the half-life of plutonium -- which can be lethal in even microscopic amounts -- is 24,000 years [5].
Depleted uranium is the byproduct of a process known as uranium enrichment -- the manufacture of uranium with a concentration of highly radioactive U-235 for use in nuclear weapons and in nuclear power plants. DU, which has been depleted of its U-235 and U-234, is about 60% as radioactive as natural uranium. Most of that radiation -- about 95% -- is emitted as alpha particles that cannot penetrate the skin. A minute amount of beta and gamma radiation could strike deeper cell tissue were fine particles of DU inhaled or ingested, as they could easily be by any soldier or civilian in the vicinity of a recently exploded DU shell. Even low doses of low-level radiation can cause some damage to the DNA in living cells. Whether that damage is enough to significantly increase the risk of cancer and other acute health effects is a matter of much debate, and up until now there has been no conclusive evidence of adverse health effects from exposure to natural uranium. We cannot emphasize strongly enough, however, that an absence of evidence about health effects is not evidence that there are no health effects.
DU is no different from natural uranium in its chemical toxicity. It is a heavy metal that, in its soluble form, accumulates in the kidneys (the primary target organ for uranium) and that, in sufficient quantities, can increase the risk of renal damage. The scientific evidence to date suggests that ingestion of uranium, even in unusual amounts, does not by itself cause serious or enduring health problems due to chemical toxicity. Nevertheless, like all heavy metals, DU is a risk factor that cannot be casually dismissed.
Uranium Health Studies
Studies conducted over several decades have found that populations with well-above-average occupational exposure to inhaled or ingested uranium do not suffer from increased rates of the cancers most likely to be associated with radiation, nor do they exhibit the blood disorders that might be expected as a result of chemical toxicity. Other causes, such as radon exposure among uranium miners and mill workers, have been pinpointed for certain specific illnesses [6,7]), but these studies do not account for new experimental data suggesting a role for dust toxicity in the lung. The aerosol particles generated by DU weapons are in a very hard "ceramic" state, so are likely to be retained in the lung and its regional lymph nodes for a prolonged period, increasing the risk of cellular damage from alpha radiation. The main risk from internal radiation, whether the exposure is due to manufacturing processes or DU weapons, is from this inhaled dust.
As mentioned earlier, there is evidence that the DU munitions used in the Gulf war and in the Balkans were tainted with plutonium, U-236, and other substances far more intensely radioactive than U-238. Recent studies have pointed to the possiblility of genetic damage resulting from exposure to some forms of radiation emitted from particles such as those deposited by DU weapons [8]. Any such genomic effect, if substantiated, could point toward increased risk of cancer or leukemia in the lung or regional lymph nodes above the standard -- and controversial -- predictions of radiation protection models [9]. It is simply too early to say. Precisely for that reason, the health of military and civilian populations that have been exposed to DU in the Gulf and in the Balkans should be monitored closely in the years ahead.
What Should Be Done About DU Weapons?
While IPPNW generally concurs with the BMJ's assessment that the jury is still out on DU, and that the other hazards to which civilians and military personnel were exposed, individually and in combination, are themselves very likely causes of the kinds of post-war health problems from which civilians and military personnel have been suffering in the aftermath of these conflicts, we condemn the use of DU weapons and support the calls for a ban on their use.
A basic principle in radiation protection is that all exposures should be justified; that is, the benefit for those exposed should exceed the risk. This is the standard for medical radiography. The military utility of DU weapons for the users does not justify any added health risk for non-combatants, no matter how small. The precautionary principle states that in the absence of convincing proof that a substance or process is harmless, the presumption must be risk. This principle applies clearly to the use of DU weapons. Furthermore, DU weapons indiscriminately contaminate the places in which they are used, and the contamination persists long after the conclusion of hostilities, adding to the radioactive and toxic burden imposed upon civilians, wildlife, and ecosystems. From this perspective, DU weapons should be considered a form of ecological warfare prohibited by the Geneva Conventions [10].
DU weapons may already be illegal under international law and international humanitarian law, and this case is being made in compelling fashion by members of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), who have formed a working group to study this issue. The damage caused by DU weapons cannot be contained to "legal" fields of battle; they continue to act after the conclusion of hostilities; they are inhumane because they place the health of non-combatants, including children and future generations, at risk; and they cannot be used without unduly damaging the natural environment 11].
The fact that military authorities in both the US and NATO advise their own soldiers to take precautions when handling DU munitions and have prepared detailed training manuals and videos to ensure troop safety [12], while issuing blanket denials of health risks to the public, strikes us as hypocritical at the very least, and reinforces our judgment that these weapons should be withdrawn from service.
Whether or not DU weapons are ultimately shown to have the health effects for which they have been blamed, they are only one example of the continuing ways in which militaries pollute our planet. They are emblematic of the unacceptable costs of contemporary armed conflict to civilian populations, who were the predominant casualties of war in the 20th century, and are likely to remain so in the 21st. They are on the spectrum of indiscriminate and inhumane weapons that includes landmines and biological and chemical weapons, and that, at its most devastating end, includes tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that jeopardize all life on earth.
http://www.slmk.org/main/artiklar/du0102.html
add your comments http://sf.indymedia.org/comment.php?top_id=1613322
----
U.N. Presses Bush On Iraq
Return of Weapons Inspectors Urged
By Colum Lynch and Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, June 6, 2003; Page A21
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21815-2003Jun5?language=printer
UNITED NATIONS, June 5 -- U.N. Security Council members called on the Bush administration today to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq to certify whether it possessed secret biological and chemical weapons before the U.S.-led invasion.
The demand for renewed U.N. inspections, which was endorsed by an overwhelming majority of council members including Britain, the United States' closest military ally, came as the administration is facing charges by members of Congress and some intelligence analysts that it may have exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq to justify going to war.
It also reflected a growing consensus in the 15-nation council that the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), which carried out inspections between November and March, should test U.S. and British claims that Iraq continued to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. "The disarmament of Iraq must be verified and confirmed by UNMOVIC and the International Atomic Energy Agency on the ground and in conjunction with the [U.S.-led military] coalition," French Ambassador Jean-Marc de la Sabliere told the Security Council, according to a copy of his speaking notes.
"We believe that UNMOVIC can continue to be a great help in the overall business of completing the disarmament of Iraq's WMD [weapons of mass destruction] programs," Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's ambassador to the United Nations, told reporters after the meeting.
Hans Blix, executive chairman of the inspections agency, told the council that independent inspectors would have greater credibility than U.S. or British inspectors.
Blix said he could not verify claims by President Bush and senior U.S. officials that two trucks discovered in Iraq were mobile production plants for biological weapons. But he said Iraq apparently had violated its obligation to declare their existence to U.N. inspectors. "We will make absolutely no assessment without having seen them," he said.
U.S. Ambassador John D. Negroponte said that the Iraq Survey Group, which the Pentagon recently established to hunt for arms and other evidence of Iraqi crimes, is capable of rooting out Iraq's hidden weapons on its own and that the United States envisions no role for the U.N. inspectors in the foreseeable future.
The administration has agreed to permit the Vienna-based IAEA, which was responsible for inspecting Iraqi nuclear programs, to send in a seven-member team at the end of the week. It will survey the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, a nuclear storage site southeast of Baghdad.
The site, which contains several hundred metric tons of uranium oxide powder along with small quantities of low-enriched and depleted uranium, was unguarded and looted in the first 21/2 weeks of the war, and U.S. military teams have found high levels of radiation inside several buildings.
At a Pentagon briefing today on site conditions, defense officials said a search of the surrounding area by U.S. forces offering rewards of $3 to local residents had yielded more than 100 metal barrels and five radiological items that may have been stolen. But the officials said other material may still be missing.
Defense officials said the amount of materials found at the site exceeded the quantity that U.S. authorities had expected to find. That may reflect faulty prewar intelligence or the possibility that Iraq moved more radioactive material there before the war. In any case, the IAEA team will conduct its own survey and compare the results to the last inventory taken in December 2002, the officials said.
The United States agreed to let the IAEA team visit the Tuwaitha site only after repeated pleas from IAEA director general Mohamed ElBaradei, who feared a radiological and humanitarian emergency after news reports of possible radiation sickness among local residents. Defense officials today stressed that the visit did not set a precedent for other U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq, citing concerns about the ability of U.S. forces to ensure the safety of and provide logistical support to other teams.
Graham reported from Washington.
-------- iran
U.N. Says Iran Not Complying on Nuke Info
June 6, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Nuclear-Agency-Iran.html
VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Iran has not fully disclosed the extent of its atomic program to the U.N. nuclear agency as required by international treaty, the agency said Friday as its inspectors left for Tehran.
The State Department found the International Atomic Energy Agency report and Iran's nuclear program deeply troubling, department spokesman Richard Boucher said in Washington.
The long-awaited report comes 10 days before the IAEA meets to discuss Iran's programs. The United States wants the IAEA to declare Iran in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty at the June 16 session.
A diplomat from an IAEA member country said the report indicated that Iran failed to declare the import of some nuclear material and its subsequent processing.
Another diplomat said Iran agreed to accept the inspection team to defuse accusations it was working on a nuclear program. Both diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity.
Still, the report was critical.
``Iran has failed to meet its obligations under its safeguards agreement with respect to the reporting of nuclear material, the subsequent processing and use of that material and the declaration of facilities where that material was stored and processed,'' the first diplomat quoted the report as saying.
Iran, however, has said it is complying with IAEA rules and has no plans to make a bomb.
In Washington, Boucher refused to detail what the United States found unsettling in the report, but said the administration would work closely with IAEA board members to decide what to do next. One option would be to take the issue to the United Nations by asking for Security Council action.
``We think the report, and Iran's programs themselves, are deeply troubling and need to be studied carefully by all members'' of the IAEA, Boucher said.
The report follows a February visit to Iran by Mohammed ElBaradei, the director-general of the IAEA. His tour of Iran's nuclear facilities was intended to ensure that its nuclear industry was limited to peaceful, civilian purposes and the facilities were safe.
ElBaradei's visit included a tour of the incomplete nuclear plant in Natanz, about 200 miles south of Tehran. Diplomats accompanying him at the time said he was taken aback by the advanced stage of a project there using hundreds of centrifuges to enrich uranium.
A senior U.S. administration official recently said on condition of anonymity that the technology was invented by URENCO, a British-German-Dutch consortium, but suggested it was not provided through the firm but instead was stolen and then sold to Iran.
