NucNews - May 14, 2005 -------- NUCLEAR -------- india THE SEVEN-YEAR N-ITCH HASN'T ENDED Praful Bidwai 'The News International' May 14, 2005 http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/may2005-daily/14-05-2005/oped/o5.htm Intro: The Pokharan-Chagai anniversary highlights the urgency of regional and global nuclear restraint and disarmament. As I write this on the seventh anniversary of the Pokharan-II tests, there is a visible lack of enthusiasm everywhere in India about celebrating the crossing of the nuclear threshold. Nor are many people making (or rather, inventing) connections between nuclear weapons, security, Great Power status, and the ability to influence global affairs. There was no official commemoration of May 11, the first day of the tests, although the day was, rather unfortunately, observed as "Science Day" by the Manmohan Singh government, in keeping with that designation given by the Vajpayee regime through a populist slogan. Among political organisations, the Bharatiya Janata Party alone held a meeting-a tame, poorly attended symposium marked by self-congratulatory speeches. On a prime-time television programme, in which I was a participant, a majority of those who SMSsed their opinion on Pokharan-II from different cities took a critical view of nuclearisation. The newspapers did not carry, as they earlier did, a spate of articles glorifying nuclear weapons and their supposed contribution to making India a great power. From Pakistan too comes some good news. Replicas of the Ghauri missile and the Chagai mountain have been quietly removed from Lahore. All this is welcome indeed. The new climate in India is explained partly by a sense of relaxation that many citizens feel thanks to improved relations with Pakistan, and partly by the fact that economic issues and concerns about the poor state of public services are displacing the middle class's obsession with security and the international "prestige" that nuclear weapons are supposed to bestow upon their possessors. After all, North Korea-which has recently suffered a colossal number of starvation deaths under an extraordinarily brutal and predatory dictatorship-is hardly a candidate for high global stature. However, none of this means that a change of policy is imminent in New Delhi, or that the elite's preference for nuclear weapons has greatly abated. Nor has the establishment's faith been shaken in the doctrine of nuclear deterrence or the utility or efficacy of nuclear weapons as a currency of power. The elite's psychological dependence on the "nuclear fix" continues. As things stand, India under its first non-BJP government since Pokharan-II is unlikely to go slow on its nuclear weapons programme, including the making and stockpiling of fissile material, production of bomb assemblies, and acquisition of delivery vehicles like aircraft, missiles and submarines. Accompanying these will be auxiliary programmes to develop command and control systems, with "Permissive Action Links" (codes authorising the arming of nuclear weapons) and to protect nuclear weapons and those who can authorise their use. And yet, a small aperture of opportunity may have opened, in which it becomes possible to question the wisdom of relying on nuclear weapons for security, and to urge a return to the global disarmament agenda, along with radical proposals for regional nuclear restraint, nuclear risk reduction and disarmament. This has happened for many reasons. First, each one of the assumptions and predictions made by the Bomb lobby in 1998 stands falsified. Nuclearisation has not imparted stability or maturity to India-Pakistan relations. These relations have improved, but in unsteady, precarious and reversible ways. The improvement owes nothing whatever to nuclear weapons. The prediction that nuclear weapons would reliably deter conventional conflict has been proved dangerously wrong, not once but twice-in Kargil, and again, in the 2002 eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation. In fact, nuclear weapons have encouraged crass adventurism in both countries. Some of our generals and admirals regard them as a shield or cover behind which to indulge in harassment of the adversary. Second, the operation of nuclear weapons programmes has proved that nukes not only don't replace conventional weapons, but are themselves extremely costly to make, transport, store and deploy. India's military budget has more than doubled in absolute terms since Pokharan-II. Pakistan's spending on defence has risen by a similar amount. This is just for starters. As their nuclear programmes proceed towards deployment and hair-trigger alert, military spending will skyrocket. With an arms race-in the Indian case, two races, the other being with China-, it could spiral out of control, ruinously, for all concerned. Third, there is a new government in New Delhi, which pledges a commitment in its National Common Minimum Programme to global nuclear disarmament. It is updating the Rajiv Gandhi Plan of 1988, which recommends strong regional restraint in the early stages of a 15-year process. At the same time, President Musharraf has argued for a nuclear weapons-free South Asia at least four times before the global public. These conditions favour an expansion of the peace constituency and a better dialogue on regional nuclear restraint. In India, the Left has (after a lot of hesitation) embraced the regional nuclear abolition agenda. So there is a well-regarded political agency to advance it. However, the peace constituency should know it faces several constraints and hurdles, besides its own small size. The official response to it in India and Pakistan will depend greatly on what happens internationally, especially at the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) Review Conference in session right now (until May 27). This is the second such conference being held after the NPT's indefinite extension in 1995. The first review pledged an "unequivocal" undertaking to eliminate nuclear arsenals and agreed on 13 steps to this end, including early entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, talks on a fissile material cutoff, the principle of irreversibility for nuclear disarmament, and establishment of a subsidiary body in the Geneva Conference on Disarmament to deal with nuclear disarmament. But today, the United States wants to repudiate the 13 steps. It says the resolution is merely "a historical document"; the NPT can only work if it allows the nuclear powers to keep their weapons, but strictly prevents non-nuclear weapons-states from having them! The present Conference has taken 10 days even to agree on an agenda. If it reiterates a genuine commitment to disarmament, and successfully addresses some new concerns, it will be a big success. (These concerns include the apparent ease of withdrawal from the treaty, its strict implementation, nuclear doctrine and disarmament, and safety and security of nuclear weapons.) If the conference ends without resolving any issues, it will generate widespread despair and cynicism, lowering the chances of any regional-level progress in South Asia. A positive outcome in New York will halt the process of "creeping acceptance" of India and Pakistan as members of the Nuclear Club. It could create incentives for regional-level elimination of nuclear arms. To use that opportunity, peaceniks in India and Pakistan must gear themselves up to intervene at the policy level, through advocacy and lobbying among Members of Parliament, bureaucrats, ministers and even armed forces personnel. If they can show small victories, they will gain a great deal. One potential area for a good campaign is the "No-No" idea proposed by none other than Musharraf: India does not buy F-16s/F-18s from the US, and then Pakistan won't acquire any missiles either. This is a worthy demand to make and win. Such small victories could give the peace constituency the strength it needs to fight the menace of nuclear weapons in South Asia -------- korea North Korea Distrustful of U.S. Overture The Associated Press Saturday, May 14, 2005; 1:38 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/14/AR2005051400450_pf.html SEOUL, South Korea -- North Korea said Saturday that Washington's reassurances about recognizing its independence were a trick meant to conceal a U.S. plan to topple the communist government. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said earlier this month that "the United States, of course, recognizes that North Korea is sovereign" _ a remark seen as a gesture to coax the North to return to nuclear disarmament negotiations with five other nations. Rice's "loudmouthed recognition of the sovereign state and the like were nothing but a ruse to conceal the U.S. attempt at bringing down (North Korea's) regime," said an unidentified spokesman for North Korea's Foreign Ministry. The spokesman said Rice was either "ignorant" or a "brazen-faced liar" and criticized a "U.S. attempt at a military invasion" of North Korea, the North's official Korean Central News Agency reported. The communist state declared Feb. 10 that it has nuclear weapons and would indefinitely boycott the six-nation disarmament talks _ involving the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia _ until the United States dropped its "hostile" policy toward it. Washington has repeatedly said it has no intention of invading the North. The North's nuclear claim has not been verified, but U.S. intelligence and other estimates say North Korea has as many as six atomic weapons. The North Korean spokesman also blamed "U.S. noncompliance" for the collapse of a 1994 deal between the countries in which North Korea agreed to stop its nuclear weapons development in exchange for aid. In a separate commentary Saturday in the state-run Minju Joson newspaper, the North said it would "steadfastly keep to the path of its own choice as urgently required by the reality." "The U.S. would be well-advised to clearly understand the gravity of the situation and behave itself," said the commentary, carried by KCNA. The current standoff was sparked in late 2002 after U.S. officials accused North Korea of running a secret uranium enrichment program. Also Saturday, the North asked South Korea to participate in talks next week, which would be a resumption of their dialogue after a 10-month hiatus, North Korea's news agency said. The talks would be held Monday and Tuesday in the North Korean border city of Kaesong. Southern officials will tell those from the North of growing international concern about the nuclear standoff and will urge Pyongyang to return to the six-nation talks that have been stalled for nearly a year, officials in the South said. Dialogue between the two Koreas was suspended in July after mass defections to South Korea from the North that Pyongyang labeled kidnappings. "First, there will be discussions on measures to normalize relations between the South and the North," Vice Unification Minister Rhee Bong-jo told reporters. "We will also convey our position on the North Korean nuclear issue." Rhee will lead the South Korean delegation to the talks in Kaesong, site of a joint economic zone run by both Koreas. -------- treaties Strengthen the NPT – or Else by Gordon Prather, May 14, 2005 Antiwar.com http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=5951 One of the more hilarious charges leveled against Bonkers Bolton recently was that he was too preoccupied with winning confirmation as ambassador to the United Nations to prepare the U.S. delegation for the Seventh Review Conference of the Treaty on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Levelers of this charge assume that Bush and Bolton want to strengthen the NPT. Wrong. There was entirely too much "strengthening" of the NPT at the Sixth RevCon, five years ago, to suit Bush-Bolton. The final report of the Sixth RevCon began by reaffirming the recommendations contained in the final report of the Fifth Revcon. But it took delegates to the Seventh RevCon two weeks to even agree on an agenda because the U.S. delegation – led by a Bolton underling named Rademaker – didn’t want the final report of the Sixth RevCon to even be discussed, much less be reaffirmed. Sergio Duarte of Brazil, president of the Seventh RevCon, claims the resulting agenda, wherein "the review will be conducted in the light of the decisions and the resolution of previous conferences," "met the concerns of delegations who had stressed that the decisions of past review conferences – particularly those of 1995 and 2000 on a nuclear weapons-free Middle East and '13 practical steps' toward disarmament – not be diminished in any way." Among other things, the Sixth RevCon Report affirmed: "An unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon states to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all states parties are committed under Article VI." Disarm? "The importance and urgency of signatures and ratifications, without delay and without conditions and in accordance with constitutional processes, to achieve the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty." Ratify the CTBT? "The [Sixth] Conference reaffirms that IAEA is the competent authority responsible for verifying and assuring … compliance with its safeguards agreements … with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.… It is the conviction of the Conference that nothing should be done to undermine the authority of IAEA in this regard." Don’t challenge the authority of the IAEA? "The [Sixth] Conference notes the reaffirmation by the nuclear-weapon states of their commitment to the United Nations Security Council resolution 984 (1995) on security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon states parties to the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons." Give assurances to Iran that we won’t attack them with nuclear weapons? Anyone who thinks Bush-Bolton want to strengthen a treaty that already makes such demands on us is as crazy as the Likudniks. So Bolton underling Rademaker told the Seventh RevCon, "The NPT is fundamentally a treaty for mutual security. It is clear that the security of all member states depends on unstinting adherence to the treaty’s nonproliferation norms by all other parties. The treaty’s principal beneficiaries are those member states that do not possess nuclear weapons because they can be assured that their neighbors also do not possess nuclear weapons. "Strict compliance with nonproliferation obligations is essential to regional stability, to forestalling nuclear arms races, and to preventing resources needed for economic development from being squandered in a destabilizing and economically unproductive pursuit of weapons." Wait a minute. What was that about "preventing resources from being squandered"? You heard right. It is the Bush-Bolton-Likudnik position that Iran is in noncompliance with the NPT because they have contracted with Russia to construct nuclear power plants at Bushehr. Iran is oil-rich. Therefore, Iran doesn’t need nuclear power plants. Therefore Iran must have a nuclear weapons program. So if the NPT doesn’t already prevent the Iranians from "squandering" resources in "economically unproductive" activities, then it must be modified so that it does. What if the Seventh RevCon refuses to make this and other Bush-Bolton modifications to the NPT? Well, Rademaker suggested the Seventh RevCon endorse the Bush-Bolton Proliferation Security Initiative as an alternative. The Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) is a global effort that aims to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their delivery systems, and related materials worldwide. Announced by President Bush on May 31, 2003, it stems from the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction issued in December 2002. "That strategy recognizes the need for more robust tools to defeat the proliferation of WMD around the world, and specifically identifies interdiction as an area where greater focus will be placed." More robust tools? Like preemptive strikes against "economically unproductive" activities in Iran? Stay tuned, especially during June and July. -------- u.n. The Bush-Bolton Plan to Bomb Bushehr Memo To: Republican Senators From: Jude Wanniski Re: With Tony Blair’s Support http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8852.htm 05/14/05 "Wanniski.com"- - Buried down in today’s New York Times report on President Bush reaffirming his unqualified support for John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador is the reason why almost all of you are ready to vote for his confirmation. “Republicans are hoping to shame Democrats into a quick vote on Mr. Bolton. They argue that he needs to be in place by June so that the United States will have the latitude it needs to press its concerns about Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program before the Security Council.” Why the big