Archive By Date | Today's Links to Search By
Activists' News | Nuclear | Depleted Uranium | Military | Police
Alternative Energy Etc. | From Subscribers
NUCLEAR
Aborigines Protest Seizure of Land for Radioactive Dump
Analysis: Iran's nuclear debacle
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Missile Defense: The Pentagon Steps Back
Destroy Russia's Weapons
Nuclear Material in Transit Vulnerable to Attack
Agency revisits plan to move nuclear material to test site
Powell: Niger evidence too weak for UN presentation
Powell admits lack of certainty on foreign troops for Iraq
Bush had "faith-based" intelligence on Iraq: arms expert
'IF IT FEELS GOOD, DO IT'
Give Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz the boot
Bush team united Iraq front unravels
Bush and Rice Say C.I.A. Approved Uranium Comment
White House Points at CIA Over Iraq Uranium Charge
Naked forgery
War's Cost Brings Democratic Anger
Boiling Mad Over Bush
Why I'm Supporting Dennis Kucinich for President in 2004
Howard Dean - Demand the Truth
Howard Dean? Antiwar!? Not Quite
The Late, Great American Republic: A Report From 2050
MILITARY
Liberian Rebels Threaten U.S.-Backed Peacekeepers
Taylor says U.S. 'owes' peacekeepers
Powell Sees Decision Soon on Sending G.I.'s to Liberia
U.S. raids firms over arms gear sold to Iran
Solomons rebels demand money
Officials knew of dodgy Iraq file
Blair 'oversold' Iraq threat
CIA Asked Britain To Drop Iraq Claim
U.S. Said to Doubt British Intelligence
Pentagon staff took $1.5m bribes
Contractors cautious on U.S.-awarded Iraq contract
Violence spurs Iraqi allies of U.S. to demand forces exit
Iraq's Most Feared Prison Open Again
US dismantles Iraqi prisons
U.S. May Tap Oil for Iraqi Loans
Plan Gives Iraqi Council Larger Governing Role
Iraqis Set to Form an Interim Council With Wide Power
Sharon Mum As Minister Slams 'Map' In N.Y. Talk
US may base fighter aircraft in Djibouti
Israeli chief of staff: Syria has ''terrorist'' government
Armenian genocide bill
RUSSIA - Security agent killed defusing bomb
C.I.A. Approved Iraqi Uranium Claim, White House Says
CIA Chief Admits Iraq Uranium Claim Error
Pollard recruiter resurfaces in U.S.
US troops groan in Iraq as former commander predicts long haul
Baghdad Blogger -- A U.S. Soldier's Internet Diary
Civilians' lack of planning hurt in Iraq
New carrier forward
Franks Sees Decision Soon on Rotation System for G.I.'s
U.S. satellite feeds to Iran jammed
POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
Judges looking skeptically at some terrorism charges
Show Ramsey the stats, not the money
Al-Qaida targeted Western forests, memo says
ENERGY AND OTHER
Study Finds Power Plants Harm Life in the Hudson
New Drinking Water Rules to Cut Illness, Cancer Risks
ACTIVISTS
African Demonstrator Breaches Security
ISRAELI PEACE ACTIVISTS RELEASED
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- australia
Aborigines Protest Seizure of Land for Radioactive Dump
July 11, 2003
(ENS)
http://ens-news.com/ens/jul2003/2003-07-11-19.asp#anchor6
WOOMERA, South Australia, Australian Minister for Finance and Administration Senator Nick Minchin and his Parliamentary Secretary Peter Slipper MP have announced that they will "compulsorily acquire" an area in the South Australian desert claimed by Aborigines for the construction and operation of the National Low Level Radioactive Waste Repository.
The 6.3 square kilometer (2.43 square mile) area consists of a site known as Site 40a near Woomera and an access corridor from the Olympic Dam-Pimba Road.
"Today's decision by Mr. Slipper to acquire Site 40a is the culmination of an exhaustive 11 year process to identify the safest site in Australia for the storage of the nation's low level radioactive waste," Senator Minchin said. As parliamentary secretary to Senator Minchin, Slipper has responsibility for land acquisitions.
But Aboriginal women protested the acquisition on behalf of their organization Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta. "Listen to us," they wrote in a letter to federal officials. "We women have the rights of this land. We protect it. We will write a letter to the Queen to help us. Tell her to come over to Australia. [Prime Minister John] Howard won't listen to us."
"Government say 'fair and just compensation," the women wrote. "We don't want money. We weren't born with money. We want life - land for the kids. They just put that word, money, in. Trying to buy us. We want the life. Kids life, our life. That's white man's money."
But Senator Minchin said Australia needs a national low-level nuclear waste repository right now. "Australia's low level waste is currently stored under ad hoc arrangements in hospitals, universities, industry and government stores in facilities which are not suitable for the long-term management of this material," he said. "It is in the interests of public security and safety that this waste is safely disposed of in the national repository."
But the Aboriginal women say the repository is not in their best interest, nor in the best interests of their culture. "Not your land even if you say you own it. Even if you buy it. It's women's place," they wrote to federal officials.
"It's dreamtime from long time history. We keep the story. The land holds the story, not you, spirits are still there. Stop mucking around with women's business."
"You're digging a hole in the dreamtime," the women wrote. "If you dig this hole in the manta (the earth) and fill it with the poison, make the dump, something will happen. There will be anger. If you don't listen you will be sorry. We talking and talking, go round and round same words. We're trying to help everyone. We talking straight - don't go there, it's dangerous."
The women fear that radioactivity will contaminate the groundwater that kangaroos, emu and bullocks drink. When they eat these animals, they fear that they too will be contaminated. "The water will poison the animals and kill them all, then you fellas and us," they wrote.
But Senator Minchin has other concerns. He says that progress towards the safe disposal of Australia's low-level radioactive waste is also relevant to the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency's decision on whether to grant a license to operate the proposed Replacement Research Reactor at Lucas Heights. "The consequences of this in terms of national health and safety are wide reaching," the senator said.
The current Lucas Heights reactor produces radiopharmaceuticals, and the replacement reactor is to perform the same function. In 2000-2001 more than 520,000 Australians benefited from the radioisotopes produced in the reactor in medical procedures such as cancer diagnosis and treatment.
--
Radioactive waste repository & store for Australia
Nuclear Issues Briefing Paper # 55
May 2003
- Australia has a relatively small amount of low-level radioactive waste and rather less volume of intermediate-level waste (ILW).
- A national repository is planned for the low-level waste near Woomera and a long-term store for the ILW elsewhere.
While Australia has no nuclear power producing electricity, it does have well-developed usage of radioisotopes in medicine and industry. Many of these isotopes are produced in the research reactor at Lucas Heights, near Sydney, then used at hospitals and laboratories around the country.
Each year Australia produces less than 60 cubic metres of radioactive wastes arising from these uses and from the manufacture of the isotopes. These wastes are now stored at over 50 sites around Australia. This is not considered a suitable long-term strategy.
Since 1985 there has been an evolving process of site selection for a national radioactive waste repository for low-level wastes and short-lived intermediate-level wastes. There is also a need to locate a secure storage facility for long-lived intermediate-level wastes including those which will be returned to Australia following the reprocessing of spent fuel from Lucas Heights.
International practice
In other countries vastly more such waste is produced. Around the world, nuclear power generation produces over 150,000 cubic metres of low and intermediate-level wastes each year, and the extensive use of radioisotopes in medicine and industry would add to this. The UK and France each produce about 25,000 cubic metres of LLW annually.
Low-level and short-lived intermediate-level wastes are disposed of in various ways, mostly in shallow burial. They are often incinerated or compacted first, to reduce their volume. Near-surface disposal of such wastes has been going on in about 70 facilities for over 35 years. A further 30 repositories are expected to open in the next few years.
Classification of radioactive wastes
There are several systems of nomenclature in use, but the following is generally accepted:
- Exempt waste Ð excluded from regulatory control because radiological hazards are negligible.
- Low-level waste (LLW) Ð contains enough radioactive material to require action for the protection of people, but not so much that it requires shielding in handling or storage.
- Intermediate-level waste (ILW) Ð requires shielding. If it has more than 4000 Bq/g of long-lived (over 30 year half-life) alpha emitters it is categorised as "long-lived" and requires more sophisticated handling and disposal.
- High-level waste (HLW) Ð sufficiently radioactive to require both shielding and cooling, generates >2 kW/m3 of heat and has a high level of long-lived alpha-emitting isotopes.
In Commonwealth government documents, low-level wastes are 'category A', short-lived ILW are 'category B' if amenable to embedding in concrete prior to disposal, or 'category C' if bulk material. Both require at least 5 metres of cover. Long-lived ILW are 'category S'.
Repositories are often located in populated areas and farming areas. France's main repository (for 1 million cubic metres), the Centre de l'Aube, is in the Champagne district, a former one is among Normandy farms, and the Drigg site in UK in a scenic part of Cumbria, albeit not far from the Sellafield industrial complex.
Long-lived intermediate-level waste requires a higher degree of isolation from the biosphere and it is normally put into engineered geological repositories, or held in surface storage pending the development of such repositories.
High-level wastes, typically the spent fuel from power reactors, contain most of the radioactivity from the nuclear fuel cycle. They generate heat due to the high radioactivity and require cooling as well as shielding. (Australia does not have any high-level waste. Its spent fuel from the research reactor is defined as "intermediate-level", and the waste which results from reprocessing it abroad will be returned as intermediate-level waste for disposal or storage.)
- spent fuel from the HIFAR research reactor contains relatively high enriched uranium and requires reprocessing because of the degradability of the aluminium cladding of the fuel rod.
Australian plans
Only radioactive solid wastes devoid of corrosive or reactive materials will be accepted at the repository or store.
Other toxic wastes in Australia are either sent to licensed disposal sites or held in storage. Many of these such as mercury compounds, PCBs, organochlorines and hexachlorobenzene are extremely hazardous, many are liquids. Radioactive wastes are treated much more conservatively than other toxic wastes in relation to risks to people and the environment. Most do not break down naturally in a way which corresponds to the progressive decay of radioactivity.
In countries with nuclear power, civil radioactive wastes comprise about 1% of overall toxic wastes. In Australia that proportion is very much less.
Low-level and short-lived intermediate level wastes will be disposed of in a shallow, engineered repository designed to ensure that radioactive material is contained and allowed to decay safely to background levels. Dry conditions will allow a simpler structure than some overseas repositories. The material will be buried in drums or contained in concrete. It will have a secure multi-layer cover at least 5 metres thick, so that it does not add significantly to local background radiation levels at the site.
At present there is quite a lot of low-level waste awaiting proper disposal, some 3500 cubic metres, though annual arisings are small (the 60 cubic metres would be three truckloads). Over half of the present material is lightly-contaminated soil from CSIRO mineral processing research over 30 years ago.
Long-lived intermediate-level (category S) wastes will be stored above ground in an engineered facility designed to hold them secure for an extended period and to shield their radiation until a geological repository is eventually justified and established, or alternative arrangements made.
There is about 500 cubic metres of category S waste at various locations awaiting disposal, and future arisings will consist of a few cubic metres from each state, from Commonwealth agencies and from radiopharmaceutical production, plus the returned material from reprocessing spent research reactor fuel in Europe. This will be conditioned by vitrification or embedding in cement, and some 46 cubic metres of it is expected expected to be returned from Europe about 2015.
In May 2003 the final site near Woomera area of South Australia was decided. The disposal area of the repository will be about 100 metres square, with long trenches up to 20 metres deep. It will be set in a 2.25 square kilometre buffer zone.
For the ILW store, the secure building with concrete vaults for the category S wastes will occupy a similar area.
Transport to the site by rail or road will be regulated according to the relevant Code of Practice, but the low-level wastes will require little in the way of special provisions. The long-lived intermediate-level wastes will be very securely packaged. Low-level and short-lived intermediate level wastes are transported in Australia every day and are considered less hazardous than flammable and toxic liquids such as petrol.
Sources:
Australian government, 1998, Information kit Our Radioactive Waste,
Australian government, June 1999, Report on public comment, phase 3 site selection study,
DISR, July 2001, Safe storage of radioactive waste - the national store project.
See DISR web site - http://www.dest.gov.au/radwaste
IAEA, Managing radioactive waste,
OECD NEA 1996, Radioactive waste management in perspective.
For further information Search this UIC Site http://www.uic.com.au/search/query.asp
or Return to Index http://www.uic.com.au/index.htm
Uranium Information Centre Ltd
A.C.N. 005 503 828
GPO Box 1649N, Melbourne 3001, Australia
phone (03) 9629 7744 fax (03) 9629 7207
E-mail : uic@mpx.com.au
-------- iran
Analysis: Iran's nuclear debacle
July 11, 2003
By Modher Amin
UNITED PRESS INTERNATIONAL
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030710-081139-2027r.htm
TEHRAN, Iran, July 10 (UPI) -- Iran has pledged "serious cooperation" with the world nuclear regulatory body, the International Atomic Energy Agency. But the agency's chief Mohammed ElBaradei, who met Iranian officials in Tehran on Wednesday, still has a daunting task ahead of him. He has to convince the Islamic republic to sign an agreement, allowing tougher inspections of Iran's nuclear facilities.
Known as the additional protocol to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the agreement would give IAEA legal rights to access and seek information about such facilities.
But at his meeting with ElBaradei in Tehran, Iranian President Mohammad Khatami showed no sign that Iran is about to endorse the protocol.
"Iran will defend its national interest and pride, and will not buckle under undue pressures and baseless claims," the official Islamic Republic News Agency quoted him as telling the IAEA chief.
He, however, assured ElBaradei that "Iran is undoubtedly willing to cooperate with the agency, it is willing to clear all misunderstandings."
The Iranian president said that Iran does not want to acquire nuclear weapons, but added: "We have the right to use this knowledge and you have the right to be assured that it would be channeled into peaceful aims."
"We give assurance that we do not need weapons of mass destruction" for defending Iran, he said.
Khatami indicated that Iran would not given in to pressures exerted on it to sign the protocol, adding that even a change in Iran's policy would not guarantee that "future claims and pressures would stop" because such "claims are ill-intentioned."
Before heading for Iran on Tuesday, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said in Germany that he would encourage Tehran to sign the additional non-proliferation agreements. However, at the end of his talks with Iranian officials, ElBaradei told reporters that no timeframe for signing the protocol had been discussed between the two sides.
"We agreed that a team of experts (other than the ones who accompanied him on the visit) come to Tehran within a few days to discuss the areas that Iran needs clarification on," he said.
The IAEA says that the protocol is not Iran-specific. Drafted in 1991, it has already been ratified by some 30 countries, including all 15 members of the European Union.
Earlier this week, the EU, which is Iran's largest trading partner with an annual capital flow of $13 billion, also urged the Muslim state to sign the protocol.
Even Russia, which helped Iran build a civilian nuclear-power plan that is due to come on line in 2005, is urging Iran to ratify the agreement. Moscow has already signed it.
But Iran, which denies charges by the United States and Israel that it is developing nuclear weapons, has already said it will only agree to such a move if talks are initiated for ending "unfair treatment" meted out to the Islamic regime. Besides other things, Iran wants a ban on the country's access to nuclear technology removed.
The IAEA chief dismissed allegations that the agency was under U.S. pressure in dealing with Iran's nuclear program. ElBaradei said that sustained cooperation from Iran could lead to a gradual lifting of sanctions by the nuclear suppliers group.
In his talks with ElBaradei, Iran's Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi criticized what he called the double-standard policy practiced by the IAEA toward Israel's nuclear activities.
"There is no pressure on Israel to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty while it possesses all kinds of weapons of mass destruction," he said, echoing other Iranian officials' claims that Israel had more than 200 nuclear warheads.
Kharrazi said his talks with ElBaradei were held in a "very positive and friendly atmosphere" that would further help boost cooperation between the agency and the Islamic republic.
The IAEA chief also called the talks "positive and constructive", adding that Iran needs to show transparency about its nuclear activities to build up the trust of the international community.
"We believe it is only through this framework that Iran has a right to use nuclear energy and related technology for peaceful purposes," he said.
ElBaradei's one-day visit, his second to Iran, is on the invitation of Iran's nuclear chief, Gholam-Reza Aqazadeh, Iranian officials said.
In February, he toured an under-construction nuclear plant near the central Iranian city of Natanz, 200 miles from Tehran. The site is apparently meant for developing a series of centrifuges, which could be used to produce enriched uranium - the core material for making a nuclear bomb.
Also in February, Iran officially announced it had achieved the technology to process uranium needed for future nuclear power plants. Uranium is being mined in Saghand area, 120 miles from the central city of Yazd.
ElBaradei also confirmed in Tehran that, in addition to the nuclear powers and Iran, five other countries too had the technology to process nuclear fuel.
Earlier, ElBaradei's spokesman Mark Gwozdecky told reporters that during the current visit the IAEA chief would insist on "getting a complete understanding of (Iran's) research and development efforts in uranium enrichment."
-------- iraq / inspections
Scott Ritter on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports
Tenet Comes Under Fire for Faulty Intelligence
Interview on July 11
http://traprockpeace.org/ritter13july03.html
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0307/11/wbr.00.html
[CNN NOTE] THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT.
THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
Excerpt with Scott Ritter follows:
[BLITZER:] Let's focus some more on the controversy and the continuing hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Joining us now from Albany, New York, the former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter. He's also the author of a new book just about to come out entitled "Frontier Justice: WMD and the Bushwhacking of America."
No great surprise there, Scott, what you're going to tell us. But tell us right now what you think of this uproar here in Washington over how this one line got into the president's speech? Is it just an honest mistake that happened?
SCOTT RITTER, FORMER U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTOR: No, it's not an honest mistake. It's part of a larger effort of deception that was, you know, taken by the president, by his administration in regards to justifying this war with Iraq. It's not just the nuclear issue, although that's the one that got the majority of the senators and congressmen to change their vote back in October to support this war. It's about chemical weapons, biological weapons, the entire case that was made that Iraq has an ongoing program dedicated to manufacturing and concealing weapons of mass destruction that threaten the security.
BLITZER: But Scott, reference to the nuclear sale, if you will, of uranium from Niger to Iraq, that occurred in January after the October vote. So it wasn't specifically designed to get senators and congressmen to support the resolution.
RITTER: Will, actually, Wolf, you're wrong on that one. That piece of information, that intelligence was peddled by the CIA, in behind the door briefings, two senators and congressmen in late September, 2002, and it was that information amongst others, including the now what we know to be fraudulent claim that aluminum tubes were going to be used in a centrifuge program, that got many senators, including Dianne Feinstein, who sits on the Intelligence Services Committee or sat on the committee to change their vote. So it was just part and parcel of a larger problem.
BLITZER: Yes, but I was suggesting that the State of the Union address came after the congressional votes in the House and the Senate.
RITTER: Well, the State of the Union address is when the president made his case to the American people, and he perpetrated the fraud to the American people at that time. But this fraud was perpetrated to Congress back in September using the same information. So, you know, this is -- this is a very broad-based issue that needs to be delved into.
BLITZER: Let's get right to the issue at hand, though. Do you have any doubt that Saddam Hussein would have loved to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program?
RITTER: Well, you know, now, you're getting into speculation. What I have said is we have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting the nuclear weapons program. And I tend to believe that (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
BLITZER: Wait a minute, wait a minute. What about the equipment that was just discovered the other day buried in the backyard of a former Iraqi nuclear scientist that had been buried there since before the first war? They were supposed to give all that stuff up, as you well know, as a result of the cease-fire? RITTER: You're right on one point. As I well know. I led the investigation into Mahdi Obeidi. I interviewed him for many hours, looking for just this material. In fact, had the United States not pulled the plug on the inspections I was trying to carry out in August 1998, we had plans to go to Obeidi's house with ground-penetrating radar, to look for this material.
But I believe you'll find that when you dig deeper into the Obeidi case, he's not telling the whole truth. Obeidi kept that material on his own volition. Qusay and the security services, you know, didn't hand it out. And the bottom line is, it's components of a nonexistent program. Nobody is trying to make the case that what Obeidi had is representative of anything that represents a viable nuclear weapons program worthy of war.
BLITZER: But that was a violation of what the U.N. -- the U.N. cease-fires had called for, hiding that equipment underground.
RITTER: First of all, it's not equipment. It's components. It doesn't constitute a viable centrifuge or centrifuge array (ph), and it's not part of a larger program. Obeidi was in violation for maintaining this. Does the fact that he maintained it represent a larger effort by the Iraqi government? We won't know until the investigation is carried out.
But what I'm telling you is based upon my investigation, which went on for many months and involved dozens of hours. Obeidi did this on his own. This wasn't something that ...
BLITZER: But Scott, you know the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. You lived there, you talked to these people. Did anything happen like that of a nature like that, Obeidi doing this on his own without getting approval or someone asking him keep this quiet? That was such a brutal regime. The guy wouldn't have had the guts to do that on his own?
RITTER: Actually, again, Wolf, you're wrong. We have several cases of Iraqi scientists who were very proud of the work they did. Remember, Obeidi was competing with Dr. Diah Jaffar Al-Jaffar (ph) over, you know, who was going to be the first to enrich uranium. He was proud of this program, and when he was ordered to turn it over, I think he maintained these components and these blueprints of his own volition, in a very similar manner that Iraqi scientists responsible for designing guidance and control equipment did the exact same thing.
BLITZER: One final question before I let you go, Scott. The two trailers, the semitrailers, the trucks they found that a lot of U.S. intelligence officials believe could only have been used to develop biological weapons, biological warfare, I don't know if you've had a chance to even examine those reports, but what do you make of that evidence?
RITTER: Again, it's not evidence of anything, Wolf. British experts who are very familiar with the Marconi hydrogen generation equipment sold to Iraq in the 1980s have reviewed these laboratories and says it is an exact replication of that. There's only one thing those labs could do, that is to produce hydrogen for weather balloons. Biological experts, who know about manufacturing biological agents say, you can not produce biological agent there.
So the president again has misled the American public and indeed the world. When, a month ago, he was in Poland and said, the fact that we had these two labs is proof that we have weapons of mass destruction. It's proof of nothing more than the president has mislead, has fabricated, we don't have a weapons of mass destruction program in Iraq to justify this war. What we have is a quagmire with Americans dying on almost a daily basis and no end in site.
BLITZER: Scott Ritter has got a new book coming out, I believe, next week "Frontier Justice: WMD and the Bushwhacking of America". We'll talk when the book comes out again. Thanks, Scott, very much.
RITTER: Thank you.
BLITZER: Of course, we would love to hear directly from you, our viewers. The Web question of the day is this, whom do you blame for the mistake in the presidents State of the Union Address? President Bush, British intelligence, or the CIA. You can still vote, go to cnn.com/wolf.
-------- missile defense
Missile Defense: The Pentagon Steps Back
By Randy Barrett
Space News Correspondent
11 July 2003
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/missile_defense_030711.html
The Pentagon is putting the brakes on plans to launch a cluster of developmental space-based missile interceptors by 2005. A senior Missile Defense Agency (MDA) official told SPACE.com a combination of lagging technology and pressure from Capitol Hill has caused a rethinking of the original schedule. Now the plan is to continue basic research on the interceptors until at least 2008.
"We went out with a request for information [to industry] to determine whether or not the technology was essentially here to be able to execute the type of program we had talked about by 2005," said Terry Little, director of the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program at the MDA. "We didn't think so."
The space-based interceptors were under consideration by the MDA as a complement to ground based-modes of killing enemy missiles in flight. In theory, the mini satellites would home in and destroy enemy missiles in space by force of impact. But technical problems with miniaturization and weight proved severely limiting, Little said. Images
Brilliant Pebbles was a space-based, kinetic-energy weapon concept under development in the United States where 4,600 small interceptors would be deployed in orbit, each capable of homing in on and destroying incoming hostile warheads. IMAGE CREDIT: John Bretschneider "If you enter development with major technical issues, you're going to end up in trouble," Little said. "It's a rule of nature." Limited funding also presented problems. The Pentagon has requested $14 million for the space interceptor test bed in 2004. "You need a lot of satellites and they need to be affordable to buy and launch - they're not there," Little said. Officials from several defense satellite manufacturing companies declined to comment for this story.
Little also said the program was encountering some resistance from Congress. He noted, for example, that during debate on the 2004 Defense Authorization bill, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) introduced an amendment to kill all funding for space-based weapons.
Bingaman's amendment ultimately failed. But Phil Coyle, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information here, said the fact that it was introduced is a sign that the anti-proliferation movement in the United States still has teeth.
"There's no sense preheating the opposition when the [Pentagon] doesn't have anything to deliver," Coyle, a former chief weapons tester at the Pentagon, said.
Proponents of space-based missile defense were disappointed by the MDA's change of heart on the program. Hank Cooper, who was director of the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization in the early 1990s, said there are "fully exploitable" technologies left over from the original Star Wars missile defense program that are applicable to a constellation of space-based interceptors.
Much of the technology was developed under a program dubbed Brilliant Pebbles, which was abandoned in 1993. "These guys that run the Missile Defense Agency don't have much of a clue about what the technology can accomplish," Cooper said.
Baker Spring, a missile defense analyst with Heritage Foundation, a think tank here, agreed: "I find it surprising there couldn't be any [technologies] salvaged from the 1992 timeframe."
Little said there is still strong support for space-based interceptors in some quarters of the White House and that the latest plan could change again in the future.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is moving ahead with plans to develop a ground-based interceptor that would knock out enemy missiles as they launch. An award of design study contracts for that program, called KE Boost, is due in December.
-------- russia
Destroy Russia's Weapons
Friday, July 11, 2003
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40907-2003Jul10?language=printer
PRESIDENT BUSH has made significant progress recently in convincing U.S. allies that the prospect of weapons of mass destruction falling into terrorist hands poses the most serious global security threat. Yet Mr. Bush still hasn't been able to get parts of his own bureaucracy, or some Republicans in Congress, to absorb the idea -- nor does he seem at times to be trying hard enough. Evidence of this comes in congressional consideration of the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, created in 1992 by then-Sen. Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) and Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.). For 11 years this initiative has focused on destroying the largest and least-protected stockpiles of WMD in the world, which lie not in Iraq or North Korea but in the former Soviet Union. By investing less in a decade than has been spent this year alone on missile defense, the United States has managed to eliminate more than 6,000 nuclear warheads. Huge quantities of warheads and bomb-grade nuclear material remain in Russia, along with tens of thousands of tons of chemical weapons. Yet while it has reversed its initial attempts to gut the program, the administration's support for it, particularly in the Pentagon, remains lukewarm. It has solicited funding from other rich nations but not stepped up the U.S. commitment to a level that adequately addresses the threat.
It also has largely stood by while House Republicans who have fought Nunn-Lugar for years continue their efforts to hamstring it. This year Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, declared the program "open-ended, unfocused and self-defeating"; he then attached amendments to the defense authorization bill that would drastically curtail several crucial projects. The most important of these is a chemical weapons destruction facility now being built in the Russian town of Shchuchye that is intended to destroy thousands of tons of deadly nerve agents. At a nearby base, dilapidated bunkers hold a terrifying arsenal of 1.9 million artillery shells filled with nerve agent; a terrorist who managed to obtain just one of them would have the means to murder as many as 100,000 people. The administration is requesting $200 million next year for the project, which is being funded by an international consortium that includes European governments and Russia. But Mr. Hunter's committee slashed $29 million of the appropriation and conditioned much of the rest in ways that may prevent any funds at all from being used.
Mr. Hunter points to the fact that two other weapons disposal projects in Russia involving rocket fuel and engines have been badly mismanaged, wasting tens of millions of U.S. dollars. But his proposed cure would effectively freeze a project that by all accounts has been moving ahead relatively efficiently and that is aimed at eliminating a major threat. The White House has opposed Mr. Hunter's amendments, backing instead the Senate version of the bill that is now in conference committee. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice told Congress in May that "continued progress" on the Shchuchye facility "is essential to end as quickly as possible the proliferation threat posed by Russian nerve agent." In the post-9/11 world, that message ought to be enough to convince a Republican chairman of the House committee charged with national defense. That it evidently has not is a sign that a president who has made defense against weapons of mass destruction his overriding priority has not yet managed to overcome the obstructionism coming from senior members of his own party.
-------- terrorism
Nuclear Material in Transit Vulnerable to Attack
July 11, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-nuclear-crime.html
VIENNA (Reuters) - Despite stepped-up security after September 11, 2001, countries remain ill prepared to deal with attacks on nuclear materials in transit, participants at a United Nations conference said.
The U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says radioactive materials ranging from harmless medical supplies to weapons-grade plutonium account for less than two percent of all goods transported by land, 10 percent by air and one percent by sea.
But the volumes are still huge. The cargo carrier DHL boasts on a company brochure that it transports five tons of radioactive material per week on 113 aircraft to 40 destinations around the globe.
While acknowledging there was reason for some concern about the security risks of transporting nuclear materials, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei told a week-long conference on the issue that international regulations and industry practice have ``an excellent safety record.''
``Over several decades of transporting radioactive material, there has not been an in-transit accident with serious human health, economic or environmental consequences,'' he said.
But John H. Large, a consultant on nuclear issues hired by the environmental group Greenpeace, said current emergency plans would only work for ``unintelligent accidents.''
