NucNews August 14, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- britain DOE Announces $1.4 Million for Industry-Laboratory Teams to Study Using Nuclear Energy for Clean Hydrogen Projects Led by Electric Transportation Applications and GE Global Research 14-Aug 2006 FuelCellWorks.com http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage5811.html WASHINGTON, DC — The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today announced that it intends to fund approximately $1.4 million (subject to negotiation) for two projects to partner with industry to study the economic feasibility of producing hydrogen at existing commercial nuclear power plants. Teams selected by DOE for funding will be headed by Electric Transportation Applications and GE Global Research. Both teams include DOE national laboratories and nuclear utility companies as partners. “Hydrogen is important to our economy today and will be even more important in the future as a potential clean, renewable carrier of energy, particularly in the transportation area,” DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dennis Spurgeon said. “Finding efficient ways to produce hydrogen by using emissions-free nuclear power has long been an important part of President Bush’s energy strategy.” Electric Transportation Applications plans to perform a study looking at the economics of producing hydrogen at existing nuclear power plants using commercially available production technology. ETA will partner with DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory and Arizona Public Service. GE Global Research proposes a feasibility study of hydrogen production using alkaline electrolysis powered by existing nuclear power plants. Their proposal is based on the low-cost alkaline electrolyzer technology developed by GE, in part under DOE’s Hydrogen Program. Partners for this project include DOE’s National Renewable Energy Lab and the Entergy Corporation. “Both of these proposals involve very strong project teams, with a lot of experience in both the nuclear energy and hydrogen production areas,” Assistant Secretary Spurgeon said. “I believe the results of their studies will bring a good deal of new information to the question of how to use nuclear energy to efficiently produce hydrogen in this country.” These studies support President Bush’s Advanced Energy and Hydrogen Fuel Initiatives, as well as the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the first piece of comprehensive energy legislation in over a decade. Funding for these studies is provided by the DOE Office of Nuclear Energy’s Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative, with industry sharing a minimum of 20 percent of the cost. -------- depleted uranium New, Deadly Weapons Used by Israel on Lebanon, Gaza Paola Manduca, Arab News Monday, 14, August, 2006 (20, Rajab, 1427) http://www.arabnews.com/?page=7§ion=0&article=79270&d=14&m=8&y=2006 By now there are countless reports, from hospitals, witnesses, armament experts and journalists that strongly suggest that in the current offensive, Israeli forces are using “new weapons” in Lebanon and Gaza. New and strange symptoms are reported amongst the wounded and the dead. Bodies with dead tissues and no apparent wounds; “shrunken” corpses; civilians with heavy damage to lower limbs that require amputation, which is nevertheless followed by unstoppable necrosis and death; descriptions of extensive internal wounds with no trace of shrapnel, corpses blackened but not burned, and others heavily wounded that did not bleed. Many of these descriptions suggest the possibility that the new weapons used include “direct energy” weapons, and chemical and/or biological agents, in a sort of macabre experiment of future warfare, where there is no respect for anything: International rules (from the Geneva Convention to the treaties on biological and chemical weapons), refugees, hospitals and the Red Cross, not to mention the people, their future, their children, the environment, which is poisoned through dissemination of Depleted Uranium and toxic substances released after oil and chemical depots are bombed. Right now, the Lebanese and Palestinian people have many urgent and impellent problems, yet many people believe that these episodes cannot and must not pass ignored. In fact several appeals have been launched to scientists and experts with a view to investigating the issue. With the intent of responding to such appeals, we have set up a team to investigate the testimonies, the images, and possibly the material evidence that delegations and NGOs will be able to bring from the affected areas. We want to offer support to the health institutions of Lebanon and Palestine, which ask constantly for help and external verification and monitoring, and we are examining all available materials in order to formulate hypotheses which can be verified or disproved. We ask for the active participation of our (Italian) scientific institutions, and, following the request from medical personnel in the conflict area, we are requesting that the UN set up an international independent verification and investigation committee, with a view to facilitating entry into the conflict zone, as well as collecting material and testimonies directly in the field, and undertaking inquiries and verifications concerning the various claims regarding these new kinds of weapons of mass destruction being used by Israeli forces in Lebanon. We request that such investigating teams be set up immediately, and that procedures be defined and implemented with a view to supporting future investigations. Of particular concern is the issue of how to collect and store samples from the different theaters, with a view to preserving important information regarding the various impacts of these weapons. We ask that the international committee have access to all sources of information, that it be fully operational, while abiding by relevant investigative procedures, including cross-checking of information between different laboratories. As people and as scientists, we are offering our time and expertise in order to reach an understanding of the underlying facts, in the belief that a perspective of justice, equity and peace among people can be reached only with the respect of the rules defined up to now within the international community of nations. The issue pertains to the behavior of the parties in an armed conflict. We ask that the respect of these rules be verified in the context of the present conflict. We invite scientists to contribute to this effort by offering their specific competences. In particular we seek collaboration of toxicology experts, pharmacologists, anatomy pathologists, doctors with an expertise in trauma and burns, chemists. They can reach the working group at the e-mail address: nuovearmi@gmail.com — Paola Manduca is professor of genetics, University of Genova, Italy. -------- india Indian scientists oppose clauses in nuclear deal Mon Aug 14, 2006 (Reuters) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060814/wl_nm/india_nuclear_dc_1 MUMBAI - Eight top Indian scientists said on Monday revisions proposed by U.S. lawmakers to a landmark civil nuclear deal with the United States could hurt India's ability to research and develop nuclear technology. The scientists, who include three former chiefs of the Atomic Energy Commission, India's top atomic agency, said in an open letter to members of parliament India should not agree to a deal that placed a perpetual restraint on its nuclear options. "We have built our capabilities in many sensitive technological areas, which need not and should not be subjected to external control," they said in a joint statement. While welcoming the broad thrust of the deal, they expressed concern over changes suggested as it has made its way through the U.S. legislature. "We find that the (Indo-U.S.) deal, in the form approved by the U.S. House of Representatives, infringes on our independence for carrying out indigenous research and development," they said. "If the U.S. Congress, in its wisdom, passes the bill in its present form, the 'product' will become unacceptable to India." The deal, under which India will get access to nuclear fuel and equipment in return for international inspections and the separation of civilian and military programs, received initial approval by the U.S. House of Representatives in July. The Indian government has said it is concerned about some amendments U.S. Congressmen have proposed to the bill which could impose curbs on India's nuclear program. The scientists' statement appealed to Indian lawmakers to debate the suggested amendments and ensure they "do not inhibit our future ability to develop and pursue nuclear technologies." The deal needs to be approved by the U.S. Senate. The House and Senate will vote on it again after negotiations on the technical details of the agreement are completed. Also, the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group must change its regulations to allow nuclear transfers to India, which conducted nuclear tests in 1974 and again in 1998. Nuclear non-proliferation experts in the United States say the agreement would allow India to produce nuclear weapons easily because it frees its domestic atomic supplies for military use. ---- Indian President calls for law to ensure energy independence Monday, 14 August 2006 Nerve News of India http://www.nerve.in/news:25350012028 "'In harnessing solar energy, we need to set up infrastructure and capabilities for a nano-technology revolution that has the potential to find solutions for new forms of solar cells, more efficient, less costly, abundantly available.'" New Delhi, Aug 14 - President A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Monday called for a new bill to secure India's energy independence, saying a new vision was needed to sustain growth and inadequate energy supply would hamper the nation's economy. 