Air Force Officers to Be Fired for Violating Nuclear Safety

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: October 19, 2007 WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 (AP) — The Air Force is planning to fire at least five officers for violations of nuclear security rules that allowed armed missiles to be mistakenly loaded on a B-52 bomber and flown over the central part of the United States, officials said Thursday.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, are to be briefed Friday on the disciplinary plan and other results of an Air Force investigation of the flight, which took place on Aug. 30.

The B-52 flew from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana with six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles mounted under one wing. A total of 36 hours passed before the missiles were properly secured, officials have said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/19mis...amp;oref=slogin

USA Should Continue To Promote Open Exchange Of Research To Maintain National Security
Washington DC (SPX) Oct 19, 2007 - To strengthen the essential role that science and technology play in maintaining national and economic security, the United States should ensure the open exchange of unclassified research despite the small risk that it could be misused for harm by terrorists or rogue nations, says a new report by the National Research Council. Because science and technology are truly global pursuits, U.S. univer ... more

Army recruiting, retention near the limit despite growth plans: general
Washington (AFP) Oct 18, 2007 - The US Army is reaching the limits of its ability to recruit and retain more troops even as it embarks on an ambitious program to increase the size of the force in three years, its personnel chief said Thursday. Lieutenant General Michael Rochelle, deputy chief of staff for personnel, said expanding the army to 547,000 troops by 2010 is key to easing mounting pressures on the force while bui ... more

Turkish, US defence ministers to meet Sunday
Ankara (AFP) Oct 18, 2007 - Turkish Defence Minister Vecdi Gonul and US Defence Secretary Robert Gates are to meet Sunday to discuss tensions between the two allies, Gonul was quoted as saying by Anatolia news agency. The meeting will take place in the sidelines of an international gathering in Kiev on Sunday. The talks will cover Turkey's threat to send troops to northern Iraq to strike at Kurdish rebels and a pen ... more

US heeding Russia's concerns on missile defence: Putin
Moscow (AFP) Oct 18, 2007 - The United States is beginning to take into account Russian concerns over the deployment of a US missile defence system in Europe, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday. "Our latest contacts with our American colleagues show that... they are looking for solutions to the problem to remove our concerns," Putin said during a televised question-and-answer session in the Kremlin. ... more

US says no missile defense review if Iran drops nuclear program
Washington (AFP) Oct 18, 2007 - The United States said Thursday it would not review plans for a missile defense system in Europe if Iran gave up its sensitive uranium enrichment program. Any review of the controversial plan would occur only if there was a change in the overall threat posed by Iran, including from its missiles, the State Department said. It was clarifying remarks by Assistant Secretary of State Daniel F ... more

Analysis: Caspian meet and energy hopes
Washington (UPI) Oct 18, 2007 - For an energy-starved world, the recently concluded summit in Tehran between the five Caspian littoral states is good news, as it brings the possibility of a final delineation of Caspian offshore waters closer. A final agreement between Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Iran on the division of Caspian waters and seabed would allow increased exploration and development, w ... more

Analysis: India seeks oil in Nigeria
Miami (UPI) Oct 18, 2007 - India is looking to Nigeria to meet its growing energy needs while increasing trade with the oil-rich nation, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said during his visit to the Nigerian capital. Singh reportedly told Nigerian lawmakers in Abuja India is seeking closer ties with Nigeria in order to boost his nation's "energy security" for years to come. India receives 11 percent ... more

Thursday, Oct. 18, 2007
Postcard: Saudi Arabia
By Scott MacLeod

Call it the anti-Guantánamo. Young Saudis are captured in Iraq waging jihad against the American infidels. But instead of being shipped off to a bleak detention camp in Cuba, they are dispatched to a cozy chalet an hour outside the Saudi capital of Riyadh. Technically it's a detention center, but no one is forced to wear an orange jumpsuit or a blindfold. And far from being condemned to solitary confinement, its occupants are free to roam the landscaped courtyard and play Ping-Pong, volleyball and video games.

Welcome to the Care Rehabilitation Center, part of a three-year-old experiment to reform malleable minds who have fallen under the sway of Osama bin Laden's radical brand of Islam. To get here, jihadis have to demonstrate during a prison interview a readiness to rethink their extremist views. (About 20% of the 1,875 holy warriors invited to participate have refused.) The program, developed by a team of Islamic scholars, psychiatrists and sociologists, tries to convince these men of their mistakes and make them productive members of Saudi society, which has been rocked by terrorism: al-Qaeda attacks have killed 144 people there over the past four years. By not treating the detainees as criminals, the center seeks to avoid reinforcing their radicalism and turning them into role models for more jihadis.

Although the perimeter is guarded by police, the facility feels like a country club or college campus. Detainees have lots of downtime and soda pop. They spend their days in vocational training, psychological counseling and classroom lectures, most of which are given by religious scholars from the Ministry of Islamic Affairs, including the center's director, Sheik Ahmed Hamid Jelan. He walks the detainees through religious texts on jihad--a theological minefield, considering that while the Saudi government forbids fighting in Iraq, it once recruited young Saudis like bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan. The basic difference, Jelan explains to his charges, is that fighting the Soviets served the interests of Saudi Arabia and the Muslim world, while struggling against the U.S. in Iraq does not. "We answer all the questions about al-Qaeda concepts by referring to the Koran and the message of Islam," says Jelan. "We have dialogue. They become convinced."

Among those on the road to reformation: Abdullah Sherif, 28, who went to Iraq in 2003 with four friends hoping to become martyrs resisting the U.S. invasion. At the rehab center, after feasting on lamb, rice, stuffed peppers and Pepsi, he explains how his fellow jihadis died in a U.S. air strike in Kurdistan early in the war. He was captured eight months later by U.S. troops in Mosul and turned over to Saudi authorities. "I had these ideas in my head," Sherif says of the teachings of bin Laden, whom he once regarded as a hero. "But he made a lot of mistakes, like targeting Saudi Arabia." The former jihadi now plans to take up Islamic studies and open a car-repair shop when he gets out of rehab.

Once Sherif is deemed fit for release, he will be sent home and, like the 700 or so others who have been discharged by the center, monitored indefinitely. Ex-detainees are given a monthly stipend--typically about $700--and sometimes a new car. Family members are enlisted to help watch over these men, who are strongly encouraged to start families of their own. Having children, the thinking goes, lessens the temptation to rejoin the jihad, which is why the program makes available upwards of $20,000 for an ex-detainee's wedding.

The Saudi government claims the program has been hugely successful, and security officials from other Arab countries have visited to see if the model might work for them. In the presence of guards, detainees say they want to resume normal lives, but perhaps a more telling sign is a game of Ping-Pong between a detainee and an American reporter. When the visitor makes a particularly impressive play, showing his powerful forehand, cheers from onlookers fill the evening air.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673270,00.html ://http://www.time.com/time/magazine/a...673270,00.html

October 19, 2007 Who Restarted the Cold War?
by Patrick J. Buchanan "Putin's Hostile Course," the lead editorial in the Washington Times of Oct. 18, began thus:

"Russian President Vladimir Putin's invitation to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to visit Moscow is just the latest sign that, more than 16 years after the collapse of Soviet communism, Moscow is gravitating toward Cold War behavior. The old Soviet obsession – fighting American imperialism – remains undiluted. ...

"(A)t virtually every turn, Mr. Putin and the Russian leadership appear to be doing their best in ways large and small to marginalize and embarrass the United States and undercut U.S. foreign policy interests."

The Times pointed to Putin's snub of Robert Gates and Condi Rice by having them cool their heels for 40 minutes before a meeting. Then came a press briefing where Putin implied Russia may renounce the Reagan-Gorbachev INF treaty, which removed all U.S. and Soviet medium-range missiles from Europe, and threatened to pull out of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, whereby Russia moved its tanks and troops far from the borders of Eastern Europe.