``What they haven't prepared for is an intelligent terrorist attack where they know the vulnerabilities of your emergency plan,'' Large told Reuters on the sidelines of the conference.
For example, he said it would be easy to take a rocket-propelled grenade and shoot it at a standard transport vehicle loaded with radioactive fuel. The result could be disastrous for the local population. ``If you're going to ship nuclear materials from one place to another, you have to go through populated areas,'' Large said. ``You have to bring the risk to population.''
IMPROVEMENT
An IAEA official told Reuters on condition of anonymity that the September 11 attacks on the United States made clear there was ``room for improvement'' in tackling the threat of an attack or hijacking of nuclear material in transit.
Despite the wake-up call on September 11, governments and the shipping industry have done little to improve the situation.
``There've been a lot of nice words, but not much has been done,'' said Large.
Coastal states such as Ireland, Peru and New Zealand are especially worried that countries like the United States and Britain do not inform them of all their nuclear shipments.
The coastal countries complain they cannot protect themselves against attacks or prepare for accidents involving ships carrying nuclear materials at sea.
But Peter Brazel of the Nuclear Safety Section of Ireland's Department of the Environment told Reuters that the United States and other shipping countries did not want to disclose all nuclear shipments because they see that as a security risk.
-------- u.s. nuc facilities
Agency revisits plan to move nuclear material to test site
Cost of relocating plutonium, uranium from New Mexico triples
By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
Friday, July 11, 2003
Las Vegas Review-Journal
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2003/Jul-11-Fri-2003/news/21709688.html
WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department is reconsidering plans to transfer weapons-grade nuclear material from an aging New Mexico site to Nevada after estimated costs tripled for the move.
An administrator for the DOE's nuclear weapons agency on June 20 ordered a halt to relocation of about two tons of plutonium and enriched uranium from Los Alamos National Laboratory to a high-security area of the Nevada Test Site.
Everet Beckner, deputy administrator for defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, said projected costs have grown to more than $310 million, triple an initial $100 million estimate.
"I consider the cost estimate for relocating these missions to the Device Assembly Facility excessive and unsupportable," Beckner said in a memo made public by the Project on Government Oversight, an organization that monitors security at the nuclear weapons complex.
Two cost studies of the proposed move will be reviewed at a July 28 meeting, Beckner said in the memo sent to NNSA site managers in the two states and Bechtel Nevada, manager of the Nevada Test Site.
NNSA spokesman Brian Wilkes said Thursday costs developed by Los Alamos officials and the laboratory's management contractor "were a heck of a jump."
"The decision is under evaluation as to which direction to go," Wilkes said. "We need to find out more about the estimates that were given to us."
The NNSA has been considering the closure of the TA-18 Critical Experiments Facility at Los Alamos and moving its stockpile, equipment and programs to the Device Assembly Facility in Nevada, a largely unused complex in the test site.
The Critical Experiments Facility is the only place in the U.S. weapons complex where high-level nuclear materials are used for hands-on emergency response training.
Security concerns have grown at Los Alamos, where the TA-18 facility has failed security exercises and mock attacks launched by Army Special Forces. In 1997, "terrorists" made off with more than 200 pounds of nuclear material, taking it away in a Home Depot garden cart.
The Device Assembly Facility is a 100,000-square-foot desert bunker about 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas that has been touted as the most secure facility in the weapons complex.
The facility was completed in 1998 at a cost of $180 million and is used to assemble nonnuclear tests.
NNSA officials plan engineering modifications to house the projects being imported from New Mexico, and costs for those improvements are contributing to the new estimates, officials said.
According to the Project on Government Oversight, the plan to close TA-18 was expected to be completed by 2005. But Wilkes said any move was being planned for later in the decade.
Wilkes said the upcoming review probably will produce a new timeline, depending on what decisions are made.
Peter Stockton, a senior investigator at the Project on Government Oversight, said managers at Los Alamos oppose the move and are stalling it.
During the Clinton administration, Stockton was a special assistant to Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and participated in plans then to move TA-18 to Nevada.
That plan stalled, Stockton said, because of similar resistance. "Essentially the bureaucracy outwaited Richardson," he said.
-------- us politics
Powell: Niger evidence too weak for UN presentation
By Andrew Buncombe and Kim Sengupta
11 July 2003
UK Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=423531
Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, said yesterday he did not mention the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal in his now famous presentation to the UN Security Council because he "did not think it was strong enough" even though President George Bush included it in his State of the Union address just a week before....
----
Powell admits lack of certainty on foreign troops for Iraq
Friday July 11
AFP
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/030711/1/3chho.html
US Secretary of States Colin Powell admitted there was no certainty how many foreign troops were going to Iraq to help US and British forces, in an indication that US efforts to enlist international assistance in pacifying the country may have hit a snag.
"I can't give you the exact number of nations or how many troops are going to be committed," Powell said, appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live" program.
The statement starkly contrasted with recent upbeat assessments by top Defense Department officials, who have insisted that foreign aid to battle-weary American soldiers was well on the way.
Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith told a think tank here Monday that more than 45 nations have made offers of military support "for security and stability operations" in Iraq.
He said 18 countries currently have military capabilities on the ground in the occupied nation, ranging from full combat divisions to field hospitals.
Britain and Poland have formally agreed to lead multinational divisions that will help the United States establish security in Iraq, and according to Feith, other countries are considering joining them.
"And still other countries have indicated their willingness to participate in peacekeeping, in some cases by contributing units from their national police forces, such as Italy's 'carabinieri,'" the defense under secretary boasted in a speech before the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Powell said he was sure that "a number of other nations" will be joining the United States and Britain in Iraq, but would not confirm any of the figures.
And, he cautioned against illusions about the amount of help the administration of President George W. Bush and its allies could count on.
"The guts of the work will still have to be done by the United States, Great Britain and the original members of the coalition," conceded the secretary of state.
The discordant notes came as the number of US soldiers killed in hostile action in Iraq since May 1, when Bush declared an end to major combat operations, reached 31, and calls for foreign help in the US Congress were brought to a fever pitch.
Earlier Thursday, the US Senate unanimously passed an amendment to a foreign aid bill containing an appeal to the White House to "formally and expeditiously" consider requesting a NATO peacekeeping force for Iraq.
"It's important, it's critically important, that we reach out to the international community, that we internationalize this effort," Democratic Senator Carl Levin said in a television interview.
He expressed the hope that German soldiers with NATO insignia would not be targeted in Iraq with the same ferocity as their American counterparts.
But a report published Thursday in the newspaper USA Today poured cold water on expectations of quick foreign help, saying many nations were "balking" at jumping into the Iraqi cauldron with both feet.
It said India, Pakistan and Portugal, which the Pentagon had hoped would deliver between 25,000 and 30,000 soldiers, were now insisting that the United Nations approve a UN mandate for the force first.
In the meantime, Portugal was ready to send just 120 paramilitary police rather than regular soldiers, according to the report.
Asked to comment on the account, Powell issued no denial, saying instead, "Well, we are working with a number of allies who have made commitments."
A number of countries approached by the United States have also expressed reservations about their troops serving under US command, according to defense officials.
----
Bush had "faith-based" intelligence on Iraq: arms expert
WASHINGTON (AFP)
Jul 11, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030711162517.v43k5waj.html
The longer the United States and its allies fail to find chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in Iraq, the more difficult it will become for the US administration to shrug off accusations that officials knowingly stretched intelligence data, according to experts.
And although Washington has shown unwavering conviction that war against Saddam Hussein was right, recent comments by US leaders hint that they recognise a growing problem.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld surprised many in the US Senate Wednesday by testifying that when the Pentagon went to war, it did not have weapons of mass destruction on its mind.
"We did not act in Iraq because we have discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld told a senate subcommittee.
"We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on September 11," he said, referring to the 2001 terror attacks in the United States that killed some 3,000 people.
His testimony effectively swept aside the government's arguments put to the United Nations and the international community for invading Iraq: the threat of an attack on the United States.
That drew cries of "irresponsible" from arms control experts, including Daryl Kimball, head of the Arms Control Association.
Greg Thielmann, a former head of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, said: "The Bush administration did not provide an accurate picture to the American people of the military threat posed by Iraq."
He added: "Some of the fault lies with the performance of the intelligence community, but most of it lies with the way senior officials misused the information they were provided."
And Thielmann said the administration's attitude toward intelligence on Iraq had been "faith-based." In other words, "We know the answers, give us the intelligence to support those answers."
An increasing number of experts said that intelligence on Iraq did not always match the facts, especially on its nuclear arms.
Some say the United Nations dismantled Iraq's nuclear program after Saddam's armies were repelled from Kuwait in 1991.
The White House formally admitted this week that President George W. Bush should not have said in his January 28 State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to purchase enriched uranium in Africa to relaunch its nuclear weapons program.
Several analysts also believe that shortly before the war started on March 20, Baghdad had no missiles capable of reaching Saudi Arabia or Israel.
"Intelligence is not evidence," said Gregory Treverton, a former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which produces US security evaluations.
"The Bush administration has turned intelligence into evidence."
For Joseph Cirincione, director of the Non-Proliferation Project, a Carnegie Endowment think-tank, said that given the fact that UN inspectors turned up nothing in the final months of their work on top of the US troops' inability so far to find the weapons shows that Bush went too far out on a limb.
"The administration went far beyond the intelligence assessments in changing those assessments," he said.
Still, on April 10, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said he was convinced that Iraq had such weapons.
"We have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."
----
'IF IT FEELS GOOD, DO IT'
That's what the Bush Doctrine of 'preemption' really means
by Justin Raimondo
July 11, 2003
Antiwar.com
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j071103.html
Never mind those weapons of mass destruction, said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to the Senate armed services committee:
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder. We acted because we saw the evidence in a dramatic new light, through the prism of our experience on 9/11."
Rumsfeld, for once, is not lying. It was only on the surface that the War Party seemed to be arguing that Iraq posed a military threat to its neighbors and the U.S. The subtext of all this was that they didn't need a reason: a feeling would do. This is the irrationalism at the core of our theory of "preemption," which now governs American foreign and military policy in the post-9/11 era: it doesn't require evidence, only a vague premonition (based on murky "intelligence" of dubious provenance) that someone, somewhere, might become a threat.
It's sooooooo contemporary American: we're a nation that is constantly getting in touch with its "feelings," perpetually seeking "validation" and "closure," where subjectivism and emotionalism are the semi-official religion. No wonder the end result has been the Oprah-ization of American foreign policy. The policy of subjective preemption is just good old American narcissism mixed with a liberal dose of post-9/11 paranoia.
9/11 must have ripped a hole in a space-time continuum, and repealed the laws of logic as well as those governing international relations. There is no other way to explain the statements of administration spokesman in the weeks following the announced "end" of the war. The only evidence we have points to the willingness of this administration to invade Iraq without any evidence of WMD or Iraq's aggressive intentions. In a recent interview with Vanity Fair, deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz blithely revealed that, in the days after 9/11, the decision to go to war with Iraq had already been made:
"On the surface of the debate it at least appeared to be about not whether but when. There seemed to be a kind of agreement that yes it should be, but the disagreement was whether it should be in the immediate response or whether you should concentrate simply on Afghanistan first."
So who cares about not finding those fearsome weapons Saddam was supposedly ready to level Chicago with? If it feels good, do it. And we can do whatever we want - because who's going to stop us?
Not Congress, which lamely calls for an "investigation" into the lies that dragged us into war - indirectly asking to be absolved of any responsibility. We were duped into voting to strike Iraq, they seem to be saying, but who're they kidding? They knew it was all lies from the get-go, and were cowed by the polls and the relentless propaganda.
Senators Joe Biden and Richard Lugar, fresh from their trip to Iraq, tell us the administration didn't come clean with the American people about just what the occupation of Iraq would involve. But they knew what was going to happen - the guerrilla war, the rising costs in troops and treasure - and yet, when it came time to vote, they opted for war.
The Bush administration didn't just lie about the casus belli, they lied about the consequences and the cost. Now that the camel's nose is already under the tent, the Pentagon has almost doubled the estimated bill: where once it was $2 billion per month, Rumsfeld told the armed services committee that the new estimate is $3.9 billion - not counting the costs of the "reconstruction."
General Tommy Franks, stepping down as supreme commander at Centcom, told the Senate committee that the U.S. would be in Iraq "for the foreseeable future." But Rumsfeld sought to assuage the lawmakers' anxiety at this grim prospect by posing the possibility that we could Iraqi-ize the occupation, and turn over part of the burden to our allies:
"The numbers of US forces could change, while the footprint stayed the same, in the event that we have greater success in bringing in additional coalition forces, in the event we are able to accelerate the Iraqi army."
Forget about our "coalition." The Brits are about ready to boil Phony Tony in oil. As for the French and the Germans, they want no part of our Iraqi misadventure unless the reins are handed over to the UN, which is neither likely nor desireable. The only footprint in the Iraqi sands is going to be our own, even as we sink under the weight of our own imperial pretensions.
By the way, I wouldn't count on being able to "accelerate the Iraqi army" - unless Rummy envisions the U.S. being accelerated right out of there. Today (Thursday, July 10) the Iraqi police in Falluja threatened to walk off the job unless the Americans who trained and armed them high-tailed it out of town but quick. As the Washington Post reports:
"'We have the ability to protect these sites,' said Riyadh Abdel-Latif, the town's police chief. "The presence of Americans endangers us. We asked the Americans more than a month and a half ago to leave Falluja.' The protesters handed a petition to the mayor and U.S. commander in the town, saying they would resign in 48 hours if American troops did not leave."
Clyde Prestowitz, a former Reagan aide, says the Republicans could lose the White House if the war of attrition in Iraq drags on, or worsens, and the WMD remain a figment of the presidential imagination. Writing in the British Spectator, Prestowitz opines:
"It was one thing for the President to ask Americans to send their sons and daughters into harm's way to ward off the threat of WMD, but if the threat was and is non-existent, how does the government explain to the public why it is putting their young people in danger?"
A good question. Too bad no major party candidate for President who asks it will be on the November 2004 ballot. The Democratic wing of the War Party will make sure of that. The War Party controls both major parties, and nearly always has: all other parties are "minor" in comparison, and must go through the nearly impossible task of getting on the ballot in all 50 states. Such are the wonders of the "democracy" we're so keen to export to the far corners of the globe.
But rising popular sentiment against this ongoing war isn't going away, and becomes even more volatile when it has no real political outlet. And dissent is on the rise in the most unlikely places.
Here's a message Private First Class Matthew O'Dell gave to an American reporter to give to this administration:
"You call Donald Rumsfeld and tell him our sorry asses are ready to go home."
Bring 'em on? I don't think so, Mr. President. Listen to your own soldiers, take a look at the polls, and bring 'em home!
----
Give Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz the boot
By H.D.S. Greenway,
7/11/2003
Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/192/oped/Give_Rumsfeld_and_Wolfowitz_the_boot%2B.shtml
SECRETARY OF Defense Donald Rumsfeld stands at the head of the table. He has outmaneuvered all his Cabinet rivals and taken over many of the functions that used to belong to the State Department, the CIA, even the Justice Department. He dominates the Cabinet as no secretary of defense has done since Robert McNamara. He is also articulate, refreshingly if undiplomatically blunt, with a no-nonsense approach that is at times both witty and exactly to the point.
His deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, is often mentioned as the most brilliant person in government. He is perhaps the most influential deputy in modern times, at the top of his game. He has seen his vision of toppling Saddam Hussein fulfilled, and he is an intellectual force behind a whole new way of looking at US foreign policy.
But for all of that, both should be fired. Here's why.
The Iraq campaign, of which they were in charge, has been grossly mishandled. I use the word campaign because the overthrow of Saddam's army and regime was only the opening phase in what has to be, if this country is to maintain any credibility, an open and democratic society in Iraq. This may yet happen, but the current leadership of the Pentagon, through a fatal combination of hubris and incompetence, has so far bungled the job. If there were any accountability in the Bush administration, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz would be asked to resign.
First, the Pentagon civilians ignored advice early on from military men that more troops would be needed for the operation. This miscalculation of necessary troop strength left the lines of supply dangerously unguarded as American troops sped toward Baghdad. Once Baghdad fell, it was painfully obvious that there were not enough troops to maintain order.
Second, what policing was done had to be done by combat troops who are trained to kill, not police, so when demonstrations started, their only response was to shoot into the crowd. Rumsfeld dismissed the horrendous post-combat looting as just something that comes along with freedom - a comment that will remain around his neck like an albatross as the political and security situation in Iraq deteriorates. As the respected International Crisis Group said in a recent report: ''Even senior American civilians in Baghdad express consternation at the near-total absence of advance preparations for dealing with postwar needs.''
The Pentagon seems to have believed that Iraqi army units and policemen would come over to the American side with their forces intact and begin working for the Americans. It seems not to have occurred to them that another scenario might unfold, that the soldiers and police would simply melt away and that chaos would take over. The great failure of Pentagon planning was that there was no Plan B if Plan A failed. After trying to run Iraq on the cheap, Rumsfeld this week doubled his estimates for the cost of maintaining troops in Iraq.
It is not as if the Pentagon was not warned. In the lead-up to war, there were many voices from experienced experts and think tanks warning that the United States would need a substantial military police force to go in right after the troops. All were ignored, just as Robert McNamara ignored all advice about Indochina, only to say years later that he never knew.
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz presided over what one diplomat calls a ''colossal miscalculation'' that may have more impact on this country than did the miscalculation at the Bay of Pigs four decades ago. All the effort that the armed forces took not to destroy vital civilian infrastructure went for naught because all was destroyed by postcombat looting. Although American soldiers quickly secured the Oil Ministry in Baghdad, nothing was done to protect museums, hospitals, vital offices - even nuclear facilities where radioactive material might have fallen into terrorist hands. Vital records that might have led us to weapons of mass destruction were also destroyed.
The damage done is incalculable, and not just in material terms. The political damage has been worse and will be far more lasting in its consequences. The Pentagon civilian leadership has squandered much of the good will that Iraqis felt after the yoke of the Ba'ath Party was lifted. Policy is in drift. Forces that are inimical to American interests are rushing in to fill that vacuum. A guerrilla war is gathering.
As America's first proconsul in Iraq, General Jay Garner, was fired when it was clear that his team had failed, so should his bosses at the top of the Pentagon civilian leadership be held accountable for this stunning failure to anticipate and plan ahead for a postwar Iraq. It is said that after the Bay of Pigs, President Kennedy told Richard Bissell, the CIA man in charge of the project, that under a parliamentary system it would be he, Kennedy, who would have to resign. But since it was not, it was Bissell who would have to go. George W. Bush should make the same speech now to Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.
H.D.S. Greenway's column appears regularly in the Globe.
----
Bush team united Iraq front unravels
Use of flawed intelligence opens a Pandora's box
ANALYSIS
By Michael Moran,
MSNBC
July 11, 2003
http://www.msnbc.com/news/937576.asp?0sl=-21
Image: U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, foreground, in the Oval Office with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney in June.
http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/4607ee4a44ebd3/www.msnbc.com/news/1953421.jpg
The familiar drip, drip, drip of a brewing political scandal echoes through the power centers of Washington and London these days as the Bush administration and the government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair are pelted daily with increasingly pointed questions about the case they made for going to war against Iraq. The admission that the president made an apparently false allegation against Iraq in his State of the Union address was supposed to help put the issue to rest. Instead, it reopened fissures inside the administration and in Blair's government over the validity of their case for war.
THE FAILURE to turn up chemical or biological weapons in Iraq - initially dismissed as a "sour grapes" issue by Bush insiders - is growing into a genuine political problem, dogging the British and U.S. leaders at every public appearance and sparking various agencies that had a hand in Iraq policy to begin plotting a course through the gathering storm.
Throughout the president's Africa trip this week, for instance, Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell were peppered with questions on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and particularly on the president's Jan. 28 claim that Iraq sought to purchase uranium from African countries that mine it.
The image of African leaders standing mutely by as their news conferences were transformed into debates on Iraq could not fail to recall similarly uncomfortable moments during Bill Clinton's scandal-plagued administration.
But the comparisons end there. Clinton's troubles were domestic, in the strictest sense, and largely dismissed as unimportant in the rest of the world. Today, with U.S. troops dying in Iraq at a rate even the White House sees as politically unsustainable, there is a palpable desire to lay to rest any questions about the war's real motives and stem any further damage to U.S. and British credibility.
"They have to get by this, and they have to do that very soon," says a source close to the Bush family, who requested anonymity. "The GOP can bottle up inquiries in Congress, but they can't bottle up public opinion."
DAMAGE CONTROL
As it became clear that yet another piece of prewar evidence had been discredited - and that many intelligence and diplomatic officials had already concluded the charge was false even before the president's speech - efforts to control the damage took center stage. Bush told reporters in Africa on Friday that his State of the Union speech "was cleared by the intelligence services. And it was a speech that detailed to the American people the dangers posed by the Saddam Hussein regime, and my government took appropriate response to those dangers."
His national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, added that if the CIA director, George Tenet, had any objections about the Africa uranium claim, "he did not make them known." But the CIA, sensing once again it might become a scapegoat, leaked its own take on the affair to the Washington Post, stressing that the CIA had gone so far as to warn the British that "State Department analysts were questioning its accuracy when it came to Niger and that CIA personnel considered reports on other African countries to be 'sketchy.'"
On still another tack, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Wednesday told Congress that the decision to go to war was far more complex than the WMD issue and really was not centered on whether Iraq had new or ongoing WMD programs.
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," Rumsfeld said. "We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11." Rumsfeld's statement echoed an earlier assertion from his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, who said the WMD issue was chosen "for convenience" so the administration could lay out a case against Iraq at the United Nations.
'CRYING WOLFOWITZ'?
The ferocity of the leaking and spinning that has followed the White House retraction reflects lingering splits inside the U.S. government over Iraq. The State Department, the military officer corps and many CIA officials were very wary of the idea of an invasion of Iraq and skeptical of intelligence painting Saddam as a "clear and present danger" to the United States even as Osama bin Laden remained at large.
Greg Thielmann, who ran military assessments at the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research until October, said intelligence clearly was manipulated to make the most hawkish case possible for war. He told Congress at the same hearing Rumsfeld attended that data on the Iraqi threat was "misrepresented on the part of the administration." Oil: The other Iraq war; How energy figures in the debate
He also noted that Powell, his former boss, did not repeat the Iraqi uranium allegation during his own presentations of the case for war.
The infighting, and the admission that a key allegation is probably incorrect, also has emboldened those who have argued all along that the war was fought for reasons other than those stated. Even Democrats who have been tremendously wary of criticizing a popular president while troops are in the field are beginning to stir, though most, like Connecticut Democrat and presidential hopeful Joseph Lieberman, prefer to view it as a case of intelligence agencies misleading the president, rather than the president misleading the nation.
Even before the African uranium charge was withdrawn, leaks from U.S. and British intelligence agencies had raised questions about whether the administration jury-rigged prewar intelligence to paint a far more threatening picture of Iraq's arsenal than data otherwise suggested. Washington wits have coined the phrase "crying Wolfowitz" to describe the phenomenon, a reference to the deputy defense secretary who was perhaps the administration's leading Iraq hawk.
More substantively, each week has brought new revelations about the shortcomings of "coalition" intelligence. With the war still raging, enormous gaffes committed by British agents came to light, including admissions that some accusations in a highly touted "dossier" on Iraq actually were lifted from a U.S. grad student's 12-year-old doctoral thesis, casting doubts on the reliability of Britain's normally well-regarded spy agency, MI-6.
Prewar Israeli intelligence suggesting Saddam's ballistic missile arsenal might be as large as two dozen Scuds also has been largely discredited, though some Israeli sources continue to claim Iraq hid much of its banned material across the border in Syria before the war began.
In May, sensing a gathering storm over the "missing" WMD, U.S. intelligence analysts began leaking complaints to U.S. news outlets suggesting that they were pressured to "bury," in the words of one, any analysis that did not support the most alarmist view of the Iraqi threat.
In early June, two strangely outfitted trailers were discovered that seemed to fit the description of the "mobile biological weapons labs" Powell accused the Iraqis of operating in a February speech to the U.N. Security Council. No weapons material was found in the trailers, however, and within two weeks, unnamed U.S. intelligence officials had told the Washington Post that the administration suppressed analysts' reports that concluded the trailers were likely to have been just what the Iraqis claimed they were: support trailers used to inflate weather balloons.
FACT FILE:
Powell's points
• Intercepted conversations
• Missing documents
• Satellite photos
• Hidden scientists
• Mobile bio-weapon production labs
• Chemical weapons
• Nuclear evidence
• Al-Qaida
Secretary of State Colin Powell called Iraq's denials a "web of lies," during his Feb. 5 speech before the U.N. Security Council. Click above for highlights of what Powell labeled "irrefutable and undeniable" evidence that Saddam Hussein is concealing weapons of mass destruction.
Intercepted conversations
Powell played several tapes of intercepted communications between officers puportedly discussing hiding data from weapons inspectors. The first involved two officers in the Republican Guard discussing a modified vehicle which Powell said was involved in a chemical or biological weapons program.
Officer 1: "We have this modified vehicle."
Officer 2: "I'm worried you all have something left."
Officer 1: "We evacuated everything. We don't have anything left.
Missing documents
Powell asserted that all Iraqi organizations were ordered to hide their correspondence with the Organization of Military Industrialization. This organization, experts believe, oversees Iraq's weapons of mass destruction activities. Powell also said that Iraqi weapons facilities have had their hard drives replaced and that government officials and scientists have been ordered to keep prohibited items in their home, citing the recent discovery of 2,000 pages of documents recovered in the home of an Iraqi scientist.
Satellite photos
Among the satellite photos revealed by Powell
# A munitions facility in Taji suspected of housing chemical munitions. One photo reveals decontamination vehicles, a sign, according to Powell, of chemical activity. The second taken on Dec. 22, 2002 shortly before the arrival of weapons inspectors, shows the area cleaned up.
# A suspected ballistic missile site. A Nov. 10 photo shows a cargo truck preparing to move ballistic missile components.
# A Nov. 25 photo of a suspected biological weapons related facility shows a truck caravan, two days before inspections resumed. Powell said this type of "house cleaning" occured at almost 30 sites.
Hidden scientists
Iraq, according to Powell, has prevented weapons inspectors from interviewing Iraqi scientists. The methods included replacing scientists with intelligence agents. Powell said that this happened at one facility in mid-December. On another occasion, Iraqi officials issued a false death certificate for one scientist. Powell also said that a dozen experts have been placed under house arrest.
Mobile bio-weapon production labs
Powell said that interviews with defectors has revealed the existence of mobile weapons productions labs. According to Powell, the labs -- trucks and train cars -- are capable of producing a quantity of biological poison equal to the entire amount that Iraq claimed to have produced in the years prior to the Gulf War.
Chemical weapons
Powell repeated the point that Iraq has yet to account for vast amounts of chemical weaponry including 550 artillery shells armed with mustard gas and 6,500 bombs from the Iran-Iraq war. He accused Iraq of embedding key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry.
Backing up his argument, Powell produced an intercepted conversation of one officer asking a second to remove any mention of "nerve agents" from correspondence.
Nuclear evidence
Powell said Saddam Hussein is determined to get his hands on a nuclear bomb and has made repeated covert attempts to acquire high-specification aluminum tubes from 11 different countries, even after inspections resumed. While Powell noted that there have been differences of opinion over the tubes, he said U.S. experts believe the high-tolerance tubes were acquired for only one purpose, to advance Iraq's illicit nuclear program.
Al-Qaida
Powell described a "sinister nexus" between Iraq and the terrorist network. As evidence, he said Iraq harbored a network headed by Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, a collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaida lieutenants. He also noted Iraqi support for anti-Israeli groups, including Hamas and the Palestine Liberation Front.
LANCING THE BOIL
By late May, having spent the previous month insisting WMD discoveries were just a matter of time, senior administration officials and the president himself began to hedge a bit, stressing the difficulty of finding such caches without cooperation from Iraqi experts, and even raising the possibility these weapons had been destroyed before the war began.
The Pentagon also moved to quash reports that it had orchestrated efforts to "sex up" intelligence on Iraq. In early June, Deputy Defense Secretary Douglas Feith, who coordinates intelligence gathering for Rumsfeld, appeared before Congress to deny these intelligence analysts' allegations.
"This suggestion that we said to them, 'This is what we're looking for. Go find it,' is precisely the inaccuracy we are here to rebut. I know of nobody who pressured anybody," Feith said.
At the same time, Blair faced down a parliamentary inquiry, insisting that U.S. and British statements on Iraq were based on genuine concerns and the best intelligence available. While the inquiry on Monday acquitted Blair and his Cabinet of misleading Parliament, the British leader remains under fire by angry members of his Labor Party now trying to prove the war was "illegal" because it was based on allegations that cannot be proven. Of particular damage have been accusations from Blair's former foreign secretary, Robin Cook, who has characterized the Iraq war as a Bush family vendetta.
"This was a war made in Washington, pushed by a handful of neoconservatives and pursued for reasons of U.S. foreign strategy and domestic politics," Cook wrote in the London daily The Independent on Friday. Cook's broadside coincided with new statements from anonymous British Cabinet members saying they now had very little expectation that any banned weapons would ever be found in Iraq.
