Backlash Over Book on Policy for Israel
Greg Martin

Authors of a new book: Stephen Walt, left, of Harvard University, and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago.

By PATRICIA COHEN
Published: August 16, 2007

“The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” is not even in bookstores, but already anxieties have surfaced about the backlash it is stirring, with several institutions backing away from holding events with the authors.
The edited version of the essay as it appeared in the London Review of Books in March 2006.

The unedited version.

A video of the debate, which took place in New York in September 2006, and was hosted by the London Review of Books

John J. Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, were not totally surprised by the reaction to their work. An article last spring in the London Review of Books outlining their argument — that a powerful pro-Israel lobby has a pernicious influence on American policy — set off a firestorm as charges of anti-Semitism, shoddy scholarship and censorship ricocheted among prominent academics, writers, policymakers and advocates. In the book, published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux and embargoed until Sept. 4, they elaborate on and update their case.

“Now that the cold war is over, Israel has become a strategic liability for the United States,” they write. “Yet no aspiring politician is going to say so in public or even raise the possibility” because the pro-Israel lobby is so powerful. They credit the lobby with shutting down talks with Syria and with moderates in Iran, preventing the United States from condemning Israel’s 2006 war in Lebanon and with not pushing the Israelis hard enough to come to an agreement with the Palestinians. They also discuss Christian Zionists and the issue of dual loyalty.

Opponents are prepared. Also being released on Sept. 4 is “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control” (Palgrave Macmillan) by Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defamation League. The notion that pro-Israel groups “have anything like a uniform agenda, and that U.S. policy on Israel and the Middle East is the result of their influence, is simply wrong,” George P. Shultz, a former secretary of state, says in the foreword. “This is a conspiracy theory pure and simple, and scholars at great universities should be ashamed to promulgate it.”

The subject will certainly prompt furious debate, though not at the Center for the Humanities at the Graduate Center at the City University of New York, the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a Jewish cultural center in Washington and three organizations in Chicago. They have all turned down or canceled events with the authors, mentioning unease with the controversy or the format.

The authors were particularly disturbed by the Chicago council’s decision, since plans for that event were complete and both authors have frequently spoken there before. The two sent a four-page letter to 94 members of the council’s board detailing what happened. “On July 24, Council President Marshall Bouton phoned one of us (Mearsheimer) and informed him that he was canceling the event,” and that his decision “was based on the need ‘to protect the institution.’ He said that he had a serious ‘political problem,’ because there were individuals who would be angry if he gave us a venue to speak, and that this would have serious negative consequences for the council. ‘This one is so hot,’ Marshall maintained.”

Mr. Mearsheimer later said of Mr. Bouton, “I had the sense that this phone call pained him deeply.”

Mr. Bouton was out of town, but Rachel Bronson, vice president for programs and studies at the council, said, “Whenever we have topics that are particularly controversial or sensitive, we try to make sure someone from another point of view is there.” In this case, she said, there was not sufficient time to set up that sort of panel before the council calendar went out. There are no plans to have the authors speak at a later date, however.

“One of the points we make in the book is that this is a subject that’s very hard to talk about,” Mr. Walt said in an interview from his office in Cambridge. “Organizations, no matter how strong their commitment to free speech, don’t want to schedule something that’s likely to cause controversy.”

After the cancellation Roberta Rubin, owner of the Book Stall, a store in Winnetka, Ill., offered to help find a site for the authors. She said she tried a Jewish community center and two large downtown clubs but they all told her “they can’t afford to bring in somebody ‘too controversial.’ ” She added that even she was concerned about inviting authors who might offend customers.

Some of the planned sites, like the Sixth & I Historic Synagogue, a cultural center in Washington, would have been host of an event if Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt appeared with opponents, said Esther Foer, the executive director.

Mr. Walt said, “Part of the game is to portray us as so extreme that we have to be balanced by someone from the ‘other side.’ ” Besides, he added, when you’re promoting a book, you want to present your ideas without appearing with someone who is trying to discredit you.

As for City University, Aoibheann Sweeney, director of the Center for the Humanities, said, “I looked at the introduction, and I didn’t feel that the book was saying things differently enough” from the original article. Ms. Sweeney, who said she had consulted with others at City University, acknowledged that they had begun planning for an event in September moderated by J. J. Goldberg, the editor of The Forward, a leading American Jewish weekly, but once he chose not to participate, she decided to pass. Mr. Goldberg, who was traveling in Israel, said in a telephone interview that “there should be more of an open debate.” But appearing alone with the authors would have given the impression that The Forward was presenting the event and thereby endorsing the book, he said, and he did not want to do that. A discussion with other speakers of differing views would have been different, he added.

“I don’t think the book is very good,” said Mr. Goldberg, who said he read a copy of the manuscript about six weeks ago. “They haven’t really done original research. They haven’t talked to the people who are being lobbied or those doing the lobbying.”

Overall Mr. Mearsheimer said he thinks the response to their views will be “less ferocious than last time, because it’s becoming increasingly difficult to make the argument in a convincing way that anyone who criticizes the lobby or Israel is an anti-Semite or a self-hating Jew.” Both Mr. Mearsheimer and Mr. Walt pointed to the growing dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, criticism of Israel’s war in Lebanon and the publication of former President Jimmy Carter’s book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” as making it somewhat easier to criticize Israel openly.

“This isn’t a cabal; this isn’t anything secretive,” Mr. Walt said.

American Jews who lobby on Israel’s behalf are not all that different from the National Rifle Association, the anti-tax movement, AARP or the American Petroleum Institute, he said, “They just happen to be really good at it.”

“It’s the way American politics work,” he continued. “Sometimes powerful interest groups get what they want, and it’s not good for the country as a whole. I would say that about the farm lobby and about the Cuba lobby.”

To the authors, dual loyalty is as American as Presidents’ Day sales and “Law & Order” reruns. As Mr. Mearsheimer explained: “People are allowed to have multiple loyalties. They have religious loyalties, loyalty to family, to an organization and you can have loyalty to other countries. Someone who is Irish can have a loyalty to Ireland.”

“The problem,” he said “is when you raise the subject of dual loyalty, many people tend to think of it in the context of the old anti-Semitic canard and making the argument that Jews are disloyal to the U.S.”

In print and in interviews both authors have stressed that they hold no animus towards Israel or Jews. “We think Israeli policy is fundamentally flawed,” Mr. Mearsheimer said, “just as we think American policy is fundamentally flawed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/16/books/16...vcRW0No8r1Pd75A

More Evidence of Gonzales Perjury Revealed in FBI Director's Notes

Brian Beutler, Media Consortium

Rights and Liberties: Documents provided by FBI Director Robert Mueller strengthen the case that Alberto Gonzales perjured himself before the Senate Judiciary committee.

U.S. Officials Voice Frustrations With Saudis, Citing Role in Iraq
By HELENE COOPER; RICHARD A. OPPEL JR. CONTRIBUTED REPORTING FROM BAGHDAD. Published: July 27, 2007 This article was reported by Helene Cooper, Mark Mazzetti and Jim Rutenberg, and written by Ms. Cooper.

WASHINGTON, July 26 -- During a high-level meeting in Riyadh in January, Saudi officials confronted a top American envoy with documents that seemed to suggest that Iraq's prime minister could not be trusted.

One purported to be an early alert from the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr warning him to lie low during the coming American troop increase, which was aimed in part at Mr. Sadr's militia. Another document purported to offer proof that Mr. Maliki was an agent of Iran.

The American envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, immediately protested to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, contending that the documents were forged. But, said administration officials who provided an account of the exchange, the Saudis remained skeptical, adding to the deep rift between America's most powerful Sunni Arab ally, Saudi Arabia, and its Shiite-run neighbor, Iraq.

Now, Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia's counterproductive role in the Iraq war. They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq. Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow.

One senior administration official says he has seen evidence that Saudi Arabia is providing financial support to opponents of Mr. Maliki. He declined to say whether that support was going to Sunni insurgents because, he said, ''That would get into disagreements over who is an insurgent and who is not.''

Senior Bush administration officials said the American concerns would be raised next week when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates make a rare joint visit to Jidda, Saudi Arabia.

Officials in Washington have long resisted blaming Saudi Arabia for the chaos and sectarian strife in Iraq, choosing instead to pin blame on Iran and Syria. Even now, military officials rarely talk publicly about the role of Saudi fighters among the insurgents in Iraq.

The accounts of American concerns came from interviews with several senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they believed that openly criticizing Saudi Arabia would further alienate the Saudi royal family at a time when the United States is still trying to enlist Saudi support for Mr. Maliki and the Iraqi government, and for other American foreign policy goals in the Middle East, including an Arab-Israeli peace plan.

In agreeing to interviews in advance of the joint trip to Saudi Arabia, the officials were nevertheless clearly intent on sending a pointed signal to a top American ally. They expressed deep frustration that more private American appeals to the Saudis had failed to produce a change in course.

The American officials said they had no doubt that the documents shown to Mr. Khalilzad were forgeries, though the Saudis said they had obtained them from sources in Iraq. ''Maliki wouldn't be stupid enough to put that on a piece of paper,'' one senior Bush administration official said. He said Mr. Maliki later assured American officials that the documents were forgeries.