On and on the Times indictment went. Russia was blocking new sanctions on Iran. Russia was selling anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. Russia was selling weapons to Syria that found their way to Hezbollah and Hamas. Russia and Iran were talking up an OPEC-style natural gas cartel. All this, said the Times, calls to mind "Soviet-era behavior."

Missing from the prosecution's case, however, was the motive. Why has Putin's Russia turned hostile? Why is Putin mending fences with China, Iran and Syria? Why is Putin sending Bear bombers to the edge of American airspace? Why has Russia turned against America? For Putin's approval rating is three times that of George Bush. Who restarted the Cold War?

To answer that question, let us go back those 16 years.

What happened in 1991 and 1992?

Well, Russia let the Berlin Wall be torn down and its satellite states be voted or thrown out of power across Eastern Europe. Russia agreed to pull the Red Army all the way back inside its border. Russia agreed to let the Soviet Union dissolve into 15 nations. The Communist Party agreed to share power and let itself be voted out. Russia embraced freedom and American-style capitalism, and invited Americans in to show them how it was done.

Russia did not use its veto in the Security Council to block the U.S. war to drive Saddam Hussein, an ally, out of Kuwait. When 9-11 struck, Putin gave his blessing to U.S. troops using former republics as bases for the U.S. invasion.

What was Moscow's reward for its pro-America policy?

The United States began moving NATO into Eastern Europe and then into former Soviet republics. Six ex-Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, as are three ex-republics of the Soviet Union. NATO expansionists have not given up on bringing Ukraine, united to Russia for centuries, or Georgia, Stalin's birthplace, into NATO.

In 1999, the United States bombed Serbia, which has long looked to Mother Russia for protection, for 78 days, though the Serbs' sole crime was to fight to hold their cradle province of Kosovo, as President Lincoln fought to hold onto the American South. Now America is supporting the severing of Kosovo from Serbia and creation of a new Islamic state in the Balkans, over Moscow's protest.

While Moscow removed its military bases from Cuba and all over the Third World, we have sought permanent military bases in Russia's backyard of Central Asia.

We dissolved the Nixon-Brezhnev ABM treaty and announced we would put a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Under presidents Clinton and Bush, the United States financed a pipeline for Caspian Sea oil to transit Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Black Sea and Turkey, cutting Russia out of the action.

With the end of the Cold War, the KGB was abolished and the Comintern disappeared. But the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and other Cold War agencies, funded with tens of millions in tax-exempt and tax dollars, engineered the ouster of pro-Russian regimes in Serbia, Ukraine and Georgia, and sought the ouster of the regime in Minsk.

At the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, historic or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred.

We blew it.

We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our "indispensable-nation" arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles.

Who restarted the Cold War? Bush and the braying hegemonists he brought with him to power. Great empires and tiny minds go ill together.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Military Resistance Forced Shift on Iran Strike
by Gareth Porter The George W. Bush administration's shift from the military option of a massive strategic attack against Iran to a surgical strike against selected targets associated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), reported by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker earlier this month, appears to have been prompted not by new alarm at Iran's role in Iraq but by the explicit opposition of the nation's top military leaders to an unprovoked attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

The reorientation of the military threat was first signaled by passages on Iran in Bush's Jan. 10 speech and followed by only a few weeks a decisive rejection by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of a strategic attack on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Although scarcely mentioned in press reports of the speech, which was devoted almost entirely to announcing the troop "surge" in Iraq, Bush accused both Iran and Syria of "allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq." Bush also alleged that Iran was "providing material support for attacks on American troops."

Those passages were intended in part to put pressure on Iran, and were accompanied by an intensification of a campaign begun the previous month to seize Iranian officials inside Iraq. But according to Hillary Mann, who was director for Persian Gulf and Afghanistan Affairs on the National Security Council staff in 2003, they also provided a legal basis for a possible attack on Iran.

"I believe the president chose his words very carefully," says Mann, "and laid down a legal predicate that could be used to justify later military action against Iran."

Mann says her interpretation of the language is based on the claim by the White House of a right to attack another country in "anticipatory self-defense" based on Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. That had been the legal basis cited by then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice had in September 2002 in making the case for the invasion of Iraq.

The introduction of a new reason for striking Iran, which also implied a much more limited set of targets related to Iraq, followed a meeting between Bush and the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Dec. 13, 2006 in which the uniformed military leaders rejected a strike against Iran's nuclear program. Time magazine political columnist Joe Klein, reported last May that military and intelligence sources told him that Bush had asked the Joint Chiefs at the meeting about a possible strike against the Iranian nuclear program., and that they had unanimously opposed such an attack.

Mann says that she was also told by her own contacts in the Pentagon that the Joint Chiefs had expressed opposition to a strike against Iran.

The Joint Chiefs were soon joined in opposition to a strike on Iran by Admiral William Fallon, who was nominated to become CENTCOM commander in January. Mann says Pentagon contacts have also told her that Fallon made his opposition to war against Iran clear to the White House.

IPS reported last May that Fallon had indicated privately that he was determined to prevent an attack on Iran and even prepared to resign to do so. A source who met with Fallon at the time of his confirmation hearing quoted him as vowing that there would be "no war with Iran" while he was CENTCOM commander and as hinting very strongly that he would quit rather than go along with an attack.

Although he did not specifically refer to the Joint Chiefs, Fallon also suggested that other military leaders were opposing a strike against Iran, saying, "There are several of us who are trying to put the crazies back in the box," according to the same source.

Fallon's opposition to a strike against Iranian nuclear, military and economic targets would make it very difficult, if not impossible for the White House to carry out such an operation, according to military experts. As CENTCOM commander, Fallon has complete control over all military access to the region, says retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert on military strategy who has taught at the National War College.

Douglas McGregor, a retired Army Lt. Col. who was a tank commander in the 1991 Gulf War and has taught at the National Defense University, agrees. "I find it hard to imagine that anything can happen in the area without the involvement of the Central Command," says McGregor.

The possibility that Fallon might object to an unprovoked attack on Iran or even resign over the issue represents a significant deterrent to such an attack.

Former NSC adviser Mann believes the Iraq-focused strategy is now aimed at averting any resignation threat by Fallon or other military leaders by carrying out a very limited strike that would be presented as a response to a specific incident in Iraq in which the deaths of US soldiers could be attributed to Iranian policy. She says she doubts Fallon and other military leaders would "fall on their swords" over such a strike.

Gardiner agrees that Fallon is unlikely to refuse to carry out such a limited strike under those circumstances.

Mann believes the Bush-Cheney purpose in advancing the strategy is to provoke Iranian retaliation. "The concern I have is that it would be just enough so Iranians would retaliate against US allies," she says.

But the issue of what evidence of Iranian complicity would be adequate to justify such a strike evidently remains a matter of debate within the administration. A story published by McClatchy newspapers Aug. 9 reported that Vice President Dick Cheney had argued some weeks earlier for a strike against camps in Iran allegedly used to train Iraqi Shiite militiamen fighting US troops if "hard new evidence" could be obtained of Iran's complicity in supporting anti-US forces in Iraq.

But Cheney and his allies have been frustrated in the search for such evidence. Mann notes that British forces in southern Iraq patrolled the border very aggressively for six months last year to find evidence of Iranian involvement in supplying weapons to Iraqi guerrillas but found nothing.

After several months of trying to establish specific links between Iraqis suspected of trafficking in weapons to a specific Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard contact, the US command has not claimed a single case of such a link. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the US commander for southern Iraq, where most of the Shiite militias operate, admitted in a Jul. 6 briefing that his troops had not captured "anybody that we can tie to Iran."