'A clear relationship exists between energy security and national security,' the president said in his address to the nation on the eve of India's 60th Independence Day. 'If there are inadequate energy supplies or if energy supply cannot be afforded then the economy of the country will be severely affected,' Kalam said in the address as he called for an energy independence bill. Speaking about nuclear fuel, the president said the country should aim to mine enough uranium with the cooperation of some states and that the vast thorium reserves should be harnessed by Indian scientists and technologists. 'With cooperation from all sectors of science, technology and industry in India, I am confident we have the capability to build our own thorium-based reactors. This will enable us to be self-reliant, secure and independent in nuclear energy.' At the same time, Kalam said since India was running out of oil and gas based on fossil fuels, heavy dependence on imports especially for transport had already impacted the nation's economy. 'The nation has to gear up for enhanced production of coal and clean coal technologies.' Giving statistics, Kalam said India depends on oil to the extent of 114 million tonnes per annum - 75 percent of which is imported and used almost entirely by the transportation industry. 'Hence, we have to concentrate on bio-diesel and renewable energy,' he said and added he had already advocated a national mission in bio-diesel involving all stakeholders - from farmers and scientists to industry and government. According to him, this can translate into 60 million tonnes of bio-diesel per annum by 2030 - or 20 percent of anticipated oil consumption by then. 'In harnessing solar energy, we need to set up infrastructure and capabilities for a nano-technology revolution that has the potential to find solutions for new forms of solar cells, more efficient, less costly, abundantly available.' He said the goal must be to generate 50,000 megawatt of power from renewable energy sources by 2030. -------- iran Iran not intimidated by nuclear sanctions threat Mon Aug 14, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060814/wl_mideast_afp/irannuclearpolitics_060814101651 TEHRAN - Iran has said it was not intimidated by the threat of UN sanctions after the Security Council passed a resolution urging it to suspend uranium enrichment, saying they would have no effect. "The threats of sanctions do not have any effect on us. The double-standard approach employed by the Europeans has resulted in the loss of their credibility," government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham told reporters in his weekly press briefing. European powers have offered Iran a package of incentives to encourage it to nuclear activities that could lead to building an atomic weapon even as the UN Security Council passed a resolution calling for an end to uranium enrichment. "We are prepared for all (possible) scenarios and it the West and especially the United States which will lose more, because we control the energy sources," Elham added. On Sunday, Iran's conservative parliamentary speaker Gholam-Ali Hadad-Adel was quoted as saying that "Iran doesn't accept suspending its uranium enrichment." "If the result of our being part of international organizations and the International Atomic Energy Agency is to be deprived of our absolute right (in nuclear matters), there is no reason for us to continue to be part of such organizations," he threatened. The United Nations Security Council on July 31 adopted a resolution requiring Iran to suspend all activities related to uranium enrichment before August 31. The resolution states that the Security Council will meet again to study sanctions against the Islamic Republic if it refuses to suspend uranium enrichment. -------- missile defense Poles Reject Role in U.S. Missile Shield August 14, 2006 Angus Reid Consultants http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/12804 Many adults in Poland are against the construction of an anti-missile site in their country, according to a poll by GFK published in Rzeczpospolita. 63 per cent of respondents oppose joining the United States anti-missile shield. In December 2002, U.S. president George W. Bush announced plans for the development of initial defence capabilities, which include ground-based and sea-based missile interceptors, as well as sensors located in space. In 2004, the U.S. approached the governments of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary as possible partners in the missile defence system. In June, Polish defence minister Stanislaw Koziej said no decision has been taken, adding, "We’re not absolutely forced to accept this offer if we judge that it’s not advantageous for us. We don’t have to have this installation on our territory if it doesn’t clearly serve to increase our security." Poland currently has 1,500 soldiers in central Iraq, as part of a multinational force of about 4,700 troops. In March 2004, then-president Aleksander Kwasniewski said Poland was "misled" into the coalition effort, but added that Iraq today "is a much better place than Iraq with Saddam Hussein." Polling Data Do you support or oppose Poland joining the U.S. anti-missile shield? Support 23% Oppose 63% No opinion 14% Source: GFK / Rzeczpospolita Methodology: Interviews to 983 Polish adults, conducted from Aug. 4 to Aug. 6, 2006. Margin of error is 3 per cent. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- nebraska NPPD Cost Setting Up Nuclear Storage: $45 Million August 14, 2006 Nebraska State Paper http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/08/14/44e09ab3d50ad The Nebraska Public Power district has approved the first part of a two-phase, $45 million project for storing nuclear waste at the Cooper Nuclear Station in Brownville. The first stage of setting up a dry-cask nuclear storage system will cost some $19.7 million. The NPPD board gave a green light to that phase on Friday. The second stage will cost an estimated $25.3 million. The board will not vote on that phase until 2007, NPPD said in a prepared statement. Cooper Nuclear Station operates the largest single-unit electrical generator in the state. In another development, the board was asked to consider boosting wholesale energy prices by an average 3.5 percent for next year. -------- MILITARY -------- israel / palestine Reservists: Why should we volunteer to be cannon fodder? By Amir Zohar Mon., August 14, 2006 Haaretz http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/749667.html SOUTH LEBANON - In the poultry yard at one of the moshavim along the northern road a reserve company from an engineering battalion gathered Thursday evening beneath camouflage nets. In another two hours the soldiers will enter Lebanon on security detail for a D-9 bulldozer and two Merkava tanks. For four nights these soldiers have been opening up a secret route for Givati soldiers to race through to the town of Bint Jbail - subject, naturally, to the political zigzagging of Olmert and Peretz. In any case the mission will start at nightfall and must end before sunrise. Briefings are accompanied by army-issue dinner - lasagna or Thai stir-fry on plastic trays. To the side, three reservists from a back-up force present Haaretz with monologues that have come to symbolize the second Lebanon war: about the hesitancy of the government, which has implications at the command level, which reflects on the operational level, which reflects on them, and justifies, from their standpoint, getting out of the trek into enemy land. "It's not that I'm against the war, but our commanders can't say what the missions are and what they want from us," says Moshe from Petah Tikva, married and father of two. "It's clear to us that this is a war for our home," says his comrade, "but if the government is n't certain, why should we volunteer to be cannon fodder for their experiments." After dinner, soldiers convene for a mass prayer service, then disperse to their companies and platoons. There, in a final pep talk, the company commander tells his troops: "We're good and we're fighting for our home... Hezbollah are also good, but they're not as dangerous as they say." The D-9, nicknamed Dubi, growls in the background, and the squeal of tank treads indicates we're setting out. Gilad's platoon lines up in two columns, equipment on their shoulders. In the back, Nissim the battalion commander from Ra'anana mingles with the soldiers, recounting how the route was opened up at the start of the week under fire. "I had to land a chopper in the field to evacuate casualties," he says, his listeners getting fired up with every word. "Wanna see an SMS from my wife? 