Gustav Meyer-Kretschmer, a URENCO official in Germany, said, ``We have no business relations with Iran, and we never did.''
----
Iran says ready to sign protocol on nuke fuel return with Russia
Payvand's Iran News,
6/6/03
(AFP)
http://www.payvand.com/news/03/jun/1034.html
Iran's Ambassador to Russia Gholam-Reza Shafe said in Moscow on Thursday that Tehran is ready to sign an additional protocol with Russia on the return of nuclear fuel from the Bushehr power plant, IRNA reported.
Shafei told reporters that Iran is currently prepared for signing the protocol, stressing however that Russia had reportedly developed some legal problems concerning the ecological aspects of the return of spent nuclear fuel.
He said the text of the document has already been agreed on by the two sides.
"Iran's signing the protocol never conveys its fear and worry," Shafei stressed. "Rather it manifests Tehran's good-will toward the international community."
He added that Iran-Russia cooperation in various enterprises, including the nuclear technology, embraces international laws, and rejected reports that Russian officials are worried about Tehran-Moscow nuclear cooperation.
Shafei confirmed that Iran has uranium deposits, stressing though that the issue was nothing new.
"There are deposits of uranium in Iran. The country has built uranium enrichment and heavy water production facilities, but they have produced nothing yet," he said.
Shafei further stressed that Iran's facilities in that connection are closely supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Elsewhere in his remarks, the Iranian envoy said that Tehran intends to use the Russian nuclear fuel for a period of ten years over the first phase of the Bushehr Plant, stressing that Iran is currently developing the early stages to attain the capability to produce the fuel.
----
Russia to send nuclear fuel to Iran - Itar-Tass
REUTERS RUSSIA:
June 6, 2003
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/21068/story.htm
MOSCOW - A foreign ministry official said Russia would supply Iran with fuel for a nuclear reactor, whether or not Tehran signs an additional protocol with the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Itar-Tass news agency reported yesterday.
"We will supply nuclear fuel for Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant even if Iran does not sign a protocol on additional guarantees with the IAEA," ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko was quoted by Tass as saying.
The comments were at odds with a statement to Britain's House of Commons by Prime Minister Tony Blair in which he said Russian President Vladimir Putin had promised to provide no fuel until the protocol was signed.
U.S. officials question why the oil-and gas-rich Islamic republic would be investing in power-generating reactors and suggest Iran may be trying to develop a nuclear weapons programme.
Putin told reporters at the G8 summit this week in the French resort of Evian that Russia would pursue its nuclear programme, making no mention of any suspension of equipment or supplies.
But he also said the nuclear plant being built at Bushehr in southern Iran had to meet all requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog. The IAEA is to discuss the Iranian nuclear programme this month.
In London, a spokesman for Blair said the prime minister stood by what he had told parliament on Tuesday.
He said Putin made the comments at Evian "during the discussion on weapons of mass destruction and non-proliferation. He said what the prime minister said he said".
Construction of the reactor at Bushehr is to be completed later this year, with the plant due to come on stream next year. Russia has yet to send any fuel to Iran.
-------- iraq / inspections
Questions loom regarding whereabouts of WMDs
June 6 2003
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/06/1054700371778.html
George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard still don't have their "smoking gun".
Two months after toppling Saddam Hussein, the western coalition leaders remain unable to point to Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) - weapons they used to justify their invasion.
The absence of hard evidence raises doubts about the reliability of intelligence data, as well as the propriety of administrations using it to further their own ends.
It also highlights how Australia's war commitment relied at least partially on "second-hand" data - not only questionable but from sources other than its own.
The crushing swiftness and "cleanness" of the war - three weeks and not a single Australian casualty - has obscured the main reason it was fought in the first place.
It may have terminated one of the world's most brutal regimes, but that was not why John Howard went in.
He sent 2000 troops primarily to rid Iraq of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, to prevent the "ultimate nightmare" of such WMDs falling into the hands of terrorists.
"That, more than anything else, is the reason why we have taken the stance we have," he said when outlining his justification for war a week before President Bush gave the nod.
Mr Howard cited Australia's strategic alliance with the US as a secondary factor, along with Saddam's appalling human rights record.
It's true he condemned an Iraqi regime steeped in torture, rape and genocide, but he stressed his government's policy was to disarm rather than oust Saddam.
Deputy US Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has admitted that "for bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, WMD, because it was the one everyone could agree on" to publicly justify the war.
But where are the WMDs?
Some say they never existed, some say they did but were destroyed just before the war, others that they still exist but were hidden and will be found soon.
In the hands of skilful politicians, meanwhile, WMDs have segued into liberating an oppressed people and toppling a murderous tyrant.
Some observers blame politicians for altering the justification retrospectively, others for taking creative liberties with the intelligence.
Britain's claim that Iraq could launch a chemical or biological attack at 45 minutes notice was allegedly made on the instructions of officials in Blair's office, a claim the government has denied.
Germany's foreign minister told Blair that if no WMDs were found he should "admit he has misused intelligence reports and has misled world opinion".
Similar concerns have been raised in the US, with claims the Pentagon "hyped up" data which at best amounted to circumstantial evidence.
Secretary of State Colin Powell reportedly expressed serious doubts about the information and told his British counterpart he hoped it would not "explode in their faces".
Chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix, in his outgoing address to the UN this week, said that long lists of suspect weapons components remained unaccounted for "but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for."
Australia, which relied mainly on US and British intelligence, made what Defence Minister Robert Hill called the "right decision on the basis of the information that was available to us".
But he admitted flawed intelligence may have influenced Canberra's decision.
Which raises the possibility that Australia may have waged war on an entirely false premise.
The foreign affairs department says it could take several months to properly examine the 1,000 suspected weapons sites in Iraq.
A British inquiry, meanwhile, will investigate what one MP called "probably the biggest issue for almost a generation where parliament must be seen to be asserting itself".
US senators are calling for an inquiry of their own, some fearing a scandal of Watergate proportions.
Bob Graham, who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, said failure to find WMDs would indicate "a very serious intelligence failure, or an attempt to keep the American people in the dark by manipulating that intelligence information".
The issue carries clear implications for the operation of supposedly open, accountable western democracies.
The US, British and Australian publics might well accept Saddam's overthrow even without WMDs - a prospect some observers find even more worrying.
AAP
----
Health crisis looms over looted Iraqi nuclear plant
06 June 2003
AP
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=412943
A team of UN nuclear experts arrived in Baghdad today to begin a a growing crisis at Iraq's largest nuclear facility, left unguarded by American troops during the early days of the war and then looted by villagers.
Iraqi scientists who have surveyed the damage at the Tuwaitha plant said looters left behind piles of uranium and spilled radioactive materials, stealing only the containers holding the amterial.
The scientists cemented over the spilled materials to prevent leakage or further exposure to residents in the area.
The United States tried to keep the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) out of post-war Iraq. But it reluctantly agreed to allow the agency's return under pressure from the arms-control community, which was concerned about Tuwaitha's safety and American capability to secure the area and account for its contents.
Dr Hamed Al-Bahili, an Iraqi nuclear scientist who helped design and open Tuwaitha in 1968, was one of the first on the scene after fleeing Iraqi troops abandoned the site.
Raising his hand two inches above the linoleum floor in his living room, he said: "The uranium was all over the floor - all over the ground outside. Piles of it. We poured cement over it inside the rooms because there was no other way to handle it."
Mr Al-Bahili said he pleaded with impoverished villagers in the area not to touch the blue barrels the IAEA had used to store the uranium, "but there were thousands of people - they just kept coming."
Returning to Baghdad, he found Iraqi police who passed on his description of the scene and dangers to advancing American troops.
Since then, Mr Al-Bahili has met twice with U.S. military officials, whom he described as eager to help resolve the situation.
"They sent troops," he said, "but it was already too late."
US troops involved in the hunt for weapons of mass destruction said recently that at least 20 per cent of the barrels containing low-grade or natural uranium appeared to be gone.
IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said some 3,000 barrels were stored there under the agency's watch. Last week, American troops accompanied by Iraqi health workers ordered residents from the surrounding villages to sell back barrels for $3 each. Pentagon officials said that more than 100 barrels had been retrieved.
Ms Fleming said the IAEA would be permitted to examine its barrels. The rest of the mission, however, is restricted to the Tuwaitha site.
----
U.S. limits search by Vienna nuke team
June 06, 2003
By Betsy Pisik
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030605-094159-6697r.htm
BAGHDAD - U.S. forces in Iraq have placed limits on a seven-member team from the International Atomic Energy Agency, confining it to a single nuclear-storage site south of Baghdad.
The team is to spend two weeks, beginning tomorrow, investigating pilferage at the Al-Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center, where thieves are believed to have stolen uranium and possibly radioactive isotopes used in hospitals, industry and research.
Pentagon officials said yesterday the IAEA visit is a one-time event to enforce the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, not a weapons inspection that might set a precedent for future U.N. searches for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
U.S. troops and weapons experts will accompany the IAEA officials wherever they go, an arrangement the Pentagon officials said was for safety.
U.S. officials compiling an inventory of a looted Iraqi nuclear site found more radioactive material than had been catalogued in the past by the IAEA.
It's not clear whether the discovery means U.S. information was wrong or the Iraqis had moved material to the Tuwaitha site before the war, said three top military and defense officials who briefed reporters in Washington on the condition of anonymity.
The Associated Press reported from Washington yesterday that U.S. officials had recovered more than 100 metal storage barrels thought to be stolen from the site.
Officials said none of the people who returned the barrels in exchange for a $3 reward showed elevated levels of radiation.
An official with the Vienna, Austria-based IAEA said the priority of the team would be to determine how much material is missing.
"They will then work to recapture as much as they can, repackage and reseal it, and secure the facility," said the official, who asked not to be named.
Underscoring the tension of the visit, the IAEA official added that no findings would be released in Baghdad, and that all media inquiries would be referred to the agency's Vienna headquarters.
More than 500 tons of natural uranium and 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium were stored at Al-Tuwaitha.
The facility also has radioactive isotopes such as cesium, cobalt and strontium.
The looting has raised the possibility that terrorist groups could have obtained material for a radiological "dirty bomb" from the site. None of the material at Al-Tuwaitha was of high enough quality to make a nuclear bomb.
The material in question was placed under protective IAEA seal in 1991, and has been undisturbed for the past 12 years.
