NucNews December 6, 2006 -------- NUCLEAR -------- africa Rising Interest in Nuclear Power Brings New Life to Uranium Mining Firm's Boom Helps Namibian Town, Worries Environmentalists By Craig Timberg Washington Post Foreign Service Wednesday, December 6, 2006; A16 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501360_pf.html ARANDIS, Namibia -- This sandy little company town, with its tree-lined streets and concrete homes set amid a vast, forbidding desert, had all the signs of terminal decline just a few years back. Both banks closed. The only gas station shut off its pumps. And employable young men, realizing the bleak future of the giant uranium mine that gave Arandis life, began drifting away. But something unexpected happened on the way to the funeral for Arandis: The nuclear industry, stagnant for two decades, reversed its fortunes at a time of rising oil prices and growing realization that burning fossil fuel caused global climate change. Nuclear went from being seen as a dirty source of energy to a comparatively clean, efficient one. From that shift in perception, mainly in the minds of Westerners thousands of miles away, the fate of this remote African town went from doom to boom. "The future was very dark," said the energetic mayor of Arandis, Daniel Muhuura, who like hundreds of residents here has spent his entire professional life working for Roessing Uranium Mine. "Now the future is very bright." Dramatic turnarounds have happened across the continent as a quest for mineral riches, similar to the one that helped fuel the 19th century's "Scramble for Africa," has become a hot economic story of the decade. Decisions in boardrooms around the world have sent prices soaring for copper in Zambia, coltan in Congo and oil in Angola, Nigeria and Sudan. From rising demand for these commodities, sub-Saharan Africa's economic growth has hit rates not seen in three decades. Perhaps no renaissance, however, has matched that of the uranium industry's. Roessing Uranium Mine opened in 1976 during nuclear power's heyday. But the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and Chernobyl in 1986 caused a profound political backlash that nearly halted new reactor construction. Uncertainty about how to handle the dangerous radioactive waste created by nuclear power plants also contributed to its unpopularity. By 2001, the price for uranium oxide had fallen to about $7 a pound, one-sixth of its peak. Two years later, facing massive losses, Roessing announced plans to close. Under that plan, the mine was to cease operations in 2007 after having dug 1 billion tons of rock out of a jagged, bleached landscape often compared to the surface of the moon. Instead, oil prices soared and global warming became the stuff of newspaper headlines and Hollywood movies. Interest in building new nuclear reactors grew, and the price of uranium oxide rose to $62.50 a pound. Roessing, which recently made its first delivery to an increasingly energy-hungry China, has decided to continue mining until at least 2016, mine officials say. They expect to end this year with Roessing's first substantial profit, and tax bill to the Namibian government, in five years. And the mine, whose workforce dropped from 3,800 in the 1970s to 860 last year, has begun hiring again. "It is definitely a dramatic change," said company spokesman Rehabeam Hoveka. "It is good news for Arandis. It is good news for Namibia, too." A second uranium mine, meanwhile, is slated to open nearby soon. Three others within 60 miles are in various stages of development. So where Arandis was once going to be a mining town without a mine, soon there could be five in the area. The boom in uranium mining has caused grumbling from the tourism industry, which fears the loss of pristine landscapes, and environmentalists, who fear damage to the fragile biodiversity of the Namib, regarded as the driest and oldest desert in the world. Some environmentalists also are concerned about the renewed growth of an industry they still regard as dangerous despite industry claims of safety improvements since the Chernobyl disaster. "They cannot tell us that they are safer than before," said Bertchen Kohrs, head of Earthlife Namibia, speaking from Windhoek, the capital. "It starts here with mining uranium, the whole cycle starts. Who says that some day we won't have to take back the nuclear waste here in Namibia?" Roessing mine is a massive, dun-colored canyon two miles long, nearly a mile wide and more than 1,000 feet deep. From its lip, the giant dump trucks that haul uranium ore from the mine floor look like children's toys. Several crushing machines pulverize the rock into sand, then powerful acids extract the traces of uranium. The end product, after processing, is a fine gray powder that leaves the mine in steel drums weighing 900 pounds. Mine officials say each holds as much potential energy as 40,000 barrels of oil. All of Roessing's uranium oxide is used by civilian reactors, mine officials say, and is exported only to countries approved by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The government of Iran owns 15 percent of Roessing, a legacy of early investment in the 1960s by the shah there. Mine officials say no shipment of uranium has ever been made to Iran, and the country has no right to the mine's product. Roessing's majority owner is Rio Tinto, a global mining conglomerate. Officials in Arandis say they hope to use the unexpected revival of the mine to secure the future of their town, which already has, by African standards, an enviable infrastructure, including paved roads, a soccer stadium, a library, streetlights and steady sources of electricity and clean water. Two small clothing factories and a technical college provide some jobs not directly affiliated with the mine. The banks have not resumed operations, but one recently opened a cash machine in Arandis, and work on a new gas station is to begin this month, said Muhuura, the mayor. With population on the rise again, the town recently made a deal with a builder to construct 50 homes. The mine also has donated one of its dump trucks to Arandis, where it sits massively, with giant rubber wheels twice the height of most men, in the center of town. It is the first piece of what town officials hope is an eventual mining museum, part of the plan to help the town survive the next big downturn in uranium demand, whenever it comes. "We want to turn around to show the world that this town will never be a ghost town," Muhuura said. -------- business Westinghouse will expand its nuclear operations in the Pittsburgh area Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News (December 6, 2006) http://pepei.pennnet.com/news/display_news_story.cfm?Section=WireNews&Category=HOME&NewsID=141692 Dec. 6--Westinghouse Electric Co. has chosen Western Pennsylvania as the site of an office complex that will house 1,000 nuclear engineers it is hiring, with space for another 1,000 in the coming years, a spokesman said today. The nuclear energy company will locate the facility either in Cranberry or in Monroeville, where Westinghouse is based. Westinghouse needs substantially more space to accommodate the highly skilled, highly paid professionals because of the growing demand for nuclear power worldwide. In particular, an approximately $8 billion contract for new nuclaer power plants in China is pending, and Westinghouse is a leading candidate. A final decision on the site selection will be made around the end of the year, said Westinghouse spokesman Vaughn Gilbert. The expansion comes as Westinghouse ownership changed to Toshiba Corp. The Japanese conglomerate acquired the company from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. on Oct. 16 for $5.4 billion. The company hired 800 people last year, including almost 300 locally, and is on track to hire about 900 people this year, said Gilbert. The selection by Westinghouse marks a victory over Charlotte, N.C., which had been competing for the facility. "What we need is a facility that can accommodate our growth, is large enough to expand and has sufficient parking. When you hire 1,000 to 2,000 people, you need sufficient space for parking," said Gilbert. "We also needed to be near a major airport, and either Pittsburgh-area facility would be close enough to (Pittsburgh International Airport)," he said. About 3,000 of the company's more than 9,000-person work force are based in this area, including about 1,800 in Monroeville, 700 at the Waltz Mills plant in Madison, Westmoreland County; 300 in Blairsville; 200 in Churchill, and 150 in New Stanton. Westinghouse Electric CEO Steve Tritch received his MBA degree and bachelors degree in mechanical engineering from University of Pittsburgh and is known to be an ardent supporter of Western Pennsylvania. -------- china China woos further nuclear cooperation with IAEA 2006-12-06 (Xinhua) http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-12/06/content_5444743.htm BEIJING, Dec. 6 -- China hopes to have more opportunity to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in nuclear energy utilization, nuclear technology exchange, professionals training and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, said a senior official. State Councilor Chen Zhili made the remarks when meeting the IAEA Director-General Mohamed el Baradei here Wednesday. Chen also spoke highly of the fruitful efforts made by the IAEA in promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Baradei is visiting China from Dec. 4 to 7 at the invitation of the China Atomic Energy Authority (CAEA). Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and CAEA director Sun Qin also held talks with Baradei on Wednesday. -------- depleted uranium US and Israel targeting DNA in Gaza? Part 2 of 3: The DIME bomb, yet another genotoxic weapon By James Brooks Online Journal Contributing Writer Dec 6, 2006, 01:16 http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1507.shtml “Horrific” wounds in Gaza may be warfare of the future In early July, shortly after the beginning of Israel’s bloody military siege of the Gaza Strip, reports began to appear that Israeli forces were using a new weapon that inflicted strange and untreatable wounds, and significantly increased the death tolls of Israel’s attacks. [1] [2] Italian investigators have reported evidence that the unidentified Israeli weapon is probably Dense Inert Metal Explosives, or DIME, a so-called LCD (“low collateral damage”) weapon developed by the United States Air Force. [3] DIME bombs blast a superheated “micro-shrapnel” of powdered heavy metal tungsten alloy (HMTA). Studies indicate that HMTA embedded in the body disrupts biochemistry and rapidly causes cancer. Like depleted uranium (DU), HMTA is genotoxic -- it is capable of inflicting genetic mutations. [4-10] Publicly slated for deployment in 2008, DIME bombs are small but unusually powerful. Their carbon fiber casings make “more of the blast energy . . . available as blast as opposed to being absorbed in [a] steel case". The carbon reportedly breaks into “thousands of harmless fibers” to prevent unintended casualties from casing shrapnel. [11] The ‘footprint’ of the DIME blast is much smaller than a conventional bomb’s, because gravity and air resistance quickly drag the dense, finely powdered “micro-shrapnel” to the ground. The blast radius is reportedly as small as 25 feet. [12] [13] DIME is part of the Air Force’s Focused Lethality Munitions (FLM) program, which is expected to “allow” the targeting of “terrorists” wherever they are, even in places "previously off limits to the warfighter." [14] The ideal of FLM is to reliably kill every human within the blast zone -- one way or another. It is ‘total war’ on a 50-foot circle, within which deaths are not admitted as collateral, but purchased as insurance. Israel’s new weapon “slices” off its victims’ legs, leaving “signs of heat and burns near the point of the amputation.” It’s “as if a saw was used to cut through the bone,” according to Dr. Habas al-Wahid, head of the emergency room at Gaza’s Shuhada al-Aqsa hospital. [15] Viewing photographs of the living and dead Palestinian victims of this device, many of whom are children, we notice patches of darkened but unburned skin, possibly where metal powder was driven into and/or through the skin by blast force. A child's torso is peppered with holes, some of which, judging from doctors’ reports, probably tunnel through to exit wounds in the back. The skin and muscle of one victim is ripped into a blood-encrusted pulp, as if blasted at close range with tiny birdshot. Some of the corpses are unrecognizable. Most of the recent photos of “strange” wounds from Gaza appear to be consistent with what is known about DIME weapons. [16] The area of a DIME blast should be treated with caution until it has been decontaminated (assuming this is possible). Depending on the local HMTA concentration, soil in the blast area may remain barren for an indefinite period of time, or it may grow plants internally contaminated with HMTA. [17] [18] The “who knew?” charade In the scientific literature on tungsten and its alloys, the toxicity of HMTA stands apart. This formula (roughly nine parts tungsten and one part nickel and cobalt or iron) damages DNA even when powders of the metals are simply mixed together. [4] [5] [9] Implanting four tiny bits of weapons-grade HMTA in lab mice induced terminal cancer in 100 percent of the subjects. A powdered HMTA recipe was tumor-generating and capable of “genotoxic effects.” At least one experiment found parallels in the way DU and HMTA attack DNA. The results of another suggested that HMTA may pass its genetic damage down to the next generation. [8] [5] [9] [10] HMTA may be much more carcinogenic than DU when it is embedded in the body -- as intended. “Tumors developed rapidly” in rats implanted with pellets of HMTA, but researchers “did not observe tumor formation in the DU-implanted rats.” Multiple syndromes of heavy metal poisoning have also been attributed to this alloy, including polycythemia, which can be induced by cobalt overdose. Because HMTA contains far too little cobalt to cause the disease by itself, researchers suspected a synergistic effect among or between the metals. [8] In a 2005 article reviewing the “status of health concerns” about depleted uranium and “surrogate metals” such as HMTA, three scientists at the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) wrote that “medical and political controversies surrounding the use of DU” had spurred “a search for substitute metals in armor-penetrating munitions.” [19] “[N]ew alloys of tungsten/nickel/cobalt and tungsten/nickel/iron . . . rival DU in armor-penetrating performance,” and are “among the leading candidates to replace DU in selected munitions.” Some of this ordnance “has already been deployed, although on a relatively small scale.” The article then reviews the science detailing the alarming health risks of HMTA, much of it conducted by the authors, whom we thank for their work. It then attempts to explain how the military’s favorite “surrogate metal” turned out to be almost as genotoxic as DU, and probably more carcinogenic: “In many ways the development of substitutes for DU in munitions has followed a pattern similar to that for DU deployment, in that incomplete toxicological information was available prior to their release . . . it was assumed that many years of industrial use of tungsten and alloys such as tungsten carbide . . . meant they could be used as safely in armaments.” We infer that it was reasonable for the military to deploy DU weapons, because the toxicological information was “incomplete.” It’s a strange scientific rigor that requires us to know