rush? My reliable sources tell me it is because there is a timetable that makes it urgent for Bolton to be ready for action in June in order to cripple the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) as part of the plan to bomb the Iranian nuclear-power plant at Bushehr. That’s because Bushehr, under construction with Russian supervision, will soon be ready to receive the Russian fissionable material enabling it to produce power. In 1981, remember Republican Senators, Israel bombed the Osiraq nuclear power plant near Baghdad just before it was to be fueled by its French contractors. Once fueled, bombing is out of the question because of the radiation that would be emitted, with clouds traveling who knows where. Of course you must know by now that at the time the Israelis blew up Osiraq, the situation was quite different. We were in the midst of the Cold War, the United States was supporting Iraq in its war against Iran, and the Russians were supporting Iran. So when the billion-dollar Osiraq plant went up in smoke (with the help of the neo-cons who were already occupying the Pentagon in that first year of the Reagan administration), there was no reaction from Russia because the Israelis were essentially bombing us!! We also know by now that Iraq did not have a nuclear weapons program at the time, but only began its (unsuccessful) clandestine effort after Osiraq. The same is now true of Iran. If a month or two from now you are advised by President Bush that it is necessary to take out Bushehr to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, you would have to wonder if the neo-cons and their Likud allies in Tel Aviv aren’t simply threatening World War III on a faulty premise. Wouldn’t you. The situation now is quite different, with Bushehr a Russian project in Iran. On a recent, quite incredible FoxNews special, Lieut. General Thomas McInerney said we are already moving aircraft carriers into positions from which we could strike. He was then asked: “If you had to put a percentage on it, the chances that the US will eventually have to take military actions against Iran, what would you put it at?” to which McInerney replied casually: “Well, I would put one percent of using ground forces, boots on the ground in Iran, I would put up 50 percent on a blockade and I would put up fifty to sixty percent on precision air strikes on their nuclear development sites.” He also observed casually that Iran wouldn’t dare take on the United States. Perhaps the 60 million Iranians would greet our bombers with garlands and sweets. Do you see what I mean? FoxNews, as you may know, is commonly known as "The War Channel," for similar work it did in promoting the war against Iraq. Is Iran this kind of threat to anyone? As far as I can tell, ladies and gentlemen of the GOP Senate, the answer is “absolutely not,” at least as long as they remain members in good standing of the NPT, which means they will permit the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect intrusively and constantly, as they have been doing. It has been the mission of John Bolton and his underling, Stephen Rademaker, to “reform” the United Nations in a way that dissolves the NPT and the need for the IAEA, not only to pave the way for the bombing of Bushehr, but also to get out from under the NPT provisions that require all the nuclear-weapon powers to make progress toward making the world a nuclear-free zone. If you wish to really understand what’s going on, instead of getting briefed by the same people who briefed you prior to the invasion of Iraq, please read Dr. Gordon Prather’s commentaries on the crisis just around the corner. First, on WorldNetDaily.com, he writes Strengthen the NPT -- Or Else, in which he walks us through the misinformation that Bolton, Rademaker and the neo-cons have been spreading on Iran’s alleged violations of its treaty obligations. Dr. Prather, who by the way came to Washington under the patronage of Sen. Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, and is no left-wing liberal, also penned a second column today for antiwar.com, Bush-Blairs Nutty U.N. Proposal, which you have to read to realize how “nutty” it is. There is also today on the antiwar.com website today an overview of this looming crisis that I highly recommend, as it was highly recommended to me by Dr. Prather, The Iran Crisis in Global Context. If you and your staffs do take my suggestions seriously and go to these links, I think you may have greater doubts about the Bolton nomination than you have now. If you have any doubts about Dr. Prather, check with your colleague, Senator Domenici, who was instrumental back in getting Prather an appointment as the Army’s chief scientist during the Reagan administration. This isn’t too much to ask, is it? For good measure, I’d hope those of you who are reading this memo to the GOP Senators and are among their constituents would urge them to take a second look before they send Bolton to the United Nations. His mission is not to clean up the so-called “Oil-for-Food Scandal” or promote UNICEF gift cards. It is to bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran after undermining the work of IAEA and the need for the NPT. -------- u.s. nuc weapons Setbacks On Hill For Bunker Buster By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, May 14, 2005; A04 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051301409_pf.html The Bush administration's program to complete a study of the viability of an earth-penetrating nuclear warhead designed to go after deeply buried targets was set back this week as House and Senate committees marked up the fiscal 2006 defense authorization bill. Funding was approved for another controversial nuclear weapons program, to research ways to produce what is called the reliable replacement warhead (RRW) for currently stockpiled weapons. But the approval came with limitations to ease fears that any product that emerged would require resumption of nuclear testing. At the same time, legislators indicated they will continue pushing the Bush administration to come up with a comprehensive nuclear weapons policy for the future, something Congress asked for in legislation passed last year. The Bush administration has requested $4 million next year to permit the Energy Department to restart the feasibility study of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP), which Congress refused to fund last year. On Thursday, the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee, which in the past had supported the RNEP program, refused to approve the money for the Energy Department. Instead, the panel voted to transfer the $4 million to the Defense Department for the Pentagon to study the potential for a conventional rather than a nuclear bunker buster. In a compromise to get full committee support, the subcommittee approved $4.5 million requested by the Air Force to develop modifications on the B-2 strategic bomber. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a leader in the effort to eliminate the nuclear bunker buster, on Thursday called including those funds "a waste" of taxpayer dollars. Yesterday, however, the Senate Armed Services Committee complicated the RNEP situation by approving the $4 million for Energy to continue the study but eliminating the $4.5 million for B-2 modifications. This week, House Armed Services and House Appropriations subcommittees also dealt with Energy's replacement warhead program, which aims to upgrade the aging U.S. stockpile by developing new components. Last month, Linton Brooks, head of the National Nuclear Security Administration, told a Senate subcommittee that the administration wants to "explore whether there is a better way to sustain existing military capabilities in our stockpile, absent nuclear testing." The House Armed Services subcommittee was concerned that such a program could lead to building a new warhead, which could in turn require nuclear testing. This week, the panel included legislative language requiring that the warhead program support existing capabilities and focus on parts of the warheads that have been tested and are well understood. The panel also required a follow-up report in a year on the results of the $8.9 million research program. Rep. Terry Everett (R-Ala.), chairman of the Armed Services subcommittee, said, "This [RRW] program will develop reliable replacement components that are producible and certifiable for the existing nuclear weapons stockpile." Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a panel member concerned about the program, said yesterday that "the jury is still out" on whether the program can avoid testing. "I remain skeptical, but the parameters established today mark a critical step toward helping us determine if the RRW has value in reducing America's nuclear stockpile," she said. Yesterday, the Senate Armed Services Committee also authorized the RRW funding and included its own language that would focus the research on current warheads. -------- MILITARY -------- afghanistan Afghan Protests Spread Eight More Killed In Anti-U.S. Riots By N.C. Aizenman and Robin Wright Washington Post Foreign Service Saturday, May 14, 2005; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051300301.html QALAT, Afghanistan, May 13 -- Angry mobs ransacked government offices and relief agencies and clashed with police in several provinces Friday in a fourth day of growing anti-American demonstrations. The violence left at least eight people dead and raised the death toll since Wednesday to about 15, officials said. The demonstrations represent the most widespread expression of anti-American sentiment since U.S.-led troops ousted the Islamic Taliban militia in late 2001. They have caused growing worry for the Western-backed government of President Hamid Karzai, who is due to visit Washington later this month. The protests erupted Wednesday in the eastern city of Jalalabad and have now spread to the capital, Kabul, and four other areas. Demonstrations also took place in other Muslim countries Friday, although no serious violence was reported. Protesters gathered in several cities in Pakistan, as well as in Indonesia and the Palestinian territories. The protests were sparked by a May 9 report in Newsweek magazine that interrogators at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had placed copies of the Koran in bathrooms and flushed one text down a toilet. Many of the detainees at Guantanamo are Afghans, and stories of American interrogators desecrating the Koran to extract confessions have circulated since at least early 2003, when some released prisoners returned to Afghanistan. But the Newsweek report has gained currency here since being fueled by broadcasts on Taliban radio and stoked by clerics who used Friday prayer sessions to call the demonstrations justified. Some U.S. officials and analysts said the report, which appeared as a small item in Newsweek, was being manipulated as a way to inflame passions and undercut Karzai's authority ahead of his U.S. trip. At the Pentagon, Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters that the rioting in Afghanistan could be related to domestic Afghan politics. A State Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the demonstrations in Pakistan were being manipulated by al Qaeda supporters in retaliation for the arrest last week of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, identified as a senior al Qaeda leader, along with 10 other suspected terrorists. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday that U.S. officials "share and understand" Muslim concerns. "Disrespect for the holy Koran is something that the United States will never tolerate," he told reporters. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said this week that the military was investigating the allegations that American interrogators desecrated the Koran. She said that if they "are proven true, we will take appropriate action." In Afghanistan, security experts warned that the violence could severely hamper international efforts to rebuild Afghanistan after decades of war. Offices of relief agencies in several cities have been attacked and evacuated this week. "National and international security forces do not seem to be able to contain this," said Nick Downie, an official of the Afghanistan Non-Governmental Organization Security Office, speaking from Kabul. He said aid workers were "feeling a risk to their life" and have now pulled out of some high-risk areas. Although Islamic clerics urged protesters to refrain from violence in their Friday sermons, protests broke out in scattered regions. In northeastern Badakhshan province, officials said hundreds of men attempted to pillage and torch three international relief agencies after Friday prayers. The provincial governor, Abdul Majid, said by telephone that police shot at the protesters, killing three and injuring 13. A staff member at one aid group, Afghan Aid, said equipment was smashed but workers fled to safety. In the city of Ghazni, 75 miles south of Kabul, shooting broke out after protesters stoned a police station and the governor's residence, crying, "Death to America," according to the Associated Press. Two civilians and a police officer were fatally shot and 21 people were wounded, the news agency reported. One protester was killed in a clash with police and government soldiers in the town of Gardez, also south of the capital, and another man was killed in Qala-e Nau, the capital of far northwestern Badghis province, when police opened fire on a demonstration. Lt. Cindy Moore, a spokeswoman for the U.S. military in Afghanistan, said in Kabul that U.S. officials were still trying to determine whether the demonstrations were spontaneous or coordinated. Afghan officials asserted that deeper forces were at work. "This is organized by particular groups who are the enemies of Afghanistan," Interior Ministry spokesman Lutfullah Mashal told the Associated Press. "They are trying to show that the situation, that security, is not good." American officials have hastened to declare the U.S. government's respect for Islam and the rights of Muslims to worship, even within U.S. military prisons. U.S. officials offered various interpretations of the protests. The State Department official said anti-American groups in Pakistan were exploiting the Newsweek report to "swat back" at Washington and Islamabad, but that the incident had "lit a flame under what a lot of Muslims believe -- that Americans do not respect Islam." Myers said U.S. military officials in Afghanistan believed the protests might be linked to political reconciliation issues. Karzai has been attempting to woo some ex-Taliban leaders back to public life, but Afghan and U.S. forces have faced a new series of attacks by Taliban fighters. The governments of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia appealed for calm, but Muslim governments also expressed concern about the Koran desecration reports. A Saudi official called for measures to prevent a recurrence and to "protect the sentiments of Muslims all over the world." The protests have come at a delicate time for U.S. relations with the Islamic world, where the Bush administration is trying to promote democracy and combat terrorism. Muslim allies such as the Afghan and Pakistani governments must balance support for U.S. goals and responsiveness to domestic criticism that they are slavish to American demands. Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy in Washington, said a "serious investigation" of the Guantanamo allegations was needed because the incident "strengthens the voice" of extremists who say the United States is "not serious in promoting freedom and democracy in the Muslim world." Wright reported from Washington. -------- un In Face of Opposition, Bush Renews Support for Bolton By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG May 14, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/14/politics/14bolton.html?pagewanted=print WASHINGTON, May 13 - The White House on Friday renewed its defense of John R. Bolton, President Bush's choice for ambassador to the United Nations, urging the Senate to confirm him quickly even as leading Democrats vowed to stall the vote until the State Department turned over certain classified documents. "We believe there is a majority of the Senate that agrees with the president that John Bolton is exactly the person we need at the United Nations during this critical time of reform," President Bush's spokesman, Scott McClellan, said, adding that he hoped that "Democrats wouldn't try to play politics with this nomination." But Mr. Bolton's future was very much hanging in the balance on Friday, while Republicans and Democrats in the Senate tried to figure out their next steps. The Republican leadership is hoping to have him confirmed by the end of the month. But with a showdown over judicial confirmations looming, and a decision by Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, to place an indefinite hold on the nomination, a quick confirmation is hardly assured. At issue is Mr. Bolton's temperament and management style, along with accusations that he mistreated employees when they disagreed with his assessments about intelligence. On Thursday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee took the unusual step of sending his nomination to the full Senate without an endorsement after a crucial Republican, Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio, denounced him as unfit for the job. The committee's action was a setback for both Mr. Bolton and Mr. Bush. The president had made a personal plea to Mr. Voinovich on the eve of the vote - after the senator had already told Republican leaders he would not support Mr. Bolton. Despite his conversation with the president, Mr. Voinovich denounced Mr. Bolton in the most scathing terms, calling him "the poster child for what someone in the diplomatic corps should not be." On Friday, Mr. McClellan was asked if Mr. Bush considered the outcome a defeat. "The president had a good conversation with the senator the other day," Mr. McClellan said. "We respect his decision. But there are many others who agree that the president appointed exactly the kind of person that we need up at the United Nations during this time when they're moving forward on reform." What happens next depends, in part, on negotiations between Senate Democrats and the State Department. That, in turn, will involve Senator Boxer and the hold she has placed on the nomination. Under Senate rules, any senator can place a hold on any nomination. The hold can be lifted either by the votes of 60 senators or by the senator who called for it. With only 55 seats in the Senate, the Republicans are not likely to win a vote. And Ms. Boxer said Friday that she would maintain the hold until the State Department turned over certain classified documents, including those relating to Mr. Bolton's dealings with American intelligence agencies over Syria. But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has so far refused to release the files, saying their disclosure would have a chilling effect on debates within the administration. On Friday, the State Department spokesman, Richard A. Boucher, held fast to that argument, saying, "We don't think anything further is required before the floor vote." Mr. Bolton's chances for a floor vote are complicated by the fight between Democrats and Republicans over Mr. Bush's judicial nominees. Democrats have vowed to slow Senate business to a crawl if Republicans exercise a rule change to prevent them from using the filibuster to block judges from confirmation. Aides to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, say he wants to vote on Mr. Bolton after the fight over the judges but before the Memorial Day recess. Some Democrats say that a filibuster against Mr. Bolton's nomination is unlikely. With Republicans already accusing Democrats of overusing the tactic, they do not want to look filibuster-happy. But a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said Friday that Mr. Reid had not ruled a filibuster out, and Senator Boxer agreed. "Everything's on the table," she said. Republicans are hoping to shame Democrats into a quick vote on Mr. Bolton. They argue that he needs to be in place by June so that the United States will have the latitude it needs to press its concerns about Iran's suspected nuclear weapons program before the Security Council. But Ms. Boxer said Democrats were hoping Mr. Voinovich's pointed speech would prompt other Republicans who have expressed doubts about Mr. Bolton to vote against him. "I think that George Voinovich's speech was momentous in laying out the case against this nominee," she said. -------- us Walter Reed a target under Pentagon plan May 14, 2005 By S.A. Miller and Tarron Lively THE WASHINGTON TIMES The Pentagon yesterday proposed closing Walter Reed Army Medical Center, which has operated for nearly a century in the District, and several small installations in Virginia and Maryland as part of its base restructuring plan. Maryland would see several small bases closed but would gain more than 9,000 jobs at installations such as Fort Meade and Aberdeen Proving Ground under recommendations by the Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC). In addition, Virginia would gain military jobs but would lose some civilian jobs overall under the plan, which includes closing Fort Monroe, the third-largest employer in Hampton. Defense officials said the government could eventually save $100 million a year by closing Walter Reed Medical Center, arguably the military's most famous hospital. Hundreds of soldiers have been treated there for wounds they suffered during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than 2,600 military personnel and 2,300 civilian workers would be transferred or lose their jobs at Walter Reed under the BRAC plan. D.C. Mayor Anthony A. Williams said it would be a "terrible shame" to see the hospital close, adding that he hopes to persuade Congress to keep it open. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld yesterday announced the base closings and consolidations, which must be approved by Congress and the president to take effect. However, Congress is required to accept or reject the BRAC plan in its entirety. Closing Walter Reed would require moving some of its staff and services to an expanded health care facility at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. The new facility would retain the Walter Reed name, officials said. "We remain committed to taking care of our people, doing what's right for our soldiers, our military and our nation," said Maj. Gen. Kenneth L. Farmer Jr., commander of the North Atlantic Region Medical Command and Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The proposed closure was a blow to some of Walter Reed's workers and neighbors. "It's mind-boggling," said Navy veteran Harold Thompson, 25, who lives across the street from the hospital, where he visits his doctor. "It will be a real issue for me and other people in the neighborhood if Walter Reed shuts down." Walter Reed is by far the largest D.C. facility on the realignment list. But the Pentagon also wants to realign Bolling Air Force Base, the Potomac Annex, the Naval District of Washington and some leased office space. In all, the moves would affect 6,538 military and civilian employees — the vast majority at Walter Reed. Virginia, which has the most military installations per capita in the nation, would gain more than 5,000 military jobs and lose nearly 9,000 civilian jobs. "I think we did pretty well," Gov. Mark Warner said. Mr. Warner, a Democrat, vowed to lobby to save Fort Monroe, which dates to the early 1800s and employs more than 6,800 people as headquarters for the Army's Training and Doctrine Command. But he said the base, situated on a peninsula extending into the Chesapeake Bay, could be put to other use. "[Y]ou have to remember, that is probably some of the most valuable real estate in the state," he said. "It is not like it is in a rural, isolated area." In Northern Virginia, Rep. James P. Moran said the plan would not only cost that region more than 20,000 jobs and billions of dollars, it would compromise national security. "We've created a successful brain trust around the Pentagon ... to break up that nexis will leave our military on shakier ground, thereby hampering the robust defense of our country," the Virginia Democrat said. Proposed closures in Maryland include the Patuxent River Defense Finance and Accounting Service (a loss of 53 civilian jobs), the Navy Reserve Center in Adelphi (a loss of 17 military jobs) and the PFC Flair U.S. Army Reserve Center in Frederick (a loss 20 military jobs and two civilian jobs). The state would lose 1,570 military jobs but gain more than 9,000 civilian jobs. For example, Aberdeen Proving Ground would lose 3,411 military jobs and gain 5,371 civilian ones. Fort Meade would gain 682 military and about 3,000 civilian jobs. Andrews Air Force Base would gain 191 military and 300 civilian jobs. "This announcement ... reaffirms the central role our military installations play in the war on terror," said Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr., a Republican. "We welcome the increased military presence coming to the state and are excited for the prospects that come with our