IAEA experts are to verify the seals annually, as they did in February, just before the U.S.-led coalition bombing began.
This week's visit grows out of Iraq's signature on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, rather than the more aggressive inspections authorized by the U.N. Security Council late last year.
A separate team of medical experts sent by the Pentagon is to arrive in Baghdad next week to study people within a three-mile radius of the site.
Al-Tuwaitha had obviously been picked over by thieves. The fence and 12-foot concrete wall around the three storage buildings for radioactive material showed huge gaps and U.S. Marines found the main gate open when they arrived April 7.
Inside, some radioactive material had been scattered around. Radioactivity measurements inside the three buildings found levels two to 10 times above normal, a senior U.S. military official in Baghdad said, joining the Pentagon news briefing via a satellite link.
----
International Inspection of Iraqi Nuclear Facility Set To Begin
(U.S. military says core of Tuwaitha has been secure since April 7)
By Jacquelyn S. Porth Washington File Security Affairs Writer
Friday, 6 June 2003, 11:51 am
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/WO0306/S00086.htm
Washington -- A senior U.S. defense official says that the core of the Iraqi nuclear facility at Tuwaitha has been secure since April 7, and U.S. military forces will now support an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) team that will begin inspections there on June 7.
Speaking to reporters at the Pentagon June 5, the official said the IAEA inspection to inventory nuclear materials and assess conditions at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center would likely take several weeks to complete. The seven-member IAEA team is already in Kuwait and on June 6 will be flown to Iraq and given briefings and protective gear before beginning work.
The Iraqi facility, which was last inspected by the IAEA in December 2002, is located about 20 kilometers southeast of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad. Iraqi security for the nuclear facility ended in March of this year, leaving the facility unguarded until the U.S. Marines arrived on April 7.
A U.S. military official, who participated in the June 5 Pentagon briefing via video-teleconference from Baghdad, said the Marines found the property in disarray when they arrived. He said the front gate of Tuwaitha was open, a wall in the rear of the facility had been breached and there were no seals on the exterior doors of any of the three buildings.
Since U.S. forces took control of the facility, the official said, they have taken steps "to mitigate the risks" to themselves, local civilians and the environment. He also said an Iraqi-American team was organized in May to visit two local villages and repurchase materials that may have been removed from Tuwaitha. For the cost of $3.00 per item, the team was able to buy back 100 barrels of various sizes and in varying conditions as well as five radioactive sources, including a moisture density gauge for measuring cesium.
The U.S. officials, who briefed reporters on condition that they not be identified, discussed the pending IAEA mission and the support the military will be providing to the team as well as some past history of the nuclear facility. They indicated that the U.S. military will supply food, water, shelter, security and medical care for the IAEA team as well as transportation that could include forklifts.
The IAEA inspection will take place "under the protection and auspices of coalition forces," one of the officials said, and those forces "will accompany the IAEA at all times." In addition, the IAEA will receive technical assistance from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the U.S. Army Nuclear Chemical Agency.
After the IAEA completes its inventory it will repackage any nuclear-related materials -- that could include low-enriched or depleted uranium and sources of non-fissile radioisotopes -- and reseal safeguard rooms, buildings and containers, with coalition assistance as needed.
The IAEA inspection is not taking place according to authority provided by United Nations Security Council resolutions, the official noted, "and does not set any precedent for future IAEA involvement in Iraq." It is occurring under the nuclear safeguards agreement Iraq signed previously with the IAEA. Iraq signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it the following year.
The briefers were questioned closely about the security gap at Tuwaitha that occurred during late March and early April and the possibility that nuclear material might have been transported outside Iraq. While giving a chronology of activity that occurred at Tuwaitha, the official speaking from Baghdad said Iraqi Army forces deserted their post around March 10 and civilian guards departed around March 20.
The Marines arrived April 7 and turned the facility over to U.S. Army control on April 20, he said, adding that there has been no unauthorized activity at any of the three core buildings at Tuwaitha.
One of the problems with securing the site fully is its vast size. The entire property measures around 9,200 hectares. U.S. Army patrols apprehend any intruders and put them to work temporarily, the official said, and they are put in confinement for repeated intrusions. U.S. forces have also recruited and begun training a 100-person Iraqi guard force that will be responsible eventually for facility security.
U.S. military representatives first began meeting with Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC) scientists who had worked at Tuwaitha on April 18 "to mitigate any radiological hazards" that they could, the official said. A joint U.S.-Iraqi team has already repaired and sealed damaged buildings.
A DTRA technical assessment and inventory was completed on May 20 and determined that the amount of materials found there "exceeds the quantity of materials that we had assessed would be present." But the official indicated that the IAEA review will be an official inventory.
While U.S. personnel found a small amount of uranium on the ground outside one of the on-site buildings early on, the official said it was soon returned and secured. "And so we have no evidence that anything has been stolen at this point," he added.
Representatives of the Coalition Provisional Authority have been meeting weekly with IAEC experts, the official said, and have come up with a plan to make improvements at Tuwaitha. The IAEC, Iraqi Health Ministry representatives and members of the U.S. Center for Health Promotion and Preventative Medicine will soon assess possible health risks to soldiers who have been working at the facility as well as Iraqi civilians within five kilometers of Tuwaitha.
----
U.N. nuclear experts back in Iraq
Officials will try to secure looted facility near Baghdad
Friday, June 6, 2003
(CNN)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/06/sprj.irq.main/
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A small team from the International Atomic Energy Agency arrived Friday in Iraq to assess damage to a nuclear research center looted after the war.
The experts from the U.N. nuclear body are on their first visit since the end of the U.S-led war, but the team will not conduct weapons inspections, spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said.
Residents of villages surrounding the Tuwaitha nuclear facility, about six miles (10 kilometers) south of Baghdad, said they used drums from the site to hold water. The drums had contained uranium oxide, or yellowcake, which the villagers said was dumped on the ground.
Yellowcake is highly toxic if ingested but gives off only low levels of radioactivity. Workers poured concrete over piles of yellowcake to contain it.
"We will determine how much of it was looted, get control of as much as we can, put our seals on it, secure the facility and come home," Gwozdecky said. "We have in the last month or more sounded the alarm that these radioactive materials shouldn't be on the loose."
The U.N. agency has said there is not enough nuclear material at Tuwaitha for a nuclear bomb. But substances there could be used for a "dirty bomb," made by combining conventional explosives with radioactive material. U.S. soldiers wounded
U.S. forces continue to face pockets of resistance in Iraq.
In Baghdad, two men, armed with pistols, wounded two U.S. soldiers guarding a bank in the center of the Iraqi capital, U.S. Central Command said.
Soldiers returned fire, killing one of the assailants, a Central Command statement said. The other escaped. The motive of the attack is unknown.
Officials also said a U.S. soldier was killed and five wounded Thursday in the central city of Fallujah, a hotbed of violence.
An unknown assailant fired a rocket-propelled grenade at soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division in Fallujah, which is 43 miles (about 70 kilometers) west of Baghdad.
In addition, two soldiers were killed and nine wounded in a firefight last week with hostile forces in Fallujah. On May 21, at least two Iraqis were killed when gunmen opened fire on a U.S. patrol in the city center with rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles.
At the end of April and the beginning of May, 17 Iraqi civilians were killed in three days of clashes with U.S. troops. Seven U.S. soldiers were wounded. Questions about weapons
In Washington, President Bush is facing growing criticism and calls for congressional hearings about his administration's prewar assertions on the threat posed by Iraq.
Bush vowed Thursday to "reveal the truth" about what he has described as former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Speaking to troops in Qatar, Bush suggested it shouldn't be surprising that no such weapons have been found. (Full story)
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told the U.N. Security Council on Thursday that inspectors found no evidence before the March invasion that Iraq had reconstituted its chemical, biological or nuclear weapons programs.
But he also said that the Iraqi regime was unable to account for chemical or biological weapons it claimed to have destroyed and weapons inspectors couldn't clear up discrepancies before leaving Baghdad in advance of the invasion. (Full story)
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix on evidence of weapons of mass destruction: "I don't think I'd be surprised if they found it."
• A U.S. Navy "Seabee" was killed and one was wounded Thursday in an explosion in Kut, according to Pentagon officials. The seaman was killed while working on a construction site and operating heavy equipment when either a land mine or unexploded ordnance detonated under the vehicle, a Pentagon official said. Officials say they believe the incident was not a hostile act. Kut, about 100 miles southeast of Baghdad, is under Marine control.
• Former Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz experienced chest pains this week and may have suffered a mild heart attack while in custody, U.S. officials said Thursday. Aziz, who has a history of heart problems, has received medical treatment for his condition since surrendering to the U.S. military in April, officials said.
• A former Iraqi general who was believed killed in an April airstrike on his Basra home may be alive, senior Pentagon officials said. Intelligence from Iraqi detainees and other sources have led U.S. officials to change the status of Gen. Ali Hassan al-Majeed from "believed killed" to "unknown" on the U.S. list of most-wanted Iraqis. Al-Majeed, a cousin of Saddam's, was given the moniker "Chemical Ali" because he is alleged to have ordered a deadly chemical weapons attack on Kurds in 1988. (Flash gallery: Iraq's most-wanted)
• A senior Iraqi officer on active duty told the British government that Iraq was capable of firing chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes' notice if Saddam gave the order, the Financial Times reported Thursday. Government officials told the newspaper they tried to find a second source for the information but were unable to do so. They relied on the information and distributed it because the official was a senior figure in Saddam's regime, not a defector, the British publication said.
• In response to a news report, the British Home Office said Thursday it would not look favorably on an application to grant asylum to two of Saddam's daughters. A newspaper quoted a cousin, who lives in Leeds, as saying the women want to come to England. The Home Office said it had received no formal application and had "no evidence suggesting that Saddam Hussein's daughters would seek asylum in Britain." (Full story)
CNN Producer Bruce Conover contributed to this report.
----
For the first time since the war started: UN nuclear experts arrive in Iraq
06-06-2003,
(Albawaba.com)
http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=251055&lang=e&dir=news
A small team of U.N. nuclear experts arrived in Baghdad on Friday to start a damage assessment at Iraq's biggest nuclear facility, left unguarded by American forces during the early days of the war and then pillaged by villagers.
The arrival of the team marked the first time since the Iraq war began that representatives from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear agency, returned to the country.