The Bush administration's frustration with the Saudi government has increased in recent months because it appears that Saudi Arabia has stepped up efforts to undermine the Maliki government and to pursue a different course in Iraq from what the administration has charted. Saudi Arabia has also stymied a number of other American foreign policy initiatives, including a hoped-for Saudi embrace of Israel.

Of course, the Saudi government has hardly masked its intention to prop up Sunni groups in Iraq and has for the past two years explicitly told senior Bush administration officials of the need to counterbalance the influence Iran has there. Last fall, King Abdullah warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq's Shiites if the United States pulled its troops out of Iraq, American and Arab diplomats said.

Several officials interviewed for this article said they believed that Saudi Arabia's direct support to Sunni tribesmen increased this year as the Saudis lost faith in the Maliki government and felt they must bolster Sunni groups in the eventuality of a widespread civil war.

Saudi Arabia months ago made a pitch to enlist other Persian Gulf countries to take a direct role in supporting Sunni tribal groups in Iraq, said one former American ambassador with close ties to officials in the Middle East. The former ambassador, Edward W. Gnehm, who has served in Kuwait and Jordan, said that during a recent trip to the region he was told that Saudi Arabia had pressed other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council -- which includes Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman -- to give financial support to Sunnis in Iraq. The Saudis made this effort last December, Mr. Gnehm said.

The closest the administration has come to public criticism was an Op-Ed page article about Iraq in The New York Times last week by Mr. Khalilzad, now the United States ambassador to the United Nations. ''Several of Iraq's neighbors -- not only Syria and Iran but also some friends of the United States -- are pursuing destabilizing policies,'' Mr. Khalilzad wrote. Administration officials said Mr. Khalilzad was referring specifically to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Ms. Rice and Mr. Gates, as well as Mr. Cheney and Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, have in recent months pressed their Arab counterparts to do more to encourage Iraq's Sunni leaders to support Mr. Maliki, senior administration officials said.

''This message certainly has been made very clear in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi,'' a senior administration official said. ''But there is a deep reserve directed both at the person of the Maliki government but more broadly at the concept'' that Iraq's Shiites are ''surrogates of Iran.'' Saudi Arabia has grown increasingly concerned about the rising influence of Iran in the region.

A spokesman at the Saudi Embassy in Washington did not return telephone calls on Thursday. But one adviser to the royal family said that Saudi officials were aware of the American accusations. ''As you know by now, we in Saudi Arabia have been active in having a united Arab front to, first, avoid further inter-Arab conflict, and at the same time building consensus to move toward a peace settlement between the Arabs and Israel,'' he said. ''How others judge our motives is their problem.''

Even as American frustration at Saudi Arabia grows, American military officials are still cautious about publicly detailing the extent of the flow of foreign fighters going to Iraq from Saudi Arabia. Earlier this month, for instance, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, the top American military spokesman in Iraq, detailed the odyssey of a foreign fighter recently captured in Ramadi.

In his public account, General Bergner told reporters that the man had arrived in Syria on a chartered bus, was smuggled into Iraq by a Syrian facilitator, and was given instructions to carry out a suicide truck bombing on a bridge in Ramadi. He did not identify the man's nationality, but American officials in Iraq say he was a Saudi.

The American officials in Iraq also say that the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia and that about 40 percent of all foreign fighters are Saudi. Officials said that while most of the foreign fighters came to Iraq to become suicide bombers, others arrived as bomb makers, snipers, logisticians and financiers.

American military and intelligence officials have been critical of Saudi efforts to stanch the flow of fighters into Iraq, although they stress that the Saudi government does not endorse the idea of fighters from Saudi Arabia going to Iraq.

On the contrary, they said, Saudi Arabia is concerned that these young men could acquire insurgency training in Iraq and then return home to carry out attacks in Saudi Arabia -- similar to the Saudis who turned against their homeland after fighting in Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The Bush administration's relationship with Saudi Arabia has deteriorated steadily since the United States invasion of Iraq, culminating in April when, bitingly, King Abdullah, during a speech before Arab heads of state in Riyadh, condemned the American invasion of Iraq as ''an illegal foreign occupation.''

A month before that, King Abdullah effectively torpedoed a high-profile meeting between Israelis and Palestinians, planned by Ms. Rice, by brokering a power-sharing agreement between the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the militant Islamist group Hamas that did not require Hamas to recognize Israel. While that agreement eventually fell apart, the Bush administration, on both occasions, was caught off guard and became infuriated.

But Saudi officials have not been too happy with President Bush, either, and the plummeting of America's image in the Muslim world has led King Abdullah to strive to set a more independent course.

The administration ''thinks the Saudis are no longer behaving the role of the good vassal,'' said Steve Clemons, senior fellow and director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The Saudis, in turn, ''see weakness, they see a void, and they're going to fill the void and call their own shots.''

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricte...DAE0894DF404482

A Critique of the foregoing article from the Alpha Omega Report:






(A-O Newswire) - Mainstream media icon, The New York Times is finally reporting on an issue that A-O, particularly the A-O Weekly has been reporting for some time, namely US-Saudi Arabian relations.

If you've been a steady reader to A-O and the A-O Weekly newsletter (a free e-mail newsletter) you've likely noted A-O comments about the slowly souring relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia. A-O has noted this developing situation since King Abdullah ascended to the throne. The slow rift accelerated in March of this year when the King rejected a diplomatic plan by Prince Bandar to aid the U.S. in isolating Iran. Instead the King began to warm up relations with Iran and Syria.

In addition to warming its relationship with the "Axis of Evil" nation, the Saudi King dusted off an old Saudi proposal for Mideast Peace between Israel and the Arab world, particularly peace between the Palestinians and Israel. That move did not sit well with the Bush administration because the proposal ran contrary to US foreign policy objectives. In addition to that set of problems, the split within the Palestinian movement and the rise of Hamas has led the Saudis to endorse and recognize Hamas, against the wishes of the White House.

Some private intelligence publications have also noted that recently the Bush administration lobbied the Saudi King to expand it's oil production by 2 million barrels per day, to maximum capacity in order to keep the price of oil from rising to $70 per barrel and thus keep the world economy from plummeting. The Saudi King tacitly rejected the request much to the chagrin of Vice President Cheney who made a personal plea during a face-to-face meeting with the King back in May.

Another extremely serious source of contention between the two governments involves the Iraqi conflict. The Saudis are extremely concerned about the Iraq situation, fearing the turmoil in Iraq could spill over to other Persian Gulf nations. The Saudis are fearful it might trigger revolts inside its own borders. The Saudis are also concerned for the safety of fellow Sunni sect Muslims in Iraq, fearing the Shiite Muslim sect might commit genocide against their fellow Sunni sect brethren in Iraq. The Saudis see the United States' policies in Iraq as detrimental to Saudi Arabia's national interests and security. It is particularly galling to the Saudi King because he was opposed to the US invasion of Iraq from the beginning, fearing that Iraq would become what it has. The King however was not yet on the throne and thus unable to fully and strenusously object or threaten the Bush plans for invasion.

Now that the saber rattling continues between the U.S. and Iran, the Saudi King is even more fearful that the Bush administration will commit yet more blunders that will spill more Muslim blood in the Persian Gulf and further threaten the Kingdom's own stability, not to mention its oil income. The Saudi King and his royal court fears that an attack on Iran will lead to at least a regional war which could precipitate devastating attacks on Saudi Arabia and its oil facilities by Iranian missiles. The King is also concerned about private threats issued by Iran to the King warning that Iran has the necessary ability to foment an overthrow of the Royal family and establish an Islamic Revolutionary Council form of government, much like that in Iran. For this reason especially, the Saudis fear that President Bush's bungling could destroy Saudi Arabia and as such, a growing rift has emerged to the point of nearly reaching critical mass.

According to some Saudi experts in the West, there is a real possibility that the Saudi King may expand the tilt away from the United States and more towards the Iranians. It is not inconceivable that the Saudi government might even loosely join with the Iranians during any military conflict. No one expects the Saudis would take up military action against the U.S. but the Sauds could harm America worse by instituting hostile policies in the form of oil trading that could cause serious harm to the U.S. economy and President Bush's political standing both at home and around the world. At the least, the Saudis could institute policies that would crush any chances for President Bush to have any sort of "positive" legacy for the history books. In deed, the Saudis could enact policies that fashion Bush's legacy to be no better than that of Jimmy Carter and perhaps even worse.

What is interesting to note now, is that the New York Times article, in today's edition, has begun to mention this growing rift, although the magnitude of the problem is not being fully revealed in the New York Times article. You can read the NYT piece by LINKING here.

Thursday, Aug. 16, 2007
U.S. Tough Talk on Iran: A Sign of Isolation
By Tony Karon

Washington's reported plan to name Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a "specially designated global terrorist" organization may be less about raising pressure on Tehran than about raising pressure on U.S. allies to support a tougher line with Iran. In fact, the move reflects Washington's relative isolation on the question of how to deal with Iran. The New York Times reported Wednesday that the move is primarily directed at appeasing Bush Administration hawks and U.S. legislators who have been agitating for a more aggressive posture on Iran, and at turning the screws on European allies who are reluctant at this stage to escalate U.N. sanctions on Tehran over its nuclear program.

