NucNews November 8, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR IEA Backs Nuclear Power in Climate Change Battle REUTERS UK/FRANCE: November 8, 2006 http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/38866/story.htm LONDON/PARIS - The International Energy Agency urged governments on Tuesday to build more nuclear plants to slow climate change and increase energy security, throwing its weight behind the push for atomic power. In its annual World Energy Outlook, a 596-page response to a G8 call for a sustainable energy blueprint, the agency said unless leaders took action world demand for fossil fuels would rise by more than 50 percent, along with carbon emissions. Energy conservation and investment in nuclear power could cut consumption by 10 percent by 2030, the IEA said, equivalent to China's energy use today. Carbon emissions would drop by 16 percent, what the United States and Canada emit between them. "We are on course for an energy system that will evolve from crisis to crisis," Claude Mandil, executive director of the adviser to 26 industrialised nations, told a news conference. "That may mean skyrocketing prices, or more frequent blackouts." By 2030, oil could soar to US$130.30 a barrel if energy investment and government policies fall short, the IEA warned. A jump to a record near US$80 in July left consumer governments worried about their economies. The report drove home the nuclear message. "The economics have moved in nuclear power's favour," it said. "Nuclear power offers considerable advantages in terms of avoiding greenhouse-gas emissions and of energy security." It is the first time the IEA, set up after the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo, has backed nuclear power in such strong terms. This year's report devotes a whole chapter to nuclear energy. The Paris-based agency said more than US$20 trillion must be invested in new energy supplies by 2030 to meet demand, up US$3 trillion from a year ago mainly due to cost inflation. There remains a strong risk investment will fall short and rising expenditure might not be all it seems. The IEA said a jump in energy spending was largely illusory because of the rising cost of drilling, materials and wages. REVIVAL Nuclear power is on an international growth path despite concerns over safety and the risk of radioactive material falling into the hands of al Qaeda or other similar groups. At a G8 meeting in March, US Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said he hoped for "a rebirth of the global nuclear industry". Last week a British report by former World Bank chief economist Nicholas Stern called for urgent action on climate change. Supporters of nuclear power seized on the report, which warned of huge economic and environmental damage. Even anti-nuclear Germany has suggested it may look again at its plan to phase out nuclear plants. "Clearly some countries that had said nuclear will not happen are now speaking again about nuclear," Mandil said. The World Nuclear Association welcomed the IEA report. "We are glad the IEA has given such a clear indication of nuclear power's ability to meet today's needs," a spokesman for the London-based organization said. "Nuclear is a proven, effective technology for providing stable electricity supplies on a large scale. But Greenpeace took issue with the IEA's argument. "Investing in nuclear power is a sure way to lose the battle against climate change," Greenpeace campaigner Sarah North said. "It costs up to 10 times as much as energy efficiency measures to get the same carbon savings and creates huge security and environmental threats that will last for tens of thousands of years." SECURITY AND PRICE INCENTIVE US oil hit a record US$78.40 a barrel in July, threatening world economic growth. Oil or gas supply disruptions in Russia, Nigeria and Iraq have added to consumer nations' unease. Barring tough measures to tackle oil demand, consumption -- led by China and India -- would surge nearly 40 percent to 116 million barrels per day by 2030, leaving consumers more dependent on OPEC as other reserves run out, the IEA said. The IEA said more spending was needed to lift nuclear capacity by more than 40 percent to 519 gigawatts by 2030. Nuclear plants provided just 15 percent of the world's electricity last year. Coal, a major source of greenhouse gases, and gas generate the vast bulk of the world's electricity. The IEA called for more efficient use of energy, in light bulbs and cars, for instance. Consumers will have to pay up initially, but those costs will be far exceeded by the savings. For a full list of policies, see www.worldenergyoutlook.org. (additional reporting by Stuart Penson, Peg Mackey and Janet McBride) Story by Alex Lawler and Muriel Boselli ---- US Says Some Countries Dragging Feet On Nuclear Threat by Staff Writers Vienna (AFP) Nov 8, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_Says_Some_Countries_Dragging_Feet_On_Nuclear_Threat_999.html Terrorists could exploit some countries' lack of "a sense of urgency" in controlling the nuclear weapons threat by unleashing a devastating attack, warned a senior US diplomat in Vienna on Wednesday. "Frankly, not all countries may have the same sense of urgency" to control the spread of nuclear weapons technology, said Gregory Schulte, US Ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency and to the United Nations in Vienna. Schulte however refused to name the countries which he thought were reacting too slowly. Schulte spoke to reporters after a diplomatic seminar organised by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and aimed at putting into place UN Resolution 1540 from 2004 which addresses the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the terrorist threat. Warning against a false sense of security he said "there is a tendency to think that terrorists equipped with weapons of mass destruction might only detonate them in one or two cities". The diplomat played a slide show simulating the potential destruction that a 10 kilotonne nuclear bomb would cause to Vienna's historic city centre, "vaporising" all people and buildings within a kilometer (0.6 miles). A single such attack would affect the entire world on an economic level, he added, noting the global ramifications of the September 11 terrorist attacks. "Traffickers are going to look for weaknesses," he warned. "We need to work with all the countries to help secure their technologies and borders," he added. Schulte also recognised that "implementing all the provisions of Resolution 1540 is a complicated process" sometimes requiring legal reforms and said the United States was prepared to assist with legal transitions. -------- africa Eskom goes shopping for second nuclear reactor Johannesburg, South Africa 08 November 2006 - Sapa http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__business/&articleid=289291 Eskom will decide within six months whether to commission a second nuclear power plant to supplement its Cape Town Koeberg plant, Business Day's website reported on Wednesday. Phumzile Tshelane, Eskom's technical strategy manager, said the company was looking at models of light-water reactors from French and United States suppliers, and one type of heavy-water reactor from a Canadian supplier. "We will make the decision in less than six months ... Nuclear will be the option we are going for at Eskom in the near future," Tshelane said. The new plant would be located on the South African coast. The company was looking at potential sites in the Eastern Cape and Western Cape. The cost of the project would depend on the type of plant chosen, Tshelane said. Koeberg has been beset by outages blamed on damage to transmission lines and operational problems after a misplaced bolt crippled the rotor of one of the plant's two reactors. The past weekend saw a nuclear reactor shutting down automatically because of a fault on the turbine control systems. It was back in operation by Tuesday. -------- australia Govt backs nuclear energy report November 8, 2006 Australian Broadcasting http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1783596.htm The Federal Government says it supports an international report that recommends the use of nuclear power to reduce the effects of climate change. The OECD's energy arm, the International Energy Agency, says countries are increasingly vulnerable to "severe" oil supply disruptions and face a "dirty, insecure and expensive" future without nuclear energy. Environment Minister Ian Campbell says nuclear energy is one of several solutions the world must embrace to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels. "In terms of safe energy supplies and reduced risk of climate change, it will need more renewables, more energy efficiency, transportation reform, reform to land use, cutting out deforestation and planting more trees," he said. "It will also need to capture carbon from burning fossil fuels. "If you are to address climate change, you'll need to stop carbon going into the atmosphere off coal and other fossil fuels but you'll need to look at every other technological alternative as well. "Nuclear happens to be a proven technology that can produce energy with much lower emissions." But Greenpeace spokeswoman Katherine Fitzpatrick says nuclear power poses unnecessary risks to the environment and communities, and is more expensive than other renewable sources. "It's far too slow to make the impact on global emission reductions that we need to avoid climate change," she said. "The report emphasises energy efficiency and renewables but at the same time it continues with business as usual with nuclear power and coal. "What needs to happen is a massive shift to efficiency and renewable energy. "Nuclear power costs 10 times as much as energy efficiency to get the same carbon pollution savings and it creates huge security and environmental threats at the same time." -------- britain Our terminally ill democracy November 08 2006 UK Herald http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/73899-print.shtml Harry McAlister (Letters, November 7) is guilty of understatement when he talks of signs of poor health in our democracy. Our democracy as practised under the New Labour government in Westminster is terminally ill and its subservient counterpart at Holyrood is no healthier. In 2004 I met with my (then Labour) MP to raise my concerns regarding the use, clearance and effect of cluster bombs and depleted-uranium munitions in Iraq. The MP initially agreed to put a series of questions on my behalf but then (presumably after the whips had studied these questions) wrote to inform me that she had changed her mind and would not raise my questions. Her grounds for refusal were that similar questions by other MPs had been rebuffed by the government who refused to answer on the grounds of national security or other technicalities. So the message was clear — don't mention the war! I made public through the letters page of this and other newspapers my MP's actions, or lack of action, in what I saw as a denial of my right to the democratic process. I now have a new MP, a Liberal Democrat, whom I have petitioned on the same subject and I await his response with interest. Whatever his response I heartily agree with Mr McAlister that we should use all means possible to highlight our elected representatives' position on the illegal Iraq war by naming and shaming — or praising as the case may be. Sadly we cannot do the same with our MSPs as they take refuge behind the fact that defence is not a devolved issue — not devolved, that is, until it comes to providing soldiers, then Scotland's role becomes crucial. Tom Minogue, 94 Victoria Terrace, Dunfermline. BOB Thomson (November 4) laments that MPs' votes are rarely recorded in the press, hindering the electorate from making informed decisions at the ballot box. Readers wishing to see how their representatives vote on their behalf might be interested in a couple of websites, produced by volunteers who care about democracy, which provide detailed and easily digestible records of our politicians' activities. http://www.theyworkforyou.com extracts data from Hansard to show MPs' speeches and votes at every division and includes a simple-to-use search interface. Meanwhile www.publicwhip.org.uk records votes and attempts to discern voting patterns within the data. Readers who are incensed by what they discover might wish to avail themselves of www.writetothem.com which provides an easy way to contact councillors, MSPs, MPs and MEPs. Geraint Bevan, 3e Grovepark Gardens, Glasgow. -------- business US-based conglomerate ''GE'' today said it was looking to set up nuclear power plants in India Media Release Nov. 8, 2006 India Daily http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/14114.asp US-based conglomerate ''GE'' today said it was looking to set up nuclear power plants in India and was open to form joint ventures with domestic companies. "We are open to enter the Indian market as an owner or an operator," GE Energy president and CEO, Andrew White, who is in India to hold talks with various companies for possible joint ventures, told reporters here. Eyeing the huge scope for nuclear energy in India after the nuclear cooperation agreement with the US goes through, White said the company was open for either setting up new plants or participating in expansion of existing facilities. "India has an excellent expertise and Indian companies can participate with GE on a global basis," he said. White said he has held talks with State-run NTPC Ltd., Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., and also with government officials. "I am very confident and positive about the potential of opportunities we have in this country provided we get through the political hurdles," he said. White said GE Energy was offering two of its reactors - Generation 3 and 4, which meet Indian requirements. India aims to produce 25 per cent of its power generation from nuclear energy by 2025, as compared to only 2.7 per cent now. Global nuclear energy majors have been eyeing the Indian market after the Indo-US civil nuclear deal. Earlier this year, French nuclear major ''Areva'' had also expressed interest in supplying equipment. -------- canada Dinning favours nuclear power for oilsands Jason Markusoff, The Edmonton Journal Wednesday, November 08, 2006 http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/4-0&fp=4573a392f6580585&ei=-29zRZmUGcagaIe3xcUI&url=http%3A//www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html%3Fid%3Dc4b2b119-01aa-4e52-9565-f20942862630&cid=0 EDMONTON - Jim Dinning suddenly became the nuclear candidate Tuesday, promising the crowd at a Vermilion candidates' forum he would look at allowing a reactor plant to meet the oilsands' ballooning energy needs. The perceived front-runner became the first Conservative leadership contender to publicly flirt with Alberta going nuclear, a controversial idea that retiring Premier Ralph Klein also recently warmed up to. "We're wasting natural gas, and nuclear power's got to go on the list of energy sources to be considered to support the development of the oilsands," Dinning said, getting cheers from many in at Lakeland College's Vermilion campus theatre. The oilsands' energy-intensive extraction and processing sucks up massive amounts of natural gas, a need which will grow as more megaprojects join the northern oil rush. While that happens, forecasters