'Pride conquers all fears,' that's what she wrote." Dubi, the tanks and soldiers glide down the path leading to the perimeter fence. In five minutes they're across the border, advancing along a narrow route cleared in a mine field. Some admit they're out of shape, and some admit they're not really made for this sort of thing anymore. And yet they're here, aged 25 to 40 and even more, from all over the country, with a Jerusalemite majority. In the dark, in a crevice bypassing a Lebanese village, it's hard to spot the differences. An enormous broken chalk rock looms in the center, surrounded by three or four small structures, derelict and intimidating, and a rusty metal facility for processing the chalk into construction sand. This is ambush territory; the silence reminiscent of moonlit traps in Hollywood Westerns. After about seven kilometers the D-9 operator reaches a dead end at a section that crosses the new route with an age-old route. The options are for a fast overpass or a slower underpass; the brigade commander rules for the overpass. "We finish everything possible tonight," he decrees, "we're not waiting any more time; we already have a reasonable path for walking comfortably." Until Dubi finishes work on the final segment at the new Bint Jbail interchange, the soldiers spread out on the surrounding slope, some napping. The commanders took off quickly for the unit's base, leaving at the end point only the soldiers who had dragged themselves there. At this stage they also confess to being in lousy physical shape. If at the outset they looked as if they could crush any enemy that crossed their path, the way they looked now they hardly seemed capable of responding. This was also the time for grumblings about the lack of night-vision equipment, but on the broken-down bus sent to collect them nobody had any strength left to complain. -------- mideast Seymour Hersh: U.S. Helped Plan Israeli Attack, Cheney "Convinced" Assault on Lebanon Could Serve as Prelude to Preemptive Attack on Iran Monday, August 14th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1358255 Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports in this week's issue of the New Yorker that Israeli officials visited the White House earlier this summer to get a "green light" for an attack on Lebanon. The Bush administration approved, Hersh says, in part to remove Hezbollah as a deterrent to a potential US bombing of Iran. [includes rush transcript] Israel and Lebanon saw continued violence on the last day before a UN ceasefire. South Lebanon continued to come under intense Israeli bombardment Sunday. In the most lethal attack, fifteen Lebanese were reported killed after Israel bombed the village of Rachat. Meanwhile, Hezbollah launched more than 250 rockets into Northern Israel. It was the highest number of rockets Hezbollah has fired into Israel since fighting began. At least one Israeli was killed. The past month's violence broke out after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers and killed eight others. Israel rejected Hezbollah's demand for a prisoner exchange, and launched a full-on attack targeting Lebanon's vital infrastructure, including a power station, the main airport and scores of roads and bridges. An estimated 1,000 Lebanese have been killed and more than one million displaced. At least forty Israeli civilians have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced under a daily barrage of Hezbollah rockets. The Bush administration has openly backed Israel's campaign. The administration resisted international efforts for a ceasefire and rushed arms to the Israeli military. A major new article says U.S. support for the invasion of Lebanon has gone even further than we already know. That in fact, White House support for the massive bombing of Lebanon even predates the day those two Israeli soldiers were seized. In this week's issue of the New Yorker, investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reports Israeli officials visited the White House earlier this summer to get a "green light" for an attack on Lebanon. The Bush administration approved, Hersh says, in part to remove Hezbollah as a deterrent to a potential US bombing of Iran. A government consultant said the Bush administration also saw the attack on Lebanon as a "demo" for what it could expect to face in Iran. * Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist for The New Yorker. His latest article is "Watching Lebanon - Washington's Interests in Israel's War", in this week's issue of the New Yorker. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. He joins us in Washington, D.C. His latest piece is called “Watching Lebanon: Washington's Interests in Israel's War.” We welcome you to Democracy Now!, Seymour Hersh. SEYMOUR HERSH: Hi. AMY GOODMAN: Hi. Can you just start off by telling us what you know at this point of what Washington's interests in Israel's war are? SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, when you say Washington, you have to talk about Dick Cheney. I can tell you pretty firmly that it's his office. I guess you could say it's sort of the home of the neoconservative thinking in Washington -- some of his aides and the people close to him in the White House: Elliott Abrams, David Wurmser, others. What I understand is this: our military, our Air Force has been trying for a year to get plans for a major massive bombing assault on Iran pushed through the Pentagon, pushed through the process. And there's been sort of an internecine fight inside the Pentagon over just basically the idea of strategic war against Iran. They're very dug in Iran. The Persians have been digging in for -- what? -- centuries and centuries. And the Marines and the Navy and the Army have said, No way we're going to start bombing, because it will end up with troops on the ground. So there's been a stalemate. I've written a lot about it. And in this spring, as part of the stalemate, the American Air Force approached the Israeli Air Force, which as you know is headed by General Dan Halutz, who is an Air Force -- I think the first IDF commander, the commander of the Israeli Defense Forces, to be an Air Force guy, and another believer of strategic war, and the two had a lot of interests. And so, out of these meetings in the spring became an agreement, you know, sort of we'll help you, you help us, and it got to Cheney's attention, this idea of Israel planning a major, major strategic bombing campaign against Hezbollah. And for -- I can't tell you where Bush is, but you have to assume he’s right with him. Obviously everything he's done makes that clear. Cheney's idea was this, that we sort of -- it's like a three-for. We get three for one with this. One, here we're having this war about the value of strategic bombing, and the Israeli Air Force, whose pilots are superb, can go in and -- if they could go in and blast Hezbollah out of their foxholes or whatever they are, their underground facilities, and roll over them, as everybody in the White House and I'm sure everybody in the Israeli Air Force thought they could do, that would be a big plus for the ambitions that I think the President and Cheney have for Iran. I don't think this president, our president, is going to leave office with Iran being, as he sees it, a nuclear threat. The second great argument you have, of course, is if you are going to do Iran, you're going to need -- you can't attack Iran without taking care of the Hezbollah missiles or rockets. They're really rockets. They're not independently guided. Even their long-range rockets that go a few hundred kilometers, you cannot attack Iran without taking them out, because obviously that's the deterrent. You hit Iran, Hezbollah then bombs Tel Aviv and Haifa. So that's something you have to clean out first. And thirdly, of course, is if you get rid of Hezbollah and Nasrallah, why, you get rid of a terror -- a man who’s considered to be, as somebody famously said, Richard Armitage, the “A-Team of terrorism.” So on that basis, there was a tremendous interest in Israel going ahead. There were meetings. There were an enormous amount of contacts. I should add, Amy, that of course -- and this is reflected in the story -- Israel doesn't need the United States to know they have a problem with Hezbollah. And so, they were going to do something anyway. But it's a question of timing, and that's one of the big issues. This summer, earlier this summer, there was -- and late, I guess after the Israelis began their reoccupation -- occupation of Gaza, after the first Israeli soldier was captured, a soldier named Shalit, I think, June 28th, after he was captured, the traffic, the signals traffic that the Israeli signals community gets showed an enormous amount of talk about doing something on the northern border. That is, on the border between Syria -- I mean between Lebanon and Israel. And so, on that basis, it was clear this summer, the next time Hezbollah made a move, and there's been a cat-and-mouse game between Israel and Hezbollah for about six years, since the Israelis were kicked out or driven out by Nasrallah in 2000. It’s been cat-and-mouse. Both sides have been going against each other, nickel-dime stuff. And the next time Hezbollah made a move, the Israeli Air Force was going to bomb, the plan was going to go in effect. The move came very quick. It came about ten days after or twelve days after the first Israeli soldier was captured. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, his latest piece appears in this week's issue of the New Yorker magazine. You say the Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits, quoting a U.S. government consultant with close ties to Israel. SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, sure. I mean, believe me, Israel thought, you know -- I guess the only other time in history where you can look back on such misguided optimism or one of the more recent times was, of course, us going into Iraq. Shades of Iraq, deja-vu or however you want to put it. Israel was convinced it would be easy. The Air Force was going to go and clean them out. There was another element, and you mentioned that in your intro and also in your news report. One of the things that struck me right away, as soon as I saw how Israel was bombing, and my instinct told me there was something there, because in one of the Air Force plans that I knew about but didn't write about, one of the Air Force options for taking out Iran was, of course, shock and awe, a massive, massive bombing well beyond any of the nuclear facilities. Go hit the country hard for 36 hours, drive people into underground bunkers. Don't target civilians, necessarily, but hit their infrastructure, hit the roads, hit the power plants, hit the water facilities. And so, when they come out of their bunkers after 36 hours, they look around. In the American neo-con view, they were going to say to each other, “Oh, my god, the mullahs did this to us, the religious mullahs who run the country. We're going to overthrow them and install a secular government.” That was the thinking for the last year. That is the thinking for the last year inside some elements of the Pentagon, the civilian side, and also in Cheney's shop. So when you watch what Israel did in its opening salvo, the first targets, I remember vividly, was -- and everybody should -- they took out the civilian airstrip. They took away civilian -- the ability to use aircraft to travel. They took out highways. They took out roads. They took out petrol stations. They basically isolated Southern Lebanon. But I think part of the reason they did so much damage to the infrastructure was they believed -- and I think the Israelis have been very clear about it -- that the Christian population and the Sunni population -- don't forget Hezbollah is Shia -- would rise up against Hezbollah, and it would be a great feather in the cap, etc., etc., etc. AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Seymour Hersh, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. His latest piece is called "Watching Lebanon: Washington’s Interests in Israel’s War." We'll come back with him in a minute. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We continue our conversation with Seymour Hersh. His piece in the latest New Yorker is called "Watching Lebanon: Washington's Interests in Israel's War." So, can you take us through the timeline, as you understand it, that started before the capture of the two Israeli soldiers, the meetings that were taking place? SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, I don't know an awful lot about it, because, obviously, this is secrecy cubed here in this town, Washington, this White House. I don't even know how much Bush was involved in the direct planning. Certainly he’s carrying out the policy. The best guess I have is that this spring there was a tremendous fight in the Pentagon over a nuclear option for Iran, with the generals standing up, standing up quite a bit against this White House. And I think it's a sign, I guess, of the perceived weakness, political weakness, of the Bush administration at this point. And nuclear option was taken off the table for Iran. Iran's underground. The nuclear facilities, the alleged nuclear facilities, I’ve also written, we can't find any evidence of a significant weapons program. But in any case, they're certainly doing research in Iran, and they may indeed have intentions, but they're deep underground, buried under a lot of rock, 75 feet, etc. etc. We've all heard that. And at that point in the spring, when the nuclear option was gone and there was a lot of concern about how do you drive down 75 feet and guarantee knocking out a potential weapons system, it was then that our Air Force began to talk with the Israeli Air Force, because the Israelis have been shipped -- we have sent them an awful lot of large 5,000-pound bunker busters. And they’ve done a lot of research into the idea of using two or three bombs on top of each other, etc. And so, spring is when I began -- I think you can really trace the American military involvement with the Israeli military. And the way it was described to me, eventually this talk, the planning between the two of them, the sharing of intelligence, which is sort of normal -- we and Israel are very close, a lot of stuff is shared with their military and their intelligence service -- eventually it bubbled up, is the way it came to me, into the Pentagon, into the top leadership, Donald Rumsfeld, and eventually got to Cheney, whose idea was, “Let's push this. This is a great idea.” I’m not suggesting that Washington forced Israel to go more quickly than it wanted to, but I don't think there's any question that the Israeli Defense Force, the Air Force, was surprised by how quickly Nasrallah, Hezbollah moved into the business of capturing. As I said, the first Israeli soldier was captured in Gaza on June 28. There was traffic about going, heating up the north. But for Nasrallah to move on 12th of July was very quick. But it was agreed that the next step he made, whenever, and I think the best guess people had is it could have been as late as fall, September or October, that they would go. They went quickly. And people I talked with in Israel -- I spent a lot of time in this story talking to people in Israel -- one of the things that everybody remarked on was the quickness with which the Air Force moved, not that they didn't have plans in effect, but it was very quickly. AMY GOODMAN: You also talk about Elliott Abrams, and you talk about Donald Rumsfeld's role. SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, what's interesting about Rumsfeld, because for the first time -- and not everybody agreed, but people that -- you know, I’m long of tooth, Amy, and I’ve been around this town a long time, and obviously, since 9/11, a lot of people talk to me. And for the first time, Rummy doesn't seem to be on board, is what I’m hearing. Actually, somebody even suggested he's getting a little bit like Robert McNamara. If you remember, McNamara, the Secretary of Defense who, under both Kennedy and Johnson, was a great advocate of the Vietnam War and its chief salesman, basically, one of its chief salesmen all during the ’60s, and by ’67, he decided it wasn't winnable and ended up being shoved out and put in the World Bank. Rumsfeld is very concerned about the 150,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq, who are potentially in a very untenable position. There's no question Iraq’s lost. There's a lot of question about what we're doing in Afghanistan. We're sort of 0-for-2 in those two. And so, Rumsfeld was not happy about this policy, about going in in a protracted war in Southern Lebanon with Nasrallah, because, of course -- I think Nasrallah is his own man. None of us really know. I think he decides what he wants to do. I don't think Syria and Iran control him the way Washington, this White House seems to believe everything comes from Iran. You know, anybody who meets Nasrallah, as I have a couple of times, he's rather formidable. In any case -- AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, when did you meet him? SEYMOUR HERSH: Oh, I’ve met him a lot. I mean, I’ve interviewed him. I’ve interviewed him in the New Yorker. And I just spent time with him over this winter. AMY GOODMAN: In Lebanon? SEYMOUR HERSH: Yeah, sure. AMY GOODMAN: And can you describe your sense of him? SEYMOUR HERSH: I think he believes in -- he's religious, in the sense that -- I’ve met religious leaders, Archbishop O'Connell here in New York. One of these people who you really, you know -- for an agnostic like me, you come away from a meeting with those people believing that there is something to this business of religion, because these people are so devout. He is very much a believer, Nasrallah, in his own religion, and he doesn't have dead eyes. He's got alive eyes, and he's got humor. The reason I started seeing him, I see intelligence people around the world and some of the intelligence people in the Middle East, when the Iraqi war began to start, they encouraged me to see him, on grounds that this guy has a better feel for what's going on in Iraq, as a Shia -- he's very close to the Shia leadership, to Sistani, also to the Iranians, who have a lot of juice inside Iran. So just as a reporter, I would go see him, and we’d talk about mostly Iraq in the beginning, and obviously. In any case, the whole point here is, Rumsfeld -- to get back to Rumsfeld, there's no question that Iran has enormous influence inside Iraq, dominated now by the Shia, Shia Iran, and I think Rumsfeld’s concern, I was told, is that a protracted war against Nasrallah will only cause the Iranians, in support of Hezbollah, to start squeezing our troops in Iraq. And we're -- you know, as I say, it's an untenable position in Iraq. And nobody quite knows -- this government has no idea on how to get out, just like I don't think the Israelis -- you know, the same pattern you saw in Israel as you saw with this Bush White House going into Iraq: they were so sure of victory that they never looked at the downside. Actually, I quote somebody in this article in the New Yorker, a really high-level guy in one of the military services, saying, “You can't get this White House to think about the downside of anything.” And you saw that with the Israelis. They had no idea, once they got into the quagmire, of how to extract, except to add