Naming the IRG as a terrorist group could be used to pressure foreign corporations whose business ties with Iran potentially involve dealings with the IRG, which is extensively involved in Iran's economy. The rationale offered for the move is to curb an organization that has long been at the forefront of Iranian support for Hizballah and other radical groups in the region — and, the Administration alleges, is playing an active destabilizing role in Iraq.

In fact, it is Tehran's role in Iraq and other neighboring countries, rather than the state of its nuclear program, that has been the focus of much of the Administration's recent statements on Iran. U.S. officials from President Bush on down have sought to portray Iran, and organizations associated with the Revolutionary Guards specifically, as the prime source of trouble in its neighborhood. U.S. officials now routinely blame Iran for many of the attacks on U.S. forces inside Iraq — despite limited evidence to back the claim — and accuse it of destabilizing the Iraqi government by supporting radical Shi'ite militia. The Administration also insists that Iran has been working to destabilize the Karzai government in Afghanistan, and accuses it of funneling weapons to the Taliban.

Adopting a more aggressive posture toward Iran's regional role may play well on Capitol Hill, but the White House is clearly having trouble selling it abroad. Just last week, the leaders of the two governments most reliant on U.S. military protection directly contradicted President Bush's claims that Iran was causing trouble in their countries. Both Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai and Iran's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki publicly reiterated their view of Iran as a friend and a positive influence for stability in their countries, leaving President Bush to huffily demur. Iran helped install the Karzai government and has a longstanding hostility towards the Taliban. And Tehran has also been a vocal supporter of the Iraqi government, whose leaders have been historically close to Iran. In both cases, though, these governments fear that the strategic rivalry between Iran and the U.S. could prompt both sides to take actions that could provoke the other and prompt an escalation that negatively affect both Afghan and Iraqi stability. In other words, it's not Iran they fear, but an Iran-U.S. confrontation.

So, the Karzai and Maliki statements highlight a key problem facing those who seek a more aggressive U.S. posture towards Iran: Outside of Israel, there's very little international support for confronting Tehran. It's not that European and Arab allies don't share U.S. concerns over Iran's increasingly assertive regional role, or over the fact that its civilian nuclear energy program will eventually put nuclear weapons within easy reach of the Islamic Republic. But neither the Europeans nor the Arabs see much good being achieved by either economic isolation or military action against Iran.

Like the Europeans, the Bush Administration routinely proclaims its support for a "diplomatic solution" to the nuclear standoff. But unlike the Europeans, until now the Bush Administration appears to have taken "diplomatic solution" to mean simply Iranian acquiescence to Western terms as a result of non-military pressure. The Europeans know that's unrealistic, and are more inclined toward a give-and-take approach to diplomacy. They have lately been encouraged by Iran's moves to restore cooperation with the inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which prompted them to shelve any discussion of further U.N. sanctions until September, to allow more time for talks between Iran and the Europeans.

But the hawks on Capitol Hill and in the Administration know that such engagement is unlikely to produce a satisfactory Iranian climb-down, pointing out that the sanctions so far imposed have not ended Iran's uranium enrichment. But that position enjoys little support among the countries whose support the U.S. has worked hard to court over Iran.

Far-reaching compromises with Iran are not on the agenda of the current U.S. administration, nor are they likely to be. But pursuing a harder line effectively isolates the U.S. from its European and Arab allies. Those allies, of course, are well aware that the current U.S. administration has less than 18 months left in office, and they hope for a successor more open to compromise. But they may also be increasingly fearful of what the outgoing Administration may do on Iran before leaving office. That bad-cop fear, of course, is what Secretary of State Condi Rice is trading on when she warns European governments that their failure to back stronger sanctions will force the U.S. to act alone.

<h3 class="entry-header">NSA Judge: 'I feel like I'm in Alice and Wonderland'</h3> By Kevin Poulsen August 15, 2007 | 6:33:00 PMCategories: NSA Ryan Singel and David Kravets are blogging the U.S. 9th Circuit hearing on the NSA's spying, and AT&T's alleged complicity, reporting live from the San Francisco courthouse. Hit 'refresh' in your browser and scroll to the bottom for updates.

Spectators lined up outside the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco starting at noon to guarantee a seat at a much-anticipated legal showdown over the government's secret wiretapping program.

The hearing involves two cases: one aimed at AT&T for allegedly helping the government with a widespread datamining program allegedly involving domestic and international phone calls and internet use; the other a direct challenge to the government's admitted warrantless wiretapping of overseas phone calls.

Jon Eisenberg, (right) an Oakland-based attorney, is arguing on behalf of a now-defunct Islamic charity Al-Haramain and its lawyers, who claim to have been accidentally given a Top Secret log of their own phone conversations, which they say proves the government illegally eavesdropped on them without warrants.

Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas Bondy will argue for the government in the Al-Haramain challenge, while Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre will handle the government's side in the AT&T case.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the challenge to AT&T, is being represented by Robert Fram, a San Francisco-based attorney.

2:10pm PDT


The courtroom filled quickly with more than 20 attorneys in the courtroom well, and 80 spectators seated and standing. Another 40 filed into an overflow courtroom, including Mark Klein, the former AT&T engineer who provided internal company documents to the EFF. Those documents allegedly show that AT&T built a secret spying room for the NSA in its San Francisco internet switching center.

Garre, the Bush administration attorney, just opened oral arguments by telling the three-judge panel that it should dismiss outright the lawsuit against AT&T, and those challenging the constitutionality of the president's warrantless and domestic eavesdropping program developed.

"Litigating this action could result in exceptionally gave harm to national security in the United States," says Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garr.

2:20pm PDT



Judge Harry Pregerson (left, in file photo) suggests the government is asking the courts to "rubber stamp" the government's claim that state secrets are at risk "Who decides whether something is a state secret or not? ... We have to take the word of the members of the executive branch that something is a state secret?"

Garre counters that the courts should give "utmost deference" to the Bush administration.

Judge Pregerson: "What does utmost deference mean? Bow to it?"

2:30pm PDT

All three judges are giving Garre skeptical questions about the power of the state secrets privilege. They're also getting stonewalled a bit.

"Was a warrant obtained in this case?" Judge Pregerson asks.

"That gets into matters that were protected by state secrets," Garre replies.

2:45pm PDT

Judge McKeown asks whether the government stands by President Bush's statements that purely-domestic communications, where both parties are in the United States, are not being monitored without warrants.

"Does the government stand behind that statement," McKeown asks.

Garre: "Yes, your honor."

But Garre says the government would not be willing to sign a sworn affidavit to that effect for the court record.

Pregerson, by his record, is the most liberal judge on the panel, and he clearly thinks the government is just looking for a blank check for their secret program. But the other two judges aren't thrilled either. They seem perplexed that the government can't swear under oath that the Bush Administration isn't warrantlessly spying on domestic phone calls.

3:00pm PDT

Government attorney Garre doesn't think much of the secret documents provided to EFF by whistle blower Mark Klein -- which outline a room that is capable of widespread investigation of internet packets from multiple ISPs and backbone providers.

Garre described the documents as showing the secret room "has a leaky air conditioner and some loose cables in the room."

Expect EFF's attorney to rebut that characterization in his upcoming arguments.

3:10pm PDT

AT&T attorney Michael Kellogg (right, entering the courthouse) has taken the podium, and, not surprisingly, insists the case has to be dismissed. He says AT&T customers have no actual proof or direct knowledge that their communications were forwarded to the government without warrants.

"The government has said that whatever AT&T is doing with the government is a state secret," Kellogg says. He adds, "As a consequence, no evidence can come in whether the individuals' communications were ever accepted or whether we played any role in it." (Back at Wired, THREAT LEVEL's head just exploded --klp)

3:20pm PDT

Robert Fram is up for EFF. He's outlining the allegations based on the Klein documents.

"There is a splitter cabinet on the 7th floor on 611 Folsom Street. He (Klein) knows, because it was his job to oversee the room. He installed the circuits." Fram adds that "the splitter cabinet sends the light signal on the seventh floor where the SG-3 study room is located."

Fram argues that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) allows people to challenge even the most secret electronic spying, by permitting courts to hear the government's evidence in chambers

He's also carefully trying to say that EFF doesn't want any more information on sources and methods of the NSA, arguing that the mere existence of the secret room is good enough under the law to prove the existence of surveillance, regardless of what the government does once it has the internet packets.

"We have completed the privacy violation on the handover of the internet traffic at the splitter into the secret room, which room has limited access to NSA-cleared employees," Fram says. "What is not part of our claim is what happens inside that room."



3:30pm PDT

Fram says Klein's allegations demonstrate there is an AT&T and NSA relationship.

"We have not only alleged it; we have proved it," Fram argues.

Judge M. Margaret McKeown isn't convinced.

"You haven't proved what the relation is between AT&T and the government," McKeown (left, file photo) counters.