exactly how a known poison works before we stop giving it to people. The cold fact is that there never was a scientifically valid reason to “assume” that depleted uranium could be used “safely in armaments.” Quite the opposite; as we shall see in part three, the Army realized more than 60 years ago that finely powdered uranium products could make extremely potent antipersonnel weapons. [20] We currently have “incomplete toxicological information” about HMTA, but for more than 15 years we have had clear warnings about the health risks of combining these metals. US weapons scientists should have known as early as 1992 that mixing cobalt with tungsten could greatly increase the resulting alloy’s cancer potential. [21] [22] It is hardly news that nickel is carcinogenic and genotoxic, and specialists have long noted that heavy metal alloys tend to unpredictably amplify the toxicities of their component metals. With this kind of “incomplete” information at hand, could military scientists have reasonably “assumed” that nickel would be a “safe” addition to HMTA? Concerns have been voiced about tungsten sport ammunition for several years. Tungsten alloy bullets, some also containing nickel and cobalt (for superior hardness), were found to pose potential environmental hazards in several studies. A probable link between industrial tungsten and leukemia has been identified. Compared to these findings, however, the toxicity of HMTA may be of a different order. [17] [18] The “who knew?” apologia offered by the AFRRI researchers asks us to assume that the scientists who developed DIME weapons proceeded in sheer ignorance of the existing science. They were so incompetent that they merely “assumed” that they could use any tungsten alloy. Does this implausibility jibe with the rest of the picture? A multi-billion dollar military weapons program is stung by the “controversies” surrounding its toxic DU weapons, and is under pressure to produce an expedient alternative. Would this program’s scientists have been allowed to be so cavalier about consulting the literature? Would the replacement metal be chosen on blind faith, without bothering to conduct even simple studies of its potential health impacts? Logically, we must conclude that the military developed HMTA in the knowledge that it could have significant carcinogenic and genotoxic effects. Did they “assume” that saying “tungsten is safer than DU” would take care of the matter? Perhaps relatively non-toxic tungsten carbide, famed for its hardness and cutting ability, would not have sufficed for the purposes of the DIME bomb. Focused Lethality Munitions like DIME must kill all of their victims. Slicing off their arms and legs is not enough. The last installment of this article will trace the roots of HMTA in depleted uranium and decades of US warfare with poisonous, DNA-damaging powders. Then we will return to Gaza to consider the damage done, and the damage to come, if the warmakers have their way. References 1) Israel accused of using 'Dime' bombs, AlJazeera, 10/13/2006 2) Israel used chemical weapons in Lebanon and Gaza, Jean Shaoul, wsws.org, 10/24/2006 3) Italian TV: Israel used new weapon prototype in Gaza Strip, Ha'aretz, 10/12/2006 4) Abstract: Potential late health effects of depleted uranium and tungsten used in armor-piercing munitions: comparison of neoplastic transformation and genotoxicity with the known carcinogen nickel, Miller, AC, et al, PubMed, 11/26/2006 5) Neoplastic transformation of human osteoblast cells to the tumorigenic phenotype by heavy metal–tungsten alloy particles: induction of genotoxic effects, Miller, AC, et al, Carcinogenesis, Vol. 22, No. 1, 115-125, January 2001, Oxford University Press 6) Abstract: Carcinogenic Potential of Depleted Uranium and Tungsten Alloys, Alexandra C Miller, Ph. D., Department Of Defense, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute (AFRRI) 7) Depleted uranium-catalyzed oxidative DNA damage: absence of significant alpha particle decay, Miller, AC, et al, Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry, Issue 91, 2002 pp. 246– 252 8) Embedded Weapons-Grade Tungsten Alloy Shrapnel Rapidly Induces Metastatic High-Grade Rhabdomyosarcomas in F344 Rats, Kalinich et al, Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 113, Number 6, June 2005 9) Abstract: Effect of the militarily-relevant heavy metals, depleted uranium and heavy metal tungsten-alloy on gene expression in human liver carcinoma cells (HepG2), Miller, AC, et al, SpringerLink/Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, 1/1/2004 10) Preconceptional paternal exposure to radiation or heavy metals like cadmium can induce cancer in unexposed offspring, Alexandra C. Miller, Rafael Rivas, Robert J. Merlot and Paul, Carcinogenesis 5: Environmental and Endogenous Carcinogens/Proc Amer Assoc Cancer Res, Volume 47, 2006 11) Air Force seeks a bomb with less bang, Greg Jaffe, The Wall Street Journal/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 4/11/2006 12) Cancer Worries for New U.S. Bombs, DefenseTech.org, 5/20/2006 13) Dense Inert Metal Explosive (DIME), GlobalSecurity.org, 10/18/2006 14) USAF Unfunded Priority List (UPL), SAF/FMB POC, FY 2007, February 2006, Page 54 15) Italian TV: Israel used new weapon prototype in Gaza Strip, Ha'aretz, 10/19/2006 16) Effects of Israel's New Weapon, Vermonters for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel 17) Possible Health And Environmental Impacts Of Tungsten In Lead Replacement Shot, Paul Harrison and Karen Bradley, MRC Institute for Environment and Health 2005 18) Tungsten Effects on Soil Environments, Nikolay Strigul, et al, UMass, Annual International Conference on Soil, Sediments and Water, 10/18/2004 19) Status of Health Concerns about Military Use of Depleted Uranium and Surrogate Metals in Armor-Penetrating Munitions, D.E. McClain, A.C. Miller, and J.F. Kalinich, NATO, 2005 20) Memorandum to: Brigadier General L. R. Groves From: Drs. Conant, Compton, and Urey, Midfully.org/War Department, United States Engineer Office, Manhattan District, Oak Ridge Tennessee, 10/30/1943 21) Abstract: Comparative study of the acute lung toxicity of pure cobalt powder and cobalt-tungsten carbide mixture in rats, Lasfargues G., et al, Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology, 1992 22) Evaluation of the role of reactive oxygen species in the interactive toxicity of carbide-cobalt mixtures on macrophages in culture, D. Lison and R. Lauwerys, SpringerLink//Archives of Toxicology, 6/1/1993 Part 1 James Brooks serves as webmaster for Vermonters for a Just Peace in Palestine/Israel. He can be contacted at jamiedb@wildblue.net. ---- ‘Radioactive traces at site of downed Helios plane’ By Elias Hazou December 6, 2006 Cyprus Mail http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=29501&cat_id=1 TRACES OF radioactive substances were detected at the crash site of Helios ZU522, it has been revealed one year after the accident. The report, carried by Greek daily Eleftherotipia, comes in the wake of the police investigation into the death of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, poisoned with polonium-210. According to the paper, immediately after the crash on the morning of August 14 2005, a special radiological containment unit was deployed to the scene to check for depleted uranium. Small amounts of depleted uranium (DU) are known to be used in certain plane parts. The area was sealed off while the containment unit went to work, and ostensibly this was one of the reasons why fire-fighters were prevented from accessing Grammatikos for about an hour. The unit found no DU, but nevertheless the Greek air-accident investigation committee asked the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) whether Boeing used radioactive materials in the fabrication of the specific aircraft type. A few days later, the NTSB informed the Greek committee that three such materials are present on Boeing 737-700s: americium, tritium and volframium. Americium is a highly toxic radioactive element that can cause cancer. It is used in small quantities in fire alarm detectors and also in LEDs (Light emitting diodes) on aircraft. Tritium is a radioactive form of hydrogen. Volframium is a solid element, often used instead of DU in metal parts for airplanes. With this information in hand, the Greek committee assigned to a British company an environmental survey of the area before the debris was moved out. The subsequent inspection showed traces of toxic substances in the ground, including cadmium and barium. A relatively rare, soft, bluish-white, transition metal, cadmium is known to cause cancer. It is used largely in batteries or on plane rudder components… Its isotopes have an extremely long half-life. Barium is soft silvery metallic alkaline earth metal. It is never found in nature in its pure form due to its reactivity with air. Barium is used in the fabrication of plastic parts for aircraft. The presence of cadmium and barium could be explained by the fact both substances have a long half-life – the time required for the quantity to decay to half of its initial strength. And according to Eleftherotipia, the latest count, carried out only a few weeks ago, revealed residues of the above substances at a depth of 40cm in an area of 100 square metres – covering around 100 points of the crash site. Serapheim Kamoutsis, chief field investigator of the Helios accident team, told the Mail yesterday that the checks for radioactive materials were standard procedure. “This is normal. It’s necessary to decontaminate a crash site before anyone else goes to work there.” Kamoutsis added that the radiation counts at Grammatikos were well within acceptable levels. “Nothing alarming was found, and the area has since been handed back for public use,” he said. -------- europe Lithuanian parliament panels approve new nuke project VILNIUS (AFP) Dec 06, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/2006/061206131940.yn4lk4ok.html Two Lithuanian parliamentary committees urged the government Wednesday to submit a draft bill on building a new nuclear power plant by year's end after approving a feasibility study into the project. "I believe that if Lithuania's economy is to remain competitive, continuing to produce nuclear energy is necessary," said Social Democratic lawmaker Birute Vesaite, who heads the economic committee that examined the feasibility study along with a committee that looked at the social and environmental impacts. The two committees also urged the government to ensure that Lithuania had a controlling stake in the new power station, which is being built to replace the ageing, Chernobyl-type Ignalina facility, in the east of the country. "That's only logical, the plant will be built on our soil and we already have a nuclear oversight body," said Vesaite. The feasibility study conducted by the energy companies of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and published at the end of October, said that building a new nuclear plant in Lithuania to replace Ignalina would cost between 2.5-4.0 billion euros (3.15-5.0 billion dollars). The new plant could start operations in 2015 -- six years after Lithuania has promised to shut down the last reactor at Ignalina, which the European Union deems unsafe. The new nuclear plant would allow Lithuania to produce electricity at a lower cost than in traditional power stations, and to increase independence from energy resources from other countries, the head of Lithuania's state-owned energy company Lietuvos Energija, Rimantas Juozaitis, has said. Lithuania and its Baltic neighbours are heavily dependent on supplies of oil and gas from Russia, which has been steadily increasing the prices of its fuel. The Baltics' dependence on energy from the east is set to increase even more in 2009 when Lithuania will close the Ignalina nuclear plant, which currently supplies around 70 percent of Lithuania's electricity needs. German energy giant E.ON has expressed interest in the project to build the new nuclear plant, while France's Areva group, Canada's AECL, and Mitsubishi of Japan have said they are also ready to supply nuclear technologies for the new facility. ---- Further delay in construction of Olkiluoto-3 nuclear reactor - Finland 6.12.2006 Helsingin Sanomat http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Further+delay+in+construction+of+Olkiluoto-3+nuclear+reactor/1135223464390 Construction work on the third reactor of the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant on the west coast of Finland has been delayed again. The power company TVO said on Monday that the installation will not be ready until early 2011. Originally the reactor was to have come on line a year and a half earlier - in the summer of 2009. The installation is being built by the French company Areva together with the German Siemens. The builders take the responsibility for the costs caused by the delay. The delay in the construction means a loss of nearly EUR 600 million in lost electricity production. The building contract has a clause on possible delays, but TVO and its shareholders will not disclose details on who is liable for the loss of production. "Quality standards, usability, and safety are nevertheless top priorities", says Seppo Ruhonen, CEO of Helsinki Energy, which holds an eight per cent share in the new reactor project. The construction project, which began in the summer of 2005 has experienced numerous problems both in planning and in the actual construction work. Difficulties have arisen in the organisation of the building site, quality control, and training. Already in the summer it was announced that the completion of the reactor would be postponed by a year. The latest report means a further delay of about six months is in store. When it is complete, the new reactor is expected to generate about 12 terawatt hours of electricity a year. This is about 15 percent of Finland’s current electricity consumption. ---- Italy Likely Next EU Country To Build Nuclear Pwr -Expert (Dow Jones) 12-06-06 http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/NewsStory.aspx?cpath=20061206%5cACQDJON200612061258DOWJONESDJONLINE000961.htm& PARIS -- Italy is likely the European country that next will bring back nuclear power, said Christian Stoffaes, chairman of the board at the Centre D'Etudes Prospectives et D'Informations Internationales in Paris Wednesday. At a conference held by the Global Interdependence Centre, a nonprofit think- tank, Stoffaes, who worked at Electricite de France (1024251.FR) until 2005 as an international advisor, laid out a case for nuclear power. He said high oil prices, fluctuating natural gas prices and concerns about global warming would spur new growth in Asian countries like China and Indonesia as well as Europe. "Italy is close to resuming nuclear development," he said. "The population now feels that there are chances of electricity shortages." After the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in Ukraine in 1986, Italy closed its existing nuclear power plants. Stoffaes said the prospect of new nuclear power plant build in Germany was less likely as the Green Party there is strong and resistance to nuclear power entrenched. "It's more complex there...the issue remains very divisive," he said. In Europe, only Finland and France are building new nuclear power plants. A Finish consortium of electricity consumers called Teollisuuden Voima Oy is building a new plant called the Olkiluoto 3, which may be ready by 2010 or 2011. Electricite de France is building a new nuclear power plant called Flamanville 3 in Normandy. -Nina Sovich, Dow Jones Newswires; + 33 1 40 17 17 55; nina.sovich@ dowjones.com (END) Dow Jones Newswires -------- india Indian PM Warns Against Sensitive Provisions In US Nuclear Deal by Staff Writers Washington (AFP) Dec 06, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Indian_PM_Warns_Against_Sensitive_Provisions_In_US_Nuclear_Deal_999.html Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday cautioned against US lawmakers including "problematic" provisions in final US legislation giving India access to civilian nuclear technology. He highlighted the concern in a telephone conversation with Bill Frist, the Republican leader in the US Senate, as Congress began drafting the legislation reconciling separate bills passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives. Some of the provisions proposed for the combined bill, expected to be voted on by Congress this week, go against the spirit of a landmark nuclear agreement reached between Singh and US President George W. Bush in July last year, Indian officials have complained. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has also campaigned for the removal of the sensitive provisions, including one calling for New Delhi's support to end Iran's sensitive nuclear program and for restrictions on US nuclear technology transferred to India. But Tom Lantos, the incoming Democratic head of the powerful international relations panel of the House of Representatives, on Tuesday threw his weight behind calls for a provision for India to check Iran's nuclear program. Lantos supported the requirement in legislation of a "determination by the (US) President that India is fully and actively participating" in "efforts to dissuade, sanction and contain Iran for its nuclear program." Rice had argued that such a stipulation would be viewed by India as an "additional condition." "I strongly believed that obtaining such an assessment of India's policy in this regard is a critical piece of information to aid our deliberations when we consider an actual agreement for civil nuclear cooperation with India, as required" by the final legislation," Lantos said. But he pointed out that he strongly supported the nuclear deal. Senate leader Frist said he telephoned Singh Tuesday to assure him that enacting the final legislation on the nuclear deal was a "top" priority by Congress this week before it adjourned for the year. Singh "stressed that there are a number of provisions in the House and Senate-passed bills that are problematic for the Indian government because they depart from the understanding reached with President Bush on this issue," Frist said. "We discussed several of these provisions, and I assured him that the conferees are well aware of the Indian government's concerns," he said. But a number of lawmakers have "strongly" insisted including the sensitive requirements in the final legislation. "Apparently, the Bush administration has entered the nuclear twilight zone," said Democratic lawmaker Edward Markey. "It can go to war in Iraq to disarm imaginary WMD (weapons of mass destruction), but then turns to give a huge nuclear gift to India and specifically tells Congress not to ask India to stand up to Iran's WMD programs," he said. "Whose foreign policy is the administration promoting?" Under the bilateral deal, India, a non-signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), will be given access to civilian nuclear technology in return for placing its atomic reactors under global safeguards. The agreement was seen as controversial because the US Congress had to create a rare exception for India from some of the requirements of the US Atomic Energy Act, which currently prohibits nuclear sales to non-NPT signatories. In addition, US weapons experts warned that forging such an agreement with non-NPT member India would not only make it harder to enforce rules against nuclear renegades Iran and North Korea, but also set a dangerous precedent for other countries with nuclear ambitions. -------- korea U.S. Offers North Korea Aid for Dropping Nuclear Plans By HELENE COOPER and DAVID E. SANGER December 6, 2006 NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/06/world/asia/06korea.html?ei=5070&en=a2f32613d8b3db4c&ex=1168318800&pagewanted=print WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 — The United States has offered a detailed package of economic and energy assistance in exchange for North Korea’s giving up nuclear weapons and technology, American officials said Tuesday. But the offer, made last week during two days of intense talks in Beijing, would hinge on North Korea’s agreeing to begin dismantling some of the equipment it is using to expand its nuclear arsenal, even before returning to negotiations. It is unclear whether North Korea will accept the offer, which is more specific — in both the details and the timing — than a vaguely worded statement of principles that the North signed in September 2005, a year before its first nuclear test. The combination of incentives and demands was the focal point of three-way meetings on Nov. 28 and 29 involving Assistant Secretary of State Christopher R. Hill; North Korea’s vice foreign minister, Kim Kye-gwan; and Chinese officials at the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse in Beijing. The incentives offered by the United States include food aid from the United States, Japan and South Korea, a senior administration official said. The offer is significant because the administration has resisted making clear to North Korea exactly what kind of aid it would receive if it agreed to begin taking apart facilities like the plutonium reprocessing facility that turns spent fuel into weapons, and to provide a list of all its nuclear facilities. Hawks in the administration, particularly in Vice President Dick Cheney’s office, have long opposed what they call “rewarding” North Korea for its nuclear test. But State Department officials have argued that while the argument has gone on in Washington, the North has produced fuel for six or more weapons. They say the only successful strategy will be one that results in the beginning of dismantlement. The incentives package also includes a pledge by the United States to work with North Korea toward finding a way to end the financial restrictions placed last year on a Macao bank, Banco Delta Asia, that was a main hub of the North’s international financial transactions. The Bush administration accused Banco Delta Asia of helping North Korea to launder money from drug smuggling and other illicit activities and to pass counterfeit $100 bills manufactured by the North’s government. While the United States remains unwilling to lift the sanctions until the counterfeiting issue is resolved, a senior administration official said American officials had told the North Koreans they would work with them on the issue. “We would help them to help themselves,” the official said. “We would expect them to come forward with what they know, and we’d work through the problem.” Describing the North Koreans’ response to the entire package of incentives and demands, the official, who was in the room during the exchanges in Beijing, said: “They listened intently. They were clearly in a listening and probing mode, and they said they were glad to be hearing this from us.” The Beijing discussions took place in advance of planned six-country talks on the nuclear program. Diplomats from the other five countries — the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia — are wary that the off-again-on-again talks risk irrelevancy; they began in 2003 and have yet to produce anything beyond the agreement in principle of dismantlement for eventual aid. No date has been set for the official talks. North Korea boycotted the six-party talks last year after the United States cracked down on Banco Delta Asia, and on Oct. 9, Pyongyang conducted a nuclear test. On Oct. 31, North Korea agreed to return to the six-party talks. Since then, though, American officials have balked at scheduling a meeting until first receiving a commitment from the North to start dismantling the nuclear program. -------- russia Russian Lawmakers Tentatively Approve Bill on Nuclear Restructuring Wednesday December 6, 2006 (AP) http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/061206/russia_nuclear.html?.v=1 MOSCOW -- Russian lawmakers gave preliminary backing Wednesday to legislation to restructure the nation's nuclear industries. The State Duma voted 368-51 to approve a bill that would create a fully state-owned holding company encompassing all enterprises involved in the civilian nuclear sector. The military nuclear complex would be managed separately. The legislation must undergo two more readings before being sent to the upper house for approval and to President Vladimir Putin for his signature. Federal Nuclear Agency chief Sergei Kiriyenko said the restructuring was an essential condition for fulfilling an ambitious state program to revive Russia's atomic sector. "In order to be competitive, Russia's atomic industries must be transformed into an integrated company that would be in charge of the entire production cycle, starting with uranium mining," he told lawmakers. Russia now has 31 reactors at 10 nuclear power plants, accounting for 16 to 17 percent of Russia's electricity generation. It plans to build another 42 atomic reactors by 2030 which should account for about a quarter of power generation. Communist lawmakers opposed the bill, saying the plan to separate civilian and military nuclear sectors could badly damage the atomic industries. "The only sector of industry which has been working successfully would have to undergo restructuring," Communist lawmaker Yuri Maslyukov said. "That's yet another blow to Russia's economy." -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- california Dog park to be tested for radiation A portion of the property in Brentwood was used to dump radioactive waste. VA officials say they doubt the site is harmful. Los Angeles Times By Amanda Covarrubias December 06, 2006 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-brentwood30nov30,1,5843208.story?ctrack=1&cset=true We want to put everyone's fears to rest and reassure everyone that there isn't any danger Relenting to community concerns, the federal government announced this week it will perform tests on a Brentwood dog park and nearby grounds where Veterans Administration and UCLA researchers buried radioactive medical waste during the Cold War. The decision comes after environmentalists and community activists spent years researching the activities, saying they found higher than average levels of radiation at the park and a nearby athletic field - used by the exclusive Brentwood School - as well as in nearby canyons and ravines. FOR THE RECORD: Brentwood park testing: Two photo captions accompanying an article in Thursday's California section about underground dumping on federal property on the Westside of Los Angeles incorrectly implied that the photos showed workers doing testing at a Brentwood dog park and athletic field. The workers were taking sample tests on a nearby property that could be compared to the tests conducted at the park and field. - Brentwood dump: A story in the Nov. 30 California section said a study offering new details on a former nuclear dump at the Barrington Dog Park and surrounding areas in Brentwood was conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers. The study was conducted by MicroTech LLC, a separate company hired by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and its findings were contained in PricewaterhouseCoopers' broader report. - They believe the charred carcasses of animals used in radiation experiments, as well as barrels of radioactive tritium and other toxic chemicals, are underground. Veterans Affairs officials said this week that they doubt harmful levels of radioactivity will be found, noting the government performed tests before the dog park and athletic fields were built. 'We want to put everyone's fears to rest and reassure everyone that there isn't any danger,' said Shana Boehm, a program analyst for the VA in Westwood. From 1952 to 1968, UCLA and the then-Veterans Administration used the northwest corner of the property to dump radioactive biomedical research waste, officials have acknowledged. The 387-acre VA grounds along Wilshire Boulevard just west of the 405 Freeway is considered prime underdeveloped real estate and is being studied for development by the federal government to better utilize inefficient VA property. Since 1985, 12 acres have been leased to the city of Los Angeles for $1 a year for the Barrington Recreation Center, and a section of the property was made into Barrington Dog Park in 2003. A portion of the off-leash area contains part of the former nuclear dump. Critics fear any future development could result in digging in and around the dump area, unleashing toxins, unless the pollutants are found and cleaned up. Revelations about the dumping program came to light in the 1970s when the nuclear watchdog group Committee to Bridge the Gap became aware that the city was negotiating with the VA to convert some of the property into a park. In 1981, after conducting its own research, the group pointed out that some of the main radionuclides at the site included tritium and carbon-14. But the Nuclear Regulatory Commission dismissed those concerns and concluded the property posed no health risks. Based on that assessment, the L.A. Department of Recreation and Parks moved forward with its plans to build the park. The dumping was largely forgotten until earlier this year when reporter Michael Collins, writing for the alternative weekly Los Angeles City Beat and EnviroReporter.com, raised new concerns about the dump area. Collins said in the story that he used a nuclear radiation monitor and found 'shards of radioactive glass that registered over four times normal.' In addition, a preliminary report conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers last year for the VA offered new details on the nuclear dump, including the revelation that radioactive medical waste and asbestos are buried 15 to 30 feet beneath areas leased to the Brentwood School for use as athletic fields. 'Either the public was not informed as to the contaminates under the athletic fields, or these environmental hazards did not trigger a significant negative public reaction from nearby residents (including parents of students using the fields),' the report stated. Since that information became public, community activists and local leaders have pressured the VA to further investigate what may have been buried in the once-empty fields. Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles) wrote to the secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Washington earlier this year, demanding answers to questions about 10 underground storage tanks on the property. Specifically, Waxman asked when the tanks were last checked for leaks and whether there are other hazardous materials at the West L.A. veterans property. A spokeswoman for Waxman said the department has not replied to his questions. In a public meeting held Monday night to inform the public about the latest study, parents expressed concern for their children who play in the athletic fields and pet owners for their dogs, said Michael Noel, president of Millennium Consulting Associates, which was hired by the VA to conduct the study. Few complete records of what was disposed are available, partly because extensive documentation was not required before 1970, Noel said. 'We need to get to the bottom of this and find out what was buried, when it was buried and how much was buried,' said Noel, adding that it may be impossible to definitively answer the final question. 