Michael Moran is MSNBC.com's senior correspondent.
----
Bush and Rice Say C.I.A. Approved Uranium Comment
July 11, 2003
New York Times
By KIRK SEMPLE
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/international/worldspecial/11CND-BUSH.html?hp
President Bush said today that intelligence agencies had approved the assertion he made in his State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy nuclear material from Africa.
``I gave a speech that was cleared by the intelligence services,'' the president said. ``It was a speech that detailed to the American people the dangers posed by the Saddam Hussein regime. And my government took the appropriate response to those dangers.''
The president made his comments during a four-hour visit to Uganda, the fourth country on his five-nation tour of Africa. He spoke shortly after his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said the C.I.A had authorized the specific wording of the statement.
The comments by Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice appeared intended to rebut news reports that the C.I.A. had raised objections to inserting in Mr. Bush's State of the Union Message the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium in Africa. The Washington Post reported today that the C.I.A. had tried to persuade the British government to drop a reference to the purported deal from an official intelligence paper. And a CBS News report late Thursday said that the White House had ignored a request by the C.I.A. to remove the statement from the text of the State of the Union address.
The White House acknowledged this week that it had erred in including the statement in the State of the Union Message because it was based on faulty intelligence. The uranium claim was partly based on forged documents alleging a transaction between Iraq and Niger, officials said they later learned.
Ms. Rice told reporters traveling with the president's party from South Africa to Uganda that the C.I.A. had approved the contents of the State of the Union address before Mr. Bush delivered it in January.
``The C.I.A. cleared the speech in its entirety,'' Ms. Rice said in a nearly hourlong interview aboard the president's plane. ``If the C.I.A. - the director of central intelligence - had said, `Take this out of the speech,' it would have been gone.''
Critics, including some Democrats on Capitol Hill, have accused the Bush administration of misleading the public by overstating the weapons threat posed by Iraq in order to garner more support for a war against Saddam Hussein.
The White House has faced questions about the uranium purchase for months. On Sunday, The New York Times published an article on its Op-Ed page by Joseph C. Wilson 4th, a former ambassador sent last year to Niger, West Africa, to investigate reports of the attempted purchase. Mr. Wilson, who said he was dispatched after Vice President Dick Cheney's office took an interest in the matter, reported back that the intelligence was probably fraudulent.
Ms. Rice said the specific reference to African uranium had been scrutinized by the C.I.A.
``There was even some discussion on that specific sentence, so that it reflected better what the C.I.A. thought and the speech was cleared,'' she told reporters this morning.
In particular, she said, the agency raised an objection to a reference to Iraq's trying to obtain ``yellow cake'' uranium. ``Some specifics about amount and place were taken out,'' she said, but that once those changes were made, ``the speech was cleared.''
Ms. Rice said that the State Department's intelligence agency had expressed reservations about the information on the African uranium, but that the general consensus among the intelligence agencies was that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.
In his State of the Union speech in January, Mr. Bush said: ``The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990's that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.''
Since coalition troops invaded Iraq, they have found no biological or chemical weapons.
House Democrats angry about the use of faulty intelligence are planning to send a letter to Mr. Bush today in which they demand to know why the African uranium charge was included in the State of the Union Message.
According to a draft of the letter, the Democrats say the admission of error raises ``disturbing and serious questions'' about the rest of the administration's case that Iraq was developing a weapons of mass destruction program.
``What reassurance can Congress and the American public receive that the other claims you made in your State of the Union speech regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs are based on solid intelligence information and analysis?'' the Democrats ask, according to a draft distributed by the office of Representative Ed Markey Democrat of Massachusetts.
----
White House Points at CIA Over Iraq Uranium Charge
July 11, 2003
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-bush-iraq-cia.html
ENTEBBE, Uganda (Reuters) - The White House pointed the finger at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency on Friday over a false accusation that Iraq tried to buy African uranium.
President Bush said his charge Iraq tried to buy nuclear material from Africa was approved by his ``intelligence services,'' and U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said the specific wording was cleared by the CIA.
But Rice said the White House ``absolutely'' had confidence in CIA Director George Tenet. However, U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts blamed Tenet, originally appointed by Bush's Democrat predecessor Bill Clinton.
``If the CIA had changed its position, it was incumbent on the director...to correct the record and bring it to the immediate attention of the president. It appears that he did not,'' said Roberts, a senior member of Bush's Republican Party.
The White House acknowledged this week it had been a mistake to say Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had been trying to get African uranium because documents alleging a transaction between Iraq and Niger proved to have been forged.
Bush repeated he had been right to go to war against Saddam, but declined to answer a reporter's question as to how the statement made it into his State of the Union address in January.
``I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services,'' Bush said in Uganda during a five-nation African tour. ``It speaks in detail to the American people of the dangers posed by the Saddam Hussein regime. My government took the appropriate response to those dangers,'' he told reporters.
CIA APPROVED WORDING
Critics have accused the Bush administration of misleading the public by hyping a weapons of mass destruction threat posed by Saddam.
U.S. television network CBS reported on Thursday the White House had ignored a request by the CIA to remove the accusation from Bush's address.
In a lengthy session with reporters on the uranium issue, Rice said: ``The CIA cleared the speech in its entirety... If the CIA Director of Central Intelligence had said, 'Take this out of the speech', then it would have been done.''
Rice, accompanying Bush on his tour of Africa, said the specific reference to African uranium had been scrutinized by the CIA.
``There was even some discussion on that specific sentence, so that it reflected better what the CIA thought and the speech was cleared,'' Rice said.
``Some specifics about amount and place were taken out...with the change in that sentence, the speech was cleared.''
Rice said Tenet had been a ``terrific DCI (Director of Central Intelligence).''
``I am really not blaming anybody,'' she told reporters.
Rice said although Bush's statement about the uranium had cited British intelligence, the ``underlying intelligence'' for the British document was in the official U.S. National Intelligence Estimate.
She said the State Department's intelligence agency had expressed reservations about the uranium information in a separate footnote to the document, but that the larger intelligence conclusion was that there was reason to believe Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa.
Rice said no one had expressed any doubts to Bush about the information underlying the National Intelligence Estimate, a report that has input from the 13 U.S. spy agencies and includes consensus and dissenting opinions.
On Wednesday, Britain defended its allegations Saddam had sought uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons program, saying its evidence was separate from the forged information.
----
Naked forgery
by Patrick J. Buchanan
July 11, 2003
WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33524
On Oct. 27, 1941, FDR, locked in mortal combat with an America First Committee that was resisting his drive to war, played his trump. On Navy Day, at the Mayflower Hotel, FDR declared,
"I have in my possession a secret map, made in Germany by Hitler's Government - by planners of the New World Order. ... It is a map of South America ... as Hitler proposes to reorganize it. ... This map makes clear the Nazi design, not only against South America but against the United States as well."
Roosevelt was not done. I also have, he informed his audience, a Nazi document detailing plans "to abolish all existing religions, liquidate all clergy and create an 'International Nazi Church.'
"In the place of the Bible, the words of 'Mein Kampf' will be imposed and enforced in a Holy Writ. And in the place of the cross of Christ will be put two symbols - the swastika and the naked sword. ... The God of Blood and Iron will take the place of the God of Love and Mercy."
The Nazi plans for eradicating Christianity were never found. And the map? A forgery by British agent Ivar Bryce, who worked under Churchill's man William Stephenson, who had been given his mission: Provoke America to go to war with Germany.
As Nicholas Cull relates in "Selling War: The British Propaganda Campaign Against American 'Neutrality' in World War II," the "most striking feature" of Bryce's fake map "was the complicity of the president of the United States in perpetrating this fraud."
In his address to Congress calling for war, after Pearl Harbor, FDR did not even mention Germany. Yet Hitler stunned the world by declaring war on America. Why? Among the reasons cited by Germany was the provocation of FDR's Navy Day speech and fake map.
Stephenson's forgery was a triumph and served a backdrop for Clare Luce's remark that Roosevelt "lied us into war because he did not have the political courage to lead us into it."
Though Stephenson used fraud and blackmail to goad us into a war that killed and wounded a million Americans, he is the hero of the best-seller "A Man Called Intrepid." And not only has FDR been forgiven, he has been celebrated. His lies, it is said, were noble lies, to rouse an isolationist America into doing its duty and ridding the world of Adolf Hitler.
But it all depends on how a war turns out. And that is the problem for the president. In the 2003 State of the Union, he declared: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
For those who opposed war with Iraq as necessary, this was riveting. If Saddam was building nuclear weapons, the case for war was far more compelling than if all he had were Scuds, mustard gas and anthrax he could not deliver. Days after the president spoke, Dick Cheney raised anew the awful specter: "We believe he has ... reconstituted nuclear weapons."
Now, with Americans dying daily in our own Gaza Strip in Iraq, we learn that the critical document on which the president relied was also a naked forgery. Someone fabricated the document that supposedly proved Iraq was secretly trying to buy uranium from Niger.
Moreover, the CIA knew the truth, as ex-ambassador Joe Wilson had been sent to Niger to ferret it out. And Wilson had returned to report that the nuclear link to Iraq did not exist.
So, two questions remain. Who forged the Niger document? Who put the lie in the president's State of the Union address?
Fingers are being pointed in all directions. President Bush gave the British government as his source, leading one to suspect the heirs of Bryce and Stephenson. The Brits point to the CIA. The Washington Post said that a foreign intelligence agency was the source. CNN cited officials who said it was not the Brits or Mossad. Lately, Italy has popped up as a possible source - and the Iraqi National Congress of Ahmed Chalabi.
Whoever did it, the forgery - so crude it suggests the author knew his recipient wanted it so badly he would not bother to verify it - was a war crime, a deliberate provocation of the United States to instigate a war on a country that did not threaten America.
"An enemy has done this to us," the Bible reads. Congress should find out who that enemy is. With American kids dying in a new war in Iraq that has no end in sight, we have a right to know who deceived the president - who lied us into war.
----
War's Cost Brings Democratic Anger
July 11, 2003
New York Times
By DAVID FIRESTONE and THOM SHANKER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/international/worldspecial/11COST.html
WASHINGTON, July 10 - The Pentagon's new estimate that military costs for Iraq would average $3.9 billion monthly for the first nine months of this year produced surprise and anger today among Congressional Democrats, who said the amount was not only more than they had been told, but far too large given the budget deficit.
"It is a lot more than I expected," said Senator Kent Conrad of North Dakota, the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee. "Obviously the Iraqi occupation is bogging down, and the cost is substantially higher than we were earlier advised. So the problems are mounting, and I got a real earful from parents of soldiers when I got home about the lack of a plan for the postwar."
The Pentagon comptroller today stood by the concepts that produced the initial estimate in April that military costs would average just over $2 billion monthly, and said he had kept Congress informed of increases, testifying in early June that estimates of war costs had exceeded $3 billion monthly.
"Numbers change over time because they reflect the reality," Dov S. Zakheim, the comptroller, said in an interview today.
"We didn't draw down troops nearly as quickly as we thought we were going to do," Mr. Zakheim added. But he said that the overall budget estimates for war costs were sufficiently accurate that the Pentagon does not anticipate requesting any additional funds for this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, as some members of Congress have predicted.
Administration officials disclosed, meanwhile, that the cost of running the civilian parts of the stabilization and reconstruction of Iraq also are increasing, and that the roughly $7 billion available to pay for much of these costs is expected to run out near the end of the year.
When Baghdad fell in April, the United States tapped billions of dollars in Iraqi bank deposits as well as stolen public funds found in hiding places in Iraq and accumulated revenue from prewar oil sales to pay for the civilian reconstruction effort.
Some of that money has been flown from the United States to Iraq by Air Force transports in pallets containing bales of $20 bills, which were then used to pay for such items as salaries and pensions of Iraqi police and soldiers.
Officials involved in financing the nonmilitary part of the stabilization effort say that once Iraq's oil industry is restored sometime next year, it may produce two million to three million barrels of oil a day, yielding $15 billion to $20 billion in annual revenue.
But sabotage and troubles repairing the oil fields make that goal uncertain.
Across Capitol Hill today, debate focused on the price of the Iraq mission, and even some Republicans expressed dismay at the estimate for military costs announced Wednesday by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said the American people would support continued troop assignments in Iraq if they were given all the facts. But he expressed annoyance that it had taken so long to learn the true costs of the postwar period.
"I think the American people need to be told, `Look, we're going to be there for quite a while, and it's going to cost us quite a bit of money,' " said Mr. McCain, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. "People should be given some estimate of what we can expect. Americans will support the president, in my view, if he just talks straight to them and tells them what the challenges are we face. We got some of that, albeit reluctantly, yesterday from Rumsfeld."
There was a burst of Democratic criticism of the postwar effort in Washington, led by some of the presidential contenders. "It's time for the president to tell the truth that we lack sufficient forces to do the job in Iraq and withdraw in a reasonable period, to tell the truth that America should not go it alone," said Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts.
Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, said: "What is now clear is that there are those in this administration that misled the president, misled the nation, and misled the world in making the case for the war in Iraq. They know who they are. And they should resign today."
The most pointed critique came from Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, who pressed Mr. Rumsfeld during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Wednesday to produce the best estimate of military costs for Iraq. Mr. Byrd said his warnings about the failure to assemble an international coalition before the war had proved true, as American lives are lost in the postwar period and as allies continue to be reluctant to volunteer large numbers of troops to replace battle-weary Americans.
"This administration should think hard about whether we have the money to single-handedly pay for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq," he said. "At a time when the United States is running record-breaking deficits of $400 billion each year, the administration has not even included these $58 billion in occupation costs in its budget. In sharp contrast to the 1991 Persian Gulf war, where our allies contributed $54 billion of the $61 billion cost of that war, the American taxpayer is virtually alone in bearing the burden for the staggering cost of this most recent war with Iraq."
One conservative Republican, Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said he thought the expenditure was justified to make certain the nation wins the peace in addition to the war. But he said there was a limit to his patience.
"There's no doubt in my mind it will be money out the door at least for months," he said. "I'm not willing to say years at this point."
Mr. Zakheim, the Pentagon comptroller, said the Defense Department's prewar budget planning was based on the assumption that the conflict might last three to six weeks, followed by six months of stabilization and transition. Approximately $13 billion was set aside for that, he said, which produced his rough estimate in April of $2.1 billion to $2.2 billion in monthly war expenses.
By the time he went to Capitol Hill in June to testify on war costs, Mr. Zakheim said: "I already knew the numbers were rising. Sure enough, when you looked at the actual costs from January to the end of April, that number was about $4.1 billion per month."
Mr. Zakheim said the unknown course of postwar stabilization in Iraq, and the uncertainties of allied troop contributions, made it impossible to predict exact military costs for Iraq into the next fiscal year.
The estimates of military costs for Iraq do not include such items as salaries for active-duty military personnel, which would have to be paid regardless. The projections do include costs for special wartime salary bonuses, as well as fuel, food, ordnance and transportation costs related to the war effort, and the costs of mobilizing reservists.
One Republican with close ties to the White House, Representative Rob Portman of Ohio, defended the expenditures.
"Clearly there will be lots of pressure to get out," said Mr. Portman, who is chairman of the House Republican leadership group. "But we started something we have a commitment to finish. It would be a mistake for us to get into this kind of engagement without being willing to stay there for a while and see it through."
--------
Boiling Mad Over Bush
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 11, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42188-2003Jul11?language=printer
The left is now up in arms about one sentence in George Bush's last State of the Union speech.
The White House's belated admission that the president relied on bum information in accusing Iraq of trying to buy uranium from Africa for a nuclear-weapons program has crystallized all the doubts and resentment that has been building in the liberal psyche.
Some conservatives have their own problems with the prez, as we'll see in a moment. But in the bluest of blue-state precincts, it's hard to tell which emotion is stronger: disgust with Dubya or anger at the American public for failing to share their outrage.
The administration has done its best to minimize the uranium story, confirming it to the New York Times and Washington Post but saying nothing in advance of the network evening newscasts. Bush ducked the question when reporters on the Africa trip asked about it, instead repeating his belief that the war in Iraq was worth it and that those elusive WMDs will eventually be found.
How, critics wonder, can the commander-in-chief be so cavalier about this bogus bit of intelligence (which the press already knew about but which the White House had previously greeted with silence)? What if Clinton had done this? Where's the accountability? Where's the outrage?
No wonder that John Kerry, Bob Graham and Howard Dean were out there yesterday beating up Bush over Iraq, and that Colin Powell was playing defense with a news conference and a Larry King drop-by.
Bush is driving the Democrats and the liberals crazy. They don't understand why everyone doesn't see what they see. It's not so much that they want to refight the war over the war -- some supporting toppling Saddam -- but this is obviously an opening they can use to tarnish the president's image on a national security issue. The problem is, most folks don't seem to care.
Michael Tomasky channels the liberal complaints in American Prospect:
"A fresh and potentially damning revelation about pre-war manipulation of intelligence comes out, and the administration -- for the first time -- has to acknowledge that an 'incorrect' justification for war was bruited.
"It's yet another instance -- the 13,862nd, I think -- over which we shake our heads, imagining what the right would have done if a Gore administration had tried to get away with something like this. And so, once again, we are confronted with the same exasperating question: What has to happen to make the American people care about the lies told to get us into this war? . . .
"This has been, without question, the most vexing two years in modern American history for liberals. When we talk with one another, we talk -- and talk -- about one thing: How can this be happening? What this administration is doing to this country is not merely Republican, or merely conservative. It is revolutionary, as indeed some within the administration clearly fancy their project and themselves (Paul Wolfowitz springs to mind). And with all revolutionaries, it's always the same old story: interpretation first, facts later.
"Those of us who hang on every turn of the screw and have been maddened for months about how Bush can get away with converting Saddam Hussein into an imminent threat to America -- or calling his tax cut middle-class, or labeling this Medicare swindle 'reform,' or any of a hundred other surrealities -- have been dumbfounded at how thoroughly the interpretation has taken hold."
Al Hunt complains about "the fog of deceit" in his Wall Street Journal column:
"The phony Iraq-Niger deal may be the smoking gun in what was a pervasive pattern of exaggeration and distortion to justify the war against the Iraqi dictator. Some of these claims -- the alleged Baghdad-al Qaeda ties, the extent of his biological and chemical weapons or even his nuclear designs -- reflected selective use of conflicting intelligence.
"The false Niger connection was much more. Yet Congress, under pressure from the White House, is abdicating its responsibility to investigate why the public was misled on such a momentous matter. . . .
"If Bill Clinton could be impeached for lying about sex, or Al Gore discredited for exaggerating his relationship with James Lee Witt, then lying about the reasons for going to war -- whether it was the president or one of his subordinates -- ought to command an inquiry from the people's representatives."
The Clinton double standard is really starting to irk liberal commentators.
Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen compares Bush to a CEO who has to keep "restating" corporate profits:
"The president recently restated some of the reasons for invading Iraq. Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program, which Bush told the world was being 'reconstituted,' may in fact not exist. The White House the other day restated its earlier insistence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the West African nation of Niger. It turned out that the supporting documents had been forged. The White House admitted that in a press release left behind after Bush had departed for Africa.
"Similarly, the accusation that Iraq was buying high-strength aluminum tubes, which Bush said were 'used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons,' has to be restated. The tubes appear to have been bought for another purpose entirely and may not be high-strength after all.
"As for the charge that Iraq was bristling with other weapons of mass destruction, none have yet been found, raising the distinct possibility that -- in an upcoming quarter -- this too will be restated and the Bush administration will take a one-time charge against future credibility. . . .
"Almost everything has been restated. During the campaign, Bush said he would not go in for peacekeeping operations abroad. He appears ready to do so in Liberia. He also said he would not get engaged, as did the previous CEO, Bill Clinton, in the nitty-gritty of Middle East peace negotiation. The administration is now choosing intersections in Gaza for traffic lights."
The Chicago Tribune has the Powell defense from South Africa:
"Secretary of State Colin Powell said yesterday that accusations the Bush administration misled the public to justify an invasion of Iraq were 'overblown and overwrought.'
" 'There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or deceive the American people,' Powell told reporters during President Bush's tour of Africa.
"When Bush said in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had tried to buy weapons-grade uranium from Africa, 'the president was presenting what seemed to be a reasonable statement at the time,' Powell said.
"Powell said he believed at the time that the claim, based on a document about uranium from Niger that later proved to be an amateurish forgery, had been vetted by intelligence officials."
Condi joins the defensive squad from Uganda, according to this wire report this morning in USA Today:
"President Bush's national security adviser said today the CIA cleared Bush's State of the Union speech in its entirety, including a sentence alleging that Iraq was seeking to buy nuclear material from Africa.
"If CIA Director George Tenet had any misgivings about that sentence in the president's speech, 'he did not make them known' to Bush or his staff, said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice."
Ah, says Salon's Joe Conason, now we know who the fall guy is:
"Apparently they would rather just hang the blame on CIA director George Tenet, as a 'senior administration official' did in anonymous comments to the Washington Post:
" 'If [CIA director George J.] Tenet had called up and said, "Take it out," we would have taken it out. When it was signed off on at highest level, it was not brought into question by those who would know or those who were tasked to know at the agency.'
"So Tenet is being set up as the fall guy, the outcome expected in Washington from this fiasco's earliest beginning. Given what we now know about the information made available to the White House and the State Department concerning Iraq's supposed attempt to obtain Niger's yellowcake -- the lie getting the most play at the moment -- I have my doubts as to whether Tenet is really to blame. But he has played the good soldier and done little to defend himself or his agency on this issue. Yet somehow I doubt he will be fired -- and kicked out into the cold where he might tell the whole truth."
Amid all this fury on the left, the editors of National Review see a very different landscape -- one in which their president is letting them down:
"The news this summer has been rather bleak for conservatives. The Supreme Court first decided to write 'diversity' into the Constitution. A few days later, it issued a ruling on sodomy laws that called into question its willingness to tolerate any state laws based on traditional understandings of sexual morality. . . .
"And while the Court issued its edicts and the rest of the world adjusted, a huge prescription-drug bill made its way through Congress. That bill will add at least $400 billion to federal spending over the next ten years, and it comes on top of already gargantuan spending increases over the last five years. ..
"We have never been under any illusions about the extent of Bush's conservatism. He did not run in 2000 as a small-government conservative, or as someone who relished ideological combat on such issues as racial preferences and immigration. We supported him nonetheless in the hope that he would strengthen our defense posture, appoint originalist judges, liberalize trade, reduce tax rates, reform entitlements, take modest steps toward school choice. Progress on these fronts would be worth backsliding elsewhere. We have been largely impressed with Bush's record on national security, on judicial appointments (although the big test of a Supreme Court vacancy will apparently not occur during this term), and on taxes. On the other issues he has so far been unable to deliver. . . .
"Bush ought to bear down on spending; we suggest that an assault on corporate welfare, followed by a reform of the appropriations process, would be a fine start. Republicans need a strategy for dealing with the judicial usurpation of politics that goes beyond trying to make good appointments to the bench -- a strategy that now has a two-generation track record of nearly unrelieved failure. On gay marriage, a constitutional amendment appears to be necessary to forestall the mischief of state and federal courts. . . .
"This is not a bad time for conservatives to declare their independence from the GOP establishment."
A popular insurrection? How exciting!
Andrew Sullivan takes a victory lap for his Raines-bashing:
"I was long criticized for using this blog to expose the extraordinary attempt by Howell Raines to turn the New York Times into his personal vehicle for quixotic left-liberal causes -- or simply to throw his weight around. He was an insufferable, arrogant tyrant. As more details come out, the most paranoid anti-Raines arguments gain more traction.
"Now here comes David Margolick's piece in the new Vanity Fair. I offer a single example:
" 'Worse, Raines would not let facts get in the way of a story he had ordered up or a point he decided to make. "Howell wanted a thought inserted high in one of my stories," says a metro reporter. "The only problem was, it wasn't true. Mind you, this was on my beat, a beat he didn't really know about. I said to the editor who was the message-bearer that it wasn't true, and it didn't belong in the story, period. A while later he came back to me and said, 'Well, you're right, but Howell wants it anyway.' It became clear that the editor had not fully conveyed my arguments to Howell, because he was afraid to. I said, '[Expletive] that -- I'll tell him myself.' And he literally seized my arm and said, 'You don't want to do that.' And ultimately the editor-intermediary and I compromised on a version of what Howell wanted that was just vague enough not to mean much, but still close enough to a falsehood to make my very uncomfortable." '
"It was as bad as we thought. Even worse, actually."
We led yesterday's column by opining on all the downbeat press John Edwards has been getting lately. Now the Manchester Union Leader spots the trend:
"Edwards can't catch a break. He had a generally good day in New Hampshire on Monday, talking about corporate accountability and doing some retail politicking in downtown Manchester, but you wouldn't know it by reading the local and national media accounts.
"The thunder from his Monday corporate accountability plan was stolen when someone in the campaign gave a copy to The Associated Press, which reported on it well in advance.
"His campaign smarted from our report that he bought Japanese-made shoes shortly after that major speech on how he will protect average American workers like his millworker father.
"The Concord Monitor had a not-very-flattering Tuesday story on Edwards' Monday night town hall meeting sandwiched between glowing stories about Lieberman and Kerry, which ran on Monday and Wednesday, respectively. The New York Times' Edwards story on Tuesday talked about people in his home state wishing he'd stay at home and address their concerns.
"Now comes the Dean campaign picking on Edwards. They had some folks attend the town hall meeting and some others watching on C-SPAN. When they saw Edwards criticize Bush for his 'No Child Left Behind' education law, they pounced, sending out an e-mail charging that he (and Kerry) missed a March 19 vote authorizing full funding for the bill."
Oh, and by the way, Nader is threatening to run again, according to the New York Times:
"Ralph Nader, whom Democrats blame for Al Gore's defeat in the last presidential election, said today that he would decide later this year whether to seek the White House again, as a Green Party candidate or an independent. . . .
"Speaking to reporters at a breakfast this morning, the 69-year-old Mr. Nader said his decision would depend in some measure on the fortunes of the two current Democratic contenders whose politics appear to most closely resemble his own: Representative Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio and former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont.
"Mr. Nader said any growth in support for Mr. Kucinich, among the most liberal members of Congress, would give him 'less reason to go into the election -- not no, just less.' As for Dr. Dean, Mr. Nader said he liked what the former governor said in speeches but feared that he would ultimately move toward the center to broaden his appeal."
In other words, he prefers a purist candidate to one who might actually get elected?
----
Why I'm Supporting Dennis Kucinich for President in 2004
By Cliff Pearson
Some liberally-minded people have maintained to me that Dennis Kucinich isn't a serious presidential candidate, but is really just running for ego or some other frivolous reason, and that Howard Dean is the candidate for progressives to support. I don't at all agree. Dennis Kucinich's Web site, http://www.kucinich.us, has an interesting article on how he believes a victory against Bush is possible in 2004. Kucinich seems to be taking this seriously, and to genuinely believe he has a shot.
Politics is a delicate dance with two partners -- practicality and principles. For me, the primary is the place where principles take precedence over practicality, and one must support the candidate most in tune with her or his principles. When it's a matter of facing the Republican in the general election, practical concerns become considerably more important. For example, I didn't completely agree with Al Gore on everything, but I certainly wanted him to defeat George W. Bush.
Therefore, for reasons of principles, I support Dennis Kucinich. I like Dean, could live with his winning the primary, and would be very happy with his being president. But in terms of principles, I have found nothing with which I disagree with Kucinich, but a few things in which I disagree with Dean.
For one thing, Dean is critical of globalization, but only to a point. Dean still supports the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and favors not withdrawal from the World Trade Organization (WTO), but some sort of reformist effort. I consider globalization to be the single greatest threat to human society and the world environment since Genghis Khan. It's a return to 19th century Robber- Baron capitalism, only orders of magnitude worse. Dennis Kucinich is the only candidate pledging an end to "fast track" ability on globalization treaties, pledging fair trade not free trade, and promising to pull the United States out of the WTO and NAFTA. He was even in Seattle to protest the WTO.
There is also the matter of America's war-mongering. I firmly believe that America's hypocritical military aggressiveness and imperialism are major factors encouraging anti-American sentiments around the world, and encouraging terrorism against Americans. Yet of all the presidential candidates, only Dennis Kucinich has publicly opposed the War on Iraq and the War in Afghanistan. Only Dennis Kucinich is calling for a cabinet-level Department of Peace. Only Dennis Kucinich is calling for substantial cuts to the United States' gluttonously bloated military budget, which makes up 47 percent of federal spending (http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm.), and is calling for a return of the revenue to our massively underfunded social programs. So even though Howard Dean is a good man, and is hardly the war-mongering fascist Bush is, Dennis Kucinich is clearly the real peace candidate.
Then there is the issue of universal health care. I applaud the fact that Dean has made this issue a priority. Dean's plans for health care are probably good ones. But Dean's plan strikes me as too complex. I believe that Kucinich's plan for Canadian-style socialized health care is the only plan that will truly guarantee health care as a basic human right and civil right to all Americans.