Iraqi scientists who have surveyed the damage at the Tuwaitha plant said looters left behind piles of uranium and spilled radioactive materials, AP reported.
The IAEA experts returned to Iraq despite US efforts to keep them out. But, U.S. military commanders acknowledged earlier this week that they were unequipped to handle the nuclear site.
"I know that the Tuwaitha facility is larger than the assets we have now in country to deal with it," said Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, commander of U.S. ground forces in Iraq.
Thus, the Pentagon limited the number of IAEA staff to seven and said the assessment would have to be completed within two weeks.
----
Blix: Better chances exist now in Iraq to find out the truth on weapons programs
06-06-2003
(Albawaba.com)
http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=251038&lang=e&dir=news
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Thursday the chances of discovering whether Iraq destroyed or concealed all illegal weapons are much better now because of "the new environment in Iraq."
Blix appeared before the U.N. Security Council to present his final report on the search for chemical and biological weapons, with his inspection teams barred from returning to Iraq by the United States.
"I trust that in the new environment in Iraq, in which there is full access and cooperation, and in which knowledgeable witnesses should no longer be inhibited to reveal what they know, it should be possible to establish the truth we all want to know," Blix said, according to AP.
Speaking to reporters later, he said any inspectors working "under an occupation of a few foreign states cannot have the same credibility internationally as international inspectors would." Blix warned that "it is not justified to jump to the conclusion" that Iraq possesses nuclear, chemical or biological weapons just because there is a long list of outstanding questions about its weapons programs.
Blix made clear his inspectors were ready to resume work, to confirm any findings since their departure just before the war began in March and to continue monitoring Iraq's weapons programs.
----
Blix: America jumped to a conclusion over weapons
Weapons inspector was 'disappointed' with quality of US and British intelligence
By Anne Penketh
06 June 2003
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=412792
Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, said yesterday that it was "not justified to jump to the conclusion" that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction simply because Saddam Hussein's regime had failed to account for missing arms.
He also said he was "disappointed" at the quality of the intelligence he received from the US and Britain before the war.
He later told BBC News 24: "We went to a great many sites that were given to us by intelligence, and only in three cases did we find anything - and they did not relate to weapons of mass destruction.
"That shook me a bit, I must say. I was impressed by that because we had been told that they would give the best intelligence they had, so I thought: 'My God, if this is the best intelligence they had and we find nothing, what about the rest?"'Mr Blix said.
His parting shot to the UN Security Council will bolster the anti-war camp, which believed the Iraqi threat did not justify military action.
His comments were interpreted in London as an implicit criticism of the spin by politicians who, amid the furore over Iraqi weapons in recent days, have pointed to his reports to as the original justification for the war.
The Government already stands accused of having "sexed up" intelligence reports to produce its report last September which claimed that Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes.
Tony Blair and Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, used to reel off figures from Mr Blix's reports to the Security Council to accuse Iraq of holding 8.5 tons of anthrax, 3.9 tons of deadly VX nerve gas, 6,500 chemical bombs and other banned armaments. The Government argued that military action had to be taken because of the "unique threat" posed by the Saddam's weapons arsenal which they said could end up in the hands of terrorists.
Peter Kilfoyle, the former defence minister, said that Mr Blix's intervention would further weaken the Government's case over weapons of mass destruction and add to uncertainty as to whether they existed. "This is going to go on and on and build up and build up it would have been sensible in my view to have had an independent inquiry," he said.
In New York, the British ambassador to the UN, Jeremy Greenstock, said: "We have jumped to no conclusions."
Mr Blix stressed yesterday that his weapons inspectors had " not at any time during the inspections in Iraq found evidence of the continuation or resumption of programmes of weapons of mass destruction or significant quantities of proscribed items - whether from pre-1991 or later. He added: "As I have noted before, this does not necessarily mean that such items could not exist. They might - there remain long lists of items unaccounted for - but it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for."
Mr Blix was yesterday briefing the 15 ambassadors of the UN Security Council on his final regular report before he retires at the end of the month. The ambassadors went into closed session after the Swedish diplomat's presentation, covering the last three months since the inspectors were withdrawn ahead.
Mr Blix expressed the hope that now Saddam was gone, "it should be possible to establish the truth we all want to know". He also said that his inspectors were ready to return to Iraq. The Bush administration, which made a reluctant approach to the UN before launching military action without UN authorisation, is so dismissive of Mr Blix and his weapons experts that it has sent its own teams into Iraq to search for weapons. So far there have been no confirmed discoveries of any weapons of mass destruction, despite visits to 230 suspected sites over the past 11 weeks.
The US administration has also expressed frustration that scientific aides to Saddam now in US custody are continuing to stick to official denials about weapons of mass destruction. Mr Blix noted that neither the former United Nations Special Commission (Unscom) weapons inspectors, who left Iraq in 1998, nor his own UN monitoring team that succeeded Unscom, had made "significant finds of weapons".
He said: "The lack of finds could be because the items were unilaterally destroyed by the Iraqi authorities or else because they were effectively concealed by them."
Iraq consistently argued that it no longer held any biological or chemical weapons, or ballistic missiles capable of hitting its neighbours.
----
US, British spy data on Iraq left UN arms chief disappointed
LONDON (AFP)
Jun 06, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030606104332.90vo79jb.html
Chief UN arms inspector Hans Blix expressed disappointment Friday at the quality of intelligence his team got from Washington and London as it scrambled to uncover Iraq's weapons of mass destruction in the weeks leading up to war.
In an interview broadcast a day after his swansong briefing to the UN Security Council in New York, Blix told BBC television that, in the run-up to the US-led war to oust Saddam Hussein, his inspectors were promised the best US and British information available.
But he added: "Only in three of those cases did we find anything at all, and in none of these cases were there any weapons of mass destruction -- and that shook me a bit, I must say."
"I thought, 'My God, if this is the best intelligence they have and we find nothing, what about the rest?'"
Blix's remarks added to a furore in Britain over whether Prime Minister Tony Blair's staff embellished a dossier last September on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction so as to beef up the case for military action.
Blair strongly denies the charge, and has told parliament's intelligence and security committee to clear the air, as a US-led team deploys in Iraq this weekend to dig up evidence of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
On Friday, BBC radio quoted a source "close to British intelligence" that the government's Joint Intelligence Committee was asked "six or eight times" to redraft the dossier before it was made public.
It was the public broadcaster which aired the original allegation: that the dossier's claim that Iraq could deploy chemical or biological weapons in just 45 minutes was inserted at Downing Street's behest over the reservations of senior intelligence figures.
On Thursday, in what was likely his final report to the Security Council before he retires, Blix said "there remain long lists of items unaccounted for" among the weapons programs that Iraq claimed to have abandoned more than a decade earlier under UN pressure.
"But it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for," he added.
Speaking to reporters afterwards, Blix cast doubt on the authority of the US and British experts who will be resuming the hunt for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
"I do not want to question the integrity or the professionalism of the inspectors of the coalition," he said.
"But anybody who functions under an army of occupation cannot have the same credibility as an independent inspector."
The former Swedish foreign minister said he felt "disappointed" at the way the United States and Britain started the war without letting his UN Monitoring and Verification Commission (UNMOVIC) finish its work.
Since the fall of Baghdad on April 9, the coalition partners have failed to produce hard evidence of the weapons programs that were the official reason for their invasion.
In Geneva, former UN arms inspector Scott Ritter, an outspoken critic of the war, was quoted as urging Washington and London to "acknowledge their lies" about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
Speaking to the French-language Swiss newspaper Le Temps, Ritter said Saddam's regime could not have destroyed all its weapons of mass destruction "without leaving traces."
He challenged Blair and US President George W. Bush "to explain frankly and honestly why they went to war.... If it was a noble crusade to free the world of a mad dictator, they should say so."
----
Blix Questions Credibility Of U.S.-British Inspectors
June 6
(IslamOnline.net & News Agencies)
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2003-06/06/article04.shtml
UNITED NATIONS - Chief U.N. arms inspector Hans Blix on Thursday, June5 , cast doubt on the authority of the U.S.-British experts searching for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq, as a U.S. Senator welcomed calls for a congressional probe into U.S. troops' not having found WMD in Iraq and called into question President George W. Bush's "truthfulness" on the matter.
"I do not want to question the integrity or the professionalism of the inspectors of the coalition, but anybody who functions under an army of occupation cannot have the same credibility as an independent inspector," Blix told reporters after addressing the U.N. Security Council.
The former Swedish foreign minister admitted that he felt "disappointed" at the way the United States and Britain started the war without letting his U.N. Monitoring and Verification Commission finish its work.
The United States and Britain has refused to let U.N. inspectors back into Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein on April9 .
But they have been unable to produce evidence of the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs they used to justify the invasion and have sent hundreds of "extra experts" to Iraq to step up the hunt.
After failing to locate or even find a solid evidence that alleged WMD exist, the group directing all known U.S. search efforts in Iraq are ready to leave, a leading U.S. paper reported on Sunday, May11 .
Blix gave what he predicted would be his final report on Iraq to the Security Council. The75 -year-old official is expected to stand down at the end of the month.
He told council members "there remain long lists of items unaccounted for" in the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs which Iraq claimed to have dismantled more than a decade ago.
"But it is not justified to jump to the conclusion that something exists just because it is unaccounted for," he said adding that the U.N. Monitoring and Verification Commission should still have a role in Iraq.
The UNMOVIC chairman was asked by reporters whether he felt betrayed by the U.S. decision to start the war while inspections were still going.
"Betrayal is not the right word," he replied. "I felt some disappointment, but I felt that in some months we could have come further."
He said it was "a business that was not finished."
"It is important to retain the view we all want to see the truth on the situation in Iraq. We wish the inspectors and the people who are there the best of luck. They have not found very much so far."
Blix also expressed the hope that UNMOVIC would be used in other places apart from Iraq. He said members of the Security Council shared his hopes.
"We also discussed the potential use of a body like UNMOVIC which has trained inspectors and has capabilities in the area of biology and missiles which no other organization has at the present time," he declared.
"Truthfulness" Of U.S. President On The Line
Rumsfeld insisted the intelligence was "good," and promised that Powell's testimony "will be proved right"
Senator Robert Byrd -- one of the most outspoken critics of U.S. policy in Iraq -- welcomed calls Thursday for a congressional probe into U.S. troops' not having found weapons of mass destruction there, and called into question President George W. Bush's "truthfulness" on the matter.