"Maybe Klein is wrong and AT&T and the government can come in and say that room is available to all technicians. But they haven't done that," says Fram.

3:50pm PDT

The EFF's Fram's attempt to argue that the existence of the secret AT&T room is enough to prove dragnet internet surveillance doesn't seem totally convincing to Judge McKeown.

"There's a Las Vegas quality to your argument," McKeown tells Fram, alluding to the "What Happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas" commercials.

Fram argues that Congress broadly defined surveillance in the 1978 FISA law, which was spurred by revelations in the 1970s of widespread government surveillance of American citizens.

"What Congress did is it established a protective perimeter for our privacy," Fram says. "Congress wanted to have some set of rights that could be clearly enforced."

Those rules, Fram argues, means that you were part of a mass dragnet surveillance if one of your e-mail went into the room on Folsom Street, even if the government wasn't targeting you specifically.

On rebuttal, government attorney Gregory Garre derides the EFF's case.

"Plaintiffs acknowledge that the room is central to their case and that they don't know what is going on in that room," says Garre. "Something else could be going on in that room. Just to pick one, it could be FISA court surveillance in that room."

Not that he's saying that there is FISA court surveillance conducted in the secret room. Just that there could be. Who knows? Presumably, Garre does. But he's not saying.

On the whole, the judges seem to be leaning towards allowing this case to continue in the district court -- which would be a victory for EFF and the Al-Haramain lawyers.

4:00pm PDT

In the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation case, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Thomas Bondy (right, entering the courthouse) also says the case should be tossed. "The state secrets privilege requires dismissal of this case."

Whether the foundation's lawyers were spied upon, which is the subject of the case, "Is itself a state secret," Bondy argues.

4:10pm PDT

Expanding on that theme, the government argues that the Al-Haramain case needs to be thrown out because the secret document that the government accidentally gave the foundation is so secret that it is outside of the case.

Bondy claims the plaintiff's memories of the document can't be allowed into the case because the only way to test them is against the "totally classified" document.

"Once the document is out of the case, which it has to be since it is privileged, the only way to test the veracity of their recollections is to compare it to the document," Bondy says.

The lower court allowed the case to go forward based on the Al-Haramain Foundation lawyers' memories of the document, but ruled that the document itself was not allowed into the case.

Judge Hawkins (left, file photo) wonders if the document is really that secret?

"Every ampersand, every comma is Top Secret?," Hawkins asks.

"This document is totally non-redactable and non-segregable and cannot even be meaningfully described," Bondy answers.

The government says the purported log of calls between one of the Islamic charity directors and two American lawyers is classified Top Secret and has the SCI level, meaning that it is "secure compartmented information." That designation usually applies to surveillance information.

4:25pm PDT

Judge McKeown: "I feel like I'm in Alice and Wonderland."

Eisenberg: "I feel like I'm in Alice in Wonderland, too."

4:30pm PDT

Al-Haramain lawyer Eisenberg argues that the government's rationale for dismissing the cases on state secrets grounds doesn't apply to his clients, since they already know they were surveilled from seeing the secret document.

McKeown asks whether the foundation's attorneys would have a case if the government hadn't inadvertently disclosed the call log.

"We wouldn't have known we were surveilled," Eisenberg replies. "Had they not made a mistake and revealed it to the victims... who would be out here to sue?"

4:40pm PDT

Oral arguments are adjourned, and people are filing out of the courtroom. But not before Bondy, for the government, gets the last word and neatly sums up the case for the three judges. Al-Haramain Foundation attorneys, he points out, "think or believe or claim they were surveilled.

"It's entirely possible that everything they think they know is entirely false," he says.

---

David Kravets' Analysis of the political meaning of today's NSA Hearing

Ryan Singel's Analysis: Some Secret Documents Are Too Secret Even for Critical Judges

Audio of the NSA Appeals Court Hearing

View the NSA Appeals Court Hearing


(Courthouse photos: Ryan Singel)

<h3 class="entry-header">Analysis: Some Secret Documents Are Too Secret Even for Critical Judges</h3> By Ryan Singel August 15, 2007 | 7:24:17 PMCategories: NSA While the same three 9th Circuit Appeals Court judges heard arguments in two different spying cases today, they seemed to be two entirely different sets of judges.

When listening to the government attempt to bury, on the grounds of national security, a lawsuit against AT&T for allegedly helping the government engage in a dragnet surveillance program aimed at Americans, the judges expressed dismay that the government and AT&T could not simply show documents proving the surveillance did not exist.

That case relies heavily on company documents provided to the Electronic Frontier Foundation by former AT&T technician Mark Klein. Large chunks of those documents were published by Wired News last year.

But in the second half of Wednesday's hearing, the judges hardly asked any questions of the government attorney. He argued that a case directly aimed at the government's admitted warrantless wiretapping of Americans' overseas phone calls had to be thrown out because the document the plaintiffs want to use to prove they were surveilled was "totally classified." That document was accidentally given to them as part of a proceeding to put an Oregon Islamic charity known as Al-Haramain on a terrorist watch list.

The attorney for Al-Haramain, Jon Eisenberg, impassionately pleaded that his case wouldn't put state secrets at risk, but the judges seemed immune to his pleas. Judge Margaret McKeown said Eisenberg's arguments that he should be able to rely on his memory of the document, even though a lower court said the document couldn't be used made her "fell like I'm Alice in Wonderland."

Many thought that the Al-Haramain plaintiffs, who look to be the only people in America who can prove they were surveilled without warrants by the government's so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program, would be able to clamber over the legal obstacles standing in the way of getting a court to rule on the legality of warrantless wiretapping.

Instead, the court looks likely to throw out the Al-Haramain challenge because the government says the alleged surveillance call log is too secret to be used in court. But at the same time, all three judges seemed to believe that the government could confirm or deny a secret intelligence relationship with the nation's largest telecom, without disclosing secrets to the world.

THREAT LEVEL's David Kravets wonders, after hearing arguments all day, whether the Bush Administration is still spying.

So seemingly, in the eyes of today's panel of judges, in the collision between secret documents and the state secrets privilege, "totally secret" documents are not allowed to play, but sort-of-secret documents -- the AT&T documents -- may be able to trump the power of kings to do as they will.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/a...sis-some-s.html

Iraqi Sunnis slam new Shiite, Kurdish alliance

by Sabah JergesFri Aug 17, 11:30 AM ET

Leaders of Iraq's disenchanted Sunni Arab community on Friday slammed the new Shiite and Kurdish alliance formed to salvage Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's national unity government.

Maliki and President Jalal Talabani, however, made fresh attempts on Friday to win support from members of the former elite.

The National Concord Front, the main Sunni Arab political bloc in the country's 275-member parliament, said the new tie-up between the two Shiite and two Kurdish parties was a "futile" exercise.

On Thursday, Talabani and Maliki announced the forming of the alliance which brought together Shiite Dawa party and Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council and the Kurdish factions of Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and Kurdish Democratic Party (PDK).

The National Concord Front led by Sunni Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi's Iraqi Islamic Party had boycotted talks which led to the new bloc's creation.

"The leaders should not have announced the alliance before convincing all the effective political leaderships ... whose participation could have broken the stagnation (in the political process) and convinced the boycotting parties," the Front said in a statement Friday.

The Sunni bloc has 44 members in the assembly and has also withdrawn its ministers from Maliki's Shiite-led government since August 1, effectively paralysing the political process in Iraq.

"The Front urges all parties to put pressure on the government to reactivate a real participation in the political process rather than have an arrangement where there is no authority to other parties (who are outside the alliance)," the Front said.

In a separate statement Hashemi offered to support the new alliance only if "it serves the country."

"I apologise for not participating due to subjective reasons which are clear to you and we hope you would not misunderstand our views," Hashemi said directing his statement to the allince's leaders.

"The Iraqi Islamic Party would continue to work and execute its role for unity. I pledge to support all the good work (of the alliance) as long as it serves the country."

Leaders of Iraq's divided Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni communities have often clashed on security, political and social issues, leading to delays in the passage of crucial legislative laws aimed at rebuilding the country.

Washington has warned Iraq's leaders to work harder on unity, concerned that the political stalemate could torpedo efforts to reconcile the warring factions and undermine the work of 155,000 American troops to end the conflict.

Since the US-led invasion of March 2003, Iraq has plunged into an abyss of overlapping civil conflicts that have divided its rival religious and ethnic communities, leaving tens of thousands of civilians dead.

Shiite parties suspect Sunni leaders, whose minority sect dominated political power under executed dictator Saddam Hussein, of supporting insurgents.

Sunni leaders accuse the Shiite parties of ties with powerful neighbour Iran and condemn their alleged complicity with Shiite militias who according to the US military are involved in killing Sunni Arabs in the sectarian conflict.

On Friday, Maliki and Talabani attempted to woo the Sunnis again.

During a visit to the northern Sunni city of Tikrit -- the hometown of Saddam -- Maliki said the tribal leaders of Salaheddin of which Tikrit is the capital deserved praise in their "fight against terrorists."

"We are the sons of one country. Whatever our races and sectarian affiliations be, our one country will unite us," a statement from his office quoted him as telling to tribesmen and Iraqi army officers in Tikrit.