more forces and increase the death toll to themselves, too. AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, you've also written about the U.S. rejecting overtures from Syria in dealing with the war on terror. Can you talk about that, as, of course, you can't talk about Lebanon or Iraq with this administration without talking about Syria and Iran? SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, look, this is an administration that still refuses to deal with people it doesn't like. You know, I don't know. When my children were in pre-nursery, you know, little boys will get into a fight, and the nursery school teacher would take the two little boys who were fighting and say, “You two shake hands and go back to the sandbox,” and they would. And so we have a president that won't talk to the Iranians, although they’ve wanted to, and there’s been a lot of stories written about that. And they won't talk to the Syrians. And I’ve obviously -- maybe not so obviously, but I’ve interviewed the President of Syria, Bashar al-Asad, a couple of times. And one of the last times, with great pain he told me -- I think he showed me, even showed me, he was -- this was in 2005. He's written letters to George Bush, saying, “Let's get together. Let's talk. We have a lot in common. We can help you. We and Iran basically both have more -- we can do more for you in Iraq than any other country. Why aren't you using us? We don't need a Somalia on our borders. We're not interested in chaos there.” And this White House doesn't believe it. And the letters weren't answered, he told me. His ambassador here in Washington, Imad Mustafa, is absolutely isolated. All this talk that the White House has made, Condoleezza Rice, about having openings to Iran, to Syria, are just, you know -- they're not worth much. There's been some low-level talk. Nobody has made any efforts. Syria has, as I’ve written in the New Yorker years ago, was one of the biggest helpers we had after al-Qaeda struck us, because Syria is -- the old man Asad, the father of the current president, hated Jihadism. He did not like the Muslim Brotherhood. They were his opponents. And he kept the best books going on the Muslim Brotherhood, which is very closely connected to al-Qaeda. In fact, we learned more about al-Qaeda from Syria after 9/11 than from any other country. Asad, the president, gave us thousands access -- agreed to give us access to thousands of files. And I wrote a story, I think in ’02 or ’03 for the New Yorker, in which I quoted a senior intelligence official of Syria saying, “We're willing to even talk about our support for Hezbollah with you. We want to see you win the war on terror.” So it's been an amazingly horrific performance by this White House, which is of par. You know, I don't think any of us -- I certainly won't breathe easy until we get to 2009, inauguration of a new president. But there's just no question that if we were to approach Syria right now, something else I didn't write at the time -- that's because I wasn't writing about it -- I don't think there's any question that Israel was interested in talking to Syria in ’03, even about the Golan Heights, which is a tough issue for them, and -- AMY GOODMAN: In fact, Sy -- SEYMOUR HERSH: Let me finish this. And we discouraged Israel from doing it. AMY GOODMAN: Why? SEYMOUR HERSH: I don't know. I guess we didn't want our friends to talk to our enemies. AMY GOODMAN: You wrote in 2003 about the U.S. bombing of a convoy inside Syria that once and for all smashed the attempts of Syria to communicate with Washington. SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, it didn't really. At the time, it did. But there he is again, the President of Syria, Mr. Asad, tried again and certainly in ’05, the letter he sent me, I saw, had just been written. He was still trying to make contact with Washington, because, obviously, in his view, he had a lot to offer us about resolving the crisis in Iraq. And it's a crisis for Syria, too, in Iraq, because there's now 400,000 or 500,000 Iraqi refugees living in Damascus and elsewhere, a couple hundred thousand now of Lebanese. And so real estate property has gone out of sight there. The irony is that as much as we can't stand Syria, for the first time in their life, the Syrians are getting an awful lot of foreign investment, because, you know, with the oil at $75 a barrel, all of the Gulf countries, which are -- they're just washed with money. They don't know what to do with the money they're making every day. And they don't want to invest anymore in America, because some of them have contributed money to charities that have been put on a watch list by the United States. So there's a fear in some of the Gulf countries that if they invest the hundreds of billions of dollars they’ve collected in Washington or real estate here, they might have the property seized for being aiders and abetters of terrorism, so they're dumping money into Syria right now. They were dumping a lot of money into Lebanon, too, but not any more. AMY GOODMAN: Bob Parry writes at “Consortium News,” that it was U.S. neo-cons who pushed Israel even further than Israel wanted to go around this issue of the attack of Hezbollah. Do you agree with that? SEYMOUR HERSH: The Israelis I talked to said, “Look, you know, there might have been a question being pushed on timing, but Israel certainly wanted to go.” I just don’t -- Bob Parry was right in so many things back in Iran-Contra. I just don't have the same information he does on that. But that there was certainly a decision that -- I quote somebody as saying, we told them basically, “You know, guys” -- in this article I quote somebody as saying in effect -- the Americans telling the Israelis, “Sooner than later, we want this to happen before this president is out of office,” -- that is, taking out Hezbollah so you can take out Iran. AMY GOODMAN: Just a few months ago, you wrote the piece, "The Iran Plans: How Far Will the White House Go?" talking about the U.S. plans to bomb Iran. Where do you think the current situation now leaves the United States and the Middle East? SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, you can't apply rationality to it, because I think it's simply something Bush and Cheney want to do. As I said earlier, they want to take out Iran. They don't want to talk to it. They believe it’s, you know, the axis of evil cubed. And so, frankly, my real worry is what's going to happen -- I think nothing's going to happen before this election. That's impossible. My real worry is what's going to happen when George Bush is a lame duck. He's talking about, privately now, so I’m told and so I’ve written, about Winston Churchill. If you remember, after leading England to war in World War II, he was turned out by the voters, and he wasn't fully appreciated until years later. So I think he sees himself in the position of “I know I’m right. They don't quite believe me. But I’m going to do the thing I think is right, the right thing. And maybe in 30 or 50 years, they'll come to accept me for the great president I think I am.” And so, that's what we really have as leadership right now. AMY GOODMAN: And where does Condoleezza Rice fit into this picture? SEYMOUR HERSH: Well, you know, my guess is that she was smart enough to know this going -- this last trip she made to the Middle East, I've written that she didn't want to go, because she knew she had nothing to offer anybody. And I think there was a story the other week in the New York Times that was, clearly she inspired to her people about how Cheney is plotting against her, and Elliott Abrams, when he was on the trip with her, he was constantly calling up the White House behind her back and filling them in. You mention Abrams. Abrams is sort of the key intellectual player, I think, of this policy that Cheney's involved in. He's not in Cheney's office. He works directly for the President as a Special Assistant in the National Security Council office, but there's no question, his influence is enormous on this. AMY GOODMAN: And Seymour Hersh, for young people who don't remember Iran-Contra, can you just fill people in on who Elliott Abrams is, his history? SEYMOUR HERSH: Elliott Abrams was one of the key players in this incredibly wacky scheme we had in the Iran-Iraq war of two decades ago. Between 1980 and 1988, Iran and Iraq fought each other, and we supported Iraq. We supported Saddam Hussein, the United States did, with a lot of secret arms, secret intelligence, even shipping him secret formulas that could be used to make biological weapons and chemical stuff and intelligence, etc, etc. And that was because of course, Khomeini -- we had been kicked out of Iran, when our Shah, the Shah was overthrown. We were terrified of the Shiite leadership there. And so, one of the plans, one of the schemes was, in the middle of all of this hostility, Ronald Reagan was so committed to the Contra War in Latin America, that is, defeating what he thought was a communist-led insurgency in Nicaragua in an election there, that he cut a deal to ship arms -- let's see. It's complicated. They sold arms to Israel, which they were shipped, I think, into Iran. You help me out on this. Anyway, the bottom line was that it was a policy that brought us into contact with Iran, secret trading. We were going to get weapons that were going to -- the Israelis were going to buy weapons. Money was -- they were going to sell weapons to Iran. Money was going to be generated from that sale to support