'The more important thing is whether what's buried there poses a risk to the community and to the environment,' he said. This week and next, Noel will be mapping the 25 to 30 acres in question to prepare for radiation measurements. He will have a preliminary report by the end of January. Next spring, survey crews will begin drilling 80 feet into the ground for samples to test for radiation and other toxic materials. Groundwater testing also will be done, including digging monitoring wells to check for contaminants, he said. Millennium Consulting will receive $78,500 for the first phase of the study, Boehm said. Norman Kulla, district director for City Councilman Bill Rosendahl, who represents the area, said the process will be 'open and transparent,' including allowing the public to observe Noel's fieldwork from 'a safe distance.' amanda.covarrubias @latimes.com -------- indiana Southern Indiana company tapped to build new nuclear reactors December 06. 2006 (AP) http://www.southbendtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061206/News01/61206016 MOUNT VERNON, Ind. — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has tapped a southern Indiana plant to make parts for dozens of nuclear reactors expected to be built during a renaissance of atomic energy. BWX Technologies of Mount Vernon has received approval from the commission to make components for nuclear plants that could be less than a year away from construction, chairman Dale Klein said Tuesday. "You will be playing a key role in the manufacture of these large components and in restarting the nuclear industry in the United States," Klein told employees during a tour of the plant in the community 20 miles west of Evansville. The announcement comes decades after the last nuclear power plant was built in the U.S. Catastrophic incidents on Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and at a Russian reactor in Chernobyl seven years later sparked alarm over the safety of nuclear power. But Klein said communities have once again begun looking favorably on nuclear plants because of increased concern over air pollution caused by fossil fuels. "Nuclear is one of those places where an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere," Klein said. "We need to be a strong regulator to make sure the public feels secure." No nuclear plants have been built in the United States since 1978. But there are 31 new orders for plants that could receive approval in 2007, Klein said. There are also 103 operating nuclear plants nationwide often in need of repairs, he said. John Fees, president and chief operating officer at BWX, said employment could grow rapidly at the plant if the nuclear industry continues to expand. "I think the possible expansion is a couple of years away," Fees said. Information from: Evansville Courier & Press, http://www.courierpress.com -------- nevada Nuclear waste rail line to Yucca Mountain divides Nevada towns Ed Vogel Las Vegas Review-Journal Wed, Dec. 06, 2006 http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/16177753.htm SILVER SPRINGS, Nev. (AP) – June Mick fled to this rural Lyon County community six months ago to get away from the crime and high costs of south Florida. She and her husband paid $230,000 for a manufactured home and 4.7 acres of jackrabbits and sagebrush near an infrequently used railroad track about 40 miles east of Carson City. Only recently did Mick learn the track in her backyard was under study as the rail line on which Energy Department trains would carry high-level nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, including from the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near Avila Beach. "I don’t want that stuff," she said. "What if there is an accident? There is no telling what could happen." Mick’s thoughts were shared by neighbors a few blocks away. Retired Navy veteran Robert Brittain moved to his track-side Silver Springs home last year. Ruth Curtis purchased her mobile home beside the track 16 years ago. "I’m pro-military. But I don’t care for Yucca Mountain. Ammunition is different. It’s for national security," Brittain said. "Nuclear waste?" Curtis questioned, then answered herself: "Oh, no." Ninety percent of homeowners interviewed in Silver Springs oppose the proposal to haul nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain through their inexpensive but rapidly growing community. They’ve found peace and quiet in Silver Springs’ wide-open spaces. They knew trains have occasionally carried bombs past their homes to the Army Ammunition Depot at Hawthorne since the 1930s. But they were not aware that the Energy Department was considering using the same tracks to carry waste from commercial nuclear power plants across the country to Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. State laws require county planning departments to notify homeowners when new developments are planned in their neighborhoods, but the federal government isn’t obliged to notify people when it wants to haul radioactive waste through their backyards. The Energy Department placed advertisements in the Fallon newspaper about a recent hearing at which residents could discuss the railroad plan, but in Silver Springs, news travels largely by word of mouth. Whether hauling 77,000 tons of radioactive waste within a few yards of Silver Springs’ bedrooms poses any danger depends on whom you ask. Bob Loux, executive director of the state Agency for Nuclear Projects, said a terrorist with a shoulder-held, anti-tank missile launcher could put a hole in a cask containing nuclear waste. "If 1 percent of the cargo escaped, it would contaminate a 42 square-mile area and take a couple of decades and $8 billion to $10 billion to clean up," Loux said. It is not just Silver Springs residents who have reason for concern, he added. Trains from power plants will move along the main Union Pacific line paralleling Interstate 80 from the east and west. Nuclear waste would be hauled through downtown Reno. The nuclear trains would veer off the Union Pacific line north of Fallon and head more than 300 miles south to Yucca Mountain along a route near U.S. Highway 95 that goes through Silver Springs and close to the rural communities of Schurz, Hawthorne, Mina, Tonopah and Goldfield. Costs of constructing this "Mina Corridor" route, including laying 209 miles of track from Hawthorne to Yucca Mountain, have been estimated at more than $1 billion. Allen Benson, director of external affairs for the Energy Department’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, does not share Loux’s alarm. He noted the federal government has been hauling nuclear waste by truck for 50 years with no problems, including more than 4,000 shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project in New Mexico. "The safety record is quite remarkable," Benson said. Benson noted the waste going to Yucca Mountain would be in solid, not liquid, form. If a cask were penetrated, some pellets might fall onto the ground, but a hazardous materials team would be sent out "to clean it up and move on," he said. Security officers will accompany the trains, according to Benson, and the Energy Department "is not going to advertise" when shipments will move. He anticipates about two trains a week over a 24-year period. "There is no such thing as a 100 percent safety guarantee," Benson said. "But this is definitely not Chernobyl. People have this fear of nuclear. We understand that. But nuclear is medicine. Nuclear is electricity." The public reaction to the word nuclear is far different farther south in economically depressed rural Nevada. Of 25 people interviewed in Goldfield, Hawthorne, Tonopah, Schurz and Mina, 22 expressed support for the rail line. Hawthorne businessman Rex Mills expressed their views during a hearing in Hawthorne. He said rural Nevadans want the Energy Department to share its Yucca Mountain track with commercial trains. "If they put the railroad here, it will be great," Mills said. "It will give an incentive for companies nationwide to move into a lower-taxed area. The waste is going into Yucca Mountain, whether we like it or not." So far the Energy Department has spent $9 billion on the project. Costs could top $58 billion, based on an estimate made in 2001. Postmistress Theora Janis and resident Dollie Murillo stood in front of the Mina Post Office and discussed the desperate need for economic revival in their community. The town’s population has dropped to about 100 people, most of them senior citizens. Many homes and businesses are abandoned. The elementary school was closed five years ago. The train tracks were pulled out 10 years ago. "They already carry (hazardous) waste through here by trucks," Janis said. "We need jobs. A railroad would help us." Whether the Energy Department allows private business to share its Yucca Mountain line has not been determined. Bob Halstead, a transportation consultant for the state, said the Energy Department has been trying to win favor for the new rail line by suggesting that the line will be shared with commercial trains. Loux said a new rail line would provide little upside to rural Nevada. "They had a rail line to Mina for 50 years and it didn’t do anything for them," Loux said. "Every rail line there in the past has been torn out." The only reason the Energy Department can contemplate construction of the Mina route is because of a change in thinking by the Walker Lake Paiute Indian Tribe, Loux said. The tribal council in 1991 rejected an Energy Department move to study moving waste through the reservation by rail. Last April, council members agreed to the study. Ammunition bound for the Hawthorne depot is carried by rail past tribal headquarters, homes and a school in the town of Schurz. Under the Energy Department study plan, the rail line would be relocated about four miles outside of town. Chairwoman Genia Williams responded to questions by handing out a prepared statement saying the council opposes the new rail line unless the Energy Department addresses all safety issues and agrees to ban shipments of nuclear waste by truck on U.S. Highway 95. "Historically our tribe has been a victim of federal government decisions," Williams said. "I do not like the idea of Nevada being a dumping ground for nuclear waste, but this may be a chance to make my tribal community safer from nuclear waste that may come through our community on a highway," she added. Williams wouldn’t discuss whether the Energy Department has offered financial incentives to win the tribe’s support. Back in Silver Springs, Brittain walked beside the tracks and wondered if the hoopla about the nuclear trains is meaningless. "I can’t believe Harry Reid will let Yucca Mountain happen," he said. Reid, D-Nev., the new Senate majority leader, said he controls what comes up on the Senate floor and he will continue his opposition to Yucca Mountain. On the Net: Yucca Mountain project: http://www.ymp.gov Energy Department, Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov -------- new york Spano looking for congressional help on Indian Point By GREG CLARY NY JOURNAL NEWS December 6, 2006 http://www.thejournalnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061206/NEWS02/612060341/1017 WHITE PLAINS -.Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano wants new leadership in Washington to force federal regulators to deny Indian Point's request to continue making electricity from nuclear power for an extra 20 years. "It's a nuclear plant and it's being run by human beings," Spano said yesterday in a meeting with reporters at his office. "No one is going to guarantee the safety of this plant. Plus, you have this terrorist kind of bubble around it." Spano began reaching out to members of the area's congressional delegation yesterday after the Nuclear Regulatory Commission denied a Westchester County petition asking for a more rigorous evaluation of Indian Point if the facility applied to extend its licenses. County officials cited among other concerns the plants' ages - both were licensed in the 1970s - the densely populated area in which they're located, and the potential for terrorist attacks. Less than two weeks ago, Indian Point officials announced their intention to apply for relicensing for Indian Point 2 and 3, looking to continue their operation until 2033 and 2035 respectively. In a 34-page document released Monday, the NRC turned down the petition, saying it raised "issues that the commission already considered at length in developing the license renewal rule." Diane Screnci of the NRC declined to comment on Spano's efforts yesterday, but said the agency's relicensing process is a rigorous one that focuses on ensuring that a plant can function safely during the 20-year extension period. Nevertheless, Spano's call for congressional help will likely find an enthusiastic audience. U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey's spokeswoman Elizabeth Stanley said her boss will again push the legislation she sponsored in June 2005 that would require the NRC to alter its license-extension requirements to make the 20-year extensions as tough to get as new 40-year licenses. "We'll be working with Mr. Spano and the rest of the Hudson River delegation to do that," Stanley said. Rep. Eliot Engel, D-Bronx, was equally strong in his sentiment. "This is not the same neighborhood where Indian Point was built," Engel said. "Now it is impossible to have a realistic evacuation plan." Newly elected Rep. John Hall, a Democrat who has called for the plants' closing, asked the NRC to table the relicensing until the strontium 90 and tritium that has been leaking at the Buchanan site have been stopped and cleaned up. Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said the NRC's oversight was plenty rigorous now and for the relicensing period. He said the latest efforts to close Indian Point weren't a surprise. "We disagree on the safety of the plant, but we have supporting science for our viewpoint," Steets said. "Theirs is more grounded in politics." Reach Greg Clary at gclary@lohud.com or 914-696-8566. -------- us nuc waste US reactors should store nuclear waste -regulator Wed Dec 6, 2006 by Lisa Lambert (Reuters) http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=bondsNews&storyID=2006-12-06T233524Z_01_N06478252_RTRIDST_0_NUCLEAR-YUCCA.XML WASHINGTON, Dec 6- Nuclear waste should be kept at the reactors where it is produced until the planned Yucca Mountain storage site opens, the chairman of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission told reporters on Wednesday. Some have suggested energy companies ship waste to the Nevada site to be held above ground until proposed underground storage opens there in 2017, at the earliest. But Chairman Dale Klein said keeping byproducts from reactions at the facilities is a good temporary solution. "We need to solve the waste issue, whether there are new plants or not," Klein said. "As a nation we need to solve that problem. How we solve it is obviously a technical and a policy issue. But for our job as the licensing [agency], there is a temporary solution and at-reactor storage is safe, certified and licensed." For two decades, the federal government has tangled with states' rights group and environmentalists about burying nuclear waste in the desert about 90 miles (150 km) northwest of Las Vegas. The Energy Department plans to turn in an application for a license to build on the site to the commission in June 2008, Klein said. By then, the commission expects the country to rely more on nuclear energy. In September Republican Sen. Pete Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy Committee, introduced a bill that would authorize the Energy Department to build an above-ground depot on the site. But Senator Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada poised to be Senate Majority Leader, has said he will introduce legislation requiring waste be stored at reactors. -------- MILITARY -------- britain Conservative British MP in U.S. to Challenge Extraordinary Rendition; 3,000 Published Flight Logs Expose New CIA Rendition Activities Wednesday, December 6th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/06/1429257 A conservative British member of parliament arrived in the United States this week to meet with U.S. lawmakers and challenge the practice of extraordinary rendition. We speak with Tory MP Andrew Tyrie as well as with Stephen Grey, the award-winning investigative journalist who first exposed the secret rendition program. He has just published more than 3,000 flight logs of suspected CIA operated planes on his website. [includes rush transcript] Italian prosecutors have asked a judge to indict twenty-six CIA agents accused of kidnapping an Egyptian Muslim cleric in Milan in 2003 and sending him to Egypt. Osama Mustafa Hassan, or Abu Omar, has claimed he was tortured in detention in Egypt after his abduction in Italy. Those named in the request include former CIA station chiefs in Rome and Milan. Prosecutors also asked the judge to indict Italian agents over the case. If a trial is ordered, it would be the first criminal prosecution in the world over the US practice known as extraordinary rendition. The news comes a week after a new report by the European Parliament concluded eleven European countries "cooperated actively or passively" in extraordinary rendition. The investigation found more than twelve hundred CIA flights went through European airspace or landed at one of its airports. This week a conservative British member of parliament arrived in the United States to meet with US lawmakers and challenge the practice of extraordinary rendition. Andrew Tyrie is a Tory MP and chairman of All Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition. He joins us from Washington DC. And on the line from London is Stephen Grey, the award-winning investigative journalist first exposed the secret rendition program back in 2004. His new book is "Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program." He has just published more than 3,000 flight logs of suspected CIA operated planes on his website. * Andrew Tyrie , member of British parliament. He is a Tory MP and chairman of All Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition. * Stephen Grey, an award-winning investigative journalist who has contributed to The New York Times, Newsweek, The Atlantic Monthly and many other publications. He first exposed the secret rendition program back in 2004. His new book is "Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program." Website: Ghostplane.net. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: Andrew Tyrie is a Tory MP and chairman of All [Party] Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition. He joins us from Washington, D.C. And on the line from London is Stephen Grey. The award-winning investigative journalist first exposed the secret rendition program back in 2004. His new book is called Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. He has just published more than 3,000 flight logs of suspected CIA-operated planes on his website. We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Andrew Tyrie, let's begin with you. Why are you here in the United States? ANDREW TYRIE: I’m in the United States to put the case to the administration and to Congress that going ahead with this program, as it appears the Americans have been in the past, is not in America’s interest. It’s not in the West’s interest. And we’ve got to bring it to a halt. It’s not making us safer. It’s making us less safe. It’s alienating large sections of moderate Muslim opinion around the world. And I’m not even sure the information that’s being collected in this way is of any practical use against the war on terror. If it is, we should be told that it is, absolutely straight. That should be explained to our politicians, and then we should change the law to legalize this practice. I believe there’s absolutely no stomach for doing that. And therefore, we'd better try and stick to the law. AMY GOODMAN: Who exactly have you met with in Washington? ANDREW TYRIE: I’ve been meeting with people in the administration, John Bellinger, Juan Zarate in the NSC, and a number of other people in the administration, putting this case to them. And what I get back from them is, I think -- and I’m not attributing this to any individual person -- but a recognition that maybe there was an overreaction after September the 11th. Totally understandable. But mistakes have been made, and now we’ve got to recover from those mistakes. And that means clarifying what’s really gone on, having a congressional committee to inquire into this. We’ve got a committee inquiring into this in the United Kingdom at the moment. And then, once we’ve found out what’s going on, draw a line and say we’ve made some mistakes, we’re not going to make those mistakes again. That way, we can win back the confidence of our own domestic publics in Europe, and we can also start to win the battle of ideas with moderate Muslims around the world, because that’s the only way we’re going to win this battle against terrorism. AMY GOODMAN: Juan Zarate is the Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing? ANDREW TYRIE: Yes, he’s the Deputy National Security Advisor on Terrorism and an assistant to the President and very close to these issues. AMY GOODMAN: In Treasury. Also, State Department official John Bellinger. Congress members? ANDREW TYRIE: I’ve seen Jim Moran and John Conyers and spoken to a good number of staffers from senators' offices. It's clear that on the Hill there’s also widespread concern about these issues, and I’m confident that at least one, if not more than one, congressional inquiries are going to be set up into this. And what we’re going to have, as a consequence, is parallel inquiries taking place in various countries in Europe, as well as on Capitol Hill. And I think between the two of them, I hope we can get to the bottom of this. AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Conyers, very significant, is the incoming chair of the Judiciary Committee. Did he say he will be holding hearings on extraordinary rendition? ANDREW TYRIE: I think he’ll speak for himself. I can only tell you what -- and I’m only happy to tell you what I told him. It’s absolutely clear in my conversation with him that he’s deeply concerned about these issues and that he recognizes what we're trying to achieve in our parliament and that he sees every advantage in working together, as I do, to make sure we get to the bottom of this. I’d just like to say one more thing. I am a British conservative MP. I don’t want to be soft on terror. I want to make our countries as secure as possible. I’m an Atlanticist. I want to work with the United States. I’ve always believed that’s the way to make a secure, strong Atlantic alliance. I’m very pro-American. But I am confident that some big mistakes have been made, and now we’ve got to admit them and put them right. There’s even bigger ones being made in Iraq, but there are some big mistakes being made here: the dark sites at Guantanamo Bay, extraordinary rendition. All of these things have been very counterproductive for dealing with terror, and we’ve got to reverse those policies, as I think quietly some in the administration are beginning already to acknowledge. AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Andrew Tyrie, a conservative member, a Tory member of the British Parliament. He’s in D.C. right now meeting with Bush administration officials and Congress members. We're also joined by Stephen Grey, on the line, award-winning investigative journalist, has contributed to the New York Times and Newsweek, the Atlantic Monthly and many other publications; has set up a new website called ghostplane.net. Ghost Plane is also the name of his new book, Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program. But on this website, Stephen Grey, you have posted more than 3,000 flight logs of suspected CIA-operated planes. Can you talk about the latest information, since we last spoke to you, that you have gathered? STEPHEN GREY: That’s right. I’ve been sitting on this information for quite some time, pouring over it. And I used these flight logs, these thousands of routes taken by CIA planes since September 11th, to help me with the research for the book I wrote and all of the work I’ve done on rendition. But I thought it was time to put that stuff out in the public domain for two reasons. First of all, to be absolutely clear, to deal with any critics who said, “Well, how can you show these planes really are CIA planes? How can you prove what you’ve said?” Since we last spoke, I think I said to you, I named a company involved, Aero Contractors in North Carolina, as being at the center of a CIA plane operation. AMY GOODMAN: That’s “Aero”? STEPHEN GREY: That's right. And I mentioned it on the program last time, and that company issued a statement to the local newspaper, saying I was clutching at straws saying they were the CIA. Well, I thought that by publishing the information, it makes absolutely clear, when you see all the operations and places these planes have been to at crucial moments, these are US government planes operating for the CIA. And I think that’s very important, because at this time there are no -- the US government has acknowledged that the rendition program does exist, but it’s actually acknowledged no individual rendition. That means that people like Khaled el-Masri, you’ve heard from, the German citizen kidnapped in Macedonia, taken to Afghanistan to a secret prison there, people like Maher Arar, the Canadian taken from New York to Syria, all these people that are claiming some justice, some explanation or compensation, are being told they can’t get any answers because it’s a state secret. So, by publishing these proofs in the form of these flight logs, I’m showing that it’s very, very clear. It’s not a state secret. It’s not secret information. It’s absolutely clear that it was the CIA that was responsible for the transfer of people under this rendition program and for these specific cases. And if I may, there’s a second reason, as well, for publishing this information, which is -- it touches on what Mr. Tyrie was just saying about drawing a line under things -- you know, we can’t draw a line under this whole program until we find out what’s happened to all the hundreds -- in fact, thousands -- of people that have actually disappeared in this whole program. And that goes beyond what I was talking to you about before, because there have been more than 5,000 -- in fact, 10,000 prisoners that were processed by the United States in Afghanistan after September 11th. And we don’t know what’s happened to all these people. We know that many, many people have disappeared. We know about 700 were sent to Guantanamo. We know that several hundred were rendered. But the rest of them, you know, we can’t be sure what’s happened to them. And I wanted to publish as much information as possible showing the movement of these planes to see if we can try and pin down the fate of some people that have disappeared. Because I think unless we actually show what we’ve done with people, we can’t really draw a line under this whole issue. AMY GOODMAN: Stephen Grey, you mentioned Aero. What about other companies? STEPHEN GREY: Well, Aero Contractors is the company that has been the real operators of a lot of these planes. There’s another company down in Florida called Tepper Aviation, which has been, you know, for quite a long time worked with the CIA. They’ve also used cover names as they’ve traveled around. One is called Stevens Express Leasing, and that’s based out of Memphis, Tennessee. Another was Premier Executive Transport of Massachusetts. And the other thing that’s come up since we spoke last, I think, is it’s been clear that they made use of a perfectly normal, but interesting, subsidiary of Boeing called Jeppesen Data Plan, which is based out in San Jose in California. And they’re involved in planning the movement of private jets around the world, and it's quite clear from telegrams that I got hold of, which are published also on that website, you can see how they were responsible for organizing the movement of these planes in a particular rendition, the rendition of Khaled el-Masri. Now, these people -- I have no information they knew that they were being involved or that they were actually organizing a rendition when they took instructions from the CIA to do these things. But, clearly, they’re going to be very, very interesting witnesses for these congressional inquiries to look at, because these are private citizens who may have a lot of information about what these planes have been up to. AMY GOODMAN: And the transport, Stephen Grey, of the interrogators from site to site? STEPHEN GREY: Yes, well, you can see that in these flight logs. They don’t just show the transfer of prisoners, but you can see every time there’s a key detainee picked up around the world, there’s a plane takes off from Washington straight to that location, or to where we think they’ve taken this prisoner, including flights to -- there’s a flight there to Diego Garcia, for example, which is new. And that’s in the Indian Ocean and long denied as a place where they hold prisoners. But you can see every time that someone’s taken, including Saddam Hussein, a plane takes off, taking interrogators. And there was even a claim by a detainee in Guantanamo that he was questioned by agents of the Libyan secret police in Guantanamo. Again, you might not believe it, but there was a flight from Libya to Guantanamo just at the time when he said that this had happened, so, in other words, suggesting it’s true, that they actually flew interrogators from Libya to take part in interrogations in Guantanamo. AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to award-winning journalist Stephen Grey. His new book is Ghost Plane. Andrew Tyrie, what about holding corporations responsible? I know there’s going to be a news conference that will be held in North Carolina by the ACLU that is setting up a petition to Governor Easley calling for an investigation into the Aero Contractors, which is based in North Carolina, also named in the ACLU lawsuit of Khaled el-Masri. What about companies like Boeing and Aero? ANDREW TYRIE: I think all those who have been involved in this, if they’ve broken the law, we need to investigate that, get to the bottom of it, and if necessary, prosecute. But I think it's very important that we get to the bottom of those who are actually responsible for authorizing the policy. And that is almost certain to be very senior people in the administration and in, perhaps, collaborating in other countries around the world. I want to add one other point, that while we have an administration that appears to be in a state of denial about this, it is natural that more and more lurid allegations of terrible things having happened will just escalate. It’s only by an investigation and by getting to the truth that we can start to provide reassurance to people. The public, quite understandably, say, well, if someone’s out there who means us harm, we’d better do something about it. Yes, and if necessary, we have to change the law to make sure we have the powers to do something about it. But doing things illegally, doing things behind a curtain, that’s no way for a democracy to operate. The truth will out on this. It’s our job as the