On the matter of the War on Drugs, both candidates seem to understand that the thing needs a massive overhaul. But only Kucinich seems to understand that drug addiction is a medical concern far more than it is a criminal one. When I lived in Tyler, Texas I served as a community representative on the Smith County Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse. I heard numerous stories from drug abuse counselors and criminal defense lawyers of people who were seriously addicted who, rather than get treatment, were sent to jails and prisons where they got no real help for their chemical dependency, but instead learned how to be better addicts and more skilled criminals. Some of these incarcerated people were miraculously able to become clean and sober, but upon leaving jail, found that the system was built in such a way that it was very hard for them to re-integrate themselves into society. .....
The War on Drugs is the greatest societal lie the State has perpetrated on the American people in recent history. Rather than work to alleviate the social crisis of chemical dependency, the War on Drugs serves only to perpetuate and feed leech-like the mostly privatized prison industry.
I admit I'm not completely clear on Dean's views on the War on Drugs, but Kucinich's plans have been made abundantly clear to me. Therefore, for this reason and all the ones I named above, I support Dennis Kucinich for president. Kucinich plans to treat the problem of drug addiction as the national health crisis it is, rather than as just an exploitable social problem to enrich industries.
Furthermore, there is the issue of the death penalty. For me, there is no surer standard of a person's commitment to fighting racism, to checking government power over the people, and to promoting human rights, than a person's position on the death penalty. I accept that the issue is hugely emotional and that rational and compassionate people disagree on the matter. I accept that Dean's views on the death penalty are hardly in tune with George W. Bush's. Yet I remain opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances, ...
In my opinion, the execution of prisoners by the State is a serious human rights problem. In the United States, the death penalty is additionally a matter both of racism and classism. Few educated people would argue that the death penalty in this country is not used disproportionately against people of color and the poor. So, for all these reasons -- although I'm hardly a single-issue voter -- I am drawn to the candidate who unequivocally opposes the death penalty -- Dennis Kucinich.
Additionally, both Dean and Kucinich are staunchly pro-LGBT rights. For that I am grateful, and I am proud to be in a party whose candidates make such issues a priority. But Kucinich is better. Dean was wonderful to risk his political future by supporting the Vermont civil unions issue, but only Kucinich is calling for full and equal treatment under the law of LGBT people. Kucinich favors same-gender marriage rights, not merely Jim Crow-style "civil unions" that attempt to create a "separate but equal" classification for LGBT relationships. Only Kucinich is calling for equal rights for the transgendered as well as for lesbian, gay and bisexual people. Only Kucinich is using the term "gender identity" when discussing LGBT rights issues.
The conclusion is obvious -- Dennis Kucinich is the progressive choice for president.
Permission is given to reprint, distribute, or use this essay for Kucinich Campaigning.
Peace,
Cliff Pearson
Dallas/Ft. Worth For Kucinich
Dallas, Texas
Freelance Journalist and Writer
www.CLIFFPEARSON.com
DENNIS KUCINICH FOR PRESIDENT
http://www.kucinich.us/
----
Howard Dean - Demand the Truth
July 11, 2003
FROM: DEAN FOR AMERICA <info@deanforamerica.com>
It is now clear that there are those in this administration who misled the nation and misled the world in making the case for pre-emptive war.
They know who they are. And they should resign today.
Please join me in demanding that those responsible for misleading the American people resign by clicking on the link below:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/truth
In his State of the Union address, President Bush claimed that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium in Africa for the production of nuclear weapons. We know now that the documents he relied upon to make that claim were forged.
Yesterday, in testimony before the Senate, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made the stunning announcement that it was only "within recent days" (since the press had begun reporting it) that he learned about the forgery. Yet Secretary of State Colin Powell, in February, had enough reservations about the validity of the documents that he did not cite them in his presentation to the UN.
The American people must know the truth.
There will be investigations, and the truth will come out, and those in this administration must be held accountable for their failure to give us the truth before we went to war.
But we do not need to wait for the investigations to rid these people from our government -- they can resign on their own today. Call on those who misled the American people to resign today by clicking on the link below:
http://www.deanforamerica.com/truth
I am now convinced more than ever that it was a mistake to have given this administration a blank check to engage in this war -- as too many in Congress did when they supported the Iraqi war resolution.
Please forward this message on to everyone in your email list. Ask them to join us. We all must stand up and demand the facts from our government in Washington.
~~
It's Time for the Truth
July 11, 2003
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=petitiontt
I demand truth from my government in Washington.
It is now clear that some officials in this Administration misled the nation and misled the world. These people must be held accountable for their failure to give us the truth before we went to war.
But we should not have to wait for investigations to rid our government of those who misled the American people.
They know who they are, and they can resign on their own today. I demand the resignation of those who engaged in this deception.
Comments:
As I've been writing to President Bush since before the shooting started:
"Fire the Liars!"
And let's get crackin' on fixing the real problem, which is putting the arms race before the human race. There is now a great bill in the U.S. House of Representatives, HR-2647, the "Nuclear Disarmament and Economic Conversion Act of 2003" - see http://prop1.org/prop1/
I sure would like to hear which of the presidential candidates intend to support it. Posted by Ellen Thomas at July 11, 2003 11:34 AM - http://prop1.org ]
----
[Here's an alternative viewpoint from Antiwar.com, a Libertarian-inspired site. It would be good to know the truth of Dean's broader global vision. There's been enough bloodshed. et]
Howard Dean? Antiwar!? Not Quite
by Anthony Gancarski,
July 11, 2003
Antiwar.com [a Libertarian endeavor]
http://www.antiwar.com/gancarski/gan071103.html
Only in 2003 could a 5'8" politician named Howard be considered a favorite for a major party's Presidential nomination. Yet that is exactly what has happened with former Vermont Governor Dean. His supporters point to his strong showing in the recent "MoveOn.Org Presidential Preference Primary" as well as to the surprising strength in his campaign's fundraising as evidence that Dean is viable.
This writer, however, wonders if the Dean supporters are following their candidate blindly, without knowledge of the full spectrum of his positions. Dean's support came, in large part, from what sympathetic pundits called his principled stand against the Iraqi war; finally, many on the left reckoned, here is a candidate who will stand up to the President and his war machine. Hell, he even appropriated Wellstone's old saw about the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party". It's as if Bulworth were crossed with Chomsky, and infused with mysteriously strong funding.
Those who believe in Dean's viability as a Presidential candidate would do well to look more closely at the candidate himself, and the positions he's taken of late. Is Dean anti-war? As another small state governor might have said, it depends on what your definition of war is.
In a recent AlterNet piece, Ahmed Nassef laid the claim bare for the hard left: "Dean Not Progressive on Mideast." As anyone who remembers the hue and cry in the wake of Rachel Corrie's recent death can attest, many leftists see the US as the principal abettors of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians, and seek to curtail Washington's support for that government quickly and severely. Candidate Dean, however, sees things a bit differently.
The Alternet scribe quotes Dean's endorsement of "AIPAC's view" of Israeli security, as well as the Governor's claim that "we have to stop terrorism before peace negotiations." Leaving aside the question of who "we" are, exactly, it's impossible not to notice that Dean takes a more overtly pro-Israeli tack in his public rhetoric than the current President does in action. And Dean doesn't stop there; his recent, unconditional advocacy of $12 billion in grants and loans to the Israeli government even exceeded the stated goals of such as Paul Wolfowitz, who sought to make the disbursements conditional on acceptance of the two-state solution and rollbacks of Israeli settlements.
Wherever Dean's [anomalous?] opposition to the Iraqi war came from, he seems willing to aggressively engage other countries in the region. Dean, who claimed on "Face the Nation" recently that President Bush is "beholden" to the Saudis as well as to Axis of Evil member Iran, also believes that the US must take a singularly active role in Liberia. Stumping in Iowa City early in July, Dean stated that "I would urge the president to tie our commitment to assist in this multilateral effort to an appeal to the world to join us in the work that remains to be done in Iraq. We could stabilize the situation and remain in Liberia for no more than several months, at which time a U.N. peacekeeping mission could be deployed to oversee a period of transition."
There's that "we" again, representing in this instance a mere deployment of two thousand "peacekeepers." Far be it from the anti-war candidate to ask the question on the lips of many of his supporters: namely, why don't we just leave the entire job to the UN? Haven't the American people seen enough "peacekeeping" for one generation?
Apparently not, as Dean maintains that the situation in Liberia is "significantly different" from that in Iraq. In Liberia, "there is an imminent threat of serious human catastrophe" that apparently just hasn't been the case in Baghdad or Basra. Cholera and depleted uranium poisoning, guesses this writer, are simply the cost of freedom.
Such fuzzy logic from the putative Democratic frontrunner cheers Bush strategists to no end. It's not for nothing that Karl Rove spent July 4th, as the Washington Post's Juliet Eilperin put it, "rousing support for Dean". As "a dozen people marched toward Dana Place wearing Dean for President T-shirts and carrying Dean for America signs, Rove told a companion, "'Heh, heh, heh. Yeah, that's the one we want'," Then, "Rove exhorted the marchers and the parade audience: " 'Come on, everybody! Go, Howard Dean!'."
And why shouldn't Rove cheer for Dean? The man is to the Democratic field what International ANSWER was to the Iraqi war opposition. An unknown quantity, about whom too little will be known until too late.
----
The Late, Great American Republic: A Report From 2050
By Nigel Doowrite, as told to Ernest Partridge
The Crisis Papers
American Politics Journal
July 11, 2003 -- crisispapers.org
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030711Partridge.html
A note from the "real" author: The following is an imaginary essay by an Oxford University historian at mid-21st century. It assumes a continuation of current political and economic trends set in motion by the Bush Administration. With a sudden and early awakening of sanity amongst the American public, the media and the elites, which catalyzes effective dissent, protest and reform, a far different future might be realized. In our next essay, we will project such a better-case scenario.
-- Ernest Partridge
Who could have imagined, at the turn of this century, how quickly and completely the American republic would collapse? Historically, the decline and fall of great empires normally takes place over decades, and in the case of Rome, over several centuries. The disintegration of the United States took place in just a few brief years.
At the close of the twentieth century, the United States was at peace and enjoying one of the most sustained and productive periods of prosperity in its history - a prosperity that favourably affected all segments of society. President Clinton, though mercilessly harassed by his political opponents, was highly esteemed by heads of state and ordinary citizens throughout the world. The United States, despite its manifest faults, was widely admired and envied by free peoples everywhere.
It was, to put it simply, a great time to be an American.
And then, suddenly, it all fell apart.
The American economy collapsed and the American leadership, unlike the Roosevelt administration during the great depression of the 1930s, lacked the insight and will, and the federal treasury lacked the funds, to effect a rescue. The admirable American system of constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties, of a free and diverse press, of free enterprise and economic opportunity, and of popularly elected government was, by the close of the first decade, replaced by a despotic oligarchy in total control of the permanently ruling Republican party. Finally, the United States, through a unilateral abrogation of its treaty obligations and a series of aggressive wars, was transformed from "the leader of the free world" into a rogue state. As we all know, the community of nations responded to the new threat of American economic imperialism by forming the alliances that are today the dominant world powers: the Eurasian Union and Islamia.
Distrusted and isolated from the global community, the United States withdrew into itself to become the pitiful and impoverished third-world despotism that it is today.
The forces set in motion during the illegitimate Presidency of George W. Bush that led to this decline and fall were plain for all to see, and amazingly, however outrageous and contrary to the most fundamental American political traditions, they were not effectively resisted. When the American public came face-to-face with the dreadful consequences of these regressive and despotic forces, it was too late to resist and turn back. The fate of the American republic was sealed.
-- The American Economy --
Late in the twentieth century, twenty percent of the private wealth in the United States was owned by the top one percent of the population. At the turn of the century, that share had doubled. Then, with abolition of dividend, capital gains and estate taxes, the flow of national wealth to the very few accelerated, so that in 2012, midway through the Jeb Bush administration, eighty percent of the national wealth was in the hands of the top one percent.
Of course, by that time, the United States was in the depths of The Great Depression. By the beginning of George Bush's second administration, the unemployment rate was above ten percent and rising, eventually to reach one-third of the work force when his younger brother succeeded him in 2009. Compounding that disaster was the retirement of the "baby boom" generation, which found that the Social Security and Medicare funds which they had confidently expected, had been exhausted. Those retirees who could not be cared for by their children often ended up in the streets, for the only remaining social services - "faith-based" agencies supported by federal funds" - were overwhelmed and willing only to accept devout members of their various (usually evangelical) denominations.
The primary cause of the depression was compellingly obvious: with the wealth of the nation withdrawn from the population at large, there was little disposable income remaining to feed the cash-flow of commerce. First the "expendable" industries - amusements, recreational vehicles, resorts, automobiles - were bankrupted and their employees discharged, causing the succeeding dominoes to fall and leading to the downward spiral of depression.
Prominent so-called "conservative" theoreticians in the first decade, such as Grover Norquist, with the full support of the George Bush administration, called for the virtual elimination of all government services and functions, federal, state, and municipal, with the exception of the military and "Homeland Security" which soon evolved into the Federal Police. Of course, the obvious fact that no civilized and industrialised nation has ever functioned without a central government, did not concern these theoreticians. Consumed by dogma, they had no inclination to be "confused by the facts." And so, their stated objective of "drowning the government in the bathtub" and "bankrupting" state governments was achieved, with disastrous results.
The public schools and universities closed and, unable to afford the tuition of the remaining private schools, most of the children were deprived of an education. Similarly, private college and university enrollments plummeted. Literacy rates fell and the pool of trained and competent workers evaporated. Attempts to privatise the infrastructure - roads, bridges, electrical grids, pipelines, etc. - failed dismally, and with the governments bankrupt, no funds were available to bail them out. And so, these facilities fell into useless ruin, which further crippled the national economy.
Due to widespread evictions, single-family homes and apartments became crowded communes when only the combined resources of three and four families could pay the utilities, rents and mortgages. And these were the lucky ones, as millions of Americans were forced to live on the streets or in tent cities.
The United States of America, once the powerhouse of the world economy, was headed hell-bent toward the third-world status that it has today.
-- The World Economy --
When the United States was the predominant economic power in the world, economic policy-makers used to say that when the US sneezes the world gets a cold, and when the US gets a cold, the world gets pneumonia. So when the US economy collapsed in 2006, this had serious global repercussions. And yet, to the amazement of all, the world economy fared far better than expected. By employing the sort of cooperative and collective policy and planning despised by the American "conservatives," and free of interference by American corporations, the global economy soon recovered and went on to prosper.
The greatest shock to the world economy was the sudden announcement by President Jeb Bush that the United States would no longer recognise its three trillion-dollar foreign debt. A resulting collapse of the world economy was averted when the governments of the leading industrial nations agreed together to absorb the debt - a policy that accelerated the emergence of the Eurasian Union.
With the American credit-rating thus reduced to zero, the United States was effectively isolated from the world economy. The Americans then discovered that they were in desperate need of raw materials that were unavailable within their borders. The world at large, on the other hand, enjoyed resource-independence from the Americans. The Americans suffered most acutely from the severe shortage of petroleum, upon which their once-thriving agricultural industry depended. And so the spectre of famine, unimaginable in the previous century, haunted the unfortunate Americans. (See "The Oil Trap" [gadfly.igc.org/eds/envt/oiltrap.htm]).
In the 20th Century, America's primary contribution to the world economy was its advanced technology, as young students from around the world flocked to its excellent universities to acquire advanced degrees and to engage in cutting-edge research and development. With the closing of the public education system and the end of federal research funding (except, of course, for the military), superior centers of scientific and technological research appeared in Europe and Asia. First to depart was bio-medical research, severely crippled by the United States ban on stem-cell research. But this was only part of the story. The manifest contempt for science, by the Bushes and their corporate and fundamentalist supporters accelerated the demise of the scientific and technological pre-eminence of the United States.
Finally, with the United States government in the complete control of the petroleum industry, the Bushes had no inclination whatever to build a bridge to the post-petroleum age - with predictable and disastrous results. In stark contrast, the Eurasian Union clearly foresaw the coming emergency, and made massive preparations for it. Thus, today, in Eurasia the remaining petroleum reserves are being properly utilised for their petrochemicals, while the combination of biomass, solar, nuclear fusion and other sources, and the hydrogen fuels produced thereby, offer abundant energy to the peoples of Eurasia and Islamia. The United States, with no exportable commodities or technologies of any worth, and bankrupted by the tax policies of the George and Jeb Bush Administrations, is unable to enjoy the advantages of these innovations, except, of course, out of the largesse of humanitarian aid from Eurasia.
-- The New Despotism --
The American democracy died with the invention and complete implementation of paper-less computer voting. But this was a coup-de-grace, delivered to a body politic critically injured by the rigging of the 2000 Florida presidential election, engineered by Jeb Bush and his accomplices, and the subsequent vote of five Republican operatives on the Supreme Court in the notorious ruling, Bush v. Gore. The winner of the 2000 election, Al Gore, meekly acceded to this judicial coup d'etat, and the public followed his lead.
Encouraged, if astonished, by this passivity of the public and the "opposition" party, the victorious George Bush administration proceeded to snuff out the civil liberties of the American people, until the final lights went out halfway through the Jeb Bush administration. This twilight of the American democracy was accelerated by the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 upon New York City and Washington, DC, whereby a stunned public and Congress accepted without protest a draconian attack on the Bill of Rights, cynically named the USA PATRIOT Act.
Soon after the re-election of George Bush in 2004, and the "uncovering" by the CIA and FBI of an alleged plot by al Qaeda to set off a nuclear device in New York Harbor, "Patriot Act II" was enacted by the Republican Congress. With this, habeas corpus, and the constitutional rights of citizens to open trials by juries, access to counsel, were all suspended. On the assumption that "you are either for us or against us," as articulated by George Bush soon after the September 2001 attacks, critics of the government were regarded as "traitors." Mere hours before their intended arrests, dissenters Noam Chomsky and Paul Krugman escaped to Canada and thence to the faculties of Oxford and Cambridge. Democratic presidential aspirants Howard Dean, John Kerry and Dennis Kucinich were not so lucky, and have not been heard from since their disappearance in the summer of 2004.
Quite possibly these dissenters joined millions of others in the Alaskan Gulag, perchance to work in the oil fields of ANWR and Prudhoe Bay. Or perhaps they were impressed along with the millions of the unemployed to toil as farm laborers when, due to the acute petroleum shortages, the farm machinery was shut down and it became impossible to transport sufficient food for the starving masses in the inner cities. "You work or you starve," was the stark choice given to the unfortunate unemployed. Sadly, many who remained in the cities did, in fact, starve or, weakened by malnutrition, fell victim to the great plagues of the "twenty-teens."
Despite these catastrophes, the Republicans have been the sole ruling party in the United States throughout the 21st century to this date. Typical Congresses have contained about 80% Republican seats. The Democrats exist at the sufferance of the Republicans, as unpersuasive "window dressing" to preserve at least the appearance of democracy. Republicans congressmen who show any independent tendencies are marked by the Party bosses for defeat in primary elections, or in the general elections by designated compliant Democrats.
Observers from abroad regard American elections with the same contempt as historians show toward "elections" in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. Informal polls (conducted with great difficulty and at great risk) show a residual opposition to the Republicans, and often an overwhelming majority preference for the Democrats. But no matter. The official results issuing from the paperless voting machines are uniformly just what the Administration desires. As always, the voting machines are manufactured, and the secret software codes are written, by corporations completely controlled by the Republicans (as, indeed, are all corporations). Exit polling is banned. Advance polling by organisations such as Gallup accurately predict the final results. But, of course, the Gallup organisation was acquired in 2006 by the Murdock corporation.
Ninety percent of the media are owned by the three interlocking corporations of "The First Amendment Consortium." The remaining ten percent are licensed by the federal government. Independent newspapers or magazines that dare to criticise the government are soon absorbed in "hostile takeovers" by the Consortium. Of course, independent broadcast media no longer exist in the United States.
In 2005, Rupert Murdock acquired full ownership of the Internet, whereupon dissenting ("unpatriotic") websites were banished from the Net.
A tragedy, to be sure, but not unforseen. As early as 2003, the journey to this dreadful destination was well-embarked. The stolen 2000 Presidential election, well known to those who cared to study it, was two years in the past. The PATRIOT Act had been enacted and several American citizens were being held incommunicado, in violation of the Constitutional rights. The use of paperless computer ballot machines was widespread and growing. The FCC successfully ruled in favour of media conglomeration, and dissenting liberal opinions were severely restricted on television, and virtually non-existent on the radio. Finding no resistance, the triumphant Republicans proceeded and by unopposed increments destroyed American democracy.
-- The New World Order --
A fundamental rule of politics, well-known to Aristotle and political philosophers since, asserts that alliances are formed out of the shared perception of a common threat. Thus, in the mid-twentieth century, the United States, England and the Soviet Union joined forces against Nazi Germany. Following the defeat of Germany, that alliance fell apart, as the NATO alliance arose to meet the Soviet threat.
The unification of the Eurasian continent, long assumed to be a fantasy, was brought about by the shared perception of a threat by the "rogue" American imperialists. The American neo-conservatives could not have been clearer in their intention that the United States would go it alone in the world. Following their statement of this intention in such documents as the "Project for the New American Century," the George Bush administration proceeded to follow this guideline to the letter, abrogating treaties at will, invading defenseless countries on patently false pretenses, and in general earning for itself the fear and contempt of the global community.
In the face of this, the once-inconceivable unification of Europe and Asia became an inevitability.
Similarly, following the invasion of Iraq in early 2003, and thence of Iran in the spring of 2004, the Islamic nations united to form the Federation of Islamia, which now stretches from the Atlantic, across north Africa, all the way to Indonesia. The unity of Islamia was enhanced by the expulsion of the American forces from Iraq in 2005, followed by the establishment of a Shi'ite Islamic republic. As in neighboring Iran, Iraq suffered through a period of fundamentalist repression, until the fanaticism consumed itself and was replaced by a moderate semi-democratic government. So it has been throughout Islamia, as the member states, faced with a choice between religious fundamentalism and technical-economic development, have chosen the latter option.
The overwhelming American military, the budget for which, at the turn of the century, almost equaled the sum of all other military budgets combined, proved to be of little use to the United States. Nuclear blackmail would not work since, of course, the Eurasia was also a nuclear power. And as Viet Nam and Iraq proved, the strategically astute response to a technologically overwhelming force is to absorb the force and then bleed it white with a thousand cuts. (The Russians used the strategy successfully against Napoleon and Hitler. The Americans, typically, learned nothing whatever from this history).
Furthermore, the Eurasians and Islamics wisely understood that even if the an opposing nation's military is invincible, it does not follow that the nation itself is invincible. It might be vanquished non-militarily. And this, of course, is exactly what happened. The United States, starved of resources and credits, weakened internally by the fiscal insanity of the Bush brothers, blinded by dogma to the insights of science and scholarship, collapsed from within. (See "The Vulnerable Giant" [www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/vulnerable-giant.htm ]).
After their military had suffered several defeats in Islamia, the United States withdrew, whereupon the military was put to use by the Department of Homeland Security to put down insurrections, to protect the few oligarchs in their gated communities, and to keep the masses confined to their gated ghettos in the inner cities. In this capacity, aircraft carriers, submarines and ICBMs proved to be of little use.
And so, the world beyond the shores of the United States has gone on to an era of prosperity and enlightenment which the Americans cannot share - excepting, of course, those fortunate American who manage to escape from the despotic Republican regime and are welcomed immigrants in the Global community.
The growing community of American expatriates, who have contributed so generously to world science, scholarship, literature, art, industry and culture, have also brought to our world the vivid memory of the magnificence of the first two centuries of the American Republic - and the undying aspiration for its restoration in that once-blessed land.
In the American diaspora, the spirit of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lincoln and Roosevelt survives and flourishes.
May it soon return to its home.
Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the fields of Environmental Ethics and Moral philosophy. He publishes the website, "The Online Gadfly" www.igc.org/gadfly and co-edits the progressive website "The Crisis Papers" www.crisispapers.org.
-------- MILITARY
-------- africa
Liberian Rebels Threaten U.S.-Backed Peacekeepers
Fri July 11, 2003
By David Clarke
(Reuters)
http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3075663
MONROVIA - Liberia's main rebel faction threatened on Friday to fight any peacekeepers deployed before President Charles Taylor steps down, casting a cloud over plans to send West African and possibly U.S. troops into the country.
The statement by Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) came as President Bush considered whether to send U.S. soldiers with a regional force.
LURD said the deployment of international troops before the departure of Taylor, who has been indicted for war crimes, would simply serve to prop up the former warlord and arch-survivor.
"While we hope for the best, we are braced for the worst; therefore any troops deployed before the departure of Taylor must be prepared for a firefight," a statement from the group's secretariat in northern Liberia said.
It described a deployment under such conditions as "preposterous and unacceptable."
Bush, who is touring Africa, is expected to decide within days on whether American troops should join a regional force, the bulk of which would be provided by West African countries.
Taylor has promised to step down and accepted an offer of asylum in Nigeria, but he wants the international force in place first to, he says, avert chaos.
Bush is under international pressure to send troops to help over three million people in a country founded as a haven of liberty by freed American slaves in the 19th century.
But Washington is wary after the humiliating and bloody retreat of U.S. forces from Somalia 10 years ago. The U.S. army is already stretched by complex and costly operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Liberia has little strategic importance.
REGIONAL FORCE TAKES SHAPE
Foreign troops have been sucked into messy internal conflicts before in West Africa, a region scarred by decades of brutal wars.
British soldiers in Sierra Leone and French troops in Ivory Coast have both had to confront -- and sometimes kill -- drunken and drugged-up fighters during missions to end civil wars.
Liberia has been crippled by 14 years of almost non-stop war that has poisoned the region, left hundreds of thousands displaced and hammered the economy into the ground.
LURD began its war to topple Taylor more than three years ago and now controls about 30 percent of the ruined country. Its fighters struck into Monrovia twice last month, leaving hundreds dead. Rebels known as Model hold another 30 percent of Liberia.
Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Thursday the U.S. role in Liberia would be "very limited in duration and scope" and mainly concerned with supporting regional troops.
Nigeria has said West Africa could quickly deploy a force of 1,000 to 1,500 troops. Regional officials hope for a total force of 5,000 eventually.
Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, who meets Bush this weekend, warned rebels on Thursday that they would take on the force "at their peril."
A U.S. team will meet in Ghana through the weekend with West African military officers to assess what will be required to get the regional force to Monrovia and to support them.
Many Liberians think only U.S. troops will be able to impose control over the volatile fighters on both sides. During a civil war which cost 200,000 lives in the 1990s, a Nigerian-led force failed to stop some of the worst episodes of killing.
Taylor has accepted an offer of asylum in Nigeria, but he wants the indictment lifted.
Nigeria has no treaty under which Taylor could be extradited to face the war crimes court in Sierra Leone, where his former rebel allies mutilated, raped and slaughtered for a decade.
----
Taylor says U.S. 'owes' peacekeepers
July 11, 2003
(UPI)
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20030711-073724-6630r.htm
MONROVIA, Liberia, July 11 -- Liberian President Charles Taylor says the United States owes the country a contingent of peacekeepers, a report said Friday.
Liberia's government and rebels have stopped fighting for the first time in 14 years but the truce may collapse if troops do not arrive soon, the BBC reported.
Although Taylor has accepted asylum in Nigeria, he maintained he won't step down until troops arrive. He also said U.S. troops would be in no danger.
"Do not be afraid about American boys getting hurt in Liberia. I can guarantee no matter where I am that Liberians will never fire a pistol at an American soldier here because we want them here," Taylor said.
He also told the BBC his downfall had been masterminded by the British and U.S. governments since before he was elected.
--------
Powell Sees Decision Soon on Sending G.I.'s to Liberia
July 11, 2003
The New York Times
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/international/africa/11LIBE.html
PRETORIA, South Africa, July 10 - Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said tonight that he expected President Bush to make a decision within days on sending peacekeeping troops to Liberia. He suggested that the administration's preference was to limit military participation to technical and logistical support.
Mr. Powell said the president would meet on Monday at the White House with Kofi Annan, the secretary general of the United Nations, to discuss Liberia. By then, Mr. Powell said, Mr. Bush will have in hand the assessment of a Pentagon team that is in Liberia and possibly a report from another American military delegation that is to meet this weekend in Ghana with counterparts from the Economic Community of West African States, the umbrella group for governments in the region.
The West African governments, which include Nigeria and Ghana, have said that they would send at least 1,000 troops to Liberia to help quell a civil war there and oversee the departure of President Charles Taylor, who has promised to leave the country once peacekeepers arrive. Mr. Bush has been calling for Mr. Taylor, who faces war crime charges from a United Nations-backed court, to leave the country.
At a news conference here at the end of the third day of Mr. Bush's trip to Africa, Mr. Powell said tonight that the United States was happy to see the West African group, known as Ecowas, play the primary role in dealing with Liberia. Any military involvement by the United States, he said, would be "very limited in duration and scope."
Mr. Powell said the preference of the United States was for the West African peacekeeping troops to enter Liberia at about the same time that Mr. Taylor leaves, and to have American forces play a limited supporting role.
American troops have not played a peacekeeping role in Africa since 18 were killed in Somalia in 1993, and as a presidential candidate in 2000, Mr. Bush expressed skepticism about sending the military into Africa for building political and economic stability.