Sen. Joe Lieberman, who is known to be closely allied with Cheney on Iran policy, has betrayed impatience with a policy that depends on obtaining proof of Iranian complicity in attacks. On Jun. 11 he called for "strike over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

Lieberman repeated that position on Jul. 2, but thus far it has not prevailed.

(Inter Press Service)

October 19, 2007 The Casualties of Iraq
by Conn Hallinan
Foreign Policy in Focus The great 19th-century Tory Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli once remarked there were three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. It is a dictum the Bush administration has taken to heart when it comes to totaling up the carnage in Iraq: If you don't like the numbers, just change them; and when in doubt, look 'em in the eye and lie.

For instance, according to the Department of Defense (DOD), the United States does not track civilian casualties. As former commander General Tommy Franks put it, "We don't do body counts."

But testimony in the recent trial of U.S. Army snipers from the First Battalion of the 501 Infantry regiment indicated the generals indeed do body counts. In a July hearing at Fort Liberty, Iraq, Sgt. Anthony G. Murphy said he and other snipers felt "an underlying tone" of disappointment from their commanders when they didn't rack up big body counts.

"It just kind of felt like, 'What are you guys doing wrong out there?'" he testified. When the snipers started setting traps to lure in unsuspecting Iraqis, the kill ratios went up and the commanders, he said, were pleased.

The choreography the Bush administration does around casualties is aimed at creating a dance of lies and disinformation to cover up one of the worst humanitarian crises to strike the Middle East since the Mongols sacked Baghdad.

That is not an overstatement.

A recent poll by the British agency Opinion Research Business (ORB) found that the war may have killed more than one million people, a toll that surpasses the 800,000 killed in the Rwandan genocide. The ORB used "excess mortality" as its measure, that is, deaths over and above mortality figures from the past.

The Grim Numbers

Trying to figure out the butcher bill in Iraq is an uphill task.

For instance, according to the London-based organization Iraq Body Count, by March of this year, civilian deaths stood at 65,160, although the organization noted that 2007 has seen "the worst violence against civilians in Iraq since the invasion." The conservative Brookings Institute's Iraq Index posts slightly higher figures, and the United Nations higher still.

The Iraq Interior Ministry is highly critical of the UN's conclusion that 34,000 Iraqis died in 2006, calling the figures "inaccurate" and "unbalanced," but refuses to release its own figures. And the only sum the Bush administration has ever come up with is when the president commented to the press in December 2005 that the number of Iraqis killed was "30,000, more or less."

The first serious statistical investigation of the war's impact was a survey by Johns Hopkins University published in the British medical magazine, The Lancet. According to the study, from the March 2003 invasion through September 2006, the number of deaths due to the war was 654,965. Over half of those were women and children. The Johns Hopkins study also used the "excess mortality" methodology, which measures not only deaths from war, but violent crime and disease. It found that 91.8% of the excess mortality was due to violence, 31% of that inflicted by coalition forces.

President Bush immediately dismissed the study's methodology as "pretty well discredited," and the media either ignored it or accepted the White House's characterization.

In fact, there is virtual unanimity among biostaticians and mortality experts that the methodology used in the Johns Hopkins study is accurate. Following up on an earlier version of the study, Liala Guterman, a senior reporter for the Chronicle of Higher Education, says she contacted 10 experts in the field about the Lancet article, and "not one of them took issue with the study's methods or conclusions." Indeed, she said, the experts found the conclusions "cautious."

According to John Zogby of Zogby International, one of the world's most respected polling services, "The sampling [in the Lancet survey] is solid, the methodology is as good as it gets." Ronald Waldman, a Columbia University epidemiologist, said the method was "tried and true," and British Defense Ministry science advisor, Sir Roy Anderson, said the survey was "close to the best practice."

Indeed, the Bush administration used exactly the same methodology to determine the number of deaths in Darfur, figures that were used to convince the U.S. Congress to label the current crisis in the Sudan "genocide."

U.S. Casualties

The administration's sleight of hand on deaths and casualties even extends to its own forces. There are, for instance, no hard figures on the number of private U.S. and British contractors wounded or killed, even though private contractors outnumber the number of coalition troops in Iraq.

And when casualty statistics come out in ways the DOD doesn't like, it just changes how they are counted.

On January 29, 2007, the Pentagon listed 47,657 "non-mortal" casualties in Iraq. One day later this number had fallen to 31,493 by the simple device of dropping any casualty that did not require "medical air transport." The DOD also doesn't include vehicle accidents, or soldiers who are taken ill, including those with mental problems.

Other Consequences

No one has systematically collected information on the number of Iraqis wounded by the war, although a ratio of two or three to one wounded to killed in excess of one million people – is considered a good rule-of-thumb figure.

Besides the deaths and injuries, the war had unleashed, according to the Financial Times, "The worst refugee crisis in the Middle East since the mass exodus of Palestinians that was part of the violent birth of the state of Israel in 1948." According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, 2.2 million Iraqis have fled their country, mostly to Jordan and Syria, and another 2 million have been turned into internal refugees. If one adds to that the ORB figures for deaths, it means at least 20% of Iraq's pre-war population of 26 million has been killed, wounded, exiled, or displaced.

The White House has simply ignored the refugee crisis.

In 2006, the United States budgeted $3 million for refugees, although according to Amman-based researcher Noah Merrill, none of the relief organizations, including the UN, has seen any of that money. And if they had, Merrill points out, it would come to a grand total of $3.50 per person. "Jordan is an expensive country, " he says, "and $3.50 will not help anyone – not even for a day."

Half of Iraq's population are children, nearly 20% of them under the age of five. Some 25% are malnourished and 10% suffer from acute malnutrition. According to a UNICEF study, 70% of Iraqi's children suffer from traumatic stress syndrome.

Food rationing, a system on which five million Iraqis rely to stay alive, is breaking down, and according to Patrick Cockburn of The Independent, two million can no longer be fed because of security concerns. Unemployment is at 68%. Once the most industrial country in the Arab world, Iraq is devolving into an oil-rich, agrarian backwater. Some 75% of the country's doctors and pharmacists have fled, bringing its medical system – at one time the best in the Arab world – to the point of collapse.

And finally, like a biblical plague, cholera is working itself down the country's river system, from the Kurdish north to Basra in the south. Over 7,000 cases have been confirmed in northern Iraq, according to the World Health Organization.

In 1258 the Mongol generals Hulagu and Guo Kan besieged and took the city of Baghdad. They murdered its inhabitants, burned its libraries, and ravished its lands. The Bush administration has done the same, but hidden it behind a smoke screen of lies and voodoo statistics.

For the average Iraqi, there is little difference between the Mongols and the United States. Both have laid waste to their country.

Reprinted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus.

10,000 Kurdish Protesters in Iraq Shout 'No to Turkey'

Syrians Disassembling Ruins at Site Bombed by Israel, Officials Say
By Robin Wright and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, October 19, 2007; A18


Syria has begun dismantling the remains of a site Israel bombed Sept. 6 in what may be an attempt to prevent the location from coming under international scrutiny, said U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the aftermath of the attack.

Based on overhead photography, the officials say the site in Syria's eastern desert near the Euphrates River had a "signature" or characteristics of a small but substantial nuclear reactor, one similar in structure to North Korea's facilities.

The dismantling of the damaged site, which appears to be still underway, could make it difficult for weapons inspectors to determine the precise nature of the facility and how Syria planned to use it. Syria, which possesses a small reactor used for scientific research, has denied seeking to expand its nuclear program. But U.S. officials knowledgeable about the Israeli raid have described the target as a nuclear facility being constructed with North Korean assistance.