"What amazes me is that the president himself is not clamoring for an investigation," Byrd said from the floor of the Senate.
"It is his truthfulness that is being questioned. It is his integrity that is on the line," the West Virginia Democrat said.
"Yet he has raised no question, expressed no curiosity, about the strange turn of events in Iraq -- expressed no anger at the possibility that he might have been misled."
"How is it that the president who was so adamant about the dangers of WMD, has expressed no concern about the whereabouts of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" Byrd said.
'Good'
Nevertheless, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted the intelligence was "good," and promised Thursday that Powell's testimony "will be proved right."
U.S. pre-war intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was "good," Rumsfeld insisted Thursday after closed-door talks with US congressmen.
With the U.S. failure to come up with any evidence of Iraq 's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the main pretext of the invasion, Rumsfeld said on Tuesday, May27 , that Iraq might have destroyed its WMD before the war.
Congressional panels, including the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, are to hold hearings to clarify the Iraqi WMD mystery and also to establish whether there had been political pressure on CIA analysts, as the press has alleged.
----
Row over Iraq's weapons grows
06 June 2003
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/world/newsid_2968000/2968196.stm
The man in charge of finding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction has criticised the US and UK governments.
Dr Hans Blix said the secret info they gave didn't help him find any evidence that Saddam Hussein was developing illegal weapons.
There's now a growing row about whether there was actually enough proof to go to war with Iraq.
Still searching
A new American-led team's just arrived to hunt for weapons.
Dr Blix said his team went to the places which were supposed to contain weapons - but they found nothing.
'Disappointed'
He told the BBC he was disappointed with the information provided by US and British officials.
US president, George W Bush "Only in three of those cases did we find anything at all, and in none of the cases were there any weapons of mass destruction," he said.
Dr Blix, who is retiring from his job next month, said he still wasn't sure whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The US has defended the information it provided.
-------- japan
Japan's war policy upsets neighbours
June 6 2003
The Age (Australia)
By Shane Green Japan Correspondent Tokyo
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/06/05/1054700335057.html
South Korea's President Roh Moo-hyun has become the first Asian leader to express uneasiness over Japan's new war contingency legislation, saying Tokyo should have consulted its neighbours first.
On the eve of his state visit to Japan today, Mr Roh has reportedly told Japanese journalists of his concern.
"Given the sensitive nature of the matter, Japan should have consulted with China and other neighbouring countries and should have explained how important the issue is domestically," he said.
"We can say that it is regrettable that Japan didn't do so."
The lower house of Japan's national Parliament recently passed bills which give Tokyo new powers to deploy the country's defence forces in the event of an attack on Japan.
The legislation was first mooted 30 years ago, but was shelved because it was argued it would violate Japan's war-renouncing constitution, adopted after 1945.
But the threat posed by North Korea and international terrorism has enabled the Government of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to win opposition support for the changes. The move is part of a broader shift to a more aggressive defence position by Tokyo.
South Korea is particularly sensitive to such a shift because it suffered heavily at the hands of an aggressive Imperial Japan between 1910 and 1945.
Old wounds have also been reopened in the lead-up to Mr Roh's visit, by comments of a senior Japanese ruling-party politician, Taro Aso - trying to justify Imperial Japan's practice of forcing Koreans to adopt Japanese names.
Mr Aso, regarded as a potential prime minister, said Koreans voluntarily adopted Japanese names so they could get work.
The comments caused deep offence in South Korea, and Mr Aso was forced to apologise to South Koreans "for having hurt their feelings".
President Roh, in comments reported by the Korea Herald, said that he would "express our position clearly", but believed exchanges with Japan should continue.
These issues aside, the visit by Mr Roh will be a chance for South Korea and Japan to step up pressure on North Korea over its nuclear arms program.
-------- korea
U.S. Troops Will Leave Korean DMZ
By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, June 6, 2003; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A21319-2003Jun5?language=printer
TOKYO, June 5 -- U.S. troops will withdraw from the tense Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea in a phased redeployment, bringing an end to 50 years of guard duty that began at the end of the Korean War, officials said today.
A joint statement by U.S. and South Korean officials said American troops will be pulled back to positions at least 75 miles from the DMZ, and will abandon a large base they occupy in downtown Seoul. The move from the DMZ will free about 18,000 U.S. troops to be more mobile, and they will be replaced by soldiers in a modernized South Korean army, officials said.
No precise schedule has been announced for the change, although U.S. officials have said the new deployment may begin this year. The South Korean government is seeking a delay until current tensions over North Korea's nuclear program are eased.
Officials said the move would not immediately reduce the 37,000 U.S. troops posted in South Korea.
The statement said the redeployment would "enhance security" and would be done "taking careful account of the political, economic and security situation on the peninsula and in Northeast Asia."
Pentagon officials, under prodding by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to create a more mobile and agile force, insist that the U.S. defense against North Korea remains strong even if American soldiers are not manning bunkers and watching the minefields at the DMZ.
The redeployment was not a surprise. In April, Rumsfeld announced that troops stationed near the DMZ might be shifted south, to other countries in the region or even brought home. U.S. officials have been negotiating with their South Korean counterparts to set the details.
The U.S. withdrawal has put South Korea's president, Roh Moo Hyun, in an awkward situation. He campaigned on a call for reduction of South Korea's reliance on U.S. forces, and many of his supporters continue to demand that U.S. troops leave. But faced with an intransigent North Korea that has declared its intent to possess nuclear weapons, Roh reversed his position and unsuccessfully urged the U.S. to delay the move.
"The South Korean government wants the next steps to be slower," said Ahn Yin Hay, a professor of international relations at Korea University. "The Roh administration thinks it ought to be done after the North Korean nuclear issue is resolved. But the consensus is that no matter what the Roh government would like, it is inevitable the U.S. government will make the decision on the basis of their global strategy."
Agreement on the withdrawal appears to have been costly for the United States. Last week, the U.S. military announced it would spend an additional $11 billion over the next three years for new equipment and defense systems for South Korea, including upgraded missile systems and reinforced military intelligence.
"The essence of what we're trying to do is to make sure that the forces we have here on the peninsula can respond quickly and immediately, even before reinforcements arrive, if there were ever to be an attack," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said in Seoul on Monday.
The DMZ was established along the armistice line drawn to end hostilities of the 1950-53 Korean War, in which U.S. and South Korean troops fought North Korean and Chinese forces to a standstill.
The two-mile-wide, 155-mile-long DMZ has become a de facto border between North Korea and South Korea, which never signed a peace treaty and still are technically at war. The DMZ often is called the most heavily guarded border in the world. During a 1993 visit, then-President Bill Clinton referred to it as "a stark line between safety and danger."
U.S. and South Korean troops face North Koreans just feet from each other at the Joint Security Area on the DMZ, where periodic negotiations are held. The hostility is palpable. Two U.S. soldiers were killed there in a fight with North Koreans in 1976.
But the bulk of patrols along the DMZ already are conducted by South Korean troops, part of a well-equipped, well-regarded 650,000-member military force. U.S. troops will continue to train with them at positions near the border, today's statement said.
In fact, deterrence along the border long has relied on the U.S. ability to call in overwhelming air attacks and firepower -- and ultimately on a nuclear threat. U.S. troops have been called a "tripwire" -- a force whose sacrifice in case of an invasion by the million-man North Korean army would guarantee U.S. retaliation.
Americans increasingly have chafed at that role, especially during the periodic public protests against the U.S. troop presence in South Korea. Officially, U.S. officials deny that the demonstrations -- which swelled last year after a U.S. armored vehicle accidentally ran over two young girls -- prompted their considerations.
According to the statement released in Seoul, U.S. troops will first move from about 15 bases near the DMZ to two major bases, Camp Casey and Camp Red Cloud, north of Seoul. In a second phase, the statement said, the troops will move to "key hubs south of the Han River," which bisects Seoul.
The two countries also agreed to relocate farther south most of the estimated 7,000 troops from the sprawling 8th U.S. Army headquarters in downtown Seoul, though the headquarters itself will remain in the capital.
Some South Korean nationalists object to the U.S. presence on prime real estate in the middle of South Korea's capital. Outside the gates of the base, there are regular protests demanding that Americans move.
Rumsfeld has ordered a thorough revamping of U.S. military deployments throughout the world. Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith said last week that the new alignment meant "everything is going to move everywhere. There is not going to be a place in the world where it's going to be the same as it used to be."
Feith's remarks fueled reports that the other large contingent of U.S. troops in Asia -- based on the Japanese island of Okinawa -- also would be moved. U.S. officials played down that prospect, but they acknowledged that the 25,000 troops there are also subject to the review.
----
Fallout of shuffling US forces in Korea
Plans clarified this week leave Seoul edgy at a time when the North's actions are so mysterious
By Ann Scott Tyson
The Christian Science Monitor,
June 06, 2003
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0606/p02s01-woap.html
WASHINGTON - Under the shadow of an unresolved North Korean nuclear crisis, the Pentagon pressed ahead this week with controversial plans both to reconfigure and upgrade American forces committed to the 50-year-old defense alliance with the South.
Major changes include a plan unveiled Thursday to reduce the US troop presence and bases along the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), in addition to a buildup of missile defenses and other capabilities intended to counter a North Korean attack.
Realignment of US forces in Korea is part of a worldwide shift in the American military posture aimed at creating a more fluid, expeditionary force and leveraging US technological advances in long-range precision warfare.
The United States "can achieve an effective military force at much greater distance than we could before, and often with a much smaller number of forces," said US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz on an Asian tour this week. "That's I think the spirit in which we are looking at our deployments in Europe, in Northeast Asia ... and in the Persian Gulf as well."
Senior Pentagon officials stress the changes are aimed at countering North Korean "asymmetric advantages" and promoting a quicker, more effective military response to a North Korean onslaught. Still, South Korean officials have expressed concern that Pyongyang might interpret the moves as a weakening of the US posture - or preparation for a preemptive strike.
"Militarily it may make sense. Politically, it's dicey," says Joel Wit, a senior fellow at the Center for International and Strategic Studies and an expert on North Korea. "You don't want to be tinkering with your military posture in the middle of a crisis over the North's nuclear-weapons program." He added that South Koreans fear that the US has "a hidden agenda to pull out. That is their worst nightmare."