media and as politicians -- and I salute Stephen Grey's investigative work -- to help get to the bottom of this and make sure that we can draw a line on it and move on. AMY GOODMAN: Andrew Tyrie, finally, the Italian prosecutors asking a judge to indict 26 CIA agents accused of kidnapping an Egyptian Muslim cleric in Milan in 2003. Are we going to be seeing more prosecutions, possibility of prosecutions, possibly even in Britain? ANDREW TYRIE: Yes, I think that the next stage in all this is going to be a series of lawsuits of one type or another, and possibly prosecutions, because, almost certainly, laws have been broken, and those laws will now be used to get to the bottom of what’s happened. It’s also worth pointing out that, although there are some very nasty people in Guantanamo Bay that we’ve got to make sure stay secure there and find legal processes to ensure that, there are also a large number of people there who are innocent and who have had their lives completely wrecked. When they come out, hopefully they haven’t been radicalized by the experience they have had. When they come out, many of them are going to seek justice by one means or another. Many of the people who have been rendered, too, they will bring lawsuits. They will find ways of getting to the bottom of this and providing sunlight. Sunlight will be the best disinfectant for all this. We need more of it. We need Congress, now that we have these investigations taking place and parallel investigations in Europe, to undertake that process of providing more sunlight to all this and create the conditions in which we can restore public confidence in the way the war on terror is being conducted. AMY GOODMAN: Andrew Tyrie, I want to thank you for being with us. ANDREW TYRIE: Thank you. AMY GOODMAN: A British member of Parliament, Tory MP, chair of the All [Party] Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition. He’s in Washington, D.C., asking questions about the practice. Stephen Grey is on the line with us from Britain, award-winning investigative journalist. His book is called Ghost Plane. -------- iraq Panel's Hamilton: Iraq war costs could top $1 trillion 06 Dec 2006 Reuters http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/WAT006679.htm WASHINGTON, Dec 6 (Reuters) - The Democratic co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group said on Wednesday that America's ability to resolve the crisis in Iraq is narrowing and the costs could rise to more than $1 trillion. At a news conference to release the bipartisan group's long-awaited report, former Rep. Lee Hamilton said, "The current approach is not working and the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing." "No course of action in Iraq (is) guaranteed to stop a slide toward chaos. Yet, in our view, not all options have been exhausted." Hamilton also said the high-level panel concluded the U.S. costs "could well rise over a $1 trillion." ---- IRAQ STUDY GROUP: How Big a Change? By William D. Hartung Senior Fellow, World Policy Institute December 6, 2006 From: "Frida Berrigan" Today's release of the Iraq Study Group report raises as many questions as it answers. A few highlights of the report and its 79 recommendations follow. TROOP WITHDRAWALS? Despite some early headlines suggesting that the Iraq Study Group would be calling for a withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the beginning of 2008, a look at the fine print suggests otherwise. The group's recommendations look more like an exercise in "bait and switch" than an actual commitment to U.S. withdrawal. Trainers embedded with Iraqi forces should be considered combat forces, as should the armed U.S. personnel that would be present to protect them in their efforts. These troops could remain in the tens of thousands after an alleged "withdrawal." In keeping with its recommendation to shift the mission of U.S. troops from combat to training of Iraq troops, the Study Group suggests a presence of U.S. forces to provide logistical support, continued training, and "force protection" (troops to protect U.S. training and logistics personnel) for a "sustained period," in the words of panel member Edwin Meese. Panel co-chair James Baker has further noted that "for quite some time" there will be "a robust American presence both in Iraq and in the region." Panel members would not project how many U.S. troops would be needed to carry out these long-term activities. GREATER HONESTY, LESS SPIN The Study Group deserves credit for speaking more plainly about the some of the realities of the war than the Bush administration has done so far. For example, at the outset the panel's report states bluntly that "the situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating." In defending the group's recommendation to attempt to bring Iran and Syria into regional talks on how to end the fighting in Iraq, James Baker noted that "for 40 years we talked to the Soviet Union at a time that they were committed to wiping us off the face of the earth * you talk to your enemies." By contrast, President Bush has indicated that he is not willing to talk to Tehran until they suspend their nuclear enrichment activities, a non-starter diplomatically. The report also acknowledges the heavy costs of the war, putting the price tag to date at $400 billion and noting that some analyses put the ultimate cost of the conflict at up to $2 trillion. DOES SIZE MATTER? By padding the length of its report and releasing it as a Vintage Press book, the Iraq Study Group seems to be trying to make its analysis and recommendations look as if they are as "hefty" and substantive as the 9/11 Commission Report. Less than 100 of the 160 pages of the report are devoted to analysis and recommendations. The rest consist of lengthy appendices with maps of the region, names of commissioners and sub-panels involved in the effort, and other incidental bits of information, all spaced out as far as possible in an effort to up the page count. To paraphrase former Vice-Presidential candidate Lloyd Bentsen, we have seen the 9/11 report, and this is no 9/11 report. THROWING BONES TO CRITICS While the study group studiously avoids making a timeline for U.S. withdrawal * leaving the way clear for the very "open-ended" U.S. troop commitment that it claims to oppose * it does suggest a few small reforms along the lines suggested by some critics of the war. Among these proposed changes are the suggestion that future funding for the war be included in the regular budget, where it can receive closer scrutiny, rather than in "emergency" supplementals that often give only broad stroke descriptions of what Iraq spending is for; a recommendation to extend the term of the highly effective Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction "for the duration of assistance programs in Iraq," with a mandate that includes training activities as well as reconstruction efforts; and a call to President Bush to publicly state that the United States has no interest in permanent bases in Iraq. The proposed pledge on bases is hedged by a suggestion that U.S. bases could be present as long as an Iraqi government "asks for" them. If a non-representative, pro-U.S. government is doing the asking, it would render the "no bases" pledge next to meaningless. THE POLITICS OF WITHDRAWAL By offering the prospect of some change * even if it leaves tens of thousands of combat troops and trainers in Iraq in 2008 and beyond * the Baker-Hamilton report could take pressure off Republicans and Democrats alike. Major figures in both parties could be relieved of the demand to push for a genuine withdrawal prior to the 2008 presidential elections. Citizens who want a quicker timeline for U.S. withdrawal and a genuine military disengagement from Iraq will need to make their voices heard if U.S. policy is to go beyond the half-measures set out by the Baker-Hamilton panel. William D. Hartung is a Senior Fellow at the World Policy Institute in New York. Contact numbers: 212-229-5808, ext. 4257 (w) 917-923-3202 (cell) -------- us Robert Gates Unanimously Confirmed by Senate Armed Services Committee; Testifies U.S. is Not Winning Iraq War Wednesday, December 6th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/06/1429253 The Senate Armed Services Committee has unanimously approved the nomination of Robert Gates to be the next Secretary of Defense. Gates testified before the committee Tuesday that the United States was not winning the war in Iraq and that all options remained on the table for dealing with the war. We play highlights of the hearing. [includes rush transcript] RUSH TRANSCRIPT The Senate Armed Services Committee has unanimously approved the nomination of Robert Gates to be the next Secretary of Defense. Gates testified before the committee Tuesday that the United States was not winning the war in Iraq and that all options remained on the table for dealing with the war. In a 21-0 vote, the committee approved him to replace Donald Rumsfeld, who quit last month amid criticism of his Iraq policy. Gates's nomination now goes to the full Senate for a confirmation vote, which could be held as early as today. He is widely expected to win approval. In his opening statement Tuesday, Gates made it clear that he would make Iraq his highest priority. ROBERT GATES, DEFENSE SECRETARY NOMINEE: I am under no illusion why I am sitting before you today -- the war in Iraq. Addressing the challenges we face in Iraq must and will be my highest priority, if confirmed. The hearing came on a day when more than 60 people were killed in shootings and car bomb attacks in Iraq. Three US soldiers were also killed. Gates went on to say he was open to new ideas on Iraq but warned that the situation there could lead to a wider regional conflict. GATES: While I am open to alternative ideas about our future strategy and tactics in Iraq, I feel quite strongly about one point: Developments in Iraq over the next year or two will, I believe, shape the entire Middle East and greatly influence global geopolitics for many years to come. Our course over the next year or two will determine whether the American and Iraqi people, and the next president of the United States, will face a slowly, but steadily improving situation in Iraq and in the region, or will face the very real risk, and possible reality, of a regional conflagration. We need to work together to develop a strategy that does not leave Iraq in chaos, and that protects our long-term interests in and hopes for the region. I did not seek this position or a return to government. I am here because I love my country and because the president of the United States believes I can help in a difficult time. During the hearing, the incoming chair of the Armed Services committee - Senator Carl Levin - listed for Gates what he said were the Bush administration's failures in Iraq. SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): The situation in Iraq has been getting steadily worse, not better. Before the invasion of Iraq, we failed to plan to provide an adequate force for the occupation of the country or to plan for the aftermath of major combat operations. After we toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, we thoughtlessly disbanded the Iraqi army, and also disqualified tens of thousands of low-level Ba'ath Party members from future government employment. These actions contributed to the chaos and violence that followed, and to alienating substantial portions of the Iraqi population. We have failed, so far, to secure the country and defeat the insurgency, and we have failed to disarm the militias and create a viable Iraqi military or police force. And we have failed to rebuild the economic infrastructure of the country and provide employment for the majority of Iraqis. The next Secretary of Defense will have to deal with the consequences of those failures. The Senate hearing on Robert Gates's nomination began a day before the Iraq Study Group releases its findings. Gates served on the panel until he was nominated. Arizona Republican and presidential hopeful John McCain has been calling for additional troops to be sent to Iraq. During Tuesday's hearing, McCain questioned Gates about troops levels and asked him again to clarify whether he thought the US was winning the war. SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ):We are not winning the war in Iraq. Is that correct? GATES: That is my view, yes, sir. MCCAIN: And therefore, the status quo is not acceptable? GATES: That is correct, sir. MCCAIN: I know you did a great deal of work with the Iraq Study Group. And there is a general consensus of opinion now in hindsight that we didn't have sufficient number of troops at the time of the invasion to control Iraq, either Anbar province, the looting, most importantly the weapons and ammunition depots that were looted at the time. And when anarchy prevails, it's very difficult to gain control of a country. Do you agree that at the time of the invasion, we didn't have sufficient troops to control the country, in hindsight? GATES: Well, I've had to deal with hindsight in some of the decisions that I've made, Senator McCain, and sometimes it's not very comfortable. I suspect in hindsight some of the folks in the administration probably would not make the same decisions that they made, and I think one of those is that there clearly were insufficient troops in Iraq after the initial invasion to establish control over the country. MCCAIN: And so, and yet at this particular point in time, when the suggestion is made as the situation deteriorates and the status quo is not acceptable that we reduce troops or, as General Abizaid said, that he had sufficient number of troops. Iin your study, when did we reach the point where we went from not having enough troops to having sufficient number of troops as the situation -- boots on the ground -- as the situation deteriorated? That's a non sequitur that I have yet found to -- I'm unable to intellectually embrace. GATES: Senator, I was a part of the Iraq Study Group during their education phase, I would say, and I resigned before they began their deliberations. I would tell you that when we were in Iraq, that we inquired of the commanders whether they had enough troops and whether a significant increase might be necessary. And I would say that the answer we received was that they thought they had adequate troops. It seems to me that as one considers all of the different options in terms of a change of approach in Iraq and a change of tactics, that inquiring about this again is clearly something, and it may be that a secretary of Defense might get a more candid answer than an outside study group that was visiting them. But we certainly -- the response that we received in Baghdad was that they had enough troops. President Bush has continued to dismiss calls for a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Michigan Democrat Carl Levin asked Defense Secretary nominee Robert Gates about the President's position. LEVIN: I want to ask you about that statement of the president, which he's made twice in recent weeks. "We are going to stay in Iraq as long as the Iraqis ask us to be there." Doesn't such an open-ended commitment send a message to the Iraqis that somehow or other it is our responsibility as to whether or not they achieve a nation, rather than it is their responsibility to reach a political settlement? GATES: Senator, I haven't spoken with the President about those remarks, so I'm going to have to interpret them myself. It seems to me that the United States is going to have to have some presence in Iraq for a long time. The Iraqi forces clearly have no logistical capability of their own. They have no air power of their