He added the process of national reconciliation involved "respecting the point of view of each other."

In a separate press conference in Baghdad, Talabani said the new alliance was "determined to reach an agreement with the brothers in the Concord."

Without elaborating Talabani said many of the demands of Hashemi were "also just and we must respect them."

"The reasonable demands must be looked at in a positive way by the government."

Washington wants the Iraqi government to re-engage the ousted elite in the political process in a bid to sever its alleged support for insurgents.

Copyright © 2007 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AFP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of Agence France Presse.

U.S. envoy says Iraq report will sound warning on Iran

By Ross Colvin

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Washington's envoy to Iraq warned Americans on Thursday that pulling U.S. troops out of the country could open the door to a "major Iranian advance" that would threaten U.S. interests in the region.

Ambassador Ryan Crocker also accused Tehran of seeking to weaken the Shi'ite-led Iraqi government so that it could "by one means or another control it". Iran has denied U.S. charges that it is arming and training Shi'ite militias in Iraq.

Crocker and the top U.S. general in Iraq, General David Petraeus are due to present a pivotal report to Congress in September on progress on the military and political fronts and make recommendations on the way forward.

Opinion polls suggest most Americans have turned against the four-year war and Democrats in Congress want President George W. Bush to start pulling out U.S. troops as soon as possible. Bush, however, has resisted such calls.

"If the leadership wants to go a different way, I have an obligation to talk a little bit about what the consequences of pulling in a different direction would be," Crocker told Reuters in an interview in his office in Baghdad's Green Zone.

"One area of clear concern is Iran. The Iranians aren't going anywhere. I have significant concerns that a coalition withdrawal would lead to a major Iranian advance. And we need to consider what the consequences of that would be."

The two long-time foes are locked in a stand-off over Iran's nuclear program. Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons.

Crocker has met his Iranian counterpart in Baghdad three times to discuss U.S. concerns that Iran is fuelling violence in Iraq, despite Tehran's public support for Iraq's government.

"Based on what I see on the ground, I think they are seeking a state that they can, by one means or another, control, weakened to the point that Tehran can set its agenda," he said. Continued...

General: Deploy or risk promotion chances

By Trista Talton - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Aug 17, 2007 18:47:27 EDT CAMP LEJEUNE, N.C. — Marines who have not gone to war should be concerned when promotion time comes around, a top Corps official said.

“I guarantee you ... if you have a six- to seven-year war and you don’t get to the war zone, you needn’t wonder what’s going to happen when it’s time for promotion,” said Lt. Gen. Ronald Coleman, deputy commandant for manpower and reserve affairs in Quantico, Va.

Coleman spoke at a Marine Corps Association meeting here Wednesday, where he told an audience of mainly retired and active-duty Marines that leathernecks who haven’t deployed to a combat zone need to find a way to get to the fight.

“If I’m on the promotion board, I’m going to make a note of that,” he said.

While some Marines have served three, four and, in some cases, five tours in Iraq, 40,000 still have not deployed, Coleman said. Some of those Marines are in the pipeline, including those making the transition from boot camp to infantry battalions.

In January, Commandant Gen. James Conway announced his plans to rearrange assignments so that every Marine is given the chance to go to war. At the time of his announcement, titled “Every Marine Into the Fight,” some 66,000 Marines — a third of the force — had not deployed.

Missing US arms probe goes global
By David Isenberg

WASHINGTON - The issue of missing US weapons in Iraq is getting, as Alice said in Wonderland, curiouser and curiouser. What started out as a mere report documenting improper bookkeeping procedures for assault rifles and pistols given by the Pentagon to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005 is turning into an international scandal.

It started on July 31, when the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report "Stabilizing Iraq: DOD [Department of Defense] Cannot Ensure That US-Funded Equipment Has Reached Iraqi Security Forces". A classified version of the report will be submitted to Congress next month.

The report found that since 2003, the United States has provided about US$19.2 billion to develop Iraqi security forces. As part of that effort, components of the Multinational Force-Iraq (MNF-I), are responsible for implementing the US program to train and equip Iraqi forces. The report found that as of July, the DOD and MNF-I had not specified which DOD accountability procedures, if any, apply to the train-and-equip program for Iraq.

As Congress funded the train-and-equip program for Iraq outside traditional security assistance programs, the Pentagon had a large degree of flexibility in managing the program. Normally, the traditional security assistance programs are operated by the State Department. Since the funding did not go through traditional security assistance programs, the DOD accountability requirements normally applicable to these programs did not apply. Thus the DOD and MNF-I cannot fully account for Iraqi forces' receipt of US-funded equipment.

As a result, the GAO found a discrepancy of at least 190,000 weapons between data reported by the former commander of the Multinational Security Transition Command-Iraq (MNSTC-I) and the property books. The GAO report indicates that US military officials do not know what happened to 30% of the weapons the United States distributed to Iraqi forces from 2004 through early this year.

The highest previous estimate of unaccounted-for weapons was 14,000, in a report issued last year by the inspector general for Iraq reconstruction. According to that report, 13,180 Glock automatic pistols, worth as much as $46 million on the black market, were unaccounted for. The more recent GAO study puts the total figure for missing pistols closer to 80,000. In addition, the report found that US officials in Iraq could not account for 751 M1F assault rifles and 99 MP5 machine-guns.

It seems a virtual certainty that many of the Glocks have been diverted to the black market. An article in the current issue of Newsweek magazine quotes a senior Turkish security official, who said his government estimates that some 20,000 US-bought Glock pistols have been brought from Iraq into his country over the past three years.

The GAO reached the estimate of 190,000 missing arms - 110,000 AK-47s and 80,000 pistols - by comparing the property records of the MNSTC-I against records US General David Petraeus maintained of the arms and equipment he had ordered, after he was brought in in June 2004 to build up Iraqi security forces.

The gaps between the two records are enormous. Petraeus reported that about 185,000 AK-47 rifles, 170,000 pistols, 215,000 pieces of body armor and 140,000 helmets were issued to Iraqi security forces from June 2004 through September 2005. But the property books contained records for 75,000 AK-47 rifles, 90,000 pistols, 80,000 pieces of body armor and 25,000 helmets.

The fact that the weapons are not fully accounted for does not necessarily mean they are all missing. It is possible that the US military simply does not have the supporting records confirming the dates the equipment was received, the quantities of equipment delivered, or the Iraqi units receiving the items.

On the other hand it seems fairly likely that some of the missing weapons are being used against US forces in Iraq. Given that the most readily accessible black market for those stolen weapons is in Iraq, some of those are going to be bought by the insurgents.

In fact, the problem could be considerably worse than the GAO report indicates.

According to Amnesty International research, additional hundreds of thousands of US-approved arms transfers from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Iraq could also be missing. In a May 2006 report, Amnesty revealed that Taos Inc, a US company with multiple DOD contracts, subcontracted to a Moldovan/Ukrainian company called Aerocom to transport hundreds of thousands of arms, more than 90 tonnes of AK-47s, and other weapons from Bosnia to Iraq between July 31, 2004, and June 31, 2005, for Iraqi security forces.

US military air-traffic controllers in Iraq, however, said Aerocom never requested landing slots to touch down in the country. Aerocom smuggled weapons to Liberia in 2002 and was operating without a valid license in 2004, according to the United Nations Security Council.

As of August, Amnesty was still awaiting a reply from the Pentagon regarding its investigation into the Bosnia-to-Iraq weapons shipments.

And, in a move that can only be likened to the fox guarding the hen-house, it turns out, as the Los Angeles Times reported on August 13, that there may have been another factor at work, namely the US government's use of Viktor Bout - a Russian air transporter who also happens to be the world's most notorious arms dealer.

When the US government needed to fly four planeloads of seized weapons from Bosnia to Iraqi security forces in Baghdad in August 2004, it used Aerocom. But Aerocom is tied to Bout's aviation empire. The problem is that the planes apparently never arrived. US officials admitted they had no record of the flights landing in Baghdad.

Why the US government would have used Bout-controlled Aerocom - which had already been linked to supplying arms to Liberia when it was ruled by Charles Taylor and to drug traffickers in Belize - is a mystery in and of itself, considering that by 2004 Bout was very well known to the US government as a global gun-runner whom they wanted to put out of business.

The latest development occurred this week when it was reported that that Italian anti-Mafia investigators had uncovered an alleged shipment of 105,000 rifles of which the US military command in Iraq was unaware. The Italian team, in an investigation code-named Operation Parabellum, stopped the $40 million sale and made four arrests. The consignment appears to have been ordered by the Iraqi Interior Ministry. The US high command in Baghdad admitted it had no knowledge of any such order, even though the ministry is supposed to inform the US before purchasing arms.

An Iraqi Interior Ministry official insisted the weapons were mostly for Iraqi police in al-Anbar province. But given the close relationship between the Shi'ite-led government and Shi'ite militias and the irregular nature of the arms order, the disclosure prompted suspicion that the eventual destination could have been the militias, or police units close to them.