The bombed facility is different from the one Syria displayed to journalists last week to back its allegations that Israel had bombed an essentially an empty building, said the officials, who insisted on anonymity because details of the Israeli attack are classified.

While U.S. officials express increasing confidence that the Syrian facility was nuclear-related, divisions persist within the government and among weapons experts over the significance of the threat. If the facility was a nuclear reactor, U.S. weapons experts said it would almost certainly have taken Syria several years to complete the structure, and much longer to produce significant quantities of plutonium for potential use in nuclear weapons. Nuclear reactors also are used to generate electricity.

"This isn't like a Road Runner cartoon where you call up Acme Reactors and they deliver a functioning reactor to your back yard. It takes years to build," said Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress. "This is an extremely demanding technology, and I don't think Syria has the technical, engineering or financial base to really support such a reactor."

While expressing concern over the prospect that Syria may have decided to launch a nuclear program in secret, some weapons experts question why neither Israel nor the United States made any effort before the secret attack -- or in the six weeks since -- to offer evidence to the International Atomic Energy Agency, a move that would trigger an inspection of Syria by the nuclear watchdog.

"The reason we have an IAEA and a safeguard system is that, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, it can be presented by a neutral body to the international community so that a collective response can be pursued," said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. "It seems to me highly risky and premature for another country to bomb such a facility."

But John R. Bolton, the Bush administration's former ambassador to the United Nations, said Syria's secrecy -- including its apparent move to clean up the site after the bombing -- suggests that Damascus is pursuing a strategy similar to that of Iran, which the Bush administration believes is pursuing a nuclear weapons capability. Bolton said Iran once attempted to conceal nuclear activity from IAEA inspectors by bulldozing nuclear-related buildings and even digging up nearby topsoil to remove all traces of nuclear material.

"The common practice for people with legitimate civilian nuclear power programs is to be transparent, because they have nothing to hide," Bolton said.

The IAEA has not been provided any evidence about the Syrian facility and has been unable to obtain any reliable details about the Sept. 6 strike, said a European diplomat familiar with the agency's internal discussions.

Syria is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has cooperated with IAEA inspections of the small, 27-kilowatt research facility it has run for decades, IAEA sources said.

Some experts speculate that Israeli and U.S. officials may have calculated that reporting their intelligence to the IAEA would have produced only limited repercussions, the equivalent of a diplomatic slap on the wrist to Syria, which might have decided to build the facility anyway.

Foreign sources familiar with the attack say Israel wanted to send a strong message to Iran about the price of developing a secret nuclear program. Israel is increasingly alarmed about Iran's intentions and frustrated that the international community has not persuaded Tehran to suspend its uranium enrichment program.

If North Korea is shown to have helped with the construction of a Syrian reactor, it would suggest that the Pyongyang government has been secretly hawking its nuclear know-how to the Syrians for years, several experts said. But even if North Korea's involvement is proved, it is unlikely that the Bush administration would halt negotiations with Pyongyang over dismantling its nuclear program, the experts said.

"The Bush administration has clearly decided not to let this incident deter them from trying to limit North Korea's nuclear activity," said Gary Samore, a National Security Council member under President Bill Clinton who is now with the Council on Foreign Relations.

Armenian Issue Presents a Dilemma for U.S. Jews Armenian Issue Presents a Dilemma for U.S. Jews

By NEELA BANERJEE
Published: October 19, 2007

LEXINGTON, Mass., Oct. 17 — On the docket for the weekly selectmen's meeting here on Monday were the location of park benches, a liquor license for Vinny T's restaurant and, not for the first time, the killing of 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey 90 years ago.

Members of No Place for Hate in Lexington, Mass., on Monday, when the town cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League, the program's sponsor, over the killing of Armenians in Turkey.
Enlarge This Image
Jodi Hilton for The New York Times

Raised in Turkey, Hovannes Minasian, center, was among many Armenians attending the town meeting in Lexington.

The debate in this affluent Boston suburb, home to many Jews and Armenians, centered on a local program to increase awareness of bias. The issue was not the program itself, but its sponsor, the Anti-Defamation League, the Jewish advocacy group, which has taken a stand against a proposed Congressional resolution condemning the Armenians' deaths as genocide.

"If you deny one genocide," said Dr. Jack Nusan Porter, a child of Holocaust survivors and a genocide studies scholar who attended the meeting, "you deny all genocides."

The Congressional resolution has created an international furor and deeply offended the Turkish government, both a key ally of Israel's and a crucial logistics player for the American presence in Iraq. But as events in Boston suburbs in recent months have shown, it has also put American Jews in an anguished dilemma as they try to reconcile their support of Israel with their commitment to fighting genocide. In the end, the Board of Selectmen here voted unanimously to cut ties with the Anti-Defamation League, as did three other Boston suburbs this week. Three other towns had already done so, with more considering the option.

For many Jews, the issue has involved much soul-searching.

"It's hard to talk about it because there are two things or more in conflict here," said Rabbi David Lerner of Temple Emunah in Lexington. "Israel is in a very vulnerable position in the world, and Turkey is its only friend in the Middle East. Genocide is a burning issue for us, now and in the past. It's something of who we are."

The House resolution condemning the killings of Armenians as genocide is nonbinding and largely symbolic, but Turkey's reaction has been swift and furious. It has recalled its ambassador from Washington and threatened to withdraw critical logistical support for the Iraq war.

For Patrick Mehr, a Lexington resident who spoke at the meeting Monday, the overriding priority is condemning the killings, regardless of Turkey's response.

The next day at his home, Mr. Mehr, the son of a Holocaust survivor, voiced the anger many Jews and Armenians feel toward Abraham H. Foxman, the Anti-Defamation League's national director. "Abe Foxman, like George W. Bush, is mumbling that it may not have been genocide," Mr. Mehr said. "Foxman talks about commissions of scholars who should study this. That, to me, rang exactly like Ahmadinejad saying, 'Let's have a committee to study the Holocaust.' Give me a break."

Jewish leaders have long sought to focus attention on the killings of Armenians, starting with the American ambassador to Turkey in 1915, Henry Morgenthau Sr., who wrote in a cable that the Turkish violence against Armenians was "an effort to exterminate the race." Several members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee who voted for the resolution, including a key sponsor, Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, are Jewish.

Several major Jewish groups, like the American Jewish Committee, oppose the resolution, arguing that it is not the best way to persuade the Turks to examine their past.

Mr. Foxman argues that Turkey is the only friend Israel has in the Muslim world, and it has been hospitable to Jews since giving them refuge after they were driven from Europe during the Inquisition.

"Israel's relationship with Turkey is the second most important, after its relationship with the United States," Mr. Foxman said. "All this in a world that isolates Israel, and all this can't simply be waved away."

Widespread attention to the Anti-Defamation League's opposition to the resolution came in July, when David Boyajian, an Armenian-American resident of Newton, Mass., wrote to a local newspaper saying that the town's anti-bigotry program, known as No Place for Hate, was tarnished because of its sponsorship by the Anti-Defamation League.

He wrote that the A.D.L. "has made the Holocaust and its denial key pieces" of the program, "while at the same time hypocritically working with Turkey to oppose recognition of the Armenian genocide of 1915-23."

The news shocked most local Jews, many of whom have long been active in campaigns against killings in Bosnia, Rwanda and, most recently, Sudan. By mid-August, Watertown, Mass., had decided to end its affiliation with the Anti-Defamation League's program. On Aug. 17, the board of the New England Anti-Defamation League passed a resolution calling for the national organization to recognize the Armenian genocide. Its regional director, Andrew Tarsy, was fired by the national group the next day.