covertly, outside of Congress's knowledge, to support aid for the opposition in Nicaragua that we favored -- AMY GOODMAN: For the Contras. SEYMOUR HERSH: The Contras, yes, and so there we are. It was totally a crazy policy. When it unraveled, it should have probably led to, in a normal process, an impeachment proceeding for Ronald Reagan, but by that time, he was -- everybody understood he was -- he wasn't well with Alzheimer's or whatever. AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that some of the weapons Hezbollah is using today could have come from that sale from the United States? SEYMOUR HERSH: No. I think what's happened is, if you really want to know, I think the best guess is, and again, this is -- I quoted somebody to this effect, Vali Nasr, who is a professor at one of the Navy post-graduate schools, very competent guy. What really probably happened is this: once we made our move, the Bush administration and the French, to drive the Syrians out of Lebanon, that famous 1559 you always hear about -- we always hear about 1559. We never hear much about UN Resolution 242, which called for Israel to go back to its original borders. Anyway, 1559 called for Syria to get out of Lebanon and Lebanon to take control, a civilian government come in and also take -- disarm Hezbollah. That was what it called for. Well, of course, it's impossible in Syria, because the Lebanese army is probably 50% Shia and very close to Hezbollah. It was -- that's an impossibility. And so -- wait, I've lost my track of thought. What was I saying? AMY GOODMAN: You were just saying that after -- SEYMOUR HERSH: Oh, yes, I remember. I'm sorry, Amy. So what happened is, once it was clear that the White House and French were getting our way with the UN, and Syria was going to get out, which only could only be interpreted by Iran and by Syria and by Hezbollah, as the pressure was going to be on them to be disarmed -- at that point, Iran really began to step up its support for Hezbollah, not so much in terms -- yes, there's always been close support of aid and arms, but they sent a lot of technicians into Hezbollah to help them dig and help them to improve their ability to mask what they were doing, hide their weapons, their launchers for their rockets, go deeper underground, build command and control bunkers, build a lot of facilities that fooled the Israeli's intelligence. The Israelis -- some commando units did go into the war early on and hunter-killer teams, and they were completely bamboozled and hurt hard, because everything they thought would be in place was not. The intelligence stunk, and I think Iran, in the last 18 months, probably played a role in improving Hezbollah's intelligence or its capability to withstand a bombing attack. AMY GOODMAN: Seymour Hersh, I want to thank you very much for joining us. His latest piece, "Watching Lebanon: Washington's Interests in Israel's War" is in this week's issue of the New Yorker magazine. -------- un UN Human Rights Council Condemns Israel Monday, August 14th, 2006 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1358247 On Friday the United Nations Human Rights Council condemned Israel for violating human rights and international humanitarian law in its military operations in Lebanon. The council voted to send a high-level commission to the area to investigate the "systematic targeting and killing" of Lebanese civilians by Israel. This is UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour Louise Arbour: "The deaths of hundreds of civilians in documented and corroborated incidents, involving either random or targeted attacks on civilian vehicles or buildings, strongly suggest the indiscriminate use of force.” Amnesty International and other groups criticized the UN Human Rights Council for not also condemning Hezbollah’s attacks on Israeli civilians. Lebanon Seeks International Help With Rebuilding If the ceasefire holds, Lebanon faces a daunting task of rebuilding the country. Over the past month, Israel has destroyed much of Lebanon’s civilian infrastructure, including roads, bridges and power plants. On Sunday, Israeli warplanes bombed power plants in Sidon and Tyre. Lebanon’s Finance Minister Jihad Azour: "We hope that the international community will come with aid and mainly donations for Lebanon as you know some countries started (helping) like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. We expect the others to contribute. This war on Lebanon and the reconstruction have to be the responsibility of the international community as stipulated in the Security Council resolution 1701." -------- us A Case for Impeachment Monday, 14 August 2006, Scoop Opinion: Norma Sherry http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0608/S00134.htm Impeachment is a serious indictment. In our recent history, President Richard M. Nixon resigned before he could be impeached for lying, covering up and ordering very un-presidential orders. It was a very sad day and for many of us it was the end of our idealism and trust. Then, there was the act of impeachment of President William H. Clinton, in which he was later acquitted because his crimes did not rise to the level of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors” as required by our Constitution. However, he was caught lying and covering up about a distasteful and unprofessional presidential act in and around his desk in the oval office. Two presidents, two vastly different extremes, but both were caught and both were duly chastised. One was removed from office; the other remained, but his presidency was forever stained. Today, we have a president, George W. Bush, who has lied to the American people, caused an unnecessary war and in so doing has disrupted, ruined, and killed many American service men and women. He has single-handedly destroyed our reputation around the world, grown our national debt to an astonishing figure that none of us will see repaid in our lifetimes, and he has, by his actions, killed, maimed, and destroyed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children. He has, by his negligence and disdain for the clear and evident science, altered our ability to save our planet from the ravages of global warming. He has undermined and destroyed our natural resources by his wanton neglect and insistence that he alone is the “decider”. He has allowed his oil rich cronies hold us hostage to obscene fuel increases while they fill their coffers with even more obscene financial gains. Perhaps even more awful is his following in his father’s footsteps in allowing and standing silent as we continue to build, sell, and drop munitions with depleted uranium, which will forever alter all who eat, breathe, or drink in its remains. He has destroyed our Constitution and Bill Rights; ignored the Geneva Convention perpetrating and blessing torture and unlawful imprisonment. He’s allowed spying on American citizens with illegal wiretaps. What does it take folks to get your ire up? It boggles the mind that with all the evidence that this president should be impeached that in fact, he has remained above the fray. How is it possible? Are political lines so vital that we as citizens are less concerned for correcting wrongs and punishing wrong-doers than we are for supporting our political party? We weren’t always so blindsided. Certainly, when President Clinton was brought up on charges, even his most strident supporters did not defend the indefensible. Compared with the crimes perpetrated upon this nation by this sitting president and past criminal actions by past presidents it is unconscionable that 40% of American citizens still stand by and support President George W. Bush. I ask again, how is it possible? We are living in tenuous times. Some even believe the end times. But then again, storytellers of biblical prophecy have always warned of impending doom. But one doesn’t have to consult the Bible to see the world around us is in serious trouble: sadly, much of which is imposed upon the populace by the few and mighty. Pollution threatens our ability to breathe fresh, clean air. Global Warming is real and a very serious problem. Warmongers bully and hold nuclear weapons in the balance. The Middle East is in crisis. Starvation, torture, murder, destruction of the human race is happening every day in Somalia and Darfur. Disease and lack of vital nutrition and drinkable water threaten the lives of millions around the world. Here at home are homeless families living in cars without gasoline, food banks unable to feed all the hungry, abused children, beaten down and downtrodden parents no longer able to meet the demands of keeping their families safe and healthy. Here we are in the midst of such horrors and yet we sit quietly on the sidelines watching our Reality TV shows and pray we can make next month’s mortgage payment or fill our gas tank in our car tomorrow. Perhaps this is why too many of us are ignoring the true state of our existence: the true state of our country. Perhaps the ugly truth is just too ugly to face. But unless we face it, unless we stand up and make our voices heard loud and shrill we are doomed, yes, doomed to remain oppressed, controlled by the few, and with less rights than our forefathers had when they left their homelands for a better place. We need to begin by finding our dignity again, standing tall and defending those less fortunate than us. We need to start stifling those who speak for us in a tongue foreign and in words that betray their true meaning. We need to make