Mr. Powell said the president had not made a decision about Liberia, but he signaled that the president would not wait long after returning to Washington from Africa late Saturday to make up his mind.
Mr. Bush's last stop on the trip is Nigeria, which has played a major role in negotiating Mr. Taylor's departure and is his most likely destination if he steps aside.
"I expect that over the next several days as we finish the assessment in Monrovia and get that report and the military assessment team working with Ecowas over the weekend, the president will be in a position to make a decision," Mr. Powell said.
-------- arms sales
U.S. raids firms over arms gear sold to Iran
July 11, 2003
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030711-121201-7033r.htm
Search warrants and grand jury subpoenas were served yesterday on 18 U.S. companies in 10 states in a massive raid by federal agents targeting the reported illegal exportation of American-made military components to a London front company that procures arms for the Iranian military.
The subpoenas and warrants were executed in Colorado, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas and Wisconsin by agents from the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS).
No arrests were reported, and no formal charges have been brought against any of the companies. The investigation is continuing.
"Keeping sensitive U.S. military technology from falling into the wrong hands is one of the most important missions of ICE and the Department of Homeland Security," said ICE Assistant Secretary Michael J. Garcia. "This case is a prime example of cooperation between ICE and the DCIS in our efforts to protect the American homeland and U.S. troops deployed around the world."
Affidavits filed in the case said the companies are suspected of illegally exporting items on the U.S. Munitions List without obtaining the required State Department export license - in violation of the Arms Export Control Act. ICE officials said the items included components for HAWK missiles, F-14 Tomcat fighter jets, F-4 Phantom fighters, F-5 fighters, C-130 Hercules aircraft, military radar and other equipment.
The affidavits also said the components were illegally shipped from the United States to Multicore Ltd., in London, a front company also known as AKS Industries, which is involved in procuring items for the Iranian military. The affidavits said Multicore conducts no legitimate business and receives military purchasing instructions directly from Iran.
"The lives of American war fighters can be placed at direct risk through illegal transfer of military components in violation of the Arms Export Control Act," said Defense Department Inspector General Joseph Schmitz.
"The protection of the American war fighter is the core mission of the DCIS, and as such, my office stands ready to deploy DCIS investigative resources, as necessary, to prevent any company from circumventing U.S. controls on technology transfer."
ICE officials described yesterday's raids as the culmination of a joint investigation that began in February 1999, when Customs Service and Defense Department agents received information on a Bakersfield, Calif., company known as Multicore Ltd. that was reportedly involved in the purchase of F-14 Tomcat parts.
The F-14 fighter is flown by two military services in the world: the U.S. Navy and the Iranian air force.
According to the officials, the agents determined that Multicore's parent company was in London. They executed search warrants on Multicore's storage facility in Bakersfield in December 2000 and seized thousands of aircraft and missile components bound for Iran, via Singapore, the officials said.
The items included HAWK missile components and parts for F-14 Tomcats. Agents documented more than 270 shipments of parts delivered to Multicore in Bakersfield from various U.S. companies, the officials said.
In December 2000, Multicore officers Saeed Homayouni, a naturalized Canadian from Iran, and Yew Leng Fung, a Malaysian citizen, were arrested in Bakersfield and charged with arms-export violations. In June 2001, Homayouni pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the Arms Export Control Act. Fung pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony, meaning he knew of a crime but failed to report it.
Based on the U.S. government's preliminary investigation, British authorities began their own inquiry into the export of military goods to Iran by Multicore. In May 2002, they executed search warrants on the company's London office, one residence and two storage facilities, finding thousands of aircraft and missile components as well as documents from the Iranian government asking Multicore to purchase military components.
ICE officials said British authorities also arrested Soroosh Homayouni, brother of Saeed, on charges of violating United Kingdom export laws. His case is pending in London.
In August 2002, ICE and DCIS agents met with British authorities to review evidence seized at Multicore's London office, including what authorities described as "voluminous documentary evidence in the form of parts, correspondence, shipping documents and invoices."
The evidence, ICE officials said, showed that more than 50 U.S. companies had shipped articles directly to Multicore in London after the U.S. raids on Multicore's Bakersfield storage facility in December 2000. The affidavits said each of the companies was investigated to determine whether it had complied with U.S. law by acquiring the necessary export licenses.
"The Department of Homeland Security protects our homeland in many ways not normally seen by the public," said Asa Hutchinson, undersecretary for border transportation security at the Department of Homeland Security. "This case illustrates one of those ways: keeping military components out of the hands of people who, by law, cannot possess them.
"We will continue to work with our partners throughout the world ... to control the illegal shipment of arms and military parts, and to protect the world from terrorism on all fronts," he said.
-------- asia
Solomons rebels demand money
Militiaman in the Solomon Islands
Friday, 11 July, 2003
BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3058455.stm
The fighting ended in 2000 but left a power vacuum About 200 rebels surrounded the prime minister's office in the Solomon Islands on Friday, demanding money so they could return to their home island.
They were dispersed by armed police officers.
The stand-off came a day after the tiny South Pacific nation approved a 2,000-strong Australian-led intervention force to restore order after four years of civil war.
The rebels were from the Malaita Eagle Force, which had fought bloody battles with a militia from the main Guadalcanal island since 1998, which led to a coup in 2000.
The former fighters were demanding "repatriation" cash so they could return to their homes on neighbouring Malaita island before the intervention force arrives - possibly by the end of the month.
But the country is bankrupt. Public servants have not been paid for months.
Australia on Friday warned its nationals to stay away from the Solomons because of "major law and order problems".
The foreign ministry urged Australians to "defer all holiday travel" and advised Australians living in the Solomons to exercise a "particularly high level of personal security".
MPs in the capital, Honiara, on Thursday voted to allow the foreign troops to operate in the country. The legislation is expected to be passed at a parliamentary session next week.
The Prime Minister, Sir Allan Kemakeza, had told parliament the country was simply not capable of dealing with its problems.
He said any parliamentarian who voted against the proposals would have to answer to future generations.
Teams of Australian and New Zealand defence and police officials are already in Honiara planning the arrival of the troops.
The troops are expected to confiscate weapons; help reform the police, court and prison systems; and protect key government institutions such as the finance ministry.
-------- australia
Officials knew of dodgy Iraq file
By Mark Riley and Craig Skehan
July 11 2003
Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/10/1057783288234.html
The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) admitted last night that it knew intelligence on Iraq's nuclear program was questionable shortly before the Prime Minister, John Howard, presented it to Parliament to build a case for war.
The revelation will deepen the damaging controversy about the Government's use of flawed intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
The department claims it did not tell Mr Howard or the Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, of information from the American State Department in January that cast doubt on claims that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.
This follows the extraordinary admission yesterday by Australia's peak intelligence agency, the Office of National Assessments (ONA), that it received the same information but had also failed to pass it on to Mr Howard.
The State Department assessment questioned a British dossier, distributed in September last year, that said Iraq had sought uranium from Africa to reconstitute its nuclear program.
Mr Howard cited the now discredited African intelligence in a statement to Parliament on February 4 to support his case against Iraq.
The following day, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, declined to use the same information in an address to the United Nations Security Council because he saw it as unreliable.
A DFAT spokeswoman told the Herald last night: "Like ONA, DFAT became aware in January 2003 that the State Department was doubtful of claims that Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from Africa."
A senior departmental officer said later that the State Department assessment "did not form part of our advice to the minister [Mr Downer]. We did not specifically brief the minister". He said there were no indications of anyone in the minister's office having been informed.
A spokesman for Mr Downer said last night that he could give an "absolute answer" that the minister had not been informed, but would have to make further checks to determine whether any of his staff were told.
The developments follow a significant shift in the White House's line yesterday, with the Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, saying the US had not gone to war because of any fresh evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction but because Washington saw old evidence "in a dramatic new light" after September 11.
It also followed BBC reports that officials "right at the top" of the Blair Government no longer believed any weapons of mass destruction would be found in Iraq.
Mr Howard played down the significance of the ONA's failure to inform him of the State Department advice, saying the information was in one line in an annex to an 86-page document and would not have changed his decision to join the war.
-------- britain
Blair 'oversold' Iraq threat
Michael White and Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday July 11, 2003
The Guardian
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,995928,00.html
A former head of Downing Street's in-house intelligence panel last night accused ministers of "overselling" the threat of global terrorism before the Iraq war by bombarding voters with repeated warnings of "imminent terrorist attacks on London" and Heathrow airport.
The charge - made by Sir Rodric Braithwaite, former head of the joint intelligence committee (JIC), on Channel 4 News - is separate from the row over two intelligence dossiers which has led to deadlock between No 10 and the BBC over its claims that they were "sexed up".
The 71-year-old former diplomat, who ran the JIC in 1992-93, said: "I think the overselling came not so much at that [dossier] stage but in the spring, when it looked as though the British people were not actually going to sign up to this project.
"And then the real overselling were the continual assessments of an imminent terrorist attack in London, advising housewives to lay in stocks of water and food, I mean all that stuff ... tanks at Heathrow. I mean that, I call that overselling."
The prime minister has denied the widely reported tank exercise at Heathrow was calculated to rally public opinion at a time when anti-war sentiment was strong and rising.
In a letter to the Financial Times Sir Rodric said: "Fishmongers sell fish, warmongers sell war, both may sincerely believe in their product."He accused Mr Blair of "overselling his wares," albeit sincerely.
The sight of the Whitehall establishment turning on the government will alarm ministers who have watched MI6 deflect attention from its own performance into a row between No 10 and the BBC.
Downing Street accused the BBC of more inaccurate reporting in claiming that Whitehall is abandoning hope of finding weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq because they have been destroyed. Mr Blair believes the search group - soon to be 1,400 strong - will find "programmes" and "product",' said No 10.
It also said the BBC's refusal to confirm or deny that David Kelly, the weapons specialist who admitted talking to Andrew Gilligan, is the BBC reporter's senior source for the story that started the row, amounts to confirmation that he is. Dr Kelly denies aspects of Gilligan's account.
The BBC, which hardly mentioned Dr Kelly's name yesterday, is refusing to comment further.
Meanwhile, the former foreign secretary Robin Cook continued his long-running criticism.
"We didn't go to war in order that some months down the line the government could write an even better dossier on the programmes. We went to war because we were told there were weapons," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
John Major yesterday threw his weight behind growing demands for an independent inquiry into the use of intelligence in the run-up to the war.
A groundswell is also building up among retired mandarins for such an inquiry. Lord Armstrong, Margaret Thatcher's cabinet secretary at the time of the 1982 Falklands war, backed an inde pendent inquiry along the lines of the Franks committee's investigation into the events leading up the Argentinian invasion.
Such talk comes as Iain Duncan Smith, Charles Kennedy and Labour critics are keeping up the pressure. Mr Blair is determined to resist an inquiry.
Dr Kelly, the former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, is to give evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee, it was confirmed yesterday. He is a senior adviser to both the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office and has recently returned from Iraq on government business.
Defence sources said yesterday he may return to Iraq to advise other British scientists looking for banned weapons.
----
CIA Asked Britain To Drop Iraq Claim
Advice on Alleged Uranium Buy Was Refused
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 11, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40684-2003Jul10?language=printer
The CIA tried unsuccessfully in early September 2002 to persuade the British government to drop from an official intelligence paper a reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa that President Bush included in his State of the Union address four months later, senior Bush administration officials said yesterday.
"We consulted about the paper and recommended against using that material," a senior administration official familiar with the intelligence program said. The British government rejected the U.S. suggestion, saying it had separate intelligence unavailable to the United States.
At that time, the CIA was completing its own classified national intelligence estimate on Iraq's chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. Although the CIA paper mentioned alleged Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from three African countries, it warned that State Department analysts were questioning its accuracy when it came to Niger and that CIA personnel considered reports on other African countries to be "sketchy," the official said. The CIA paper's summary conclusions about whether Iraq was restarting its nuclear weapons program did not include references to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in Africa.
The latest disclosures further illustrate the lack of confidence expressed by the U.S. intelligence community in the months leading up to Bush's speech about allegations of Iraqi efforts to buy uranium in Africa. Even so, Bush used the charge -- citing British intelligence -- in the Jan. 28 address as part of his effort to convince Congress and the American people that Iraq had a program to build weapons of mass destruction and posed a serious threat.
The White House on Monday acknowledged that Bush's uranium claim was based on faulty intelligence and should not have been included in the speech, further stoking a controversy over the administration's handling of prewar intelligence. Democratic lawmakers yesterday called for public hearings, while the Democratic National Committee opened an advertising campaign to encourage people to sign petitions calling for an independent commission.
At a news conference in Botswana, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell defended the president's use of the intelligence. "There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people," Powell said. "There was sufficient evidence floating around at that time that such a statement was not totally outrageous or not to be believed or not to be appropriately used."
Only eight days after the State of the Union speech, however, Powell himself did not repeat the uranium allegation when he presented the administration's case against Iraq to the U.N. Security Council. "After further analysis, looking at other estimates we had and other information that was coming in, it turned out that the basis upon which that statement was made didn't hold up, and we said so, and we've acknowledged it, and we've moved on," Powell told reporters in explaining his decision. Under the British formulation of events, Powell would not necessarily know all of the basis underlying their statement.
The U.S. and British governments, whose intelligence agencies have a long history of close relations, have sought to maintain a united front despite suggestions in Congress and Parliament this week that both governments may have exaggerated the evidence against Iraq to support the case for war. But as the controversy escalates, the interests of the two allies have begun to diverge.
The Bush administration effectively has discarded the uranium allegation. The government of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, however, has stood behind its September conclusion that Iraq "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" for a possible nuclear weapons program despite the release of a report by a British parliamentary commission this week that challenged the allegation and, in effect, Bush's decision to include it in his address.
British officials have insisted that the Bush administration has never been provided with the intelligence that was the basis for the charge included in London's September intelligence dossier.
National Security Council guidance distributed within the U.S. government yesterday acknowledged that "no intelligence has been provided to the United States [by Britain] on this subject," sources said. The British intelligence was provided by an unidentified "third country," a diplomatic source said.
Meanwhile, administration officials shed some new light yesterday on the process that led to the inclusion of the uranium-purchase allegation in the president's State of the Union speech in which Bush said that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
The early drafts of the speech did not include Britain as the source of the information, according to administration officials. A senior official denied that Britain was inserted in the final draft because the CIA and others in the U.S. intelligence community were concerned that the charge could not be supported. The British addition was made only "because they were the first to say it publicly in their September paper," the official said.
Powell noted yesterday that the British government continues to believe in the information it produced. "I would not dispute them or disagree with them or say they're wrong and we're right, because intelligence is of that nature," Powell said. "Some people have more sources . . . on a particular issue. Some people have greater confidence in their analysis."
Administration officials preparing drafts of the speech also wanted to name Niger as the focus of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium, according to a senior administration official who has looked into the process. But when CIA officials said there were problems with the Niger information, the more vague reference to Africa was substituted for Niger. The State Department, in its talking points on Iraq, had made a similar change the month before the speech.
The International Atomic Energy Agency told the U.N. Security Council in March that the Niger claim had been based on forged documents, a conclusion the Bush administration did not dispute at the time.
Staff writer Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.
--------
U.S. Said to Doubt British Intelligence
July 11, 2003
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-US-Iraq-Nuclear.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. intelligence officials had doubts about the quality of a British intelligence report alleging Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa in the weeks just before and after President Bush made the allegation in his State of the Union address in January, senior U.S. officials said Thursday.
The officials said those doubts were expressed to British officials and across several agencies of the federal government before Bush gave his speech.
CBS, ABC and CNN reported that CIA officials who saw a draft of Bush's speech even questioned whether his statement was too strong given the quality of the British intelligence but the remark was left in provided it was attributed to the British.
Officials contacted by The Associated Press declined to discuss the nature of discussions between the White House and CIA just before the speech. But they noted the CIA's own assessment before the Iraq war about Saddam Hussein's alleged efforts to make weapons of mass destruction did not give strong credence to the British report, noting skepticism by some analysts.
The officials further noted that a speech Secretary of State Collin Powell gave just a week after the president's address also did not repeat the African uranium allegations.
``When we looked at it more thoroughly and I think a week or two later when I made my presentation to the United Nations, and we really went through every single thing we knew about all of the various issues with respect to weapons of mass destruction, we did not believe that it was appropriate to use that example anymore,'' Powell explained Thursday. ``It was not standing the test of time.''
Powell, nonetheless, defended the president use of the British allegation.
``There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people,'' he said. ``The president was presenting what seemed to be a reasonable statement at that time.''
About a month after Bush's speech, the United Nations determined the uranium reports were based primarily on forged documents initially obtained by European intelligence agencies.
But officials have said the doubts about the uranium allegations date back to early 2002, when a retired diplomat asked by the CIA to investigate the reports went to Niger and spoke with officials who denied having any uranium dealings with Iraq. That information was shared with British officials, and also was reported widely within the U.S. government, officials have said.
-------- business
Pentagon staff took $1.5m bribes
From correspondents in Alexandria, Virginia
July 11, 2003
Associated Press
http://news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6735113%5E401,00.html
TWO former Pentagon officials were convicted today of taking more than $US1 million ($1.53 million) in bribes and accepting prostitutes and boxing match tickets from government contractors.
Robert Lee Neal Jr., 50, was convicted of conspiracy, extortion, money laundering, witness tampering and obstruction of justice. A Clinton appointee, he controlled a government program that distributed $US28 million annually to small minority-owned businesses. His top assistant, Francis Delano Jones Jr., 41, was convicted of the same charges. His lawyer said he would seek a new trial separate from the co-defendant.
Testimony indicated that some businesses that paid bribes received millions of dollars in government contracts. The men demanded bribes as high as $US100,000 ($152,555) each and overall received $US1.1 million ($1.68 million) in illegal funds.
Neal faces a maximum sentence of 125 years, and Jones faces 120 years at sentencing on October 3, although they will probably face much less under federal guidelines.
The jury also ordered the men to forfeit $US2 million ($3.05 million) to the government. Both men left their jobs in 2001, during the transition to the Bush administration.
One witness testified that he provided the two men with two prostitutes each at a government conference in the US Virgin Islands.
That witness said his company received two contacts worth $US1.4 million ($2.14 million) with the assistance of Neal and Jones.
Another witness said he provided prostitutes for the men and paid for a 1997 trip to Las Vegas to see a heavyweight title bout between Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield.
----
Contractors cautious on U.S.-awarded Iraq contract
Reuters,
07.11.03
By Andrea Orr
http://www.forbes.com/home/newswire/2003/07/11/rtr1023576.html
SAN FRANCISCO, July 11 (Reuters) - More than 200 companies are expected to compete for up to $1 billion in contracts to repair Iraq's oil infrastructure, but continued violence there has tempered some interest.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers invited on Thursday bids for two long-awaited oil contracts for the north and the south of the country, both which were set at a minimum of $500,000 but could grow to as much as $500 million over time.
U.S. construction giants Bechtel Corp -- already at work on a major rebuilding contract in Iraq -- and Fluor Corp (nyse: FLR - news - people) have said they would most likely compete for a piece of the work, and sources at the Army Corps say more than 200 other firms have expressed interest as well.
But while the first major contract -- awarded to Bechtel by the U.S. Agency for International Development -- was the subject of intense competition, there is a now a growing sense that some of the potential competitors have lost some interest.
Part of the difference appears to be a more open bidding process this time around. Unlike the U.S. AID contract, which went out for bidding to only a few companies, this one has been widely anticipated and is open to any company wishing to apply.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contract replaces a short-term contract that was awarded in March to Kellogg Brown & Root, a unit of Halliburton (nyse: HAL - news - people), the Texas oil company that was once led by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney.
But there is another difference as well.
Back in March, when war first broke out in Iraq and U.S. government agencies began discussing plans to rebuild the country, there was a sense there would be a decisive victory followed by American companies moving into Iraq.
If the official victory was quick, localized skirmishes and continued sabotage by Saddam loyalists now offer a sobering view of the danger and the time involved in rebuilding Iraq.
DANGEROUS WORK
After initially assuming that any work order in Iraq would be hugely lucrative, there is a growing sense it could be extremely complex logistically and slow to get off the ground.
"When I look at the news every night, I see Americans getting shot," said John Rogers, a construction industry analyst for D.A. Davidson. "It's going to be at least a couple of quarters before any stability happens. Right now there is no equipment moving to either the north or the south of the country."
All these delays mean the contract to restore Iraq's oil infrastructure, once considered a mint, might not be all that lucrative.
In addition to the delays now seen, sources at the Army Corps of Engineers note that the worst case scenario in Iraq never happened. Most of the country's oil wells were not set on fire during the war, so there is not much need for extinguishing fires or repairing damaged wells.
"It's obviously less work than it could have been," said Friedman Billings analyst Robert MacKenzie.
What will be needed, over time, is modernization of the country's entire oil system, and any company that gets a foot in the door now could be in a position to pick up more lucrative work later.
But analysts note that could still be years away.
"Sabotage is continually going on and you're not going to have oil companies putting workers in places where they might get killed," said MacKenzie.
Meanwhile, as concerns over the potential dangers and complications of this Iraq work grows, the outcry over the fact that much of it is going to politically connected American companies seems to be fading.
The first major contract awarded to Bechtel was widely criticized for being an insiders' deal, but this new pending contract has drawn far less controversy.
"We haven't really been following it," said Steve Weiss of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Responsive Politics, a group that tracks corporate campaign contributions and was one of the most outspoken critic of the secretive bidding process for the contract awarded to Bechtel to repair Iraq's airports, roads and water systems.
-------- iraq
Violence spurs Iraqi allies of U.S. to demand forces exit
July 11, 2003
By Paul Martin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20030710-102837-2719r.htm
BAGHDAD - U.S.-trained Iraqi police in Fallujah held a demonstration yesterday, demanding that the troops leave town, saying their presence endangers the lives of the Iraqis associated with coalition forces.
Their police station and a municipal building came under attack overnight by guerrillas firing rocket-propelled grenades - the latest sign that Iraqis associated with U.S. forces are increasingly being targeted by forces loyal to ousted dictator Saddam Hussein.
"The presence of Americans endangers us. We asked the Americans more than a month and a half ago to leave Fallujah," Riyadh Abdel-Latif, the town's police chief, told Reuters news agency. He said his men, believed to number about 100, have threatened to resign within 48 hours.
The danger of association with U.S. forces was highlighted recently in Ramadi, when a bomb killed seven police recruits as they marched in a graduation ceremony.
A "List of Traitors" has been issued anonymously in the Azamiyah sector of Baghdad, dominated by Ba'ath Party supporters and Sunni Muslims. It incites people to kill Iraqis for collaborating with the occupying forces.
In an apparent response, the Azamiyah central mosque's notice board now displays an unsigned proclamation condemning the list.
Efforts to intimidate Iraqis into avoiding contact with coalition forces have been launched on several fronts. But the anticoalition campaign is no more than a partial success.
The List of Traitors names 13 suspected collaborators and maintains that religious leaders have issued a fatwa, or ruling, that such people should be put to death. It refers only to people in the Azamiyah area, but adds that similar lists for other parts of Baghdad will be issued soon.
The response tells worshippers at the mosque: "Do not believe such lists, which have no authority or justification." But subversives have been intimidating and inflicting violence on Iraqis who work with the coalition in restoring the two most vital public sectors - electricity and the huge public health service.
"We know our Ba'athist enemies see health as the soft underbelly," said Jim Haveman, a U.S. mental health expert recently installed as the Health Ministry's senior adviser. "They simply don't want the public to see an improvement in their living conditions - they want the public to hate us."
The house of Youbert Samuel, a senior doctor running a Health Ministry department, was attacked recently by machine-gun and grenade fire from a Health Ministry vehicle, said Stephen Browning, a former adviser to the ministry.
The next day, a letter was thrown into Mr. Samuel's garden warning that he and his family would be killed if they continued working for the ministry.
He has since resigned and moved.
Dr. Hussein Nazar heard his name called out from the street as he slept on his roof on June 13. Four men fired handguns at the house. When the doctor's son used an assault rifle to repel the attackers, they withdrew - in a highly professional leapfrogging format familiar to trained soldiers, Mr. Browning recalled.
Four members of a Health Ministry advisory team were injured and a physician wounded in an ambush, he said. Also, violence has been inflicted on those working in the electric-power sector.
Haifa Aziz Dawud was a 45-year-old mother of four, and in charge of the Al Kharkh power station in western Baghdad. She was gunned down last month by assailants who came to her home in an official electric power department van.
It is not clear why she was killed. Some say she was close to Saddam Hussein. Others suggest she may have failed to be coerced into cutting or redirecting the electricity.
----
Iraq's Most Feared Prison Open Again
Fri Jul 11, 2003
By JAMIE TARABAY,
Associated Press Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030711/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_feared_prison_2
ABU GHRAIB, Iraq - Khayriyat Taaban squatted to rest in the blistering sun, her head-to-toe black abaya billowing in the furnace-like wind. Every day, she's been making the long walk to look for her son at Abu Ghraib, Saddam Hussein's most notorious prison.
The prison - which under Saddam was dreaded for its torture chambers and mass executions - is open again, now run by Iraq's American occupiers. And Iraqis still fear it.
The Americans, who have tried but in many cases failed to convince Iraqis that they are liberators, say they're unhappy about reopening the prison, but had no choice. Apparently recognizing the public relations problem, the Americans replaced a Saddam portrait at the prison with a big sign in English and Arabic: "America is a friend of all Iraqi people."
During Saddam's rule, just the words Abu Ghraib struck terror in the hearts of Iraqis. The sprawling, high-walled compound west of Baghdad was crowded, housing political prisoners alongside murderers. Saddam's son Qusai, who ran the country's feared internal security operation, was said to have routinely ordered executions for no other reason than to reduce the prison population.
Nearby is a nameless graveyard where executed inmates were buried, and since Saddam's fall hundreds of Iraqis have come to the site, digging up the earthen mounds to search for their loved ones' bodies.
"The people who have been in it don't like the idea of it opening again," said Bradford Clark, from the U.S.-led coalition's office of humanitarian assistance and reconstruction. He has interviewed former prisoners as part of research on abuses carried out by Saddam's regime.
But the coalition says Abu Ghraib is the only suitable place to put high security prisoners as U.S.-led forces try to end the growing crime wave in Iraq.
As coalition troops conduct raids and make arrests, detainees are placed in makeshift camps and prisons all over Iraq. Gen. Janice Karpinski, whose 800th Military Police Brigade oversees all the detention centers, said there were 3,000-4,000 prisoners in 30 prisons and camps across the country.
Captured senior members of Saddam's former regime are held at Baghdad's international airport.
Many of those at Abu Ghraib are returning after only a short spell of freedom. Saddam freed thousands of prisoners in an amnesty last year, and many of those have been re-arrested for new crimes. Judge Donald Campbell, senior adviser to the coalition-established interim justice ministry, said 25 percent of current detainees had been released last year.
In Saddam's time, Abu Ghraib housed political prisoners, including those suspected of spying for Iran or the United States. But it was also home to hardened murderers, thieves and drug runners.
"Most of these men were criminals. They used to kill each other in jail for money," said Hamid Abbas, a former Abu Ghraib guard.
Iraqis convicted of minor crimes were horrified when told they would be sharing cells with "the worst of the worst criminals," Clark said.
That's what troubled Taaban as she stood outside Abu Ghraib with other Iraqis hoping for news of loved ones.
"Every day I come, they don't give me any answers. I just want to know if he's in there," she said of her son, Daya, 21. He was arrested during a raid in their Baghdad neighborhood three weeks ago. She said she did not know why he was taken away.
The U.S. military police guarding the front gate could only shrug helplessly. Asking not to be identified, they said detainees' names had to be sent to various command and detention centers throughout Iraq before relatives were informed. Lawyers have been allowed inside to speak with prisoners, one guard said.
"We recognize that the situation that currently exists is not acceptable. We also, however, believe that every week that goes by we've improved dramatically the conditions within those prisons, and we believe that within a short while we will fully comply with international standards," Campbell said.
Once Iraqis are detained, their names are given to the International Committee of the Red Cross, which assists families that cram its offices asking for information.
People living and working near Abu Ghraib said they were surprised to learn the coalition would use the same facility to hold Iraqis jailed by Americans.
"They've got people in there now?" asked Ala Hussein, tending a soft drink and fruit stall along the dusty highway that passes the prison. He shook his head as he squinted in the direction of the compound.
Even the top U.S. official in Iraq said the coalition-run detention centers were "completely and utterly unacceptable under any international standards." But at the same time L. Paul Bremer said he was disappointed with a recent human rights report accusing the coalition of violating international laws in its treatment of Iraqi prisoners.
New York-based Amnesty International said hundreds of Iraqis at U.S.-run tent camps and prisons have been denied the right to see families or lawyers or have a judge review their detention.
Bremer said the report should have been more balanced.
It "made no mention of the fact that the Iraqi people are living in freedom today," he said. "The human rights of the average Iraqi are light-years better today than they were 12 weeks ago."
----
US dismantles Iraqi prisons
From correspondents in Baghdad
11 jul 03
Australia Mercury News
http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6735016%5E401,00.html
THE US-led coalition said today it will dismantle makeshift prison camps erected during the pandemonium that ensued in its war on Iraq.