The clampdown on the local chapter infuriated many Jews in the Boston area. Two members of the New England board resigned, although one has since returned, and many local leaders criticized Mr. Foxman. Newton, whose population is heavily Jewish, voted to sever ties with the Anti-Defamation League unless it changed its position on the resolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/us/19gen....html?ref=world

RUDE oil prices struck a record $US90 a barrel in after-hours trading in New York overnight, amid increased tensions between Turkey's government and Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq. Traders said a weak US dollar and supply jitters had also stoked the price surge.

The price gains came after New York's main oil futures contract, light sweet crude for delivery in November, had jumped $US2.07 to a record close of $US89.47 a barrel.

London prices also pushed higher in after-hours trading, as Brent North Sea crude for December delivery soared to $US84.88 after the contract had earlier settled $US1.47 higher at $US84.60.

Oil prices have pushed higher this week amid geopolitical angst related to the Turkey-Iraq border and a weakening dollar, which makes dollar-priced commodities such as oil cheaper for buyers with stronger currencies and therefore lifts crude demand.

The euro earlier hit a record high of $US1.4310 overnight.

"The issue seems no longer to be whether oil will reach 100 dollars per barrel, but when,'' said Barclays Capital analyst Kevin Norrish.

Turkey said overnight it would pursue diplomacy to defuse a crisis over Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq as Baghdad made fresh appeals to dissuade its neighbour from military action.

The Turkish parliament yesterday approved a motion authorising military strikes for a year against the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which is accused of using bases in northern Iraq for attacks on targets across the border in Turkey.

Oil prices streaked higher amid fears of a potential conflict.

"Once the furore has settled down, the oil market as a whole can get on the job of working out whether supply and demand dynamics mean that long-term prices should have two or three digits,'' Mr Norrish said.

Alaron Trading analyst Phil Flynn predicted prices could go even higher.

"The next target should be roughly four dollars above that level, somewhere around $US93 a barrel,'' he said.

"It's hard to pick a top in a raging bull market but it's possible that we are close. Volatility will be huge,'' he said.

Analysts said traders were closely monitoring tensions between Turkey and Iraq.

Traders are also concerned about tight global energy supplies, particularly ahead of the northern hemisphere winter when demand for heating fuel peaks.

A weekly US snapshot on energy stockpiles on Wednesday did little to allay such worries, traders said.

Data released in recent weeks showed speculative buying of oil futures was on the rise. Buying by foreign investors sends prices up, which draws more speculators into the market.

"It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy,'' said Brad Samples, commodities analyst at Summit Energy Services in Kentucky.

Despite the recent gains, the price of oil is still below inflation-adjusted highs hit in early 1980.

Depending on the adjustment, a $US38 barrel of oil in 1980 would be worth $US96-$US101 or more today, the Associated Press said.

Law waived to allow Kuwaiti firm to build U.S. embassy in Iraq
By Jonathan S. Landay and Warren P. Strobel, McClatchy NewspapersThu Oct 18, 7:53 PM ET

WASHINGTON — Even as bombings and insurgent attacks turned Baghdad into the epicenter of Iraq's civil war, the State Department pushed hard to have a new, highly secure U.S. Embassy built there in just two years, documents reviewed by McClatchy Newspapers show.

When it solicited bids in 2005, the office that oversees embassy construction received only one proposal for the project, from J.A. Jones International of Charlotte, N.C. , according to the documents.

J.A. Jones' bid was rejected because it failed to meet the original completion deadline of June 2007 , was more than twice the estimated cost and would have required a so-called "cost plus" contract, the documents show.

The State Department's Bureau of Overseas Building Operations (OBO) then waived a law that requires open and competitive bidding. It awarded a sole-source contract for the unclassified portions of the new embassy complex to a Kuwait -based firm, First Kuwaiti General Trading & Contracting Co.

The waiver described First Kuwaiti as "capable of completing the design and construction in accordance with the required schedule, budget and performance parameters."

Instead, the embassy construction has missed several deadlines; numerous problems have emerged, including faulty firefighting and electrical systems; and the project is the subject of a criminal investigation.

Patrick Kennedy , the State Department's director of management policy, said this week that First Kuwaiti was chosen because it offered a fixed-price contract, in which cost overruns aren't passed on to the government.

"The only company in the end that would offer us a firm fixed-price (contract) was First Kuwaiti. The decision was made, and I believe rightly so, that firm fixed-price is the best protection for the American taxpayer," Kennedy said. "If an American company had bid a firm fixed-price, they might or they might not have won."

But the documents also make clear that OBO and its director, retired Army Maj. Gen. Charles Williams , who signed the waiver that allowed First Kuwaiti to win the contract, were in a hurry to get the project underway.

"Your assistance in issuing these awards immediately will be most appreciated and help us to maintain our aggressive completion schedule," said a July 29, 2005 , memo to Cathy Reed of the Iraq Project Construction Office from OBO's James L. Golden .

(e-mail: jlanday(at)mcclatchydc.com; wstrobel(at)mcclatchydc.com)

Report: Iraq Self-Reliance Years Away
By PAULINE JELINEK, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, October 18, 2007

(10-18) 08:29 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

Teaching local officials in Iraq to govern themselves and provide their citizens with basic services will take "years of steady engagement." It also will rely heavily on the U.S. government's ability to recruit skilled civilians, investigators told a House panel Thursday.

"Stability operations is not a game for pick up teams," said Robert Perito, a security expert at the United States Institute of Peace in Washington.

The United States has dispatched various provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) in Iraq and Afghanistan to teach, coach and mentor Iraqis in towns and provinces. Staffed mostly by civilian officials, with the military providing security, the teams show promise but with an effectiveness that is difficult to judge because the needs vary greatly from province to province.

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction concluded in a new report Thursday that the teams are making "incremental progress" but require "years of steady engagement."

Stuart W. Bowen Jr., head of the IG reconstruction office, said lessons learned from the teams point to a bigger need to coordinate relief efforts among the federal agencies.

"If the story of Iraq reconstruction tells anything, teaches any lesson, it is that the U.S. government was not well structured and was not well poised in 2003 to engage in the kind of post-conflict relief and reconstruction operations we have faced," Bowen said.

Bowen and Perito testified before the House Armed Services' oversight and investigations subcommittee. Members of the panel said they convened the hearing to see if more can be done to gauge the effectiveness of the teams.

"Measuring the PRTs, it would seem to me, is an art, not a science," said Rep. Todd Akin of Missouri, the top Republican on the panel. Knowing if the reconstruction teams are accomplished "is unclear as these countries will be in a perpetual state of improving governance and increasing economic development," he added.

There are more than two dozen of the teams operating in Iraq and the U.S. has provided $1.9 billion to support it as of August.

"In many locations, the PRT program in Iraq is making incremental progress in developing the nation's provincial and local government capacity to effectively govern and manage its own reconstruction, despite" continuing violence and strife, the report said. "However, Iraq's complex and overlapping sectarian, political and ethnic conflicts, as well as the difficult security situation continue to hinder progress in promoting economic development, the rule of law and political reconciliation," it said.

"Despite the best efforts of PRT civilian and military officials who are working under dangerous and austere conditions to accelerate the Iraqi transition to self-reliance, resolving these problems will likely be a slow process," Bowen said in the report.

"It will require years of steady engagement and will depend heavily on the security environment and political settlements at the national level."

The report also said that "numerous PRT officials identified rule of law as the most problematic" area. It noted that in many places there is little cooperation between police, courts, and correction facilities and that judicial orders are routinely ignored.

It also said there has been little progress toward political reconciliation.

The PRT program itself has been plagued by problems. Previous reports have found it was difficult to find people with the correct skills to do the work — particularly civilians. There also has been a shortage of Arabic speakers and understanding of Iraq's culture and history as well as a lack of organization within the U.S. government to carry out the program, according to those past reports.