Furthermore, why the police in Anbar would need more weapons raises more questions. The Pentagon has issued 169,280 AK-47s, 167,789 pistols and 16,398 machine-guns to the 161,000 police in Iraq and 28,000 border police.

David Isenberg is a senior analyst with the British American Security Information Council. He is also a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy, an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute, contributor to the Straus Military Reform Project, a research fellow at the Independent Institute, and a US Navy veteran. The views expressed are his own.

(Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

Bye-Bye Baghdad

Posted on Aug 17, 2007
Baghdad burning
AP Photo / Dusan Vranic

By Anonymous

Editor’s Note: The author of this article is a contractor who has lived and worked in Baghdad. His identity is known to Truthdig’s editors, but he has written anonymously in order to offer an uncensored account.

I have been living and working in Baghdad for the past 16 months and will be leaving next week for good. I am one of those overpaid Department of Defense contractors, or, as some would call me, a “war profiteer.” Yes, I have profited. I am out of debt and have money saved. But it has cost me. I am a changed man. I have become hardened. I almost feel like a zombie.

Although I work in Baghdad, I have no idea what Baghdad looks like. I have been told by soldiers that it is “like one of those Mexican border towns.” I don’t live in the “heavily fortified” Green Zone, which, although heavily fortified, has been getting hit with mortars on a daily basis. No, I live on an Army base. I live in a trailer with four other men. We each have our own space and I am lucky to have quiet roommates. There is a common latrine and shower.

I have had a lot of experiences over these 16 months, and the situation has not changed one bit. I feel like I am leaving a sinking ship. The only thing that has changed is that more trailers have had to be added for the “surge” of troops that have come in. Oh, and our laundry now takes 72 hours to get done.

The majority of my co-workers are Iraqi, and every single one has been deeply affected by the war. Everyone knows someone who has been killed or kidnapped, whether a family member or a friend. It’s a daily occurrence, and they feel helpless, frustrated and, of course, very sad. Those that had the means have gone to either Jordan or Syria. The others are trapped. No country wants them.

Every day, the Iraqis risk their lives to come to work because they have no choice. The average salary is $300 a month, and many of them are supporting large families. Some of the Iraqis I work with just live in the building we work in rather than risk going home every day. Also, the building usually has electricity, which means there is air conditioning. In Baghdad there is usually one hour of electricity a day and hardly any water. People pitch in and buy a generator and get just enough electricity out of it to have the ceiling fan and refrigerator run.

Most Iraqis come to work by bus since there is a shortage of gasoline in Baghdad. People have to wait in line overnight in order to get gas for their cars. I wonder how we in America would react if we had even one hour without electricity or water and had to wait in a line to fuel our gas-guzzling SUVs. For us on the base, getting gas is a breeze. We just drive up to one of the many gas depots and fill our cars up. I can’t figure out how we have such easy access to gasoline and the Iraqis have none.

I was recently on vacation in the States when the bridge collapsed in Minneapolis. Yes, it was a terrible tragedy, but to the Iraqis that is nothing. Our media spent hours talking about how the bridge collapsed and how people were coping with the grief. The authorities immediately brought in grief counselors. There aren’t enough grief counselors in the world to come to Baghdad and ask the Iraqis how they are coping. But coping they are, and every day is a crapshoot.

Will I get killed or kidnapped or suffer some other horrible tragedy? Most Iraqis feel that they will indeed be killed, whether by the Sunni militia, the Shiite militia, the American Army or a car bomb. They live in constant fear. Could you imagine having to live like that? And why are they suffering so terribly? Because we are giving them freedom. Freedom is something that I fear the Iraqis will not have any time in the near future.

It is with a heavy heart that I leave behind my Iraqi friends. Their lives are absolutely horrible, but they have to keep moving every day to survive. Every day, as they leave for home, I always wonder if it will be the last time I see them.

We have made a mess of Iraq, and the Iraqis, who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, are the ones that are paying the price.

Our troops are losing morale. They know they are fighting a war that will never end, and I feel sorry for them. I feel that the ship will eventually sink and we will have caused the most terrible suffering for a people that just want a day when they can leave their house without the fear of being kidnapped or killed. For the Iraqis, freedom certainly isn’t free: They are paying a heavy price for it.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200708...ye_bye_baghdad/

Genocide in Tranquil Kurdistan

Posted on Aug 17, 2007

By Eugene Robinson

WASHINGTON—The next time you hear confident assurances from the White House and its supporters that the “surge” of U.S. troops in Iraq is working and that something called “victory” is now within sight, remember the Yazidis.

The who? Before Tuesday, you almost certainly would have asked that question—before two villages in northern Iraq, populated by an obscure religious sect, suffered what is now officially the deadliest terrorist attack of the war, with more than 400 people confirmed dead. The final toll is expected to rise, but the coordinated suicide truck bombings in the Yazidi towns already constitute the second-worst terrorist attack of modern times, trailing only the carnage of Sept. 11, 2001.

Thanks to online encyclopedias, veteran foreign correspondents and the work of dedicated scholars, we now have a boilerplate definition. The Yazidis are ethnic Kurds who practice an ancient, pre-Islamic religion. Among their beliefs is that God created seven archangels, one of whom is sometimes called Shaytan, which is the name given to Satan in the Koran. This has led some Muslims to believe, incorrectly, that the Yazidis are devil worshippers.

We also now know that in April, a Yazidi woman who had married a Muslim and converted to Islam was stoned to death by irate members of her community. This horror was captured on video and disseminated widely; angry Muslims gunned down 23 Yazidis in reprisal.

We can state these facts with confidence. But the truth is that we have only the most superficial idea of who the Yazidis are—and even less of a clue about who might have visited such utter devastation on their villages.

It was al-Qaida, U.S. military officers quickly announced. And maybe it was. Maybe it was part of an al-Qaida effort to create chaos in the Kurdish northern provinces of Iraq, which are often held up as the great success story of the U.S. invasion—an oasis of relative peace and tranquility, if you discount the occasional stoning or retaliatory massacre.

But the White House and the U.S. military leadership in Iraq generally blame al-Qaida for trying to foment sectarian and ethnic violence by driving wedges between Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. In that context, the Yazidi sect is so tiny as to be inconsequential—hardly worth al-Qaida’s time and effort.

The bombings Tuesday [Aug. 14] looked more like an act of genocide, an attempt to erase as many Yazidis as possible from the face of the Earth. The motive for this atrocity might not have been political but religious; it might have been the work of Muslim fundamentalists who were trying to settle a centuries-old local grievance, rather than the work of Muslim fundamentalists trying to drive the Americans out of Iraq or establish a new caliphate in the Middle East.

The point is that here in Washington, we talk about Iraq as if we were intimately familiar with all its fractures, fissures and fault lines. The Bush administration touts as a breakthrough the recent decision of provincial Sunni Muslim sheiks to cooperate with U.S. forces—but it’s also possible that the sheiks are just maneuvering to be in a better position when the Americans eventually leave. The administration says there might be genocide if the United States pulls out—but it looks as if genocide has already been attempted, in the part of Iraq that the White House cites as a model.

Some war critics confidently predict that if the United States were to withdraw its troops, the al-Qaida presence in Iraq would quickly become a non-factor—that foreign-born terrorists, having outlived their usefulness to the Sunni community, would be driven out or otherwise neutralized.

I happen to think this is a reasonable hypothesis. But I’m anything but confident.

There are those who will see Tuesday’s awful bombings as an illustration of why U.S. forces should stay in Iraq. I see the carnage as an illustration of how little the presence of 162,000 American troops can accomplish in a country the size of Iraq.

I don’t think anyone knows with certainty where “al-Qaida in Iraq” ends and “the Sunni insurgency” begins. I don’t think anyone knows with certainty how the various Shiite factions will ultimately line up—or even whether a unitary Iraq, having been shattered by the U.S. invasion, can ever be reassembled.

What I do know is that anyone who says American forces have to stay in Iraq because they’re protecting the Iraqi people should tell that to the Yazidis. Those who are left.

Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.

© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/200708...quil_kurdistan/

U.S.: No strings attached to new defense package for Israel
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent

The new $30 billion American defense package for Israel is not conditioned on diplomatic progress or concessions to the Palestinians, a top U.S. aide said Thursday as representatives from both countries signed the memorandum of understanding in Jerusalem.

U.S. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns said the aid to Israel was meant to counter "an axis of cooperation between Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas that is responsible for the violence in the region."

The hike in aid constitutes a 25-percent increase to the $2.4 billion Jerusalem currently receives from Washington in annual military grants. Under the new agreement, the U.S. will transfer $30 billion to Israel over the next 10 years.

U.S. officials have said the package - which was announced last month and must still be approved by Congress - is designed to reassure Israel and Sunni Muslim Gulf countries of Washington's commitment to the Middle East despite its problems in Iraq. It would also strengthen the Gulf nations in the face of the growing clout of Shi'ite Iran and its nuclear program.

Under the plan, Israel would receive $2.55 billion in October 2008. This sum would increase by $150 million each year, until it reaches $3.1 billion in 2012. From that point, Israel would receive $3.1 billion a year, through 2017, for a total of $30 billion.