our elected representatives responsible to we the people. We need to find our gumption, our strength in numbers, our fortitude, our sense of righteousness, our keen sense of what’s right and what is certainly wrong. We need to educate ourselves, read for ourselves, make up our own minds; we need to turn off the television pundits and ignore their cleverly crafted venom spewed from their bully pulpits and we need to begin a dialogue with our neighbors. We need to start talking again – even when we don’t agree. What happened to debate and discourse and even healthy disagreement? We can learn from each other if we can just step out of our own preconceived skins for a moment in time. We need to stop being afraid that there are eyes and ears everywhere – and that we are no longer free; because, dear friends, if we allow ourselves to be frightened and docile then we can expect nothing more than to be “the controlled masses”. Is this what we want for ourselves, for our children? Is this our destiny? We need to begin by putting this president on notice that we indeed see; that we indeed are unwilling to accept his vision for us, for our country and that he has to answer to us for the actions, the lies and the laws broken that he has perpetrated upon this nation and its people in our name. It is time to bring this president up on the very serious charges of Impeachment. Never before has a sitting president deserved it more. Never before has such egregious acts gone ignored and unpunished. It is time we exert our rights as citizens of these United States of America and begin the long road to healing this nation. We must begin by removing this president and this administration from their lofty thrones. I pray it’s not too late. Norma Sherry is an award-winning writer/producer. She is the host of The Norma Sherry Show on WQXT-TV. She is also co-founder of togetherforeverchanging.org, an organization designed to enlighten and encourage citizens to fight for our liberties. -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars Gullible Americans By Paul Craig Roberts 08/14/06 "Information Clearing House" http://informationclearinghouse.info/article14531.htm I was in China when a July Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans still believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when Bush invaded that country, and that 64 percent of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein had strong links with Al Qaeda. The Chinese leaders and intellectuals with whom I was meeting were incredulous. How could a majority of the population in an allegedly free country with an allegedly free press be so totally misinformed? The only answer I could give the Chinese is that Americans would have been the perfect population for Mao and the Gang of Four, because Americans believe anything their government tells them. Americans never check any facts. Who do you know, for example, who has even read the Report of the 9/11 Commission, much less checked the alleged facts reported in that document. I can answer for you. You don’t know anyone who has read the report or checked the facts. The two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission Report, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, have just released a new book, “Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission.” Kean and Hamilton reveal that the commission suppressed the fact that Muslim ire toward the US is due to US support for Israel’s persecution and dispossession of the Palestinians, not to our “freedom and democracy” as Bush propagandistically claims. Kean and Hamilton also reveal that the US military committed perjury and lied about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners. The commission even debated referring the military’s lies to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. Why should we assume that these admissions are the only coverups and lies in the 9/11 Commission Report? How do you know that 9/11 was a Muslim terrorist plot? How do you know that three World Trade Center buildings collapsed because two were hit by airliners? You only “know” because the government gave you the explanation of what you saw on TV. (Did you even know that three WTC buildings collapsed?) I still remember the enlightenment I experienced as a student in Russian Studies when I learned that the Czarist secret police would set off bombs and then blame those whom they wanted to arrest.. When Hitler seized dictatorial power in 1933, he told the Germans that his new powers were made necessary by a communist terrorist attack on the Reichstag. When Hitler started World War II by invading Poland, he told the Germans that Poland had crossed the frontier and attacked Germany. Governments lie all the time--especially governments staffed by neoconservatives whose intellectual godfather, Leo Strauss, taught them that it is permissible to deceive the public in order to achieve their agenda. Some readers will write to me to say that they saw a TV documentary or read a magazine article verifying the government’s explanation of 9/11. But, of course, these Americans did not check the facts either--and neither did the people who made the documentary and wrote the magazine article. Scientists and engineers, such as Clemson University Professor of Engineering Dr. Judy Woods and BYU Professor of Physics Dr. Steven Jones, have raised compelling questions about the official account of the collapse of the three WTC buildings. The basic problem for the government's account is that the buildings are known to have fallen at free fall speed, a fact that is inconsistent with the government's "pancaking" theory in which debris from above collapsed the floors below. If the buildings actually "pancaked," then each floor below would have offered resistance to the floors above, and the elapsed time would have been much longer. These experts have also calculated that the buildings did not have sufficient gravitational energy to accommodate the government's theory of the collapse. It is certainly a known and non-controversial fact among physicists and engineers that the only way buildings can collapse at free fall speed into their own footprints is by engineered demolition. Explosives are used to remove the support of floors below before the debris from above arrives. Otherwise, resistance is encountered and the time required for fall increases. Engineered demolition also explains the symmetrical collapse of the buildings into their own foot prints. As it is otherwise improbable for every point in floors below to weaken uniformly, "pancaking" would result in asymmetrical collapse as some elements of the floor would give sooner than others. Scientific evidence is a tough thing for the American public to handle, and the government knows it. The government can rely on people dismissing things that they cannot understand as "conspiracy theory." But if you are inclined to try to make up your own mind, you can find Dr. Jones' and Dr. Woods’ papers, which have been formally presented to their peers at scientific meetings, on line at http://www.st911.org/ Experts have also pointed out that the buildings' massive steel skeletons comprised a massive heat sink that wicked away the heat from the limited, short-lived fires, thus preventing a heat buildup. Experts also point out that the short-lived, scattered, low-intensity fires could barely reach half the melting point of steel even if they burned all day instead of merely an hour. Don't ask me to tell you what happened on 9/11. All I know is that the official account of the buildings' collapse is improbable. Now we are being told another improbable tale. Muslim terrorists in London and Pakistan were caught plotting to commit mass murder by smuggling bottles of explosive liquids on board airliners in hand luggage. Baby formula, shampoo and water bottles allegedly contained the tools of suicide bombers. How do we know about this plot? Well, the police learned it from an “Islamic militant arrested near the Afghan-Pakistan border several weeks ago.” And how did someone so far away know what British-born people in London were plotting? Do you really believe that Western and Israeli intelligence services, which were too incompetent to prevent the 9/11 attack, can uncover a London plot by capturing a person on the Afghan border in Pakistan? Why would “an Islamic militant” rat on such a plot even if he knew of it? More probable explanations of the “plot” are readily available. According to the August 11 Wayne Madsen Report, informed sources in the UK report that “the Tony Blair government, under siege by a Labor Party revolt, cleverly cooked up a new ‘terror’ scare to avert the public’s eyes away from Blair’s increasing political woes. British law enforcement, neocon and intelligence operatives in the US, Israel, and Britain, and Rupert Murdoch’s global media empire cooked up the terrorist plot, liberally borrowing from the failed 1995 ‘Oplan Bjinka’ plot by Pakistan- and Philippines-based terrorist Ramzi Ahmad Yousef to crash 11 trans-Pacific airliners bound from Asia to the US.” There are other plausible explanations. For example, our puppet in Pakistan decided to arrest some people who were a threat to him. With Bush’s commitment to “building democracy in the Middle East,” our puppet can’t arrest his political enemies without cause, so he lays the blame on a plot. Any testimony against Muslim plotters by “an Islamic militant” is certain to have been bought and paid for. Or consider this