In South Korea, a phased plan will consolidate bases and then withdraw US ground troops stationed along the DMZ to locations south of the Han River. No timeline has been given for the plan, but experts say it could take more than three years. Some 6,000 to 7,000 US troops will move from Yongsan garrison in Seoul to a camp 35 miles south of the city - part of a major realignment of the 37,000 American troops on the peninsula.
In new locations, US troops will be less vulnerable to a potential North Korean attack and will gain opportunities to train outside densely populated urban areas such as Seoul. "We've got to get out of the middle of cities," says Larry Wortzel, director of international studies at the Heritage foundation and a former Army officer stationed in Korea. "It amounts to having your military headquarters on the [Washington] Mall," he says.
Long-run plans are likely to shift the mix of US troops on the peninsula and create a more fluid force, defense officials and analysts say. The Pentagon seeks "to give our posture in Korea a little bit more of the character that it already has in Japan, which is not so focused on heavy ground-force deployments and a bit more outward looking, a bit more of a maritime orientation," Mr. Wolfowitz said.
Meanwhile, Washington has pledged to invest $11 billion over four years to bolster South Korean defenses - including upgrades to Patriot antimissile systems, a squadron of AH-64D Apache helicopters, and other capabilities aimed at better countering North Korean missile and artillery attacks.
Other enhancements include high-speed vessels that can more rapidly ferry Marines from Okinawa to the peninsula and the planned rotation to South Korea of the Army's newest force - the wheeled, medium-armored Stryker brigade.
"The North Koreans have certain advantages over us - asymmetric advantages," Wolfowitz said in Tokyo on Tuesday. "It's very important that we update our posture from where it was ten years ago."
Wolfowitz tried to reassure the South Korean leadership that the military shift would bolster, not harm, defenses against North Korea's 1.1-million strong armed forces, which have thousands of artillery pieces within striking distance of Seoul. South Korean officials preferred that troop moves be postponed. But the changes are "not something that should wait until the nuclear problem is solved," Wolfowitz said.
On North Korea's suspected development of nuclear weapons, Wolfowitz played down the possibility of a preemptive US military strike to eliminate the threat. "War in Korea would be quite a terrible thing," he said.
Instead, he advocated a patient, diplomatic course - using economic and political leverage from regional powers such as China, Russia, and Japan to persuade Pyongyang to halt its nuclear program. He suggested that the regime could be encouraged to embark on fundamental reforms such as those in China under former leader Deng Xiaoping.
"The message ... is that the help that they [the North Koreans] are getting now is going to dry up if they keep going down this road of provocative behavior," he said.
----
G.I.'s Will Gradually Leave Korea DMZ to Cut War Risk
June 6, 2003
The New York Times
By HOWARD W. FRENCH
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/06/international/asia/06KORE.html
TOKYO, June 5 - The United States and South Korea agreed today gradually to reposition American troops far away from the demilitarized zone that separates North and South Korea to make them less vulnerable to attack by the North.
The 14,000 troops, members of the United States' Second Infantry Division, have long been considered a strategic "tripwire" on the Korean peninsula, ensuring that American troops would be drawn into any war started by the North. The tripwire was seen as a deterrent, because it would theoretically guarantee a decisive American counterattack.
The redeployment, which will occur over a period of years, was negotiated at a time of high tensions between the United States and North Korea over the North's suspected development of nuclear weapons.
It also comes after months of strained relations between the United States and South Korea, which have been formal allies for 50 years. South Korea's president, Roh Moo Hyun, won election in December amid a large-scale protest movement against the American military presence in the country. In all, there are 37,000 American troops in South Korea, most of them based in the northern tier of the country, in and around Seoul.
For a time, South Korea officials strongly resisted the repositioning of troops, openly expressing the concern that it would leave the United States free to make a pre-emptive attack against North Korea's nuclear sites without fear of retaliation against American soldiers. Such a strike, they said, could lead to a devastating war between the two countries.
Seoul, South Korea's capital of 17 million people, lies within easy artillery range of the demarcation line separating the two Koreas. South Korean officials also worry that the American withdrawal would increase the paranoia of the North's leadership and raise the risks of miscalculation and war.
Those fears were eased, a South Korean official said, when the United States explained that American troops would remain a presence in the northern part of the country, near the demilitarized zone.
The redeployment calls for the creation of "hub bases" to the south of Seoul, roughly 75 miles from the DMZ. American troops would then rotate regularly through training zones close to the demarcation line, ensuring a continued forward presence, if not a fixed one.
Pentagon officials said repositioning American forces away from the DMZ would actually increase deterrence, correcting an outdated deployment plan from cold war days.
Had war begun on the peninsula, American forces along the demarcation line would most likely have been ordered to regroup and pull south under artillery fire and then prepare for a counterattack, military analysts said.
That fact, coupled with advances in long-range, precision weapons and maneuver warfare illustrated on the battlefield of Iraq, argued for basing American forces further south in order to better threaten North Korea with more effective attack and, in so doing, bolster deterrence.
The goal is to "align U.S. and South Korean forces to most effectively deter against a North Korean attack and defend South Korea should an attack come," said Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman on Asia-Pacific issues. "It's part of an effort to strengthen our overall deterrence on the peninsula."
The agreement also includes an American plan to invest $11 billion to enhance the defense of South Korea, including upgraded missile systems and reinforced military intelligence.
Visiting Korea earlier this week, the deputy defense secretary, Paul D. Wolfowitz, said the troop movement was intended "to make sure that the forces we have here on the peninsula can respond quickly and immediately, even before reinforcements arrive, if there were ever to be an attack."
Although the redeployment had not yet been announced, Mr. Wolfowitz said at a Seoul news conference that coming changes would "not only strengthen deterrence but save lives in the horrible event that a war should occur."
South Korean and American officials said today that the repositioning of the troops would also ease frictions between the nations. Anti-American hostility in South Korea has prompted calls in the United States among some conservative defense strategists and foreign policy experts for an outright American withdrawal. And South Koreans, have been growing increasingly resentful of the American troops, whom they were beginning to regard as arrogant occupiers rather than guardians of their security.
Although he never campaigned against the bases, Mr. Roh pledged that he would not "kowtow" to the United States, and promised to guarantee North Korea's security against American attack.
Washington and Seoul have spent the months since his inauguration in February repairing relations, but signs of distrust remain.
Today, Mr. Roh's prime minister, Goh Kun, reformulated the president's vow not to allow military means to be used in any dispute with North Korea. Under the existing alliance, he said, the United States had no right to take independent military action against the North without South Korea's approval. The American commander in Korea "is supposed to exercise his right to control wartime forces under instructions from the supreme state and military leadership of the two countries," Mr. Goh said in a speech to the National Assembly.
-------- russia
Moscow to keep helping Tehran
June 06, 2003
By David R. Sands
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030605-094208-3046r.htm
Moscow vowed yesterday to continue its nuclear assistance to Iran even if Tehran rejects the tougher international inspections demanded by the United States, as a senior foreign policy adviser to President Vladimir Putin brushed aside U.S. criticisms of the Russian program.
"We genuinely do not understand what the Americans want from us," said Dmitry Rogozin, the influential chairman of the Russian State Duma's committee on international affairs, in an interview yesterday at the start of a visit to Washington.
Arguing that Russia would be a primary target if Iran did acquire nuclear weapons, Mr. Rogozin said, "We are not so insane as to set up a time bomb under our own chairs."
Contradicting assertions made Wednesday by senior Bush administration officials and by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko told reporters in Moscow yesterday that Mr. Putin had not pledged to halt nuclear fuel shipments to Iran until the government there agreed to a stricter monitoring program of the United Nations.
Mr. Yakovenko said Russia will require Iran to sign a bilateral accord to return all spent nuclear fuel - which could be used to produce the plutonium for nuclear bombs - from the joint program to Russia.
But Moscow has no plans to terminate its $800 million contract to build a light-water reactor at the southern Iranian port city of Bushehr, he said, despite sharp U.S. criticisms.
Iran's Islamic Republic New Agency reported this week that Gholamreza Aqazadeh, chief of the country's nuclear programs, planned to travel to Moscow next month to nail down contracts for the completion of the Bushehr plant.
U.S. officials see the Bushehr project as part of an Iranian effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration has been seeking international support to force Tehran to agree to tougher inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, a U.N. watchdog group.
"The conclusion is inescapable that Iran is pursuing its 'civil' nuclear energy program not for peaceful and economic purposes but as a front for developing the capability to produce nuclear materials for nuclear weapons," John R. Bolton, undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, said at a House hearing this week.
Mr. Rogozin, in Washington for meetings with senior administration officials and lawmakers on Capitol Hill, insisted there were airtight controls of Russia's nuclear contracts with Iran. He said companies in Europe, which he did not name, were far more culpable in delivering equipment and technical aid to help Iran's weapons programs.
The lawmaker said many in Russia remained skeptical of U.S. arguments for the recent war against Iraq, and the failure to discover large stocks of weapons of mass destruction there only fed Russian doubts about Iran.
"Your CIA said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We never thought so in Russia, and so far nothing has been found," he said.
"Now, the CIA makes the same claim for Iran. How on earth can we give them our trust one more time when they just made such a mistake?" he asked.
Mr. Rogozin said he did not expect any long-term damage to U.S.-Russian relations, despite the sharp differences over the Iraq campaign.
"My message is that we didn't disagree with your goals in the recent crisis, but we do have some real disagreements with some of your methods," he said. "I think we can always argue about individual issues, but we should not make mistakes in our relationship that are irreversible."
-------- treaties / diplomacy
Official doubts existence of Iran nuke program
June 06, 2003
http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=38455
MOSCOW - A top Russian official raised doubts about the existence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program in a newspaper interview Friday, less than a week after President Vladimir Putin insisted that the Kremlin's position was growing closer to Washington's over Iranian nuclear ambitions.
The Bush administration claims that Russia's technological aid to Iran is allowing Tehran to speed development of nuclear weapons and has called on Russia to curtail the assistance.
Putin responded by joining the other Group of Eight members this week in urging Iran to sign additional guarantees with the U.N. nuclear watchdog to ease international concerns. But Russian officials have said Russia's US$800 million contract to build a nuclear power plant in the Iranian city of Bushehr will go ahead whether or not Tehran submits to closer scrutiny. "We believe that there is no evidence of the existence of any such program," Deputy Foreign Minister Georgy Mamedov told the newspaper Vremya Novostei, referring to an Iranian nuclear weapons program. "I want to underline that so far the International Atomic Energy Agency has not discovered any violations of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty by Iran."