predict the Alberta's natural-gas production will peak. "As you move from one million to four million barrels of production in the oilsands, it's got to go on the list of options," Dinning said later in an interview, citing coal, natural gas and oilsands bitumen as the other legitimate choices for oilsands fuel. Total SA, a French energy giant investing in the oilsands, has mused about incorporating nuclear power into its oilsands expansion, while other major corporations have agreed it should be looked at. Ted Morton was the only rival to react to Dinning's musings about nuclear power. "Here's another promise: no nuclear plants in Alberta," he said in his closing statements, drawing a few groans and no applause. A retired teacher from Vermilion criticized Morton for rejecting what he called a clean energy source worth considering. "When a candidate rejects out of hand another candidate's idea like that, I have a concern about it," Dean McMullen said. Construction supervisor Tony Baker, also a local, said his native Britain has embraced nuclear power and Alberta ought to be open-minded. "It's clean and there's enough technology to make it work well." Candidates Lyle Oberg and Ed Stelmach said nuclear power has come up as an option throughout rural Alberta, and they agree it should be considered. Environment Minister Guy Boutilier, McMurray's MLA, has strongly opposed the idea, saying it's "at the bottom of the barrel" of energy options in Alberta. Beyond Dinning's surprise mention of nuclear power, the forum closely resembled others the Tory party has hosted as the candidates' cross-Alberta road show. But as the only one outside a major city, the leadership hopefuls also catered their message to the rural heartland. jmarkusoff@thejournal.canwest.com -------- china China-Egypt nuclear energy deal News of the deal came in a joint communiqué from the presidents Wednesday, 8 November 2006 (BBC) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6128438.stm China says it has reached an agreement with the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, to co-operate on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. China's official news agency said the agreement had been confirmed at talks in Beijing on Tuesday between Mr Mubarak and President Hu Jintao. No further details of the deal have been made public. Egypt plans to revive its nuclear energy programme, frozen 20 years ago after the Chernobyl nuclear accident. Russia has also said it is willing to help Egypt to develop a nuclear energy programme. Following his talks in Moscow and Beijing, Mr Mubarak has moved on to Central Asia. Egypt announced plans to revive the civilian nuclear power programme in September. A plant will be constructed at al-Dabaa, on the Mediterranean coast, within the next 10 years, it was announced. Demand for electricity has been growing at an average rate of 7% a year and the country faces worsening shortages. ---- Beijing and Cairo sign energy deal Agence France-Presse November 8, 2006 http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/08/business/energy.php China and Egypt have agreed to cooperate on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, the state news media reported Wednesday, a move that could upset the United States, a traditional ally of Cairo. The agreement was announced in a joint communiqué after talks in Beijing on Tuesday between President Hosni Mubarak and President Hu Jintao, Xinhua reported. "Egypt is not going to produce nuclear weapons," said He Wenping, an expert on Africa relations at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, the top government research group. "It won't affect the international community because Egypt will use the nuclear energy peacefully." No details were immediately available on how the two nations planned to cooperate, Xinhua said. Both nations, however, earlier announced plans to step up their nuclear energy capacity. China plans to increase its combined nuclear power capacity to 40,000 megawatts by 2020, which will require about two 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plants to be built annually for the next 15 years. Egypt, meanwhile, is reviving its nuclear program two decades after it was frozen after the Chernobyl accident, in Ukraine. It is seeking solutions to longer-term worries about energy security and hopes to acquire technological know- how from the Chinese, He said. When Mubarak visited Russia last week, Moscow also signaled a willingness to cooperate with Egypt on nuclear energy. "Egypt has made a decision to transfer to nuclear energy and build four stations," said Boris Alyoshin, head of the Russian federal industry agency. "It is beyond doubt that we will take part in the tender, and I think we have good chances of winning." -------- depleted uranium No evidence of uranium-based munitions in Lebanon: UN Wednesday, November 8, 2006 AFP http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1783385.htm UN experts have found no evidence to support a press report that Israel used depleted uranium (DU) munitions during the July-August conflict in Lebanon, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) says. "The samples taken by the UNEP scientists show no evidence of penetrators or metal made of DU or other radioactive material," UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner said in a statement. "In addition, no DU shrapnel, or other radioactive residue was found. The analysis of all smear samples taken shows no DU, nor enriched uranium nor higher than natural uranium content in the samples." In October, the British daily The Independent The craters, at Khiam and At-Tiri, were caused by Israeli heavy or guided bombs and showed "elevated radiation signatures," the Independent quoted Chris Busby, the British scientific secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, as saying. Britain's ministry of defence had confirmed the level of uranium isotopes in the samples, which were also being tested by mass spectrometry at a laboratory in Oxfordshire, the report had said. The UNEP statement said a sub-team of inspectors looking specifically at the DU issue had visited 32 sites south and north of the Litani river. "Following strict field procedures, a range of smear, dust and soil samples were taken. The samples were analysed in October-November at an internationally-recognised laboratory in Switzerland," it said. UNEP had sent the team as part of an assessment into environmental damage caused by the conflict. The investigation confirmed that Israel had used artillery and mortar ammunition containing white phosphorus, the statement said. Israel says that none of its weapons are illegal and acknowledged on October 22 that it used the phosphorus. Human rights groups have long argued that phosphorus weapons, which cause agonising injuries, should be banned under the Chemical Weapons Convention. -------- europe France test-fires unarmed nuclear weapon Associated Press Thu, Nov. 09, 2006 http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/15970198.htm PARIS - France successfully shot its new M51 submarine-launched ballistic missile over the Atlantic on Thursday in its first experimental test flight, the Defense Ministry said. The missile carried no nuclear weapon for the test flight, which was closely monitored by specialists at a test center in Biscarosse, in southwest France, as well as by the Monge missile-tracking ship, ministry spokesman Jean-Francois Bureau said. The M51 is designed to replace the M45 submarine-launched ballistic missile, or SLBM. The M51 can carry six TN-75 thermonuclear warheads and has a range of up to 6,000 miles. Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie "expressed her great satisfaction" at the success of the test, her ministry said. Alliot-Marie insisted on the "need to conduct tests to verify the performance of future missiles of the strategic ocean forces, and attain an important stage in the adaptation and modernization of our dissuasive force." Greenpeace activist Xavier Renou called the test a violation of France's commitments to nonproliferation and a provocation to the international community. Bureau insisted the test conformed to all of France's international commitments, including the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The missile is made by EADS Space Transportation in a $3.8 billion project. --- France Tests Ballistic Missile For Nuclear Deployment by Staff Writers Paris (AFP) Nov 9, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/France_Tests_Ballistic_Missile_For_Nuclear_Deployment_999.html France on Thursday successfully carried out a first test on its new M-51 ballistic missile which is to carry submarine-based nuclear weapons, the defense ministry said. The unarmed missile was fired over the Bay of Biscay from a launch test centre on France's southern Atlantic coast. The M51, with a range of some 8,000 kilometres (5,000 miles), is to replace France's existing submarine-based missiles by 2010. "This test flight was carried out ... in conformity with all France's international commitments concerning safety, transparency and non-proliferation," a ministry statement said. Defence Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said that the test was needed "to check the performance of future missiles ... and to move to a new phase in the modernisation of our deterrent," according to the statement. Manufactured by the European consortium EADS, the M-51 is 12 metres (39 feet) in length and weighs around 50 tonnes. It has a cruising altitude of 1,000 metres and will carry six nuclear warheads. France currently deploys the M45 ballistic missile, with a range of 6,000 kilometres, on the four submarines that form its Oceanic Strategic Force (FOST). In 1996 France dismantled its land-based nuclear missile silos, and its nuclear arsenal is now deliverable exclusively from submarines and aircraft. In January this year President Jacques Chirac said that the country's nuclear "force de frappe" could be targeted on countries that sponsor terrorism. -------- japan Japan Opposition Seeks FM Resignation Over Nuclear call by Staff Writers Tokyo (AFP) Nov 8, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Japan_Opposition_Seeks_FM_Resignation_Over_Nuclear_call_999.html Japan's opposition on Wednesday sought Foreign Minister Taro Aso's resignation over his calls for a debate on going nuclear following North Korea's nuclear test. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, a conservative who took office in September, has repeatedly said he will not consider developing nuclear weapons, a long-time taboo in the only nation to have suffered atomic attack. But Japan's four opposition parties decided in a meeting to visit Abe and urge him to sack Aso. "The four opposition parties agreed we will demand the foreign minister's resignation for recommending discussion on having nuclear weapons," said Hirotaka Otaki, an official of the main opposition Democratic Party of Japan. "We can't help but suspecting that Aso is talking on behalf of the prime minister, who cannot admit his real beliefs that Japan should become a nuclear power," he said. Aso and Shoichi Nakagawa, a top policy aide to the premier, have both called for a frank debate on going nuclear in light of communist neighbor North Korea, which tested an atom bomb on October 9. But both have stopped short of openly calling for an end to Japan's 1967 "three principles" of refusing the possession, production and presence of nuclear weapons on its soil. Abe in parliament defended himself against opposition criticism, saying, "No one in my cabinet is against the non-nuclear principles." "You have to differentiate between the issue of having nuclear weapons and the issue of how to contain the threat of nuclear attacks," Abe said. But main opposition leader Ichiro Ozawa said that Abe needed to muzzle his aides on the issue. "If the government is to keep to its three-point non-nuclear principles, cabinet members should refrain from comments that can cause misunderstanding both within the country and abroad," Ozawa said. "As the only nation which suffered attacks by atomic bombs, the Japanese government should deal with this problem carefully," he said. US nuclear bombs obliterated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the closing days of World War II, killing more than 210,000 people. -------- pakistan ‘Pakistan not to be first to use nuke’ By Nayyar Zaidi Wednesday, November 08, 2006 Pakistan International http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=4089 WASHINGTON: What are the grave consequences of an unsolved Jammu and Kashmir dispute? Here is a hint: “We won’t make first use of nuclear weapons, but you know, human beings make errors,” said Minister for Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas Tahir Iqbal. He was addressing an open forum sponsored by the Kashmiri American Council (KAC) here on Monday. It may be mentioned that the KAC has been warning for more than a decade that Jammu and Kashmir is the “nuclear flashpoint”. After the human error warning, the minister went on to emphasise the importance of “confidence-building measures” (CBMs) between Pakistan and India. He repeated President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s proposal for complete demilitarisation of the Line of Control (LoC) to enable Kashmiris on both the sides to move freely. Tahir Iqbal pointed that the UN Security Council resolutions had failed to resolve the Kashmir dispute. “Should we wait for another 60 years,” he then asked. He rejected the Indian accusations of infiltration from the Pakistan side and insisted that the struggle inside occupied Kashmir was “indigenous”. He warned India against “finger-pointing” at Pakistan. The minister explained President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s “self-governance” proposal for Jammu and Kashmir. Both occupied Kashmir and Azad Kashmir would be merged into a single territorial entity where the Kashmiris could run their own affairs. However, defence, foreign policy and currency would be jointly controlled by Pakistan and India. The “self-governance” proposal was made by Pakistani president at the end of his Washington visit in late September. On November 19, 2004, Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh made a proposal suggesting “self-rule” and “open borders”. In the occupied areas, India would control defence, currency, elections and judicial system and Pakistan would reciprocate with the same. There would be no border between the occupied Kashmir and Azad Kashmir under Singh’s proposal which did not mention foreign policy. The minister also revealed that Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had made some fresh proposals on the Kashmir dispute but they have not yet been made public. He mentioned that Singh was due to visit Pakistan in December although a date had not been decided. The minister said he was visiting US with a delegation to discuss the Kashmir issue and also to explain what Pakistan was doing to rehabilitate victims of the 2005 earthquake in the AJK and NWFP. ---- Pak, Hungary agree to hold talks on peaceful use of nuclear technology Wednesday November 08, 2006 Pakistan Tribune From ANI http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?159295 http://www.dailyindia.com/show/79563.php/Pak_Hungary_agree_to_civilian_nuclear_co-operationANI ISLAMABAD: Pakistan and Hungary Tuesday