One of its temporary facilities, Camp Cropper at Baghdad international airport, will be shut down in the coming 10 days.
Prisoners will be sent to renovated and refurbished facilities including Abu Gharib, a notorious prison under ousted Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, US army Major General Donald Campbell said.
Thirty prisons are now in operation and between 3,000 to 4,000 people are currently in custody, said Campbell.
The coalition is currently trying to compile a list of those criminals amnestied by Saddam last October as they debate whether to throw back in jail those of them considered the most dangerous, he said.
A colleague, General Janis Karpinski, said the new prisons would have much higher living standards than those under Saddam, including shower facilities and cells with living space of 4.5m sq.
----
U.S. May Tap Oil for Iraqi Loans
The White House weighs a plan to pledge future revenue to finance postwar reconstruction. Critics question the effort's legitimacy.
By Warren Vieth,
July 11, 2003
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
http://www.latimes.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=la-fg-iraqoil11jul11§ion=/printstory
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is considering a provocative idea to pledge some of Iraq's future oil and gas revenue to secure long-term reconstruction loans before a new Iraqi government is in place to sign off on the proposal.
The plan, endorsed by the Export-Import Bank of the United States and some of America's biggest companies, would help avert a looming cash crunch that has the potential to stall the postwar rebuilding effort. One U.S. official rated the proposal's prospects at 50-50.
But the plan is drawing fire from some administration officials, lawmakers, policy analysts and prominent Iraqis who say it would mortgage the Persian Gulf nation's most treasured resource, prevent future leaders from deciding how to spend their oil money and put U.S. taxpayers at risk.
"Iraqis believe their oil should not be touched by foreigners, that it should remain in the hands of the Iraqi government and that no one has a right to do anything before an elected government is in place," said Fadhil Chalabi, executive director of the Center for Global Energy Studies in London and a former Iraqi Oil Ministry official.
"As an economist, I believe in what they are proposing. You couldn't come up with a better formula," Chalabi said. "But Iraqi politics and the way they look at these things are not encouraging. It could create problems later on. Better to wait until a government is formed."
That may be too late, in the view of the plan's supporters. The Export-Import Bank and an industry coalition that includes Halliburton Co., Bechtel Group Inc. and other major companies that are interested in winning contracts in Iraq are warning that unless steps are taken soon to secure new funds, the reconstruction well could run dry.
"Common sense says get Iraq running. How do you get the country running? By using its own oil revenue 100% for the benefit of the Iraqi people," said Export-Import Bank Chairman Philip Merrill. "If you want to wait three or four years, be my guest. But that means the country is going to be running on the dole of the United States."
Many experts agree that Iraq is headed for a possible cash flow crisis as reconstruction costs escalate, initial funds are depleted and the resumption of oil exports is delayed due to damage caused by looting and sabotage.
But they part company over whether the U.S.-led occupation administration in Baghdad has the legal or moral authority to pledge future oil revenue as loan collateral before the issue can be debated by elected Iraqis.
"Unless a reconstituted Iraqi government or the U.N. Security Council authorizes the plan, it appears to violate international law," said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles). "We do not have the right, without additional authority, to impose financial obligations on the future government of Iraq."
Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, has asked the Export-Import Bank, the Pentagon and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to disclose more information about the proposal and the role played by Halliburton and other companies in crafting it.
Opponents of the plan warn that if a future Iraqi government chose to stop making payments on the obligations, U.S. taxpayers could wind up holding the bag.
"We're going to be on the hook, just like U.S. banks were on the hook to Mexico in the early 1980s and U.S. lenders were on the hook to South America in 1990," said independent energy economist Philip K. Verleger Jr.
Although the proposal is under consideration in Washington and Baghdad, the State Department has expressed concern about the preemption of Iraqi decision-making authority and the possibility that a future government might choose to default on the debt.
The Treasury Department has voiced similar reservations, warning that the creation of a new class of debt could complicate U.S. efforts to persuade other countries to write off or restructure Iraq's massive prewar debt burden.
Still, a Treasury official who requested anonymity said the plan has merit and might well win approval. "It's a 50-50 proposition right now," the official said.
Experts estimate that rebuilding Iraq could cost anywhere from $20 billion to $100 billion over several years. Oil exports are expected to net about $3.5 billion this year and $14 billion in 2004. But some of that money will be needed for other purposes, and coalition officials continue to scale back their export targets as pipeline explosions and power outages constrain production.
The administration has been financing reconstruction from a $7-billion pool of congressional appropriations, international contributions and seized Iraqi assets. But concern is growing that the rising costs could consume all of the money set aside so far and that initial oil sales will not make up the difference.
"Existing revenues for reconstruction are not adequate to sustain the effort much beyond the end of this year," said Edmund Rice, president of a business group called the Coalition for Employment Through Exports. "The crunch could come in late autumn or after the first of the year. But roughly six months is when they're going to hit the wall on resources."
The oil loan proposal is designed to bridge the funding gap. Under the plan, a portion of Iraq's future oil and gas revenue would be pledged as collateral to repay loans or bonds issued to finance infrastructure improvements. An Iraq Reconstruction Finance Authority would be established to review projects and arrange the financing.
The industry coalition has proposed using the financing mechanism to raise $3 billion to $4 billion a year for reconstruction work on a project-by-project basis. The Ex-Im Bank envisions raising $25 billion to $30 billion to boost Iraq's oil production to as much as 5 million barrels a day from its current level of less than 1 million barrels.
Depending on how much money was raised, the plan could wind up claiming anywhere from a small fraction to the lion's share of Iraq's oil revenue over a decade or longer.
The Iraqi reconstruction authority would use the borrowed money to pay contractors for large-scale improvements such as renovating oil wells or building power plants. The loans would be guaranteed by a consortium of export credit agencies, including the Ex-Im Bank and its foreign counterparts. The financing would be reserved for new projects and would be subject to competitive bidding open to companies from all countries.
"Bechtel and Halliburton would have to rebid on a level playing field with everybody else," said Rice, whose coalition represents 28 companies and two trade groups. Members include such California-based giants as ChevronTexaco Corp., Fluor Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co., Northrop Grumman Corp. and Oracle Corp.
Ex-Im Bank officials believe the U.S.-led occupation already has adequate legal authority to launch the oil loan program. In May, the U.N. Security Council authorized allied officials to disburse Iraqi oil revenue for humanitarian purposes, economic reconstruction, disarmament and "other purposes benefiting the Iraqi people." It did not address the use of future revenue.
Bank officials say there is a precedent for such a plan in the region. In 1948, a similar money-raising authority was established in behalf of the new state of Israel before an elected government was in place to endorse taking on the financial obligation.
Supporters of the oil loan idea insist that Iraqis should be included in the decision-making process from the start. But until some form of elected government is in place, the only Iraqi officials in a position to participate are those appointed by allied authorities to staff the various government ministries.
"We're better off to have the Iraqis involved," said Merrill of the Ex-Im Bank. "Should they have control from Day 1? Probably not. Will they have control at the end of the decade? For certain. Where on the curve do they get control? I don't know.
"But they're likely to get there a lot quicker if they've got the money than if they don't."
----
Plan Gives Iraqi Council Larger Governing Role
Occupation Authority to Shape Membership
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, July 11, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40615-2003Jul10?language=printer
BAGHDAD, July 10 -- The U.S.-led occupation authority here intends to relegate religious figures, former exiles and once-ruling Sunni Muslims to a minority role on an interim governing council that will be formed over the next few days, according to Iraqi political leaders and foreign officials involved in the council's creation.
In building the council -- the challenging first step toward creation of an elected democratic government -- the occupation authority is attempting to appease the country's Shiite Muslim majority and the legions of Iraqis who are suspicious of politicians who lived outside country during Saddam Hussein's rule. At the same time, occupation forces are trying to create a body that will cooperate with them and support policies that are generally in line with U.S. interests.
Attempting to deflect criticism over the slow pace of reconstruction efforts, the occupation authority will cede more power to the group than first envisioned, the leaders and officials said. Giving the group a more prominent role in postwar governance is intended to place Iraqis at the receiving end of some of the popular discontent that has been directed at the occupation administration, a strategy that senior officials with the authority said will eventually help to stem attacks on U.S. and British troops.
"In time, this [council] will have an influence on the security situation," John Sawers, the top British diplomat in the occupation authority and a key architect of the council, said in an interview.
In a private meeting with the leaders of seven large political organizations today, the U.S. civil administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, said the council would be given the power to approve next year's budget, select and dismiss ministers, appoint diplomats and set up a "preparatory commission" to decide how the country's new constitution should be written, participants said. "They're going to get responsibility by the truckload," a senior U.S. official said.
U.S. officials had initially promised they would allow Iraqis to hold a national conference aimed at appointing a transitional government. When Bremer announced plans last month to handpick a council of about 25 members instead, he cast the group as a consultative body with only limited power to advise him on policy matters. But officials involved in the process said Bremer recently decided to give the group more clout, largely in response to pressure from Iraqi politicians hungry for added responsibility and a recognition that granting greater power to Iraqi leaders for day-to-day governance could help channel some of the anger over the sluggish resumption of basic services away from the occupation authority.
Bremer now calls the body a "governing council" instead of an "advisory council."
"The pendulum is definitely swinging back," said Hoshyar Zubari, a senior official in the Kurdistan Democratic Party who attended today's meeting. "The Americans are realizing it is difficult for them to govern Iraq by themselves. They are now in the forefront and exposed. Everyone is looking at them as an occupying power. It is a rallying point for all the anti-American forces."
Iraqis who lived in the country during Hussein's rule, and not those who lived in exile, will constitute a clear majority of the council, the officials said. Shiites, who make up about 60 percent of Iraq's 25 million people, will have more seats than Sunnis, who dominated the government under Hussein, they said. The group will also have more politicians and secular social leaders than religious figures, and likely will include a few women and at least one Chaldean Christian, one Assyrian Christian and one ethnic Turkmen, the officials said. Kurds and a few tribal sheiks will also be included.
"What we're now seeing coming together is a body representing Iraqi opinion which, for the first time in Iraqi history, represents the broad makeup of Iraqi society," Sawers said.
Although occupation officials have not commented publicly on the people who will be named to the council, those familiar with the process said the body will almost certainly include leaders of the country's seven main political groups, all of whom had lived either outside Iraq or in the autonomous Kurdish region. The seven are Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, Massoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Ayad Alawi of the Iraqi National Accord, Abdul Aziz Hakim of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, Ibrahim Jafari of the Dawa party and Nasir Chaderchi of the National Democratic Party.
After Hussein's fall in April, the seven had expected to be placed in charge of a transitional government. But in May, Bremer effectively sidelined them on the grounds that they were insufficiently representative and too disorganized.
His proposal to form the council, instead of holding a national conference to select a transitional government, prompted the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the largest party representing Shiites, to threaten a boycott. Other groups also voiced strong criticism.
But on Monday, after getting word of Bremer's intention to give them more responsibility, all seven agreed to participate in the council. "Bremer made important concessions in the right direction," said Entifadh Qanbar, a senior official with the Iraqi National Congress.
Despite the agreement, some Iraqi political leaders said the supreme council has not yet told the occupation authority it would participate. The group is said to be pushing for a firm commitment from Bremer that Shiites will have a majority.
Others who likely will be appointed to the council, according to people familiar with the process, include Adnan Pachachi, 80, who served as foreign minister before the 1968 Baath Party revolution; Iyad Jamaleddin, a liberal Shiite cleric who had lived in exile since 1979 and advocates the separation of church and state; Mohsen Abdul Hamid, a Sunni who is a professor of Islamic history at Baghdad University; Lina Abboud, a young, Western-trained gynecologist; Ibrahim Abassi, a leader of the Bani Hassan tribe; and Ghazi Yawur of the Shamar tribe.
For the occupation authority, finding the right mix of people has been tricky. U.S. and British officials want exiles to play a significant role because many of them espouse Western ideas of democracy and religious tolerance, but they are viewed with concern by Iraqis who never left the country. The authority also has tried to court liberal Muslim clerics, but eventually concluded that naming too many might anger conservative religious leaders. Ultimately, Bremer, Sawers and others involved in the process determined that keeping exiles and religious figures in the minority, while trying to empower secular Iraqis who stuck it out under Hussein, would be the best formula, the officials said.
After weeks of negotiations, officials involved in the process said they had settled on about 20 of the 25 members. They said they hoped to finalize all the names by the weekend and invite the prospective members to a meeting -- without officials from the occupation authority present -- where they expect participants to declare themselves members of the council. U.S. and British officials said they want the body to appear as if it emerged from consultations among Iraqis and not as a creation of the occupation authority.
U.S. and British officials said they did not invite people who openly object to the occupation authority's presence, fearing that creating an opposition within the council would hinder its effectiveness. One of the biggest challenges in organizing the group has been ensuring that all the participants -- many of whom come from disparate backgrounds -- get along, officials said.
But some Iraqis said that strategy will shield the authority from dissenting views its officials need to hear. "They're not willing to listen to people who don't agree with them," said Saad Jawad, a professor of political science at Baghdad University.
Sawers said council members, not the occupation authority, will determine how the group is organized. He said they will choose where they will have a secretariat, when they will meet and whether they will have a single president, a rotating chairmanship or an executive body.
Bremer has promised that he will meet with the group at least once a week and consult on all major policy decisions. He has said he will reject their advice only in "extraordinary circumstances."
He said he wants the group to set up panels to examine "big issues about the future of Iraq," including education reform and drafting an election law.
"We're going to give them more work than they can imagine," Bremer said in a recent interview.
----
BAGHDAD
Iraqis Set to Form an Interim Council With Wide Power
July 11, 2003
The New York Times
By PATRICK E. TYLER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/international/worldspecial/11IRAQ.html
BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 10 - Representatives of the major political, ethnic and religious groups of Iraq - some of them skilled politicians, some of them exile leaders coming home and others political neophytes united by their suffering under Saddam Hussein - will declare the first postwar interim government in Iraq this weekend, Western and Iraqi officials said tonight.
After eight weeks of negotiations with the American and British occupation powers, a "governing council" of between 21 and 25 members will be granted extensive executive powers. The new body of Kurds, Shiites, Sunnis, Christians and Turkmen will share responsibility for running the country under a United Nations resolution that will continue to vest Washington and London with ultimate authority until a sovereign government is elected and a new constitution ratified, the officials said.
There is no clear timetable for a transition to an elected government.
Iraqi political figures who have been involved in negotiations said that the process was speeded by the deteriorating security situation in Iraq and mounting American casualties from daily attacks on allied forces. That had created a sense of urgency within the Bush administration to create a credible Iraqi governing body that could help counter the negative image of foreign occupation that is being exploited by the remnants of Mr. Hussein's forces.
Traveling in Africa today, President Bush said: "There is no question that we have got a security issue in Iraq. We are just going to have to deal with it person by person. We are going to have to remain tough."
Two American soldiers were killed and one was wounded in two separate attacks Wednesday night in the latest round of violence against allied forces, military officials said. In Ramadi, west of Baghdad, a military spokesman said that American forces came under "multiple mortar attacks" in the city and at a base on the outskirts Wednesday night. No casualties were reported.
In an interview tonight, L. Paul Bremer III, the top American administrator in Iraq, said that in the course of negotiations over the new governing structure, he had made a number of "tactical adjustments" to meet the demands of the Iraqis. One of those adjustments, Iraqi political figures said, was to grant assurances that the majority of the council's members would be Shiites.
Mr. Bremer said the governing council would appoint and supervise a council of ministers that would run the government, send diplomats abroad to represent Iraq, establish a new currency, set fiscal and budget policy and, perhaps, take a prominent role in national security even as the country remains garrisoned by American and British troops.
"If they appoint a minister and he doesn't perform, they can fire him," Mr. Bremer said. "That's pretty executive."
Sergio Vieira de Mello, the special representative of United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in Iraq, expressed satisfaction with the new government structure, saying that Mr. Bremer "obviously has been listening to the Iraqis."
The commander of allied ground forces in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, said that "professional assassins" were stalking American troops in Baghdad. He added that military intelligence officials were "working very hard to identify" any regional or national networks linking opposition forces that were staging the attacks and acts of sabotage. Intelligence agencies thus far have failed to reveal actual communication networks but it was likely, the general said, that Mr. Hussein had activated a national plan of resistance in advance.
General Sanchez told a news conference today that it was "too early" to determine if a taped message from Mr. Hussein was having a rallying effect.
Still, he said, the "specter" of Mr. Hussein was putting additional pressure on Iraqis cooperating with allied forces. In Falluja today, newly trained Iraqi policemen staged a demonstration demanding that American soldiers vacate the police headquarters in the town, saying the American presence was a source of instability. On Saturday, seven Iraqi police graduates were killed in nearby Ramadi when an explosives hidden in a utility pole detonated during a graduation ceremony.
"I think the fact that the specter of Saddam continues to be present out there whether he is dead or alive is making a significant impact on the people of Iraq and their ability to cooperate with the coalition," the general said.
He also confirmed reports from Iraqi opposition figures that the United States military was developing a new plan to train and equip a paramilitary force of Iraqi fighters to "assume some of the responsibility for bringing security and stability" to the country. Iraqi political figures have been pressing United States commanders to recruit a militia that could assist American troops.
General Sanchez said such a force, if created, would be composed of "light infantry" that could operate under the command of allied forces.
Western officials and Iraqi political figures said that the council was planning to declare its formation at a news conference on Sunday, though last-minute negotiations might lead to a delay of a day or so.
Mr. Vieira de Mello said that he hoped that the governing council would be formed in the next few days so that he could make a recommendation to the Security Council to recognize the interim administration and give it international legitimacy.
In a private meeting today with Iraqi political figures, Mr. Bremer sought a commitment from all seven of the main Iraqi political groups to nominate their top leaders to serve. In turn, those leaders sought from Mr. Bremer a written commitment on the scope of the council's powers.
One political group, the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, told Mr. Bremer that it would not make a final decision on whether to participate until Saturday. The group's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, was expected to decide by then whether his brother, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, would join the government. Mr. Bremer would not comment.
Other Iraqi political figures said they believed that Ayatollah Hakim would sanction the Shiite group's participation after having received a pledge from Mr. Bremer that a majority of the governing council members would be Shiite Muslims and that the council's executive powers would be guaranteed in writing.
In addition to Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the core of the governing council would include Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, leaders of the two main Kurdish factions in northern Iraq; Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress; Iyad Alawi, head of the Iraqi National Accord; Nasir Kamel Chadirchy, a Baghdad lawyer whose father founded the first democratic party in Iraq in the 1950's; Ibrahim Jafari of the Shiite Daawa Party, and Adnan Pachachi, who was Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations in the 1960's.
An extraordinary level of secrecy has attended the negotiations over the roster of additional members. Last week, Lena Aboud, a 28-year-old gynecologist and women's rights advocate said she had been invited to join the government by Mr. Bremer. At least two other women were expected to be named, along with a Chaldean Christian, a Turkmen representative and one or more prominent tribal leaders.
"All along we felt that it was important to have an institution that could exercise real responsibility in the executive part of the government," Mr. Bremer said. The goal was to "get Iraqis to share responsibility with us, to face up to some of the hard decisions," he said, adding, "so we are more than happy to share responsibility."
-------- israel / palestine
Sharon Mum As Minister Slams 'Map' In N.Y. Talk
'Perle Backs Me'; Perle: No, I Don't
By ORI NIR
FORWARD STAFF
JULY 11, 2003
http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.07.11/news3.html
WASHINGTON - Prime Minister Sharon has no plans to rebuke a senior minister in his Cabinet who publicly lambasted President Bush's Middle East policy in a New York briefing this week and stated - incorrectly, it appears - that he had the support of a ranking presidential adviser.
The minister, Effi Eitam of the National Religious Party, slammed Bush's Middle East "road map" Monday in a talk to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, declaring that the president's plan was "worse than the Oslo accords." According to attendees, Eitam told the 30 communal leaders present that Israel could never accept a Palestinian state, a key element in Bush's "vision" for the Middle East.
Moreover, attendees said, Eitam declared that he had been encouraged to fight the road map by no less a figure than Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon advisory panel.
Perle, in an interview, denied having sent such a message to Eitam. He told the Forward that he was generally supportive of Bush's Middle East policies. "I don't know where that comes from," Perle said. "I find this very puzzling. That is much too crude a statement for me to make."
Eitam reportedly told the Jewish leadership group that he had received a message from Perle urging Israel to reject the road map and arguing that Jerusalem should not negotiate with terrorists, just as the United States refused to negotiate with Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden.
While Perle appeared distressed to learn of Eitam's remarks, which directly attacked the policies of both the Bush administration and the Israeli government, Sharon's top spokesman told the Forward that Eitam would not face rebuke from the prime minister. On the
contrary, said the spokesman, Ra'anan Gissin, Sharon "does not make an issue out of" such speeches by Cabinet members.
The prime minister, Gissin said, views the road map as merely a "framework," not an accord or a binding government resolution. "Whoever among the ministers has reservations, may raise them and express them," Gissin said, "as long as these reservations concede that the majority in the Cabinet adopted the road map, alongside the 14 reservations" that Israel posed as a condition to its accepting the plan.
Gissin said that while Sharon did not object to his ministers visiting the United States to oppose the road map, he had not made an effort to send more emissaries to "sell" the road map to American Jews because the peace plan "is an egg that hasn't hatched."
"We have not yet reached the bridge that leads to hard decisions," Gissin said. Since the road map is structured as a sequential process, Gissin added, nurturing public opinion in support of it is also a process.
A senior Israeli source close to Sharon listed two reasons why the prime minister thinks it is important to allow his ministers to speak their minds. First, such permissiveness allows disgruntled ministers to "let off steam" and keeps them in the coalition. The other reason is that it helps fend off American pressure by reminding the administration that Sharon faces pressure from his own right flank.
Still, several American Jewish leaders complained that they were "confused" by Sharon's willingness to have members of his own Cabinet criticize a plan that he claims to support.
"We have a government [in Israel] that supports the road map, and then we have a minister in that government who comes to speak to American Jews and expresses the strongest possible opposition to the road map and makes remarks about the prime minister himself that are at best equivocal, and in some ways exceedingly critical," said the leader of Reform Judaism, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, who is a vocal supporter of American efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian talks.
"At the very least, it is a mixed message," said Yoffie, president of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations. "Someone who is listening to that walks away with a conclusion of confusion. Is it a problem? Of course it's a problem.... In fact, it's quite extraordinary that this happens."
Several community leaders argued that both Israel and the Presidents Conference should work harder to educate the organized Jewish community on Sharon's policy toward the new peace plan.
Public information coming from major Jewish organizations is widely seen as dominated by negative assessments of Arab and Palestinian intentions, which have the effect of weakening, rather than strengthening, support for the president's peace plan.
"They should both do more" to explain why the plan should be supported, said Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch, executive director of the Association of Reform Zionists of America, or ARZA. "I cannot remember when a member of the Cabinet spoke [to the Presidents Conference] in support of the [Israeli] government's position endorsing the road map."
The conference's top professional, Malcolm Hoenlein, said he has attempted to expose his group, an umbrella organization representing some 50 Jewish organizations, to a variety of Israeli views on the road map. He noted that in the next two weeks, conference members are due to hear from several Israeli officials, including Gissin, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, army chief of staff General Moshe Ya'alon and the Israeli ambassador to Washington, Daniel Ayalon, all senior officials who may be expected to represent the government's policies. Additionally, Hoenlein said, Shimon Peres, the chairman of Israel's opposition Labor Party, is expected to address the conference soon.
"The government has various spokespeople and we are happy to give them all a podium to speak," Hoenlein said.
During his turn at the conference's podium, according to several sources in attendance, Eitam said that Israel could never accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank, and that the Palestinians should therefore push for a different solution. Eitam reiterated his longstanding proposal for a Palestinian state to be created in Jordan and the Sinai desert.
The minister claimed to have Perle's support for at least some of his views.
Perle, widely considered a leading architect of the administration's foreign policy, told the Forward that Bush's vision of a two-state solution, as presented in his June 24, 2002 speech, is "quite sound."
"My position is that everything depends on performance on the Palestinian side," Perle said. He added that since not enough time has elapsed since the introduction of the road map to gauge Palestinian performance, it is too early to assess the success of the plan.
In an interview, Eitam continued to maintain that he had indeed received a message from Perle, although not directly. Eitam said Perle had conveyed the message through people who he knew were going to talk with the Israeli minister. Eitam said that these people told him Perle was "very, very, very concerned about the road map."
Eitam said he still believes that Perle shares his view that the Bush administration's policy on terrorism suffers from a "double standard."
On one hand, Eitam explained, the administration fights a justified, unwavering war on terrorism worldwide. But then it pushes Israel to accept a road map "that to me looks more like compromising with terrorism than like striving for peace," Eitam said.
"Unfortunately," Eitam said, "when it comes to Israel's issues, you hear voices of only one side in the American arena: the voices of the State Department, and not the voices which were influential in shaping the U.S. policy on Iraq" - voices, he said, such as Perle's.
Eitam said he would expect American Jews to "express a moral message - more moral than political - that evil is evil is evil and terror is terror is terror.
"When terrorism kills Americans it is legitimate to go to the end of the world and topple a regime and occupy a state and send hundreds of thousands of soldiers and put the faces of its wanted terrorists on playing cards, to make clear that terror regimes will not stand," Eitam said. "The same is morally legitimate and correct when it comes to the Palestinian terrorism."
Eitam is not the first Israeli Cabinet minister to lobby in the United States against the road map. In May, Sharon gently scolded his tourism minister, Benny Elon of the far-right National Union party, for lobbying against the plan during meetings with members of Congress and leaders of the Evangelical Christian community. But Sharon did not publicly rebuke other ministers, including Uzi Landau and Limor Livnat, both of the Likud, after they publicly criticized the road map during recent visits to the United States.
-------- mideast
US may base fighter aircraft in Djibouti
Xinhuanet
2003-07-11
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2003-07/11/content_968548.htm
WASHINGTON, July 10 (Xinhuanet) -- The United States has sent pilots and maintenance personnel to Djibouti to assess the feasibility of setting up a base in the northeastern African nation that cuts the throat of the Red Sea into the Indian Ocean.
The US Central Command announced Thursday that pilots and maintenance personnel for F/A-18 Hornet, F-16 Fighting Falcon and F-15E Strike Eagle arrived in Djibouti on Wednesday, Associated Press reported.
Meanwhile 2,300 Marines of the US 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit arrived at a military base in Djibouti on Thursday to conducttraining exercises, according to a separate statement by Central Command, which oversees US military operation in the Middle East, Central and South Asia, and Northeast Africa.
More than 1,000 US ground troops have been deployed in Djiboutisince December 2002, and a small number of US bombers and other aircraft have conducted periodic training there.
The arrival of US pilots in Djibouti coincided with reports that the US seeks to expand its military presence in Africa.
The US military is seeking to expand its presence in the Arab countries of northern Africa and in sub-Saharan Africa through newbasing agreements and training exercises, The New York Times reported last Saturday.
Even as US military planners prepare options for American troops to join an international peacekeeping force to oversee a cease-fire in Liberia, the Pentagon wants to enhance military tieswith allies like Morocco and Tunisia, the paper said.
Washington hopes that the military bases in Africa could be used for training or fighting terrorism.
----
Israeli chief of staff: Syria has ''terrorist'' government, Arafat ''deserves death''
11-07-2003
Al Bawaba
http://www.albawaba.com/news/index.php3?sid=253929&lang=e&dir=news
Israel accused Syria Friday of possessing an assortment of lethal gases along with a missile arsenal that put the existence of the Jewish state in peril and pose a grave to the security of the entire Middle East.
The charge was made by Israel's Chief-of-Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon in remarks given to a French magazine. "This is a disaster (to Israel) because the Syrian government is irresponsible and terrorist," Israel's top soldier was quoted as saying.
Yaalon also threatened to wage an "all-out war" against the Palestinians if armed groups resume bombing attacks against Israeli targets. He described Palestinian President Yasser Arafat as a "master terrorist who deserves death or banishment."
Nevertheless, he made it plain Israel had no plans at the moment to assassinate Arafat or deport him to another Arab country. "We're not going to make a martyr out of him."
----
Cheney, Wolfowitz, American Jewish Committee to sink Armenian genocide bill
Turkish Daily News
July 11, 2003
http://www.turkishdailynews.com/FrTDN/latest/for.htm#f7
From: Zoiritsa@aol.com
[Excerpts]
Turkish hopes boosted amid administration efforts against Armenian bill 'We are hopeful that the bill will not be passed. Intervention of Dick Cheney especially gave us hope,' says a Turkish parliamentarian holding talks in Washington....
Top figures of the U.S. administration, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz have intervened to prevent passage of a bill committing the U.S. administration to indirectly recognize allegations of an Armenian genocide at the hands of the late Ottoman Empire, boosting Turkish hopes that the Armenian diaspora efforts may fail, a Turkish lawmaker said.
"We are hopeful that the bill will not be passed. Intervention of Dick Cheney especially gave us hope. This issue has turned into a matter of protection of U.S. national interests," Egemen Bagis, a deputy from the ruling Justice and Development (AK) Party, who is now in Washington said.