The agreement also permits Israel to convert into shekels 26.3 percent of the aid money, enabling it to procure defense equipment from Israeli companies. The rest of the aid must be used to buy equipment from U.S. arms manufacturers.

Burns signed the memorandum Thursday noon with Foreign Ministry Director General Aharon Abramovich. Burns met that morning with Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer, who headed the Israeli team in negotiations with the United States. Burns then met with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

At a ceremony in Jerusalem, the American said that "one of the major priorities for our government ... will be to help push forward a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians". At a press conference following the signing, Burns said: "A strong and secure Israel is an American interest.

"There is no question that ... the Middle East is a more dangerous region now even than it was 10 or 20 years ago and that Israel is facing a growing threat. It's immediate and it's also long-term," Burns told reporters.

According to the memorandum, an annual review will be conducted into the manner in which Israel spends the military assistance.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met Wednesday with Burns in preparation for Thursday's signing. Olmert asked Burns to thank U.S. President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for their efforts in transforming into a binding agreement the understandings with Olmert that were reached during his last visit to Washington.

"The aid agreement with the U.S. is an important and significant component for Israel, and proves once again the depth of the relationship between the two countries and the United States' commitment to Israel's security, and to preserving its qualitative advantage over other countries in the Middle East," Olmert said.

The United States is also proposing a large weapons package for Saudi Arabia, which has historically been an Israeli enemy but has indicated a willingness to attend a U.S.-backed peace conference with Israel in the fall.

Olmert has said he understands the U.S. need to bolster Saudi Arabia in facing Iran. "The increase in military aid to Israel would guarantee its strategic superiority," Olmert has said, despite upgrades to other Arab countries in the region.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/894644.html

Israel, US try to maintain military edge
By HERB KEINON

With a new $30-billion, 10-year aid package from the US in the bag, Israeli and American officials are now discussing what military equipment Israel can buy and Saudi Arabia can't, in order for Israel to retain its qualitative military edge, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, who signed a memorandum of understanding governing the aid package with Foreign Ministry Director-General Aharon Abramowitz earlier on Thursday, met with Defense Minister Ehud Barak and senior defense ministry officials in the evening to discuss details of what Israel needs to retain its military superiority.

One senior diplomatic official said that in the coming days and weeks these discussions would focus on what Israel will require, both in terms of its own purchases and in restrictions on sales to the Saudis, in light of the US's proposed $20b. arms sale to Saudi Arabia and five other Gulf States.

# Livni praises US aid package to Israel
# Analysis: America's 10-year military aid package to Israel

Burns, in a press conference after signing the understanding, reiterated that the US remained committed to maintaining Israel's qualitative edge, saying this was a "major consideration" that had guided the negotiations with Israel on the package over the last six months. Burns would not, however, discuss any details of what Israel would be able to purchase, or whether there would be restrictions on the Saudi arms deal.

Under the memorandum of understanding, Israel will receive $30b. in military aid over 10 years, beginning in fiscal year 2009. The amount of aid in 2009 will be $2.55b., a $150-million raise over the previous year. There will be additional increases for each of the next four years, after which the aid will level off at $3.1b. annually and remain that way through 2018.

This package replaces a previous 10-year, $24b. aid package negotiated by then-prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu in the late 1990s that gradually phased out US civilian aid to Israel and replaced it with increased military assistance.

In a unique arrangement with Israel, 26.3 percent of each yearly grant can be converted into shekels and used to buy military equipment in Israel. The rest must be spent on equipment made in America.

Burns, who called the new package a "major contribution in American assistance," said it sent a strong signal to Israel of US commitment to its security, "beyond the presidency of President Bush and into the next presidency. That is a very important point for us."

Burns stressed that there were no strings attached to the aid - no special annexes - and that it was not dependent on Israeli policy. The aid, he said, "will allow Israel to plan its defense expenditures in a way that's rational, in a way that takes into account its own appreciation of its situation in this region."

Burns underlined that the aid was coming at a time when Iran "is resurgent," and was both seeking nuclear weapons and expanding its conventional power in the region. He said Iran and Syria were funding and arming terrorist organizations fomenting violence in every part of the Middle East, be it Hamas, Hizbullah or Shi'ite groups in Iraq. "So we look at this region and understand that a secure and strong Israel is in the interest of the US," he said.

The aid package is not expected to run into much resistance in Congress. While the memorandum of understanding is for a 10-year package, each year's appropriation will still have to be approved by the US legislature.

Burns said the US considered the $30b. an investment in peace, since "peace will not be made without strength. Peace will not be made without Israel being strong in the future."

Bank of Israel Governor Stanley Fischer, who helped negotiate the package, termed the deal "extraordinarily important for Israel, important for what it says about the US-Israel relationship."

"We have an exceptionally heavy defense burden, the highest in what used to be known as the Free World, 10% of GNP, and the fact that the US is willing to share a significant part of that burden, particularly for the purchases of military equipment, is a critical element in our budget," he said.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apa...icle%2FShowFull

Iran cleric warns US not to pick on Guards
Article from: Reuters
From correspondents in Tehran

August 17, 2007 09:59pm

A SENIOR Iranian cleric said on Friday that plans by the US to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a foreign terrorist group invited a fight with the Iranian nation which America could not win.

“Americans should know that in this field, as with nuclear energy, they are dealing with the whole nation,” Ahmad Khatami told worshippers at Friday prayers in Tehran.

"And the great nation of Iran will never abandon its revolutionary people.

“Americans should know that if they act madly in this regard, they would be entering a swamp they won't be able to get out of,” the conservative cleric said in a speech that was broadcast live on the radio.

Mr Khatami is a member of the Assembly of Experts, an influential clerical body which has the power to appoint or dismiss Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

US officials said on Wednesday the US may soon name the Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist group, reflecting frustration over Tehran's nuclear program and suspected role in Iraqi violence.

The designation would be the first time the US has placed the armed forces of any sovereign government on its list of terrorist organisations and would allow Washington to target the Guards' finances.

A Guards official brushed off the threat, saying the force “will grow in strength despite US efforts to isolate it”.

Iran experts and diplomats said the move was also aimed at pacifying hard-liners within and outside the Bush administration who want military action against Tehran and are frustrated that diplomatic pressure has not worked either on curbing Iran's nuclear program or over Iraq.

The US says Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian program, but Iran denies this, saying it wants only to generate electricity.

Washington also suspects Iran of supplying weapons to insurgents in Iraq.

The Revolutionary Guard Corps is an ideologically driven force which sees itself as a guardian of the Islamic Republic. Its command structure is separate from the regular military.

The Guards has a range of business interests, including energy projects awarded to its engineering subsidiary Khatam al-Anbia.

Some analysts say the Guards have grown in influence since the election in 2005 of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a former commander.

They say ex-officers have been appointed to political posts and more may run in the March parliamentary election.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...5005961,00.html

Singh says Iran has nuclear right
Sat, 18 Aug 2007 03:16:37
Source:India Today Indian government is under fire over US pressures. India says Iran's nuclear issue should be resolved through peaceful talks, as Iran has the right to have nuclear technology.

"I told President Bush, I can't be a cheerleader or be part of a warmongering group. The nuclear dispute with Iran should be resolved through peaceful processes," Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told India Today.

He also said that it was not in India's interest for Iran to become a nuclear weapons power, although it had the right to have nuclear energy as an NPT member.

The prime minister's comments came in an interview conducted over two months back but just published, while he was returning from the G-8 Summit of Industrialized countries in Germany. Singh had met Bush and other world leaders during his trip in June.

The Indian government has come under fire over making the impression that it is under US pressure about Iran and seen its policies as a threat to India's sovereignty and independence.

Islamic scholars slam sectarian violence in Iraq
Web posted at: 8/18/2007 2:26:46
Source ::: AFP Baghdad • Forty Muslim clerics and religious scholars from different sects on Thursday denounced sectarian violence in Iraq and said the killing of any innocent person was taboo.

"God has forbidden the killing of innocents whether they be Muslim, Christian or otherwise. All who take life without legitimate justification commit a major crime and an atrocity before God," they said in a statement in English released in the United Arab Emirates.

"Islamic doctrine does not allow excommunication of any Muslim who prays in the direction of Makkah," the scholars said in a reference to Sunni extremists who engage in takfeer-branding other Muslims as infidels in order to legitimise violence against them.

"All blood that is spilt as a result of religious edicts that advocate excommunication is considered a criminal act of murder," the statement said.

"The killing of innocents, the destruction of mosques, places of worship, homes, and the desecration of the dead in Iraq and elsewhere violate that which is sacred," the signatories said, adding that "all Muslim schools of thought and denominations" disavow the perpetrators of such acts.

The signatories included Egypt's mufti Ali Gomaa and Syria's mufti Ahmad Badreddin Hassun, as well as Shi’ite clerics and scholars from Arab countries and Iran.