___

On the Net:

Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction

www.sigir.mil

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n.../w070119D40.DTL

Bhutto bombing kicks off war on US plan
By Syed Saleem Shahzad

The first shot has already been fired in the battle that Islamists have vowed to wage against the Washington-inspired and brokered attempt at regime change in Pakistan. It came in the form of twin bomb blasts aimed at Benazir Bhutto, the lynchpin in US machinations, within hours of her arrival in Karachi after years in exile.

The bombs narrowly missed Bhutto but killed up to 150 and injured hundreds of the rapturous supporters who thronged the Karachi streets to greet her. The windshield of her vehicle was
shattered and members of her entourage on the roof of the vehicle were injured. A car that was part of her convoy was destroyed.

The attack was hardly a surprise. Militants see Bhutto's return to Pakistani politics as a Western-backed coup against Islamists in Pakistan, akin to the arrival in the Afghan capital, Kabul, of the US-backed Northern Alliance in 2001. Militant leader Baitullah Mehsud had instructed pro-al-Qaeda cells in Karachi to kill her for three major offenses against the Islamists, which he listed as:

- She is the only opposition politician who supported the military attack earlier this year on Islamabad's Lal Masjid (Red Mosque), a hotbed of Islamist radicalism, and she coninues to condemn the Lal Masjid ideologues; - She has stated that she would allow incursions by US forces into Pakistan in pursuit of Osama bin Laden; - She has stated that she would allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to question Dr A Q Khan, the former leading nuclear scientist accused of passing Pakistani nuclear technology to anti-Western countries.

The Western powers were meanwhile cementing their plan for the future of Pakistan and the region. On Thursday, the same day as the bomb attack, Britain's Lord Malloch-Brown, a minister of state at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, arrived in Pakistan to discuss a future pro-Western government in Islamabad. The day before, the British Deputy High Commissioner in Karachi, Hamish Daniel, called on Sindh Governor Ishratul Ebad to ensure that Bhutto's homecoming was accorded full protocol.

Bhutto's return to Pakistan is part of a complex arrangement brokered by Washington and its allies to ensure that a pro-Western government gains power after parliamentary elections in about three months' time. The plan was put in train earlier this month with the promulgation of a National Reconciliation Ordinance, under strong US pressure, by Pakistan's current leader, General Pervez Musharraf. Under the ordinance, all charges against current and former lawmakers who have been accused of corruption (with Bhutto, a twice former prime minister, prominent among them), were dropped. This paved the way for Musharraf's reelection as president and a political settlement with Bhutto which, after Musharraf's giving up his post as chief of the military, would result in a civilian-based, pro-Western consensus government - or so Washington hopes. (See From Washington to war in Waziristan, ATol, Oct 11, 2007)

This is something Pakistan's Islamists are determined to prevent, and sources say that Thursday's bombing was just the first of more such attacks aimed at Western allies in the cities of Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi.

The attack on Bhutto was very well planned and its style was identical to bombings in Iraq. No one has claimed responsibility. The list of suspects is long but Bhutto herself is pointing a finger at Islamists elements within Pakistan's Inter Service Intelligence agency.

I walked past the site of blasts on Karsaz Road five minutes before the explosion. The hour of the attack - just before midnight - was carefully chosen. The crowd of Bhutto supporters had dwindled to not more than 20,000 people, compared to the 100,000-200,000 people who attended a welcoming rally in the afternoon. This allowed the attackers to get close to Bhutto (it is not yet known whether this was a suicide bombing).

Security personnel of Bhutto's Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) were tired after a long day and I saw them resting at the roadside. They were slow to react to the initial small bomb, and so were trapped when the second, powerful, bomb detonated a few minutes later. As is common in Iraq, the first small bomb - hardly big enough to injure anybody - attracted curious onlookers who became the victims of the second bomb.

Coincidentally, Bhutto herself was tired at this time and 10 minutes before had left the roof of her truck (where she was protected by a bullet-proof shield) and had retired inside the vehicle. Only a few party leaders were on the roof, and some were injured by the blast.

With friends like this ...
This is the same Benazir Bhutto who only few years ago was banned from lecturing at European institutions because of her links to corruption scandals. But times have changed, and Bhutto once again has won Western favor.

The deal between Bhutto and Musharraf was so abrupt and unexpected that even Bhutto's PPP leaders were unable to defend it, especially as just a few weeks earlier they had been agitating against Musharraf over his suspension of the chief of the judiciary. Government ministers too were take by surprise, and when Asia Times Online asked Foreign Minister Khurshid Mehmood Kusuri about the deal, he admitted that it had been made under American pressure.

Although the PPP has released expensive advertising for Bhutto's homecoming, feelings against her are running high in some quarters. Anti-Bhutto media have published a list of her, her husband's, and her children's declared assets: they amount to US$1.5 billion, including all Swiss accounts that are frozen because of corruption charges.

Western governments have long shown an affinity for shady characters in their attempts to organize the globe to their liking, though the strategy has seldom paid off in the long term. Thursday's bombings point to enormous problems ahead if the West is to have its way in Pakistan.

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

Was Israel behind the July explosion at the Syrian military base outside Aleppo?

By Olivier Guitta


The September 6 Israeli attack on what was most likely a Syrian nuclear site, was confirmed yesterday by a top Syrian official. Even though today, Syria is vehemently denying the following account: according to Fox News, “it [Israel] had taken action against nuclear facilities, including the 6 July attack in Syria," Syrian representative Bassam Darwish is quoted in the document as saying.
Still according to Fox News, diplomats familiar with the document cannot explain why July 6 was invoked, instead of Sept. 6, the date both countries say an incident occurred. A State Department source told Fox News the best explanation is that Darwish misspoke.


But it might be possible that Darwish mixed the July and September dates because of the explosion that occurred in a Syrian military base outside Aleppo on July 26.
Jane’s Defense Weekly reported, in its September 26 issue, citing Syrian defense sources, as saying the explosion took place during a test to fit a "Scud C" missile with a mustard-gas warhead. It quoted the sources as saying the explosion occurred when fuel caught fire in the missile production laboratory.
"The blast dispersed chemical agents (including VX and Sarin nerve agents and mustard blister agent) across the storage facility and outside," the publication quoted the sources as saying. The magazine said that, in addition to the 15 Syrian troops, "dozens" of Iranian weapons engineers were killed.

But there might be another explanation for this explosion.

In fact, The Croissant ran a story, from the Kuwaiti Al Seyassah of September 26, 2007, with a cautious disclaimer stating that the following story was to be handled carefully.
Al Seyassah quoted a Shiite Lebanese ulema [religious cleric] as saying that tens of Iranian experts and engineers died as a result of the July 26 explosion. He said that Iranians were supervising a program of chemical weapons manufacturing. And he added that the Israelis were behind this attack but he did not explain how they succeeded.

What is sure is that Israel must be very happy that a chemical weapons facility in Syria had been badly damaged…


October 19, 2007 12:20 AM Print


TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://counterterrorismblog.org/mt/pings.cgi/4494

Troops in Europe, Mideast speak out on Sanchez’s criticisms
By Steve Mraz, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Troops in Europe and Iraq sounded off Monday on retired Army Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez’s recent blunt comments criticizing the handling of the Iraq war and the media’s portrayal of it.

Some troops took strong issue with Sanchez’s comments.

“Does [Sanchez] sleep better at night knowing because he’s no longer a sworn soldier he can just vent, with the possibility that troops here and all over the world can pay for it?” Sgt. Brandon Culpepper, serving in Taji, Iraq, wrote in a letter to Stars and Stripes. “If he was able to bite his tongue during his career, why doesn’t he do the rest of us still serving in Iraq a huge favor: bite harder!”