decided to start talks on peaceful use of nuclear technology and to understand each other position on nuclear energy. The decision was taken during meeting between Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri and his Hungarian counterpart Kinga Goncz at the Foreign Office here on Tuesday. The two leaders discussed relations between Pakistan and Hungary, regional and international issues, war against terrorism and Pakistan access to European markets. Later talking at a joint press conference, Khursheed Kasuri said that Pakistan had discussed with Hungary cooperation in civil nuclear technology and the two countries had agreed to understand each other position on the issue. He said the talks would be held at ambassadors level in Vienna. Kasuri said we discussed the need for enhanced market access for Pakistan to Europe and operationalization of the Third Generation Agreement (TGA). The Hungarian FM said that her country would hold talks on cooperation in nuclear sector based on principles. "We support use of nuclear technology to meet energy requirements," she added. She, however, said that members states should sign NPT and give their nuclear plants in IAEA control. She said Hungary would support Pakistan access to European markets and implementation of TGA. -------- russia Rosatom to tackle uranium shortage 08/ 11/ 2006 (Igor Tomberg for RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20061108/55465284.html MOSCOW. - A founding treaty to set up the Uranium Mining Company was signed on November 2 at Russia's Federal Agency for Nuclear Power (Rosatom). The event marked the beginning of a new era in the Russian nuclear industry, aimed at consolidating all the branch's uranium production assets. The agency has proposed to invest between $60 and $70 million in the construction of dozens of nuclear power plants by 2030. These measures and money are expected to prevent a shortage of electric power and increase the share of nuclear energy in Russia's energy balance to 25%. The plan envisages the construction of two generating units annually with 1 gigawatt capacity each. But the nuclear industry's ambitious plans both in Russia and abroad may be thwarted by a shortage of uranium raw materials. To tackle the problem, the agency has begun actively implementing its own raw materials program. The overall volume of discovered uranium reserves whose production costs do not exceed $130 per kilogram is about 4.7 million metric tons, which is enough for 85 years of operation of all the world's nuclear power plants. The overall volume of all uranium reserves in the world is probably much greater and is about 35 million tons, says the "Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand" report, prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Country-by-country data differ a great deal. According to some Russian sources, discovered uranium reserves in Russia amount to 615,000 tons (15% of world reserves), and probable reserves to 830,000 tons. U.S. Energy Department data show that the largest reserves are in Australia (about 27% of world reserves, although Australia does not have a single nuclear plant), Kazakhstan (17%), Canada (15%), South Africa (11%), Namibia (8%), Brazil (7%), Russia (5%), and the United States and Uzbekistan (4% each). Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, which possess sizable uranium reserves, are not included in the report. Russia produces over 3,000 tons of uranium annually (2004 data), and consumes about 9,000 tons. If the nuclear reform goes through, by 2020 the uranium demand will grow to 16,000 tons. There is a plan to increase its production by a thousand tons by 2010. This is clearly not enough even for home consumption. If, however, production is not increased approximately fivefold, Russia will finally turn from a uranium exporter (a country supplying dozens of foreign reactors) into an importer. The optimum method of supplying nuclear projects inside and outside the country is for Russia to restore the nuclear industry that existed in the U.S.S.R. With that purpose in view, the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power has begun negotiations with Ukraine and Central Asian countries, above all Kazakhstan. All founding documents are already prepared to set up an international uranium enrichment center based on the Angarsk Electrolysis and Chemical Plant. The center will be set up jointly with Kazakhstan, but third countries interested in uranium enrichment will be able to use its services. Shareholders of the joint venture will have open access to all aspects of its operation, but the enterprise will not be allowed to "touch" military technologies. Besides, steps have been taken to consolidate the branch's production, financial, intellectual and raw materials resources to raise natural uranium output and processing to meet the growing requirements of the country's nuclear industry. The signing of the founding documents of the Uranium Mining Company, which will combine the uranium assets of two large Russian state-owned companies - TVEL and Techsnabexport - is significant in this respect. The world's third largest uranium mining company has been created. TVEL will contribute three mining assets to the company: Hiagda, Priargunskoye Production Mining Chemical Association, and Dalur. Techsnabexport will contribute the Elkonskoye deposit in Yakutia and its share in the Russian-Kyrgyz-Kazakh JV Zarechnoye. In addition, the company may include Kazakhstan's Yuzhnoye Zarechnoye and Budyonnovskoye deposits, and set up JV Akbastau to develop them. Additionally, Techsnabexport is continuing talks to start up a uranium operation in Uzbekistan. The new uranium company might tap world uranium markets and even hold an IPO. The new mining company will do several things: follow up exploration and exploitation of deposits located in Russia and development of the country's raw materials, including geological prospecting. The company is also expected to set up joint ventures to produce uranium in and outside the country, and import uranium. In addition, it will channel Russian and foreign investments into uranium production. The new company may form a partnership with western investors to develop uranium deposits. For example, Japan's Mitsui, which signed an agreement with Techsnabexport to finance the advanced development of the Elkonskoye deposit, may become a minority shareholder of the new company. The list also includes Canadian Cameco, and world giants BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto. The presence of foreigners in a traditionally off-limits sector is not an attempt to follow the fashion, but a financial necessity. By establishing a joint mining company, the agency ensures the construction of nuclear power plants in Russia and abroad. Discovering and developing deposits involves massive resources, and the only way to increase processing and to prevent uranium shortages in the future is to attract private foreign investments. To be competitive the Russian nuclear industry must offer its projects on the world market and work together with its CIS neighbors. In addition to building nuclear facilities abroad, the industry also exports enriched uranium, nuclear fuel, and stable and radioactive isotopes, i.e. has a full spectrum of high-technology services available on the international market. Supplying raw materials calls for complex organizational, technical and investment decisions. Restoration of Soviet-era cooperation in uranium production and processing might benefit all participants in the process, and make CIS countries producers and exporters of advanced nuclear materials. Igor Tomberg, Ph.D. (Economics), is a leading research fellow at the Center for Energy Research, Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of World Economy and International Relations. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti. ---- Russia considers mining uranium in Bulgaria 08/ 11/ 2006 (RIA Novosti) http://en.rian.ru/russia/20061108/55459534.html MOSCOW, November 8 - Russia is considering mining uranium in Bulgaria after its nuclear services exporter won a tender to build a power plant outside Sofia, a senior nuclear official said Wednesday. Russia's newly-formed uranium production company will study the issue. "If the recently established Uranium Mining Company carries out the economic study together with Bulgarian colleagues, and uranium production proves to be economically attractive, the project will be launched," said Pyotr Lavrenyuk, vice president of Russia's nuclear fuel producer and supplier TVEL. The TVEL company and the state-owned uranium trader Tekhsnabexport (Tenex) merged into the Uranium Mining Company on November 2 to develop uranium deposits inside and outside Russia, and import uranium. Russia's nuclear power equipment and service export monopoly, Atomstroiexport, won a tender on October 30 to build two 1,000-megawatt reactors for an NPP in Belene, about 150 miles from Bulgaria's capital, Sofia. Russia's uranium production accounts for around 8% of the global output. Up to 90% of the profit in Russia's nuclear sector comes from nuclear fuel, power and services exports, according to nuclear chief Sergei Kiriyenko, but the country is seeking to import more nuclear fuel. The TVEL official said the company already imported uranium from other east European countries, including the Czech Republic. TVEL's cooperation in uranium production with other countries takes various forms. For example, Ukraine produces uranium independently, sends it to Russia for enrichment, and Russia in turn supplies uranium fuel for 15 nuclear power generating units in Ukraine. Russia and Kazakhstan established a joint venture in October to enrich uranium near Irkutsk, about 5,000 kilometers (3,100 miles) east of Moscow. Under the Soviet system, the three countries shared a nuclear power infrastructure under the Ministry of Medium Machine Building, a complex that Russia's nuclear chief wants restored. Kiriyenko also said in mid-September that nuclear energy must replace natural gas in Russia's energy balance, as the country's reserves of coal and natural gas will be depleted in 50 years. He also said Russia plans to meet 60-70% of its uranium demand domestically by 2015. -------- security Radioactive Gauge Stolen In Lakewood Burglary November 8, 2006 The Denver Channel http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/10273428/detail.html?rss=den&psp=news DENVER -- A burglar may get more than he bargained for if he damages a radioactive engineering gauge stolen from a Lakewood home last several weekends ago. The nuclear gauge was in a 1995 Ford Ranger pickup truck parked in a garage and police said that someone stole the pickup by backing it out of the garage and driving it away. The Troxler 3430 Surface Moisture Density Gauge was in a yellow storage/transpiration box chained into the back of the pickup. The Colorado Department of Health and Environment was notified of the theft on Oct. 23, the day after the theft. The gauge contains radioactive elements americium and cesium, according to Troxler Electronic Labs. The radioactive materials do not present a significant health risk to traffic or pedestrians as long as the gauge remains intact and is not handled for long periods, according to the state Health Department. Higher radiation exposures could occur if the radioactive sources are tampered with or the source rod is moved out of its shielded position. Anyone finding the gauge or gauge transport case should immediately notify the Colorado Department of Public Health at 877-518-5608. Acura Engineering is offering a reward for the return of the gauge. Lakewood police said the gauge can be dropped off at their department, with no questions asked. According to Troxler, there were 156 reported thefts of nuclear gauges in a four-year period, according to statistics maintained by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Only 40 percent of the stolen gauges were ever recovered. The NRC found that of the thefts occurred while gauges were stored in vehicles parked in areas away from the work site, often when the vehicle was parked at a private residence. -------- space Space: The Phantom Menace Tom Barry, IRC | November 8, 2006 International Relations Center (IRC) http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/3685 The October publication of President George W. Bush's new space policy marked a definitive victory in a long-fought campaign by right-wing hawks to extend their agenda toward the stars. How can we truly protect the U.S. homeland while ignoring the space above us? That is the question of space hawks, who for more than two decades have promoted a national security strategy that includes U.S. control of space—all planetary space. To that effect, the government created the U.S. Space Command in 1985. Since the early 1980s, a campaign by defense contactors, right-wing policy institutes, and former military officials to control and militarize space has paralleled efforts to build an anti-ballistic missile defense system. President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), known as the “Star Wars” defense, sought to raise public fear that the first attack on the homeland since Pearl Harbor would come from space and called for an extensive missile defense system. Last month President George W. Bush released his administration's revised National Space Policy. Four years in review, the new policy replaces the 1996 space policy set by the Clinton administration. When announcing the policy, the president asserted that domination of space was as important to U.S. national interests as air or sea power. The intent to dominate is clear in the policy's language: “The United States will preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. interests.” The National Space Policy stresses the belief that U.S. control of space is not only essential to defend against attacks on the U.S. homeland, but also fundamental to U.S. prosperity. Speaking about the new strategy statement, Fredrick Jones, a spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, told the Associated Press: “Technological advances have increased the importance of and use of space. Now we depend on space capabilities for things like ATMs, personal navigation, package tracking, radio services, and cell phone use.” According to Theresa Hitchens of the Center for Defense Information (CDI), “The changes in wording [from the Clinton policy] aggregate to a much more unilateralist vision of the U.S. role, particularly its military role, in space.” Hitchens said that “while seeking to assert ‘unhindered' U.S. rights to act in space, the new policy at best ignores—and at worst dismisses—any U.S. obligations toward other space-faring nations and under a spectrum of international accords and agreements.” The first National Space Policy, issued by the National Security Council as a presidential directive in 1996, opened the door to new lobbying for the development of space weapons by the defense industry, Air Force, and right-wing policy institutes. Rumsfeld Commission Relaunches Space Militarization It was not, however, until the so-called Rumsfeld Space Commission released its report in January 2001, which warned of a “space Pearl Harbor,” that serious pressure started building for the government to develop space weapons. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has been a leading proponent of a U.S. military presence in space. In 1999, Rumsfeld chaired the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization, the so-called Space Commission established by the Republican Congress to challenge the perceived weakness of the Clinton administration on national defense issues. Rumsfeld also chaired the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States. The Space Commission concluded that it is “possible to project power through and from space in response to events anywhere in the world. Having this capability would give the United States a much stronger deterrent and, in a conflict, an extraordinary military advantage.” The commission argued in Orwellian style that because the United States is without peer among “space-faring” nations, the country is all the more vulnerable to “state and non-state actors hostile to the United States and its interests.” In other words, U.S. enemies would seek to destroy the U.S. economy together with its ability to fight high-tech wars by attacking global-positioning satellites and other “space assets,” which would effectively result in a so-called space Pearl Harbor. According to a March 2006 report produced by the CDI and the Henry L. Stimson Center, the Bush administration has already moved to develop a space weapons program. The “facts in orbit” that come from this commitment to “full-spectrum domination”—land, air, sea, and space—have already pushed a space weapons program forward. In 2006 the Department of Defense requested $22.5 million for space activities, including communication and reconnaissance. Reviewing the 2007 Defense budget request, the CDI/Stimson Center report concluded: “These facts—the development and testing of space weapon technologies and the deployment of dual-use systems without any codes of conduct or rules of the road for their operation—will drive U.S. policy toward space weapons.” Such existing or proposed programs include a Space-Based Interceptor Test Bed, an Experimental Spacecraft System, the MDA Micro Satellite, and the Autonomous Nanosatellite Guardian for Evaluating Local Space. According to the CDI/Stimson Center report, “The defense budget contains a number of high-energy laser research and development programs that are either necessary precursors to space weapons or are explicitly identified for such a mission.” In a speech to the UN-sponsored Conference on Disarmament in June 2006, John Mohanco, deputy director to the State Department's Office of Multilateral Nuclear and Security Affairs, said that the United States would not participate in any negotiations to limit weapons use in outer space. “As long as the potential for such attacks [from space] remains, our government will continue to consider the possible role that space-related weapons may play in protecting our assets.” The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which Washington has signed and ratified, bans weapons of mass destruction in space and declares that space is to be used for the common good; Washington says it is not violating the treaty because it currently has no space weapons. Other countries, including China and Russia, say a new treaty is needed to ban anti-satellite and other space weapons, such as lasers. In 2005, Washington voted to block a UN resolution calling for a total ban on weapons in space. Any weapons that the United States might eventually deploy in space would be defensive, say U.S. government officials. But weapons experts contend that if the United States installs space-based interceptors as part of its missile defense system, the interceptors could just as well be used for offensive purposes. Indeed, the U.S. Air Force in 2004 published a vision paper, according to a Boston Globe report, that advocated a new agenda for space weapons including an air-launched anti-satellite missile, a ground-based laser aimed at low-Earth orbit satellites, and a “hypervelocity” weapon that could strike earth targets from space. The Air Force document said that U.S. space dominance “will require [the] full spectrum, sea, air, and space-based offensive counterspace systems.” The U.S. Air Force Space Command clearly states that military action in space must be offensive as well as defensive, requiring policy that calls for war fighting “in, from, and through space.” The October release of the National Space Policy comes on the heels of a report by the “Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the 21st Century,” which is a misnamed task force assembled by various right-wing policy institutes. Among the report's recommendations are the following: * Within three years, a space-based missile defense system should be tested (anticipated cost: $3.5 billion). * Deploy 1,000 Brilliant Pebbles-like space-based interceptors ($16.4 billion). * Because of the centrality of space to U.S. national security, efforts to counter U.S. primacy in space via restrictive legal regimes should be rejected. The task force claims that the 21st century maintenance of the “U.S. lead in space may indeed be pivotal to the basic geopolitical, military, and economic status of the United States. Consolidation of the preeminent U.S. position in space is akin to Britain's dominance of the oceans in the 19th century.” The group's members and sponsors include many key figures and institutions that advocate a more aggressive nuclear weapons and space weapons policy, including the four sectors of the space weapons lobby: defense contractors (including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Assured Space Access Technologies), think tanks and policy institutes (including the Hoover Institution), former military (including the Air Force Space Command), and university research institutes (including Tufts and MIT). In addition to the ties to the sponsoring institutions—the American Foreign Policy Council, Claremont Institute, Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, George C. Marshall Institute, Heritage Foundation, High Frontier, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and Institute of the North—the Independent Working Group included members with close links to the Center for Security Policy (CSP), National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP), and the Rumsfeld Space Commission. William Van Cleave served as the group's co-chairman along with Robert Pfaltzgraff of the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, which published the group's report. Van Cleave was a member of the infamous Team B Strategic Objectives Panel, a threat assessment committee authorized by George H.W. Bush, then-CIA director in the Ford administration. Along with two other members of the Independent Working Group— William R. Graham and Charles Kupperman—Van Cleave was a member of the Committee on the Present Danger, which opposed détente with the Soviet Union. Van Cleave, Graham, and Kupperman all have had teaching positions at the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University (formerly Southwest Missouri State University). The three are also associates of NIPP, a nuclear weapons policy institute, and serve on the CSP advisory council. Two other members of the Independent Working Group who also have close ties with Missouri State University are Henry Cooper of High Frontier and Keith Payne of NIPP. Another Missouri professor who is part of this right-wing circle is J.D. Crouch, who served a short term as assistant secretary of defense for international security policy in the George W. Bush administration before returning to the university. Van Cleave, chair of Missouri State University's Defense and Strategic Studies Department, is co-director of research in strategy at the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, a think tank closely associated with the Likud Party and Israeli military hardliners that also has an office in Washington, DC. Another prominent figure in the Independent Working Group was Ilan Berman of the American Foreign Policy Council. According to the editors of the National Review, “A domestic coalition of liberals and peaceniks that has consistently opposed ballistic missile defense since the early days of SDI is trying to make the National Space Policy controversial.” In their view, “What's really going on here is a conflict of visions between hawks who recognize the importance of space power in the 21st century and doves who think international treaties restricting America's technological advantages in space would make the world safer” (National Review Online, October 24, 2006). During the Clinton administration, the hawks kept missile defense alive by raising fears about missile attacks on the U.S. homeland by China, Iran, and North Korea. They also accused Clinton of failing to adopt a “coherent policy and program,” as the neoconservative Project for the New American Century (PNAC) opined in its 2000 publication Rebuilding America's Defenses, which was meant to serve as a policy blueprint for Clinton's successor. Promoting an ambitious, multilayered missile defense system, PNAC argued: “The ability to preserve American military preeminence in the future will rest in increasing measure on the ability to operate in space militarily: both the requirements for effective global missile defenses and projecting global conventional military power demand it.” More recently, the hawks—in large part the same groups that supported the SDI in the mid-1980s—have revived their pressure campaign for a land-, sea-, and space-based missile defense system they say would ensure global dominance by the United States. Applauding the Independent Working Group's work, the neoconservative-led CSP declares that the report “makes clear the imperative of developing and deploying missile defenses in the place where they can do the most good and at the least cost: space.” Tom Barry is a contributor to Right Web (rightweb.irc-online.org) and policy director of the International Relations Center (www.irc-online.org). Sources Theresa Hitchens, “The Bush National Space Policy: Contrasts and Contradictions,” Center for Defense Information, October 13, 2006. Theresa Hitchens, Michael Katz-Hyman, and Victoria Samson, “Space Weapons Spending in FY 2007 Defense Budget,” Center for Defense Information and Henry L. Stimson Center, March 6, 2006. Project for the New American Century, Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century, September 2000. Brent Bender, “Pentagon Eyeing Weapons in Space; Budget Seeks Millions to Test New Technologies,” Boston Globe, March 14, 2006. Stephanie Nebehay, “U.S. Insists on Right to Develop Arms for Outer Space,” Reuters, June 13, 2006. “Concentrating on Missile Defense,” Decision Brief, No. 06-D 36, Center for Security Policy. William D. Hartung with Frida Berrigan, Michelle Ciarrocca, and Jonathan Wingo, Tangled Web 2005: A Profile of the Missile Defense and Space Weapons Lobbies, Arms Trade Resource Center. Independent Working Group, “Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the 21st Century,” Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, 2006, http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWGreport.pdf. Editors, “Spacing Out,” National Review Online, October 24, 2006. For media inquiries, email media@irc-online.org or call (505) 388-0208. -------- treaties Indon treaty only for security - Downer November 08, 2006 AAP Australia Courier Mail http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,20721456-1702,00.html?from=rss A NEW security treaty with Indonesia had nothing to do with asylum-seekers or nuclear energy programs, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today. The pact, to be signed today, comes seven years after the Indonesian government tore up a previous agreement and two years after negotiations began for a new one. Under the terms of the treaty, Canberra and Jakarta have promised not to support separatist causes in each other's country. This was a key demand by the Indonesians following the recent diplomatic crisis sparked by the issue of temporary protection visas by Australia to Papuan asylum-seekers. "The treaty is intended to draw together the threads of the security relationship with Indonesia so that Australia and Indonesia, working together, can enhance our security in a modern context,'' Mr Downer said on ABC radio. He denied the treaty had anything to do with providing asylum to refugees. "It's nothing to do with asylum-seekers in that sense. It's to do with not obviously supporting activities which are going to be, in one way or another, a threat to each other's countries.'' Mr Downer said asylum-seekers would be dealt with according to Australian law. "That would obviously be dealt with in the context of our domestic laws,'' he said. "The Australian Government has always supported Indonesia's territorial integrity in modern times and will continue to do that and won't be supporting, for example, secessionist activities in Indonesia or supporting secessionist campaigns in Australia in relation to Indonesia,'' he said. The countries also pledged to do their utmost to wipe out terrorism and work together on rapid, practical responses to attacks. "This is a clause about non-nuclear proliferation and doing what we can together to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,'' Mr Downer said. "It's not about Australia establishing a nuclear power program in Indonesia. We don't have the technology or the corporations to do that.'' Mr Downer also denied the treaty would encourage the export of uranium to Indonesia. "If we were to sell uranium to Indonesia, we would negotiate a nuclear safeguards agreement,'' he said. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- new jersey Coupon clippers say close nuke plant Posted by the Ocean County Observer on 11/8/06 BY HELEN E. FITZSIMMONS EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR http://www.ocobserver.