expansions." • This article is based in part on wire service reports. ---- Base closures will empty offices May 14, 2005 By Tom Ramstack THE WASHINGTON TIMES http://www.washtimes.com/business/20050513-104744-7617r.htm Arlington County would lose nearly 10 percent of its work force and the same percentage of its office leases under the Defense Department plan announced yesterday to reassign military bases and workers nationwide. The Defense Department leases about 8 million square feet of office space in 140 Northern Virginia buildings, most of them in Arlington County. The department plans to vacate the commercial buildings over the next six years and move workers to military bases for both security and cost-efficiency reasons. The Virginia base that would be closed is Fort Monroe, near Hampton, Va. Some of the workers would be moved to nearby Fort Belvoir and Fort Meade in Anne Arundel County, Md. Fort Belvoir, for example, would gain 18,420 new military and civilian employees. Fort Meade would gain 5,361 new workers under the Base Realignment and Closure Commission plan described by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Mr. Rumsfeld said the Defense Department would save $48 billion over 20 years with the reassignment of personnel. However, some Virginia politicians oppose the plan. "It is estimated that the BRAC recommendations will cause Northern Virginia to lose over 20,000 jobs and billions in related spending and contracts," said Rep. James P. Moran, Virginia Democrat. "I am opposed to Rumsfeld's targeting of this lease space and will take whatever actions available to prevent these defense agencies from relocating out of the region." Jay Fisette, chairman of the Arlington County Board of Supervisors, said he believes Arlington County can "backfill" the lost Defense Department office leases with companies and government agencies. "We have a lot of federal work force here beyond [Department of Defense]," Mr. Fisette said. Planned projects for Arlington County in the next several years include a new Environmental Protection Agency headquarters and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. building. Major corporations planning to move to the county include corporate adviser Corporate Executive Board. Public broadcaster PBS also plans to move to the county. The base-closing recommendations include new security standards for buildings used by military personnel. Buildings not on military bases would be required to be set back from roadways to avoid risks of vehicle bombs. They could include no ground-level retail stores, and underground parking design and access would be restricted. The new standards already are required for new construction. They will be required for newly leased buildings in October and for lease renewals in 2009. Arlington County and Washington-area real estate officials said no office buildings in the Washington area meet those standards. "There's only so much they can do in an urban area," said Sandy Paul, vice president of Delta Associates, an Alexandria real estate research firm. "They're more interested in having people in a campus setting where you can control security better, as opposed to someplace like Crystal City, where you have a lot of offices on top of one another." Mr. Fisette called the standards "misguided." The board prefers options such as better security technology and limiting the new standards to "mission critical" defense facilities, instead of nearly all buildings and employees. ---- For Shipyard and Region, Shock and Vow to Fight By PAM BELLUCK May 14, 2005 NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/14/national/14navy.html?pagewanted=print KITTERY, Me., May 13 - For 32 years, Wayne Countryman has worked at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard here, and he has certainly heard the rumors before, whisperings and worries that the shipyard might end up on the Pentagon chopping block. But Mr. Countryman, a 57-year-old pipe fitter for nuclear submarines, was still stunned when the news came on Friday that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had recommended shutting down Portsmouth, the country's oldest naval shipyard and an employer of some 4,800 people from Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. "We're patriotic up here," said Mr. Countryman, scooping coleslaw off his plate during lunch at the Crooked Lane Cafe, which perches on the Piscataqua River just outside the gates of the 205-year-old shipyard. "We feel like we are doing something for the country. It's more than just a job to these people." Mr. Countryman joined hundreds of shipyard workers to rally in protest on the windy waterfront on Friday, hours after the Pentagon's announcement. And like the devastated mayors, councilmembers, Chamber of Commerce officials, and legislators from across Maine and New Hampshire, he said he was most taken aback because people here consider the Portsmouth yard to be state of the art. Long gone are the wooden sailing ships it built when it was founded. In their place are nuclear-powered submarines, which workers at the shipyard refurbish and refuel. "We're smaller. We're neater. We're cheaper. We do anything the Navy wants," he said. "Most of us have traveled to help other shipyards out, all the way to Pearl Harbor. I think the country is being betrayed here. If they are going to close this place, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face." Indeed, everyone here was buzzing about the bitter irony that just one day earlier, the secretary of the Navy gave Portsmouth a commendation for meritorious service, proclaiming that its workers "consistently and superbly performed their mission while establishing a phenomenal record of cost, schedule, quality and safety performance." Across the country, communities grappled with similar threats to cherished bases, integral to their lifeblood and livelihood. South Dakota faced the closure of Ellsworth Air Force Base, the state's second-largest employer. In Mississippi, the possible demise of the Naval Station in Pascagoula, long a protectorate of Senator Trent Lott, threatened economic shock. Connecticut faced the loss of the Naval Submarine Base in Groton, along with the loss of thousands of jobs. Portsmouth narrowly avoided being shut down in the 1995 base-closing round. But military officials said on Friday that the Navy will be building and operating fewer ships over the next 20 years and that Portsmouth became a casualty of the smaller fleet. The Navy will still have shipyards in Norfolk, Va.; Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; and Bremerton, Wash., on Puget Sound. After first deciding to close either Portsmouth or Pearl Harbor, the Navy chose Portsmouth because closing it would still leave one shipyard on the East Coast, in Norfolk, according to officials briefed on the plan. "The claim they've been making all along is it's not enough work to justify having four public yards and one of them has to close," said Representative Tom Allen, Democrat of Maine. "Essentially they said two of the yards, Puget and Norfolk, had other kinds of activities that made them inappropriate to close, and it came down to Hawaii versus Portsmouth." In the towns surrounding the Portsmouth shipyard, which has a payroll of $318 million, the closure would undoubtedly affect both the shipyard workers and the businesses that rely on them. The shipyard offers stable, skilled and high-paying blue-collar jobs, which would be hard to replicate in towns like Kittery and Sanford, Me. And with several other bases in New England also on the closure list, Portsmouth workers said they feared they might find that the only jobs in their field require moving out of the region. "My husband will probably have to leave the field," said Wendy Tapley, whose husband, Brian, 44, has been an assistant fire chief at the shipyard for more than 25 years, with an income his wife called crucial to their ability to raise their two children. "But I don't know what he will do. He gets paid more than what he would be able to make in the private or the municipal sector." Ms. Tapley, who owns an insurance agency in York, Me., and whose father and two grandfathers "worked on the yard," said her business would also "one way or another feel the effects" of the base's closing. And Mark Miller, owner of the Crooked Lane Cafe, said: "I think it's probably going to be a slow bleed. Real estate will be up for sale, and the vacuum will be filled by affluent