explanation. Under the Nuremberg standard, Bush and Blair are war criminals. Bush is so worried that he will be held accountable that he has sent his attorney general to consult with the Republican Congress to work out legislation to protect Bush retroactively from his violations of the Geneva Conventions. Tony Blair is in more danger of finding himself in the dock. Britain is signatory to a treaty that, if justice is done, will place Blair before the International Criminal Court in the Hague. What better justification for the two war criminals’ illegal actions than the need to foil dastardly plots by Muslims recruited in sting operations by Western intelligence services? The more Bush and Blair can convince their publics that terrorist danger abounds, the less likely Bush and Blair are ever to be held accountable for their crimes. But surely, some readers might object, our great moral leaders wouldn’t do something political like that! They most certainly would. As Joshua Micah Marshall wrote in the July 7 issue of Time magazine, the suspicion is “quite reasonable” that “the Bush Administration orchestrates its terror alerts and arrests to goose the GOP’s poll numbers.” Joshua Micah Marshall proves his conclusion by examining the barrage of color-coded terror alerts, none of which were real, and, yes, it all fits with political needs. And don’t forget the plot unearthed in Miami to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago. Described by Vice President Cheney as a “very real threat,” the plot turned out to be nothing more than a few harmless whackos recruited by an FBI agent sent out to organize a sting. There was also the “foiled plot” to blow up the Holland Tunnel and flood downtown New York City with sea water. Thinking New Orleans, the FBI invented this plot without realizing that New York City is above sea level. Of course, most Americans didn’t realize it either. For six years the Bush regime has been able to count on the ignorant and naive American public to believe whatever tale that is told them. American gullibility has yet to fail the Bush regime. The government has an endless number of conspiracy theories, but only people who question the government’s conspiracies are derided for “having a conspiracy theory.” The implication is even worse if we assume that the explosive bottle plot is genuine. It means that America and Britain by their own aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, and by enabling Israel’s war crimes in Palestine and Lebanon, have created such hatred that Muslims, who identify with Bush’s, Blair’s, and Israel’s victims, are plotting retaliation. But Bush is prepared. He has taught his untutored public that “they hate us for our freedom and democracy.” Gentle reader, wise up. The entire world is laughing at you. -------- ACTIVISTS Troops, civilians in S. Korea warned of demonstrations By Jim Tice Staff writer August 14, 2006 Army Times http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2018035.php U.S. military and civilian forces in South Korea have been cautioned that large-scale marches and demonstrations in Seoul on Tuesday may take on anti-American themes. Civil gatherings marking Korean Liberation Day are expected to number from a few thousand near Yongsan Garrison, headquarters for U.S. Forces Korea, to 30,000 in the vicinity of Kyobo Small Park near the U.S. embassy. Security notices from U.S. Forces Korea recommend that Americans avoid the demonstrations, do not interact with demonstrators, and do not take public transportation near the affected areas. Further guidance will be issued by the command as needed. There are currently 28,000 American troops stationed in South Korea. ---- Son Of Israeli Peace Activist David Grossman Dies in Lebanon Monday, August 14th, 2006 Headlines Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/14/1358247 Among the Israeli soldiers killed on Saturday was Uri Grossman, the son of one of Israel's most prominent anti-war activists, the writer David Grossman. Uri Grossman was killed when an anti-tank missile hit his tank in southern Lebanon. He was just two weeks shy of his 21st birthday. Two days before Uri was killed, his father David Grossman held a press conference, along with fellow novelists Amos Oz and A.B. Yehoshua, to denounce the expansion of the operation in Lebanon. David Grossman said "Out of concern for the future of Israel and our place here, the fighting should be stopped now, to give a chance to negotiations.” 40% Of Israelis Disapprove of War in Lebanon Meanwhile, polls in Israel show support for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s handling of the war is plummeting. 40 percent of Israelis now disapprove of the war and less than half support Olmert’s handling of the war. Israeli Peace Group: “Nothing Has Been Gained in This Foolish War” On Sunday the Israeli peace group Gush Shalom took out an ad in the pages of Haaretz. It read: “A mountain of suffering has turned into an anthill of achievements. Nothing has been gained in this foolish war. Every drop of blood that is being shed now is being shed in vain.” Death Toll: 1,100 Lebanese; 140 Israelis Since the fighting began, nearly 1,100 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in Lebanon. Israel has lost about 100 soldiers and 40 civilians. On Saturday, 24 Israeli soldiers died in fierce fighting with Hezbollah guerillas who managed to shoot down an Israeli helicopter. The Washington Post reports that the fighting has proved Hezbollah is the best guerilla force in the world. ---- White house protest draws almost 10,000 people 'Bush had no right' to back Israel By Paul de Zardain Special to The Lebanon Daily Star Monday, August 14, 2006 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=74715 WASHINGTON: Demonstrators gathered near the White House on Saturday to express support for Lebanon in the face of the Israeli onslaught. At noon, Lebanese flags began to fill Lafayette Square, just steps away from the White House. The ubiquity of cedar motifs brought to mind Beirut's Martyrs Square after the assassination of Rafik Hariri in 2005. Only this time, the backdrop was not the prospect of national sovereignty and no-strings democracy, but a new installation of war. The White House rally, organized by the ANSWER coalition, the National Council of Arab Americans and the Muslim-American Society Freedom Foundation, reflected a diverse range of interest groups. There were black-turbaned Shiite clerics threading their way through the crowd, which included a group of silent ultra-orthodox Jews dressed in full Sabbath kaftans. Not far behind was a hardcore of mostly adolescent Hizbullah supporters chanting slogans in Arabic. A common theme, however, was a denouncement of US complicity in the latest war to ravage Lebanon. "Israel doesn't need our aid," said one of the speakers. "We are law-abiding citizens and we pay our taxes. We want to know why our money goes to military aid for Israel." Former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark said the world has to unite to end the cycle of violence. "In the midst of all this hate, anger and misery, there has to be a way for people to live together," he said. At 1 p.m., busloads of out-of-town marchers joined the rally. By then, the numbers had grown to just short of 10,000, according to a non-official source at the Parks Police. Natasha Estephan, 26, was one of the first to arrive in front of the speakers' podium. Posing for digital snapshots with her sister Ramona, she beamed while waving a Lebanese flag. "Our grandparents were killed in Jiyyeh during the Civil War in 1985. Their bodies were never found. As a superpower, I feel the US needs to have a plan for peace this time," she said. Her own plans for Beirut this summer had to be scrapped. Still, she hopes to return soon: "Isn't Lebanon great?" Others were less optimistic. Sonia Aboulhosn, originally from Hamana, arrived in Beirut on July 10. Two days later, the first air raids hit the city and Aboulhosn was soon evacuated by the US Embassy. "It was horrifying. The Israelis had no right and it was just an excuse to get into Lebanon," she said. She expected a more neutral position from the US administration: "Bush had no right to say Israel has a right to defend itself. What about Lebanon? What about the children?" Marchers were also lukewarm about UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which passed on Friday. The fact that the Lebanese Army will not have complete control south of the Litani River makes it structurally weak, some argued. Omar Abou-Ezzedine, 24, thought it came too late. "I know there were different agendas here that sought as much destruction as possible," he said. "I feel helpless. A show of solidarity is the least thing I can do," said Marwan Zaouk, 43, who had driven from Knoxville, Tennessee. Zaouk fled Beirut with his American wife and two children on July 13. They first headed to Tripoli but ended up driving all the way to Jordan. "They can draft a million resolutions. But unless there is a fair and just solution to the Middle East conflict, there will never be peace," said Zaouk. By 3 p.m., most of the marchers had done a full circle of the White House and were streaming back into Lafayette Square. Music by Lebanese diva Fairouz blared out of the loudspeakers as the crowd began to disperse. Ali Deghaili, 50, was still emotionally charged as he walked down Pennsylvania Avenue with his two daughters. "Hope? Yes," he said. "But Israel needs to go with the resolution."