Their statement came amid ongoing Sunni-Shi’ite killings in Iraq and followed a massive suicide bombing against the ancient Yazidi religious sect that left more than 400 dead in the worst attack since the fall of Saddam Hussein four years ago.
http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_n...07081822646.xml

Strategic planes resume flights on permanent basis - Putin


17.08.2007, 17.11



CHEBARKUL RANGE (Chelyabinsk region), August 17 (Itar-Tass) -- President Vladimir Putin said Russia would resume flights of its long-range aviation on a permanent basis beginning from Friday.

"Fourteen strategic missile carriers, support planes and tanker planes took off from seven Russian airfields in various parts of the country at 00:00 Moscow time on August 17. Combat alert has begun," Putin said.

He called on other countries for an understanding.

“Since 1992, the Russian Federation unilaterally stopped flights of its strategic aviation in remote combat areas. Regrettably, not all of countries followed suit. This has created certain problems for Russia’s security. For this reason I have made the decision on the resumption of flights of Russian strategic aviation”.

“We proceed from the assumption that our partners will meet the resumption of such flights with an understanding,” Putin said.

“Combat alert has begun today. Twenty strategic missile carriers take part in it. The planes that have scrambled will be in the air for 20 hours with refueling and in interaction with the Navy,” Putin said.

“”I believe that our fliers sat too long. They made flights occasionally, for example, during strategic exercises, but now they are happy that they are beginning a new lease of life,” he said.

http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?N...9&PageNum=0

Russia, China, Iran Warn U.S. at Summit Published 08/16/2007 - 2:56 p.m. EDT


http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=56673

Russia's resurgent military
Fueled by billions in oil wealth, it looks to reclaim the USSR's status as a global military power.
By Fred Weir | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor

from the August 17, 2007 edition

Reporter Fred Weir discusses the strong resurgence of Russia's military.

Moscow - As a newly self-confident, oil-rich Russia teams up with China in joint military exercises Friday, it is moving to reclaim the former Soviet Union's status as a global military power.

A seven-year, $200-billion rearmament plan signed by President Vladimir Putin earlier this year will purchase new generations of missiles, planes, and perhaps aircraft carriers to rebuild Russia's arsenal. Already, the new military posture is on display: This summer, Russian bombers have extended their patrol ranges far into the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, forcing US and NATO interceptors to scramble for the first time since the cold war's end.

"Diplomacy between Russia and the West is increasingly being overshadowed by military gestures," says Sergei Strokan, a foreign-policy expert with the independent daily Kommersant. "It's clear that the Kremlin is listening more and more to the generals and giving them more of what they want."

Economic bloc ups military teamwork

On Friday, Mr. Putin will join leaders of China and other members of the six-nation Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Russia's Chelyabinsk region to view the final stage of the group's most ambitious joint military maneuvers yet, to include 6,500 troops and over 100 aircraft. Also on hand will be leaders of SCO observer states and prospective members, among them India, Pakistan, Iran, and Mongolia.

At an SCO summit in Kyrgyzstan Thursday, Putin stressed that while Russia is not seeking to build a cold war-style "military bloc," he does see the SCO expanding from its original purpose as an economic association to take on a greater military role.

"Year by year, the SCO is becoming a more substantial factor in ensuring security in the region," he said. "Russia, like other SCO states, favors strengthening the multipolar international system providing equal security and development potential for all countries. Any attempts to solve global and regional problems unilaterally have no future," he added.

The SCO, founded in 2001, is often referred to as a "club of dictators" due to less-than-democratic ex-Soviet members such as Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan. The group has been holding joint war games since 2005, when it also demanded that the US vacate military bases it had acquired after 9/11 in former Soviet Central Asia, whose oil and gas reserves are garnering increased attention from the West.

"The SCO clearly wants the US to leave Central Asia; that's a basic political demand," says Ivan Safranchuk, Moscow director of the independent World Security Institute. "That's one reason why the SCO is holding military exercises, to demonstrate its capability to take responsibility for stability in Central Asia after the US leaves."

New naval base, long-range missiles

Moscow's growing military footprint – and the apprehensions of others about it – is evident in a spate of recent news events.

• Last week the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia accused Russian warplanes of invading its airspace and firing a missile, which failed to explode, at a radio station. Russian officials denied the allegation and suggested that Georgian leaders fabricated the incident. Tensions have been high between Russia and Georgia over Moscow's support for two breakaway Georgian regions, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which are protected by Russian "peacekeeping" troops.

• Russian naval chief Admiral Vladimir Masorin announced this month that Russia may reclaim a naval base at Tartus, in Syria, from which Soviet warships used to keep tabs on US ships. "The Mediterranean is an important theater of operations for the Russian Black Sea Fleet," he said. "We must restore a permanent presence of the Russian Navy in this region."

• In July, amid worsening relations between Russia and Britain over the still unsolved poisoning death of ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko, two Russian Tu-95 bombers flew deep into NATO territory for the first time since the cold war's end and, according to Britain's defense ministry, briefly entered British airspace before being escorted away by British fighter planes.

Last week, in another post-Soviet first, Russian bombers "revived the tradition of our long-range aviation to fly far into the ocean, to meet US aircraft carriers and greet US pilots visually," ending up near the American Pacific base of Guam, Russian Air Force Maj. Gen. Pavel Androsov told Russian media. He added that the pilots on both sides "exchanged grins."

• Russia has recently conducted tests of new land- and sea-based intercontinental missiles, which are expected to soon replace the country's aging Soviet-era nuclear deterrent. As a partial response to US missile defense plans, Russia will develop a missile defense "project that will include not only air defense systems but also antiballistic missile and space defense systems" to protect Moscow and other Russian centers, Russian Air Force chief Col. Gen. Alexandr Zelin told Russian media last week.

Critics are skeptical that, despite major Putin-era infusions of cash, Russia's weak industrial base can deliver on the Kremlin's ambitions to restore a global military presence.

"Now our military leaders have enough money to create a kind of caricature of the Soviet armed forces, and they want to do a lot of the same old things," says Alexander Goltz, military expert with the independent online magazine Yezhednevny Zhurnal. "But their plans are a confused mixture of realistic goals and unworkable Soviet-style symbolism," says Mr. Goltz.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0817/p01s06-woeu.html?page=1

Backspin for War The Convenience of Denial By Norman Solomon The man who ran CNN's news operation during the invasion of Iraq is now doing damage control in response to a new documentary's evidence that he kowtowed to the Pentagon on behalf of the cable network. His current denial says a lot about how "liberal media" outlets remain deeply embedded in the mindsets of pro-military conformity.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18203.htm

Homeland Security Enlists Clergy to Quell Public Unrest if Martial Law Ever Declared: Could martial law ever become a reality in America? Some fear any nuclear, biological or chemical attack on U.S. soil might trigger just that. KSLA News 12 has discovered that the clergy would help the government with potentially their biggest problem: Us.
http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=6937987

Fidelity, Franklin Hit as Real Estate Funds Lose $13 Billion : Property funds, the best performers in 2006, slumped 16 percent since May 14, the most of any category tracked by research firm Morningstar Inc. in Chicago. The $5.9 billion Fidelity Real Estate Investment Portfolio, the largest among the group, fell 19.7 percent.
http://tinyurl.com/24yn6z
Summer meltdown: stock market suffers biggest fall in four years : Shares plummet around the world; FTSE's worst day nin four years; Value of UK PLC falls £60bn; Market slumps 13% since June; Pensions surplus wiped out; Fears for housing market; Growing threat to economy
http://news.independent.co.uk/business/new...icle2871517.ece
Dollar Falls Against Euro After Unexpected Discount Rate Cut : The dollar weakened against 14 of 16 major currencies as a reduction in borrowing costs dims the allure of U.S. assets.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home

Gareth Porter
Gareth Porter

Cheney, Lieberman and Iran War Conspiracy

Posted August 16, 2007 | 11:59 AM (EST)

I was never one of those who believed the Bush administration was getting ready to attack Iran in 2006 or early 2007. But it is now clear that at least Vice President Dick Cheney is conspiring to push through a specific plan for war with Iran. And Senator Joe Lieberman is an active part of that conspiracy.

We have known for a long time that Cheney wants a major air attack on Iranian nuclear sites and other military and economic targets. But an August 9 story published by McClatchy newspapers reveals that, instead of waiting for a decision to go ahead with such a strategic attack against Iran, Cheney now hopes to get Bush to approve an attack on camps in Iran where Iraqi Shiite militiamen have allegedly been trained in recent years.

The McClatchy story says Cheney proposed such a strike within the administration "several weeks ago," citing "two U.S. officials who are involved in Iran policy." The official sources say Cheney "argued for military action if hard new evidence emerges of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-American forces in Iraq." An example of such "hard new evidence," according to one of the official sources of the report, would be "catching a truckload of fighters or weapons crossing into Iraq from Iran."

The story also indicates that the same officials say Condoleezza Rice "opposes this idea" and suggest that Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates agrees with her position.

The Cheney proposal for an airstrike against three bases in Iran can have only one purpose -- to provoke an Iranian retaliation that would then make it possible to unleash a full-fledged strategic air attack against Iran. The provocation strategy would be an obvious way around the political obstacles in the way of an unprovoked attack.

This is not the first time that such a provocation strategy has been attributed to the Bush administration. In February 2007, Hillary Mann, the National Security Council directo