own. So the United States, clearly, even if our -- if whatever changed approach or strategy we come up with, the president implements, works, we are still going to have to have some level of American support there for the Iraqi military and that could take quite some time, but it could be with a dramatically smaller number of U.S. forces than are there today. And so I would interpret the President's remarks in this vein, that we will -- we are willing to continue to help the Iraqis as long as they want our help. I don't think that it implies that we will be there at the level of force we have or doing the things that we are doing in a major combat way for the indefinite future. Robert Byrd - the Senate's most senior member - broadened the discussion beyond Iraq. Citing rumors of a possible US military strike on Iran and Syria, the West Virginia Senator bluntly questioned Gates on the issue. SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV):Do you support -- we hear all these rumors about the potential for an attack on Iran, due to its nuclear weapons program, or on Syria, due to its support of terrorism. Do you support an attack on Iran? GATES: Senator Byrd, I think that military action against Iran would be an absolute last resort; that any problems that we have with Iran, our first option should be diplomacy and working with our allies to try and deal with the problems that Iran is posing to us. I think that we have seen in Iraq that once war is unleashed, it becomes unpredictable. And I think that the consequences of a conflict -- a military conflict with Iran could be quite dramatic. And therefore, I would counsel against military action, except as a last resort and if we felt that our vital interests were threatened. BYRD: Do you support an attack on Syria? GATES: No, sir, I do not. BYRD: Do you believe the President has the authority, under either the 9/11 war resolution or the Iraq war resolution, to attack Iran or to attack Syria? GATES: To the best of my knowledge of both of those authorizations, I don't believe so. ... BYRD: Within eight months of taking Baghdad, our troops captured Saddam Hussein. However, five years after 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden is still on the loose. Who is responsible, Dr. Gates, in your judgment, for the 9/11 attacks: Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden? GATES: Osama bin Laden, Senator. BYRD: Over the past five years, who has represented the greater threat to the United States: Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden? GATES: Osama bin Laden. BYRD: How do you intend to catch Osama bin Laden? GATES: Senator, I have no doubt that our forces have been trying their best to find Osama bin Laden. I'm not familiar with the effort that has been devoted to this over the past two or three years. I will say I think Osama bin Laden has become more of a symbol for jihadist terrorists than an active planner and organizer of terrorist attacks. In fact, one of the consequences of our success in Afghanistan has been the denial of that country as a place to plan these sophisticated terrorist operations, such as the attacks that took place on 9/11. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham also questioned Gates about the possibility of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons in the context of posing a threat to Israel. SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC): Do you believe the Iranians are trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability? GATES: Yes, sir, I do. GRAHAM: Do you believe the president of Iran is lying when he says he's not? GATES: Yes, sir. GRAHAM: Do you believe the Iranians would consider using that nuclear weapons capability against the nation of Israel? GATES: I don't know that they would do that, Senator. I think that the risks for them obviously are enormously high. I think that they see value -- GRAHAM: If I may? GATES: Yes, sir. GRAHAM: The president of Iran has publicly disavowed the existence of the Holocaust, he has publicly stated that he would like to wipe Israel off the map. Do you think he's kidding? GATES: No, I don't think he's kidding. And -- but I think that there are, in fact, higher powers in Iran than he, than the president. And I think that while they are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for a nuclear capability, I think that they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent. They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons -- Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west, and us in the Persian Gulf -- GRAHAM: Can you assure the Israelis that they will not attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, if they acquire one? GATES: No, sir, I don't think that anybody can provide that assurance. -------- POLITICS -------- us politics Senate Panel Approves Defense Secretary Nominee Robert Gates Wednesday, December 6th, 2006 Democracy Now! Headlines http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/06/1429241 The Senate Armed Services Committee has unanimously approved the nomination of Robert Gates as the next Secretary of Defense. In a stark contrast to his four-month confirmation hearings to become CIA Director in 1991, Gates’s hearing lasted just one day. Gates: US Not Winning Iraq War In the session’s most controversial moment, Gates was questioned by incoming Senate Armed Services Committee chair Carl Levin. Senator Carl Levin: "Mr. Gates, do you believe we are currently winning in Iraq?" Robert Gates: "No Sir." Gates later clarified his remarks and said the US was neither winning or losing the Iraq war. The hearing came on a day when more than sixty people were killed in shootings and car bomb attacks in Iraq. Gates’s nomination now goes to the full Senate for a confirmation vote as early as today. He is widely expected to win approval. Iraq Study Group Advisors Concluded Iraq War Lost The bipartisan Iraq Study Group releases its long-awaited report today. In a new development, the Washington Post reports the panel will recommend President Bush threaten the Iraqi government with a reduction of economic and military support if it fails to meet specific goals on improving security. The Washington Post also reports many of the Iraq Study Group’s advisors have concluded the war in Iraq is already lost. In July, a draft report said: "there is even doubt that any level of resources could achieve the administration's stated goals.” That wording has been removed. While the Iraq Study report is being hailed as the dawn of a change of course, Iraqis are voicing skepticism. Iraqi citizen Ali Al-Duleimi: "The study that James Baker submitted is doomed to fail because he is a Republican and he participated in the blockade of Iraq that lasted for 12 years. He is also the one that participated in the 1990 attack that damaged Iraq. He is now aiming at establishing basics that will support the Iraqi army, on the contrary he is damaging the Iraqi army and we are demanding the pullout of the US forces from Iraq." Incoming Dem House Intel Chair Calls for Iraq Troop Increase Meanwhile, the incoming House Intelligence Committee chair – Democratic Congressmember Silvestre Reyes --- says he will call for sending more troops to Iraq. Reyes initially opposed the invasion. His appointment this week was seen as a sign Democrats plan on challenging the Bush administration’s Iraq policy. But in an interview with Newsweek, Reyes says he wants to see an increase of up to 30,000 troops to dismantle Iraq’s militias. ---- Iraq Study Group: A Response From 'Out of Iraq' House Caucus Co-Founders Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey Thursday, December 7th, 2006 Democracy Now! http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/07/1452222 The Iraq Study Group issues its long-awaited report. Today, we host a roundtable discussion. We go to Capitol Hill to speak with Rep. Barbara Lee, the only Congressmember to vote against authorizing President Bush to use military force after 9/11 and Rep. Lynn Woolsey, the first Congressmember to call for a withdrawal from Iraq. [includes rush transcript] As the Iraq Study Group issued its report on Wednesday, grim news continued to emerge from Iraq - ten more U.S. soldiers had died. Mortar bombs exploded in a busy Baghdad shopping district killing eleven Iraqis. Four people died in Sadr City when a suicide bomber blew himself up on a minibus. Another 74 Iraqis died in other attacks across the country. The Iraq Study Group described the current situation as grave and deteriorating and that the Bush administration's policies have failed across the board. The panel called for a possible withdrawal of combat troops by 2008 but it recommended tens of thousands of U.S. troops stay in Iraq for years to advise and train the Iraqi army. * Lee Hamilton, Co-Chair, Iraq Study Group: "Our three most important recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another. First, a change in the primary mission of U.S. forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly. Two, prompt action by the Iraqi government to achieve milestones, particularly on national reconciliation. And, three, a new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and in the region. United States must encourage Iraqis to take responsibility for their own destiny. This responsible transition can allow for a reduction in the U.S. presence in Iraq over time." The Iraq Study Group report included many other notable facts and recommendations: the U.S. embassy in Baghdad has only six fluent Arabic speakers out of a staff of one thousand; The U.S. government has significantly underreported the number of attacks in Iraq; and that the overall cost of the war could top one trillion dollars. Today on Democracy Now -- a roundtable discussion on Iraq. We go to Najaf to speak with Iraqi-American Sami Rasouli. We speak with Anthony Arnove, author of the book "Iraq: the Logic of Withdrawal." And Antonia Juhasz will join us from San Francisco to discuss the Iraq Study Group's recommendations on privatizing Iraq's oil. But first we go to Capitol Hill where we are joined by Democratic Congresswomen Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee. In January 2005, Lynn Woolsey became the first member of Congress to call for a withdrawal from Iraq. Five years ago, Barbara Lee cast the only vote in the House against authorizing President Bush to use military force against anyone associated with the September 11th attacks. The resolution passed the House 420 to 1. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee are both co-founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House. * Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Democrat from California and co-founder of the 'Out of Iraq' Caucus in the House. * Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Democratic Congresswoman from California and co-founder of the 'Out of Iraq' Caucus in the House. RUSH TRANSCRIPT AMY GOODMAN: This is former Congressmember Lee Hamilton. LEE HAMILTON: Our three most important recommendations are equally important and reinforce one another: first, a change in the primary mission of US forces in Iraq that will enable the United States to begin to move its combat forces out of Iraq responsibly; two, prompt action by the Iraqi government to achieve milestones, particularly on national reconciliation; and, three, a new and enhanced diplomatic and political efforts in Iraq and in the region. United States must encourage Iraqis to take responsibility for their own destiny. This responsible transition can allow for a reduction in the US presence in Iraq over time. AMY GOODMAN: The Iraq Study Group report included many other notable facts and recommendations: the US embassy in Baghdad has only six fluent [Arabic] speakers out of a staff of one thousand; The US government has significantly underreported the number of attacks in Iraq; and that the overall cost of the war could top one trillion dollars. Today on Democracy Now!, a roundtable discussion on Iraq. We’ll go to [Najaf] to speak with an Iraqi American, Sami Rasouli, who moved home about a year ago. We’ll speak with Anthony Arnove, author of the book, Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal. And Antonia Juhasz will join us from San Francisco to talk about the Iraq Study Group's recommendations on privatizing Iraq's oil. We will also go to Capitol Hill, where we’re joined by Democratic Congressmembers Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee. In January 2005, Lynn Woolsey became the first member of Congress to call for a withdrawal from Iraq. Five years ago, Barbara Lee cast the only vote in the House against authorizing President Bush to use military force against anyone associated with the September 11th attacks. The resolution passed the House 420 to 1. Congressmembers Woolsey and Lee are both co-founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House. We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with Congressmember Lee. You were the only member of Congress after the September 11th attacks to vote against using military force. Your thought on the Iraq Study Group report today? REP. BARBARA LEE: Well, let me say thank you, Amy, for conducting this roundtable. And the Iraq Study Group's recommendations are recommendations, or at least some of them, that Congresswoman Woolsey, myself, Waters have been talking about for years. Some we agree with, some we don’t agree with. First of all, I am absolutely convinced that we must talk with Iraq’s neighbors, especially Iran and Syria. There is no way in the world that the United States could ever get out of this mess without talking to everyone in the region. Secondly, I was pleased to see that the report recommended what we’ve been saying for a year and a half, based on my resolution of no permanent military bases. 