people. We will lose the blue-collar flavor of the area." The Pentagon does not leave communities stranded when they are faced with base closings. It assigns special teams to each place to help plan how to convert closed bases into new enterprises. The Pentagon also has money for worker retraining and various benefit programs for civilians who lose their jobs. Earlier this year, Kittery received a $175,000 federal grant to study the effect of the shipyard's closing. But on Friday, local officials including the governors of Maine and New Hampshire vowed to fight to persuade the military to reconsider; Mr. Rumsfeld's recommendations now go to a base-closing commission. "This is not over," said Gov. John Lynch of New Hampshire. Mayor Evelyn Sirrell of Portsmouth, N.H., said at a news conference that she would ask residents to write letters to Washington and that she and other local officials would try to invest more public money in the lobbying effort. "The president must decide," Mayor Sirrell said. "We've got to get to him." To demonstrate that anything is possible, two retired shipyard workers at the news conference held up the front page of the Portsmouth Herald from 1964; its headline: "Local Shipyard to Close." But some shipyard workers were treating the closure as inevitable. "Once we're on the list, it's going to be hard to get off," said Scott Veilleux, 43, another pipe fitter, who had been laid off from the shipyard in the 1990's and started working there again about six years ago. "Working for the Defense Department is a volatile trade. You never know what could happen. I survived the last time. I'll survive." Katie Zezima contributed reporting from Boston for this article. -------- POLICE / PRISONERS / COURTS / JUSTICE -------- drug war Retailers Restrict Some Cold Medicines Ingredient Can Be Used to Make Meth By Margaret Webb Pressler Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, May 14, 2005; A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051301449_pf.html Many major chain retailers will remove most over-the-counter cold medications from store shelves over the next two months and put them behind pharmacy counters in an effort to help law enforcement tackle a growing problem with an illegal drug. In some cases, customers will have to show their driver's licenses and sign a log to purchase relief for a throbbing allergy headache. Some retailers -- tight for space in the pharmacy -- are cutting back on the variety of products they will carry. "It will be a big change for consumers," said Jody Cook, a spokeswoman for Rite Aid Corp. The move will affect more than 100 products, including common names such as Sudafed, Tylenol Cold and Claritin-D. The medicines being removed from shelves at Target, Wal-Mart, Rite-Aid and other retailers all contain the common pharmaceutical ingredient pseudoephedrine, found in just about every medication aimed at relieving stuffy noses. But pseudoephedrine, in addition to providing quick relief for sinus sufferers, is also needed to make the dangerous and addictive drug methamphetamine. Criminals are stealing over-the-counter medicines, or buying as much as they can, and using them to make the illicit drug. Hence the crackdown on cold medicines. "This problem is so severe in many parts of the country that our retailers are making sacrifices to help law enforcement in their efforts," said Mary Ann Wagner, vice president of pharmacy regulatory affairs for the National Association of Chain Drug Stores. Meth production and abuse has been a bigger problem in the Midwest and the West, where some states and counties have enacted or are considering regulations that restrict the sale of over-the-counter cold medications. No laws in the District, Maryland or Virginia require retailers to move the medicines behind the counter. But in Oklahoma, for example, a law enacted last April requires all buyers of such medications to show their driver's licenses and sign logs at pharmacies. Major retail chains are finding it difficult to follow an ever-expanding patchwork of regulations across the country. So they are opting to implement uniform, national approaches to the problem -- even in areas where the government has no restrictions, such as the Washington market, where meth abuse is a relatively small issue. "It's an unfortunate result, but it's that serious of a problem," Wagner said. Merchants that plan to keep cold medicines behind the pharmacy counter will follow different procedures, most of them rolling out the changes by midsummer. Wal-Mart will use the Oklahoma model, for example, asking buyers to show their licenses and sign logs. Rite Aid and Target will not require signatures, except in certain states. Target will put the items behind the pharmacy counter, and its stores with no pharmacy will not sell products containing pseudoephedrine. Giant Food LLC, along with parent Ahold USA, will decide in the next two weeks how many types of cold medicines it will put behind pharmacy or service counters, said company spokesman Barry F. Scher. Safeway has not decided whether to move the products off the shelves. CVS has decided to move to the pharmacy desk only those medicines that have pseudoephedrine as their sole ingredient, not combination drugs such as Tylenol Cold that might also contain antihistamines or acetaminophen. Some retailers are restricting only the pill forms of medications, and some are exempting pediatric medicines. The pill form is used to make meth. But even those retailers that are not taking voluntary steps may be forced to do so. Legislation being proposed by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and James M. Talent (R-Mo.) would adopt the Oklahoma model nationwide. John C. Horton, associate deputy director for state and local affairs at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, said action is needed because the methamphetamine abuse problem has been moving steadily east in the past five years. "The fear that we have for places like Washington and places like New England is there's going to be a matinee of 'The Meth' coming soon to a theater near you," he said. "We believe that the federal government has a responsibility to protect American citizens from this before it becomes a problem where it doesn't yet exist." Restrictive sales of cold medicines in Oklahoma, Horton said, have meant a 50 percent reduction in the number of small meth labs, which are thought to supply about a third of the meth sold on the street. These toxic labs are a particular menace, he said, because they generally are located in residential areas, where they pose dangers to children and are environmental and fire hazards. Tight restrictions on how cold medicines can be sold also means fewer consumers will buy them. "Sales have really dropped in the state of Oklahoma," Wagner said. Sales have fallen, but less so, in states including Illinois, where medications can be sold behind any service counter or in a locked cabinet. The changes are tough on manufacturers of over-the-counter cold medicines, which are a $3.4 billion-a-year business, excluding sales at Wal-Mart. Retailers say the big pharmaceutical giants are all trying to develop alternative medicines that provide the same congestion-relieving benefit, without the pseudoephedrine. But it is unclear how long that will take. "There are several initiatives, both in manufacturing and distribution, that we are looking at right now that we expect will deter the use of pseudoephedrine for the manufacture of methamphetamines, yet still maintain consumer access to effective decongestant products," said Kathy Fallon, a spokeswoman for McNeil Consumer & Specialty Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Tylenol products. "We're working as fast as we can." -------- POLITICS -------- budget Senate Panel Approves Pentagon Spending Bill By Renae Merle Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, May 14, 2005; Page A05 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051301492.html The Senate Armed Services Committee said yesterday that it has approved a $441.6 billion defense authorization bill for fiscal 2006. The bill includes increased funding for armored vehicles and countering roadside bombs in Iraq and changes to the Pentagon's procurement process to prevent a recurrence of recent scandals. The bill, which still must be approved by the full Senate, also includes $50 billion in supplemental funding to support ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the year starting Oct. 1. That is in addition to the $82 billion emergency war-spending bill Congress sent President Bush earlier this week. The bill would authorize $3.4 billion, as the president requested, for the Future Combat System, an Army modernization project, but cut $308.3 million from the Joint Tactical Radio System, a program critical to that effort that has encountered technical problems. It would increase funding for Navy shipbuilding. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would receive $5 billion, and the Air Force's F/A-22 Raptor fighter would get $3.7 billion. And $500 million would be authorized for a task force to rush improvements in tactics and technology against roadside bombs, which cause many of the U.S. casualties in the war zone. The legislation proposes broad changes to the Pentagon's acquisition process, which has been under scrutiny since Darleen A. Druyun, a high-ranking Air Force acquisition official, admitted to steering contracts worth billions of dollars to Boeing Co., the Pentagon's second-largest contractor. Boeing hired Druyun's son-in-law and daughter and then Druyun herself. Druyun's admissions prompted questions about the movement of government officials into industry jobs, known as the revolving door. The bill would require many contractors to tell the Pentagon when they hire former department officials. "As long as you can watch where people are and who is paying them, it will have a deterrent effect to prevent future Darleen Druyuns," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a District-based watchdog group. There was a similar requirement until 1996, said Jonathan Etherton, vice president of legislative affairs of the Aerospace Industries Association, an industry lobbying group. "That's one we're going to have to look at more closely," he said, adding, "I can think of ways it can be done in a streamlined way that would not be too burdensome." The bill also would call for the Pentagon to establish a contract fraud risk-assessment team and to increase the size of its acquisition workforce by 15 percent. Despite more spending, the department's acquisition workforce fell to about 135,000 in 2004 from more than 450,000 in 1990, according to a Pentagon reports. The legislation would also address concerns raised recently by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the airland subcommittee, by making it harder for the Pentagon to buy weapons without normal contract protections. The House version of the bill, scheduled to be voted on next week, would address the Pentagon's acquisition system by targeting the rising costs of many weapons, aides there said. Staff researcher Richard Drezen contributed to this article. -------- propaganda wars Must-See TV: Four From Frontline State of the Art, By Brent Cunningham, May 14, 2005 Columbia Journalism Review http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/3/soa-cunningham.asp Between January and March, Frontline aired four documentaries that every American should see. They are a reminder of the sad fact that Frontline, now in its twenty-second year on public television, is unique in the world of TV journalism. “A Company of Soldiers” follows Dog Company, of the Army’s 8th Cavalry Regiment, during the month of November 2004, as the pre-election insurgency swells in south Baghdad. The fly-on-the-wall feel of the film conveys, with an intimacy unmatched by the best print story, the terrifying situation these soldiers confront each day. We feel the chaos inside a Humvee one night when a patrol is attacked. Even with the green glow of night-vision goggles, it seems impossible to tell where the assailants are. The soldiers open fire, and It is over as suddenly as it began. There is yelling, then, “We got civilian casualties.” A man, face-down in a pool of blood in the back of a taxi, still breathing but mortally wounded. The soldiers are upset, but the officer in charge has the presence of mind to urge them to “be very respectful because it’s Ramadan, and we’ve got really muddy boots on,” as they set about searching for their attackers. “Al-Qaeda’s New Front”, which examines the growth of radical Islam in Europe, demolishes the myth that the so-called “war on terror” can be won by military means alone. While President Bush crows about how “nearly two-thirds of Al Qaeda’s known leaders have been captured or killed,” Frontline reveals a far more complicated enemy: amorphous, mutating, viral; new cells constantly forming, often without direct connections to other, known cells. Many of these emerging militants, we learn, have adopted the methods of the Takfir, violent extremists who eat pork, shave their beards — whatever it takes to blend in. “House of Saud” is a fascinating history lesson on the complicated sixty-year-old oil-for-protection deal between Saudi Arabia and the U.S., and how Saudi leaders have set the stage for today’s homegrown terrorism through a series of compromises designed to simultaneously keep the fundamentalists at bay and the U.S. awash in oil. In 1979, for example, after the shah was toppled in Iran and several hundred Wahhabi militants took over Mecca, the profligate royals set about shoring up their religious credibility. They declared Wahhabism the one true form of Islam, and erected mosques from America to Indonesia, often with money raised by the same Saudi charities that the U.S. is now trying to unravel. They essentially built the infrastructure that today undergirds Islamic terrorism around the world. “The Soldier’s Heart” illustrates the tragedy of how, despite the Pentagon’s embrace of a kinder, gentler policy toward war’s psychic casualties, soldiers who ask for psychological help still face a very real stigma in the field and on the base. It opens with Rob Sarra, a former Marine sergeant, describing how he shot an unarmed woman he mistook for a suicide bomber in Ash Shatrah, how it haunted him, and how he was ostracized at Camp Pendleton when he finally sought help. Sarra’s story is contrasted with others, such as that of Jeff Lucey, a Marine reservist, who refused to seek help despite the urgings of his parents. Roughly a year after returning from Iraq, Lucey hanged himself with a garden hose. This is not Fahrenheit 9/11. It is intellectually honest reporting that forces the viewer to consider some of the unsettling truths that America has avoided since 9/11. When the narrator says, at end of “A Company of Soldiers,” “We found it difficult not to admire the courage and commitment of almost all the soldiers we met. But we also saw what a blunt instrument an occupying army can be,” it is clearly a judgment earned. Brent Cunningham is the Managing Editor of CJR -------- ENERGY -------- alternative energy Better Options Than Nuclear Energy Washington Post Saturday, May 14, 2005; A19 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/13/AR2005051301517_pf.html Ironically, John Ritch wrote on April 26, the 19th anniversary of the Chernobyl meltdown, that nuclear energy is clean and safe ["The Key to Our Energy Future," op-ed]. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even now wind and water continue to spread Chernobyl's deadly radioactive contamination; hundreds of children miles from the disaster are still born with horrendous abnormalities. Seven thousand children have defects that may kill them, including circulatory weaknesses known as Chernobyl Heart. Many more have thyroid cancer. The area around the plant will remain affected for about 48,000 years. Radiation levels at the time reached areas more than 1,400 miles away. Contrary to nuclear industry claims, no plant is ever failure-proof. Ritch also left out the fact that the uranium enrichment process needed for nuclear power uses large amounts of carbon dioxide, which causes global warming and is generated from coal-fired plants. Addi tionally, ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are used. CFCs trap 10,000 times more heat than carbon dioxide and are an internationally banned carcinogen. Then there is waste: Ritch omitted the fact that nuclear waste remains deadly for thousands of years. Burying it under mountains will not change that; rather, it increases the chances of waste leaking into the water of future generations. The only risk-free energy is from solar, wind, biomass, geothermal and hydrogen sources. Europe and Japan are leaving the United States behind in all those forms. -- Rossana Baptista Silver Spring