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061108/NEWS/61108002 TOMS RIVER … Should the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in Lacey Township be allowed to operate for another 20 years after its current license expires in 2009? The answer from Observer readers was no by more than 3-1. We put the question we put to Observer readers in the absence of a county ballot question on the issue. We printed a coupon on the editorial page of the Observer and asked readers if they though the license should be renewed and why or why not. Thanks to all who participated. Readers responded … 103 of them … from Point Pleasant Beach to Little Egg Harbor. Seventy-seven were against renewing the license. Twenty-five were in favor of letting the plant continue to operate through 2029. And one reader said yes and no. Lois Neuberger of Beach Boulevard in the Forked River section of Lacey Township, said she favored relicensing, but not for 20 years … just for five-year increments with more reviews. Of those against license renewal, most cited safety and evacuation route concerns. Some worried the facility is a target for terrorist attacks. Other voiced mistrust of plant owner Amergen and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission and its licensing process. Ruth Metz of Toms River was worried about drywell liner corrosion, pointed out that there had been a ""large increase in population'' since the plant was built and called the roads ""inadequate for a mass evacuation.'' She also cited the ""business as usual'' attitude of the NRC and Oyster Creek's owners. Betty Smith of the South Seaside Park section of Berkeley Township wrote that the evacuation plan would ""never work.'' Adele Joa of Pine Beach wrote that ""Evacuation routes would be useless,'' citing traffic congestion on Route 9. Leonard Amada of Whiting pointed out the plants ""adds to the nation's high level radioactive waste.'' Other anti-renewal comments included: One word … ""Scared'' … from Nancy Kelly of Beachwood. ""Like playing Russian roulette,'' from Carol Bybel of Pine Beach. ""A disaster waiting to happen,'' was the view of Robert T. Lowe of Barnegat. ""Opponents don't want to be right … dead right,'' wrote Robert and Marilyn Riehl of Lakewood, who added that the ""plant is a prime target for terrorism, especially in view of its close proximity to a large Jewish population.'' ""I have no faith in the NRC report,'' wrote Dawn Graefe of Point Pleasant Beach. Another one-word reply … ""Unsafe'' … came from Edward Gallagher of Seaside Park. ""Look back at Chernobyl,'' wrote Mr. and Mrs. R. Reynolds of Lakewood. Tina Ruzzo of Ocean Gate called the plant, ""a ticking time bomb.'' ""Safety rather than economics must be the deciding factor,'' said Charles A. Mueller, who thanked the Observer for ""bringing public attention to this vital issue.'' Twenty-nine said yes. Most pointed out the plant has operated safely and cited the need for the energy it produces. Pro-renewal comments included: ""Still viable, safe producer of power,'' wrote George Mahaly of Manchester. ""The energy of the future,'' said Jack Ronacher of Brick. ""We need to encourage (nuclear power), not exclude it,'' wrote Mr. and Mrs. Nelson Randolph Jr. of Toms River, who maintained that, ""sufficient safety measures must also be taken.'' ""Relatives and friends working at the plant assure me it's safe,'' wrote Eleanor Dillon of the Forked River section of Lacey. C. Manoy of the Lanoka Harbor section of Lacey, wrote that the plant provides safe, clean fuel and warned, ""We should not listen to scaremongers.'' Art Merlau of the Bayville section of Berkeley Township wrote, ""The NRC and plant owners have run the plant OK for 40 years. Get off their backs already!'' -------- MILITARY -------- israel Israelis fired banned white phosphorus on Lebanon Wednesday November 08, 2006 NZ Herald By Steve Connor http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10409747 Israel fired artillery shells containing white phosphorus in its recent conflict with Hezbollah militants in the Lebanon, according to an official investigation by the United Nations. White phosphorus is banned under the Geneva Convention when used against civilians or in civilian areas, although Israel insists that the shells were directed against solely military targets. However, the UN team failed to find any evidence that Israel used depleted uranium, enriched uranium or any other radioactive material in bombs dropped on Lebanon during the month-long war, which ended on 14 August. Achim Steiner, under-secretary-general and executive director of the UN Environment Programme, said that samples taken by scientists had confirmed the use of white phosphorus in artillery and mortar ammunition by the Israeli military. Mr Steiner also said that the scientific analysis found no evidence of penetrators or other metallic bomb components made of depleted or enriched uranium, as claimed by two British activists in a report published last month. "No depleted uranium shrapnel, or other radioactive residue was found. The analysis of all smear samples taken shows no depleted uranium, nor enriched uranium nor higher than natural uranium content in the samples," Mr Steiner said. The samples taken by the UN for analysis were collected between 30 September and 21 October. Three independent laboratories in Europe undertook the tests on behalf of the UN. The findings conflict with a report by Chris Busby, a Green Party activist, and his colleague Dai Williams, an occupational psychologist, who claimed to have found evidence of enriched uranium in a sample collected from a bomb site in southern Lebanon. The sample was collected by Mr Williams during a visit to the Lebanon who passed it on to Dr Busby before it was sent for analysis at the Harwell Laboratory in Oxfordshire, which is used by the Ministry of Defence. "We are concerned that UNEP don't know what they are doing. Earlier (in 2001) they were useless at finding depleted uranium in Kosovo due to wrong choice of instrumentation. In addition, owing to the disagreements about health effects they may cover up any findings or dismiss them," Dr Busby said last night. Dr Busby suggested that Israel was trying to cover up the use of depleted uranium in its bombs by deliberately adding enriched uranium, which would make the final radioactive signature after the explosion similar to natural uranium. Other experts however dismissed the idea as implausible. - INDEPENDENT ---- Israeli killings pass unnoticed By Patrick O'Connor Wednesday 08 November 2006, Aljazeera http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/DFFC30F0-8521-4F20-B8B3-F5B63F677396.htm At least 19 Palestinians were killed by the Israeli military on Friday November 3, 2006, including two women, and other civilians. No Israelis were killed. Although photographs of Friday's attack on Palestinian women have been widely disseminated, the bigger story is still not being told. These killings are part of a new, longer-term pattern; there has been a dramatic rise in the number of Palestinians killed by the Israeli military since Hamas took control of the Palestinian Authority seven months ago, despite the low number of Israelis killed by Palestinians during that time. Palestinians, already subject to occupation by the Israeli military, have been killed at a rate of 26 Palestinians for every Israeli killed since Hamas took power on March 29, 2006. Since July that ratio has risen to 76 Palestinians for every Israeli. Though the mainstream media still reports on a "conflict" between "two sides", over the past seven months it has simply been a slaughter. According to casualty figures from B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights organisation, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), and press reports for November 1-3, in the period between March 29, when the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority took office and November 3, 491 Palestinians have been killed by Israel while 19 Israelis have been killed by Palestinians, 25.8 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. Since July 1, 381 Palestinians have died versus five Israelis. Descriptions by B'Tselem and OCHA of the circumstances of these deaths show that approximately half of the Palestinians killed were civilians. This year has seen by far the most skewed ratio of killings. While no deaths should be accepted, the figures show that the Israeli war machine has shifted gear. During the second Palestinian intifada (uprising) from September 29, 2000, about 3.9 Palestinians were killed for every Israeli. The highest previous multi-month ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed during this intifada occurred from March to December 2004 when about 9.5 Palestinians were killed for every Israeli. In the first Palestinian intifada from 1987-92, 5.2 Palestinians were killed for every Israeli. The increase in 2006 reversed the downward trend from 2005, the year with the lowest number of both Palestinian deaths (197), and Israeli deaths (50) during the uprising. In April, with Hamas taking power, Palestinian deaths climbed back to 2004 levels. From July 1 to November 3, 2006, Israel has killed an average of 93 Palestinians a month, the highest monthly average since Israel's reinvasion of the West Bank in March/April 2002. In 2006, unable to support the usual claim that it is responding defensively, the Israeli government has offered various unconvincing explanations for the large numbers of deaths. But Israel's intensified violence seems intended to punish Palestinians for voting Hamas into power in democratic elections, and to restore Israeli self-esteem which was damaged by the failure of the war with Lebanon. Israel's shifting justifications are repeated with few questions asked by the mainstream media. First Israel said it was acting to stop Palestinians from firing homemade Qassam rockets into Israel, rockets that have killed just eight people within Israel over five years. Later on, it said it was responding to last June's operation in which a single Israeli soldier was captured, though Israel holds 10,000 Palestinian prisoners. News reports suggest that the on-going Israeli attacks may jeopardise the soldier's safe return. Now the Israeli government is again playing up Qassam rockets, and arms-smuggling into Gaza as justifications. Amira Hass, an Israeli reporter, put Gaza arms-smuggling in perspective, writing in the Haaretz newspaper on October 18: "What exists in Israelis' consciousness is not the millions of cluster bombs ... or the tens of millions of bombs and shells and lethal bullets stored in our arms warehouses and our gun barrels and the bellies of our helicopters and planes. Although the amount of such explosives is measured in the millions of tons, it is the 20 tons of explosives and the few thousand rifles that permeate the Israeli consciousness." Despite the fact that they have vastly inferior weapons, are killed in much greater numbers, live under Israeli occupation and are having their land taken from them by Israelis, Palestinians are generally portrayed in the US as the aggressors. Ironically, under the much vilified Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, Palestinians have killed by far the fewest Israelis in any period during this six-year intifada, 19 Israelis over seven months. Hamas has largely maintained a ceasefire since early 2005, even as Israel and Western governments demand that Hamas renounce violence and recognise Israel, and the Western media repeats simplistically that Hamas is "committed to the destruction of Israel". In the meantime, Israel is actually destroying the Palestinian people and any hopes for a Palestinian state through heightened violence and land seizure. But the world has been silent about Israeli actions. The dominance of the Israeli narrative and of Israeli voices in the US media is one factor that allows Americans to maintain this hypocrisy. Rather than providing comparable information about both sides, Palestinian attacks and weaponry are over-emphasised, and the Israeli government line repeated. Comparative figures and analysis of the overwhelming numbers of Israeli missiles and bombs fired at Gaza and Lebanon, of Israel's vast weaponry, and of the numbers of Palestinians killed, are typically harder to find. For example, The New York Times, LA Times and Washington Post, three of the largest and most respected US newspapers, all describe the current crisis as beginning with the capture of an Israeli soldier, erasing history prior to June 25, 2006. Israel's heightened assault on Gaza began with heavy shelling in late March, resulting in the killing of large numbers of Palestinians in Gaza before June 25, including gruesome attacks such as the June 9 shelling of a Gaza beach which killed seven members of the family of 12-year-old Huda Al Ghalia. Over the past three months, those same three newspapers have failed to comment on the recent dramatic disparity between Palestinian and Israeli deaths. During that period, The New York Times is the only one of those papers to have provided figures comparing death tolls. The Times did so three times over three months, in just one to two sentences each time, with no accompanying analysis. Over the past three months, the LA Times and the Washington Post reported only the figures for Palestinian deaths, six times and two times respectively, again with no analysis. All three papers begin their counts from June 25, 2006. It is difficult to imagine that a similarly dramatic increase in the ratio of Israeli to Palestinian deaths could occur without major discussion by the media and the world, or that such lop-sided deaths in another conflict would pass without comment. Despite a Hamas ceasefire, and publicly available data showing that Israel is now carrying out a one-sided assault, Hamas violence remains the focus. Propaganda continues to trump reality, with the collaboration of the US media. Palestinians are portrayed as terrorists, and Israelis as victims of Palestinian terrorism. There is scarcely a mention of international law, or the status of the Palestinians as a people living under 39-years of Israeli military occupation and subjugation. Palestinians, however, realise that they are being slaughtered despite the fact that they are not killing Israelis, just as they know that they were encouraged to hold democratic elections and then punished for doing so. Frustrated by the world's hypocrisy and lack of support, and subject to daily Israeli assaults, it is unlikely that Palestinians will maintain their unilateral ceasefire forever. If Palestinians do eventually strike back, it remains to be seen if the world will even register what they are responding to. Patrick O'Connor is a New York City-based activist with the International Solidarity Movement and Palestine Media Watch. -------- latin america Ortega Wins Nicaraguan Election Wednesday, November 8th, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/08/1457225 In Nicaragua, Sandinista frontrunner Daniel Ortega has been declared the victor in the country’s presidential elections. Ortega has thirty-eight percent of the vote with ninety-one percent of ballots counted. His closest rival, the US-backed Eduardo Montealegre, came second with twenty-nine percent. Ortega spoke Tuesday in Managua. Nicaraguan President-elect Daniel Ortega: "We need to give Nicaragua a sign of stability, a sign that goes above all of our political stances. the responsibility that we have, above all else, is to take Nicaragua out of poverty." The Bush administration has not yet responded to Ortega’s victory after threatening economic sanctions if he won. -------- pakistan / india India Halts Pakistan Border Goose-Stepping Ahead Of Talks by Staff Writers Wagah (AFP) India, Nov 8, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/India_Halts_Pakistan_Border_Goose_Stepping_Ahead_Of_Talks_999.html Indian troops guarding the country's only land transit point to Pakistan have halted an aggressive military ceremony ahead of a resumption of talks next week, officials said Wednesday. When troops from the nuclear-armed rivals shut the Wagah border post every sunset, they usually do so with an elaborate ceremony involving a furious goose-step and the slamming of gates. The ceremony draws thousands of spectators every day, and even triggered an exchange of gunfire almost a decade ago. But India's Border Security Force (BSF) said it was toning down its "body language". "Soldiers have been told to refrain from high-rise stomping of feet," the BSF's Wagah commander, Pradeep Katyal, told reporters after Indian troops staged a "conventional drill" late Tuesday. "The new gesture speaks of friendship while the earlier body language bordered on hostility -- a display of might," Katyal said. BSF inspector general Arvind Ranjan said he had issued the orders to halt the air-kicking exercise. "We should not fall into (the) trap and come out with uncalled postures when our counterparts tend to do so. We