80% of the Iraqi people do not want a permanent military presence. We’re up to $400 billion now. And so, the report recommended that the President say very clearly he does not intend to have permanent military bases in Iraq. We included that amendment in the Defense appropriations bill last year. It became, in essence, the law of the land, but of course we know how this administration violates the law, so we’re going to work again on trying to include it in this supplemental, unfortunately, that’s coming up. Too many of our young men and women have died. This is a senseless war. It’s wrong. And we need to bring our troops home, and we need to bring them home now. I do not agree with the timetable that they laid out in the report. Look at how many -- eleven more young people died yesterday. This doesn’t make any sense. It’s immoral. It’s wrong. And so, we need to bring them home, and we need to bring them home now. AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Lynn Woolsey, you co-founded the Out of Iraq Caucus with Congressmember Lee. Your response to this report? REP. LYNN WOOLSEY: Well, first of all, I’d like to say that I think the group, the Study Group, was an incredible group of men and women, and the nine months they put into it, we have to respect. And I hope the President respects what they’re saying. I agree with them totally, that -- and they’re saying it loud and clear -- it’s a mess. The occupation is a mess, and we need a political solution. We also need to reach out regionally to the other leaders in the region. And they -- imagine, they have to tell the President of the United States to reach out to other leaders around the world? But they’re doing it. Let’s hope he pays attention to them. I, like Barbara Lee, disagree with a timeline that adds 12 to 18 months to this occupation, because, you see, all we’re doing when we’re there is making everything worse. It’s getting worse every single day that we’re in Iraq. I want to pull out. I want to withdraw. But I want to stay in Iraq with a humanitarian effort, and I believe we could do that working with the international community. So let’s hope the President pays attention to this study, when he is told loud and clear: you do not stay the course. It’s a political solution, not a military solution. And I would hope that we start bringing our troops home immediately. AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Lee, your response to, well, the party leader in the House, the first woman Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, saying that calling for troops out now is -- and the funding, this cutting off of funding of what is going on in Iraq now, the Iraq war, is off the table? REP. BARBARA LEE: Well, let me say, we will be faced with another supplemental during the early part of the year. I have never voted for any of these funds for this war. First of all, we support our troops, and we want our troops home. You do not support your troops by continuing to put them in harm's way, by continuing to place them in the midst of a civil war and an occupation that is killing them each and every day. And so, I will not be supporting the supplemental. I believe that we have to stand up and support our troops, not the Halliburtons of the world. They’re stealing this money. When you look at the billions of dollars that have gone, these funds are not going to support our troops. We need to support our troops in a very real way, by bringing them home, getting them out of harm's way. We need to support our troops by providing for the veterans’ benefits that they deserve, by enhancing the quality of life when they return by making sure that mental health and healthcare services are here for them. I believe that we need to do this, and we need to do this quickly. AMY GOODMAN: And what about Congressmember Pelosi, the Speaker of the House to be, saying that cutting off funding is off the table? REP. BARBARA LEE: Well, let me just say, I believe that we should not support this supplemental. Everyone has their points of views on how we end this occupation and civil war in Iraq. I do not support the supplemental, but I have not supported it since I have been here, nor have I supported a $400 billion-plus military budget. When you look at this military budget, we have identified -- Congresswoman Woolsey and myself have identified $60 billion that could be cut: the development of Cold War era weapons systems. We have our Common Sense Budget Act. So there are some of us who believe that the military budget is no more about national security and a strong national defense, but it’s about funding military contractors and the military construction industry. So I believe that we need to begin to not only not support the war and end this occupation, but we also provide for reconstruction and redevelopment and humanitarian assistance for the Iraqis, but we need to support our troops by bringing them home. AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking to Congressmembers Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey. They are speaking on the balcony of the Cannon Building, overlooking the Capitol. When we come back, they will also be joined by Anthony Arnove. He has written the book, Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal. Stay with us. [break] AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to Congressmembers Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee. They are outside the Capitol Building. And we're going to bring in now Anthony Arnove, the author of Iraq: The Logic of Withdrawal. He’s also editor of Iraq Under Siege and co-editor with Howard Zinn of Voices of a People's History of the United States. Anthony Arnove, your response to the report and what you think needs to happen now? ANTHONY ARNOVE: Well, I think the report offers only a slight correction of course for a policy that needs fundamental reversal. We need to bring the troops home, not to talk about prolonging the presence of the United States in Iraq. This report of the Iraq Study Group lays out keeping troops, not only combat troops, in Iraq until 2008, but well beyond that. And, in effect, it continues a policy that the Bush administration has put forward, of we will stand down as the Iraqis stand up, and it suggests that there’s somehow a technical solution to the problem of Iraq, if we just had better training of the Iraqi security forces. But the problem isn’t a technical problem, it’s a political problem. The Iraqis want the US troops to leave. They reject a foreign occupation. And as long as US troops are there, the US troops will be a source of instability and will fuel sectarian conflict, rather than dampen it, and they will fuel the kind of violence which we see escalating and getting worse every day in Iraq. AMY GOODMAN: And what Harry Reid is calling for, the Democratic leader in the Senate? ANTHONY ARNOVE: He has come in and said that we should spend $75 billion more on the military. And we see also, of course, as you mentioned, Pelosi and Reid both saying that the idea of cutting off funds for this war is off the table. I think we have to put that back on the table, and we have to push for a proposal for immediate withdrawal, cutting off funds for this war. AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Lee, I know that you have to leave, but at this point, as people demand an end to the war in Iraq -- and the question is what the strategy is right now -- do you see as much struggling to be happening with your own Democratic Party as with the Republicans? REP. BARBARA LEE: Well, I think the American people spoke. We had elections in November. The defining issue of this election was Iraq and, of course, the economy. We have to deliver on the promises that were made to the American people. And quite naturally, we’re going to have discussions, disagreements, but I think at the end of the day that our Democratic caucus will listen to the will and the voice of the people, and our caucus will come to some position with regard to Iraq. It’s up to the President and the administration to figure out the details. They put us in this mess. That’s their job. It’s up to us to set the policy, and I think our policy should be -- and I support a great, courageous man, Congressman Murtha. I support his resolution on redeployment and bringing our troops home and getting the heck out of there as quickly as possible. AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Lee, thanks so much for joining us. Congressmember Woolsey will stay with us for a few more minutes. But, Anthony Arnove, in one piece I’m looking at today, it says a call for President Bush to reduce US support to Iraq if Baghdad fails to improve security drew a sour response from Iraqi politicians, who said Washington had an obligation to back their government. It says Bassim Ridha, a top advisor to Maliki, said the White House has to support Baghdad all the way. If they don’t support the government, then it will look as if they don’t do what they preach. We need their support to go forward. ANTHONY ARNOVE: Well, you have a situation where the people in Iraq who are supporting continued occupation are the people who the United States has put in positions of power. So there’s a conflict that’s emerging, where you have an Iraqi government, which is seen as collaborating with an unwanted foreign occupation, an occupation that poll after poll, including polling done by the US State Department itself, shows that a majority of Iraqis, whether they’re Sunni or Shia, reject. And so there’s people now who are allied with the United States in Iraq, and their position, their power, their privilege depends on that allegiance. The United States is the major source of security for those people, and so you have a situation where the main people today supporting continued occupation are alienating themselves from the majority of Iraqis, and that’s further destabilizing the situation. AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to a clip of former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who also served on the Iraq Study Group. On Wednesday, she urged the country to rally around the US efforts in Iraq. And we're going to go to that in a minute. But I wanted to ask Lynn Woolsey, at this point in Congress, what do you see as the key strategy that the Democrats should adopt in ending the war in Iraq? REP. LYNN WOOLSEY: Well, the Democrats need to listen to the public. We have the majority now, because the voters said, “We want you to change what the President is doing. We want you to challenge him. We want you to correct what he’s about.” And that’s what they asked, and it was about Iraq. So the Democrats are talking about this. We know that we need to get together and be a group, supporting possibly Jack Murtha, possibly Senator McGovern -- has a great book out on how to leave Iraq, and it makes wonderful sense. But we have to remember that when I started asking the President to put together a plan to bring the troops back more than two years ago, I was vilified. And, you know, when you lead, people follow. And now the country is way ahead of the Congress. It’s our turn to catch up with the people of the United States of America. AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Woolsey, I want to go to this clip of one of the members of the Iraq Study Group, yes, the former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. SANDRA DAY O’CONNOR: We’ve said in the report that we agree with the goal of US policy in Iraq as stated by the President: an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself. And to do that, we’ve made these various recommendations on a consensus basis. It’s my belief that if a large segment of our country gets behind that on a consensus basis, that it’s very likely we can move forward and make some progress toward that statement of goals. And this is not an ongoing commission. It really is out of our hands, having done what we did. It’s up to you, frankly. You are the people who speak to the American people. You’re there interpreting this and talking to America. And I hope that the American people will feel that if they are behind something in broad terms, that we’ll be better off. AMY GOODMAN: Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. One of the Iraq Study Group's recommendations was to stress a diplomatic, as well as military, solution. This is former Secretary of State James Baker. JAMES BAKER: The United States should promptly initiate a new diplomatic offensive, and working with the government of Iraq, should create an international Iraq support group to address comprehensively the political, economic and military matters necessary to provide stability in Iraq. That support group should include Iraq, of course, but also all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran and Syria; the key regional states, including Egypt and the Gulf states; the United Nations Security Council Perm Five member countries; a representative of the United Nations Secretary General; and the European Union. Given the central importance of the Arab-Israeli conflict to many countries both in and out of the region, the United States must again initiate active negotiations to achieve a stable Arab-Israeli peace on all fronts and in the manner that we outlined specifically in the report. AMY GOODMAN: That’s former Secretary of State James Baker, heading up the Iraq Study Group with former Congressmember Lee Hamilton. Congressmember Woolsey, this issue of the Israel-Palestine conflict being an issue that must be resolved, this came up over and over again. How do you think it needs to be resolved? REP. LYNN WOOLSEY: Well, I think, first of all, I am very critical of our administration for not being ahead of this over the last three, four years. They dropped the ball. They need to get involved with the Israel/Palestinian people, and they need to act like Bill Clinton did -- get involved and care and help come to some solution and resolution in that part of the world, which will help the rest of the Arab worlds. AMY GOODMAN: Anthony Arnove, your suggestion of what has to happen here, and were you surprised about the, really, centrality of this issue that was raised in this Iraq Study Group? Do you sense a shift in the establishment around the issue of Israel and Palestine? ANTHONY ARNOVE: Well, I think there’s a recognition right now that the United States has set back its overall standing in the Middle East, and it now faces a series of regional challenges, so that the problem can’t be isolated to Iraq. But there’s also, I think, an emphasis on the role of Iran and Syria in Iraq that is a bit distorting. It suggests that somehow the opposition that the United States is facing in Iraq isn’t indigenous, isn’t rooted in domestic grievances over the occupation, and that somehow it is being directed by outside forces, by Iran and by Syria. Secondly, I’m also very skeptical that the kind of pressure it would take on Israel to reach some kind of settlement of the Palestinian conflict will be brought to bear by the United States. And the Bush administration has already made it very clear that they’re very skeptical of negotiations with Iran and Syria, that wouldn’t put preconditions to those negotiations that would, in effect, nullify any impact that they would have. And I think this administration has made it very clear that they’re not going to put the kind of pressure on Israel that is necessary, including talking about cutting off funding for the settlements, funding for the expansion of Israeli domination of Palestinian territories. AMY GOODMAN: Do you think Jimmy Carter’s new book is making any difference? While he’s gotten on TV, the major newspapers have hardly touched it in their news pages, his book called Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. ANTHONY ARNOVE: Absolutely. I think it’s opening up a debate. And what we see happening in the country around Iraq and around the Middle East more generally and with the case of Palestine is that people nationally have a much greater awareness of the need for change than seems to be reflected in the establishment press and seems to be reflected in the debates within Congress. So I think people really are far out ahead on Iraq. They’re far out ahead on the need for a settlement in Palestine. And Jimmy Carter's book, I think, reflects that. But it’s going to take much more mobilization and pressure to open up the debate in the establishment media and to open up the debate in Congress. AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank Congressmember Woolsey for joining us. We’re going to stay with Anthony Arnove, and we’re going to head to Iraq. But I want to ask you a final question, Congressmember Woolsey, on the issue of what difference it makes now for people around the country, for constituents, to weigh in on this issue with their congress members? REP. LYNN WOOLSEY: It makes a great difference. We know they’re ahead of the Congress on what we should be doing and that we must leave Iraq, and they need to tell their members of Congress. I hope the people of this country aren’t lulled by this report, because, you see, it’s way too late. This is too little, too late to start, all of a sudden, realizing we’ve got a disaster in Iraq. AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Lynn Woolsey, thanks for joining us. She’s in the Cannon Building on the balcony just overlooking the Capitol, one of the co-founders of the Out of Iraq Caucus, the first congress member to call for bringing the troops home from Iraq.