Bagis told the Anatolia news agency that Cheney has been phoning U.S. senators in an effort to convince them not to vote for the bill.
The U.S. Senate was expected to discuss and vote a bill on the annual budget of the State Department, an article of which recognizes an Armenian genocide in 1915, later on Thursday or Friday.
Meanwhile, American Jewish Committee (AJC), member of the influential Jewish lobby in the United States, has sent a letter to the Senate calling on the senators to exclude references to the alleged genocide out of the budget bill.
-------- russia / chechnya
RUSSIA - Security agent killed defusing bomb
World Scene
July 11, 2003
WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/worldscene.htm
MOSCOW - A Russian security agent was killed early yesterday while trying to defuse a bomb that a woman had tried to carry into a cafe on central Moscow's main street, police said.
The bombing attempt occurred five days after a double suicide attack at a rock concert in Moscow in which 16 persons, including the two bombers, were killed, and appeared to be another attempt by Chechen rebels to bring their war against Russia to the nation's capital.
A Chechen woman was detained after her behavior drew the attention of security guards, officials said. Her bag, which contained the bomb, was left on the street.
When a Federal Security Service agent approached the bag and tried to defuse the explosive, it went off, killing him, the Moscow police press service said.
-------- spies / spy agencies
C.I.A. Approved Iraqi Uranium Claim, White House Says
July 11, 2003
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/international/11CND-Rice.html
ENTEBBE, Uganda (AP) -- President Bush said today that intelligence services cleared his State of the Union speech, which included a now-discredited allegation that Iraq was seeking to buy nuclear material from Africa.
Bush's national security adviser specifically pointed to the CIA and said it had vetted the speech. If CIA Director George Tenet had any misgivings about that sentence in the president's speech, "he did not make them known" to Bush or his staff, said national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
The issue arose a day after other senior U.S. officials said that before and after Bush's Jan. 28 speech, American intelligence officials expressed doubts about a British intelligence report that the president cited to back up his allegations.
Those doubts were relayed to British officials before they made them public, and that word was passed to people at several agencies of the U.S. government before Bush gave that nationally broadcast speech. The White House this week admitted the charge about Iraq seeking uranium should not have appeared in his speech.
Bush, asked how erroneous material had ended up in the address, "I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services." He did not explain how the allegations wound up in his speech.
But he said he made the right decision about invading Iraq and asserted that the world is a more peaceful place for it.
Rice said "the CIA cleared the speech in its entirety."
The agency raised only one objection to the sentence involving an allegation that Iraq was trying to obtain "yellow cake" uranium, she said. Yellow cake is a slightly processed form of uranium ore the color and consistency of yellow corn meal.
"Some specifics about amount and place were taken out," Rice added.
"With the changes in that sentence, the speech was cleared," she said. "The agency did not say they wanted that sentence out."
Rice made the defense of the White House in a rare 50-minute meeting with reporters aboard the president's plane as Bush flew from South Africa to Uganda. Questions about the allegations in Bush's January speech have followed him on his five-day trip through Africa.
The administration is facing rising criticism on another front in postwar Iraq: increasing attacks against American soldiers there. Two were killed on Thursday.
The Senate on Thursday, in a 97-0 vote, called on Bush to work harder to get other countries to share the military burden in Iraq. Bush said Thursday that U.S. forces would have to "remain tough" in the face of attacks that retired Gen. Tommy Franks said were coming at the rate of 10 to 25 a day.
According to Rice, the CIA had mentioned the claim that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Africa in a classified National Intelligence Assessment made periodically to the president.
"If the CIA -- the director of central intelligence -- had said 'Take this out of the speech,' it would have been gone," Rice said. "We have a high standard for the president's speeches."
Asked whether Bush had confidence in the intelligence agency, Rice replied, "Absolutely."
When queried on reports that the CIA expressed concern to the White House about the allegation, she suggested that Tenet should be asked directly. "I'm not blaming anyone here," Rice said.
"The president did not knowingly say anything that we knew to be false," she said. "We wouldn't put anything knowingly in the speech that was false."
If anyone at the CIA had doubts about the veracity of the uranium-Iraq allegation, Rice said, "those doubts were not communicated to the president."
However, she acknowledged that Secretary of State Colin Powell had reservations about the report and chose not to mention the allegations in his presentation to the U.N. Security Council a few days later.
Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said Friday he was concerned about the reports.
"It is apparent now that one of the statements, and a very important statement made by the president in January, was not technically accurate," he said on CBS' "The Early Show."
The Congress should be concerned, he said, "if the intelligence agencies come up with reliable information which is then distorted by political operatives at the White House."
Rice did say that the State Department's intelligence division considered the uranium-purchasing allegations dubious, and this was also noted in a footnote in the intelligence assessment given to Bush.
Powell, however, did not discuss his misgivings with her or anyone on her staff between the time of the State of the Union address and Powell's presentation to the United Nations, she said.
Other U.S. officials said Thursday that before and after Bush claimed in January that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa, American intelligence officials expressed doubts about a British intelligence report that Bush cited to back up his allegation.
CBS, ABC and CNN reported Thursday that CIA officials who saw a draft of Bush's speech questioned whether his statement was too strong, given the quality of the British intelligence. But the remark was left in, and attributed to the British.
The reports surfaced as Durbin and other Democrats kept up a drumbeat of criticism of the administration's justifications for going to war. Much of the criticism has focused on Bush's contention that Saddam Hussein's government had chemical and biological weapons and was working to build more of them and develop nuclear bombs. No such weapons have been found in Iraq.
Critics also have attacked the administration's characterizations of the current outlook in Iraq, where the war's former commander, Gen. Tommy Franks, told a House panel Thursday that U.S. troops may have to remain in Iraq for four years.
U.S. officials have said the doubts about the uranium allegations date back to early 2002, when a retired diplomat asked by the CIA to investigate the reports went to Niger and spoke with officials who denied having any uranium dealings with Iraq.
Though the U.S. officials expressed their doubts to the British, the British included their information in a public statement on Sept. 24, 2002, citing intelligence sources, that said Iraq "sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
About a month after Bush's speech, the United Nations determined the uranium reports were based primarily on forged documents initially obtained by European intelligence agencies.
----
CIA Chief Admits Iraq Uranium Claim Error
Fri Jul 11, 2003
By JOHN SOLOMON,
Associated Press Writer
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=544&e=1&u=/ap/20030711/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_iraq_tenet
WASHINGTON - CIA Director George Tenet gave Congress and the White House the accountability they demanded, declaring Friday that the blame for President Bush's false allegation about an Iraqi nuclear deal rested squarely with him and his agency.
The CIA should never have let Bush repeat a British allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from the African country of Niger when U.S. intelligence analysts could not corroborate it, Tenet said in a statement. Ultimately, it proved false.
"These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," Tenet said, referring to Bush's State of the Union speech in January.
Tenet's extraordinary statement was released after Bush and his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, blamed the error on the CIA and members of Congress called for someone to be held accountable.
"This was a mistake," the director said.
CIA and administration officials said that despite the mea culpa, they did not expect Tenet to resign. The Democrat is the long holdover from the Clinton administration and, while distrusted by some conservatives, has enjoyed Bush's confidence.
"I've heard no discussion along those lines," CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said Friday night when asked whether Tenet would consider resigning. Other administration officials noted that Rice and Bush, while placing blame on Tenet's agency, also expressed confidence in the CIA director.
Tenet said the responsibility for vetting the allegations included in Bush's speech rested with CIA.
"Let me be clear about several things right up front," he said. "First, CIA approved the president's State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my agency. And third, the president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound." Tenet said CIA officials reviewed portions of the draft speech and raised some concerns with national security aides at the White House that prompted changes in the language. But he said the CIA officials failed to stop the remark from being uttered despite the doubts about its validity.
"Officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues," Tenet said. "Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa."
"This should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address," the statement continued. "This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed."
Tenet's two-page statement came at the end of a tumultuous 24 hours in which reports surfaced suggesting the CIA had raised concerns about the nature of the African allegations before the president made his speech.
That prompted Bush and Rice to take issue. On a trip in Africa, they said Tenet's agency approved the language in the speech and never raised objections to them.
Members of Congress called on the CIA to be held accountable. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kansas, said Tenet was ultimately responsible for the mistake.
"The director of central intelligence is the principal adviser to the president on intelligence matters," Roberts said. "He should have told the president. He failed. He failed to do so," Roberts said.
Tenet said there were "legitimate questions" about the CIA's conduct and he sought in his statement to explain his agency's role.
Although the CIA did not learn until well after the president's speech in January that some documents obtained by British intelligence that formed the basis of the Iraq-Niger uranium allegations were forged, CIA officials recognized at the beginning that the allegation was based on "fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002," the director said.
A former diplomat was sent by the CIA to the region to check on the allegations and reported back that one of the Nigerian officials he met "stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office," Tenet said.
"The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss 'expanding commercial relations' between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales," Tenet said.
The diplomat sent to the region has alleged he believed Vice President Dick Cheney's office was apprised of the findings of his trip. But Tenet stated that the CIA "did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials."
Tenet said when British officials in fall 2002 discussed making the Niger information public, his agency expressed their reservations to the British about the quality of the intelligence.
A CIA report that came out in October 2002 mentioned the allegations but did not give them full credence, stating "we cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore." In addition, the report noted that State Department intelligence analysts found the allegations "highly dubious."
Because of the doubts, Tenet said he never included the allegations in his own congressional testimonies or public statements about Iraqi efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction.
--------
Pollard recruiter resurfaces in U.S.
By Richard Sale
UPI Intelligence Correspondent
July 11, 2003
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20030710-051335-8380r.htm
The Israeli recruiter of convicted spy Jonathan Pollard has reemerged on American soil and is being scrutinized by the FBI, according to well-placed intelligence and law enforcement sources.
According to former senior Pentagon officials, Pollard was recruited in the fall of 1981 by Rafael "Rafi" Eitan, also known as "Rafi the stinker."
Eitan, a long-time clandestine operator who participated in Israel's kidnapping in Argentina of former Nazi official Adolf Eichmann and other highly sensitive operations, was then a close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, these sources said.
Eitan was also director of the Office of Special Tasks, called LAKEM, a group in the Israeli Defense Ministry that had (and still has) a special mandate to penetrate classified U.S. defense programs and obtain top-secret technologies. It is especially interested in data relating to Tel Aviv's nuclear programs.
In 1981, the group consisted of scientific attaches or officials who reported directly to the Israeli Defense Ministry, the sources said. Sharon was Israeli defense minister at the time.
The sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also said that Pollard, who began to work for the U.S. Navy in 1979, had first offered to spy for Israel in 1980, but that no action was taken by Israel until the fall of 1981.
At that time, the United States and Israel had a program of naval exchange visits to update each other on intelligence matters. In Israel, the program involved inviting an American official to an Israeli official's home for dinner.
To everyone's astonishment, Eitan put in an appearance at Pollard's dinner, and the recruitment was accomplished that night, former senior Pentagon and U.S. intelligence officials said.
The recruitment occurred just a month after Sharon had had a run-in with the White House. According to former participants who attended the meeting, in Sept. 1981, Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Sharon came to Washington to present a far-reaching and extensive U.S.-Israeli plan for strategic cooperation. Begin turned the proceeding over to Sharon who went on to outline a set-up that involved joint use of air and naval bases, the positioning of U.S. military equipment, and joint military planning for contingencies in the region.
But the centerpiece of the program was to be the U.S. financing of a KH-11 satellite downlink for Israel to be located at Tel Aviv. Sharon was especially stubborn about the downlink issue, according to former senior U.S. intelligence officials. He wanted Israel to have its own dedicated KH-11 downlink, which included encrypted signals that the United States couldn't read. In other words, the United States would supply its own intelligence means but be unable to have access to what the Israelis were taking from it.
According to one former Reagan administration insider, with close knowledge of the meetings, White House advisor Richard Allen told Sharon there would be no downlink, incensing Sharon who said that the U.S.-Israeli strategic relationship was all "band aids and mustard plasters" and the relationship didn't constitute a true strategic alliance. Soon after Sharon returned to Israel, the operation to recruit Pollard began in the Office for Special Tasks, led by Eitan.
Eitan has now reemerged.
According to federal law enforcement officials, Eitan has, for the last year or so, been traveling to the United States on an Israeli passport, but using an alias.
These sources told United Press International that Eitan lands at Columbus, Ohio, and then moves about the Midwest, to cities such an Indianapolis.
Eitan has been seen and photographed in the company of "known dealers who belong to a ring dealing in the drug ecstasy," one federal law enforcement official said.
He added: "The FBI is looking for evidence that Eitan is, or has been engaging, in questionable activities related to this ring."
The FBI probe is continuing, this official said.
When Pollard and his wife, Ann, were arrested in the fall of 1985, the Israeli government claimed that Pollard had been spying for only 14 months and that it had no official knowledge of his recruitment and that Pollard's activities were part of a "rogue" operation, according to former senior U.S. intelligence officials.
But very senior former Pentagon officials said the operation was sanctioned and that from the outset, Israeli leadership, at the highest level, decided on a full-scale cover up.
An extremely senior former Pentagon official said: "Top Israelis including Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Shamir, all knew that Israel had a high-level spy inside the U.S. military establishment. They knew Israel was getting weekly summaries of NSA intercepts, KH-11 photos and other highly restricted U.S. communications data."
In Israel, Sharon, who had resigned as defense minister after the massacre of Palestinians by pro-Israeli Lebanese Christian forces at Sabra and Shatila in the wake of Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon, became Israeli Minister of Trade and Industry in 1984.
Following the scandal he took care to look after the men who had helped him, according to former Israeli and U.S. intelligence officials.
Pollard's handler in the United States, Aviem Sella, was the Israeli Air Force's top expert in nuclear targeting and delivery of airborne nuclear weapons, these sources said.
When Pollard was arrested, Sella fled to Israel, but was soon promoted to Brig. Gen. in Israel's Air Force. His specific command involved Tel Aviv's nuclear weapons air arm at the Tel Nof air base. This raised such an outcry of protest in the United States that Sella was quietly moved to the Israeli Defense Force Defense College. His prestige in ribbons, Sella saw his career in the Israeli air force had entered a dead end, and he retired.
Eitan did much better. He returned to Israel and was promoted to a senior position with the largest state-owned business enterprise in Israel: the Israel Chemicals Company, following Sharon's recommendation, according to senior former U.S. intelligence officials.
The promotion involved a quid pro quo, former federal law enforcement officials said. "It's generally agreed that Eitan was to take the brunt of blame for the whole mess," said one former official who was close to confidential details of the case. "In return for his silence, Sharon would make sure he got a good job."
According to one former Pentagon official, Eitan told an Israeli newspaper in 1987 that all of his actions had been undertaken with the knowledge of his Israeli superiors but within a day had withdrawn the statement as not having come from him. "Of course it came from him," the former Pentagon official said.
-------- us
US troops groan in Iraq as former commander predicts long haul
RAMADI, Iraq (AFP)
Jul 11, 2003
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030711171731.49pucxde.html
US troops were grumbling Friday at retired General Tommy Franks' prediction that soldiers could be stationed on Iraq's boiling desert plains for up to four years.
To hear the news just as suspected supporters of Saddam Hussein's ousted regime begin to ratchet up their attacks against US positions in this and other towns was dampening the spirits of the Americans.
Franks' address to Congress Thursday quashed hopes for a quick exit from the country, as he said the United States would "be involved in Iraq in the future."
"Whether that means two years or four years, I don't know," said Franks, a former head of the US Central Command who led the war that ousted Saddam Hussein in April.
"That kind of sinks morale a little bit," said one young female private who was guarding the US base on the western edge of Ramadi, a town in a Sunni Muslim belt west of Baghdad where violence against coalition troops -- and the Iraqis who work with them -- has flared into a daily danger.
"I don't wanna be out here for that long," she told AFP from her gunner's perch atop an M-113 armoured personnel carrier.
Most of the roughly 150,000 US troops currently in Iraq, engaged in everything from policing to searching for weapons of mass destruction, know their tour of duty will likely stretch between six months and a year.
Captain Michael Calvert stressed that the 1,000 or so troops of the Third Air Cavalry Regiment based around Ramadi were realistic about the length of their tour of duty.
"I think most of us feel this will turn into a long-term operation," he said inside the US base, a converted palace once owned by Saddam.
But since US President George W. Bush declared victory in Iraq on May 1, occupation forces have faced a wave of attacks that have killed 31 American troops and six British soldiers.
Still, Private Andrea Dominique Allen, 18, managed to keep her cool about the surging violence, after only two months in the country.
"Frankly, I don't think I'm as scared as I should be," said the Floridian of the mortars which have barrelled into the Ramadi base on nine of the last 10 days.
When asked if General Franks' assessment was a morale-sapper she turned more somber.
"It is a little bit," she said, "but if I have to stay, I have to stay."
Rumours have raced like wildfire through Allen's unit that they will be rotated out of Iraq by September, but like many coalition troops grappling with keeping the peace in Iraq, she says she has no idea when they're going home.
One of those who has put his civilian life on hold is Captain Mark Alacqua of the Third Infantry Division's Bravo detachment, stationed in nearby Fallujah, another flashpoint town west of Baghdad.
He hasn't seen his kids since January, he said, thumbing through his wallet photos of his two-year-old and one-year-old sons.
The Long Island lawyer called up to active duty from the reserves, and who has since spent five months away from his wife and kids, said he had not expected to be gone from his law practice so long.
"My business partner hates me more than my wife right now," he joked.
Private J.R. Gonzalez, a 24-year-old from Texas serving in Baghdad with the 16th battalion of the First Armored Division, said he misses home but refused to ponder a potential departure date.
"You don't know when you're leaving until you're on the plane."
----
Baghdad Blogger -- A U.S. Soldier's Internet Diary
Feature, Paul Woodward,
Pacific News Service,
Jul 11, 2003
http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=bdef4db453784667d43eb87b336235b2
Editor's Note: A U.S. soldier based in one of Saddam's former palaces describes a life of fear, apathy, pride and frustration seldom seen in media reports from Iraq.
"I've been asking random soldiers who the Vice President of the United States is...a very simple question...but I found a surprising answer...the majority of those I asked did not know the answer, nor do they care...this is bad...our lives are at stake...our country as well...and we do not even pay attention...we have a voice...but we do not choose to use it..."
Sgt. Sean, an American serviceman now based in Baghdad, has been keeping his Internet journal, Turningtables (http://turningtables.blogspot.com/), since early June. He has six years of military service under his belt, including stints in Bosnia and Afghanistan.
"we volunteered for this...we sit here because we raised our hand...and sold our souls...most would think that we knew exactly what we were getting into...they would be wrong...we were naive...we were homeless...we were living with our mothers...this is just a job for 75 percent of us..."
Soldiers on active duty are often reluctant to say how they feel. But at a time when U.S. casualties are mounting, the justification for the war is open to question, and "pockets of resistance" are starting to resemble full guerrilla warfare, Turningtables unmasks the fears that can lie hidden behind a soldier's expressionless face.
"it's a sad state that originates when the death of soldiers becomes common everyday news...and it stops being surprising...and shocking...and horrible...when it takes a really gruesome story to remind you that you are in the middle of this shit...and you can't go home...YOU CAN'T GO HOME...you want to curl up and quit..."
Circumstances may have set this soldier on a course he hadn't foreseen, but his appreciation for military life shines through.
"if there is a person who wanders aimlessly through life I would recommend the service to them...and I would even allow my children to join...I would only hope that they remain objective throughout...that they keep a sense of reality and stay aware.
"the military in itself is altruistic...communism...but how else could it possibly operate...selfless service...the good of the whole over the good of the one...the pay...the living conditions...think about it...soldiers are not free to make their own decisions...if they were how could anything difficult be completed...how could a platoon take a machine gun nest...or a war be won..."
His support unit wants to be seen as the toughest in the Army, but he knows that neither inside nor outside the military does any glamour attach to the role of support. Movies don't get made about these troops, though they form the backbone of every army.
Based within the confines of one of Saddam's former palaces, Sgt. Sean is not exposed to the dangers facing those who patrol the streets of Baghdad. The searing summer heat, however, spares no one. Even the ants search for relief.
"...one of the drones discovered the climate-controlled comfort of my canvas house...and they went and told all their little mindless buddies...and every 10 minutes there is a new line of them...I sweep them away...I slap them with my shower shoes...they fall back...they regroup...they send out a new scout team...and then they launch their new offensive..."
Arnold Schwarzenegger may rally the troops in Baghdad and promote his new movie by calling GIs the "true terminators," but the life Sgt. Sean describes gently mocks the icons of warfare that are Hollywood's bread and butter.
"I once read that some people come off as courageous because they are so afraid of being thought a coward...I'm glad that as of yet I haven't had to prove my courage...that would mean somebody was trying to kill me...and right now...I'm content with people shooting off nasty e-mails instead of bullets..."
Military service carries the honor of defending one's nation, even for those who never fire a shot, but all the while soldiers' hopes and dreams for their lives at home lie suspended.
"there are so many difficulties that come with a deployment to the Middle East...a major portion of your life is put on hold for six to nine months, and all the areas that could not possibly pause for your war are forced onto the phone lines..."
Sgt. Sean, like thousands of other American service men and women, now finds himself at the sharp end of a political experiment whose design was always unclear and whose conclusion seems ever more elusive.
----
Civilians' lack of planning hurt in Iraq
By Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel
Knight Ridder Newspapers,
July 11, 2003
http://www.gazettetimes.com/articles/2003/07/12/news/nation/satnat01.txt
WASHINGTON - The small circle of senior civilians in the Defense Department who dominated planning for postwar Iraq failed to prepare for the setbacks that have erupted over the past two months.
The officials didn't develop any real postwar plans because they believed that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open arms and Washington could install a favored Iraqi exile leader as the country's leader. The Pentagon civilians ignored CIA and State Department experts who disputed them, resisted White House pressure to back off from their favored exile leader and when their scenario collapsed amid increasing violence and disorder, they had no backup plan.
Today, American forces face instability in Iraq, where they are losing soldiers almost daily to escalating guerrilla attacks, the cost of occupation is exploding to almost $4 billion a month and withdrawal appears untold years away.
"There was no real planning for postwar Iraq," said a former senior U.S. official who left government recently.
The story of the flawed postwar planning process was gathered in interviews with more than a dozen current and former senior government officials.
One senior defense official told Knight Ridder that the failure of Pentagon civilians to set specific objectives - short-, medium- and long-term - for Iraq's stabilization and reconstruction after Saddam Hussein's regime fell even left U.S. military commanders uncertain about how many and what kinds of troops would be needed after the war.
In contrast, years before World War II ended, American planners plotted extraordinarily detailed blueprints for administering postwar Germany and Japan, designing everything from rebuilt economies to law enforcement and democratic governments.
The disenchanted U.S. officials today think the failure of the Pentagon civilians to develop such detailed plans contributed to the chaos in post-Saddam Iraq.
"We could have done so much better," lamented a former senior Pentagon official, who is still a Defense Department adviser. While most officials requested anonymity because going public could force them out of government service, some were willing to talk on the record.
Ultimately, however, the responsibility for ensuring that post-Saddam planning anticipated all possible complications lay with Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, current and former officials said.
The Pentagon planning group, directed by Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, the department's No. 3 official, included hard-line conservatives who had long advocated using the American military to overthrow Saddam. Its day-to-day boss was William Luti, a former Navy officer who worked for Vice President Dick Cheney before joining the Pentagon.
The Pentagon group insisted on doing it its way because it had a visionary strategy that it hoped would transform Iraq into an ally of Israel, remove a potential threat to the Persian Gulf oil trade and encircle Iran with U.S. friends and allies. The problem was that officials at the State Department and CIA thought the vision was badly flawed and impractical, so the Pentagon planners simply excluded their rivals from involvement.
Feith, Luti and their advisers wanted to put Ahmad Chalabi - the controversial Iraqi exile leader of a coalition of opposition groups - in power in Baghdad. The Pentagon planners were convinced that Iraqis would warmly welcome the American-led coalition and that Chalabi, who boasted of having a secret network inside and outside the regime, and his supporters would replace Saddam and impose order.
Feith, in a series of responses Friday to written questions, denied that the Pentagon wanted to put Chalabi in charge.
But Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, who at the time was the chairman of the Defense Policy Board - an influential group of outside advisers to the Pentagon - and is close to Feith and Luti, acknowledged in an interview that installing Chalabi was the plan.
Referring to the Chalabi scenario, Perle said: "The Department of Defense proposed a plan that would have resulted in a substantial number of Iraqis available to assist in the immediate postwar period." Had it been accepted, "we'd be in much better shape today," he said.
Perle said blame for any planning failures belonged to the State Department and other agencies that opposed the Chalabi route.
But the failure to consult more widely on what to do if the Chalabi scenario failed denied American planners the benefits of a vast reservoir of expertise gained from peacekeeping and reconstruction in shattered nations from Bosnia to East Timor.
As one example, the Pentagon planners ignored an eight-month-long effort led by the State Department to prepare for the day when Saddam's dictatorship was gone. The "Future of Iraq" project, which involved dozens of exiled Iraqi professionals and 17 U.S. agencies, including the Pentagon, prepared strategies for everything from drawing up a new Iraqi judicial code to restoring the unique ecosystem of Iraq's southern marshes, which Saddam's regime had drained.
Virtually none of the "Future of Iraq" project's work was used once Saddam fell.
The first U.S. administrator in Iraq, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, wanted the Future of Iraq project director, Tom Warrick, to join his staff in Baghdad. Warrick had begun packing his bags, but Pentagon civilians vetoed his appointment, said one current and one former official.
Meanwhile, postwar planning documents from the State Department, CIA and elsewhere were "simply disappearing down the black hole" at the Pentagon, said a former U.S. official with long Middle East experience who recently returned from Iraq.
Archaeological experts who were worried about protecting Iraq's immense cultural treasures were rebuffed in their requests for meetings before the war. After it, Iraq's museum treasures were looted.
Responsibility for preparing for post-Saddam Iraq lay with senior officials who supervised the Office of Special Plans, a highly secretive group of analysts and consultants in the Pentagon's Near East/South Asia bureau. The office was physically isolated from the rest of the bureau.
Air Force Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, who retired from the Near East bureau on July 1, said she and her colleagues were allowed little contact with the Office of Special Plans and often were told by the officials who ran it to ignore the State Department's concerns and views.
"We almost disemboweled State," Kwiatkowski said.
Senior State Department and White House officials verified her account and cited many instances where officials from other agencies were excluded from meetings or decisions.
The Chalabi plan, fiercely opposed by the CIA and the State Department, ran into major problems.
President Bush, after meeting with Iraqi exiles in January, told aides that, while he admired the Iraqi exiles, they wouldn't be rewarded with power in Baghdad. "The future of this country is not going to be charted by people who sat out the sonofabitch (Saddam) in London or Cambridge, Massachusetts," one former senior White House official quoted Bush as saying.
After that, the White House quashed the Pentagon's plan to create - before the war started - an Iraqi-government-in-exile that included Chalabi.
The Chalabi scheme was dealt another major blow in February, a month before the war started, when U.S. intelligence agencies monitored him conferring with hard-line Islamic leaders in Tehran, Iran, a State Department official said. About the same time, an Iraqi Shiite militia that was based in Iran and known as the Badr Brigade began moving into northern Iraq, setting off alarm bells in Washington.
At the State Department, officials drafted a memo, titled "The Perfect Storm," warning of a confluence of catastrophic developments that would endanger the goals of the coming U.S. invasion.
Cheney, once a strong Chalabi backer, ordered the Pentagon to curb its support for the exiles, the official said.
Yet Chalabi continued to receive Pentagon assistance, including backing for a 700-man paramilitary unit. The U.S. military flew Chalabi and his men at the height of the war from the safety of northern Iraq, which was outside Saddam's control, to an air base outside the southern city of Nasiriyah in expectation that he would soon take power.
Chalabi settled into a former hunting club in the fashionable Mansour section of Baghdad. He was joined by Harold Rhode, a top Feith aide, said the former U.S. official who recently returned from Iraq.
But Chalabi lacked popular support - graffiti in Iraq referred to "Ahmad the Thief" - and anti-American anger was growing over the looting and anarchy that followed Saddam's ouster.
"It was very clear that there was an expectation that the exiles would be the core of an Iraqi interim (governing) authority," retired U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney said. He was in Iraq in April to help with postwar reconstruction.
Once Saddam's regime fell, American authorities "quickly grasped" that Chalabi and his people couldn't take charge, Carney said.
However, the Pentagon had devised no backup plan. Numerous officials in positions to know said that if Pentagon civilians had a detailed plan that anticipated what could happen after Saddam fell, it was invisible to them.
----
New carrier forward
July 11, 2003
Washington Times
Inside the Ring
http://www.washtimes.com/national/inring.htm
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and top Pentagon planners are discussing whether to deploy a second U.S. aircraft carrier battle group "forward" in the Pacific.
Currently, the 12 U.S. carrier battle groups are split evenly between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. But with the growing threat from communist China and the nuclear crisis still unresolved in North Korea, planners are looking at moving a carrier group to either Hawaii or Guam. Aircraft carriers have not been based in Hawaii since World War II.
"Certainly with Iraq gone as a threat now and constant need for a carrier presence in the Persian Gulf, it would make sense to shift forces toward the Pacific," a defense official told us.