have to maintain dignity," he said. Troops across the black-painted gates in Pakistan were responding to the Indian gesture, he told AFP. "Pakistani Rangers have also started to respond," Ranjan said, adding the toned-down drill was linked to upcoming peace talks beginning on November 14. The talks between the two nuclear rivals were put on hold following July train bombings that killed 186 people in India's financial capital Mumbai. India said the bombers had links to Pakistan's spy agency, a charge denied by Islamabad. India and Pakistan have fought three wars, two of them over Kashmir, since the subcontinent's 1947 independence from the British. -------- spies Bush Replaces Rumsfeld with ... Another Rumsfeld November 8, 2006. By Joshua Holland, AlterNet http://www.alternet.org/story/44091/ Seven days after George W. Bush told reporters that Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were "doing fantastic jobs" and would stay on until the end of his presidency, and one day after Americans gave an overwhelming vote of no confidence to the administration’s policies, Donald Rumsfeld answered calls from both Democrats and Republicans and resigned. (On Wednesday, Bush admitted he had lied to reporters because of political considerations.) The move also came two days after an editorial ran in the Army-, Navy-, Air Force- and Marine Corps-Times newspapers calling for the secretary's head. "When the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary," the unusually blunt editorial argued, "then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads." The administration hopes that the move will deflect criticism from its policies in Iraq, move the national discussion away from the Democrats' blowout in the midterms, blunt any investigative zeal that Democrats might feel in their new majority position and, possibly, lay a trap for Democrats going into the next election cycle. It's unlikely to work. Without a fundamental change in policy, the departure of "Rummy" is a piece of political theater, a transparently meaningless gesture made in an attempt to mollify a restless public. It's meaningless because while the administration may have abandoned the phrase "stay the course" during the lead-up to the midterms -- it polled badly -- Bush has made it clear that he will continue the bloody occupation of Iraq and leave the mess for the next president to try to clean up (what's less clear is whether either the Iraqis or his own party will allow him to do so). The Wall Street Journal's John Harwood said yesterday that Rumsfeld's departure won't be enough to change Americans' increasingly negative view of Bush’s Iraq policy. "We have asked this question several times in our Journal/ NBC poll," he said on MSNBC, "and found it would be a symbolic gesture. Really, American people want to see results. They want to see casualties down ..." According to former congresswoman Elizabeth Holtzman, coauthor of the soon to be published book, "The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens," Rumsfeld was jettisoned primarily in an attempt to defuse increasing calls for investigation into the administration’s conduct of the Iraq war and occupation. "The president thinks that Rumsfeld is the bad public face of the Iraq war," she told me by phone on Wednesday. "In the wake of elections that were a huge repudiation of the administration's policies, I think it's clear that Americans are angry with the corruption, with the direction the administration has taken, with the arrogance, and they threw Rumsfeld to the wolves." Holtzman cited a recent Newsweek Poll that found a majority of Americans want investigations into Iraq contracting and the way the country was led into the war to be a ”top priority” of the new Congress, and that a majority now favor calls for impeachment. She added: “I can’t say for sure what the president was thinking, but it’s possible that impeachment was explicitly on his mind.” It's also possible that the administration cut Rumsfeld loose in favor of former CIA Director Robert Gates, Bush's nominee to replace him, with the specific intention of provoking a bruising confirmation hearing. That would allow the Republicans to reinforce two of their favorite narratives about Democrats: that they’re insufficiently belligerent to govern -- "soft on defense" -- and that Senate Democrats are "obstructionists," a key charge in the defeat of former Majority Leader Tom Daschle in 2004. Because while it's possible that Bush thought the nomination of Bob Gates -- a longtime government official who's been through the confirmation process before -- would get a smooth sail through the Senate, the truth is that Gates will have a very hard time getting confirmed, and he should. The reason is simple and important to understand: Robert Gates is Donald Rumsfeld -- or at least a body double in experience, ideology and temperament. Rumsfeld is a hawkish ideologue whose long career in government has been broken by dips into the private sector. He's known for his secrecy, his loyalty, his ability to win internal political fights and his eagerness to manipulate intelligence to support a desired policy objective. He has shown that he is not above breaking -- or at least stretching -- the law when he feels it's necessary to do so. Gates has a remarkably similar profile. Like Rumsfeld, Gates served stints in the Nixon and Ford administrations -- he also advised Carter's hawkish National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bzrezinski and served on Bush 41's National Security Council. After his nomination by Ronald Reagan to head the CIA was blocked by the Senate in 1987, Gates eventually got the job in 1991 under the first Bush. According to Thomas Powers, writing in 1996 in the New York Review of Books, Gates is an "unusual figure" -- the first director "to come out of the analytical side of the organization, which had been dominated for its first thirty years by the ethos of the covert operators of World War II." Gates, like Rumsfeld, was a dedicated Cold Warrior. Powers recalls that during his 1987 confirmation hearing, Gates was accused by former CIA colleague Mel Goodman (who Gates called "one of my oldest friends in the agency") and Harold Ford ("another old friend and colleague") of pressuring "CIA analysts to exaggerate Soviet involvement in the plot to kill Pope John Paul II and in international terrorism and … suppress[ing] and ignor[ing] 'signs of the Soviet strategic retreat, including the collapse of the Soviet empire.'" And like Rumsfeld -- whose picture warmly greeting Saddam Hussein in 1983 has become legendary -- Gates, who served on the Iraq Study Group headed by former Secretary of State James Baker, has a sordid past with Iraq and the deposed strongman. In announcing his decision to vote against Gates' confirmation in 1991, Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said that "the record also shows" Gates "was integrally involved with the secret sharing of intelligence to Iraq and our sharp tilt toward Iraq in its war with Iran. But Mr. Gates hid that action from Congress ... It is important to keep in mind that this shift toward Iraq in its war with Iran began our ill-fated cozy relationship with Saddam Hussein." But it was Gates' propensity to manipulate intelligence that really bothered the Massachusetts senator: [Gates] quashed dissenting views and helped craft an inaccurate 1985 intelligence estimate that Soviet influence in Iran could soon grow ... He personally insisted that State Department officials drop footnotes from the report which did not support his viewpoint. These actions had consequences far beyond mere intellectual debates. In recommending that United States allies be permitted to sell arms to Iran, the report helped lay the foundation for the ill-fated arms for hostages deal in Iran. Iran-Contra, which followed the arms for hostages deal with Iran, is the source of Gates' worst baggage. In the 1980s, as the illegal arrangement was being put together, Gates was then-CIA Director William Casey's chief of staff. The independent counsel investigation of Iran-Contra found insufficient evidence to charge him with a crime, but that was in large part due to the refusal by Clair George, the CIA's former deputy director for operations, to cooperate with the investigation (George was indicted for his role in 1991). Gates has denied knowledge of the Iran-Contra affair. But as Thomas Powers noted, "The problem, of course, is that Gates, working for Casey, North's enthusiastic backer, was in a very good position to know about [Iran-Contra] and a great deal else besides." Gates' former colleague at the CIA, Tom Polgar, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1991. Powers recalls that "Polgar's testimony ... [was] a careful detailing of Gates' passage through many meetings and encounters when even the furniture, Polgar argues, must have grasped what was going on." And Gates is an ideologue. According to Ted Kennedy, "His public speeches actively promoted the Reagan doctrine and exaggerated Soviet advances." He added, in a comment that would describe Rummy and his Office of Special Plans to a tee: "Rather than an objective professional dedicated to ensuring that the president receives the best intelligence possible," Gates "became an enthusiastic promoter of President Reagan's policies." As the CIA's Tom Polgar testified in 1991: His proposed appointment as director also raises moral issues. What kind of signal does his renomination send to the troops? Live long enough -- your sins will be forgotten? Serve faithfully the boss of the moment -- never mind integrity? Feel free to mislead the Senate -- senators forget easily? Keep your mouth shut -- if the special counsel does not get you, promotion will come your way? Those questions are as appropriate today as they were 15 years ago. And while the administration will portray the replacement of Rumsfeld with Bob Gates as a sign that it's responsive to criticism coming from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle -- as evidence of Bush's new-found desire to work with Congress as a partner -- it's hard to see the nomination of someone with such a checkered history as anything but a challenge to congressional authority and a preemptive strike against the body's expected oversight of the Bush White House. ---- Professor Bailey named to senior intelligence post November 8, 20062006 The Institute of World Politics http://www.iwp.edu/ Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte has announced the appointment of IWP Professor Norman Bailey to a senior post responsible for hemispheric security. Dr. Bailey, who speaks five languages, teaches Economic Statecraft and Conflict and Economics for Foreign Policy Makers at the Institute. As Mission Manager for Cuba and Venezuela at the office of the DNI, Dr. Bailey will "lead the intelligence community at a strategic level by integrating collection and analysis, identifying and filling gaps in intelligence, and planning and ensuring implementation of strategies, among other duties," according to a DNI statement. ''He understands political action, he understands public diplomacy, he understands the psychological aspects of the world we're in,'' former Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Otto Reich tells the Miami Herald. The office of the DNI has six Mission Managers. The others are responsible for counterintelligence, counterproliferation, counterterrorism, Iran and North Korea. -------- POLITICS -------- propaganda wars Environment Wins in Democratic Landslide WASHINGTON, DC, November 8, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2006/2006-11-08-02.asp Democrats upset Republicans across the country Tuesday to win control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1994 - spelling an end to the terms of some of the legislators most disliked by conservationists. The Democrats could also win control of the U.S. Senate, but that outcome hinges on close races in Montana and Virginia. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California will move into the Speaker's seat, becoming the first woman Speaker of the House in U.S. history. Her environmental views match those of conservationists, particularly on climate and energy issues. Pelosi supports legislation to control global warming introduced by Democrats earlier this year. The measure would establish a market-based emissions trading system for the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. "The Safe Climate Act will harness free market forces to ensure that our nation takes the steps necessary to prevent dangerous, irreversible warming of our planet," Pelosi said in July. Her position is opposite to that of the Bush administration and the Republican Congressional leaders who have attempted to deny and suppress evidence of climate change. Pelosi opposes drilling for oil in the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. "We should not sacrifice the Arctic coastal plain, one of America’s last truly wild places, for the sake of a small amount of oil," she said. "Democrats are stepping forward with new ideas and new solutions," Pelosi said. "We can’t drill our way to energy independence – but we can grow our way to energy independence. America’s farmers are ready to grow energy crops that will end our dependence on oil from unstable regions." "Today, the American people voted for change, and they voted for Democrats to take our country in a new direction. And that is exactly what we intend to do," Pelosi said. In California's 11th Congressional District, Congressman Richard Pombo, who had used his position as chair of the House Resources Committee to weaken the Endangered Species Act, was defeated by Jerry McNerney, a wind engineering and renewable energy professional. Heavy spending on anti-Pombo commercials by out-of-state environmental groups helped tip the balance against the seven-term incumbent Pombo. As McNerney outpaced Pombo, the Sierra Club declared victory. "Pombo's defeat is not just a victory for the people of California's 11th-district, said Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope. "This is a moment to be savored by anyone who loves Yosemite National Park or the California coast or Giant Sequoia National Monument, places Pombo worked to mine, drill, or log." "On the issue of energy policy in particular, America is extremely fortunate to be replacing someone who's energy priorities were dictated by Big Oil with a man who is an expert on renewable wind power and who has the vision to help our nation develop smart new energy technologies and jobs," said Pope. The League of Conservation Voters used a radio ad to inform voters about "the $120,000 Pombo has taken from Big Oil, his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, his use of a taxpayer money to rent an RV for a family vacation, and the fact that dirty air and water are not a concern of his." Calling him the "leading opponent of animal welfare in Congress," the Humane Society Legislative Fund launched a campaign to help defeat Pombo. The group cited Pombo's support of commercial whaling, horse slaughter, bear baiting on public lands and the use of leghold traps on National Wildlife Refuges. But California voters rejected the costliest ballot initiative campaign in state history, defeating Proposition 87 that would have taxed state oil production to fund alternative energy research to the tune of $4 billon. Oil companies spent close to $100 million to kill Proposition 87, saying they already pay too much in California's high corporate income tax and other taxes. Other conservation initiatives were approved by voters, including a $17 million Arizona bond for recreational opportunities, open spaces and parks. In Alaska, a $3.95 million bond to protect water quality and to preserve and enhance open space and natural areas failed by a narrow margin. Michigan turned down the shooting of mourning doves, authorized by a bill narrowly passed by the legislature and signed into law by Governor Jennifer Granholm last year. The new law permitted the shooting of mourning doves in Michigan for the first time since 1905. The Committee to Keep Doves Protected successfully campaigned to overturn the bill and to restore Michigan's 100 year tradition of protecting the mourning dove, Michigan's official bird of peace. California voters appeared likely to approve Proposition 1E, which proposes $4.1 billion in debt financing for levee repair and flood control programs to shore up the state's deteriorating levee system in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Early this morning the measure had 63 percent support. Proposition 84, a measure seeking $5.4 billion for California flood control, water and natural resource projects, had won 52 percent of votes. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican who won an easy reelection victory, had campaigned in favor of the measures. Elsewhere across the country, Democrats took the majority of the 36 states that elected governors, and Democrats now hold 28 governors' seats. New York voters chose Democratic Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to replace departing Republican Governor George Pataki, whose environmental advances included the preservation of millions of acres of open space and parklands. Massachusetts elected Deval Patrick as its first black governor to succeed incumbent Republican Governor Mitt Romney, who did not run for a second term. Patrick becomes only the second black governor ever elected from any state. Democrats were reelected in Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Wyoming, New Mexico and Tennessee, while Republicans were returned to office in Georgia, Nebraska, Connecticut and Vermont. In Colorado, Democrat Bill Ritter defeated GOP Congressman Bob Beauprez to claim the governor's mansion. Arkansas chose a Democrat, attorney general Mike Beebe, over Republican Asa Hutchinson, who served as one of the prosecutors during the Senate impeachment trial of Arkansas native son President Bill Clinton in 1998. Republicans for Environmental Protection, REP, said the Republican Party must learn from its Tuesday election losses by focusing on solving national problems that concern citizens instead of catering to special interest agendas. REP President Martha Marks said, "It's too bad that the wayward actions of party leaders tarnished Republicans as a whole and cost some of our most conscientious, responsive, and pro-environment Republican lawmakers their jobs." "Exit polls Tuesday night showed that citizens were very upset about ethical lapses in Congress," said Marks. "The corrosive effects of catering to narrow, parochial agendas not only caused scandals, but it resulted in our party failing to lead on the urgent energy and climate challenges facing our nation." "True conservatism does not condone greed, arrogance or waste. It requires us to be prudent, exercise restraint, and act in the long-term interest of both present and future generations," said REP Government Affairs Director David Jenkins. "That legitimate brand of conservatism would have prevailed at the polls. It is too bad that so many of our party leaders are strangers to it." ---- Rumsfeld steps down after US poll blow Rumsfeld has been one of president Bush's closest advisers Wednesday 08 November 2006, 22:56 Makka Time, 19:56 GMT http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9EA82661-97DC-468B-9358-588455A56B94.htm Donald Rumsfeld, the US secretary of defence, is to resign from his post, the US president has announced, after the Democratic party wins huge gains in midterm elections influenced by voter anger over Iraq. Speaking at a White House press conference on Wednesday, George Bush said Rumsfeld was a patriot who had "served his country with honour and distinction" but recognised a change was needed at the Pentagon. "After a series of thoughtful conversations, secretary Rumsfeld and I agreed that the timing is right for new leadership," Bush said. He conceded that his Iraq policy was "not working well enough, fast enough" and said he took responsibility for a "thumpin' " by Democrats in the congressional elections. He told reporters, "I thought we were going to do fine yesterday ... it shows what I know." The Democrats wrested control of the US House of Representatives from the Republicans and stand on the brink of also winning the Senate, pending close results from the state of Virginia, which would put the party in control of both houses for the first time in 12 years. "I recognise that many Americans voted last night to register their displeasure with the lack of progress being made there [in Iraq]," Bush said. Election 'responsibility' Bush said he took responsibility for the Democratic election victory, acknowledging there was widespread anger over Iraq among American voters. "I'm obviously disappointed with the outcome of the election," Bush said. "As the head of the Republican party, I share a large part of the responsibility." Bush also made clear that another key figure of his administration and advocate of the Iraq war, vice president Dick Cheney, would stay on until the end of his term in January 2009. Bush said that his party would now "work together" with the Democrats and independent parties to work on "the great issues facing this country". Robert Gates, former director of the CIA, will take Rumsfeld's place, Bush said. Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat representative of California and probable next leader of the House, said she welcomed the change in Pentagon leadership, saying: "I think it will give us a fresh start." Divisive figure Rumsfeld, 73, steps down after almost six years as defence secretary. A blunt and divisive figure who was one of Bush's closest advisers, he had been Pentagon chief since 2001, directing the invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan and undertaking the modernisation of the US military. He also created the Guantanamo Bay jail for foreign terror suspects and presided over the defence department during the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal. While some have praised him for invigorating the US military, detractors have condemned him as a warmonger who mismanaged the war in Iraq and failed to foresee its current bloody insurgency. His resignation follows several calls for him to step down, the most recent only a few days ago when editorials published in four US military journals urged him to quit for "losing control" over the situation in Iraq. In April 2006 he was also criticised by several retired army generals who said he had made strategic blunders in Iraq and disregarded military advice. --- Rumsfeld stepping down President taps ex-CIA chief Gates to replace embattled defense secretary NBC, MSNBC and news services November 8, 2006 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15622266/ WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down as defense secretary on Wednesday, one day after midterm elections in which opposition to the war in Iraq contributed to heavy Republican losses. President Bush nominated Robert Gates, a former CIA director, to replace Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Asked whether his announcement signaled a new direction in the war that has claimed the lives of more than 2,800 U.S. troops, Bush said, “Well, there’s certainly going to be new leadership at the Pentagon.” Bush lavished praise on Rumsfeld, who has spent six stormy years at his post. The president disclosed he met with Gates last Sunday, two days before the elections in which Democrats swept control of the House and possibly the Senate. Military officials and politicians dissatisfied with the course of the war had called for Rumsfeld’s resignation in the months leading up to the election. Last week, as Bush campaigned to save the Republican majority, he declared that Rumsfeld would remain at the Pentagon through the end of his term. But a source told NBC News’ military analyst Bill Arkin that prior to the election, Vice President Dick Cheney argued with other politicians over whether Rumsfeld should stay. White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten and others said Rumsfeld should be removed, the source said. Both sides agreed the decision would be made after the election, when Bush would make the final call based on how Republicans did. According to the source, Bush agreed Rumsfeld should be removed after seeing election results favoring Democrats. Cheney then lost another argument, protesting Gates’ nomination as Rumsfeld’s replacement. Rumsfeld, 74, was in his second tour of duty as defense chief. He first held the job a generation ago, when he was appointed by President Ford. Whatever confidence Bush retained in Rumsfeld, the Cabinet officer’s support in Congress had eroded significantly. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the House speaker-in-waiting, said at her first postelection news conference that Bush should replace the top civilian leadership at the Pentagon. And Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who had intervened in the past to shore up support for Rumsfeld, issued a statement saying, “Washington must now work together in a bipartisan way — Republicans and Democrats — to outline the path to success in Iraq.” The Pentagon offered no date for Rumsfeld’s departure. Appointee a close Bush family friend Gates, 63, has served as the president of Texas A&M University since August 2002, and as the university’s interim dean of the George Bush School of Government and Public Service from 1999 to 2001. The school is home to the presidential library of Bush’s father. Gates is a close friend of the Bush family, and particularly the first President Bush. He served as deputy national security adviser from 1989 to 1991 and then as CIA director during the first Iraq war, from 1991 until 1993. Gates joined the CIA in 1966 and is the only agency employee to rise from an entry level job to the seventh-floor director’s office. He served in the intelligence community for more than a quarter century, under six presidents. Bush has considered Gates for jobs before, including in 2005 when he was searching for a candidate to be the nation’s first national intelligence director. His nomination must be confirmed by the Senate. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., who is expected to chair the House Armed Services Committee next year, said Rumsfeld’s resignation “presents an important opportunity for our country to begin a new policy direction in Iraq and in the war on terrorism.” He encouraged the Bush administration to take advantage of the fresh start. NBC News and The Associated Press contributed to this report. ---- Rumsfeld becomes another Iraq war victim By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press Writer Wed Nov 8, 2006 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061109/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rumsfeld_in_restrospect_1 WASHINGTON - He has been the square-jawed face of the war, the man behind the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that he predicted were just the beginnings of a long, hard slog. On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld resigned from his post and became the latest casualty of those conflicts — a victim of a war he steadfastly contended the American public simply did not understand. Standing next to President Bush in a brief White House appearance, Rumsfeld, 74, offered no regret for a war gone wrong that mushroomed into an issue that helped carry Democrats in Tuesday's elections to control of the House and perhaps the Senate. Instead, he provided a glimmer of the trademark temperament that has prompted some critics to call him arrogant. The war, he said, "is not well known. It was not well understood. It is complex for people to comprehend." And he alluded to the crescendo of calls for his ouster, quoting Winston Churchill: "I have benefited greatly from criticism, and at no time have I suffered a lack thereof." In the days after Sept. 11, 2001 — when he helped carry victims of the terrorist attack out of the burning Pentagon — Rumsfeld was hailed by some as a visionary who was smartly shaping the military into a new, agile force for the 21st century. His adept management of the attack on Afghanistan in October 2001 was deemed a success, as U.S. forces drove out the ruling Taliban. His stock rose over the next year as he delivered televised war briefings from the Pentagon. The high point may have come as Rumsfeld introduced America to "shock and awe" bombing during the ferocious assault on Baghdad in the opening days of Operation Iraqi Freedom — a tactic meant to force a quick surrender by the Iraqis. Rumsfeld's plunge from hero soon after the spring 2003 fall of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to war wounded began in the murky aftermath of the fall of Baghdad. After the initial assault was over, the harder, bloodier struggle for peace began. U.S. casualties began to mount, war costs ballooned past $300 billion and scandals over the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere began to broaden. The calls for his resignation began with a few senior Democrats during the 2004 campaign, but slowly military leaders — mostly some who had already retired — started adding their criticism for his conduct of the war. In response, Rumsfeld told interviewers that criticism in time of war was to be expected. He dismissed much of it as complaints from "naysayers" reluctant to confront the tough realities of a global conflict pitting Islamic extremists against forces of moderation. He often told troops in the field that in the future, they would look back on their effort in Iraq or Afghanistan and feel proud that they were part of a historic effort to promote freedom. While some blame him for having no plans for postwar Iraq and misjudging the strength of the insurgency, others say he served as the lightning rod for criticism of the president's war. "He really has made some very hard calls in the Department of Defense that needed to be made that he hasn't gotten credit for, and he catches a helluva lot of criticism that he personally probably hasn't earned," said Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard. "He just ends up being a convenient target for somebody's frustration or disenchantment." Rumsfeld's tenure at the Pentagon parallels that of another man whose legacy is also tied to an unpopular war — Robert McNamara, who led the Pentagon during the Vietnam conflict. "They became identified with the war and the war with them," said Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington. "Ultimately they departed as a consequence of the crisis in the field and politics here at home." Rumsfeld offered his resignation twice to Bush during the furor over prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, but Bush repeatedly declared his support for his embattled secretary. As recently as last month, when the latest in a series of critical books on the war was published, Rumsfeld snapped at reporters asking about his future. "No, no, no," he said, he was not resigning. Even Bush, when questioned by reporters two weeks ago, again declared his support for the secretary and insisted Rumsfeld would stay through the end of his term. But with casualties climbing beyond 2,800 and U.S. troop levels in Iraq stuck at about 152,000 with little hope of significant reductions anytime soon, Rumsfeld became a political liability the administration could no longer endure. Even the independent Army Times, which serves the armed forces, called for him to resign earlier this week. And as the announcement sent shock waves through Washington on Wednesday, Bush acknowledged that, in truth, he had been considering the change for at least two weeks. Rumsfeld remained closed-mouthed about his departure until the very end. Early morning meetings went on as scheduled Wednesday, with no visible inkling of the announcement that was coming. Then, at 10 a.m., he told the news to Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He asked Pace to let all of the senior military commanders know, shortly before Bush's 1 p.m. address. Rumsfeld also told a few other close senior staff, but much of the Pentagon learned it when it broke in the news. Walking back into the Pentagon after a late afternoon meeting with Bush, Rumsfeld was circumspect about his departure. "I've been here six years and I think it's probably good for this department to have a change in leadership that is fresh, that is supportive of the president, as I am," he said. "It will be a different Congress, a different environment, moving towards a presidential election and a lot of partisanship, and it struck me that this would be a good thing for everybody." On the Net: Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil ---- Vermont's Bernie Sanders Becomes First Socialist Elected to U.S. Senate Democracy Now! Wednesday, November 8th, 2006 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/08/1457245 In Vermont, Bernie Sanders to become the country's first self-described socialist to be elected to the U.S. Senate. Running as an independent, Sanders won 65% of the vote, easily beating his Republican opponent Rich Tarrant. We speak with Sanders about what it means to the country's first socialist senator. [includes rush transcript] In Vermont, voters have elected Bernie Sanders to become the country's first self-described socialist to be elected to the U.S. Senate. Running as an independent, Sanders won 65 percent of the vote, easily beating his Republican opponent Rich Tarrant who is one Vermont's wealthiest residents. Sanders will replace fellow independent Jim Jeffords in the Senate. For the past 16 years, Sanders has served as Vermont's sole member in the House. On Tuesday, voters in Vermont also elected Democrat Peter Welch to fill Sanders' seat in Congress. This past week I talked with Bernie Sanders in Vermont. I asked him what it meant to be the first socialist senator. * Bernie Sanders, elected to U.S. Senate in Vermont on an independent ticket. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: This weekend, I went to Vermont, and I spoke to Bernie Sanders in the cafeteria of the local Montpelier high school, where he was having a pre-victory rally. Hundreds turned out for the free meal. I asked him what it meant to be the first socialist senator. REP. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, before we worry about that, what we're excited about is that we've been holding a series of rallies all over the state. And I’m guessing that right here in Montpelier, Vermont, we're going to have 400 or 500 people way up in the Northeast Kingdom, a conservative part of our state. We had 300 people earlier today. So there is a tremendous amount of momentum, I think, in the state of Vermont, where people are going to stand up and say, “Enough of Bush, enough of Cheney, enough of rightwing Republican leadership.” And I believe that this small state may well lead, be a leader in this country, in moving us to a whole different level and a whole different set of priorities. In terms of socialism, I think there is a lot to be learned from Scandinavia and from some of the work, very good work that people have done in Europe. In countries like Finland, Norway, Denmark, poverty has almost been eliminated. All people have healthcare as a right of citizenship. College education is available to all people, regardless of income, virtually free. I have been very aggressive in trying to move to sustainable energy. They have a lot of political participation, high voter turnouts. I think there is a lot to be learned from countries that have created more egalitarian societies than has the United States of America. AMY GOODMAN: And to be making history, in your part? REP. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I take that less seriously. You know, we have been in -- I’ve been in Congress for sixteen years. It is just very gratifying to me to have the kind of grassroots support that we have right now. We have brought together just a tremendous coalition of all of the unions, all of the women groups, all of the environmental groups, senior citizen groups, farm groups. It's very exciting. AMY GOODMAN: Democrats don't manage to do what you have done, and that is, unite people across the political spectrum. You talked about the Northeast Kingdom in Vermont, very well-known to be conservative Republican. How do you have their support? REP. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, that's an important question. And what we have done -- and we're not the only people who have done that, it's happening here and there around the country -- is, the truth of the matter is, if you put a lot of your energy into economic issues, what you find is, you know what, conservative Republicans don’t have healthcare, conservative Republicans can't afford to send their kids to college, conservative Republicans are being thrown out of their jobs as our good-paying jobs move to China. And if you talk about those issues, you know what people say? “I need somebody to stand up to protect my economic well-being.” Conservative people are very worried about Bush's attacks on our constitutional rights. So the job is to say, “Look, we're not going to agree on every issue, that's for sure. But don't vote against your own interest.” I don't mind really if millionaires vote against me. They probably should. But for working people, we've got to come together, healthcare for all, stop our disastrous trade policies, make sure all of our kids through college get the education that they need. On those issues, I think we can bring people together. AMY GOODMAN: And if people ask, “What do you mean, ‘socialist’?” what would you say? REP. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, I think it means the government has got to play a very important role in making sure that as a right of citizenship, all of our people have healthcare; that as a right, all of our kids, regardless of income, have quality childcare, are able to go to college without going deeply into debt; that it means we do not allow large corporations and moneyed interests to destroy our environment; that we create a government in which it is not dominated by big money interest. I mean, to me, it means democracy, frankly. That's all it means. And we are living in an increasingly undemocratic society in which decisions are made by people who have huge sums of money. And that's the goal that we have to achieve. AMY GOODMAN: Is it true that this race is the most expensive per capita in the country and that you're running against one of the richest men in Vermont? REP. BERNIE SANDERS: We are running against, it's hard to say, maybe the wealthiest fellow in the state of Vermont, who is going to spend more money per votes than has ever been spent in the history of the United States Senate. We have -- and I want to thank all people all over this country -- we have received tens and tens of thousands of individual contributions. Some of them are $5, and some of them are $20. And we've been able to raise enough money to withstand what has been the most negative campaign ever run in the state of Vermont by my opponent, just distortions of my record. Very dishonest campaign. But with the help of people throughout the country, with 8,000 individual contributors in Vermont, we've been able to withstand that. AMY GOODMAN: Last question, and that is, your answer for Iraq right now? REP. BERNIE SANDERS: Well, that's not an answer that can be given in 30 seconds. I think the bottom line is that the people of Iraq, when asked what they believe is best for their country, amidst all the violence and the chaos, what they say is they think they would be better off if American troops came home. So I think we should respect the wishes of the people of Iraq. I think we should bring our troops home soon. By that, I mean within the next year. I think we've got to continue to work with the Iraqi government to do our best to try to bring stability. But I think they would be better off, we would be better off, the region would be better off, if our troops came home. AMY GOODMAN: Bernie Sanders, speaking from the kitchen of a high school cafeteria in Montpelier, Vermont this weekend. He becomes the first socialist to be elected to the US Senate. My syndicated column this week is on Bernie Sanders. You can urge your local newspapers to run it, if they haven't already picked it up. -------- voting Voting Problems Include Long Lines, Intimidation Reports Wednesday, November 8th, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/08/1457225 With around eighty percent of the electorate casting at least one vote electronically, voting problems were reported in scores of districts across the country. In Denver, hundreds of people were forced to wait long past the 7 p.m. voting deadline. Voting hours were extended in eight states. Hundreds of precincts in Florida, Indiana and Ohio turned to paper ballots amid problems with electronic voting machines. The Electronic Frontier Foundation reported dozens of complaints that touch-screen machines recorded votes for the wrong candidates. There were also scattered reports of voter intimidation. In Virginia, voters reported receiving telephone calls telling them to stay home or face criminal charges. In Arizona, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund reported Latino voters were stopped and questioned by three armed men outside a precinct in Tucson. -------- ENERGY South African energy summit early next year November 8, 2006 South African Sun Times http://www.suntimes.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=313373 A national energy summit will be held early next year to "re-look" at the entire energy landscape in South Africa, says Minerals and Energy Minister Buyelwa Sonjica. Addressing members of the National Assembly multi-party minerals and energy portfolio committee the minister said every South African needed access to clean and affordable energy and it was within this context that the debate would be taken forward on the role of nuclear energy in South Africa’s energy mix. "We need to take this debate forward to ensure security of supply because we are one of the largest producers of uranium and we have to take advantage of this," she said. Furthermore South Africa had expertise in this area "which we have developed over years. Ways and means should be found that we use this to our competitive advantage". She said a strategy on nuclear enrichment would be tabled before the national cabinet before the end of this year. The minister also reported that although storage of crude oil was an expensive business there was a need to ensure security of supply. She noted that synfuels firm Sasol was still looking to set up a refinery in the coalfields of the Waterberg, Limpopo province. -------- alternative energy Environmental Defense and Yahoo! Promote Green Cars WASHINGTON, DC, November 8, 2006 (ENS) http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2006/2006-11-07-09.asp#anchor5 U.S. car buyers now have a simple way to compare vehicles for environmentally friendly features. The advocacy group Environmental Defense has partnered with Yahoo! Autos to make Green Ratings available to consumers next to vehicle prices and other common car information online. "Consumers can think of the Yahoo! Green Rating as a yardstick that measures how well a given car cuts pollution," said John DeCicco, senior fellow for automotive strategies at Environmental Defense. "The Yahoo! Green Rating covers all of the major environmental impacts associated with a motor vehicle," he said, "from health-harming tailpipe pollution to greenhouse gases that cause global warming." Rated on a scale of 1-100, the Yahoo! Green Rating reflects a vehicle’s total environmental impact. The higher the rating, the greener the car and the lower its harm to humans and the planet. Car shoppers can find the most environmentally friendly model by just picking the car or truck that has the best Green Rating among the models they are considering. "Americans' care for their environment runs deeper than the ups and downs of gas prices," said DeCicco. "The Yahoo! Green Ratings provide a lasting way for consumers to act on their values and comparison shop with the environment in mind." Because fuel efficiency factors into the Green Ratings, greener choices cut oil use and help U.S. energy security. To access the Green Ratings and see the Yahoo! Autos new Green Center, go to http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/. -------- ACTIVISTS Peace mom Sheehan arrested in Washington Posted 11/8/2006 (AP) http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-11-08-peace-mom_x.htm WASHINGTON — Activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Wednesday as she led about 50 protesters to a White House gate Wednesday to deliver anti-war petitions she said were signed by 80,000 Americans. The Berkeley, Calif., woman, whose son was killed in Iraq more than two years ago, was arrested along with three other women on the sidewalk outside the White House gate, said Lt. Scott Fear, a U.S. Park Police spokesman. They were charged with interfering with a government function, he said. Before she was arrested, she joined the protesters in hailing the outcome of Tuesday's elections and chanting "Stop the War" outside the gate. "It was taking too long for them to decide whether to accept them or not, so we just delivered them," said Sheehan, who waited about 15 minutes with other protesters before tossing the petitions over the fence. The petitions opposed use of military force to resolve the dispute over Iran's nuclear program. Sheehan, 49, and other grieving families met with Bush about two months after her son died, before reports of faulty prewar intelligence surfaced and caused her to speak out. She has tried repeatedly to speak with the president again, including a 26-day vigil last year outside Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Wednesday's protest came as Republicans lost control of the House and the White House announced the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "He's being offered as a sacrificial lamb," Sheehan said.