Others were in agreement with Sanchez that there is no end in sight in Iraq.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/linkframe.php?linkid=44052

Neo-Cons Share Uncertainty About Bush on Iran
October 18th, 2007 While Norman Podhoretz seems pretty confident that George W. Bush will indeed attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before the end of his term, other neo-cons, admittedly with less direct access to the president or to Podhoretz’ son-in-law, Elliott Abrams, who directs Middle East policy in the National Security Council, appear much less so. (Speaking of Podhoretz and his family, congratulations are due to John Podhoretz, who has just been named editor of ‘Commentary,’ the same post his dad held from 1960 to 1995. It just shows again that neo-conservatism seems to run in the family.) Read the rest of this entry »

Neo-Cons Share Uncertainty About Bush on Iran

While Norman Podhoretz seems pretty confident that George W. Bush will indeed attack Iran’s nuclear facilities before the end of his term, other neo-cons, admittedly with less direct access to the president or to Podhoretz’ son-in-law, Elliott Abrams, who directs Middle East policy in the National Security Council, appear much less so. (Speaking of Podhoretz and his family, congratulations are due to John Podhoretz, who has just been named editor of ‘Commentary,’ the same post his dad held from 1960 to 1995. It just shows again that neo-conservatism seems to run in the family.)

The latest agonizing display of uncertainty appears in an article entitled “Dangerous Obtuseness” by Danielle Pletka, the Australian-born former Jesse Helms aide and currently vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at American Enterprise Institute (AEI). As confusing as as the article — as has been Pletka’s and AEI’s position on unilateral sanctions against Iran — it certainly suggests that the she and other hard-line hawks among the neo-cons by no means think an attack is a done deal.

Particularly notable is her dismissal as “ridiculous” the notion that any military strike should be limited to cross-border raids on infrastructure related to alleged Iranian support for Shia militias in Iraq, as suggested recently by Seymour Hersh’s latest in The New Yorker. If there is an attack, she argues, it should be a big one:

“Recently, speculation has centered around an American strike on Iranian terrorist training camps, with the US taking a pass on the nuclear program. On the face of it, this is ridiculous. The Clinton administration proved the efficacy of the symbolic cruise missile attack in its bombing of a bin Laden camp in Afghanistan. A hole in the ground is no more likely to deter the Iranians than it did al-Qaeda. Worse yet, it will likely trigger a wave of terrorist response from the Iranians–a high price to pay for little reward.

“More serious studies suggest a variety of key targets, including known nuclear installations, missile and air defense sites, Revolutionary Guard operations centers, intelligence ministries, etc. Strikes across a broad spectrum of Iran’s terrorist and WMD infrastructure would have a huge impact, to be sure, but would raise a host of difficult questions as well. Would a military assault decapitate the regime? Would the Iranian people rise up in the rubble and take out the mullahs? There’s no substantial reason to believe so. Most importantly, would such strikes end Tehran’s WMD and terror programs?”

Pletka published her piece on bitterlemons, the always-interesting Middle East site put out by Yossi Alpher, the former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies who also served as a top adviser to Israeli Defense Minister, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak. He has a fascinating analysis in the current issue of the indispensable Forward in which he argues that “stopping Iran” must be ‘’the highest priority goal for [U.S. policy in] Iraq” and that Gen. Petraeus’ current counter-insurgency strategy, as well as the Senate’s support for Sen. Biden’s notion of federalizing Iraq are inconsistent with that objective. In the Realpolitik logic that has generally dominated Israeli government foreign-policy thinking, he calls on Washington to abandon democracy and the al-Maliki government in Iraq in favor of a new regime that puts a premium on order — call it a benevolent Baathism [my words] that can Iran stop the westward spread of Tehran’s influence. “All other strategic requirements — even the elimination of Al Qaeda or other Sunni terrorist bases — pale in comparison to the damage Iran’s radical Shi’ite regime could do the region if Tehran establishes a hegemonic presence throughout most of Iraq…”

While Alpher is no neo-conservative, I think neo-conservatives, who, with a tiny number of exceptions, never really believed all that “democracy” rhetoric they’ve been spouting for the last few years but used it to both enhance their influence with Bush and more effectively rally public opinion behind the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation, are now embracing, at varying speeds, a similar analysis, albeit it not so explicitly. For them, Iran is now the main target, and, if that means a resurrection of the Baathists and bolstering Islamists previously allied to al Qaeda in Iraq, so be it.

http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=74

Congress orders probe of TB case
By Sara A. Carter and Audrey Hudson THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Capitol Hill lawmakers yesterday called for an investigation into why federal officials knowingly allowed a Mexican national infected with a highly contagious form of tuberculosis to repeatedly board planes and cross U.S. borders.

Website of the Day
Eve Ensler: "A Filibuster Would Stop This War"

[b]Rice lowers expectations ahead of peace conference [/b]

[b]Israeli Defense Minister Barak’s talks in Washington focus on upgrade of Israel’s anti-missile capabilities against Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Palestinians[/b]

[b]Israel PM upbeat after Iran talks in Russia[/b]

[b]On Palestinian TV, All of Israel to be Replaced by 'Palestine'[/b]

[b]Bush keeps mum about Israel/Syria strike[/b]

[b]Syria denies it confirmed target of IAF strike was a nuclear facility[/b]

[b]UN blames interpreter's error for report Syria has nuclear facility [/b]

[b]Likud official infers Temple Mount not Jewish holy place [/b]

[b]God is speaking loudly to the Jews, but once again they are not listening: God gave Israel stewardship over the Temple Mount[/b]

[b]Olmert has dared to 'offer up Temple Mount'[/b]

[b]Israeli MKs call for undivided Jerusalem[/b]

[b]Rise in settlers' violence against Palestinians in Hebron [/b]

[b]Democrat Pollster: 1 in 4 GOP Women Will Support Hillary Clinton[/b]

[b]Senator Brownback to abandon Republican presidential bid[/b]

[b]The Early Word: Dubious Campaign Donations[/b]

[b]US lawmakers apologises for torturing Canadian: Also called on the Bush administration to apologise to Maher Arar, a Syrian-born software engineer still barred from entering the United States even though the Canadian government has cleared him of any links to terrorist groups[/b]

[b]Packaging 9/11, Terror and the War in Iraq: Many voters still believe the Bush lie[/b]

[b]Most fake bombs missed by airport screeners: 75% not detected at LAX; 60% at O'Hare [/b]

Headline News Thursday, October 18, 2007 by Staff Writer
Israeli news evokes 'Gog and Magog' scenario
Two of Israel's three major television news programs broadcast special reports Wednesday evening dealing with US President George W. Bush's warning that a nuclear Iran could lead to World War III.

Earlier in the day, Bush reminded a White House press conference that "we have a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel, so I've told people that if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."

Israel's Channel 2 and Channel 10 evening newscasts ran with the president's statement, presenting viewers with large world maps showing the possible alignment of nations in a future world war.

On one side would be Israel, the US, Britain, France and Germany. They would be opposed by Russia, Iran, Syria, China and North Korea.

Israel National News noted that the scenario was presented in such a way that evoked the biblically prophesied war of "Gog and Magog," a global end-times conflict spelled out in the book of Ezekiel (chapters 38-39).

[b]DVD[/b]

[b]Israel Warns World War III May be Biblical War of Gog and Magog -- Israeli newscasts featured Gog & Magog maps of the likely alignment of nations in that potential conflict[/b]

[b][b]Iran brushes off Bush 'World War III' warning[/b][/b]

<h1 align="center">The Mitt Romney Deception </h1>
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_mu...s_fail_in_s.htm

October 19, 2007

Pakistani Terrorists Fail To Shatter Hope Of Masses

By Muhammad Khurshid

Again the mighty rulers of world have failed in providing security to the one of the most popular leaders of Pakistan. There will be no denying the fact that terrorists have registered another victory. But now one thing has become clear-- that officials within the administration have been supporting terrorism.

Chairperson of Pakistan People's Party Benazir Bhutto is the last hope of the poor masses and all steps must be taken for keeping this hope alive. President Bush should be compelled to anwser as why his ally failed in provision of security to the political leader. Most of the tribesmen think if the rulers cannot provide security to the masses then they should leave the corridor of power.

Reports said that at least 132 people were killed and hundreds injured late on Thursday night as suspected suicide bombers targeted former prime minister Benazir Bhutto on her return from eight years in self-imposed exile.
Two explosions went off a minute apart shortly after midnight near Karsaz close to the vehicle Ms Bhutto was travelling in, at the head of a procession of hundreds of thousands of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) supporters who had flooded the streets of Karachi to welcome the return of their leader.

The attack bore the hallmarks of Al Qaeda and resembled assassination attempts by militants linked to the terrorist network on President General Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz in recent years. Intelligence reports also warned of threats of suicide attacks against Ms Bhutto by militants linked to Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Baitullah Mehsud, the Sindh home secretary said on Wednesday.

A leading newspaper discussed the Bhutto return to Pakistan in a comment writtern earlier. It stated that the return of Benazir Bhutto is bound to change the political scene in the coming days. Already, her review of the state of law and order in the course of her press conference has refocused public attention on the trouble in Waziristan, something which the opposition believes in “denying” and blaming on President General Pervez Musharraf’s “enslavement to America”. Strangely, the PMLQ leadership, loath to damage its conservative vote bank, was also not very assertive on the topic and often articulated its opposition to the United States to confirm its credentials.

The PPP’s robust welcome to Ms Bhutto confirms our estimate that her vote bank is intact. People interviewed on the roads insisted that they would follow whatever she decides on the matter of opposing President Musharraf or working with him. The pro-BB upsurge all over Pakistan, but particularly in Sindhi, stems from the collective memory of the founder of the party, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, which has compelled Ms Bhutto to raise the slogan of Benazir ayai gi rozgar dilai gi (Benazir will come and give employment) and bring back in currency the old PPP slogan of roti-kapra-makan (bread-clothes-house).

Whether or not the economics behind the slogan is tenable in our day, one thing is certain: she will give the lead and her supporters will follow. The code of conduct she issued for the reception at Karachi indicated that she wants to be non-confrontational at the outset. This is understandable because the political map before her is not set in black and white. There is an increasingly hostile party in power and there is also a president armed with Article 58-2( who needs political support that the PMLQ cannot give whole-heartedly because of its rightwing vote-bank. The “clash”, if any, will have to come later, perhaps much later, when she is in occupation of the office of the prime minister and doesn’t want to be fired by the president.

Ms Bhutto’s comment on the Supreme Court, and her reference to the provincial bias in its past and present adjudications, has been interpreted by the lawyers’ community as intimidation of the judiciary. But let’s face it. The lawyers, and many enthusiastic writers trying to break new ground in their wayward musings on the judicial institution, have to finally decide what kind of doctrine they wish to finally embrace. Before her return, the doctrine was that the Supreme Court could not ignore the people and their collective wisdom. The lawyers challenging the government openly asserted that any verdict against them would not be accepted. It was, according to them, no longer right that the Court should decide on the basis of law.

But with the arrival of Ms Bhutto, the “voice of the people” is bound to become more diversified, and if the Supreme Court has to decide on the basis of what the people want, as the lawyers insist, then it will have to pay heed to this diversification too. Although the universal principle that the judge always decide on the basis of law cannot be shaken by political upheaval, a new vista may open up before the apex court judges. Instead of having to heed the lawyers’ call for “street justice”, they will have the option to point to an alternative opinion and go back to the wisdom of deciding on points of law rather than on the basis of agitation. There are signs that the “tilt”, if any, will be corrected perhaps because of the righting of the political balance in society.

Significantly, the Woman’s Action Forum (WAF) has called on the Supreme Court to review its suo motu decision to return Lal Masjid to its former terrorist owners and revive the Jamia Hafsa seminary. The Court may have followed its own wisdom, but there is no doubt that the opposition and the media had performed an “opinion” somersault on the issue after Lal Masjid was challenged by the government. That imbalance will now have to go simply because a party representing the bipartisan political system in Pakistan has decided to call a spade a spade.

Pakistan has hurt itself through its nationalism in the past; and it may hurt itself again through its anti-Americanism. In their origin both passions have the same flawed source and can hardly be told apart if one removes the words used to describe them. Nationalism, which made us lose many wars, was India-driven. The lack of realism in it dawned only gradually, but today Pakistan is ready to turn its face away from it without spelling it out. If the next phase has to be America-driven, it will be immeasurably more harmful because of the isolation it will impose on Pakistan and the damage it will do to the national economy. This new “nationalism” has brought President Musharraf under siege. The PPP can weigh in on the other side to lessen the extremism of Pakistan’s opposition. That is why Ms Bhutto is needed today regardless of the charges tainting her persona.

The End





Authors Website: www.voiceforpeace.8m.com

Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_da...ver_about_c.htm

October 19, 2007

It Was Never About Children's Health

By David Swanson

Beginning last November and ever since, I have repeated a standard conversation with many Congress Members and staffers. It starts out with me urging them to impeach Bush and Cheney. They then stress all their other priorities that this would supposedly distract from, including often children's health insurance (SCHIP). I then tell them that any decent bill on any issue will be vetoed. They then get a very clever strategerizing look in their eyes and say something like "I know, but then we're not a do-nothing Congress. Bush is a do-nothing president."

Hmmm. Maybe. But wait a minute. If you know from the start that what you're doing will not get a single child better health care, then your effort to pass a bill and have it vetoed may not amount to doing nothing, but does it really amount to doing something? Of course we all want children to have health care. Of course there was real emotion in a lot of your pro-children's health care rhetoric. But if we all knew from the start, as I for one have been screaming at the top of my lungs for almost a year, that the thing was going to be vetoed, then what exactly was the point?

The point appears to have been theater. But was the theater aimed at improving the chances of actually giving kids health care in some future year, or was the theater a way to turn the workings of Congress into nothing other than a two-year-long advertising campaign for Democrats in the next elections? It's hard to tell without looking at some other examples

The big one is the occupation of Iraq. In this case, the stated goal of ending the occupation could be accomplished by blocking bills. Pelosi and Reid could refuse to bring bills to fund the occupation up for votes. Senators could put holds on bills, as Dodd did yesterday to a bill attacking our Fourth Amendment. (If his effort succeeds, I think we should consider him effectively a founding father of this nation.) And 41 senators could filibuster any war funding bill. Instead, both houses have pushed for anti-war bills and seen them fail to pass in one or both houses or be vetoed. They have then passed bills that met Bush's approval. In this case, the goal is clearly not to end the war, but to appear to be trying to end it. Here the theater is pure electoral campaign.

The other key example is impeachment. This is the one thing Congress could do that cannot be vetoed. This is the step that empowered Congress to end the Vietnam War and put Nixon on the defensive. As with SCHIP, impeachment is not guaranteed to succeed. But at least it's not guaranteed to fail. Even a failed effort to impeach Bush and Cheney for what the Democrats in Congress openly admit are quintessentially impeachable offenses would establish some level of accountability and increase the chances that these criminals will be indicted and convicted, and that the next president will neither pardon them nor repeat their crimes. Even a failed impeachment would be useful theater. But, according to the calculations of the Pelosi gang, it would be bad politics. Therefore impeachment is off the table. In this case, as in that of the war, the decision appears to be based in electoral strategy.