Adm. Robert Natter, head of the Fleet Forces Command, is conducting a review of Navy deployments worldwide as part of a major Pentagon review. Adm. Natter said in a speech last May that the threats from Asia call for "a shift in resources to the Pacific from the Atlantic."
Recently, two U.S. attack submarines were moved to new homeports at Guam and a third submarine is expected soon. Eventually four attack submarines will be based there to deal with hot spots ranging from Indonesia to the Taiwan Strait.
The Air Force also has moved B-1 and B-52 bombers to Guam and the service also has stockpiled air-launched cruise missiles there, a move that drew protests from the Chinese government.
China is expected to complain loudly about any carrier deployment to Hawaii or Guam. Beijing views the U.S. military as its main foe in the future and is developing missile capabilities designed to sink U.S. carriers and warships.
Currently, three carriers are based in San Diego and two are in Washington state. A sixth is based in Yokuska, Japan.
--------
OCCUPATION
Franks Sees Decision Soon on Rotation System for G.I.'s
July 11, 2003
The New York Times
By ERIC SCHMITT
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/international/worldspecial/11TROO.html
WASHINGTON, July 10 - Gen. Tommy R. Franks said today that the Pentagon was nearing a decision on a policy to regularly rotate thousands of Army forces through Iraq for months and years to come.
With 20,000 soldiers of the Army's Third Infantry Division scheduled to leave Iraq by September, defense officials are deciding what mix of Army and allied forces will replace them, and when. The troops other allied countries have sent to Iraq now and those due to arrive over the summer total about 30,000.
At the same time, the Army has hired Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root subsidiary to feed and house up to 100,000 troops in Iraq. The contractor could erect large tents, but an Army spokesman said today that the $200 million project ordered last month could also include semipermanent wooden buildings similar to what American troops in Kosovo use.
Taken together, the new troop policy and housing contract represent perhaps the most concrete examples of the Pentagon's long-term commitment to Iraq and acknowledgment that rebuilding the country will probably take years and large numbers of American forces.
In a second consecutive day of sometimes contentious testimony on Capitol Hill, General Franks warned the House Armed Services Committee that the postwar effort in Iraq would be difficult and dangerous, and would require about 150,000 troops for the ``foreseeable future.'' There are 148,000 American troops in Iraq now.
``Peacemaking and peacekeeping in an uncertain environment, in a lethal environment such as the one we see in Iraq or in Afghanistan is just really, really hard,'' said General Franks, who on Monday stepped down as head of the United States Central Command. He said Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his advisers were to meet this week to begin deciding how to rotate troops in and out of Iraq, and the length of their tours there.
``When I left Central Command,'' General Franks said, ``a number of brigades were being requested to be placed on what we call prepare-to-deploy in order to begin the cycling of forces.''
He said an additional Army division could also rotate through Iraq. He did not identify any specific units, but other Army officials said the First Cavalry Division in Fort Hood, Tex., could be called on. General Franks said he did not know how many months individual units would stay in the future.
``Because of the way some of our forces are structured, the differences between Army forces that include active and reserve, naval forces and air forces, I'm not sure that the cycling of forces into Iraq will be exactly the same,'' he said. ``That is what the secretary is working right now with the Joint Chiefs and his staff.''
Two senior defense officials later confirmed that Mr. Rumsfeld was scheduled to review the Iraq troop policy on Friday. One of the officials said some decisions on the policy could be made, but the other official cautioned that there were no plans for any new troop assignments soon.
The decisions are especially important for the Army. With more than half of its 10 combat divisions now operating in Iraq, it is struggling to meet the growing demands on its active-duty and reserve forces.
Army National Guard units have six-month peacekeeping tours in Bosnia, Kosovo and Sinai. Army forces deploy to South Korea for one year. Senior Army commanders fear that the unrest in Iraq will require longer tours for more troops and disrupt their worldwide training and assignment schedules.
At today's hearing, some Democrats expressed fears that American forces in Iraq, now engaged in as many as 25 attacks a day, were being drawn into a Vietnam-style conflict.
``There appears to be a lack of planning for reconstruction, and it seems to be a day-by-day, catch as you can situation,'' said Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the committee's senior Democrat. ``I have a fear that the pattern that we see now, if left unchecked, we may find ourselves, general, in the throws of guerrilla warfare for years.''
General Franks dismissed comparisons with Vietnam, saying Baath Party supporters and remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces lack popular support.
But some Democrats, including Representative Ellen O. Tauscher of California, were unpersuaded, and traded testy remarks with General Franks. ``The American people that I represent believe that we're in a war still,'' Ms. Tauscher said.
``Yes, ma'am,'' General Franks responded. ``We are in a war, without a doubt. It is not a major war against tanks, airplanes, Scud missiles and so forth.''
Many lawmakers complained about the quality of life for troops in Iraq two months after President Bush declared the end of major combat. Mail takes two to three weeks to reach soldiers. E-mail hookups are scarce. Many troops are still living in bombed-out buildings or crude tents with no respite from the searing summer heat.
Dan Carlson, a spokesman for the Army's Field Support Command in Rock Island, Ill., said the agreement with Kellogg Brown & Root called for the company to provide housing for up to 100,000 forces at about 20 sites throughout Iraq. The order was first reported this week by Inside the Army, a specialized publication about Army matters.
-------- propaganda wars
U.S. satellite feeds to Iran jammed
Jamming signals are coming from Cuba, sources say
By Robert Windrem
NBC NEWS PRODUCER,
July 11, 2003
NEW YORK - U.S. government officials as well as Iranian Americans and communications satellite operators confirm that all U.S.-based satellite broadcasts to Iran are being jammed out of Cuba, one of Iran's major allies and a nation increasingly dependent on Iranian oil.
"WE ARE well aware of the jamming," said one senior U.S. official familiar with intelligence on the matter. He said that it was almost certainly done as part of an effort by the Iranian government to eliminate dissent during a week of renewed student protests and the inauguration of Voice of America's Farsi-language television programming to Iran.
Asked if the jamming were being done out of Cuba, the official would only say that it was "within the realm of possibility."
Late Friday, however, three sources associated with the broadcast services confirmed that Loral Skynet, the operator of the Telstar-12 satellite used by the broadcasters, had determined the jamming was probably emanating from "the vicinity of Havana, Cuba."
One of the sources said that Loral, working with transmitter location expert TLS Inc. of Chantilly, Va., had further fixed the location as "20 miles outside of Havana." Cuba's main electronic eavesdropping base, at Bejucal, is about 20 miles outside of the Cuban capital. The base, built for Cuba by the Russians in the early 1990's, monitors and intercepts satellite communications.
Iran and Cuba have had increasingly close relations over the past several years with Iran supplying Cuba with oil. Cuba has extensive jamming experience, regularly interfering with the signal of the U.S. government-financed TV Marti.
Over the past several months, private Iranian-American groups have begun increasing their broadcasts into Iran using Telstar-12, a communications satellite over the eastern Atlantic. All are trying to encourage protests against the regime in Tehran.
Iranians, using small satellite dishes, have been able to receive the broadcast, whose mix of news, entertainment and exhortations to protest have gained a large audience, particularly in Tehran. Then on Sunday, the Voice of America began its Farsi-language broadcasts.
Not long afterward, the jamming began.
Over the past few days - as the fourth anniversary of the country's most widespread protests approached - the broadcasts have been jammed, not in Iran but in the Americas, according to officials and investigators.
Iranian students cancel protests
The Farsi language broadcasts, by the Los Angeles-based ParsTV, Azadi Television and Appadana TV, are uplinked in the US via Telstar-5, which is over the United States. They are then turned around at the Washington International Teleport in Alexandria, Va., where they are joined by the VOA broadcast and uplinked again to Telstar-12 over the eastern Atlantic Ocean.
It is the Telstar-12 uplink that is being jammed, say investigators for companies working with the broadcasters, cutting off broadcasts not only in Iran but in Europe and the rest of the Middle East as well. The jamming could emanate from anywhere within the satellite's uplink footprint, which covers all the Eastern United States, the Caribbean and South America, say investigators. In the past, the Iranian government, using high-power transmitters on towers in cities such as Tehran have been able to jam it locally. The fact that TV viewers elsewhere can't see it was the first hint that the jamming was happening on this side of the Atlantic. Encarta: Cuba profile
Loral, which operates the satellite, declined comment on what it is doing in response. But in a letter that Loral Skynet's Peggy Courter sent to Atlanta DTH, which manages the satellite services for Azadi, was quite clear in laying out its findings. The interference, it reported, had begun at 5:35 p.m. EDT on July 5, which was just after midnight in Tehran and shortly after the VOA began its broadcasts.
After running a series of tests, wrote Courter, "Skynet concluded the interference was caused by a third party" and asked TLS to investigate. TLS was able to find the "probable source of the interference" on Friday afternoon, identifying it as Havana.
"The jamming appears to be linked to the anniversary of the student uprisings," said one investigator for a company working with the broadcasters who preferred to remain anonymous. "It's malicious, not a prank. For us, it began yesterday, continues today. Not only are the Iranian signals jammed, but those of other nearby broadcasters are as well. We have a Chinese client who is being jammed.
"There are ways of determining the location of the interference," he added. "It is complex and time-consuming. Basically, you look at minimal interference other nearby satellites are experiencing and then you triangulate."
As for the actual jamming, its simply a matter of aiming a strong signal at the uplink transponder on the satellite and overwhelming the Farsi language broadcasters' signals.
Said the investigator: "You need a dish, some power, not too much. You put up a test pattern ... and do a sweep and find the transponder on the satellite you want to jam. It could even be smaller than the standard 6-meter dish. It could be a small dish with a lot of power."
BBC's Media Monitoring Service, which provides capsules of various foreign TV broadcasts for subscribers, described the jamming as "a mysterious, interfering signal, rendering the broadcasts unwatchable."
Pushing Iran risks a backlash
It reported problems began on Sunday, the day VOA began its broadcast, with the worst jamming taking place over the past two days with the jamming extending to all the Farsi-language broadcasts emanating from the United States.
Late Wednesday, monitors reported that jamming had become sporadic.
The anniversary of the student demonstrations, the largest since the fall of the shah in 1979, was Wednesday.
The senior U.S. official said the Iranian government "is concerned that these broadcasts have encouraged the student demonstrations and this is one way to stop that encouragement."
Robert Windrem is an investigative producer for NBC News, based in New York.
-------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS
-------- courts
Judges looking skeptically at some terrorism charges
Defendants are released as federal prosecutors' evidence is called weak
By Laura Sullivan
Baltimore Sun National Staff
July 11, 2003
http://www.sunspot.net/news/custom/attack/bal-te.justice11jul11,0,4551021.story?coll=bal-news-nation
WASHINGTON - When Justice Department officials held a news conference two weeks ago to say they had broken up a "Virginia jihad network," they called the group violent and dangerous and "a stark reminder that terrorist organizations of various allegiances are active in the United States."
But a week later, in what was expected to be a series of routine hearings, a federal magistrate judge, T. Rawles Jones Jr., ordered that five of the men be freed without bond until trial. Challenging their evidence, Jones rebuffed prosecutors' claim that the men posed a serious threat.
Three of the five have since been released. A fourth will appear today before Judge Leonie M. Brinkema in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., to contest prosecutors' appeal of his release. Brinkema has said she is inclined to let the man go until trial. She freed one of his co-defendants Tuesday.
For two judges, from one of the nation's most conservative federal courts, to free defendants in what prosecutors billed as a high-profile terrorism case was a rebuke to the Justice Department. It marked the first time the department had failed in its efforts to hold suspects on terrorism-related charges.
Some legal analysts suggest that after a long period since Sept. 11, 2001, during which the government enjoyed broad discretion to bring terrorism cases and to hold suspects, the pendulum is starting to swing the other way, with greater scrutiny of the government's evidence.
"The administration is having something of a boy-who-cried-wolf problem," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who has been involved in national security cases as a lawyer.
"The administration has been making these fairly outlandish claims to the public ... and it's caught up with them. The courts are beginning to balk."
The court's action follows a sharply critical report issued last month by the Justice Department's inspector general. The report found "significant problems" in the seizure of illegal immigrants after Sept. 11. It said many suspects who had no links to terrorists were jailed under severe conditions without access to a lawyer.
The inspector general also found that some senior Justice officials dismissed concerns raised by others in the department about whether such actions were legal.
Out of 762 people jailed, none was charged with terrorism, and most were deported after being held for months.
Taken together, Turley said, the rebukes are striking: "I think the government is shocked. When even the most pro-government circuit cannot be convinced [of the validity of the government's actions], it raises significant questions."
In the case of the "jihad network," the Justice Department charged 11 people, nine of them U.S. citizens, with stockpiling weapons and conspiring to train and take part in a holy war in support of a Kashmir terrorist group.
(Six of the men had been in custody, had been arrested outside the area or live in Saudi Arabia.)
Much of the evidence that surfaced at the bail hearings related to suspicions that the suspects practiced military tactics, including playing with toy paintball guns, and in some cases owned AK-47-style rifles.
Some of the men traveled to Pakistan to attend a training camp of the Kashmir separatist group before it was designated a terrorist organization by the State Department. Others have never traveled outside the United States. The government has never alleged that the group was plotting any attack in the United States.
The Justice Department, several officials said, was surprised by the court's unfavorable actions and has since sought to depict the case as less alarming than it had earlier. Department officials declined to appeal the release of two of the men, even after prosecutors had spent hours arguing that both men were violent and a flight risk.
But on the day of the news conference, Alice Fisher, deputy assistant attorney general of the department's criminal division, said, "This case demonstrates our strong commitment to disrupting potential terrorist activity."
"The indictment and arrests we are announcing today illustrate how we seek to back up our No. 1 priority - preventing terrorism - with action," she said.
The department has been under enormous pressure from the White House to prevent terrorist attacks. Justice officials have defended their actions in bringing charges and seeking detention in this and other cases as a way to thwart terrorism.
They contend that terrorists are unlikely to commit the kinds of major crimes that are easier to prosecute - such as shipping large illegal weapons or stockpiling biochemical agents - because they tend to try to blend in and avoid detection.
The department has faced steady criticism from legal and civil liberties groups for detaining defendants who are charged with offenses that could aid terrorists, such as identification fraud, but usually don't warrant keeping someone in custody.
"Initially, all the government had to do was say 'terrorism' and no judge would dream of having someone released," said David Cole, a professor of constitutional and criminal law at Georgetown University. Now, "there are signs that judges are looking more skeptically at the government's claims."
The government is also facing problems in its case against Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged in the United States with involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks.
The Justice Department had expected the case to take a few months. The case is now in its second year and has come to a virtual standstill since Brinkema issued a ruling in Moussaoui's favor.
In that ruling, Brinkema ordered the government to allow Moussaoui to question a top al-Qaida figure in custody who could bolster Moussaoui's claim that he did not conspire in the Sept. 11 plot. In response, the government is considering trying Moussaoui in a military tribunal, which would afford him sharply diminished rights.
Cole suggested that the government is beginning to lose credibility in the federal courts, which historically have deferred to the Justice Department.
A public perception is taking hold, he said, that the government has been "overplaying its hand."
"Immediately after 9-11, people were willing to give the government whatever powers it sought," Cole said. "But as more and more time passes, and with more and more stories of people being held without justification, those same people are beginning to say, 'Wait, we want to be safe, but we also want to be free.'"
-------- police
Show Ramsey the stats, not the money
July 11, 2003
WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030710-111625-6435r.htm
The D.C. Council voted 7-6 Tuesday to give Metropolitan Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey a raise, from $150,000 to $175,000 ("Council approves Ramsey's pay raise," Page 1, Wednesday). Does he rate this?
In 2002, D.C. homicides jumped to 262 from 2001's 232, a 13 percent increase. This made Washington the murder capital of the United States, replacing Detroit, which led the nation in 2001. To assess this, compare the District to New York City, using resources and results, on a per capita basis. Note that New York's 8 million population is 14 times the District's 575,000. Thus, we must multiply Washington's figures by 14 to get New York's per capita equivalent. So:
Resources: The New York Police Department has 39,110 officers; the District has 3,600 police officers. Multiplying the District's 3,600 police force by 14 to get the New York equivalent yields 50,400, nearly 30 percent more per capita resources than New York. (This does not, however, allow for the tasks performed by Capitol and park police forces and other specialized units, which free D.C. officers for other work.)
Results: New York had 584 murders in 2002 (down 11 percent from 2001's 649); multiply the District's 262 murders by 14, and the result is 3,668, or 6.3 times New York's per capita homicide rate.
Oh yes, Chief Ramsey's $175,000 salary puts him 8 percent above New York Police Chief Raymond Kelly's $162,000 per year.
To be fair, some 2002 D.C. statistics were atad better than in 2001: Violent crimes were down 2 percent from 2001; ditto property crimes. That brings to mind former Mayor Marion Barry's famous quip that D.C. crime statistics "are not so bad if you don't count the murders."
Enjoy life in the nation's capital.
-------- terrorism
Al-Qaida targeted Western forests, memo says
Hoped to set disastrous summer fires in U.S.
Judd Slivka
The Arizona Republic
Jul. 11, 2003
ttp://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0711forestterror11.html
National forests in the West were considered targets for al-Qaida attacks, according to an FBI memo to law enforcement agencies dated June 25.
A senior al-Qaida detainee told federal investigators he had developed a plan to set midsummer forest fires in Colorado, Montana, Utah and Wyoming, according to the document, obtained by The Arizona Republic.
"The detainee believed that significant damage to the U.S. economy would result and once it was realized that the fires were terrorist acts, U.S. citizens would put pressure on the U.S. government to change its policies," the memo said.
The unidentified detainee said he hoped to create several large, catastrophic wildfires at once, mimicking the destructive fires that swept across Australia in 2002, according to the memo.
The Forest Service took note of the warning, a spokeswoman said, but didn't really change any of its policies or operating patterns.
In fact, many forest law enforcement officers contacted by The Republic had no idea the warning had been issued at all.
"It goes along with the rest of the alerts," said Rose Davis, a spokeswoman for the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho. "It's a reminder to be vigilant. We hope the public is, too. If you see something suspicious in an airport, report it. Likewise, if you see something suspicious in a forest, report it."
But neither the interagency fire center nor the Forest Service chose to report the warning to the public. The decision to release the information was up to the FBI. A spokeswoman for the bureau's Denver office, which drew up the memo, declined to comment.
The al-Qaida detainee told investigators that his plan called for three or four operatives to travel to the United States and set timed explosive devices in forests and grasslands. The devices would be set to detonate after the operatives had left the country.
But the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Attorney's Office in Wyoming could not evaluate the source or the accuracy of the information. The detainee's admission may have been given as a smokescreen.
"The information provided may have been intended to influence as well as inform," the memo said.
In the days since Sept. 11, 2001, the idea of intentionally setting fires as a terrorist act has been bandied about in the fire community.
"I thought about it a lot after 9/11," said Don Riddle, the law enforcement officer for the Manti-LaSal National Forest in Utah. "How hard would it be for someone to get in a small plane and fly over a forest dropping fusees (flares) or firing off a flare gun as they flew over?"
With fires in the right place, they could be devastating, destroying homes and commercial timber areas. They would also tie up a significant amount of national resources.
"When fire season really gets rolling," Riddle said, "they call out the National Guard."
And when things really get bad - as they did in 2000, 2001 and last year - Army and Marine units get called out as emergency firefighters.
America's national forests have been targeted before. On Sept. 9, 1942, a plane launched from a Japanese submarine flew over Oregon's forests dropping incendiary bombs. The plan was to cause massive conflagrations in the forests that would be hard to fight because of their size and the lack of manpower. But the weather didn't cooperate, and the fires the Japanese set didn't spread very far.
Six decades later, the forests are in substantially worse shape, snarled with timber and tinder-dry. A bark beetle infestation across the West has made the forests even more susceptible to fire.
"This is not considered an immediate threat," said the National Interagency Fire Center's Davis. "But we do consider it another potential ignition source at a dangerous time."
Reach the reporter at judd.slivka@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-8097.
-------- ENERGY AND OTHER
-------- environment
Study Finds Power Plants Harm Life in the Hudson
July 11, 2003
New York Times
By AL BAKER
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/11/nyregion/11INDI.html
ALBANY, July 10 - A state environmental study has found that three power plants are causing the deaths of numerous fish and other life in the Hudson River each year by sucking in and spewing out river water to cool their condensers.
In the study, dated June 25, the State Department of Environmental Conservation acknowledged that the plants, including the Indian Point nuclear power complex, cause the death each year of billions of fish eggs, various larvae and, to a lesser degree, adult fish, according to the study's summary. Those deaths were found in a study of 5 of the more than 200 fish species in the river.
David K. Gordon, the senior lawyer for Riverkeeper, a nonprofit environmental organization that works to protect the Hudson River, said that the report would lay the groundwork for the D.E.C. to issue permits requiring upgraded cooling systems.
"That would minimize the massive fish kills," he said, adding that organisms generally were killed by being pulled into the plant's cooling system or pinned against the screens that cover intake tubes. "There is off-the-shelf technology that can reduce these fish kills by 97 percent, but the state has never required the power companies to install it."
The study, a final environmental impact statement, examined effects of three of the five major power plants along a biologically fertile 30-mile stretch of the river between Haverstraw and Newburgh. In addition to Indian Point, it examined the effects of the Bowline and Roseton plants, each with two 600-megawatt, oil-burning generators.
The study found that Indian Point, with its two 1,000-megawatt reactors, caused more than 1.2 billion annual deaths of fish, eggs and larvae from 1981 to 1987, Mr. Gordon said.
For decades, environmental groups have said that Indian Point has damaged the river's resources and killed millions of fish by sucking them into the plant along with up to 2.5 billion gallons of water each day, and by discharging heated water. Indian Point has disputed that claim.
The study outlines a number of solutions, including the use of cooling towers, minimizing water flow and building barrier systems.
But James F. X. Steets, spokesman for the utility, which is owned by the Entergy Corporation, said the plant had spent $50 million on scientific studies of the river in the past 25 years and had repeatedly found that the plant's effects on the river and on adult fish were negligible.
"There is some damage to the ecosystem," he said. "But the vast majority of what we draw in are fish eggs. That is what the complaint is. And the vast majority of total fish eggs die of natural causes."
He said the plant had installed water screens in the mid- and late-1980's and had begun using other technology to minimize fish deaths.
But the state's impact statement was immediately seized upon by those who want to shut the plant down. Richard L. Brodsky, a Democratic Assemblyman from Westchester County said, "This is the smoking gun that establishes the enormous and ongoing pollution of the river by Indian Point."
The state will now draft permits that require the plants to use the best technology available, as required under the federal Clean Water Act.
--------
New Drinking Water Rules to Cut Illness, Cancer Risks
WASHINGTON, DC,
July 11, 2003
(ENS)
http://ens-news.com/ens/jul2003/2003-07-11-09.asp#anchor1
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today proposed rules that would require drinking water systems to monitor for and increase protection against the microbe cryptosporidium while expanding the monitoring and control of disinfection byproducts. The two new rules will reduce the risk of illness from microbes and decrease cancer risks from chemicals that form during drinking water treatment, the agency said.
The EPA estimates that full implementation of one of the rules will reduce cases of cryptosporidiosis by over one million cases per year, and may prevent up to 140 premature deaths. The economic benefit is estimated at up to $1.4 billion annually.
EPA Acting Administrator Linda Fisher said, "These rules take the right approach toward minimizing and balancing the risks from microbial contamination and disinfection byproducts. They represent the culmination of more than a decade of analysis, research, and partnership focused on making the nation's drinking water safer."
The two new rules - the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2) and the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule - are required by the Safe Drinking Water Act. They were developed in partnership with water systems operators, environmental groups, state, and local health officials.
Cryptosporidium is a widespread waterborne pathogen that is resistant to common disinfectants like chlorine. Ingestion of cryptosporidium causes gastrointestinal illness - cryptosporidiosis. Health effects in sensitive populations, such as children, the elderly, and the immuno-compromised, can be severe, including risk of death, Fisher said.
New data on cryptosporidium indicate that most public water systems now provide sufficient treatment. The proposed LT2 rule requires additional treatment in drinking water systems that are at higher risk for the microbe. The additional treatment required under the LT2 rule may also reduce exposure to other pathogens, the agency said.
Annual costs of the LT2 rule are estimated to range from about $73.5 to $111 million. The average annual household cost is estimated to be $1.07 to $1.68 per year, with more than 98 percent of households experiencing annual costs of less than $12 per year.
The Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule contains a risk targeting approach to better identify monitoring sites where customers are exposed to high levels of disinfection byproducts, which have been linked both to bladder, rectal, and colon cancer and to a potential risk of reproductive and developmental health concerns.
The Stage 2 Rule will reduce the incidence of bladder cancer cases by up to 182 cases per year, the agency said, with an associated reduction of up to 47 premature deaths. The economic benefits from these avoided illnesses and deaths is estimated to be up to $986 million annually.
EPA Assistant Administrator for Water G. Tracy Mehan III said, "The Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule stresses the importance of addressing potential risks of miscarriage and fetal loss. Although the science is still uncertain, EPA must act on the weight of existing research to protect human life, and our efforts will be focused in this area in the coming years."
In other actions, the agency has concluded that the monitoring requirements for total coliform, an indicator of bacterial contamination of drinking water, should be revised.
In addition, the EPA has concluded a six year review of 69 drinking water regulations and has finalized regulatory determinations for nine contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List. The agency ruled that "at this time it is not appropriate to develop regulations" for acanthamoeba, aldrin, dieldrin, hexachlorobutadiene, manganese, metribuzin, naphthalene, sodium, and sulfate.
Two of those contaminants, aldrin and dieldrin, are supposed to be eliminated worldwide under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.
EPA's website has additional information on the proposed LT2 rule at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/lt2/index.html.
Information on the six year review is available at EPA's website: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/review.html,
and the information on the Contaminant Candidate List Regulatory Determinations is available on EPA's website at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/cclregdetermine.html.
-------- ACTIVISTS
African Demonstrator Breaches Security
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 11, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42637-2003Jul11?language=printer
ENTEBBE, Uganda, July 11 - The Secret Service today reported an unusual security breach on President Bush's Africa trip, as a demonstrator seeking access to Bush managed to sneak aboard the White House press charter from Pretoria to Uganda.
The man, whose name was not released, was African but his nationality was not immediately known. He was shouting angrily about South Africa when two Secret Service agents wrestled him away from the area where White House reporters and staff were working as Bush prepared to speak nearby. The man was earlier heard asking where the president was speaking.
Secret Service agent Mark Sullivan said the man had no passport and no weapon when he was detained. Sullivan said the man, who had no press credentials, sneaked aboard the press charter this morning to Entebbe and aboard the press buses to the Imperial Botanical Beach Hotel, where Bush was visiting.
A White House staff member who did not recognize the man reported him to the Secret Service. "He was never a threat to the president," Sullivan said. "He was never near the president."
Reporters traveling with the president have requested the White House direct the Secret Service to inspect the plane for weapons.
--------
ISRAELI PEACE ACTIVISTS RELEASED
INTERNATIONALS FACING DEPORTATION IN SUNDAY'S TRIAL
The International Solidarity Movement
July 11 2003
From: "e.h." <enigma@planet-save.com> To: info@gush-shalom.org
For immediate release
Outside the villages of Til and Iraq Bureen, in the area of Nablus, giant dirt roadblocks stand as a testimony to the desire of the Israeli army to isolate the inhabitants of the area, and prevent any communication with the outside world. Yesterday the efforts ofthe Israeli army was proven futile by the work of peace activists from around the world, including two from Israel itself.
Over 30 peace activists worked with the Palestinian inhabitants of the area to remove the roadblocks together and restore traffic and a small slice of normality.Unfortunatly, the Israeli army threatened violence almost immediatly by attempting to seize the mayor of Til, and the bulldozer owned by the village. After protracted negotiations, it was agreed that the Palestinians and internationals would replace the road block, in return for being allowed to return peacefully to their homes. As the work was nearing completion, the Israeli army reneged on their promises, and 6 peace activists were arrested attempting to protect the villagers.Since then, the internationals were brought before an initial hearing of the Ministry of the Interior at 1 o'clock in the morning, without either their respective consular representatives or legal representatives present.
Today the two Israeli activists, Avi Zer-Aviv and Aviv Kruglanski, were released from Ariel police station, where they were being held.
For those who are near enough: The deportation hearing for the internationals has been scheduled for Sunday, 1:30 in the afternoon at the Tel Aviv District Court (Weizman St., corner of Shaul Hamelech), under presiding Judge Fogelman. They will be represented by Attorneys Shammai Leibowitz and Yoni Lerman.
For "overseas readers" - you can at least phone to: Ariel police station, +972-39065444 or +972-3906530, or send a protest to your nearest Israeli Embassy; a directory of Israeli embassies and consulates can be found at: http://www.embassyworld.com/embassy/israel1.htm and alarm your own representatives
For more information contact:
Huwaida Arraf,
ISM Spokesperson 067 47 33 08
ISM Press Office 02 277 4602
-------
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!
-----------
Posted
without profit or payment for research and educational
purposes only,
in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107.