Iran says it already is complying with IAEA rules and has no plans to make a bomb. But its nuclear program has been one of the major sources of friction in U.S.-Russian relations since the Bushehr contract was signed in 1995.
Washington accuses Tehran of building a uranium enrichment plant in the central city of Natanz for atomic weapons production and wants the 35-naton IAEA board to declare Iran in violation of the nonproliferation treaty at its meeting later this month.
"We trust the IAEA and we will adhere to its conclusions," Mamedov told Vremya Novostei, while repeating Russia's call for Iran to sign an additional protocol that provides for broader IAEA access to sites.
"In conditions when a propaganda campaign is being conducted, political pressure is being applied ... it is better for everyone, and for Iran also, to sign the protocol to demonstrate openness and good will," Mamedov said.
Vladimir Lukin, deputy speaker of Russia's lower house of parliament, also called on Iran to answer key questions about its program, noting that a nuclear-armed Iran is not in Russia's interests.
"We want to work with them. We have economic interests," Lukin said. "But if there is a nuclear danger, our state interests exceed Russia's economic interests and the interests of Russian corporations."
Russia's Atomic Energy Ministry has said that it will not begin shipping fuel to Iran for the 1,000-megawatt light-water reactor in Bushehr until the two sides work out an agreement on returning the spent fuel to Russia. That provision appears aimed at ensuring that Iran would not be able to get plutonium, which can be derived from reprocessing spent fuel from reactors.
Iran has said it is ready to sign such an agreement.
But Russian analyst Vyacheslav Nikonov, president of the Politika Foundation, predicted that Russia's nuclear cooperation with Iran will end either way after the IAEA meeting.
He predicted that the board will conclude that "Iran is creating atomic weapons, and unfortunately they are very close."
Nikonov said the end result will be that "Russia will have to freeze its cooperation with Tehran."
He said that Russia's willingness to listen to the United States and other nations' concerns about Iran was a major change of course.
"Now (Russia's) position is more severe and correct," Nikonov said.
Mamedov, however, insisted that Russia's questions for Iran arose "not at the instructions of Americans, but because they worry us. This is happening near our borders."
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
-------- colorado
Rocky Flats Nuclear Factory to Become Wildlife Refuge
By Leland Rucker
June 6, 2003
ENS
http://ens-news.com/ens/jun2003/2003-06-06-06.asp
BROOMFIELD, Colorado, Sixteen miles from Denver, the highly radioactive plutonium remains of the former Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant are being packaged up and shipped off to South Carolina, and officials say the most dangerous material will be off the site by year's end.
The land is now the subject of cleanup, and is known as Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. In 2006, it will likely be the Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge.
Around the clock cleanup of Rocky Flats is now underway, and government officials and contractors are starting to look at a closing date and what will happen afterwards.
Some 2.1 million people live within a 50 mile radius of the plutonium contaminated site, with a predicted population increase of 30 percent by 2023. Many of those citizens take an interest in what is taking place at Rocky Flats.
On Thursday the Rocky Flats Citizens Advisory Board was briefed on two issues - one affecting the immediate cleanup and the other concerning the future of the site. The 25 member board provides independent, community recommendations on the Rocky Flats cleanup, and represents a range of government officials and community members.
The board was updated on a change proposed by the Kaiser-Hill Company, the contractor in charge of the cleanup, concerning the Building 771/774 Decommissioning Operations Plan.
plutonium Workers at Rocky Flats have drained the last of the plutonium from tanks in Building 771. (Photo courtesy DOE) Building 771, a major plutonium processing facility, and Building 774, a companion facility for waste treatment of liquid process wastes, were constructed in 1951, Kaiser-Hill spokesman Chris Gilbreath told the advisory board.
Among the most heavily polluted of the buildings at Rocky Flats, the two story structure poses serious site specific cleanup hazards because it was built into a steep hill that leaves concrete floors in areas between 16 and 30 feet below the proposed final grade.
Though much of the building eventually will be demolished, most of the south wall and the basement slab will be left in place and buried, Kaiser-Hill proposed.
Cleanup operations are farther along in Building 771/774 than in any other industrial building on the site, Gilbreath explained. All 240 glove boxes and 251 tanks have been removed, and all liquid systems have been drained.
More than 275 drums of transuranic waste have been removed from former processing tanks, and "all but one of 12 filter plenums have been decontaminated and/or dismantled," Gilbreath said.
Structural decontamination has begun, with demolition expected by April 2004. "We are one of the first to be demolished," he said. "We are decontaminated. Everything has been gutted. We have only a few ventilation areas left."
The modification Kaiser-Hill is proposing seeks permission to apply the same contamination standards to the slabs of concrete that will be buried in the hill portion as those applied to contaminated subsurface soil.
Kaiser-Hill's position is that contamination on concrete below certain levels is not going anywhere and poses little threat to human health and the environment.
"What they have developed and studied is that plutonium and americium in subsurfaces deeper than six feet do not migrate," Gilbreath said in an interview.
"Based on those results, we said, 'if these are not migrating, why are we going after it? Let's go after more surface contamination.' We took the philosophy that if the experts are telling us it is not going anywhere, and I am 25 feet below grade, what is the value?"
Board members questioned the reliability of the data that says burying concrete with more radiation than current levels permit is wise.
Kaiser-Hill spokesmen Gilbreath and Bob Davis, while saying not all modeling is complete, told the board that their research indicates that it will be within a safe level.
Rocky Flats Some of the buildings at Rocky Flats (Two photos courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) If its proposal to leave the contaminated concrete in place is accepted, Kaiser-Hill estimates the savings at between two and three million dollars and a couple months of cleanup time, Gilbreath said.
Board members questioned whether there was any motivation for the change in plans other than to save the contractor money and time on the cleanup.
Gilbreath stressed that safety was an underlying concern. Trying to clean the concrete slabs is difficult and potentially the most dangerous work, he said.
"Honestly, it will save money and time, sure. But we are most concerned about safety," he said. "The last thing we want to do at this point in the cleanup is have someone get crushed or squeezed cutting out a chunk of concrete," he said.
When the site is closed it will be converted to the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. On Thursday, the board also heard about four alternative management plans for the refuge.
The four plans range in scale from one that operates the site under the current plan to one that allows for a variety of human activity, including horseback riding and some hunting on the refuge, said Dean Rundle of the U.S. Forest Service.
The four alternatives are being developed as part of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, a 15 year program to provide long range guidance and direction for the wildlife refuge. It incorporates public comments gathered last year about purposes and goals that should be applied to the Rocky Flats site in the future.
Board members raised the question of what the radiation levels would be once the government finished its cleanup, but officials of all organizations present declined to take up the issue.
Rundle said that none of the four plans would address the area where the plant's main buildings are located, known as "the blob" and controlled by the Department of Energy. All four plans call this area a "potential riparian and native grass restoration area."
Located on the high plains northwest of downtown Denver, the original nuclear weapons factory was built on a site dominated by tallgrass prairie, areas of high plains and some riparian areas. Using vegetation, soil and landscape as a framework, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated three management zones for planning purposes.
valley Part of the sprawling Rocky Flats site (Photo courtesy U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) Xeric tallgrass prairie dominates the western part of the site and provides habitat for plant and animal species. Other grassland communities are found along the ridges and valley floors, while rolling high plains landscapes are seen along the eastern edges. Several drainages characterized by trees, shrubs and grasses form habitat for birds and mammals, including the Preble's meadow jumping mouse, federally listed as threatened.
Alternative A - No Action, Rundle said, would keep the refuge working under the terms of the current "Rock Creek Reserve Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan" adopted in 2000. Stewardship would be the guiding management principle. Most roads and some stream crossings would be removed, and no public facilities would be provided. Except for the barn, which would be stabilized, the structures of the old Lindsay Ranch along Rock Creek on the site would be allowed to disintegrate.
Rundle said that Alternative C - Ecological Restoration - is similar to Alternative A. This plan would return the area to pre-settlement conditions and plant it with native vegetation. Though no one knows what the exact ecological conditions were 200 years ago, Rundle said, the agency intends to use its best science to approximate what it was like. "Under this plan, there would be maximum road and trail and stream crossing removal," he said.
Under Alternative C, public access would be limited to a single road from state highway 93 along the western edge and a short trail to an overlook. Any other access would be by arrangement only. The Lindsay Ranch structures would be documented and removed.
Alternative B - Wildlife, Habitat & Public Use, Rundle said, is preferred by the agency, and would be the best balance. "It allows the big five public uses," said Rundle, "hunting, fishing, observation and photography, environmental education and interpretation."
He said that the agency responded to a public desire for connectivity and Alternative B would connect with walking and biking trails in several directions. Some trails would be open in winter, he said, and the southern half of the refuge would be open in winter months for photographers and those who wish to get off regular trails, when it would not disturb nesting birds.
Hunting activities would be highly restricted and limited to certain weekends, he said. When board members questioned whether that would be safe for pedestrians and cyclists, Rundle said that the site would be closed to other activities during those periods. No pets would be allowed under any of the alternatives, Rundle said.
Alternative D - Public Use is similar to Alternative B but would allow an even higher level of public use, and like B, would include a visitor center. A total of 17 miles of public roads would be included in this plan, with some trails open to horseback riders. He said that only under this option, the agency would consider accepting imported prairie dogs.
Several board members questioned where in any of the plans signage is provided that would include an explanation of previous and current radiation contamination levels. Members said the signs are necessary to give people as much information as possible so they might make their own informed decisions about entering the former nuclear weapons site.
All alternatives can be achieved under current proposed budgets, but Rundle said that Alternative A would be the cheapest and D the most expensive.
-------- south carolina
NRC Gives Early Nod to Renewal of Nuclear Plant License
WASHINGTON, DC,
June 6, 2003
(ENS)
http://ens-news.com/ens/jun2003/2003-06-06-09.asp#anchor6
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) gave an early indication that it believes there are no environmental impacts that would stop a nuclear plant in South Carolina from renewing its license.
The agency has been reviewing the application for extension of the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2 in Darlington County, South Carolina, since Carolina Power and Light Company, which operates the plant, filed it in June 6002.
The NRC made its preliminary finding in a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed license renewal. The draft EIS is open for public comment until July 30 and will also be the subject of public meetings June 65 in Hartsville, South Carolina.
Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant is issued for up to 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements are met. The current operating license for the H. B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, will expire on July 31, 2010.
The possible environmental effects of an additional 20 years of nuclear plant operation are described in the NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement, or GEIS (NUREG-1437).
The NRC issues a site-specific supplement to the GEIS on each plant requesting license renewal to address the potential environmental impacts.
Issues specific to the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant are addressed in Supplement 13, which was published in draft form in May. The NRC staff's preliminary recommendation is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be unreasonable.
At the conclusion of the public comment period on July 30, the NRC staff will consider and address the comments provided and issue a final supplement to the GEIS. That supplement will contain a recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability for license renewal.
The draft supplement to the GEIS, along with other related documents, is available at http://www.nrc.gov.
-------- tennessee
EPA flays OR health report
Agency reviewers charge all radiation released by Y-12 not accounted for
By FRANK MUNGER, munger@knews.com
June 6, 2003
Knoxville News-Sentinel
http://www.knoxnews.com/kns/local_news/article/0,1406,KNS_347_2013784,00.html
OAK RIDGE - The controversy over Oak Ridge pollution and its health effects rages on.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has broadly criticized another agency's report that gave the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant a clean bill of health for its uranium releases.
EPA reviewers said the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's health assessment either miscalculated or failed to account for all radiation doses from Y-12's uranium emissions. They also said the report used criteria that fall outside widely accepted methods for risk estimation and radiation protection and failed to address large uncertainties.
In addition, ATSDR's public-health assessment focused on the Scarboro section of Oak Ridge even though the community adjacent to Y-12 probably isn't the most affected by plant releases or the best reference point for such an evaluation, EPA reviewers said.
"We are concerned that the atmospheric transport and environmental fate of the bulk of uranium released from Y-12 have not been adequately accounted for, nor have the exposures of individuals or populations who are as yet unidentified,'' Lowell Ralston, a radiobiologist at EPA headquarters in Washington, said in an April 24 letter to ATSDR.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry recently released a report that said uranium discharges from Y-12, both current and historic, did not pose a threat to public health. It is the first of nine Oak Ridge health assessments planned by ATSDR, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
ATSDR officials held meetings Monday in Oak Ridge to discuss the results with local residents.
After EPA's critical comments were made public Thursday, key ATSDR staff members defended the health assessment and said some of the EPA concerns already had been addressed. Others will be considered in the preparation of a final report, which will be issued after the public comment period concludes June 20, they said.
However, Paul Charp, a senior health physicist at ASTDR and principal author of the health assessment, said the report's main findings and conclusions would not change.
Sandy Isaacs, chief of ATSDR's federal facilities assessments branch, said some of the disagreements could be explained by different approaches taken by the two agencies. EPA focuses on risk analysis and setting standards to avoid health concerns, while ATSDR looks at actual releases and uses retrospective studies to determine if health effects occurred, she said.
Some Oak Ridgers applauded the health assessment as a fresh look at a controversial topic, but it outraged others.
"In my opinion, this statement destroys any credibility the ATSDR may have had,'' said Glenn Bell, a Y-12 machinist who suffers from chronic beryllium disease.
More than 6,000 past and present Oak Ridge workers - many of them at Y-12 - have filed claims as part of a compensation program for sick nuclear workers, Bell said. It's hard to believe that none of the "nasties'' from the federal plant caused harm to the nearby community, he said.
Fannie Ball, a longtime Scarboro resident and former Y-12 employee, said she believes the radioactive releases are responsible for her health problems and those of others living near the warhead plant. She, too, said the ATSDR report is unbelievable.
EPA's Ralston said ATSDR, in evaluating past exposures from Y-12 uranium discharges, underestimated the total radiation dose "by nearly a factor of 10.'' He also said the report did not take all necessary factors into account when evaluating current exposures in the local population.
"At this time we do not concur with ATSDR's final conclusions and recommendations,'' he said, asking that the evaluations be revised before the health assessment is completed.
Senior writer Frank Munger may be reached at 865-342-6329.
-------- texas
Repair Plan for Reactor With Leaks
June 6, 2003
The New York Times
By MATTHEW L. WALD
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/06/national/06NUKE.html
ROCKVILLE, Md., June 5 - The managers of a Texas nuclear plant with two leaks at the bottom of its reactor vessel told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission today that they were backing away from their top theory on how the leaks developed. But, they said, they were nearly ready to fix them anyway.
The operators of the plant, called the South Texas Project, 90 miles southwest of Houston, also told the agency staff that some residue left by the leaks was more than four years old and possibly much older. Previously, they had said the residue was not visible when the reactor was inspected last year.
The leaks are in 2 of 58 nozzles on the underside of the reactor, which were installed to let operators push monitoring instruments into the nuclear core. The leaks were discovered when the plant was shut down for refueling in late March.
At first, plant managers were inclined to believe that the leaks had been caused by a phenomenon in which the cooling water attacks metal that is under strain. But careful examination of the metal found flaws in some areas that had not been exposed to the water.
The nozzles cannot be fully replaced because they are welded from the inside of the vessel. The managers' repair plan involves cutting off the portion of each nozzle that has the cracks, inserting a length of replacement pipe and welding it to the outside of the vessel.
Leaving a gap between the old part of the nozzle and the replacement part, though, will allow the boron-laden cooling water to get access to areas that are not protected against corrosion. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved "half-nozzle repair" for some structures at nuclear plants, but not for a reactor vessel.
David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group that often criticizes nuclear operators, said the two tubes so far had not presented a major safety problem because they leaked, leaving obvious deposits of boron, before they could break.
If the proposed fix eliminates leaks but accelerates corrosion, Mr. Lochbaum said, "the first sign of a problem will not be a white residue but a loud bang and the rapid loss of water from the reactor vessel."
-------- us politics
Is lying about the reason for a war an impeachable offense?
By John W. Dean FindLaw
CNN.com
Friday, June 6, 2003
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/06/findlaw.analysis.dean.wmd/
FOR THE PUBLIC
Legal commentary from FindLaw's Writ LAW DICTIONARY
(FindLaw) -- President George W. Bush has got a very serious problem. Before asking Congress for a joint resolution authorizing the use of U.S. military forces in Iraq, he made a number of unequivocal statements about the reason the United States needed to pursue the most radical actions any nation can undertake -- acts of war against another nation.
Now it is clear that many of his statements appear to be false. In the past, Bush's White House has been very good at sweeping ugly issues like this under the carpet, and out of sight. But it is not clear that they will be able to make the question of what happened to Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) go away -- unless, perhaps, they start another war.
That seems unlikely. Until the questions surrounding the Iraqi war are answered, Congress and the public may strongly resist more of President Bush's warmaking.
Presidential statements, particularly on matters of national security, are held to an expectation of the highest standard of truthfulness. A president cannot stretch, twist or distort facts and get away with it. President Lyndon Johnson's distortions of the truth about Vietnam forced him to stand down from reelection. President Richard Nixon's false statements about Watergate forced his resignation.
Frankly, I hope the WMDs are found, for it will end the matter. Clearly, the story of the missing WMDs is far from over. And it is too early, of course, to draw conclusions. But it is not too early to explore the relevant issues. President Bush's statements on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
Readers may not recall exactly what President Bush said about weapons of mass destruction; I certainly didn't. Thus, I have compiled these statements below. In reviewing them, I saw that he had, indeed, been as explicit and declarative as I had recalled.
--
Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:
"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."
United Nations address,
September 12, 2002
-
"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons."
"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
Radio address,
October 5, 2002
-
"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons."
"We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States."
"The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahideen" -- his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons."
Cincinnati, Ohio speech,
October 7, 2002
-
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
State of the Union Address,
January 28, 2003
-
"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
Address to the nation,
March 17, 2003
--
Should the president get the benefit of the doubt?
When these statements were made, Bush's let-me-mince-no-words posture was convincing to many Americans. Yet much of the rest of the world, and many other Americans, doubted them.
As Bush's veracity was being debated at the United Nations, it was also being debated on campuses -- including those where I happened to be lecturing at the time.
On several occasions, students asked me the following question: Should they believe the president of the United States? My answer was that they should give the President the benefit of the doubt, for several reasons deriving from the usual procedures that have operated in every modern White House and that, I assumed, had to be operating in the Bush White House, too.
First, I assured the students that these statements had all been carefully considered and crafted. Presidential statements are the result of a process, not a moment's though. White House speechwriters process raw information, and their statements are passed on to senior aides who have both substantive knowledge and political insights. And this all occurs before the statement ever reaches the President for his own review and possible revision.
Second, I explained that -- at least in every White House and administration with which I was familiar, from Truman to Clinton -- statements with national security implications were the most carefully considered of all. The White House is aware that, in making these statements, the president is speaking not only to the nation, but also to the world.
Third, I pointed out to the students, these statements are typically corrected rapidly if they are later found to be false. And in this case, far from backpedaling from the President's more extreme claims, Bush's press secretary, Ari Fleischer had actually, at times, been even more emphatic than the President had. For example, on January 9, 2003, Fleischer stated, during his press briefing, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there."
In addition, others in the Bush administration were similarly quick to back the President up, in some cases with even more unequivocal statements. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly claimed that Saddam had WMDs -- and even went so far as to claim he knew "where they are; they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad."
Finally, I explained to the students that the political risk was so great that, to me, it was inconceivable that Bush would make these statements if he didn't have damn solid intelligence to back him up. Presidents do not stick their necks out only to have them chopped off by political opponents on an issue as important as this, and if there was any doubt, I suggested, Bush's political advisers would be telling him to hedge. Rather than stating a matter as fact, he would be say: "I have been advised," or "Our intelligence reports strongly suggest," or some such similar hedge. But Bush had not done so.
So what are we now to conclude if Bush's statements are found, indeed, to be as grossly inaccurate as they currently appear to have been?
After all, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and given Bush's statements, they should not have been very hard to find -- for they existed in large quantities, "thousands of tons" of chemical weapons alone. Moreover, according to the statements, telltale facilities, groups of scientists who could testify, and production equipment also existed.
So where is all that? And how can we reconcile the White House's unequivocal statements with the fact that they may not exist?
There are two main possibilities. One, that something is seriously wrong within the Bush White House's national security operations. That seems difficult to believe. The other is that the president has deliberately misled the nation, and the world. A desperate search for WMDs has so far yielded little, if any, fruit
Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the president had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.
Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration o