***************************************************************** 07/19/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.171 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 [progchat_action] New Reports Again Question Whether Iraq 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran rejects US claim of al-Qaida link 3 UK Independent: Blair fights to take Iraq off political agenda 4 UK Independent: Blair: the attacks mount up 5 Guardian Unlimited: Our lies led us into war 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iraq is not improving, it's a disaster 7 Guardian Unlimited: Who cares what the Butler did or didn't see? 8 Interfax: U.S. may be flexible in resolving North Korean nuclear pro 9 Hi Pakistan: Benazir denies her govt swap N-secrets for N Korean mis 10 US: Guardian Unlimited: Republican Ex-EPA Chief Criticizes Bush 11 Hi Pakistan: US Congress approves $701m for Pakistan --> 12 AFP: Israel accuses Iran of resuming suspect nuclear activities 13 BBC: India and Pakistan review peace 14 Hi Pakistan: Talks with India to resolve all issues on equal basis 15 TomPaine.com: The Man Behind The Curtain 16 asahi.com: ANALYSIS: Uncover the routes to Pakistan's nukes NUCLEAR REACTORS 17 US: [CMEP] NRC Affirms Citizens' Role in Nuke Plant Licensing 18 US: NRC: NRC Special Inspection into Causes of Reactor Shutdown and 19 AFP: Eighteen years after Chernobyl, Finns should still be wary of m 20 US: NRC: Issuance of Draft Supplement Standard Review Plan 21 US: NRC: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.; Notice of Partial Withdrawal 22 Mainichi Interactive: Fire breaks out at nuclear power station in Fu 23 US: TheChamplainChannel.com: Vermont Yankee Needs Place For Nuke Was 24 US: Brattleboro Reformer: VY waste questions take on urgency 25 People's Daily: China's nuke industry: 5 strides in 5 years 26 US: Clinton Herald: Nuclear exercise is Wednesday NUCLEAR SAFETY 27 [NukeNet] Trains hauling irradiated nuclear fuel in UK left 28 Online Journal: Radiation in Iraq equals 250,000 Nagasaki bombs 29 Persian Journal: Radioactive pollution in the Caspian Sea 30 Hi Pakistan: N-safety talks with US held --> 31 US: Infoshop: The Gold of the Nuclear Age: Lost and Stolen Nuclear M 32 US: Porterville Recorder: Cause for Concern NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 33 [NukeNet] "Atoms for Peace" chickens come home to roost 34 [NYTr] Sellafield Cancer risk: Call for Public Inquiry 35 Daily Yomiuri: Japanese scientists trying to make plutonium 36 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Double-talk on Yucca 37 AU GL: Nuclear dump defeated 38 US: Charleston.Net: Opinion: Editorials Practical action needed on w 39 US: Taunton Gazette: A toxic legacy leaves Norton demanding NUCLEAR WEAPONS US DEPT. OF ENERGY 40 Seattle Times: Underground lab raises mountain of controversy 41 Tri-City Herald: Opinions: Threatened lawsuit opportunity for DOE 42 ABQjournal: NNSA, DOE Begin Assessment Of Los Alamos Lab 43 Daily Californian: Los Alamos Scandal Raises Many Questions 44 Daily Californian Editorial: Lab Stewardship Becoming an Embarrassme 45 FT: Top-level probe into Los Alamos breach 46 kgw.com: DOE might halt low-level waste shipments to Hanford 47 Hanford News: Seminar to focus on vit plant employment opportunities 48 lamonitor.com: Lab calls time out 49 Tri-Valley Herald: U.S. nuclear security chief heads probe at Los Al 50 lamonitor.com: Safety incidents contributed to order to stand down 51 Daily Texan: UT regents hear opposition to possible bid for Los Alam OTHER NUCLEAR 52 [du-list] DU in the news - 19th July '04 53 Google News Alert - nuclear 54 TomPaine.com - THE DREYFUSS REPORT Archives ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [progchat_action] New Reports Again Question Whether Iraq Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:28:12 -0500 (CDT) New Reports Again Question Whether Iraq Sought Uranium in Niger By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and DAVID JOHNSTON WASHINGTON, July 17 -- Were those infamous 16 words correct after all? It has been a year and a half since President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, in which he suggested in a single sentence that Iraq might have been trying to acquire uranium in Africa for its nuclear weapons program. And it has been a year since the White House and the C.I.A. acknowledged that the evidence behind that assertion was flawed, opening Mr. Bush to a torrent of criticism about the credibility and reliability of the intelligence he used to justify toppling Saddam Hussein. But now two new reports have reopened the question of whether Mr. Bush was indeed correct when, on Jan. 28, 2003, he told the nation and the world, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." One of the reports was released on Wednesday by a British commission reviewing the intelligence used by Prime Minister Tony Blair in making the case for war. The report stood by the British intelligence assessments that were the foundation for Mr. Bush's statement. Though it did not explain in any detail how or why it judged the intelligence to be sound, the report concluded that the assertions by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium were "well founded." The other report came from the Senate Intelligence Committee. It generally found extensive problems with the prewar intelligence assessments about Iraq's weapons programs and in particular documented a long chain of problems in the way the intelligence agencies dealt with suspicions about Iraq's interest in acquiring uranium. But it also contained some information that tended to bolster the view that Iraq had tried to acquire uranium from Niger and possibly one or two other African nations. It cited a statement by a French official to the State Department in late 2002 that France, which was resisting Mr. Bush's efforts to make an urgent case for war, "believed the reporting was true that Iraq had made a procurement attempt for uranium from Niger." Neither report, however, found evidence that Iraq had actually purchased any uranium from Niger. The new reports also raised questions about one of the White House's chief critics over the issue, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador sent to Niger in 2002 to investigate whether Iraq had tried to purchase uranium there. Among other things, the report pointed out that Mr. Wilson's official account to the C.I.A. noted that a former prime minister of Niger had told him that he had been approached in 1999 about meeting with an Iraqi delegation interested in "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The former prime minister told Mr. Wilson that he interpreted the approach to mean the Iraqis were interested in acquiring a form of uranium. The White House response to the reports has been muted. "I think those reports speak for themselves on that issue," said Scott McClellan, Mr. Bush's spokesman. Administration officials said they were not crowing about the reports for a variety of reasons. For one thing, they said, both reports were highly critical of most of the prewar intelligence developed by both Britain and the United States, and to embrace one aspect of the reports would make it more difficult to dispute other findings. In addition, they said, the internal finger-pointing over who had been to blame for the inclusion of the 16 words in the State of the Union address had left so much bad feeling, especially among the White House, the C.I.A. and the State Department, that there was little appetite for reopening the subject. Still, White House officials were quietly pleased to be able to claim even limited vindication. And some commentators and allies of the administration used the reports to question whether Mr. Bush's credibility had been unfairly impugned by the entire affair. Referring to Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, The Wall Street Journal's editorial page on Thursday said, "It now appears that both leaders have been far more scrupulous in discussing this and related issues than much of the media in either of their countries, which would embarrass the journalistic profession, if that were possible." If there is some measure of vindication for the administration in the new reports -- something that Mr. Bush's critics do not concede -- it still left the White House to deal with the many aftershocks that continue to emanate from the episode. Mr. Bush's re-election prospects rest to some degree on whether he is perceived to have led the nation into the war on the basis of flawed or false intelligence. And the White House remains to some degree at risk from a federal criminal investigation into whether administration officials leaked to a newspaper columnist the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife is a covert C.I.A. officer. The reports did not affect the criminal inquiry into whether anyone at the White House violated a law that makes it a crime to disclose the name of an undercover officer. But Mr. Wilson has been left on the defensive by the Senate Intelligence Committee's report, which found that, contrary to what he has said, his wife, Valerie Plame, appeared to have had a role in the decision to send him to Niger. In a letter this week to the chairman and the vice chairman of the intelligence committee, Mr. Wilson disputed the assertion that the plan to send him to Niger was suggested by his wife. Mr. Wilson said the comments she made about his background in a letter to her boss a week before he visited the C.I.A. to discuss the trip were intended to establish his bona fides and did not constitute a recommendation. Mr. Wilson also cited news accounts last year quoting unidentified intelligence officials as saying that Ms. Plame had not proposed Mr. Wilson for the trip. And he took exception to criticism by the committee's chairman, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, and other Republicans, who said he had gone on a media blitz to convince the world that Mr. Bush had lied. There may be more revelations to come. The British and American reports contained still-classified information about Iraq's dealings with Niger. Beyond that, Patrick Fitzgerald, the federal prosecutor examining the leak of Ms. Plame's identity, is expected to announce in a matter of weeks whether he will prosecute anyone. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top -- to the source: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/international/middleeast/18URAN.html?th NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for research and educational purposes. help us support alternative media: http://tinyurl.com/qjwm help sustain our website and list: http://tinyurl.com/32jrw a proud mediachannel.org affiliate International Progressive Publications Network "'No, no!' said the Queen. ***************************************************************** 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran rejects US claim of al-Qaida link Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor Monday July 19, 2004 [http://www.guardian.co.uk] The Iranian government yesterday admitted for the first time that half a dozen of the al-Qaida terrorists behind the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington had passed through Iran. But the government, anxious to avoid being the next US target after Afghanistan and Iraq, denied any official involvement with al-Qaida members. The admission came five days before the US commission investigating the September 11 attacks was scheduled to publish its 600-page report, and amid growing speculation that it would endorse the view that there was no evidence linking the September 11 hijackers to Saddam's Iraqi regime - one of the Bush administration's key arguments for going to war. The Washington Post reported yesterday that the commission would criticise the White House, Congress and other parts of the US government, for failing to detect or prevent the atrocities. With the focus of suspicion recently turning to Iran, Hamid Reza Asefi, an Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, yesterday acknowledged that some of the hijackers had passed through the country from Afghanistan months before the attacks. "We have long borders and it is not possible to fully control them. It is normal that five or six people who cross the border illegally over a period of five or six months may evade our attention. The same happens on the border between Mexico and the United States." John McLaughlin, the acting director of the CIA, yesterday told Fox News: "We have no evidence that there is some sort of official connection between Iran and 9/11." But he said it was not surprising that the hijackers were able to pass through Iran, given the country's "history of supporting terrorism". He said eight of the 19 hijackers had passed through the country. The link being made between Iran and al-Qaida comes as pressure grows on Tehran over suspicions that it is planning a nuclear weapons capability. The US, which has no diplomatic ties with Tehran, wants a UN security council resolution imposing sanctions. The Israeli government, which bombed an Iraqi nuclear plant in 1981, has been hinting that it will mount a military strike to prevent Iran fulfilling any nuclear weapons ambitions. Iran continues to insist that it is seeking to develop its nuclear programme for peaceful purposes. The British government has meanwhile become increasingly disillusioned over Iran, the Foreign Office shifting to the view that Tehran is intent on nuclear weapons. Relations have also been strained by the failure of Tehran to return two British boats seized at the Iran-Iraq border. Mr Asefi said that news reports from the US linking Iran and al-Qaida were part of a US government cover-up to deflect attention from Iraq. He added that Iran had tightened its border controls since the September 11 attacks. The passage of the al-Qaida members had happened before the attacks and "who knew that September 11 was going to happen?" Iran had demonstrated over the past few years that it was opposed to terrorism - and the US had failed to show appreciation of that. Iran helps finance Hizbullah in south Lebanon but says it has had no involvement with al-Qaida. Tehran has arrested hundreds of al-Qaida suspects over the past few years, last week handing to Saudi Arabia a man dubbed a senior al-Qaida memberwho had surrendered. The Washington Post reported yesterday that the US commission report on the September 11 attacks would recommend a restructuring of US intelligence to create a "cabinet" with an overview of the other agencies. However, Mr McLaughlin said it would be difficult to achieve that "without adding an additional layer of bureaucracy". He said the same objective could be brought by "modest changes" to the role of CIA director. guardian.co.uk/iran [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 3 UK Independent: Blair fights to take Iraq off political agenda By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent 19 July 2004 Tony Blair was at Chequers yesterday preparing for a final gruelling week designed to switch the political agenda back to domestic issues before heading for his summer break at Sir Cliff Richard's holiday home in Barbados. But his efforts may well be frustrated by the biggest political event of the week, tomorrow's debate on Iraq. Michael Howard, the Tory leader, will concentrate on the Butler inquiry findings, but will widen his attack to the abuse of Iraqi prisoners and the alleged lack of preparedness for the reconstruction of the country. Mr Blair will insist again that the Butler team cleared him of acting in bad faith and will repeat his argument that, for all its problems, a post-Saddam Iraq is better than what went before. Party managers are desperate to draw a line under the divisive subject and will therefore be scrutinising backbench contributions to see if they have succeeded. Today he and David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, launch the Government's five-year plan for tackling crime and disorder, an issue which has become Downing Street's number one concern. Confirming the feedback from Labour MPs in inner-city constituencies, it dominated the campaign in the Birmingham Hodge Hill by-election, in which the party's large majority was slashed to just 460. The Department for Transport releases its five-year plan tomorrow amid fears that discontent among commuters could cost Labour a clutch of marginal seats in the South-east. Wednesday has been pencilled in as the most likely day for a reshuffle in which Andrew Smith and Paul Boateng, two allies of Gordon Brown, are seen as vulnerable. Ian McCartney could be replaced as party chairman amid accusations that he has made little impact. A flurry of ministerial comings and goings would help limit the publicity for spending cuts to the Armed Forces due to be announced on Wednesday. It is also the 10th anniversary of Mr Blair's election as Labour leader and could be viewed as an opportunity to demonstrate a renewed strength of purpose. On Thursday, when the Commons rises for the summer recess, Mr Blair is expected to call his monthly Downing Street press conference, the first opportunity since the Butler report was published that journalists have had to put detailed questions to him about what he knew about intelligence reports on Iraq. The following day, he speaks to Labour's National Policy Forum in Warwick, where he is likely to give some indication of what will be in the party's manifesto for the general election expected next year. The Prime Minister is preparing a robust defence of his determination to extend choice in schools and hospitals in the face of opposition from some Labour MPs and union leaders. The week brings to a close a traumatic parliamentary year for Mr Blair, during which speculation gathered over how long he would remain in Downing Street and which was dogged by tensions with Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, over the succession to No 10. The Observer reported yesterday that the Prime Minister had told friends that he had made no deal with Mr Brown over stepping down. It said he was talking about "his third term being a meaningful third term", suggesting he intends to serve for several more years if Labour wins the next election. However, the problems the Prime Minister has to overcome were underlined by two polls yesterday. An NOP survey for the Sunday Express found 55 per cent of voters trusted him less than they did before the Butler report was published and 44 per cent thought he should resign over Iraq. A YouGov poll for The Sunday Times showed 57 per cent would not trust Mr Blair to take Britain to war again. Tomorrow's debate on Iraq will bring the parliamentary year to a dramatic end. Labour backbenchers, demoralised by the Government's failure to kill off the controversy, will be desperate for Tony Blair to help them shake off the issue. The Tories, reeling from two by-election third places last week, will be willing Michael Howard to produce a knock-out blow. Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, also has to prove that he is more than a supporting actor in the grand drama. There is not expected to be a vote on a substantive motion at the end of the debate. UK Independent Ltd. ***************************************************************** 4 UK Independent: Blair: the attacks mount up By Kim Sengupta and Nigel Morris 19 July 2004 Tony Blair is facing fierce and sustained attacks over Iraq from opposition parties, weapons inspectors and a former intelligence chief as he prepares for a crucial Commons debate on the Butler report. The Prime Minister was condemned yesterday by the former chief of US weapons inspections in Iraq for going to war on flawed evidence. David Kay, handpicked by the CIA to find Saddam Hussein's arsenal, said Mr Blair and President George Bush should have known that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix, the UN weapons inspector, stirred the row by describing Mr Blair's haste to war as an "error of judgement" while a former intelligence chief in Britain suggested that the evidence given to the Hutton inquiry by John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, had been "economical with the truth". Michael Ancram, the Tory deputy leader, said that Mr Blair still had difficult questions to answer. If he did not address them in tomorrow's debate, he should "consider his position", he added. The Liberal Democrats also cranked up the pressure in the run-up to the criticial debate in the Commons. Bill Clinton, the former US president, also intervened in the debate saying that intelligence reports he had seen from 1992 to 2000, during his period in office, did not suggest Saddam posed an imminent threat. Last week, the Butler committee concluded the bulk of the intelligence in the September 2002 dossier was old, and almost all of the so-called new intelligence proved untrustworthy. Mr Kay insisted there was no basis for Mr Blair to claim that Iraq had WMD or presented an imminent threat which required an invasion. The weapons inspector maintained that Mr Blair and Mr Bush had an agenda for war and were thus prepared to ignore the flaws in the WMD argument. "I think the Prime Minister ... should have been able to tell before the war that the evidence did not exist for drawing the conclusion that Iraq presented a clear, present and imminent threat on the basis of existing weapons of mass destruction," he said. Mr Bush and Mr Blair had a "multitude" of other reasons for going to war, he added. The Iraq Survey Group chief was backed by Mr Blix, who said Mr Blair was not "thinking with a sufficiently critical mind" when it came to judging the WMD issue. Asked on the Jonathan Dimbleby programme on ITV if Mr Blair was "on a witch hunt" and whether this was a "really important failure of political and intellectual judgement", Mr Blix replied: "I think there was an error of judgement." Mr Scarlett, came under attack from one of his predecessors, Sir Paul Lever, over his failure to tell the Hutton inquiry that key evidence claiming Iraq had a WMD programme had been withdrawn by MI6. Sir Paul said Mr Scarlett had been "economical with the truth", adding: "I say this with sadness as a former chairman, the JIC has taken a knock." Michael Howard, the Tory leader, declared that he would not have supported the Government in the vote on the eve of the invasion of Iraq if he had known the intelligence was so flawed. Tim Yeo, a shadow cabinet member, said: "It is a dangerous situation to have a prime minister who is now so distrusted by the public because he has been caught actually misleading people about the war." The Government accused the Tories and Mr Howard of opportunism. Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State for International Development, said: "It seems to me that he lacks any credibility whatsoever." There was no clear response to a report that Downing Street managed to water down criticism in the Butler report, allowing the Prime Minister to say he acted in good faith. The Tories and the Liberal Democrats warned that Mr Blair would face torrid questions at the Commons debate, especially about the failure of government witnesses to tell Lord Hutton that the key "intelligence" about Iraq's supposed WMD had been withdrawn by MI6 as untrustworthy. Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said Mr Blair's fate would depend on the credibility of his answers. UK Independent Ltd. ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Our lies led us into war [UP] The press must also be held to account for falsehoods we reproduced before the invasion George Monbiot Tuesday July 20, 2004 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] So Andrew Gilligan, the BBC reporter who claimed that the government had sexed up the intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, was mostly right. Much of the rest of the media, which took the doctored intelligence at face value, was wrong. The reward for getting it right was public immolation and the sack. The punishment for getting it wrong was the usual annual bonus. No government commissions inquiries to discover why reporters reproduce the government's lies. All journalists make mistakes. When deadlines are short and subjects are complicated, we are bound to get some things wrong. But the falsehoods reproduced by the media before the invasion of Iraq were massive and consequential: it is hard to see how Britain could have gone to war if the press had done its job. If the newspapers have any interest in putting the record straight, they should surely each be commissioning an inquiry of their own. Unlike the government's, it should be independent, consisting perhaps of a lawyer, a media analyst and an intelligence analyst. Its task would be to assess the paper's coverage of Iraq, decide what it got right and what it got wrong, discover why the mistakes were made and what should be done to prevent their repetition. Its report should be published in full by the paper. No British newspaper is likely to emerge unharmed from such an inquiry. The Independent, the Independent on Sunday and the Guardian, which were the most sceptical about the claims made by the government and intelligence agencies, still got some important things wrong. Much of the problem here is that certain falsehoods have slipped into the political language. The Guardian, for example, has claimed on nine occasions that the weapons inspectors were expelled from Iraq in 1998. Embarrassingly, one of these claims was contained in an article called Iraq: the myth and the reality. Even John Pilger, who could scarcely be accused of dancing to the government's tune, made this mistake when writing for the paper in 2000. It's not that the Guardian believes this to be the case: it has published plenty of reports showing that the inspectors were withdrawn by the UN, after the US insisted that they should leave Iraq for their own safety. But the lie is repeated so often by the government that it seems almost impossible to kill. The Observer, I think, would do less well. It commissioned some brilliant investigative reporting, which exposed many of the falsehoods reproduced elsewhere in the media. But it also carried several reports that were simply wrong. It published five articles claiming that there were "direct Iraqi links with the US hijackers" who destroyed the World Trade Centre in 2001. One suggested that "Iraqi training, intelligence and logistics were hidden behind an Islamist facade". Iraq, it claimed, "ran a terrorist camp for foreign Islamists, where it taught them how to hijack planes with boxcutters". Three reports suggested that the anthrax attacks in the United States in October 2001 had "an ultimate Iraqi origin". Other articles maintained that "Iraq is developing a long-range ballistic missile system that could carry weapons of mass destruction up to 700 miles"; that it had developed "mobile factories of mass destruction"; and that it "has tried to buy thousands of ... aluminium tubes, which American officials believe were intended as components of centrifuges to enrich uranium". All these stories turn out to have been based on false information supplied by the Iraqi National Congress and US or British intelligence agencies. Its editorials also appear to have been too willing to give George Bush and Tony Blair the benefit of the doubt. In November 2002, for example, the paper maintained that Saddam Hussein "expelled UN weapons inspectors in 1998; he subsequently built up an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction ... the real responsibility [for averting war] lies with Saddam himself". The paper consistently argued that we should not go to war without an international mandate, but supported the invasion when that mandate didn't materialise. The Observer published plenty of stories that contradicted these reports. But a balance between true and false still averages out as partly false, and its readers were left not knowing what to believe. In May this year, the paper published an article by David Rose retracting some of the incorrect material. I don't think I'm alone in believing that it provided insufficient redress. It failed to deal with the allegations of links between Iraq and al-Qaida, or of Iraq's responsibility for the anthrax attacks. And it seems wrong that one journalist should take responsibility for decisions that must have been approved elsewhere. This partial retraction contrasts uncomfortably with the comprehensive apology published by the New York Times four days before. "Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more scepticism were, perhaps, too intent on rushing scoops into the paper," the NYT confessed. "Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all." But the Observer's sins are minor compared with those of the Times, the Sunday Times and the Daily and Sunday Telegraphs. They all appear to have been willing accomplices in the Pentagon's campaign of disinformation. By far the worst of these offenders is the Sunday Telegraph. In September 2001, it claimed that "the Iraqi leader had been providing al-Qaida ... with funding, logistical back-up and advanced weapons training. His operations reached a 'frantic pace' in the past few months". In October 2001, it reported that "Saddam Hussein has relocated his chemical weapons factories after the first case of anthrax poisoning in America ... A senior western intelligence official said that ... 'The entire contents of their chemical weapons factories around Baghdad have been moving through the nights to specially built bunkers'." In September 2002, it reported that "Saddam Hussein is developing frightening new ways to deliver his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons, including smallpox and the deadly VX nerve agent". Another report on the same day claimed that "Saddam is on the verge of possessing crude nuclear devices that could be 'delivered' using 'unorthodox' means such as on lorries or ships ... Saddam has the capability to assemble all the components required to make nuclear weapons." In February 2003, it claimed that "Iraq's air force has advanced poison bombs". All of these stories - and many others - appear to be false. But far from retracting them, it keeps publishing new allegations which look as dodgy as its pre-war claims. Like the Observer, it appears to have been used by black propagandists in the intelligence services and Iraqi defectors seeking to boost their credentials. Unlike the Observer, it seems happy to be duped. So who will hold the newspapers to account? It seems that the only possible answer is you. You, the readers, must take us to task if we mislead you. Pressure groups should be bombarding us with calls and emails - you'd be amazed by the difference it makes. And if we don't respond with openness and honesty, you should cancel your subscriptions and look elsewhere for your news. www.monbiot.com [http://www.monbiot.com] Chronology Iraq timeline: Feb 1 2004 - present [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,1151021,00.html] Iraq timeline: July 16 1979 - Jan 31 2004 [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html] [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 6 Guardian Unlimited: Iraq is not improving, it's a disaster Darfur The only sensible objective now is orderly disengagement, and soon Oliver Miles Tuesday July 20, 2004 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] The Commons debate on Iraq today is a historic opportunity for parliament. British policy in Iraq is at a turning point, and we can exercise a vital degree of influence on US policy as well. Earlier in the summer, there were some welcome international developments. One was the security council resolution of June 8 endorsing the formation of a sovereign interim government, which did something to heal the rifts created in 2003. Another was the successful low-key handover of authority. But the impression that the situation in Iraq itself is much improved is down to Iraq fatigue in the media. The security situation is calamitous. Two recent attacks killed nine US marines; an attack on the Iraqi minister of justice killed five bodyguards; bombings and attacks on Iraqi security forces have caused multiple deaths; targets in Falluja have been bombed by the US air force; foreigners have been kidnapped or executed with the aim of driving foreign troops and foreign companies out of Iraq. This, however, is the tip of the iceberg. Attacks on US troops are running at dozens a day, frequently accompanied by looting, burning and stoning. It is generally believed in Baghdad that around 1,000 Iraqis leave the country every day for Jordan and Syria because the security situation is intolerable. According to the Iraqi media, gunmen have killed six Baghdad local councillors in the last two weeks and roughly 750 in the last year. Friends of the Americans such as Ahmad Chalabi are discredited; enemies such as the young Shia firebrand Moqtada al-Sadr have their tails up. Meanwhile, the Butler report, which followed the devastating critique by a Senate committee of the failure of American intelligence, has dominated the headlines. Senior members of the British intelligence community have accused Tony Blair of going way beyond anything any professional analyst would have agreed. But the media have allowed themselves to be carried away by the question of secret intelligence, and have ignored equally or even more important questions of policy. Senator Kerry has accused President Bush and his administration of misleading the public about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and specifically about nuclear involvement. They "misled America... And they were wrong. And soldiers lost their lives because they were wrong". In Britain, now that it is clear that US and British policy has been based on a deception, it is equally clear that Iain Duncan Smith and the shadow cabinet were also deceived. There are plenty of uncomfortable questions to ask about who deceived whom, and Michael Howard has at last said that he couldn't have voted for war in the House of Commons in March 2003 if he had known then what he knows now, though for reasons as yet unexplained he says he is still in favour of the war. Others have gone further: the Labour MP Geraldine Smith has said: "I feel that I was deceived into voting for a war I was morally opposed to." The assessment of intelligence is open to debate. But other failings are less easy to explain away. The prime minister should be pressed to say what happened to the detailed plans for postwar Iraq which, he told parliament just before the war, had been worked out with our allies. Perhaps they were part of the State Department plans, which we now know were consigned to the wastepaper basket by Donald Rumsfeld. The story of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay is a disgrace. When will we learn whether Britain has equally disgraced herself? What is clear is that no British minister could survive if he had said, as Rumsfeld said: "Technically, unlawful combatants do not have any rights under the Geneva convention. We have indicated that we do plan to, for the most part, treat them in a manner that is reasonably consistent with the Geneva conventions to the extent they are appropriate." Most important of all, of course, is the future. As a number of Washington analysts have pointed out, the success of coalition policy will depend on resisting the temptation to impose policies that support US, not Iraqi, goals. As Philip Gordon of the Brookings Institution put it: "I would advise them to lose the argument to the Iraqis on some of the big issues - it shows an Iraqi government is really in charge." This is where parliament can exercise its influence. Unless we really want to rebuild the British empire, under our flag or the stars and stripes, the only sensible objective now is disengagement in as good order as possible. No scramble to get out, but send no more troops and look for every opportunity to build up Iraqi prestige, authority and responsibility. · Oliver Miles is a former ambassador to Libya and organised the letter signed by 52 former British ambassadors criticising Bush and Blair's Middle East policy mail@olivermiles.com [mail@olivermiles.com] Chronology Iraq timeline: Feb 1 2004 - present [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,1151021,00.html] Iraq timeline: July 16 1979 - Jan 31 2004 [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/page/0,12438,793802,00.html] Useful links Provisional authority: rebuilding Iraq [http://www.rebuilding-iraq.net/] Iraqi-American chamber of commerce [http://www.i-acci.org/main.shtml] cnn.com: David Kay's evidence to US Senate committee [http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/] [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: Who cares what the Butler did or didn't see? Peter Preston Sunday July 18, 2004 [http://www.observer.co.uk] Adversity and Iraq make very strange bedfellows. The lucky old Sun was bored and decisive. Stop 'debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - because it just isn't relevant'. Four inquiries gone and T Blair was innocent, OK. Who'd - almost - go along with that? Why, amazingly enough, the Telegraph agreed that the PM had neither 'lied nor acted in bad faith'. Sure, there were lessons to learn, there always are; but that was just about that. The Barclays and Murdoch shuffled four-ish square behind Tony. The rest pelted him with rotten fruit and stink bombs. 'Whitewash Part Two' screamed the London Evening Standard barely minutes after Lord Butler had sat down (and certainly before any paint substitute had dried). Those who say that 'are talking nonsense to further their own political ends', sniffed the Sun piously. There seemed to be an awful lot of such nonsense around. Perhaps, as is its acid wont, the Mail frothed most furiously of all - over 15 solid pages of rage and bile. 'Will Blair ever be believed again?' asked a leader you didn't need to read to the end. Stephen Glover declared that 'The BBC and Gilligan were right... yet the smirking assassin gets off scot free'. Andrew Gilligan himself claimed 'victory' (as did Greg Dyke). Tom Bower put the boot into Scarlett, Max Hastings put the boot into all and sundry. The Mail was a howl of distinguished pain. So - somewhat downmarket - was the Express. 'Can we ever trust Blair again? And the Mirror. 'Blair can't hide behind this Butler balderdash'. And the Independent. 'In the long term, Mr Blair will pay the price.' And the Guardian, outlining 'the lessons that Blair... the great persuader, dizzied by years of deploying weapons-grade spin ... must learn'. And the FT. 'Blame the leaders, not the spies,' rasped Quentin Peel. Would nobody stand up for the Prime Minister? Well, the erstwhile Thunderer simpered a little, handing Blair only a 'share of the blame' and declaring damply that 'it is now time for Britain and Iraq to move on' - but thereafter the road got lonelier and tougher. Simon Jenkins (fully recovered from a nasty moment dismissing the threat of al-Qaeda just as they blew up Madrid's commuter trains) wrote about Blair's 'Napoleonic instinct'. 'As all dictators know, leadership shines in time of war'. Paul Routledge in the Mirror concluded that 'Blair lied, lied and lied again to save the premiership he loves'. Robin Cook in the Indie said 'what a shame it was that Anthony Eden didn't have a Butler around to explain he was not responsible for Suez'. And so on and so overwhelmingly forth. Only the Sun again, wrapping up the entire package on two inside pages, took an axe to verbiage. The 'compact' Independent went up to 19 pages (including the fullest summary of the report on offer). But where, pray, was the sign of minds being changed? Who wasn't on autopilot, writing about the number he or she first thought of? Who cared about what the Butler did or didn't see? Even this reader - against the war from the start and writing many times since about the defects of intelligence - grew a trifle sated towards the end of the second hundred thousand words. Could assorted BBC correspondents please keep the glee in their voices under control? Did I, for once, absolutely trust Andrew Marr's judgment here? Were Fleet Street's conclusions any less dodgy than the original dossier itself? Did yet another of those pithy poster Independent front pages quite hit the mark? No one, of course, was to blame (as per usual). Everybody read from accustomed scripts. 'God, Howard was lethal,' said the Mail's sketchwriter, Quentin Letts, hating 'this vile little display from evader Blair' - while Simon Hoggart of the Guardian, finding nothing lethal on the Tory benches, compared the PM to Houdini, reliant on 'great skill, low cunning and keeping tiny metal picklocks about his person'. Friends of the spooks - like Michael Smith in the Telegraph - blamed the politicians. Friends of the politicians - like Trevor Kavanagh in the Sun - blamed the spooks. But there were, blessedly, at least two fresh joys on offer. The estimable Alice Miles in the Times had kept a note of what an unlethal Howard had told Rupert Murdoch's assembled legions at their Mexicofest last March. 'The war against Iraq was necessary, it was just, it was indeed arguably overdue...' Pass the sick bag, Alice. And had anybody, in their fired-up rush to judgment, had a second to scan Butler's first couple of background chapters, in which (uniquely) he offered verbatim quotes from much earlier, unpublished JIC reports? Here are a few stray phrases or sentences plucked from the 12 years before invasion. 'A terrorist threat to detonate a nuclear device would be difficult to dismiss entirely...' 'We have no intelligence that any terrorist group makes chemical and biological weapon agents, possesses any such agents or is currently contemplating attacks... [but] the use of CBW agents would generate widespread fear and could cause large numbers of casualties'. 'So far as terrorism is concerned, proliferation [if it comes about] may not necessarily be affected by the actions of States with the relevant capability'... 'Despite the possibility that now exists, it is extremely unlikely that...' 'It seems plausible that...' In short, JIC dossiers down the ages have always been full of 'patchy and sporadic' information, always replete with Yes Minister evasions and circumlocutions. Caveats are part of their standard furnishing. No spook ever puts his head square on the block. The best 'we' can do (in July 1999 for instance) is 'assess that Osama bin Laden has by now acquired or made at least modest quantities of CBW materials - even if their exact nature and effectiveness are unclear'. The first chapter of Butler begins, tellingly, with a quote from Carl von Clausewitz. 'Much of the intelligence that we receive in war is contradictory, even more of it is plain wrong, and most of it is fairly dubious'. That standard get-out again. But what do you do when you have to take a decision, any decision, on the basis of such stuff? If you are editor Scarlett and sub-editor Campbell, perhaps, you strike out the ritual guff to begin with. You know it for what it is: pusillanimous padding put in for that precise purpose. Then you try to construct something reasonably coherent and readable, something fit for publication. You do what the editor of the Daily Mail would do from professional pride and instinct - in good faith. And there, as the short term glides into the long term, as balderdash elides with Mars, it may be time to steal away. Andrew Gilligan can batter Blair for his failure to keep a good note; the Express can bang about 'credibility in tatters'; the Indie can pursue new MI6 inconsistencies; pigs can fly. But Thursday's sweaty Sun alternative spread on 'the BNP beasts' (and really good work at the Beeb) looks suddenly rather inviting - and the Times' advice wiser than it seemed 48 hours ago. By Friday even the Mail was hunting those same beasts on its front page, and two byelections had turned Mr Howard more comatose than lethal. Yip, time to move on. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 8 Interfax: U.S. may be flexible in resolving North Korean nuclear problem - Interfax.com [http://www.interfax.com] Text version Jul 19 2004 3:27PM Vershbow MOSCOW. July 19 (Interfax) - The fourth round of six-nation talks on North Korea's nuclear program may bring concrete results, U.S. Ambassador to Russia Alexander Vershbow told Interfax. Representatives of North Korea, South Korea, Russia, the United States, China and Japan will convene in Beijing in September. Concrete results can be achieved if all parties realize that complete de-nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is the final goal of this process, the U.S. ambassador said. Vershbow said that the U.S. had made it understood that it was ready to be flexible within this framework. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said at a meeting in Jakarta with the North Korean foreign minister in July that the United States was ready for the principle of words for words and action for action, Vershbow said. The United States is ready for gradual progress if the final goal is clear to everyone, he said. Vershbow said there were positive results from Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's recent visit to Pyongyang. Minister Lavrov's report after his visit to North Korea was encouraging, he said. © 1991-2004 Interfax ***************************************************************** 9 Hi Pakistan: Benazir denies her govt swap N-secrets for N Korean missiles July 19 2004 TOKYO: Former prime minister Benazir Bhutto said her country bought long-range missiles technology from North Korea in the 1990s, but decided against offering nuclear secrets in exchange, a major Japanese newspaper reported on Sunday. In an interview with the national Asahi newspaper, she said military officials proposed in 1988, just after she took office, that Pakistan swap its nuclear technology for the missiles. But her administration decided instead to pay North Korea for the missile technology, she said. "There were people who proposed securing massive funds by selling nuclear technology," Benazir was quoted as saying. "But there were actually only two or three countries that would be buyers, amounting to only about $ 200 billion or $ 300 billion. So I persuaded them to drop the idea." Ms Bhutto spoke with the Asahi in London. Asked about speculation that Pakistan had exported nuclear technology, she said that it was true that while she was in office there were unspecified people who had proposed this to the government as a way of raising foreign currency, but that she persuaded them not to. Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited: Republican Ex-EPA Chief Criticizes Bush From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday July 20, 2004 12:01 AM AP Photo DCPM102 By ERIK STETSON Associated Press writer CONCORD, N.H. (AP) - The head of the Environmental Protection Agency for two Republican presidents criticized President Bush's record on Monday, calling it a ``polluter protection'' policy. Russell E. Train, who headed the EPA from September 1973 to January 1977 - part of the Nixon and Ford administrations - said Bush's record on the environment was so dismal that he would cast his vote for Democrat John Kerry. ``It's almost as if the motto of the administration in power today in Washington is not environmental protection, but polluter protection,'' Train said. ``I find this deeply disturbing.'' In 1988, Train was co-chairman of Conservationists for Bush, an organization that backed the candidacy of George W. Bush's father. Train spoke at an event organized by Environment2004, which opposes Bush's environmental record. He accused Bush of weakening the Clean Air Act and said the president's record falls short of those set by former Republican presidents, from Theodore Roosevelt, who advocated creating national parks and forests, to George H.W. Bush, who supported revised standards for clean air. The Bush-Cheney campaign defended the president's record, saying states such as New Hampshire benefit from the president's Healthy Forests Initiative. They also argued that sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions have dropped during the Bush administration. ^--- Former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland, who is working to elect Kerry, accused Bush on Monday of feeding Congress and the American people ``a pack of lies'' as justification for the war in Iraq. ``We were flat out lied to,'' the Georgia Democrat said, ``by the president, by the vice president and by the secretary of defense.'' Cleland assailed Bush during a conference call with reporters in which the Democratic National Committee rolled out a Web video that is being e-mailed to supporters and posted on the committee's Web site. It argues that Bush diverted resources from the war on terrorism in Afghanistan to the war in Iraq. Cleland criticized Bush for his decision to ``go it alone'' in Iraq without the support of other nations, calling the move ``the greatest strategic error of American military history.'' Steve Schmidt, a Bush campaign spokesman, said the president is focused on reforming America's intelligence system while Kerry and his surrogates launch political attacks. Schmidt called Cleland's criticism ``typical of a campaign that has been engaged in political gamesmanship with national security issues throughout the campaign.'' Cleland cited Bush's claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, ties to the al-Qaida terrorist network and effort to secure uranium for nuclear weapons. ``All of that is a pack of lies,'' Cleland said. ^--- Who would win in a WWE-style smackdown wrestling match, Bush or Kerry? World Wrestling Entertainment stars ``The Hurricane,'' Maven Huffman and Chris ``Harvard'' Nowinski came to the Capitol Monday to ensure that this year's election doesn't come down to that. Promoting the WWE's ``Smackdown Your Vote'' voter registration drive, they met with Reps. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, and Kendrick Meek, D-Fla., to discuss difficulties encountered by students trying to vote on college campuses. The Hurricane, aka Greg Helms, said in the past many students have been turned away from the polls because they don't have a permanent address, even though a 1979 Supreme Court ruling said they have the right to register and vote on campus. The WWE's nonpartisan campaign is part of a broader push by voter registration groups to get 20 million people between the ages of 18-30 to vote this year, a 10 percent increase from young people's participation in the contested 2000 presidential election. The Hurricane said he's betting on Bush: ``I think cage matches are pretty popular in Texas, so I think Bush might have an upper hand.'' ``I think dividing the country and eliminating the president that started the efforts to free Iraq would be detrimental at this point,'' he said. Maven and Harvard were not so sure. ``I think Kerry would give him a run for his money,'' Maven said. ``I'd pay pay-per-view to see it.'' ^--- Liberal and conservative interest groups are rolling out new political advertisements. A MoveOn.org affiliate will spend a large amount - $700,000 - to run a television ad in Nevada, Ohio, New York City and Washington, D.C., accusing Bush of having ties to big business. Referring to Bush and Democratic rival Kerry respectively, the ad asks: ``The Corporations' Choice or The People's Choice.'' The National Rifle Association started running its first TV ad of the general election on Sunday in Washington, D.C., spending $150,000. The ad accuses Kerry of being antigun. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president, said the group plans to ``raise and spend millions'' to counter Kerry's candidacy. And, the Israel Project, a nonprofit group that seeks to educate the public about Israel, announced plans to launch TV commercials during the Democratic National Convention next week in Boston on local broadcast and cable channels. The ads, the group says, focus on ``teaching peace and hope in Israeli schools.'' Meanwhile, FIRM, or the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, plans to unveil new Spanish-language commercials Tuesday that will run in New York, New Mexico, Illinois and Arizona initially at a cost of $30,000. The ads assail politicians for being ``all talk, no action'' on the issue of immigration reform. --- Associated Press Writers Liz Sidoti and Aparna H. Kumar in Washington contributed to this report. ^--- On the Net: http://www.smackdownyourvote.com http://www.environment2004.org. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 ***************************************************************** 11 Hi Pakistan: US Congress approves $701m for Pakistan --> July 19 2004 WASHINGTON (APP)-The US House of Representatives has adopted $701 million assistance package for Pakistan, which is the first instalment of $3 billion five-year US assistance package announced in June 2003. Out of $701 million, $300 million is for economic assistance, $300 for foreign military financing; while out of remaining $101 million, $40 million is for narcotics control, $29 million for child survival and health, $29 million for development assistance, and $6 million for anti-terrorism. “It is the highest level of assistance which Pakistan will receive,” Deputy Chief of the Mission, Mohammad Sadiq told APP, which is symbolic of the close and cordial bilateral ties between Pakistan and the United States. “It is now in the preliminary stages in the Senate,” and will go to the full Senate Committee which is to consider the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill. Once adopted by the Senate, it will then go to the US President for signatures for a bill to become a document. The US financial year 2005 starts on October first, 2004. Mohammad Sadiq expressed the confidence that “the bill for US assistance allocations for Pakistan will also smoothly pass through the US Senate.” Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 AFP: Israel accuses Iran of resuming suspect nuclear activities WAR.WIRE [http://www.spacewar.com/] JERUSALEM (AFP) Jul 19, 2004 Israel on Monday accused its archfoe Iran of resuming suspect nuclear activities linked to the production of enriched uranium which can be used to build atomic bombs. A military intelligence officer also told a parliamentary committee he could not rule out the possibility that the Lebanese fundamentalist Shiite movement Hezbollah could acquire non-conventional weapons from Iran, military radio reported. The officer said Iran's activities -- which he did not specify -- contravened commitments by Tehran to the UN nuclear watchdog the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran has announced it would resume the assembly of centrifuges -- used to enrich uranium in the most sensitive part of the fuel cycle -- but said it was committed to an accord to allow tougher IAEA inspections, make a full declaration of its activities and suspend enrichment itself. The IAEA is probing allegations that the country is using power generation as a cover for a secret weapons drive but Tehran insists its programme is solely aimed at meeting the future energy needs of a burgeoning population and freeing up its oil and gas resources for export. Israel's military intelligence chief General Aharon Zeevi Farkash said earlier this month he believed Iran could build a nuclear weapon by 2007. Unlike Israel, which is widely thought to possess up to 200 nuclear warheads, Iran has signed up to the IAEA's nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). WAR.WIRE ***************************************************************** 13 BBC: India and Pakistan review peace Last Updated: Monday, 19 July, 2004 [Pakistan Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar (R) and Indian counterpart Shashank] Shashank (left) and Riaz Khokhar: Hour-long talks Top Indian and Pakistani foreign ministry officials have met in Islamabad to push forward peace moves. The hour-long talks come on the sidelines of a South Asian summit, to begin in Pakistan's capital on Tuesday. Indian Foreign Minister Natwar Singh arrived in Islamabad later on Monday to attend the discussions. Earlier, Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri told the BBC the two men would meet for talks in the next few days. Mr Singh will take part in a two-day meeting of foreign ministers drawn from the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. It is important to for Ind and Pakistan, as two neighbours, to have good relations [ src=] Indian Foreign Secretary Shashank On Monday, Indian Foreign Secretary Shashank met his Pakistani counterpart, Riaz Khokar, to review the peace process. "We'll carry forward the process of negotiations," Mr Shashank said after the meeting. "It is important for India and Pakistan, as two neighbours, to have good relations." Mr Khokar said the two officials exchanged ideas on how to push ahead with the dialogue. "These ideas will now be discussed by the foreign ministers who will spell out the details later," he said. Warming up The talks between Mr Singh and Mr Kasuri will be the third time they have met on the sidelines of one summit or another in the space of a month. [Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri (L) and Indian counterpart Natwar Singh] India and Pakistan have already held two rounds of talks Last week, India and Pakistan announced a series of meetings ahead of formal talks between the two foreign ministers scheduled for late August. The nuclear rivals will hold six rounds of talks in Delhi and Islamabad between now and then. These will cover a range of issues, including the dispute over the Himalayan region of Kashmir. Peace talks between the two countries began earlier this year after months of hostility. India and Pakistan have already held two rounds of talks during which they agreed to notify each other before testing missiles and to restore embassies to full strength. They also pledged to hold "sustained and serious" talks to resolve the Kashmir dispute, over which they have fought two wars since independence in 1947. Neither side has indicated whether they plan to involve Kashmiri separatists opposed to Indian rule at any stage of the peace talks. ***************************************************************** 14 Hi Pakistan: Talks with India to resolve all issues on equal basis Kasuri July 19 2004 KASUR: Foreign Minister Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri has said that dialogues have been started with Indian government on equal basis to resolve all issues while maintaining national integrity. He said this while talking to newsmen at a wedding ceremony of local journalist 's daughter here Saturday night. District Nazim Imtiaz Ahmed Khan, MNA Ch. Manzoor Ahmed and Tahsil Nazim Malik Rashid Ahmed were also present on the occasion. Kasuri said that the country's foreign policy is based on national interest and there is no pressure on Pakistan from any quarter including US in this regard. "No body is giving dictation to us", he said and added that national interest has always been protected while promoting relations with US. He stressed upon the world community to fight unitedly against terrorism. He said the nomination of Ashraf Jehangir Qazi as representative of UNO in Iraq is honour for Pakistan. Kasur said that all development projects announced by former Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Jamali during his visit to Kasur would be completed. Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 TomPaine.com: The Man Behind The Curtain John Prados July 19, 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee Report about President Bush's role in pushing faulty Iraq intelligence? Because the Senate isn't taking up the question of how the intelligence was used, many are saying the report  [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/18/opinion/18SUN3.html?pagewanted =print&position=]  the president. Not exactly, says Prados, an analyst at the NSA. He points to several facts that show the intelligence used to sell the war was an afterthought for the White House. John Prados is a senior analyst with the National Security Archive. His current books are  Hoodwinked: The Documents That Reveal How Bush Sold Us a War (the New Press), and Inside the Pentagon Papers (University Press of Kansas). Sen. Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee that last week issued a massive report on its investigation into the prewar intelligence on Iraq, told us on July 14 that, if President George W. Bush had been given accurate intelligence information on Iraqs alleged weapons of mass destruction, I dont think the president would have said that military action is justified right now. A week ago, in releasing the Senates investigative report, Roberts replied, I dont know, when asked if Congress would have approved the Iraq war had it had the knowledge of the intelligence reporting that we have today. The latest sally is an attempt to excuse President Bush as the victim of CIA phony threat-mongering. But the implication that President Bush, absent the Iraqi weapons, would not have gone after Saddam is false. The record of the months before the war and other data shows Bushs intent quite clearly. The Senate Intelligence Committee report adds even more to that record. An Intention To Oust Saddam There are those who would date the intention to get Saddam to the late 1990s, to the neocons letter campaign and the Iraq Liberation Support Act passed in 1998, and we have the word of former treasury secretary Paul ONeill that President Bush was thinking along these lines from his first days in office. There is independent evidence that the bulk of Bushs get-acquainted session with the Joint Chiefs of Staff actually involved a discussion of Iraq options. But even giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt over the degree to which he backed Colin Powells early pursuit of smart sanctions for Iraq, the president had his National Security Council  considering an Iraq liberation strategy by the summer of 2001 and the NSC Deputies Committee met on that subject five times before the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Bush signed an order directing the U.S. military to begin planning against Iraq on Sept. 17, 2001. The orders were a codicil to the national security directive to attack Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden. The responsible joint command of the U.S. military, Central Command (CENTCOM), designated the Third Army as headquarters for a coalition land force two months later. Two Army colonels, Mike Fitzgerald and Kevin Benson, led the planning groups at CENTCOM and Third Army respectively. The very next day, November 21, President Bush was asking defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld to tell him what the options were on Iraq. General R. Tommy Franks of CENTCOM presented his initial invasion concept to Rumsfeld on December 4. The rough concept would be presented to Bush just days after Christmas. All of this long predated any of the intelligence manipulations regarding Iraqi weapons. Then consider the Bush administrations diplomatic stage-setting. Secretary of State Colin Powell told Congress in the second week of February 2002 that the United States was considering a variety of possibilities for regime change in Iraq. In March, Vice President Richard Cheney made a tour of the Middle East and Persian Gulf states along with Great Britain, attempting to line up allies for an invasion. That Cheney got a cold shoulder in everywhere except in London, and that this development did nothing to turn aside the Bush administration initiative says volumes about the intentions of the American president. To fast forward for a moment, the British government has conducted its own official inquiry into Iraq prewar intelligence, and the result, the so-called Butler Reportlike that of the Senate intelligence committee in this countryhas recently been declassified and released. The Butler Report shows that when President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair met at the Bush Ranch in Crawford Texas on April 6 and 7, 2002, the option on the table was already sustaining the pressure on the Iraqi regime and that much of the discussion concerned the need for effective presentational activity. Bush himself told a television interviewer, I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go. Interpreting The NIE On Iraq This brings us to the first fresh bit of the intelligence story. It turns out that the now-notorious CIA White Paper, with its distortions and exaggerations, was originally commissioned in May 2002 by orders to the CIA from the NSC Deputies Committee (the white paper never actually reached the public eye until October).  This ball was hit out of the White House court; it was not the product of executive action taken as the result Bushs sudden receipt of alarming intelligence. On June 19, General Franks briefed the president on the newest version of the war plan, and Bush signed a directive to the Joint Chiefs of Staff to prepare to carry out war against Iraq eleven days later. Again, this was not on the basis of U.S. intelligence. Some of the best evidence that the Iraq war was purposeful and not the result of an intelligence failure is what did not happen. The usual schema for conceptualizing the making of decisions is that a president has some idea for policy, he asks U.S. intelligence for an estimate in order to understand the necessityor the difficulties inherent in his ideaand he decides after reviewing the intelligence input. In the case of Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee now documents, the Bush administration never asked for a National Intelligence Estimate at all, not regarding Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, not even on the capabilities of Iraqi conventional forces to resist a U.S. invasion! Excepting sudden contingencies (Dominican Republic in 1965, Grenada in 1983, Panama in 1989), this is the first time in modern history that the United States has engaged in a war without the president first seeking a formal intelligence evaluation. The only reason a National Intelligence Estimate was done on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction was because it was requested by Congress, then facing Bushs demand for a resolution authorizing him to use force against Iraq. An NIE done in response to Congressional request is, again, an extreme rarity in the U.S. intelligence business. The Iraq NIE did contain numerous alarming allegations regarding weapons of mass destruction, and the Senate report makes clear that most of them were poorly substantiated, based on a train of assumptions, sometimes in the face of contradictory evidence, and, on occasion, even made up. But the CIA was doing its job, as far as the president was concerned. The purpose of the estimate was to convince Congress to vote for warnot to inform the Bush administration about the Iraqi threat. There is a lengthy story to be told as to how, over the summer and fall of 2002, President George W. Bush used his public appearances to create the specter of an Iraqi threat, and how Bush contrived that his senior officials assist in that endeavor. Much as Richard Cheney, or Rumsfeld, or Wolfowitz or Rice, or any of the others, were in the public eye, it was President Bush, not anyone else, who was the man behind the curtain. Keep your eye on him. Now he wants to evade accountability by pleading it was the CIAs fault. [ TomPaine.com.] [ /] [ /] ***************************************************************** 16 asahi.com: ANALYSIS: Uncover the routes to Pakistan's nukes By EISHIRO TAKEISHI, The Asahi Shimbun LONDON-Former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto offered a glimpse into the secret history of her nation's nuclear development race with India in her interview with The Asahi Shimbun. She also denied that smuggling of nuclear technology could have been done only by a few errant individuals. Soon after taking office for the second time in the October 1993 general election, Bhutto visited North Korea. ``I was approached by others in (Pakistan), who briefed me about India's plans to get longer range missiles, and they said this was an opportunity for us to explore the possibility of also obtaining the same technology,'' Bhutto said. In Pyongyang, Bhutto met with North Korean leader Kim Il Sung, and the two leaders agreed to a missile transaction. Pakistan was then enmeshed in a missile and nuclear weapons development race with its rival India, with whom Islamabad had already fought three wars. In October 1990, the United States had suspended military and economic aid because it suspected Pakistan had a nuclear development program, which only bolstered Pakistan's sense of isolation. In such circumstances, North Korea's missile technology must have appealed to Bhutto. In April 1998, Pakistan conducted a successful experiment with the long-range Ghauri ballistic missile. For its part, North Korea in 1993 announced its intention to withdraw from the 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, following problems with accepting nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency. Pyongyang was conducting tense negotiations with the United States in a bid to resolve the issue. North Korea's economic problems were also deepening. The prospect of exporting missile technology to Pakistan must have sounded good to Pyongyang, which was looking for any possible way to obtain foreign currency. Following the end of the Cold War, the United States, Europe and Japan had emphasized nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The transaction between Pakistan and North Korea flew in the face of the West's efforts. After revelations in February of the smuggling from Pakistan of nuclear-related technology, the Pakistani government accused Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, other scientists and a few former military officials of being responsible. Islamabad concluded that the smuggling of nuclear technology was conducted by a few individuals. Bhutto denied that possibility. ``No scientist could even travel alone abroad without being accompanied by a military security detail nor without the written permission of the government of Pakistan,'' Bhutto said. It is possible there are several smuggling routes for nuclear technology out of Pakistan. One route would be to sell parts that could be used for both civilian and military uses, such as parts used in uranium enrichment equipment, by nongovernmental entities. The other route would be central government figures personally becoming involved in a transaction concerning nuclear technology, such as was suggested to Bhutto. In such cases, the transaction could possibly involve parts vital to nuclear technology, such as explosion mechanisms. A focus of the ongoing six-way talks on North Korea's nuclear weapons development program is how to verify that Pyongyang has abandoned its program. The effort should not stop at simply calling for North Korea to stop operating its nuclear facilities. Moves should also involve uncovering the secret routes to Pakistan and other destinations to ensure the North totally abandons its nuclear development program.(IHT/Asahi: July 19,2004) (07/19) [Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 17 [CMEP] NRC Affirms Citizens' Role in Nuke Plant Licensing Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 17:51:35 -0500 (CDT) *** P R E S S R E L E A S E *** For Immediate Release: July 19, 2004 Contact: Michele Boyd, PC (202) 454-5174; Michael Mariotte, NIRS (202) 328-0002 Government Judicial Body Affirms Role of Citizens' Groups in Licensing Hearing of Nuclear Plant WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today's ruling by a federal judicial board -- affirming the participatory role of two public interest organizations in the upcoming licensing hearing for a proposed nuclear fuel plant in southeastern New Mexico -- is a step in the right direction toward protecting the public interest, co-petitioners Public Citizen and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) said. The board accepted all but one of the groups' complaints (called "contentions") about the application of Louisiana Energy Services (LES), the multinational company seeking to build a uranium enrichment facility near Eunice, N.M. The plant would process uranium fuel for sale to operators of commercial nuclear power reactors. The groups said that the company didn't adequately address the environmental impacts of the plant, the disposal of the radioactive waste it would produce and other factors. Public Citizen and NIRS represent their members living near the site of the proposed facility. "We applaud the board's ruling, which recognizes the validity of our complaints as well as our right to participate in this licensing process on behalf of our members in New Mexico," said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program, which petitioned jointly with NIRS to intervene in the licensing hearing. "This is an important step to ensure that all parties' concerns are heard before the government considers granting LES a permit for this plant." The ruling came from a three-judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) appointed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the federal agency responsible for licensing and regulating the domestic nuclear industry. The board will hear, in a courtroom-style proceeding, disputes arising from LES's license application and other relevant documents. The ASLB also admitted contentions from New Mexico's attorney general and the state's Environment Department. "We are elated that the people will get a voice in this hearing," said Michael Mariotte, executive director of NIRS. "The substance of our contentions is strong; we believe it will be very difficult for LES to make a case before an impartial board that it should be allowed to operate this unnecessary nuclear facility." The board confirmed that the citizens' groups will be able to formally participate in the licensing hearing by presenting their disputes regarding such issues as the need for the proposed plant, its possible impact on local water resources, LES's uranium waste storage and disposal plan, and the company's financial plan for dealing with the hazardous radioactive material produced by the facility during and after its period of operation. The ASLB accepted the following contentions: * LES's application does not contain a complete or adequate assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project on ground and surface water, contrary to regulatory requirements. * The application does not contain a complete or adequate assessment of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed facility upon local water supplies, contrary to regulatory requirements. Further, to introduce a new industrial facility with significant water needs in an area with a projected water shortage runs counter to the federal responsibility to act "as a trustee of the environment for succeeding generations," according to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). * LES does not have a sound, reliable or plausible strategy for disposal of the large amounts of radioactive and hazardous depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) waste that the plant would produce. Moreover, LES's application seriously underestimates the costs and the feasibility of managing and disposing of the DUF6. * The application fails to discuss the impacts of construction and operation of facilities that will be required to manage the waste that would be produced by the plant. * LES has presented insufficient estimates of the costs of decommissioning the plant at the end of its useful life. * LES's application does not adequately describe or weigh the environmental, social and economic impacts and costs of operating the facility, and LES inadequately considers the need for the facility. * The application does not contain a complete or adequate assessment of the potential environmental impacts of accidents involving natural gas transmission pipelines. The NRC's licensing process is a formal legal procedure administered by the ASLB. Contentions must involve genuine disputes over factual issues - instances where LES might be in violation of federal regulations or where LES's license application is incomplete or misleading. Contentions must be backed up by affidavits and testimony from expert witnesses - people who are acknowledged leaders in their fields. This is LES's third attempt to secure a site for its proposed nuclear plant. The company withdrew its application to build a similar plant in Louisiana after nearly a decade of intense citizen opposition and unfavorable rulings by an ASLB. LES made another attempt to locate the plant in Tennessee, but was again expelled by local opponents before it had a chance to submit an application to the NRC. Citizens were concerned about the company's misleading statements and lack of a clear plan for the disposal of its waste. To read today's ruling, please go to: http://www.citizen.org/documents/LESContentions.pdf . ### ********** If you would like to be removed from the CMEP ListServ, send an email to listserv@listserver.citizen.org with the words "unsubscribe CMEP" in the message. Questions about the CMEP ListServ can be directed to CMEP-request@LISTSERVER.CITIZEN.ORG. To learn more about this and other Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program campaigns, visit our website at http://www.citizen.org/cmep/ ***************************************************************** 18 NRC: NRC Special Inspection into Causes of Reactor Shutdown and Associated Equipment Problems at Clinton News Release - Region III - 2004-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-04-043 July 16, 2004 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov [opa3@nrc.gov] inspection into the circumstances surrounding an automatic reactor shutdown and unexpected response of some plant equipment to the shutdown at the Clinton Nuclear Power Plant. The plant, located in Clinton, Ill., is operated by Exelon Nuclear Generation Company. On July 13, an automatic reactor shutdown occurred as a result of a trip of the main power transformer. The transformer trip was caused by a lightening strike which led to a disturbance on the electric grid. The main transformer connects the power from the plant generator to the electric grid. All plant safety systems responded normally during the shutdown, although several components did not perform as expected. A further problem occurred on July 14, when the level of water cooling the reactor core unexpectedly dropped about two feet. After the drop, the level of reactor coolant remained at approximately 14 feet above the top of the reactor and was sufficient to cool the reactor core effectively and not pose a risk to public health and safety. It was then promptly restored to its normal level. The NRC dispatched a special inspection to the plant to better understand the cause of the reactor shutdown and the resulting equipment malfunctions and to ensure that problems associated with the incident are addressed by the plant. "While safety was never in question in these incidents, we want to learn as much as possible to ensure that the issues are fully understood. If there are lessons to be learned from this examination we want to share them across the spectrum of reactor operators," said James Caldwell, regional administrator of NRC Region III office in Lisle, Ill. The NRC inspection team includes two inspectors from the Region III office in Lisle, Ill., and the resident inspector assigned to the Clinton plant. The report of the inspection will be publically available when it is issued, about 30 days after the close of the special inspection. The report will be posted in the NRCs electronic reading room at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html (To locate the report, once it is issued, enter the docket number for the Clinton plant (05000461) in the search phrase box.) Last revised Monday, July 19, 2004 ***************************************************************** 19 AFP: Eighteen years after Chernobyl, Finns should still be wary of mushrooms WAR.WIRE
[http://www.spacewar.com/] HELSINKI (AFP) Jul 19, 2004 Finns, who on average consume nearly 1.5 kilos (3.3 pounds) of wild mushrooms a year, should continue to take precautions when eating some types of fungi due to the Chernobyl nuclear disaster 18 years ago, officials said on Monday. In April 1986 a nuclear reactor at Ukraine's Chernobyl power plant exploded and spewed equivalent radiation of over 200 Hiroshima bombs into the air, contaminating large parts of Europe, including southwestern Finland. "There are no mushrooms that people should not eat, but we emphasize that in some regions, making up just 20 percent of our total land area, people should still take some precautions when eating certain types," Aino Rantavaara, a researcher with the Finnish Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, told AFP. She recommended boiling mushrooms and then discarding the water, which typically removes between two-thirds and 90 percent of radioactive materials such as Cesium 137. While the Chernobyl nuclear disaster is the largest such accident so far in history, it only accounts for one percent of the total annual radiation Finns are exposed to, the remainder coming from natural background radiation, she said. WAR.WIRE ***************************************************************** 20 NRC: Issuance of Draft Supplement Standard Review Plan FR Doc 04-16302 [Federal Register: July 19, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 137)] [Notices] [Page 43277-43282] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19jy04-147] [[Page 43277]] Issuance of Draft Supplement Standard Review Plan; Notices [[Page 43278]] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Issuance of draft supplement to Standard Review Plan for public comment. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a draft supplement to the Standard Review Plan (SRP) which expands NUREG-1577, Rev. 1, ``Standard Review Plan on Power Reactor Licensee Financial Qualifications and Decommissioning Funding Assurance.'' The proposed draft supplement to the SRP provides criteria for evaluating the use of an insurance policy to provide decommissioning funding assurance under 10 CFR 50.75. The NRC finds that the proposed criteria will enable the staff to determine whether through the use of an insurance policy, there is reasonable assurance of providing decommissioning funding to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety. The NRC is interested in stakeholder comments that will improve the safety benefits, effectiveness, and efficiency of the review of insurance policies to provide decommissioning funding assurance. DATES: Submit comments by August 18, 2004. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure consideration only for the comments received before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following reference, NUREG-1577, Rev. 1, in the subject line of your comments. Comments on the draft supplement in writing or in electronic form will be available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including any information in your submission that you do not want to be publicly disclosed. Mail comments to: Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Mail Stop TG- D59, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. E-mail comments to: [NRCREP@nrc.gov] . You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://ruleforum.llnl.gov] . This site provides the capability to upload comments as files (any format), if your Web browser supports that function. Address questions about the rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher at (301) 415-5905; e-mail [ CAG@nrc.gov] . Hand deliver comments to: One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays, telephone (301) 415-1966. Fax comments to: Chief, RDB, Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-5144. Copies of the draft supplement specified in this notice and other publicly available documents related to this draft supplement, including public comments received, can be viewed electronically on public computers in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, Room O-1F21, and open to the public on Federal workdays from 7:45 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. The PDR reproduction contractor will make copies of documents for a fee. Selected documents, including public comments on the draft supplement, can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://ruleforum.llnl.gov] . Publicly available NRC documents created or received in connection with this draft supplement are also available electronically via the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] . From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact NRC PDR Reference staff at (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail at [PDR@nrc.gov] . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael A. Dusaniwskyj, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Mail Stop O-12D3, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415- 1260, or e-mail [MAD1@nrc.gov] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Abstract The NRC is issuing this draft supplement to the SRP to provide criteria that will be used to review the insurance method of providing decommissioning funding assurance. This draft supplement reflects current regulations and policy, and will be updated for any future initiatives. Proposed Supplement to Standard Review Plan: Decommissioning Funding Insurance for Power Reactors I. Areas of Review The NRC is issuing this draft supplement to describe criteria that will be used by the staff to review power reactor license applicants' and licensees' insurance methods of providing required decommissioning funding assurance. This document provides detailed criteria with respect to section III.2(f)(4) of NUREG-1577, Rev. 1 and as such will supplement NUREG-1577, Rev. 1, ``Standard Review Plan on Power Reactor Licensee Financial Qualifications and Decommissioning Funding Assurance'' (October 2003). II. Acceptance Criteria Decommissioning funding insurance may be referred to by different names such as ``decommissioning insurance,'' ``decommissioning liability insurance,'' ``decommissioning expense liability policy,'' etc. The label is much less important than (1) the terms and conditions of the policy relating to (a) the amount and scope of coverage and (b) the certainty of availability of funds, and (2) the qualifications of the issuer of the insurance policy. For these key elements, acceptance criteria are provided below. Amount and Scope of Insurance Coverage 1. Per 10 CFR 50.75(b)(1), Amount of Coverage Equal or Greater than Table of Minimum Amounts (Sec. 50.75(c)) for NRC Sec. 50.2 Decommissioning Costs (e.g., excluding cost of removal and disposal of spent fuel and non-radioactive structures and materials beyond that necessary to terminate the license) or a Site-Specific Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Sec. 50.75(b)(4)). Confirm that the policy provides an adequate amount of coverage (``liability limit'') for NRC decommissioning costs, which is an amount not less than the table of minimum amounts (Sec. 50.75(b)(1)). Although the ``Declarations'' section of the policy (often the cover page) typically shows the ``limit of liability'' or ``face amount,'' it is important to review the entire policy. The amount of coverage should be a specific dollar number and not be a schedule or formula contingent on projected earnings under the policy. Coverage for amounts only in excess of the minimum amounts (or site-specific cost estimate) and up to the actual cost of decommissioning does not satisfy the regulations. The insurance policy should guarantee at least the total amount of currently estimated [[Page 43279]] decommissioning costs (NUREG-1577, Rev. 1 Sec. III.2.f(2)). Determine whether the amount of coverage includes both NRC and non- NRC costs. If a policy covers both NRC and non-NRC costs, they should be separately identified and only NRC-required costs should be assessed as equal to or greater than the minimum amount. See Sec. Sec. 2.1.2 and 2.1.7 NUREG 1.159 Rev. 1 and NUREG-1577, Rev. 1 Sec. III.2.a(3). The same approach should be used if the amount of coverage includes costs for onsite spent fuel management (see NUREG-1700, Rev. 1). Evaluate whether there are any stated sublimits. In particular, a policy containing a sublimit for NRC costs lower than the minimum amount may render the policy non-compliant, even if the sublimit applies only in the event of premature closure or only in the event of cancellation, termination, non-renewal or rescission of the policy. Different limits for decommissioning that occur during the initial license period or during the period of license renewal are acceptable if they are for amounts not less than the NRC minimum amounts. The amount of coverage should be capable of being adjusted (Sec. 50.75(b)(2) and Sec. 2.1.5, Reg. Guide 1.159, Rev. 1). The policy language may not be clear on whether and how the limits of liability may be adjusted. Typically, this is done through ``endorsement.'' Find any ``changes'' clause (see 14 below). A policy with limits that can be adjusted down but not upwards would require that another financial assurance mechanism make up the difference. Determine whether there are any ``deductibles.'' A deductible may be called a ``retention,'' a ``self-insured retention,'' ``self- insurance,'' or other euphemism. Typically, the deductible is expressed as a flat dollar amount that must be paid by the insured before the insurer's liability under the policy is triggered. A deductible is acceptable if the policy provides ``first dollar coverage'' of the deductible by the insurer. First dollar coverage means that the insurer is responsible for paying the deductible amount (e.g., into the standby trust fund), while the insured is separately responsible for reimbursing the insurer for the amount of the deductible. Another type of deductible involves the insured sharing in some defined proportion of the decommissioning expenses from a dollar starting point (termed the ``attachment point'') until some defined dollar ending point. Absent first dollar coverage expressly provided by the policy, the licensee must provide another assurance mechanism in combination with insurance to cover deductible amounts or demonstrate that its sinking funds can cover the deductible(s) (Sec. 50.75(e)(1)(vi)). The combined amount should at least equal currently estimated decommissioning costs (NUREG-1577, Rev. 1 Sec. 111.2.f(2)). 2. Annual Adjustment of Minimum Amount of Coverage (Sec. 50.75(c)(2)). If this is not the first year the policy is used, determine whether the amount of coverage provided satisfies the adjusted required minimum amount. 3. Scope of Coverage (Sec. 50.2). Verify the scope of coverage, which should be for NRC (Sec. 50.2) defined decommissioning costs. Relevant language defining the scope may appear in different sections of the policy, such as under ``Insuring Agreement, Definitions, Exclusions, Conditions, and Declarations.'' Review any policy language that defines covered decommissioning costs only as those incurred by reason of work performed during the policy period; such a limit is inconsistent with the payment of funds into the standby trust prior to decommissioning costs being incurred by the licensee by reason of work actually performed. If the scope of the policy covers non-NRC (i.e., greenfield costs) costs as well as NRC costs, verify that coverage of non-NRC costs is limited in amount so that those costs do not draw on money intended for NRC costs. Similarly, if the policy covers spent fuel management financial assurance (Sec. 50.54(bb)), verify that coverage of these costs will not draw on money intended for coverage under Sec. 50.75 (see C.11 ``Use of Funds'' NUREG 1.184). Determine if the scope of coverage has been unduly restricted by any ``exclusions'' written into the policy. Exclusions of costs not intended to be covered under decommissioning, not appropriate for coverage under decommissioning insurance, and costs covered under other insurance programs should be acceptable. Costs NOT intended to be covered under decommissioning include: Operational expenses. Accident response (see Sec. 50.54(w)). Repair or replacement of damaged property. On-site spent nuclear fuel management (see Sec. 50.54(bb)). Decontamination or cleanup prior to permanent cessation of operations. Transportation and disposal of spent fuel. Costs not appropriate under insurance for decommissioning funding: Costs due to fraudulent, dishonest, or criminal acts, unless such acts result in decommissioning. Fines, penalties, etc. imposed for violation of Federal or State law. Intentional, willful, or deliberate non-compliance, unless such acts result in decommissioning. Bodily injury/property damage*. Workers compensation, disability benefits, unemployment compensation*. Post-accident decommissioning*. Note: *Costs covered under other insurance. It is common to find legal fees excluded from insurance coverage in liability policies. However, such costs related to decommissioning must be covered by decommissioning insurance if incurred. NRC review should be based on the entire policy and all endorsements and not solely on any Certificate of Insurance provided or solely on the Declarations page. Certainty of Coverage: Issuer Qualifications 4. Issuer Qualifications. Determine the identity of the issuer of the policy (not to be confused with any broker or agent involved in the transaction). The name and address of the issuer should be included in the policy (Sec. A.12.3, NUREG-1757). Determine the ``domicile'' of the insurer, which may be a U.S. state or a foreign country where the insurer is incorporated. Special terms and conditions are appropriate for insurers domiciled outside of the U.S. The insurer must be ``licensed'' by authorities of the State where the relevant nuclear plant is located to transact the business of insurance, (Sec. 2.3.3, NUREG 1.159 Rev. 1). One can verify that the insurer is licensed by checking with the insurance commission or agency in that state; many states provide on-line directories of their licensed insurers. Where practical, review databases or reference documents to determine whether the insurer is a commercial firm capable of selling policies to anyone or is instead an organization-- termed a ``captive,'' a ``risk retention group (RRG),'' or ``mutual'' insurer-- that can sell insurance only to one or a limited number of reactor owners. A policy issued by a captive insurer that covers only a single owner's reactor(s), often termed a ``pure captive,'' will be problematic. Such a policy is synonymous to self-insurance, which NRC regulations do not permit. A mutual, captive, or RRG that can insure more than a single owner's reactors also may be problematic unless the insurer covers a relatively large number of owners and reactors. [[Page 43280]] A group captive, RRG, or mutual insurer is acceptable if: (a) The Internal Revenue Service has issued a letter ruling finding that premiums paid to the insurer will be considered deductible for tax purposes, and (b) The issuer of the insurance policy has received a financial strength or safety rating of A-or better from A.M. Best, A-or better from Standard & Poor's, A-3 or better from Moody's, A-or better from Fitch, or B-or better from Weiss Rating, as its most recent, issuer- specific rating. Note: The issuer of the policy must be acceptable to the NRC. As required for nuclear energy liability insurance, the Commission may require proof that the organization or organizations which have issued policies are legally authorized to issue them and do business in the United States and have clear ability to meet their obligations (Sec. 140.18(a)). 5. The Trustee of the Standby Trust Must Be Acceptable to NRC (Sec. 50.75(e)(1)(iii)(A)(2)). An acceptable trustee includes (1) an appropriate State or Federal government entity or (2) an entity that has the authority to act as a trustee and whose trust operations are regulated and examined by a Federal or State Agency (Sec. 50.75(e)(1)(iii)(A)(2)). See Sec. 2.2.6 of NUREG 1.159 Rev. 1 for information on verifying the acceptability of financial institutions as trustees. One can also use Sec. 4.3.2.15 of NUREG-1757, Vol. 3 to determine the acceptability of a non-government trustee. Certainty of Coverage: Terms and Conditions of Policy 6. Covered Licensee(s). The policy must include the name and address of the covered licensee(s), their NRC license number(s), and the name(s) and address(es) of the covered facility(ies), (Sec. A.12.3, NUREG-1757). 7. Licensee's Regulatory Obligations. The policy should contain a statement of the licensee(s)' regulatory obligations as the reason for the policy. 8. Duration/Term of Coverage (Sec. 50.75(e)(1)(iii)(A)(1)). The policy must state an ``effective date'' (or ``inception date'') and may state an expiration or termination date. Verify that the term of coverage either is open-ended, or, if written for a specified term ending on a particular date, that the policy is automatically renewed, unless the issuer notifies NRC, the beneficiary, and the licensee of its intent not to renew; as stated by Sec. 50.75(e)(1)(iii)(A)(1), such a provision must require notice at least 90 days prior to the renewal date, which is best evidenced by return receipts. 9. Cancellation/Termination and Non-Renewal. The policy should require a minimum of 90 days prior notice to NRC, as evidenced by return receipts, of the insurer's or the insured's intent to cancel, non-renew, or terminate the policy (Sec. A.12.3, NUREG-1757, Vol. 3, & Sec. 50.75(e)(1)(iii)(A)(1) (for non-renewal only)). It is acceptable if the policy states that the insurer may cancel or terminate the policy if the premium is not paid. Some policies may provide only a short period (e.g., 10 days) prior to cancellation/ termination in the event of non-payment of premium or misrepresentation/fraud.\1\ Such a short period is not acceptable, because it does not allow sufficient time for the licensee to arrange alternative coverage or for NRC to take appropriate action prior to its cancellation/termination if the licensee fails to provide an acceptable substitute. A period of 90 days should be the minimum following notice to NRC and the insured. A provision stating that the insurer may not cancel, terminate, or non-renew the policy if the licensee is named as a ``debtor in bankruptcy proceedings'' is desirable. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Misrepresentation/fraud is a basis for declaring an insurance policy null and void through the legal process of rescission. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- 10. Automatic Payment Prior to Cancellation/Termination/Non-renewal (Sec. 50.75(e)(1)(iii)(A)(1)). The insurance policy must provide that the full ``face amount'' for NRC decommissioning costs be paid to the beneficiary (i.e., decommissioning trust) automatically prior to policy cancellation/ termination/non-renewal ``without proof of forfeiture'' if the licensee fails to provide a replacement acceptable to the NRC within 30 days after the licensee or NRC receives notice of cancellation/termination/ non-renewal, as evidenced by return receipts (Sec. 50.75(e)(1)(iii)(A)(1) provides 30 days after notice of intent to cancel). 11. Beneficiary. The ``beneficiary'' should be the standby trust, but may be defined as the licensee of the covered facility. A policy should be acceptable even if it does not designate a beneficiary, so long as it guarantees that funds drawn from the policy must be paid into the standby trust (see 20 below). 12. Bankruptcy or Insolvency of the Insured. The policy should contain a provision to the effect that bankruptcy or insolvency (a condition of financial distress) of the insured does not relieve the insurer of any of its obligations. 13. Primary Not Excess Insurance. The policy should not contain a clause to the effect that if the licensee has other valid and collectible insurance applicable to decommissioning, then the decommissioning insurance under review shall be ``excess insurance'' over such other coverage. Because licensee property insurance (e.g., Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited) may cover decommissioning in certain situations, certainty and timeliness of decommissioning coverage may be impeded by having to resolve which insurance coverage is primary or excess. 14. Changes. The policy should state that its terms shall not be waived or changed except by written ``endorsement'' \2\ issued to form a part of the policy and unless sixty days prior written notice has been given to the NRC, and the NRC has not objected within that time. A clause that permits the insurer and the insured to agree to changes in the policy against the disapproval of the NRC is not acceptable. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \2\ An ``endorsement'' is a document that is treated as an integral part of the policy although it typically is issued later. Endorsements will be labeled as such and numbered. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- 15. Designated Agent. The policy should identify an agent of the insurer who is to receive all notices and other required communications and whose requests, demands, and agreements are deemed to have been made directly by the insurer (see, for example, clause 16 in 10 CFR 140.91). Complete contact information should be provided in the policy. 16. Authorized Signatories (Sec. 2.1.3, NUREG 1.159, Rev. 1). The policy must be signed and dated. The parties signing the policy must be authorized to act for the licensee and the insurer in the transactions. A duly authorized representative may be either a named individual or any individual occupying a named position. All required signatures should be notarized. For a licensee that is a corporation or limited liability company, a principal executive officer of at least the level of vice president should sign; for a licensee that is a municipality, State, Federal, or other public agency, either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official should sign. A person is deemed to be a duly authorized representative if the person is authorized in writing by an individual described above, and the authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for the overall operation of the reactor or power company, such as the position of plant manager, a superintendent, or person of equivalent responsibility. [[Page 43281]] 17. Original, Conformed Copy, or Photocopy of Original (Sec. 2.1.4, NUREG 1.159, Rev. 1). NRC may review the original, a conformed copy, or a photocopy of the original policy. A conformed copy is a word for word copy of a document, which may be marked ``conformed copy.'' A conformed copy may substitute the printed or typewritten name of each signatory in place of each signature. If the copies are not signed, they should be accompanied by a declaration signed by an officer authorized to sign for the organization, certifying that they are ``complete and accurate copies'' of the original document. A photocopy is produced by a process that accurately reproduces the original and is marked as a ``copy.'' An originally signed duplicate is a conformed copy or photocopy that bears originally handwritten signatures. 18. Policy Must Conform to Applicable State Law (Sec. 2.3.1, NUREG 1.159, Rev. 1). A determination that the policy conforms to applicable state law can be based on opinion letters, which are best provided by an independent law firm or lawyer that practices insurance law and/or by an insurance broker's in-house counsel. The opinion letter should identify the state whose law is applicable (e.g., the state where the reactor is located, the state where the policy is issued) and should state that the policy conforms to the laws of that state. The counsel signing the letter should be admitted to the bar of the state whose law is at issue and the letter should so state; NRC can confirm the lawyer's qualifications by contacting the state bar association or by checking with legal reference books (e.g., Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory). 19. State Public Utility Commission Approval or Non-objection. For electric utility licensees with access to non-bypassable charges, the licensee's State public utility commission must have approved the use of the insurance policy or raised no objection to the use of the particular policy. There should be some documentation of such approval or non-objection (e.g., correspondence between the licensee and Public Utility Commission). 20. Assignment. The policy should contain a provision allowing ``assignment'' (i.e., transfer) of the policy to a successor licensee. The policy may specify that the assignment is conditional upon the consent of the insurer so long as the policy also states that such consent ``will not be unreasonably refused.'' Right of assignment enables a licensee to redeem value from the policy if ownership or operation of the covered facility is transferred to a new party. The insurer may want the right to consent to or refuse assignment in order to protect itself against transfers of ownership or operation that would unfairly prejudice the interests of the insurer in a manner not contemplated originally (e.g., transfer of the facility to an insolvent owner). Refusal to consent to assignment would be ``unreasonable'' where the interests of the insurer are not prejudiced by a successor licensee replacing the original insured party. 21. Proceeds Payable to a Decommissioning Trust Fund (Sec. 50.75(e)(1)(iii)(A)(2)). The insurance policy must be payable to a trust established for decommissioning costs (Sec. 50.75(e)(1)(iii)(A)(2)). The trust may or may not be identified in the policy as the ``beneficiary'' of the insurance. If there are any conditions or limitations in the policy regarding payments to the trust fund, these should be assessed for their impact on availability and certainty of financial assurance. For example, it is preferable that the policy does not state that payments shall be made only on the ``default'' of the licensee to satisfy decommissioning requirements. A policy may identify several different parties to whom proceeds are payable, and these will need to be reviewed and clarified; NRC should expect that improvements in drafting can eliminate any ambiguities and inconsistencies in the policy. Although the regulations clearly state that the insurance must be payable to a decommissioning trust, they do not state when or how to make the payments. Any policy terms that would impact the timing and amount of payments into the trust fund should be reviewed from the point of view of the guiding principle of having reasonable assurance of having funds when needed. The NRC's decommissioning regulations contemplate that decommissioning payments will be made from the trust and not by the insurer, so the insurer must timely transfer ample funds to the trust, if not all the funds covered by the policy at once, on a schedule consistent with access to funds allowed by Sec. 50.82(a)(8). For funds not required to meet near term pay-out needs, it is acceptable if the policy offers the option of retaining those funds in the insurance mechanism. 22. Role and Rights of the Insurer. The insurer must invest all NRC decommissioning funds transferred from prepaid funds or an external sinking fund, and all earnings thereon, consistent with the prudent investor standard set forth in 18 CFR part 35 subpart E. This should be stated as a condition in the policy. The policy may give the insurer the right to monitor all aspects of decommissioning to which the policy applies, and the right of reasonable access to the site. Moreover, the insured may be required to seek the insurer's review and approval of individuals and firms under consideration to perform decommissioning. Such provisions are subject to negotiation between the insurer and the insured and are problematic only if they interfere with NRC's regulatory controls and oversight of decommissioning or the decommissioning flexibility granted by Sec. 50.59. The staff shall evaluate whether there are policy provisions relating to ``claims procedures'' or ``claims management,'' which indicate that the insurer will be involved directly in the review, adjustment, approval, and payment of claims for decommissioning expenses. These provisions are subject to negotiation between the insurer and the insured; however, actual payment of claims (i.e., cutting and sending checks) may best be performed through the trust. These provisions are problematic if they undermine the system of financial controls established under Sec. 50.82(a)(8), or if they interfere with the insured's ability to complete decommissioning in a timely manner and/or to perform decommissioning activities under plans approved by the NRC or orders issued by the NRC. Note: The terms and conditions of the policy must be acceptable to the NRC. The NRC reserves the right to take the following steps to ensure an acceptable policy: either independently or in cooperation with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the licensee's state Public Utility Commission, take additional actions as appropriate on a case-by-case basis, including ensuring or directing the addition or removal of clauses through written endorsement. 23. The Standby Trust Must Be Acceptable to NRC (Sec. 50.75(e)(1)(iii)(A)(2)). The terms of an acceptable standby trust would be similar to the sample standby trust language contained in Appendix B-3.2 of NUREG 1.159, Rev. 1. Licensees that are ``electric utilities'' (as defined in Sec. 50.2) that use prepayment or external sinking fund trusts must include the terms and conditions found in Sec. 50.75(h)(2) relating to disbursement or payments. Note that amended regulations applicable to decommissioning trusts of electric utility and non-electric utility [[Page 43282]] licensees became effective on December 24, 2003. Section 50.75 requires that licensees that are not ``electric utilities'' (as defined in Sec. 50.2) must include in their trusts the terms and conditions found in Sec. 50.75(h)(1) relating to investment of funds (Sec. 50.75(h)(1)(i)), management of funds (Sec. 50.75(h)(1)(ii)), amendment of trusts (Sec. 50.75(h)(1)(iii)), and disbursement or payments from trusts (Sec. 50.75(h)(1)(iv)). A tax-qualified decommissioning trust set up under 468A of the Internal Revenue Code and associated regulations is not likely capable of serving as a standby trust because the amounts that can be placed in such a trust are limited by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. However, a non-tax qualified trust potentially could serve as a standby trust if it meets the requirements noted above. III. Evaluation Findings The reviewer verifies that sufficient information has been provided to satisfy the requirements of this Standard Review Plan section and the underlying regulations, and concludes that his or her evaluation is sufficiently complete and adequate to support the conclusion to be included in the staff's safety evaluation report that the applicant has satisfied the NRC's decommissioning funding assurance requirements using insurance. IV. Implementation The following is intended to provide guidance to applicants and licensees regarding the NRC staffs plans for using this SRP. Except in those cases in which the applicant proposes an acceptable alternative method for complying with specified portions of the NRC's regulations, the method described herein will be used by the staff in its evaluation of conformance with Commission regulations. V. References U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Standard Review Plan on Power Reactor Licensee Financial Qualifications and Decommissioning Funding Assurance, NUREG-1577, Rev. 1. C.L. Pittiglio, Standard Review Plan for Evaluating Nuclear Power Reactor License Termination Plans, NUREG-1700, Rev. 1 (April 2000). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors, Regulatory Guide 1.159, Rev. 1 (October 2003). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors, Regulatory Guide 1.184 (July 2000). U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning Guidance: Financial Assurance, Recordkeeping, and Timeliness (Vol. 3), NUREG-1757 (September 2003). Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of July, 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Program Director, Policy and Rulemaking Program. [FR Doc. 04-16302 Filed 7-16-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: Pacific Gas and Electric Co.; Notice of Partial Withdrawal of FR Doc 04-16303 [Federal Register: July 19, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 137)] [Notices] [Page 43022] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr19jy04-114] Application for Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the licensee) to partially withdraw its September 24, 2002, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, located in San Luis Obispo County, California. A portion of the proposed amendments would have revised Technical Specification 3.4.10, ``Pressurizer Safety Valves,'' to allow pressurizer safety valve (PSV) loop seal temperature to be less than the lower design temperature during plant heatup and cooldown in Mode 3, and in Mode 4 when any reactor coolant system cold leg temperature is greater than the low temperature overpressure protection arming temperature specified in the pressure temperature limits report, provided at least one Class 1 power operated relief valve is available and capable of providing automatic pressure relief. The loop seal revision was intended to allow gradual stabilization of the loop seal temperatures during plant heatups and cooldowns, and avoid having to partially drain the loop seals to establish the minimum design PSV inlet temperature. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on December 24, 2002 (67 FR 78522). However, by letter dated March 9, 2004, the licensee withdrew that portion of the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated September 24, 2002, and its supplement dated November 21, 2003, and the licensee's letter dated March 9, 2004, which withdrew a portion of the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html] . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1- 800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of July, 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Girjia Shukla, Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 04-16303 Filed 7-16-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 22 Mainichi Interactive: Fire breaks out at nuclear power station in Fukushima FUKUSHIMA -- Fire broke out in a turbine building at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s No. 1 nuclear power station on Sunday, burning for 30 minutes before it was extinguished. Officials at the power station in Futaba, Fukushima Prefecture, said the fire broke out inside a cable connected to electrical equipment in the underground turbine room of the station's No. 5 reactor at about 2:15 p.m. on Sunday. Workers and firefighters extinguished the fire about 30 minutes later, after it burned a 15-meter length of the vinyl coating on the cable. Officials said the cable was a provisional one used to inspect air conditioners. It had been used since Friday, conveying an electrical current of 480 volts and 190 amperes, officials said. The fire is thought to have started inside the cable, but no problems were found with the cabled when it was inspected before use. The fire did not affect the operation of the plant or create the possibility of a radiation leak, officials said. (Mainichi Shimbun, Japan, July 19, 2004) © 2004 The Mainichi Newspapers Co. ***************************************************************** 23 TheChamplainChannel.com: Vermont Yankee Needs Place For Nuke Waste [http://www.ibsys.com/] UPDATED: 11:39 AM EDT July 19, 2004 VERNON, Vt. -- If the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant gets the OK to boost its power, it will have another problem on its hands: where to store all the extra waste. The Vernon reactor was planning to store radioactive waste at a new site in Nevada, but a federal court has put those plans on hold. The court decided the Nevada site isn't safe enough to open. The decision leaves reactors around the country scrambling to find another place to store their spent fuel. Have a comment about this story? E-mail our newsroom [newstips@thechamplainchannel.com] . Copyright 2004 by TheChamplainChannel.com [planews@ibsys.com] . All rights reserved. This material may not be published, [http://www.ibsys.com/] . ***************************************************************** 24 Brattleboro Reformer: VY waste questions take on urgency [http://www.reformer.com/] July 19, 2004 Brattleboro, VT By DAVID GRAM Associated Press MONTPELIER -- A recent court decision on plans to bury tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste under Nevada's Yucca Mountain has lent new urgency to questions about the waste being generated at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. Those questions are expected to be front-and-center before lawmakers next winter as Vermont Yankee seeks to install a new type of spent fuel storage on its Vernon site. They also may be an issue in this year's gubernatorial campaign. In a ruling earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said the Department of Energy's promise that the waste could be stored safely at Yucca Mountain for 10,000 years wasn't good enough; it implied that the standard would have to be several hundred thousand years. Meeting the new standard, if it is possible and if Congress can muster the votes to try, could require extensive redesign and retrofitting at the Yucca Mountain facility. The opening date for that project, originally expected to be 1998, more recently had been pegged at 2010. Energy Department officials say they believe they can push ahead and meet the 2010 deadline. Yucca critics scoff at that idea. "My comment is 'good luck.' I don't think this is going to fly in anyone's book," said Bob Loux, chief of Nevada's state Agency for Reactor Projects. Robert Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee owner Entergy Nuclear, said his company is betting with the Energy Department. "We do not expect a delay in DOE being able to receive commercially generated spent fuel," he said. Like other reactors, Vermont Yankee has a spent fuel pool, which was designed to hold highly radioactive spent fuel assemblies in 40 feet of water -- temporarily -- until they could be shipped off to a permanent disposal site. That temporary arrangement has been in place now for 32 years -- the life of the reactor. In an interview last week, David O'Brien, the commissioner of Vermont's Department of Public Service, noted that the spent fuel pool at Vermont Yankee, if it continues filling up at its current rate, will be out of room before the plant's license expires in 2012. Estimates vary as to exactly when the pool will be at capacity. But on one point Entergy Nuclear and its critics agree: If the plant is allowed to boost its power output by 20 percent -- a request recently given conditional approval by the Public Service Board and now before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- the plant will consume more fuel and the pool will be filled up sooner. Entergy already has made known its plans to ask permission to use "dry casks" to store spent fuel on a concrete pad outdoors at the plant site. The opening salvos in that debate were fired this past spring, when Entergy sought -- and the Legislature declined to grant -- an exemption from the state law that says lawmakers must approve any new nuclear waste storage facility in Vermont. Allowing dry cask storage at Vermont Yankee would solve three problems for Entergy. One is the nearly depleted room in the pool if the plant continues running as it is now. A second is the more quickly depleted pool space if the plant is allowed to boost its power. The third problem is what to do with the waste that would be generated if Entergy gets its longer term wish to continue operating Vermont Yankee past the currently scheduled expiration of the plant's 40-year license in 2012. Williams called it his company's "responsibility to move forward with dry cask storage permitting so that we can begin to ship as soon as DOE is ready to receive it." O'Brien said, "Whether the plant is uprated or not, there is a finite life of the spent fuel pool," O'Brien said. "It (the pool's life) terminates before the licensed life terminates. The fuel will have to be dealt with. Absent a national repository, some sort of dry cask storage will be possibly in play." Burlington Mayor Peter Clavelle, a Democrat who has said he hopes to highlight energy issues in his campaign for governor this year, said he believes it has been a mistake to consider the plant's request for the power boost separately from the dry-cask storage question. "It seems that before we can have any serious discussion about expanding the capacity of that plant -- or certainly extending the license -- we ought to have a plan for the storage of the nuclear waste," Clavelle said in an interview. State Auditor Elizabeth Ready, a former chairwoman of the Senate Natural Resources Committee who participated in debates over the disposal of low-level radioactive waste in the early 1990s, was emphatic that some solution to the waste issue is needed before the plant is allowed to increase its output. She noted that a 1991 study by an engineering consultant recommended against disposing of low-level radioactive waste at the Vermont Yankee site because of the high water table and likelihood that the material could seep into the adjacent Connecticut River. Williams sought in an interview in May to distinguish between permanent low-level waste storage -- as was proposed in the 1990s -- and temporary storage of high-level waste. But Ready and others argued that, as with the spent fuel pool, the definition of temporary storage could stretch. Ready said the recent federal court decision "means there will be no federal site. If Entergy is allowed to dispose of its high level waste on the banks of the river, it will be there forever. I can think of no greater risk to the state of Vermont. "If the court found that waste cannot be safely stored at a dry desert site," Ready added, "how in the world can we even consider a wetland in Vernon?" She predicted that when lawmakers return next winter, "dry cask storage will be one of the biggest issues we've seen in a long time." Copyright © 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 25 People's Daily: China's nuke industry: 5 strides in 5 years UPDATED: 17:27, July 19, 2004 Compared to five years ago, the number of staff was cut by half and main business income increased 78 percent, these are the "visible changes" brought to us by China Nuclear Engineering and Construction (Group) Corporation (CNECC) over the past five years. However, the changes are far more than that: China's nuclear industry has made five strides by "developing nuclear industry with science and technology", said Kang Rixin, general manager of CNECC, during a recent interview by a journalist of People's Daily. First, a relatively complete nuclear research and development system has been established. Now China's nuclear industry owns a batch of state-of-the-art facilities for scientific research and experiment, and contingents dedicated to nuclear research, tremendous scientific achievement in nuclear power and nuclear fuel with independent intellectual property rights and a strong technological innovative capability. Second, notable achievement made in nuclear power development. In the process from "zero breakthrough" to a major leap made on its own, then to operation according to international practice, China's nuclear power construction, operation and management have reached a new level. By exerting itself, China has possessed the ability to build, operate and manage 600, 000-kilowatt and million-kilowatt pressurized water reactor (PWR) power plants by "taking itself as the dominant factor and engaging in Sino-foreign cooperation". The development of nuclear power has not only furthered the advancement of scientific research, design and nuclear fuel production, but has also greatly promoted domestic machinery, electronics, instrument and meter industries. Third, China's nuclear fuel industry has made leaps in production capacity and upgrading of technology in key links, and formed a complete industrial system. Nuclear power stations have standardized and serialized home-made fuel components for 300, 000-kw, 600, 000-kw and 900, 000-kw stations with quality reaching the international level. Spent fuel reprocessing made headway and the industry started to undertake spent fuel from 2003. Fourth, nuclear security has been guaranteed. China has established and perfected a nuclear safety supervisory and management system as well as comprehensive laws and regulations on nuke security. The past several years have witnessed no nuclear accident, but the security of radioactive wastes and retired facilities has been brought under effective control. Fifth, the overall economy of the nuclear industry has been improving year by year. Sources say, the corporation earned 13.2 billion yuan from its main businesses by the end of 2003, a 78-percent growth from 1999, and an average annual rate of 16 percent. The aggregate assets and net assets of the corporation increased by 52 percent and 32 percent respectively over 1999. By People's Daily Online Copyright by People's Daily Online, all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 26 Clinton Herald: Nuclear exercise is Wednesday By Warren Kitts, Herald Staff Writer July 19, 2004 CLINTON - A semi-annual nuclear exercise involving state and county officials from Iowa and Illinois will take place this Wednesday. Clinton County Emergency Management Director Wally Henry said preparation for the exercise actually gets under way in January, with meetings held to plan what will be covered in the exercise. The full-scale event involves Clinton and Scott counties in Iowa along with Whiteside and Rock Island counties in Illinois. The participants will gather in the Emergency Operations Center at the Clinton County Courthouse. Henry says responsible parties affected by an "incident" at the Quad Cities Nuclear Generating Station in Cordova, Ill., will include the mayors of Clinton and Camanche and representatives from the county Board of Supervisors, area police and fire departments, the Gateway Area Chapter of the American Red Cross, Iowa State Patrol, the Mississippi Bend Area Education Agency and the Department of Human Services. Henry said two radiological officers and two public information officers will be present during the exercise. A representative from the Clinton County Communications Department will also attend. Evaluators from the Federal Emergency Management Agency will be grading all portions of the test; both Clinton radio stations, KROS and KCLN, will be involved in the process as they will be evaluated on how the messages sent from the Emergency Operations Center are treated when they arrive for a simulated broadcast. Henry said officials on May 14 evaluated the Clinton School District's ability to respond in case of an incident at the nuclear station. Clinton, Camanche and Northeast schools took part in that part of the exercise. Another phase of the exercise will take place Aug. 11 when the registration station in Goose Lake is activated for a general practice session. The station is where residents who are evacuated from Clinton, Camanche, Folletts, Low Moor and parts of Clinton county would report to. Henry said more than 500 people are trained in Clinton County for the semi-annual exercise. Exelon, which owns the Quad City Nuclear Generating Station, funds all aspects of the exercise, with no county taxes involved. Henry says the semi-annual exercise is to "show competency" in the ability to handle a crisis at the plant. The exercise is part of the licensing process for the nuclear station by the federal government. He said that since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America, the tests have taken on a "terrorist tone." He also said an earthquake that shook the area a few weeks ago triggered an "unusual event" at the plant and set in motion some of the procedures that will be used in the upcoming exercise. Henry said the 10-mile radius of evacuation extends to the Iowa 136 bridge in Clinton. However, milk-producing animals can be affected up to a 50-mile radius and the exercise will cover that situation as well. The exercise will start around 8:30 a.m. Wednesday and should be completed around 3 p.m. Those taking part in the exercise will briefed a few weeks after it was conducted on how things went and any areas of concern. ©Clinton Herald 2004 ***************************************************************** 27 [NukeNet] Trains hauling irradiated nuclear fuel in UK left Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:01:36 -0700 19 July 2004 The Mirror, UK By Bob Roberts, Deputy Political Editor TRAINS carrying nuclear waste capable of being used for dirty bombs have been left unguarded for days. The carriages, heading for the Sellafield reprocessing plant in Cumbria, were unwatched as they stood in railway sidings. Nuclear inspectors who uncovered the shocking lapse warned it had severe "security implications". Nuclear safety campaigners warned yesterday thousands could have been killed had terrorists got their hands on the material in the blunder at a London site. The Green Party's Darren Johnson said: "There would have been huge numbers of deaths and injuries. "Large parts of London would have been uninhabitable for hundreds of years." The Government's Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) outlined the blunder at Willesden Green, North West London, in a report to Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt. The document said: "Spot checks disclosed that approved guarding arrangements were not being carried out satisfactorily." OCNS chief Michael Buckland-Smith said train operators moving the waste from power stations in Kent and Essex accepted the "security and public relations implications" of the scare. British Nuclear Fuels has now been banned from keeping nuclear waste trains at Willesden Green. Several staff have also been axed and private guards meant to watch the trains are now being supervised. Mr Buckland-Smith added: "The incident was regrettable. The action taken had a salutary effect." But Mr Johnson, who heads London's Green Party and who has investigated nuclear trains, said thousands of lives had been at risk. He said: "The flasks on these trains can be punctured by an explosion. It would have had absolutely horrific consequences if terrorists had attacked them. "They were meant to have tightened things up after September 11, so it's very disturbing these lapses are still going on." Dr Shahrar Ali, who lives near the siding, added: "There's huge concern that these trains could have been hijacked or attacked. "We don't even know the full scale of the dangers as the Government refuses to release details, citing security reasons." http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14439507&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=nuclear-bombshell-name_page.html _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 28 Online Journal: Radiation in Iraq equals 250,000 Nagasaki bombs [http://www.onlinejournal.com By Bob Nichols Online Journal Contributing Writer July 13, 2004—As a writer I do not have a set of words to describe what 142 degrees in the shade is like. I've seen 120 degrees in Phoenix and 110 degrees in the spa's sauna I use. One hundred forty-two degrees leaves me speechless. Try to imagine 142 D temperature while wearing a helmet, long sleeve shirt, long pants, a bulletproof vest, boots, and carrying a 70-pound pack. By contrast the Inuit of Alaska and Canada are said to have 37 words to precisely talk about different kinds of snow. So, since the temperature is heating up in Iraq it seemed like a good time to float this story to different Internet sites and news publications. There was one story in 2003 of a 19-year old British soldier whose military job was to work in a British tank. In Iraq. In the summer. Word is, from London, that he forgot to drink enough water and he literally cooked in his tank. But, this story is not about the temperature in Iraq. You can bet, though, the weather will be really important for those Americans unfortunate enough to still be in Iraq this summer. This story is about American weapons built with depleted uranium components for the business end of things. Just about all American bullets, tank shells, missiles, dumb bombs, smart bombs, 500 and 2,000-pound bombs, cruise missiles, and anything else engineered to help our side in the war of us against them has depleted uranium in it. Lots of depleted uranium. In the case of a cruise missile, as much as 800 pounds of the stuff. This article is about how much radioactive depleted uranium our guys, representing us, the citizens of the United States, let fly in Iraq. Turns out they used about 4,000,000 pounds of the stuff, give or take, according to the Pentagon and the United Nations. That is a bunch. Now, most people have no idea how much Four Million Pounds of anything is, much less of depleted uranium oxide dust (UOD), which this stuff turns into when it is shot or exploded. Suffice it to say it is about equal to 1,333 cars that weigh 3,000 pounds apiece. That is a lot of cars; but we can imagine what a parking lot with 1,333 is like. The point is this was and is an industrial strength operation. It is still going on, too. No sir-ee, putting Four Million Pounds of Radioactive Uranium Dust (RUD) on the ground in Iraq was a definitely "on-purpose" kind of thing. It was not "just an accident." We, the citizens of the United States, through our kids in the Army, did this on purpose. When the depleted uranium bullets, missiles, or bombs hit something or explode most of the radioactive uranium turns instantly into very, very small dust particles, too fine to even see (they call it: uranium oxide, that's the really bad stuff). When US troops or Iraqis breathe even a tiny amount into their lungs, as little as one gram, it is the same as getting an X-Ray every hour for the rest of their shortened life. The depleted uranium cannot be removed, there is no treatment, there is no cure. The depleted uranium will long outlast the veterans' and the Iraqis' bodies though; for, you see, it lasts virtually forever. But, it gets worse. Seems an admiral who is the former chief of the naval staff of India wanted to know how much radiation this represented. [http://this/] [http://this/] He also wanted to express the amount in a figure that the world, especially the non-American world, could easily understand. The admiral decided to figure out how many Nagasaki plutonium bombs it would take to include the equivalent of the total amount of radiation deployed in Iraq in 2003 in the Four Million Pounds of depleted uranium. The admiral also wanted to figure out how much radiation the United States Military Forces have deployed in the last five American wars, the so-called Five Nuclear Radiation Wars. That is a simple enough task for somebody like the naval chief of staff for a country that is a member of the Nuclear Club. Using the Nagasaki bomb for the measuring stick is a particularly gruesome twist, though. For those of you in the States who do not know it, United States military forces dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan at the close of World War II. The rest of the world remembers that. One atom bomb was dropped by Americans on the city of Hiroshima, the other bomb on the city of Nagasaki three days later. About 170,000 to 250,000 people were vaporized or incinerated immediately. It was a really big deal. It is a measuring stick that plays very well in the rest of the world; but, not very well on American Fox News (Fair & Balanced)© channel or the rest of the Fox-like American media. The Department of Energy still lists the Hiroshima and Nagasaki detonations as "tests". The admiral released the data months ago at a scientific conference in India. This article is the first report of the data in the United States. It will first be released on the Internet. The admiral in India calculated the amount of radiation in the Nagasaki bomb and compared it with the number in the 4,000,000 pounds of depleted uranium left in Iraq from the 2003 war. Now, believe me, it is a lot more complex than that; but, that is essentially what the experts in India did. How many Nagasaki bombs equal the radiation in the 2003 Iraq war? Answer: about 250,000 Nagasaki bombs. How many Nagasaki bombs equal the radiation in the last Five American Nuclear Radiation Wars? Answer: about 400,000 Nagasaki bombs. Who would do something like this? We would. The only people in the history of the world to engage in nuclear wars are Americans, citizens of the United States. Allegedly, the Germans and Japanese of WWII also wanted to engage in nuclear wars, except the American military beat them to the draw, so to speak. Respected academic scholars could debate forever whether or not Herr Hitler, Fuhrer of Germany, would have deployed uranium munitions in the Sudetenland if the weapons had been available. Certainly the Germans knew just as much about uranium wars as we did at the time. It seems doubtful that Adolph Hitler would have ordered the use of uranium munitions there because the Sudetenland was so close to the Fatherland, Nazi Germany. An American general named Leslie Groves was in charge of the bomb making operation called The Manhattan Project. In 1943 The War Department knew exactly what uranium bullets and bombs were good for. If the nuclear weapons did not detonate in Japan, the use of uranium bullets and bombs were the fall back position. It was not 'til Ronald Reagan was president in 1981 did the re-named Defense Department resurrect the deadly radioactive uranium bullets, shells, bombs, and missiles. No wonder his popular nick-name was Ronnie Ray-Gun. The American military knew the symptoms of radiation poisoning in 1943, too; starting with the irritated sore throat through to an agonizing death from being cooked from the inside out. President [sic] Bush promised to invade and attack many countries in the 2003 State of the Union speech. I believe the man. For some reason, some misguided Americans do not believe him, or think he was "exaggerating." The rest of the world has every reason to believe him and fear him, though. Not to worry, Americans, the president [sic] has plenty of raw material for radioactive uranium munitions left. There are more than 77,000 tons stored at the 103 nuclear waste plants and a stunning 1.5 billion pounds at the several nuclear weapons labs and related facilities in the US. Each nuke waste generating plant makes another 250 pounds of radioactive material a day for radioactive bullets, shells, bombs, and missiles. Not to put too fine a point on it; but that is enough for 288 more gloriously successful campaigns like the 2003 Nuclear Radiation War in Iraq. Who's next? Every year about this time the southern winds leave a fine desert sand on the windshields of cars parked outside in Africa then Continental Europe and Britain. Soon this sand dust will carry a surprise. Thanks to the Americans. Thanks to us. We did this to the world. And, we wonder why they hate and despise us so. These depleted uranium weapons' indiscriminate killing effect gives a whole new meaning to the age old term: cannon fodder. In Iraq, what goes around, comes around. If not the depleted uranium munitions themselves, the depleted uranium dust will be in the bodies of our returning armed forces, time bombs slowly ticking away the lives of the gullible and the ignorant with their very own personal internal radiation source, the cannon fodder of the 21st Century American Nuclear Radiation Wars. A lot of people have done everything they can think of to stop these nuclear wars. Even more specifically to stop the use of depleted uranium in munitions and shut down the nuclear power plants. We have tried and failed for years. Why don't you give it a try? Can't hurt anything! Write what steps you would take to turn this situation around. Contact me at: [bobnichols@cox.net] . Copyright 2004, Bob Nichols. All rights reserved. Permission for Bob Nichols writes in Oklahoma City and is a contributing writer for LiberalSlant, Democratic Underground, Online Journal, AmericaHeldHostage, and other online publications. Mr. Nichols is a frequent contributor to The Oklahoma Observer and other print publications. He is a member of CASE—Citizens' Action for Safe Energy, and president of the Carrie Dickerson Foundation. CASE has successfully killed two serious, well funded attempts to build nuclear power plants in Oklahoma and several attempts to site what is now known as the "Yucca Mountain Reactor Dump" in Oklahoma. All these efforts to build nuclear facilities have failed. CASE won every time. Email [editor@onlinejournal.com] Copyright © 1998-2004 Online Journal™. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 29 Persian Journal: Radioactive pollution in the Caspian Sea [http://www.iranian.ws/] Jul 18th, 2004 - 11:42:37 Morteza Aminmansour [moryamin@yahoo.com] The radioactive contamination is one of the most damaging and dangerous types of pollution in Caspian Sea. The nuclear activities of the coastal states, the remnants of the nuclear tests the nuclear wastes and the nuclear side of exploration and exploitation and transportation (specially by pipelines) are the sources of nuclear danger in the Caspian Sea. Caspian Sea as the greatest lake in the world is not connected through natural channels to the high Seas, and the nuclear pollution is not the same allover the Sea. Iran does have the smallest role in the nuclear contamination of the Caspian Sea. The Caspian ecosystem collects and stores high levels of natural radioactive nuclides. The living organisms contain levels of uranium five times higher than those in other Seas. Because the Caspian Basin does not drain into other bodies of water, it operates as a natural precipitation tank for a significant mass of naturally occurring radioactive elements and these elements do not have any outlet. The former Soviet Union developed a large nuclear industry for both military and energy purposes. In Russia there are 320 Cities and 1548 other locations used to store radioactive material.In Ukraine 100,000 small nuclear facilities, there are 11,000 in Moldova, In Kazakhstan there are about 80 million tons of radioactive Waste. The direct death toll of the accident (in Chernobyl) at 8,000. In Ukraine 17 million acres of land was contaminated. The role of Russians in the nuclear pollution of the Caspian Sea is substantial. The former soviet Union (now Russia) secretly pumped billions of gallons of atomic waste directly into the earth and the practice still continues today. Russia had injected half of all the nuclear waste into three sites. The three sites are: - Dimitrovgrad near the Volga River. - Tomsk near the Ob River - Krasnoyarsk on the Yenisei River. The Volga River flows into the Caspian Sea. The Ob and Yenisei flow into the Arctic Ocean. The amount of radioactivity injected by Russians is up to three billion curies. The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant released about 50 million curies of radiation. Azerbaijan and parts of Kazakhstan due to previous activities and also the oil exploration and exploitation activities are serious sources of nuclear pollution. The main radioactive waste storage facility in Azerbaijan is the Izotop industrial Complex and holds 510 tanks of radioactive waste in 10 storage tanks designed the low- level radioactive waste. Sources of ionizing radiation was also found out in Syung-Bulag Akstafa region and Nakhchivan on the territories of military object, left by Russian militaries. One of the major factors, complicating radio ecological conditions, is production, transportation and processing of Petroleum. Petroleum extract on the surface of water contain radium, thorium, isotope of calcium, which penetrates into ground, accumulate on walls of pipes. Concentrate on local sites. The level of a radiating background in Gum adasi reaches 600mcR/h. Armenia is burying nuclear waste on territory of Karabakh.In 1997 report shows that 86 kg of radioactive waste from Metsamer were buried in three districts of Karabakh. It was reported that Azerbaijani officials have received $260,000 from a foreign entity for each container of foreign nuclear waste dumped into the Caspian Sea. Literatures: *Problem of Caspian Sea *petroleum of the petroleum industry *nuclear pollution in the Caspian Sea. *NTI Azerbijan :Radioactive Waste *NTI Armenia : Dumping nuclear Waste in Karabakh. Morteza Aminmansour [moryamin@yahoo.com] - Seattle, WA, USA © Iranian.ws 2004 - Iranian.ws [http://www.iranian.ws/] ***************************************************************** 30 Hi Pakistan: N-safety talks with US held --> July 19 2004 WASHINGTON, July 18: A team of Pakistani nuclear scientists left for home on Sunday after participating in the first-ever talks on nuclear safety between Pakistan and the United States. During the three-day talks, the two sides reviewed safety arrangements at civilian nuclear reactors and other similar facilities in Pakistan, US official sources told Dawn. The talks did not cover defence-related installations, such as the KRL, the sources said. The seven-member team included scientists, safety experts and other officials and was headed by chairman of Pakistan Nuclear Regulatory Authority, Jamshed Hashmi. Dr. Nils Diaz, Chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, headed the eight-member American team. "The talks focused on issues like preventing nuclear accidents and devising a regulatory code for nuclear installations," a source who did not want to be identified told Dawn. The United States has a well-tested and comprehensive safety protocol for civilian nuclear installations and Pakistan is reviewing it for making its own protocol. The two sides also discussed a strategy for human resource development, methods for the maintenance of aging nuclear plants, which includes acquiring new spare parts. Besides nuclear plants, safety measures at other institutions using nuclear technology were also reviewed. Pakistan and the United States have wanted to hold these consultations for a long time but nuclear-related sanctions, imposed in October 1990, prevented them from doing so. The sanctions were revoked after 9/11 when Pakistan became America's war-on-terror ally. US official sources said this was first of a series of consultations the two sides plan to hold on this subject and hoped that it would become a regular annual feature. Copyright 1996-2002 . Hi Pakistan. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 Infoshop: The Gold of the Nuclear Age: Lost and Stolen Nuclear Materials [http://www.infoshop.org/Welcome.html] Anarchogeek [http://anarchogeek.com/] The Autonomist [http://autonomist.blogspot.com/] David Grenier [http://www.davidgrenier.com/] Daze Reader [http://www.dazereader.com/] LawMeme [http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/] Librarian.net [http://www.librarian.net/] Living on Less [http://www.geocities.com/thecommonwheel/journal.html] misbehaving.net [http://www.misbehaving.net/] Monumental Mistake [http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/] Outsourced America [http://outsourcedamerica.blogspot.com/] The Postmodern Anarchist [http://www.netweed.com/postmodernanarchist/] Raed in the Middle [http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/] Rafah Kid Rambles [http://www.rafahkid.net/blog.html] Peter Werbe [http://www.peterwerbe.com/] Alternative Media Project PO Box 3123 Arlington, VA 22203 By Kirsten Anderberg (www.kirstenanderberg.com) The Los Alamos National Laboratory (www.lanl.gov) in New Mexico, USA, the birthplace of the atomic bomb, has halted much of its operations as of July 15, 2004, in an unprecedented, and open-ended, shut down of important “secret work,” until security breaches can be seriously addressed. Citing the loss of two computer discs containing classified information from the testing and design facility of the plant, during the first week in July 2004, as well as other security concerns, the nuclear plant is regrouping. In the last year and a half, Los Alamos has admitted losing classified materials four times, according to the Albuquerque Journal. And the Associated Press is reporting that in the last year, Los Alamos employees lost 9 floppy discs, a large-capacity storage disk full of classified information, and a recordable data storage device, and the lab officials say these materials are “believed” to have been destroyed. These continued security breaches at America’s top nuclear facilities show that September 11, 2001 did not tighten up security at nuclear plants as one would have thought, and as the U.S. government touted it has. Eight to nine countries have known nuclear weapons; U.S., Russia, U.K., France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and most recently N. Korea has shown up on the radar. Security of nuclear materials is most reliable in the U.S., Russia, France, and the U.K. We need to remember that the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons materials *is* finite. If terrorists cannot get nuclear materials, they cannot make nuclear bombs. But with plutonium being called the “gold of the nuclear age,” the monitoring of all the nuclear material on this planet is becoming more and more a problem, as well as a ticking time bomb. Russia’s Atomic Energy Minister has said, “Fissile materials have not disappeared” anywhere in his country, but that is not believable, any more than it is believable that America has not lost nuclear materials. There are 58 nations with approximately 345 nuclear research reactors full of highly enriched uranium necessary to make dirty nuclear bombs. America exported approximately 750 kg of plutonium and 27 metric tons of highly enriched uranium to 39 countries, over 30 years, in its “Atoms for Peace” program. In 1999, Italian police caught people trying to sell enriched uranium on the black market. Research traced that uranium to a U.S.-supplied research reactor in former Zaire, where it was stolen or purchased. The U.S. Dept of Energy estimates 2/3 of the nuclear material in Russia remains inadequately secured, but as you can see, America is having challenges with its own security of nuclear materials. In 1981, the U.S. Dept. of Defense published a list of 32 accidents involving nuclear weapons, many involving lost nuclear materials. One submarine sank with two nuclear torpedoes, and there are other cases, such as nuclear bombs that were lost from planes. According to the Brookings Institution, 11 U.S. nuclear bombs have been lost and never recovered. Since 1968, the U.S. claims 4 soviet nuclear submarines have sunk, carrying an estimated 43 lost nuclear warheads. In 1994, German police investigated 267 cases of suspected interactions involving the sale of radioactive material, as well as seized smuggled plutonium three times that year. Scientists were also arrested in Germany in 1994 with 7 pounds of weapons grade uranium in their possession. In Kazakhstan, 1000 pounds of highly enriched uranium sat unprotected in the mid-1990’s, enough uranium for many nuclear weapons. Insiders working at a Russian nuclear weapons plant were caught in a plot to steal 18.5 kg of highly enriched uranium…the list of these accounts seems endless. With Russia’s borders being twice as long as America’s, and the routine smuggling of powder drugs, as well as people, over said borders, the possibility of smuggling nuclear materials the size of a football into America, does not seem that challenging, honestly. Additionally, hacking is becoming a new threat, where a computer hacker could turn a nuclear plant into its own weapon, much like using a plane as an unconventional weapon that is already in the area. In the past, the nuclear risk to America was perceived to be coming via ballistic missiles from Communist countries like Russia or Cuba. This was an excuse U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld fell back on several times during the 9/11 Commission hearings. He kept complaining that the intelligence and defense departments had to revamp everything, as now they were looking for dirty bombs within our borders, as terrorism, rather than bombs coming from outside the U.S., via missiles aimed at the U.S. In 1964, the U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said, “A full-scale nuclear exchange between the US and the USSR would kill 100 million Americans during the first hour. It would kill an even greater number of Russians, but I doubt that any sane person would call this “victory.” But the nuclear threat now perceived to be endangering the U.S., is potentially the use of a dirty nuclear bomb within American borders on Americans by terrorists. In 1995, the National Academy of Scientists identified surplus plutonium as a “clear and present danger” to the U.S. Four kilograms, the size of an orange, is enough material to make a nuclear bomb, such agencies warned. In an essay entitled “The New Containment: An Alliance Against Nuclear Terrorism,” by G. Allison and A. Kokoshin, the writers predict what will happen after a nuclear attack on America: “Most officials will no doubt seek cover behind the claim that ‘no one could have imagined” this happening. But that defense does not ring true. Today, we have unambiguous warnings that a nuclear terrorist attack could happen at any moment. Responsible leaders should be asking the questions now.” In 1986, in the former USSR, now Ukraine, the nuclear plant at Chernobyl melted down in the world’s worst nuclear accident. The documentaries of the abandoned city around the nuclear plant tells the story well. You see houses, with pots on stoves, toys on chairs, everyday life, being led, and then abandoned, only to have curtains flapping in the wind, in the abandoned ghost town. In one documentary on Chernobyl, they showed how the government had piped in this creepy music to play so that the guards would not go crazy inside the contained area. And it was haunting, even through a TV screen. The world could end up looking like that. When Chernobyl first occurred, the USSR knew about it and did not tell. It was Sweden who detected the nuclear fallout, and traced it to the USSR. The nuclear fallout blew out of the USSR, and into areas where indigenous Scandinavian reindeer herders, the Sami, lived. Since the reindeer ate the moss on trees that was now radioactive, the government forced the slaughter of their reindeer food supply and made them dependent on government rations thereafter. The Sami people suffered greatly from the fallout of Chernobyl, and they were not in the immediate vicinity of the accident. Nuclear disaster follows the wind, and does not recognize country borders. In 1961, JFK told Americans to build bomb shelters. Now, in 2004, the U.S. government urges Americans to visit www.ready.gov, where there are instructions on what you should do in the event of a nuclear disaster. The internet will probably be jammed with hits to that site for that information right after a nuclear hit, so you might want to review it now. They advise, for nuclear blasts, taking cover underground, and using thick shields for radioactivity protection. Do you have your thick shield to protect you from radioactivity stored away for that emergency? Los Alamos officials have said that the July 2004 loss of classified materials was an example of “willful disregard,” but what does that actually mean in regards to our national security? Or our worldwide security, is more like it. Robert Foley, a part of the Los Alamos Laboratory management, said he believes scientists have been reluctant to blow the whistle on colleagues who don't follow the rules. Well, yes, that is problematic. As bumbling mistake after bumbling mistake happens on this planet at nuclear plants and nuclear research laboratories worldwide, one begins to wonder why it is, that no one ever saw, or sees, the oversight of all these nuclear materials, and their security, as a top priority. It makes you wonder if it is accidental that plutonium is named after Pluto, the God of Death. And that Chernobyl means some variation of Armageddon. Then we have Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California, which means “Devil’s Canyon.” In 1983, Carl Sagan wrote about a “nuclear winter,” where nuclear events would block out the sun, killing life on earth, to which Sagan adds, “The ashes of communism and capitalism will be indistinguishable.” Link: http://www.kirstenanderberg.com ***************************************************************** 32 Porterville Recorder: Cause for Concern By Darla Welles, The Porterville Recorder Since late June, dairy industry and health officials have been looking into reports that the state's milk supply is tainted with perchlorate - a substance used in rocket fuels, explosives, lubricating oils and a variety of manufacturing processes including leather tanning, electroplating, aluminum finishing and making rubber. The concern was kicked off by the release of a study conducted by the watchdog group the Environmental Working Group on June 24. The study reported on samples of milk taken from retail outlets in Southern California as well as tests conducted by the California Department of Food and Agriculture of raw, bulk milk silos from throughout the state. The EWG study reported that perchlorate levels from 1.5 parts per billion to 11 ppb were found in the samples. The group called upon industry and health officials to move quickly to reduce the perchlorate levels in the state's milk, suggesting that the presence of the contaminant could pose a risk, especially to children and pregnant and nursing mothers. But state health officials are advising consumers to remain calm and avoid changing or restricting their diets to avoid milk and other dairy products. "We do not have sufficient scientific data available to say whether perchlorate, when found at these relatively low levels in the milk supply, poses any significant health risk to anyone," said Steve Lyle, a spokesman for the state department of food and agriculture. "There is just not enough known about perchlorate, how it affects human health and at what levels, to justify warning people to avoid milk and dairy products. "In fact, at this point, there's every possibility that people could face more health risks from eliminating diary products from their diets than they would from drinking milk that contains low levels of perchlorates." Perchlorates have been the subject of intensive scientific scrutiny in recent years as they have turned up, first in the water supply and now in milk, at various spots throughout the nation. Though they are known to be associated with such products as rocket fuel and have sometimes been found in greater concentrations near sites such as military installations and rocket manufacturing operations, they are also present in locations not connected to such facilities. Moreover, as pointed out by Rachel Kalder, a spokeswoman for the Dairy Institute of California, which represents milk processors and dairy product manufacturers, they can be found in the absence of any man-made sources. "Perchlorates are naturally occurring salts," Kalder said. "They are ubiquitous, and they tend to be found in the water supply everywhere across the country. We do not know for sure yet at what level their presence in the water or milk they become a risk." Health authorities in California ruled earlier this year that perchlorates in water may be considered harmful when they reach a level exceeding 6 ppb. The risk perchlorates pose comes from their impact upon thyroid function. Research suggests that perchlorates inhibit the uptake of iodine by the thyroid, thereby causing adverse effects on the body's metabolic rate. In pregnant women, the impact can be especially crucial because of the added stresses that pregnancy itself puts on thyroid function, and researchers also suggest that elevated perchlorate exposure during pregnancy could affect the mental development of the unborn child by causing developmental delays related to the ability to learn. While both health officials and dairy industry groups favor taking all possible steps necessary to reduce perchlorate levels in the water supply - and consequently cutting perchlorate levels in the crops grown to feed dairy cattle - they are advising consumers to take a wait-and-see approach to the reports about perchlorate levels in milk, rather than panicking and dropping milk and dairy products from their diets. CDFA spokesman Lyle stresses that the presence of perchlorates in milk is such a new issue that there has been insufficient time to study and evaluate their risks. "We know that the body handles water and milk in different ways," he said. "It is quite possible that a level that would be risky in water, may not be a threat when measured in milk. Milk, for instance, contains iodine naturally, and that may mitigate the effects of perchlorates. "What we do know at this time is that we need a lot more research and scientific evidence before it can be determined if there is a risk involved with the perchlorate content levels that have been found in milk." Contact Darla Welles at 784-5000, Ext. 1048, or dwelles@portervillerecorder.com Print this story [http://www.portervillerecorder.com/articles/2004/07/19/special/f eatures/01dairy.prt] Email this story [http://www.portervillerecorder.com/articles/2004/07/19/special/f eatures/01dairy.eml] The Porterville Recorder, 2003. ***************************************************************** 33 [NukeNet] "Atoms for Peace" chickens come home to roost Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:51:16 -0700 "A second feature of this initiative is completing the repatriation of U.S.-origin high-enriched uranium spent fuel from research reactors -- about 40 metric tons in more than 40 locations around the world. This effort involves a number of diplomatic and legal challenges, but we believe most of the fuel can be repatriated in four to five years." ---U.S. Energy Secretary Spence Abraham, Sat., July 17, 2004 in Washington Post Full op/ed: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56503-2004Jul16.html So, the US DOE wants to bring back all the U.S. origin nuclear fuel from research reactors in 41 countries overseas in the next 4 to 5 years. A returned convoy of three truck casks of German irradiated nuclear fuel in June 2001 managed to violate several agreements with the State of Missouri as it traveled through from South Carolina to Idaho. I can send a St. Louis Post-Dispatch article about that to anyone who is interested. Kevin Kamps, NIRS _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 34 [NYTr] Sellafield Cancer risk: Call for Public Inquiry Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 13:47:15 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit News about Ireland & the Irish Sunday Life - July 18, 2004 http://www.sundaylife.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=542190 Public Inquiry Call for Sellafield Cancer Risk THE risk of cancer to people along the Co Down coast from the Sellafield nuclear plant could be 10 TIMES higher than previously thought, a new report has warned. The report - published in the New Scientist magazine - claims low- level radioactive pollution from the controversial facility may be "dangerously" high. The document - compiled by a team of experts - found the risk of cancer from exposure to plutonium could be 10 times higher than is currently accounted for by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), which sets international safety limits. The report was intended for the Government, but was leaked to the leading science magazine. Sellafield is Britain's only source of plutonium, which can remain dangerous for thousands of years. Worried South Down MP, Eddie McGrady, who has led a long campaign to have the facility closed, last night called for a public inquiry into the recent revelations. The SDLP man's plea comes after he called for further reductions in discharges in the plant earlier this year. Mr McGrady also vowed to raise the magazine's claims at Westminster. Said the MP: "There must be an immediate public inquiry into these latest claims about Sellafield and major public debate about the whole operation of this nuclear plant. "I am alarmed that this independent report indicates a confirmation of my worst fears about pollution and the effect it could have on people this side of the Irish Sea. "I can't believe pollution from the plant could have a 10-fold effect in terms of creating cancer and this is something the Government will seriously have to look at. "The Government has consistently failed to heed my warnings about Sellafield and if these latest revelations prove to be true, they must take responsibility. "A lot more still needs to be done to ensure that Sellafield is closed down and that the decades of nuclear waste stored there is safely and effectively dealt with." The South Down MP also called for a start to the run-down of all the processes that take place at the plant. * Search the NYTr Archives at: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ To subscribe or unsubscribe or change your settings via the web, visit: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ***************************************************************** 35 Daily Yomiuri: Japanese scientists trying to make plutonium that is useless in weapons Masae Honma / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer With many countries around the world apprehensive to take advantage of plutonium's energy potential because the element can easily be used in the production of nuclear weapons, an attempt by Japanese scientists to limit its use to power generation is attracting attention. The scientists are trying to achieve this goal by reducing the percentage of dangerous components that make up the element. "It is no longer just a dream to produce plutonium that is useless for weapons," Masaki Saito, associate professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology, said. Saito, who studies nuclear reactor systems and safety engineering, started a five-year project last year to study how to produce plutonium that cannot be used for weapons. Spent uranium discharged from nuclear reactors consists of 1 percent to 2 percent plutonium. The plutonium is made up of plutonium 238, 239, 240 and 242. But it is plutonium 239 that has the greatest potential to create nuclear fission, and thus can be used for nuclear weapons. Plutonium 238 is the least dangerous. But plutonium 238 accounts for only about 2 percent of the entire element, while plutonium 239 accounts for about 60 percent. To prevent plutonium from being used to make nuclear weapons, the amount of plutonium 239 must be reduced as much as possible, and the amount of plutonium 238 must be increased. Saito's research team has found a method that just might help achieve that goal. They mix neptunium and other transuranic elements--which are contained in used nuclear fuel and usually disposed of as high-level radioactive waste--into uranium before it is discharged as spent fuel. Theoretically, burning the mixed nuclear fuel inside reactors can increase the ratio of plutonium 238 to 20 percent or higher, Saito said. "The method can produce plutonium that is useless for the production of nuclear weapons," he said. "In addition, it can efficiently utilize neptunium, which is currently being disposed of as waste." If the technology is successful, the fear of terrorists stealing plutonium and using it for nuclear weapons will greatly be reduced. The risks of storing plutonium as an energy source in the future will also be lowered considerably. Saito and his fellow researchers plan to start experimenting with a team from the United States to burn uranium containing neptunium in a nuclear power plant in Idaho. "If the experiment is successful, it will be the first step toward making plutonium that can be used for peaceful purposes only," Saito said. Saito's research was one of the main topics on the agenda of an international forum for the prevention of nuclear proliferation held in Tokyo in February. About 50 researchers--mainly from Japan, the United States, Europe and Russia--pointed out that various hurdles must be cleared to put the technology into practice. Some questioned whether there is enough neptunium as only a tiny quantity of the element is contained in spent nuclear fuel. Others said that though plutonium 238 cannot be used for weapons, it is difficult to handle as it discharges a great amount of heat. But the researchers agreed that Saito's study is essential from a viewpoint of utilizing plutonium for peaceful purposes. They also decided to share information on the issue for further study. Japan owns nearly 40 tons of plutonium at home and abroad, and even though this is stored under the strict watch of the International Atomic Energy Agency, there is vast opposition in the nation to using it. Though the government has adopted a policy to use the plutonium only as fuel, the pluthermal project, the burning of a mix of plutonium and uranium in light-water reactors, will not start until 2007. Another reactor that is not being utilized is Monju, a prototype fast-breeder reactor in Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture, capable of producing more plutonium as an end product than the quantity initially inserted into the reactor. It has been shut down since an accident in 1995. While Japan received an endorsement at a regular meeting of IAEA directors on June 14 confirming that it has not diverted its plutonium reserves toward military purposes, Tetsuya Endo, a former member of the Atomic Energy Commission, said the nation is still in a delicate situation. "As long as Japan continues to store large amounts of plutonium, it can face international criticism at any time," he said. To alleviate such fears and to further increase international trust that Japan's plutonium is only to be used for peaceful purposes, it is important that the nation leads the way to produce plutonium that cannot be used in the production of nuclear weapons. Copyright 2004 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 36 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Double-talk on Yucca LAS VEGAS SUN For years this newspaper has advocated that nuclear power plants continue to store their highly radioactive waste on site, where it's safe, as an alternative to the dangerous plan of transporting it across the country to Yucca Mountain. The argument from the industry and federal government has been that on-site storage is not safe and that it is vulnerable to terrorism. We thought of that argument when reading a New York Times article last week about plans by a nuclear power plant near Peekskill, N.Y., to increase its on-site storage capacity. Local residents, fearing for their safety, turned out in force to protest the expanded storage plan. Who was there to defend on-site storage? Why, the federal government and industry officials. The plan was to transfer spent fuel rods from storage pools, where they have been cooling for years, into steel cylinders that would be stored in silos made of concrete and steel -- a process known as dry cask storage. The federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission was on hand to "placate" the residents' fears, the newspaper reported. And an industry spokesman was quoted as saying, "The casks, we believe, will withstand a commercial airline crashing into them." So we once again ask: Why is Yucca Mountain such an urgent national priority? ***************************************************************** 37 AU GL: Nuclear dump defeated [http://www.greenleft.org.au/fogl.htm] Australian news [http://www.greenleft.org.au/aust_news.htm] Jim Green, Adelaide The federal government has been forced to abandon its six-year push to build a national nuclear waste dump near Woomera in South Australia. Polling had shown that the issue could swing marginal seats in South Australia against the government in the coming federal election. The decision was also prompted by a recent Federal Court decision that reversed the compulsory seizure of land for the dump site. The government's backdown is a victory for the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta, a senior Aboriginal women's council from northern South Australia. The Kungkas — victims of the British nuclear testing program at Maralinga and Emu Field in the 1950s — have fought the dump plan since it was first announced in 1998. The Kungkas have been supported by the Girls Against Nuclear Genocide, who have moved to Coober Pedy to help fight the proposed nuclear dump. The federal government says it will look for a new site — on-shore or off-shore — to store low- and intermediate-level waste generated by federal agencies. States and territories will manage their small volumes of radioactive waste. The government hopes to begin operating a new nuclear reactor in the southern Sydney suburb of Lucas Heights in the next two years. That plan could be jeopardised by the dump backdown. The Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, operator of the existing Lucas Heights reactor, is expected to lodge a reactor operating licence application before the end of the year, with a view to operating the new reactor from 2006. The existence of firm waste-management plans is a precondition for being granted a reactor operating licence by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency. However, ARPANSA has shown itself willing to rubber-stamp government proposals previously and may do the same again. [Jim Green is an anti-nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth.] From Green Left Weekly, July 21, 2004. Visit the Green Left Weekly home page. [http://www.greenleft.org.au/] ***************************************************************** 38 Charleston.Net: Opinion: Editorials Practical action needed on waste 07/19/04 A recent court decision on the planned radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev., presumes that the government should be able to provide something approaching perfection in its long-term plans for the project. Congress should provide a practical response to the ruling that will ensure safety for the foreseeable future while allowing the storage site to be used in the near term. Indeed, the government anticipates no safety problems at Yucca Mountain for 10,000 years, based on the standard used to plan the site. The federal appeals court concluded that a longer period is required under the law that authorized the central storage site, but acknowledged that Congress could change the law and mandate that 10,000-year standard. The ruling is the latest hurdle for the central site, now more than a decade behind schedule. The appeals court did reject numerous other objections in the lawsuit by Nevada and environmental groups, including a challenge to the constitutionality of the federal decision to locate the site there. Existing problems in waste storage have been caused, in part, by the federal government's inability to meet a timetable for the central repository. The government is being sued by electrical utilities, including SCANA and Santee Cooper, that are having to provide costly on-site nuclear waste storage. The federal government already has spent $9 billion to provide for the waste storage site in the interior of the mountain, located in a sparsely populated area of Nevada. It would accommodate waste from commercial reactors now stored at dozens of sites across the nation, and for highly radioactive defense waste, such as the liquid waste stored in vast quantities at the Savannah River Site. While the decision may hearten those who oppose nuclear power and weaponry in all manifestations, it will set back efforts to manage existing waste with the assurance of safety and security. Defense waste at SRS, for example, includes 37 million gallons of highly radioactive waste in 49 tanks, some of which are a half-century old. A recent report found cracks in 15 of the massive tanks, and Congress is considering a controversial cleanup plan for that material. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has endorsed a proposal to remove 99 percent of that waste for stabilization and eventual shipment to the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain. That plan, too, is opposed for its lack of perfection. In cleanup of two tanks on site, virtually all the liquid waste was successfully removed. When attempts to remove the residue of radioactive sludge from two tanks on site weren't successful, the Department of Energy pumped concrete grout in and around the nearly empty tanks, diluting the remaining waste and sealing off the storage tanks. Practically speaking, the waste management effort achieved its goal. Yucca Mountain also will achieve its goal of safe storage for the foreseeable future, but can't be expected to meet a standard of perfection until the end of time. It should be safe to say, however, that the government will deal with hazardous contingencies as they arise. Certainly, the state of Nevada will insist that DOE or any successor agency provides close attention in the years to come. Potential problems in the far distant future can't be allowed to sidetrack the storage site, needed now. A central location is required for the safe and secure storage of nuclear waste, to supplant the numerous existing sites designed for interim storage. Certainly the storage tanks at SRS would fall somewhat below the standard envisioned by the appeals court for long-term nuclear waste storage, considering that a recent review found that leaks already have occurred. That very real nuclear waste problem, and others, deserve a practical response. [http://www.charleston.net/ Copyright © 2004, The Post and Courier, All Rights Reserved. Comments about our site, write: webmaster@postandcourier.com [webmaster@postandcourier.com] ***************************************************************** 39 Taunton Gazette: A toxic legacy leaves Norton demanding MIKE STUCKA Gazette Staff Writer 07/19/2004 NORTON -- Ghosts of Norton’s past lie just under the surface of the Attleboro/Norton line. A mix of uranium, PCBs, VOCs and other hazardous chemicals are again bringing controversy decades into the planning of a clean-up. The Shpack Site on Union Road still holds thousands of cubic yards of radioactive scrap, debris from a chemical plant fire and whatever else that a landfill operator put in his back 10 acres. State and federal agencies are supporting a plan to clean up uranium, PCBs and dioxin by digging it up and taking it out of the state. City residents are angry because concentrations of heavy metals, volatile organic compounds and other pollutants would be bulldozed, piled and capped to remain near wetlands and Chartley Pond. "We have [an] obligation to future generations to make certain that type of materials are not in the ground," said Robert Kimball, chairman of Norton’s Board of Selectmen. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is accepting comments through Aug. 25 on the proposal, and will hold a hearing Aug. 4. The difference between what the Environmental Protection Agency supports and some city residents want is stark: The site has a price tag estimated at $28.1 million for the EPA’s proposal, half of the $55.6 million for the town-supported plan. U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said he supports Norton’s view. "The proposal to cover it up and leave it there is unacceptable," Frank said. "This is some bad stuff and it ought to be gotten rid of." Frank said that because of the Superfund law there might be minimal costs to taxpayers because the companies that polluted the landfill would pay for much of the cleanup. The EPA will use nine criteria to pick a cleanup method. In its proposed plan, it cites only cost between the two plans. The EPA plan to take away radioactive materials, dioxin and PCBs is called SC-2B; the proposal to remove all the toxic chemicals is called SC-3B. "Although Alternative SC-3B provides slightly greater overall protection of human [health] and the environment than Alternative SC-2B, it requires a significantly higher cost (approximately $27 million more than Alternative SC-2B). For this reason, EPA is proposing SC-2B over SC-3B," the agency wrote in its plan. Dave Lederer, remedial project manager for the EPA, said because the agency is still taking comments, he cannot discuss the recommendation outside of what is already printed. The recommendation comes on one page of a 12-page proposed plan. Dave Buckley of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection said his agency has been working with the EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the companies for about 10 years. While the state hasn’t formally commented on the EPA plan yet, it will. "We feel it’s a good plan," Buckley said. "We feel it will protect public health and the environment." Devil’s in the details Under both plans getting discussed, water around Shpack would remain contaminated. Two nearby residents would be placed on a waterline so their wells could be closed. One well has shown high levels of manganese, a mineral that brings some health risk but mostly odor and color problems, Lederer said. The plans’ differences are stark. Under the EPA-favored SC-2B plan, about 10,000 cubic yards of material with radioactive contaminants, some left over from U.S. Navy nuclear reactor projects, would be removed from the site; that soil would cover a football field six feet deep. The plan would also remove about 2,900 cubic yards of dioxin- and PCB-contaminated material that would be taken out of the state, said the EPA’s Lederer. The SC-3B plan that Norton wants would also remove 21,000 cubic yards of soil dangerously contaminated by other chemicals, rather than pile them, cap them, fence them and monitor them. Heather A. Graf, who lives about two miles from the site and has coordinated the Citizens Advisory Shpack Team, said money is the only reason the EPA supports the cheaper SC-2B plan. It doesn’t jive with what the agency has been promising for at least four years and in 13 public meetings, said Graf, who also quotes 13-year-old newspaper articles. The EPA’s proposal to leave the site contaminated "blindsided" the city and its residents who may have compromised too much too early, she said. "If you put in their option at $30 million, ours at $50 [million], the most cleanup at $130 million, we’ve already met them halfway," Graf said. Filling the land When, half a century ago, Isadore Shpack began taking trash on his land, much of it was under water. The landfill site next to the Chartley Swamp gave Shpack dreams that never quite materialized. "He had chickens. He wanted to have an apple orchard," Graf said. He got enough trash to fill in much of his swampland. Debris is now as much as 15 feet under the water table. Shpack kept no records of what debris went where. "This is not a highly scientific waste site," said Lederer. "This is just a guy with a bulldozer." The debris mixed and co-mingled. Today, the site is fenced off with bright yellow "Caution: Radioactive Material" signs on the fence. One house sits next to the Shpack site, but Union Road boasts many more houses. Norton is worried about the future. Norton’s Board of Health worries that the water line to bring safe drinking water to the houses could bring more people closer to the dump. "We believe any developable land will be developed following the waterline installation," the board wrote. Kimball said growth could be regulated simply by limiting the size of the water line. "If you control the size of the water main, you control the growth," he said. "... Anyone who is crazy enough to drill their own well is asking for trouble. They may actually glow in the dark." Graf said the town’s plan all along was to use the site as a park, a plan that would be hampered by a remaining toxic landfill surrounded by a fence. Documents on the Shpack site in the Norton Public Library fill more than one shelf as well as a large mail bin; another shelf-load is expected. One document on the shelf dates to 1981; another, 1984. Graf said that the government needs to fix the site right, and fix it now. "It’s gone nowhere in a very long time, and here we thought we were getting somewhere, and one agency or another keeps pulling the rug out from under us," she said. ©The Taunton Gazette 2004 ***************************************************************** 40 Seattle Times: Underground lab raises mountain of controversy Monday, July 19, 2004 - Page updated at 02:05 P.M. By Jim Downing Seattle Times staff reporter MARK HARRISON / THE SEATTLE TIMES Cashmere Mountain, nine miles west of Leavenworth, Chelan County, is one of six sites around the nation proposed for the construction of the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory, which has sparked local debate over whether the lab would be detrimental to the area. LEAVENWORTH, Chelan County — Wick Haxton and Robert Smith both want Icicle Valley to be a quiet place to contemplate the universe. But they have very different ideas about what that means. Haxton, a University of Washington physics professor, heads a group angling for $300 million from the National Science Foundation to tunnel three miles into the side of Icicle Valley and build the world's deepest underground laboratory. In the complex at the end of the tunnel, 7,000 feet under Cashmere Mountain, scientists would perform cutting-edge research requiring shelter from cosmic rays. "It would be a galactic observatory that would give us insights into the basic workings of the universe," Haxton says. Smith, who has lived in this Bavarian-themed tourist town since 1972, is a photographer and retired dentist who runs the Hotel Pension Anna. He is in opposition to the lab being built. "I'm all in favor of increasing our understanding of the universe," Smith says. "I've read Stephen Hawking's books. But what's more important is that the Icicle Valley is one of the Northwest's great quiet places. This research can be done elsewhere." If built, the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory — Cascades would be 500 feet deeper than the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, built in 1998 in a nickel mine in Ontario, Canada. The tunnel would penetrate what is an enormous teardrop-shaped granitic bedrock extending about 35 miles to the northwest and 18 miles east of Leavenworth. Cot Rice, founder of the Icicle Valley Protection Alliance, talks with Molly Loomis from the National Outdoor Leadership School, who was leading a camping trip on Cashmere Mountain. To sensitive instruments placed in the mountain's heart, the overlying rock would serve as a 7,000-foot-thick shield, blocking most particles but allowing one type in particular, the neutrino, to pass. Neutrinos are created by fusion reactions in the core of all stars, including our sun, and studying them can yield information about how the sun burns, how elements are formed in star explosions, and how the early universe evolved. The lab also would include space for a variety of other research requiring protection from cosmic particles. Radioactive material would be kept out of the lab because it would introduce the same sort of particles that an underground facility is built to exclude. Construction on the lab wouldn't start until 2008 at the earliest. Haxton and his UW colleague John Wilkerson are working on a formal proposal to the National Science Foundation and plan to submit it this summer. To be funded, it must beat pitches from five other sites, including California, Colorado and Minnesota, pass environmental reviews, and run a congressional budgeting gauntlet. The UW Regents back the Leavenworth proposal, however, Gov. Gary Locke and the Department of Ecology have yet to take a position on it, Wilkerson says. MARK HARRISON / THE SEATTLE TIMES If built, the complex at the end of the Deep Underground Science and Engineering Laboratory's tunnel would be constructed 7,000 feet below Cashmere Mountain, making it the world's deepest underground laboratory. Cashmere Mountain is shown at right, partially covered by a shadow. A group of more than 300 scientists from around the country is behind the move to develop a new underground laboratory somewhere in the United States, something that exists in a number of other countries. Controversial corridor On a summer afternoon drive up Icicle Road to the proposed lab site, bicyclists crowd the narrow shoulder, as rock climbers and backpackers ready their gear on tailgates. Nearby Icicle Creek rushes with snowmelt. The Forest Service estimates that the Icicle Valley gets 300,000 recreational visits per year. Access to the proposed laboratory would be through two, 20-foot diameter tunnels in Icicle Valley's south wall. Tunneling would take 2.6 years and fill 43,000 gravel trucks, which would rumble down Icicle Creek Road, through town to a yet-to-be-determined dump site. Like Robert Smith, many residents are wary of the years of construction on outdoor recreation and tourism in a corridor used for just about every outdoor pursuit imaginable. "Icicle Creek is the life blood of the community," says Cot Rice, a founder of the Icicle Valley Protection Alliance, a citizens group opposing the lab. "We talk to climbers and snowmobilers and hikers about the lab. And they all say, 'whaddya mean they're gonna do that? They can't do that!' " Rice also is concerned that the lab would pose a risk to Leavenworth's water supply, drawn from the Icicle downstream from the proposed tunnel mouth. City Councilman Robert Eaton, who sells Christmas tree ornaments, has expressed his support for the proposed lab. He said he thinks the lab would be a good way to enhance the town's identity. In response to such concerns, Haxton and Wilkerson have held public meetings and posted answers about the lab on the project Web site. Both men are hikers and insist the project would have minimal impact. "There are a lot of shared values here," Haxton says. "For instance, we want clean air in the valley because that's what we're going to be sucking into the tunnel. The bottom line is that it's a really neat thing we're doing and if they want to diversify their economy, this is a great, clean way to do it." "We think that Dr. Haxton is to be admired for thinking that he can overcome any problem," says Anne Nowacki, another member of the Icicle Valley Protection Alliance. "But he's not realistic in his optimism. He did admit that there would be lawsuits that might slow it up. Well, there are going to be lots of lawsuits, that's a given." According to Susan Carter, Environmental Coordinator for the Wenatchee National Forest, a sticking point may be Forest Service land-use designations that protect land along Icicle Creek. The 1990 Wenatchee National Forest Plan recommends that the creek be designated a recreation-level wild and scenic river, which would require protection for a quarter-mile on both banks. In most places, a quarter-mile corridor would include all reasonably flat land on the floor of the narrow Icicle Valley. But, Carter says, these rules are guidelines, and will be open to interpretation during the Environmental Impact Statement process if the lab proposal moves forward. Despite the impacts, some residents, like City Councilman Robert Eaton, who sells Christmas ornaments, want to give the lab a chance. "This isn't a reinvention of Leavenworth. It's a supplement, a way to add to our identity. "I went to the first open house at the high school, and there were more than 300 people there. The town is energized. This conversation is going to be good for the community." No stranger to change Leavenworth is no stranger to change. In the early 1960s, as the town struggled through the decline of the railroad and timber industries, a few Leavenworth residents gambled on converting the town into a German-themed tourist attraction. The idea took and tourism is booming. Today, 1.4 million people visit each year. Bill Taylor, executive director of the Leavenworth Chamber of Commerce, doubts that the lab construction would dampen tourism, and thinks that Leavenworth would do well to diversify its polka-driven economy. "Tourism is the only industry we have here, and it doesn't produce many family-wage jobs. That's been a great negative for us." The lab proposal includes a plan for a 48,000-square-foot visitor complex and K-12 science center in Leavenworth — Bavarian architecture, of course. Haxton and Wilkerson estimate that the lab and visitor center would generate about 100 permanent jobs, two-thirds filled by locals. About 100 resident and visiting scientists also would work there. To manage the public discussion, the Port of Chelan County hired Jim Reed, a Seattle-based facilitator, to interview residents and run community meetings. After interviewing 114 people, Reed is now assembling a citizen committee that will discuss the lab in open meetings, starting later this month. By Thanksgiving, the committee will summarize community opinion. Disagreement over whether the lab's benefits outweigh its risks are bound to persist. "I want to see Leavenworth succeed economically, and I think it has, as a tourist town," says Robert Smith. "I don't see the need to switch. "My son wants to come here and work. It's true that there's not much good work here besides tourism. But I'm not willing to sacrifice the Icicle for that." Jim Downing: 206-464-2164 or Copyright © 2004 The Seattle Times Company ***************************************************************** 41 Tri-City Herald: Opinions: Threatened lawsuit opportunity for DOE This story was published Monday, July 19th, 2004 Lawsuits between government agencies usually divert resources from better uses and accomplish little else. The pending suit recently announced by Oregon and Washington states against the Department of Energy isn't likely to be an exception to the rule. The dispute is especially disappointing because it might have been avoided if DOE and its lawyers had been more flexible. The states' decision to sue came only after the federal government refused to let anyone else in on upcoming mediation with the Yakama Indian Nation. Tribal officials approved requests by Oregon, Washington and the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho to participate in the talks, making DOE's reluctance the only obstacle. The mediation, which hasn't started, was ordered as a result of a lawsuit filed by the Yakamas seeking to force DOE to restore natural resources damaged by plutonium production at Hanford. The federal Superfund law covering hazardous waste sites allows governments, including tribes and states, to seek compensation for environmental damage. If Washington and Oregon were looking to use the mediation as a back door to payments for past damage, the federal government's desire to exclude them from the talks would make a lot more sense. But both states say they only want a comprehensive assessment of damage caused by decades of operations at Hanford's defunct reactors and plutonium production plants. Besides, it's a good bet that the court will order mediation anyway if the lawsuit proceeds, given the precedent set by the Yakama Nation's similar claim. That kind of irony makes for great satire, but doesn't add much to public policy debates. DOE argues that it's premature to determine damage while cleanup is still under way. The states counter that a thorough review can help guide cleanup. DOE has a point, but not much to gain by pursuing it. Even if Oregon and Washington are excluded, mediation with Mid-Columbia Indians is likely to result in a requirement for some sort of environmental assessment. How else to determine any damages to the Yakama Nation's treaty rights to hunting, fishing and cultural practices at Hanford? By inviting the states to have their say on an environmental assessment during mediation, DOE might not only avoid a lawsuit but also take the high road in the disagreement. © 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 42 ABQjournal: NNSA, DOE Begin Assessment Of Los Alamos Lab July 19, 2004 By Richard Benke The Associated Press LOS ALAMOS — Deputy Energy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow arrived Monday at Los Alamos National Laboratory to begin his part of a comprehensive assessment of security problems that shut down nearly all work at the nuclear weapons lab. "That's going on as we speak," lab spokesman Jim Fallin said. Linton Brooks, director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, began his part of the security review Sunday. Brooks' office in Washington said Monday he would have no public statements. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham ordered Brooks and McSlarrow to oversee an inquiry into the disappearance of two electronic data storage devices containing classified information that were reported missing earlier this month. Lab director Pete Nanos on Friday called for a stand-down on all but the most essential national security activities. The University of California, which manages the lab for the Department of Energy, ordered him to halt classified work a day earlier. On Monday, even the lab's museum and cafeteria were closed. Fallin met Monday with public affairs staff members to make sure they understood "this is not situation normal." Every lab staff member can expect "eyeball-to-eyeball meetings" with managers, who will assess each employees' understanding of policy and "willingness to subscribe to those standards," Fallin said. Fallin and lab spokesman Kevin Roark said only a small minority of workers are unwilling to follow security and safety rules. "They will be identified," Fallin said. Roark said colleagues may be reluctant to blow the whistle everything they see "and that's the cultural issue." He suggested that will change with the assessment. Fallin said senior managers worked all weekend, and lab divisions reported progress on the stand-down Sunday during a series of executive meetings. "It was almost a war room type setting," he said. Los Alamos is going back to the fundamentals and "everything that happens at this lab is being looked at with fresh eyes," he told his staff. "Folks, this is serious stuff," Fallin said. But, he said, the assessment is not punitive and does not suggest a lack of trust. Brooks' visit came as the lab responded to an unconfirmed report by the Project on Government Oversight, or POGO, which said unnamed sources reported classified information had been sent over the lab's unclassified e-mail system 17 times in recent months. POGO said the most recent incident occurred Thursday "when a Los Alamos lawyer sent a classified e-mail from his home computer to multiple people at Los Alamos." The lab, in a response Sunday, declined to discuss specifics but said all incidents involving unclassified e-mail and classified information have been reported to NNSA "and were immediately and properly mitigated to prevent significant risk to national security." Roark, also without commenting directly on the allegation, said a typical error might be when a worker combines ideas and phrases that by themselves would be fine, but "when you create context" can become classified. Nanos has said officials will review every department's activities and recommend work resume only when all compliance issues have been addressed. Some departments will go back to work earlier than others at the 36-square-mile lab, which has about 8,000 employees and about 4,000 employees who work for contractors. Copyright Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** 43 Daily Californian: Los Alamos Scandal Raises Many Questions [http://www.dailycal.org/] By STEFAN WRAY Monday, July 19, 2004 A security breach at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico last week is another setback for the UC’s management of the nuclear weapons facility. The identity of the culprits is still not known. But we do know that the public relations damage to the university will likely decrease its chances of retaining control of the lab, while increasing the odds for the University of Texas and several companies announcing this week their intent to bid on the lab‚s management contract. On July 9 Los Alamos lab officials reported that two computer disks containing classified nuclear research information were missing. It is the third incident of missing classified data at the nuclear weapons lab in the last year. The loss of classified information came days before a July 12 Department of Energy deadline for competitors to express interest in bidding on Los Alamos‚ management contract, set to expire in September 2005. The Department of Energy decided last year to open competition on the lab contract, in part because of poor management and security mishaps under UC’s leadership, which has managed the lab since 1943. This summer the DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration will be issuing a request for proposals. In addition to UC and the University of Texas, expected bidders include Lockheed Martin. Given the timing of this latest incident, it makes one wonder if the individual or individuals behind the missing computer disks intentionally wanted to cast negative light on UC at the onset of the bidding process on the lab’s management contract. We can only guess about the motives, but whether the computer disks were taken for personal gain or as an act of malice toward the university, the incident adds to UC’s growing list of security problems at Los Alamos and will likely be a contributing factor when the DOE decides early next year on a new lab manager. UC not retaining the Los Alamos contract might at first appear to be its loss. But the university has experienced a lot of grief in the past few years, with scrutiny from congress, federal agencies, and lawsuits from citizens groups and lab employees. Elements within the University of California System might now think that managing the Los Alamos National Laboratory is more trouble than it is worth. If UC leaves Los Alamos it could take with it parts of the paper trail that has accumulated over the past 61 years. Some of those records tell an unpleasant history of environmental contamination and callous disregard for worker safety. It would be in the university’s best interest to remove those documents from the lab. A concern among some scientists and lab administrators could be that their research at Los Alamos would become the property of, or credited to, others if the lab management changes hands. Some employees at Los Alamos are eager for change. They view UC as an absentee landlord that doesn't‚ treat workers fairly. A new manager won’t necessarily solve the lab’s problems, but some workers are ready to see UC leave. Others to benefit if UC is ousted are some companies that currently subcontract at Los Alamos. Another beneficiary of a new lab manager would be the Department of Energy’s nuclear weapons program itself. During a transition period of new management, it might be more difficult for outside oversight and scrutiny, more difficult for opponents of new nuclear weapons development to access information about those programs. Regardless of the intent behind the missing computer disks, security breaches under UC’s leadership like the incident last week will be perceived as the fault of the university. These breaches will embolden those who want the UC to lose its management contract and will encourage institutions like the University of Texas and others who are vying to run the Los Alamos National Laboratory. This is unfortunate for those of us in Texas who do not want our flagship university involved with nuclear weapons development. Stefan Wray is a Texas resident. Respond at opinion@dailycal.org. Berkeley, California dailycal@dailycal.org ***************************************************************** 44 Daily Californian Editorial: Lab Stewardship Becoming an Embarrassment to UC [http://www.dailycal.org/] Monday, July 19, 2004 The vaunted UC run national labs, which have brought glory and fame to the institution for more than half a century are becoming an embarrassment and a distraction to UC. If the Regents are to decide that they will indeed bid to retain management of the labs than they need to take their case to the nation, as well as the university’s students, staff and faculty. In doing so they must explain why retaining the labs isn’t a complete waste of already scarce resources and more importantly why continued UC management isn’t a threat to national security. Los Alamos National Laboratory has seized the spotlight this month with the revelation that classified materials have again gone missing. For those who have followed the undulating fortunes of the lab, this all seems like deja vu. It was only four years ago that two hard drives carrying information pertaining to the disarmament and servicing of nuclear weapons went missing in the same lab only to be found mysteriously behind a copier machine in an area of the lab that had reportedly already been searched. At the time there was outrage and finger pointing, congressional hearings and promises to improve. As much as people were incensed by the lapse in security at the lab it was tempered by the fact it occurred before Sept. 11, 2001. In the world we live in now, the world created on that day, the mishandling of such potentially destructive knowledge is even more alarming than ever. Knowing then that UC’s track record has been less than exemplary during the past few years we must all, members and non-members of the UC community, together decide whether retention of the national laboratories is worth the trouble. More importantly though, we must all consider the question of whether we remain safe having an organization running the lab that appears incapable of remedying its security lapses. There are those who still argue that retaining control of the lab is a critical element in safeguarding UC’s position as one of the world’s top research institutions. Indeed there are few, outside those who oppose UC having connections with nuclear weapon research for ideological reasons, who would argue the labs bring no tangible benefit to UC. Maintaining its reputation, however, is trumped by the need for competent and thorough assurance that the sensitive materials, inherent at such a facility, will not fall into the wrong hands. The situation becomes even more frustrating when one considers that all this controversy serves as a distraction to top university officials who should be concentrating on how best to resolve the university’s many ongoing crises. While UC Berkeley remains without a named candidate to succeed Chancellor Robert Berdahl little more than a month before the start of fall classes, it is hard to believe that UC President Robert Dynes isn’t spending a substantial portion of his working hours concerned about what is happening in the highlands of New Mexico rather than here in California. Of greater significance though, beyond what is happening specifically at UC Berkeley, there continues to loom the untold effects of the proposed cut to UC funding—more than $350 million according to the governor’s proposed budget. This embarrassment must come to an end. Either UC must aggressively engage the culture of the labs that has led to these recurring lapses in security. Such an engagement may require the firing or replacement of key personnel. Or, throw up its hands in the best interest of the nation and admit it is no longer capable of providing the stewardship we all deserve. Either way, there is more at stake than reputations or the need to save face, in the end there are lives on the line. If UC can’t do the job, then it’s time to find someone else who can. Berkeley, California dailycal@dailycal.org ***************************************************************** 45 FT: Top-level probe into Los Alamos breach [http://www.ft.com] By Thomas Catan in Washington Published: July 19 2004 20:38 | Last Updated: July 20 2004 Senior US officials arrived at the top-secret nuclear research facility at Los Alamos, New Mexico on Monday, where a serious security breach has brought work to a standstill. Kyle McSlarrow, deputy US energy secretary, flew in to supervise the investigation into the disappearance of two computer storage devices containing classified information earlier this month. There he joined Linton Brooks, director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, and several congressmen, who plan to interview managers and assess the vault system where portable storage discs are held. The high-level visits underscored the seriousness of the incident and came as another unconfirmed report surfaced about allegedly lax procedures among laboratory staff. The Project on Government Oversight, a non-governmental watchdog, said there had been 17 incidents in recent months in which classified information had been sent over the open e-mail network. Last week, the Los Alamos complex suspended all its work to "prevent significant risk to national security". Peter Nanos, the director of the laboratory, ordered a comprehensive security review of the centre's activities and expressed his frustration at the continuing lapses in the handling of classified information. "Frankly, nobody understands how we have gotten ourselves into this mess," Mr Nanos told staff in a memo. In meetings with senior US officials, he said he had "emphasised to everyone I met with that this wilful flouting of the rules must stop, and I don't care how many people I have to fire to make it stop. "If you think the rules are silly, if you think compliance is a joke, please resign now and save me the trouble." He warned that Spencer Abraham, the US energy secretary, had ordered his deputy to use "all available mechanisms" to find the missing storage devices, including making staff take lie-detector tests. Officials are now undertaking an inventory of all 40,000 removable storage media containing classified information at Los Alamos to determine whether any other discs are missing. The incident is the latest controversy at the famous laboratory where the atomic bomb was first developed. In November 2002, a leaked internal report found that mismanagement, purchasing fraud and equipment theft were widespread at the research centre. That followed a storm over the firing of Wen Ho Lee, a scientist from the laboratory who was accused of dozens of security breaches. He was later cleared of all important charges and freed with an apology by a federal judge. © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2004. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy ***************************************************************** 46 kgw.com: DOE might halt low-level waste shipments to Hanford | News for Oregon and SW Washington | AP Wire 07/20/2004 By JOHN K. WILEY / Associated Press The U.S. Department of Energy is willing to halt some shipments of radioactive waste to the Hanford nuclear reservation if the agency can agree with Washington state on a schedule to settle a legal dispute, the Energy Department said Monday. Washington Gov. Gary Locke and Attorney General Christine Gregoire announced Friday that the state would seek to halt shipments of low-level radioactive waste that the state leaders contend violate federal laws and a previous agreement. They seek to amend a 2003 lawsuit to ban shipments of low-level radioactive wastes to the 560-square-mile Hanford site, which contains the nation's largest volume of nuclear wastes from the production of nuclear weapons materials. After a conference call among the various sides on Monday, the Energy Department agreed it would halt the shipments  temporarily  once a court schedule is agreed upon. "What we did was agree to work out a schedule for court proceedings," said Colleen Clark, an Energy Department spokeswoman in Richland, near the Hanford reservation. "If we can reach agreement on what the schedule is, we will not make any shipments during that time period." No meetings have been scheduled yet to try and negotiate a court schedule, she said. The Energy Department's last shipment of nuclear waste to the Hanford site was in June, when 109 barrels of material from the Rocky Flats nuclear site in Colorado were sent there, Clark said. The Energy Department contends the shipments of low-level radioactive wastes and wastes mixed with hazardous chemicals are legal and do not violate the agency's pact with state and federal regulators. On Monday, the state filed to amend its 2003 lawsuit to include the low-level wastes. Maureen Scharber, a spokeswoman for the state attorney general, had said the Energy Department agreed to suspend the low-level waste shipments until the issue is resolved in court. But Clark disputed that interpretation, saying the suspension would only occur if agreement on a legal schedule was achieved. Scharber did not immediately return a telephone message seeking clarification Monday afternoon. Last year, the state sued DOE over shipments of transuranic waste: plutonium-contaminated gloves, rags, tools, dried sludge and other debris from nuclear weapons-making. Low-level wastes include such materials as building rubble, contaminated dirt, tools and clothing that have less radiation than transuranics. Mixed low-level wastes contain hazardous chemicals. Under DOE's plan, approximately 62,000 cubic meters of offsite radioactive waste  including 20,000 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste and 15,500 cubic meters of transuranic waste  would be shipped to Hanford. An earlier proposal would have allowed as much as 219,663 cubic meters of low-level waste and 140,435 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste. This text is invisible on the page, but this text is affected by the invisible item's flow. This text is invisible on the page, but this text is affected by the invisible item's flow. ***************************************************************** 47 Hanford News: Seminar to focus on vit plant employment opportunities The number of people suing because they believe Hanford radiation emissions damaged their health continues to drop. Briefs Sunday July 18th 2004 Jim Henschel, project director for the Bechtel National Inc. vitrification plant, will discuss opportunities for work at the massive federal project during a free quarterly vendor forum at 5 p.m. Tuesday, 3000 George Washington Way, Richland. Those who attend can meet procurement and subcontract staff and view upcoming procurement opportunities. For more information, call 371-2338. Hanford worker help program due to end Sunday July 18th 2004 The end of a free program to screen former Hanford workers for medical problems will be discussed at a public meeting 6 p.m. Tuesday. Another program, which pays $150,000 to workers with cancer caused by radiation from working at Hanford or who have certain lung diseases, also will be discussed. Late last year, the Department of Energy said it would end local screening of former production and construction workers for medical problems Sept. 30, but was working on a national replacement program. Cost was a factor in the decision.Partners helping pals Saturday July 17th 2004 He slept with it underneath his pillow. The 8-year-old boy, a participant in Partners N Pals, a day camp for children with developmental disabilities, had gotten his hands on a flier advertising the camp's annual horseback ride, which was held on a West Richland ranch Friday morning. The boy, said Judy Westsik, executive director of The Arc of Tri-Cities, which runs Partners N Pals, was so excited that he placed the paper under his pillow at night. "That's what it's about," Westsik said. "Creating memories." During the event Friday, memories were made by the dozens as campers rode horses, went through a petting zoo and saw a clown and a magician perform. © 2004 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 48 lamonitor.com: Lab calls time out The Online News Source for Los Alamos [http://www.lac-nm.us] ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor The crisis at Los Alamos National Laboratory escalated on Friday with the suspension of all activities. "The action is not due to lack of confidence in your ability to do your jobs, nor is it punitive in any way," wrote lab Director G. Peter Nanos in a memo to all employees. "I'm simply convinced that we need time to reflect on our shared responsibilities and on how we do our jobs." With many employees off on Friday because of the nine-day, 80-hour work schedule that gives half the workforce an extra three-day weekend every two weeks, not all employees were present as the sweeping pronouncement took effect. Nanos called for the total stand-down one day after returning from a meeting with the University of California board of regents, where a suspension of work had been imposed on security-related activities at the top-secret nuclear weapons facility. That unprecedented action, now broadened to include everything else at the laboratory, had seemed appropriate after a series of security incidents over the last nine months culminated in a discovery last week, that two critical pieces of computer data were missing from the weapons physics directorate. The situation was aggravated in the director's view by what appeared to be a blatant disregard of procedures by the employees involved. The incident raised immediate alarms in Washington, D.C., where Nanos went earlier in the week to talk to the congressional delegation and to Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, who has the ultimate responsibility for the nuclear weapons complex. On Abraham's instructions, Ambassador Linton Brooks, the nation's top nuclear official, is expected to arrive at the laboratory on Sunday, to prepare for the arrival of his boss Deputy Secretary of Energy Kyle McSlarrow on Monday. McSlarrow will arrive with Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and committee member Rep. Diana Degette, D-Colo. Nanos promised the UC regents that he would make a project out of fixing the laboratory's embarrassing breakdowns, and his memorandum to the staff makes clear that the suspension of activity will have an active component as well, z Nanos calls for an across the board recertification of confidence, by each manager of his or her employees. Nanos wrote, "I am insisting that every group leader talk to each of his or her employees, work with them to analyze the safety, security and environmental risks, and recommend restart to his or her division only when convinced all the local compliance issues have been addressed. Division leaders, in turn will follow the same process with their associate directors. In no case will I authorize a restart until I'm absolutely convinced that each organization will not risk further compromise of safety, security and environment." The managers will be held accountable for personally ensuring that each employee is working safely and securely. "This is not an e-mail exercise. I want eye-to-eye contact," wrote Nanos to the employees. Saturday at noon senior laboratory officials met to go through the first level of a laboratory-wide risk assessment, which Nanos has demanded of each organizational unit as a prerequisite for resuming work, said Jim Fallin, the lab's public affairs director. There is to be a categorizing or "binning" procedure for each operation of the laboratory, ranking every activity according to one of four categories - essential, low-risk, medium risk, or high risk. Additionally, there will be an initial review of staffing, as Fallin summarized it, mapping where people are, deciding whether vacations should be canceled, who's critical to the mission, and what is the state of affairs. "This is a wake up call. It's either get on board, or ship out," said Fallin. "Make no mistake about it, under Director Nanos and the University of California Office of the President, we're embarked on a course that will change this institution forever more." © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 49 Tri-Valley Herald: U.S. nuclear security chief heads probe at Los Alamos [http://www.trivalleyherald.com/] Article Last Updated: Monday, July 19, 2004 - By Associated Press LOS ALAMOS, N.M. -- The head of the National Nuclear Security Administration visited Los Alamos National Laboratory on Sunday to oversee the investigation into security lapses at the lab. Linton Brooks is one of the federal officials inquiring into the disappearance of two electronic data storage devices that were reported missing at the lab this month. Brooks planned no public comment Sunday on the missing devices or the investigation, lab spokesman Jim Fallin said. "He's here to conduct a very serious first look at the locations involved in this most recent security incident," Fallin said. Brooks' visit came just two days after the lab's director, Pete Nanos, broadened a "stand-down" of most lab activities. The University of California, which manages the lab for the Department of Energy, had ordered him to halt classified work a day earlier. Nanos said there will be exceptions to his order, so that critical missions and essential national security functions continue. The stand-down announced Friday is open-ended, with some lab departments expected to resume work sooner than others. Nanos said officials will review every department's activities and recommend that work resume only when all compliance issues have been addressed. Lab and Energy Department officials have said little about what is missing -- the Department of Energy calls them computer disks -- and how they may have disappeared. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham ordered Brooks and Deputy Energy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow to oversee the inquiry at the lab. McSlarrow is to join Brooks today. ©2004 by MediaNews Group, Inc. and ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 50 lamonitor.com: Safety incidents contributed to order to stand down The Online News Source for Los Alamos [http://www.lac-nm.us] ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor On top of multiple security lapses at Los Alamos National Laboratory, a number of safety breaches have also troubled the Director G. Peter Nanos during the last year. An accident, Wednesday afternoon, struck a 20-year-old student intern, working at the chemical diagnostic and instrumentation group. The incident was not the direct cause of the total stand down at the lab, but a lab official said, "It would be equally wrong to say it did not have a contributing impact." According to LANL Public Affairs Director Jim Fallin, the young woman was working with her supervisor on a series of experiments using a Class IV pulsed laser when she experienced an eye problem. Shortly afterward, as her vision grew blurred she was taken to the lab's Occupational Medical Facility, where a physician said he suspected that she had a detached or damaged retina. Referred to an eye specialist outside the laboratory, she was told that the injury was a ruptured blood vessel, damage that might be explained by a laser accident. Referred to a second specialist in Santa Fe, the next day, the diagnosis was that her retina was injured. Fallin said the laboratory has arranged for the student's parents to be flown to New Mexico and for the student to be treated by a renowned eye specialist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Other safety events that took place over the last year included an accident involving an unseated syringe that sprayed into a worker's eye and a "near miss" involving a demolition crew and an electrical transformer that could have caused an electrocution or a fatal explosion. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 51 Daily Texan: UT regents hear opposition to possible bid for Los Alamos [http://www.dailytexanonline.com] | 7/19/2004 Meeting offers first chance for public criticism of bid By Clint Johnson Opponents of a possible UT System bid to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory had their first chance to speak directly to the Board of Regents at a meeting Friday. In a rare move, Chairman James Huffines allowed a state legislator, a student and two peace activists to argue against System management of the New Mexico lab. The four spoke for a total of about 25 minutes, shortly after Chancellor Mark Yudof gave a speech in support of a bid. Yudof said weapons research constitutes only a small part of the facility's interests, and the System would be doing a service to the country by operating the lab. "Los Alamos is not, as some suggest, a bomb factory," Yudof said. But he said he was sensitive to those who oppose the bid because of moral or religious objections to weapons. Austin Van Zant, a member of opposition group UT Watch and the only student to speak at the meeting, said Yudof's remarks were more balanced Friday than in the past. "This was the first time I'd heard him mention nuclear weapons," Van Zant said. Rep. Lon Burnam, D-Fort Worth, said the System has not been open and honest in its exploration of the bid, and called a letter that the System sent to state legislators "one-sided propaganda." "The document is prejudicial and premature," he said. "Has the decision already been made?" Burnam urged the board to call an open forum to discuss the positives and negatives of the bid, saying UC has done a better job listening to student opinions while weighing its own decision to bid. Richard Smalley, recipient of the 1996 Nobel prize for chemistry and a researcher at Los Alamos, reiterated Yudof's claims and spoke about the benefit of non-weapons work at Los Alamos. "Los Alamos is one of the great scientific temples in this country," he said. Stefan Wray, a member of UT Nuke Free, said the lab produces devices used at the core of the Navy's Trident II nuclear missile. "What you're hearing is pointing out the science," he said. "But 94 percent of funding goes toward weapons research." Karen Hadden, chairwoman of Peace Action Texas, said the System should not bid, because Los Alamos has a history of security problems, and the System would be liable if the problems continue. She cited reports that security officials halted work at the lab Thursday as they searched for classified data that was discovered missing July 9. "I'd like to think there's no way we could do a worse job than UC has done," Burnam said. "But that's not the most important question." At a press conference held before the meeting, the Rev. Jim Rigby, of St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Austin, said he objected to the bid because of the moral problems with what he called "weapons of mass destruction." "Universities are supposed to be about the public pursuit of truth and not secret military research," he said. The board did not directly respond to the speakers' objections, but read letters from several local politicians supporting a bid, including U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. "This partnership would apply the UT System's proven ability in academic science to the important national objective of nuclear research and development," Hutchison said in her letter. The board took no action at the meeting, and has said that a final decision on a bid will not be made until the fall. ***************************************************************** 52 [du-list] DU in the news - 19th July '04 Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 14:51:11 -0700 PLAN to clean up Boston Globe - Boston,MA,USA ... the state Department of Environmental Protection is planning to solicit proposals for the removal of more than 3,700 barrels of depleted uranium that are now ... <http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/07/18/plan_to_clean_up> BY Richard Macintosh Swans - Menlo Park,CA,USA ... (12). We pollute conquered territories/countries with depleted uranium weapons (DU) -- a war crime. Naturally, our ruling class denies ... <http://www.swans.com/library/art10/rmac25.html> MEDIA LENS: EXPOSING THE MINISTRY OF MENDACITY UN Observer ... No reporters were embedded with Iraqi families losing lives, limbs, homes and health to cluster bombs and depleted uranium shells. ... <http://www.unobserver.com/layout5.php?id=1811&blz=1> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT 3e62f9.jpg 3e6334.jpg ---------- Yahoo! Groups Links * To visit your group on the web, go to: * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/ * * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: * du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com * * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. Attachment Converted: 3e62f9.jpg: 00000001,291a3717,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 3e6334.jpg: 00000001,291a3718,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 53 Google News Alert - nuclear Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:08:26 -0700 (PDT) SECURITY Investigation Under Way at US Los Alamos Nuclear Weapons ... Voice of America - Washington,DC,USA Officials have begun a probe into security lapses at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of America's two nuclear weapons research facilities. ... See all stories on this topic: EDITORIAL: Nuclear Safety Arab News - Saudi Arabia ... was also reported that computer hard drives containing highly sensitive information, apparently including procedures for the disarming of nuclear warheads, had ... RUSSIA, Iran To Sign Protocol On Returning Nuclear Waste Tehran Times - Tehran,Iran MOSCOW (Itar-Tass) -- A protocol on a return of worked-out nuclear fuel from Iran to Russia can be signed during a trip by head of the Federal Nuclear Energy ... See all stories on this topic: LESLIE Kemeny: In grip of nuclear neurosis The Australian - Australia AUSTRALIA needs a well-regulated and centralised nuclear waste repository. So it is a great pity that after a 12-year search, the ... See all stories on this topic: ISRAEL'S Nuclear Ambiguity Policy -- Unchallenged But Perhaps Out ... Tehran Times - Tehran,Iran BEIT UL MOQADDAS (AFP) -- Israel's ambiguity about whether it has nuclear weapons is an untouchable pillar of national policy, even if there are calls for the ... See all stories on this topic: US Official in South Korea for Nuclear Talks Voice of America - Washington,DC,USA The United States' top arms control official is in South Korea for talks about the North's nuclear weapons program. John Bolton, the ... See all stories on this topic: ISRAEL Accuses Iran Of Resuming Suspect Nuclear Activities Turkish Press - Turkey JERUSALEM, July 19 (AFP) - Israel on Monday accused its archfoe Iran of resuming suspect nuclear activities linked to the production of enriched uranium which ... See all stories on this topic: PG&E says misplaced nuclear fuel rods don´t pose health threat Waste News - Akron,OH,USA is investigating the whereabouts of about four pounds of nuclear waste, but the dilemma does not pose a public threat, the company said July 16. ... See all stories on this topic: NEW AIM firm to dig at nuclear test sites The Times (subscription) - London,England,UK ... Investment Market may not prove too popular, because the company was created to mine for gold and copper in parts of Kazakhstan formerly used for nuclear tests ... This daily-once News Alert is brought to you by Google News (BETA)... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Remove this News Alert: http://www.google.com/newsalerts/remove?s=92d1672a1b037a07&hl=en Create another News Alert: http://www.google.com/newsalerts?hl=en Try Google News: ***************************************************************** 54 TomPaine.com - THE DREYFUSS REPORT Archives Iran, Again: Crisis Builds July 19, 2004 Its now a 50-50 bet, I would say, whether a crisis with Iran will erupt before the November elections. According to one published report, the Bush administration is already threatening to force regime change in Iran, if re-elected. The Sunday Herald [http://www.sundayherald.com/43461]  (U.K.), in an article entitled: Regime change in Iran now in Bushs sights, reports: President George Bush has promised that if re-elected in November he will make regime change in Iran his new target. Bush named Iran as part of the Axis of Evil along with North Korea and Iraq almost three years ago. A U.S. government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that military action would not be overt in changing Iran, but rather that the US would work to stir revolts in the country and hope to topple the current conservative religious leadership. The official said: If George Bush is re-elected there will be much more intervention in the internal affairs of Iran. Thats a calculated leak from an embedded neocon, and its guaranteed to make the Iranian government sit up and take notice,. Now imagine yourself to be an Iranian mullah, sitting in your obscurantist domain. Wouldnt you be thinking: what can I do to stop George Bush from being reelected? You would. And what you would do, most likely, is try to meddle in Iraq, in a way calculated to weaken the American position there. Only, the real result of such meddling would be to create precisely the kind of showdown between the United States and Iran that the neocons want. Theyve been trying to provoke exactly that sort of crisis for months. Recently, I mentioned reports that Israel is busily planning an air force raid on Irans nuclear facilities. Mid-October sound like good timing to you? Meanwhile, adding fuel to the fire is the report from the 9/11 commission that Iran somehow allowed some of the 9/11 hijackers to pass through its territory. This is a potentially explosive story. In short, what it means is that No. 2 in the Axis of Evil is now accused of both building weapons of mass destruction and supporting Al Qaeda. No matter that the terrorists who scuttled through Iran didnt know that they were heading for the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and no matter that Iran didnt know it either. Its a sensational story designed to whip up American anger once again, this time directed at another oil-rich nation and enemy of Israel. All of this, of course, rests on the rather shaky assumption that we believe what our ever-omnipotent and omniscient intelligence agencies tell us. Iran, of course, has denied the whole thing. And, trying to calm things down a bit, the CIAs acting director confirmed the basic idea but didnt try to blow it out of proportion: "This is not surprising to us. I think the count is about eight of the hijackers were able to pass through Iran at some point," John McLaughlin told Fox News Sunday [http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/smh16.htm] . "We have ample evidence of people being able to move back and forth across that terrain," he said. "However, I would stop there and say we have no evidence that there is some sort of official sanction by the government of Iran for this activity. We have no evidence that there is some sort of official connection between Iran and 9/11," he said. That only shows that McLaughlin isnt a neocon warmonger. The initial report in Time [http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,664967,00.html]  also manages to throw another curve ball at Saudi Arabia, too, yet another oil-rich, anti-Israeli government: A senior U.S. official told Time that the Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackersthat is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengerspassed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001. Sources also tell Time that Commission investigators found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guardsin some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personneland otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the frontier. The report does not, however, offer evidence that Iran was aware of the plans for the 9/11 attacks. The senior official also told Time that the report will note that Iranian officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the U.S., but the offer was turned down by bin Laden because he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. Gosh. No shortage of regimes to change. To make matters worse, there are new reports of Iranian-backed Hezbollah fighters (Shiites) joining the (Sunni) resistance in Iraq, according to Iraq News [http://www.iraqinews.com/cgi-script/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=E ditorials%2edb&command=viewone&id=1] : The Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah is suspected of having joined forces with Sunni insurgents in the campaign to expel U.S. troops from Iraq. Iraqi security sources said they have collected unspecified evidence that Ansar Al Islam, the Al Qaeda-aligned insurgency group, has acquired the services of Hezbollah to help attack U.S. forces in parts of the Sunni Triangle. The sources said Hezbollah combatants were believed to have provided training and guidance in coordinated attacks on U.S. and Iraqi security positions. Few of the Hezbollah operatives participated in the attacks. More than 500 Hezbollah combatants arrived in Iraq from Lebanon during 2003, the sources said. Most of them have resettled in Shi'ite cities in central and southern Iraq. But over the last two months, the sources said, scores of Hezbollah fighters were believed to have crossed into northern Iraq to join Ansar. They said Ansar has benefited from Iranian weaponry, logistics support and safe haven and Teheran might have approved or encouraged the services of Hezbollah for Ansar. Its starting to sound like an orchestrated campaign to me. More on Iran, soon. Today Zbigniew Brzezinksi and Robert Gates are holding an event to call for rapprochement with Iran. That should be interestingIll report on it here. In the meantime, be afraidbe very afraid. Monday 9:01 AM Memo to NYT: While You're Apologizing... [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/memo_to_nyt_while_youre_apologi zing.php] July 16, 2004 It's the season for Iraq war apologies and semi-apologies. An entire flock of liberal hawks is fluttering this way and that, trying to explain why they stupidly supported the war in Iraq, Kenneth Pollack-style. The ever-hilarious New Republic did its famous issue of non-apologies, and, amazingly, I still havent seen any political resignations from that rag. Now comes The New York Times , with todays editorial, suggesting that maybe it owes readers an editorial Im sorry for credulously believing the war hawks claims that Iraq was stuffed full of deadly weapons. In the understatement of the year, the Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/16/opinion/16FRI1.html] says: As we've noted in several editorials since the fall of Baghdad, we were wrong about the weapons. And we should have been more aggressive in helping our readers understand that there was always a possibility that no large stockpiles existed. We do fault ourselves for failing to deconstruct the WMD issue with the kind of thoroughness we directed at the question of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, or even tax cuts in time of war. We did not listen carefully to the people who disagreed with us. Our certainty flowed from the fact that such an overwhelming majority of government officials, past and present, top intelligence officials and other experts were sure that the weapons were there. We had a groupthink of our own. Well, thats fine as far as it goes. Some of us in the journalism field didnt believe the WMD lies, and we wrote about it, aggressively and repeatedly, and quoted credible people who not only said so, but pointed out the lies and manipulation that led to the war. The Times missed most of that, too. And heres something else the Times missed. (And they are the best of the lot. I wont even mention The Washington Post, which seemed to have been taken over by agents of the New Republic .) Like nearly the entire world of elite journalism, they missed the question of why. Why did the Bush administration want war with Iraq? Why did the neocon cabal push for war in the mid-1990s and continue in 2001? Before 9/11? Why did they single out Iraq for attack when, for example, more people have probably died in Sudan this year than all the people killed by Saddams government in 36 years? What the Times, and nearly all other U.S. media ignored, were the questions of oil and Israel. Those were the two unmentionables. It was so much easier to talk about WMD and Al Qaeda. As long as the Times admits that it got it so wrong, how about looking at oil and Israel? How about some retrospective investigations of the strategic reasons for the war, not the tactical ones? And while were on the question of the media: Have you noticed how the media are letting themselves buy the Bush administration line on Iraq once again? Iraq is slowly disappearing from the front pages. Even the deaths of four or five U.S. soldiers at a time doesnt make the headlines. Stories on Iraq are being relegated to the inside pages. Iyad Allawis fascist-leaning repressive measures are being ignored. I have a lot of ideas about the reasons why, but lets save that for another time. Meanwhile, whats making news here? More baloney about the terrorist threat, Al Qaeda is planning something big, maybe we should postpone the election, blah blah blah. The same misnamed intelligence community that warned us about Iraqi WMD is now warming us about a terrorist threat that has no specificity, no time frame, no scopejust big. Sounds like CYA to me. Whats big about it is that it is the Big Lie. Friday 10:56 AM Intelligent Intelligence [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/intelligent_intelligence.php] July 15, 2004 Now that the dust is settling from the Senate intelligence committees devastating report, I have a few thoughts about what it all means. First, it seems that the White House is intent on appointing a new director of central intelligence. Its a dumb idea, since the current, acting director is perfectly capable of keeping things going until after the election. Democrats seem eager for Bush to appoint a new spy chief, figuring that it will give them a platform in confirmation hearings to jaw about the CIAs failings. But given the Democrats' shocking (so far) readiness to go along with the whitewash of the presidents lies-for-war strategy by blaming the CIA, its not too likely that the Democrats will be very effective in the context of a round of confirmation hearings. And, unless Bush picks some neocon hardliner as CIA chiefthe egomaniacal Paul Wolfowitz? Jim Woolsey redux?the hearings will be pro forma anyway. Second, as usual in these cases, everyone with an ax to grind or a pet peeve about the CIA has seized on the Senate report to claim that they have the solutions. And some of those solutions are awful. Worst is John Edwards solution, creating a new agency for domestic intelligence. Edwards has championed that idea for years, to the utter disgust of civil libertarians, who dont want to create a huge new spy apparatus inside the United States. (Most likely the new agency would end up inside the new Department of Homeland Security, giving that Big Brother agency even more power than it already has.) The FBI can do the job of tracking down bad guys just fine. And they can do it as it ought to be done, by tracking criminalsnot by tracking dissidents, infiltrating mosques, spying on demonstrators and creating intelligence dossiers on law-abiding Americans. On this issue, its not clear whether Edwards or Cheney is farther to the right. Third, its time for the Democrats to make this whole fiasco into a political footballand kick the president through the goalposts. The issue isnt that the CIA was too eager by half to confirm the politicians claims that Iraq had WMD (and, by the way, lets hear it for the CIAs courageous conclusion that Iraq had no truck with Al Qaeda). The issue is that the Bush administrationfrom the White House to the vice presidents office to the Pentagons Office of Special Planstook that intelligence and puffed it up. Yes, they put pressure on the CIA. And yes, the CIAs slam-dunk chief went along. But the Senates gentlemens agreement not to investigate White House puffery or the OSP means that the issue has to be raised during the campaign, by politicians and investigative reporters. Heres the lede from a story I wrote almost two years ago for the American Prospect , the first story to mention Abe Shulsky as the director of OSP and the first story anywhere to lay out in detail how the White House was manipulating intelligence. Its amazing how well it stands up: Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq, according to former CIA officials. Key officials of the Department of Defense are also producing their own unverified intelligence reports to justify war. Much of the questionable information comes from Iraqi exiles long regarded with suspicion by CIA professionals. A parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation, in the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith, collects the information from the exiles and scours other raw intelligence for useful tidbits to make the case for preemptive war. These morsels sometimes go directly to the president. The war over intelligence is a critical part of a broader offensive by the party of war within the Bush administration against virtually the entire expert Middle East establishment in the United Statesincluding State Department, Pentagon and CIA area specialists and leading military officers. Inside the foreign policy, defense and intelligence agencies, nearly the whole rank and file, along with many senior officials, are opposed to invading Iraq. But because the less than two dozen neoconservatives leading the war party have the support of Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, they are able to marginalize that opposition. Morale inside the U.S. national-security apparatus is said to be low, with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the push for war. At the State Department, where Secretary of State Colin Powell's efforts at diplomacy have thus far slowed the relentless pressure for war, a key bureau is chilled by the presence of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs Elizabeth L. Cheney, the vice president's daughter, who is in charge of Middle East economic policy, including oil. "When [Near East Affairs] meets, there is no debate," says Parker Borg, who served in the State Department for 30 years as an ambassador and deputy chief of counterterrorism. "How vocal would you be about commenting on Middle East policy with the vice president's daughter there?" Undersecretary of State John Bolton is also part of the small pro-war faction. And at the Pentagon, where a number of critical offices have been filled by hawkish neoconservatives whose commitment to war with Iraq goes back a decade, Middle East specialists and uniformed military officers alike are seeing their views ignored. "I've heard from people on the Middle East staff in the Pentagon," says Borg, referring to the staff under neocon Peter Rodman, the assistant secretary of defense for International Security Affairs. "The Middle East experts in those offices are as cut off from the policy side as people in the State Department are." But the sharpest battle is over the CIA. "There is tremendous pressure on [the CIA] to come up with information to support policies that have already been adopted," says Vincent Cannistraro, a former senior CIA official and counterterrorism expert. What's unfolding is a campaign by well-placed hawks to undermine the CIA's ability to provide objective, unbiased intelligence to the White House. Thursday 9:48 AM Iran End Game? [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/iran_end_game.php] July 13, 2004 Readers of this blog know that I pay a lot of attention to Iran, and how it fits into things. So, of course, do a lot of others, from Ariel Sharon and Ahmad Chalabi to the crew of so-called realists in the American foreign policy establishment. The fact that one of Osama bin Ladens bearded wonders has turned himself in to the Saudi Arabia embassy in Iran only raises the stakes in Iran a little more. Is it a sign that Iran wants to cooperate with Washington? And can they pull it off before Israel bombs their nuclear reactors? Next week, the Council on Foreign Relations is sponsoring Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carters national security adviser and an apparent candidate for a post in the Kerry administration, and Robert Gates, the controversial former CIA director, in a forum to argue that its time for Washington to make nice with Teheran. Says CFR about its Brzezinksi-Gates task force: This new task force finds that the government's lack of sustained engagement with Iran harms our national interests in this critical region of the world. The task force also concludes that external efforts to change the current regime are not likely to succeed, and urges the United States to pursue direct dialogue with Tehran on specific areas of mutual concern. Thats a conclusion not likely to warm that hearts of the anti-Iran neocons. With Bush waging an ostentatious jihad against the Axis of Evil (one down, two to go) from Tripoli  to Tashkent, any sign of openness toward Iran s mullahdom wont be taken lying down. Meanwhile, from Iran s news agency IRNA [http://www.irna.ir/?SAB=OK&LANG=EN&PART=_NEWS&TYPE=H E&id=20040713190625F23] comes confirmation that Iran is going back to the negotiating table with the European Big Three , whose talks with Iran are viewed with a mixture of envy and suspicion by the Bush administration: Iranian negotiations with the three European partners on its national nuclear program will resume late July, the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) said on Tuesday.The SNSC said that "Sharq Persian daily" has made a mistake in carrying an interview with the television by Secretary of SNSC Hassan Rowhani saying that no negotiations will be held with the big three European states. Iran signed Tehran Declaration with foreign ministers of France, Britain and Germany on October 21, 2003, according to which the three European partners undertook to supply Iran with nuclear technology in return for Iranian decision to sign up to additional protocol to Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which granted intrusive inspection of nuclear sites by inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Iran s ace-in-the-hole , of course, is the fact that it can make life in Iraq a nightmare for the Bushies. Well, okay, its already a nightmare. But Iran can make it a lot worse. And, as Ive been saying for a while, that might be exactly what Sharon, and the neocons, want. What better way to catapult the neocons back into the center of things than a handy little crisis with Iran? Tuesday 4:28 PM Terror in Palm Beach County? [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/terror_in_palm_beach_county.php ] July 12, 2004 This weekend I read Anonymous new book, Imperial Hubris, which reminds us to remember Afghanistan. It also helps put in perspective some of the news were getting. Todays New York Times reports [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/politics/12panel.html?ex=10905 96206&ei=1&en=a9b7dbf222b3785f]  that the final report of the 9/11 commission, due out in a week or so, will put the final nail in the nail-filled coffin about Iraqs nonexistent ties to Al Qaeda: The commission investigating the 9/11 attacks is nearing completion of a final, probably unanimous report that will stand by the conclusions of the panel's staff and largely dismiss White House theories both about a close working relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda and about possible Iraqi involvement in 9/11, commission officials said. Okay, weve all known that. But for Mr. and Mrs. Man-in-Street, its an important punctuation mark, and it sets people thinking. (Actually, of course, not only did Iraq not support Al Qaeda, it was probably the single strongest Arab state opposed to Al Qaeda and to Islamic fundamentalism in general. Pre-war Iraq was indeed, as Bush claimed, a central front in the War on Terror, not in precisely the opposite way that Bush meant. Pre-war Iraq was a bulwark against Al Qaeda, bin Ladenism and Khomeinism. But no more.) Which brings me to Anonymous. His book makes the case, over and over again, that the war in Afghanistan was an utter failure, that Al Qaeda and Osama have regrouped, that Afghanistan itself will inevitably fall back under the control of a Taliban-style regime backed by Pakistan and Islamic fundamentalists, that pathetic President Karzai has little power and that what remaining influence he does have will soon be gobbled up by fascist militia from Afghanistans countryside. Its a sobering read, in that it comes from the CIA guy in charge of the Osama bin Laden task force. If youll pardon my citing the Times again, today’s story on Karzai [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/12/international/asia/12AFGH.html ] underlines Anonymous point. President Hamid Karzai said Sunday that Afghanistan's private militias had become the country's greatest danger  greater than the Taliban insurgency  and that new action was required to disarm them. "We tried to do it by persuasion," Mr. Karzai said in an interview with The New York Times two days after he had postponed parliamentary elections by six months because of the threat of disruption. But now, he said, "The stick has to be used, definitely." Out of the 60,000 armed militiamen, only 10,000 have been disarmed and demobilized, and the program has stalled rather than accelerated in recent months. Of course, Karzai wishes he had a stick. Like the Puppet Prime Minister of Iraqistan, Iyad Allawi, Im hoping that for his sake Karzai didnt sell his home in London. Perhaps they can live side by side when its all over. The fact is, Ive always considered the terrorist threat overblown. Al Qaeda is bad news, but weve always been able to live with bad news. Meanwhile: Newsweek is reporting [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/]  that Tom Ridge is cooking up a plan to cancel the November election in case of terrorist attack. I wonder if that attack might come in, say, Palm Beach County? Monday 11:11 AM The Iraqi Resistance: Big and Getting Bigger [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_iraqi_resistance_big_and_ge tting_bigger.php] July 09, 2004 Five more Americans killed yesterdaybut whats remarkable, even stunning, is the professionalism and precision of the attack. In Samarra, north of Baghdad, resistance fighters hit a U.S.-Iraqi military headquarters with 38 simultaneous mortar shells, utterly destroying the building. Its the latest sign that the Iraqi resistance movement is not only large, but getting better organized, more sophisticated and more deadly. Moronsfrom neocon hatchet men to Fox News-style punditscontinue to promote the idea that the opposition to the U.S. occupation of Iraq is coming from Muslim fundamentalists. Its not. And it isnt Al Qaeda either. If and when Zarqawi is captured or killed, it wont make one damn bit of difference. America is facing a full-scale Iraqi nationalist uprising, and its only a matter of time before the resistance wins. (P.S. to Iyad Allawi: Hope you havent sold your house in Londonyoull need it.) Lets look at some recent news. First, heres a dispatch from AP, by Jim Krane, a solid reporter who you wont see blabbing on Fox News, but who gets it right. Incidentally, he quotes the single best private analyst on Iraq, the prolific Tony Cordesman of CSIS, who is an accurate, if Cassandra-like, prognosticator. Heres an excerpt from Kraneread it carefully, because it shows one more case of how the Bush administration is lying about Iraq, trying to suppress accurate intelligence about the peril that the United States faces in Baghdad: BAGHDAD, Iraq - The Iraqi insurgency is far larger than the 5,000 guerrillas previously thought to be at its core, U.S. military officials say, and it's being led by well-armed Iraqi Sunnis angry at being pushed from power alongside Saddam Hussein. Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact size, dozens of regional cells, often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams, can call upon part-time fighters to boost forces to as high as 20,000an estimate reflected in the insurgency's continued strength after U.S. forces killed as many as 4,000 in April alone. And some insurgents are highly specializedone Baghdad cell, for instance, has two leaders, one assassin and two groups of bomb-makers. The developing intelligence picture of the insurgency contrasts with the commonly stated view in the Bush administration that the fighting is fueled by foreign warriors intent on creating an Islamic state. "We're not at the forefront of a jihadist war here," said a U.S. military official in Baghdad, speaking on condition of anonymity. The official and others told The Associated Press the guerrillas have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by the presence of U.S. troops that they cannot be militarily defeated. Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the figure of 5,000 insurgents "was never more than a wag and is now clearly ridiculous." U.S. military documents obtained by AP show a guerrilla band mounting attacks in Baghdad that consists of two leaders, four sub-leaders and 30 members, broken down by activity. There is a pair of financiers, two cells of car bomb-builders, an assassin, separate teams launching mortar and rocket attacks and others handling roadside bombs and ambushes. Most of the insurgents are fighting for a bigger role in a secular society, not a Taliban-like Islamic state, the military official said. Almost all the guerrillas are Iraqis, even those launching some of the devastating car bombings normally blamed on foreignersusually al-Zarqawi. The official said many car bombings bore the "tradecraft" of Saddam's former secret police and were aimed at intimidating Iraq's new security services. Many in the U.S. intelligence community have been making similar points, but have encountered political opposition from the Bush administration, a State Department official in Washington said, also speaking on condition of anonymity. Todays Doonesbury strip skewers Bush with the poll showing that only 2 percent of Iraqis support the occupation, noting that the margin of error in the poll was more than 2 percent, so that in fact Washington may have achieved unanimitywith ALL of Iraq now against us.  The Washington Post has a startling account of how children are throwing baseball-sized rocks at U.S. forces everywhere. Heres a flavor of the story: The daily rock fights between U.S. soldiers and ordinary Iraqis, many of them children, highlight the mutual antipathy that has built up since the handover of political power to an Iraqi government. Although often-intense fighting continues in some regions, the U.S. military occupation of Sadr City, as observed in four days on patrol with a U.S. Army unit, has evolved into a grinding daily confrontation between frustrated American soldiers and a desperate population. In heat that hovers near 115 degrees, troops overseeing projects to bring clean water to neighborhoods awash in raw sewage are greeted by jeering mobs. Swarms of teenagers and children pump their fists in praise of Moqtada Sadr, the Shiite cleric whose militia has killed eight soldiers and wounded scores more from the 1st Cavalry Division battalion responsible for Sadr City's security and civic improvement. In April, during an uprising in Sadr City, the division estimated that it killed hundreds of Sadr's militiamen. Candy, once gleefully accepted in this part of Baghdad, is now thrown back at the soldiers dispensing it. When the war is finally over, the image of Iraqi children throwing back candy at U.S. soldiers will remain one of the conflicts strongest images. Meanwhile, Fallujah continues to be the center of the resistance. Todays Wall Street Journal, neocon mouthpiece extraordinaire, attacks human-rights advocates for the unpardonable sin of criticizing Iraqi Puppet Prime Minister Allawis new emergency powers, noting that Iraqis themselves, meanwhile, seem to be welcoming the move. (Huh?) And the Journal praises Allawi for taking responsibility for U.S. air strikes at Fallujah targets, which have killed scores to no effect over the past two weeks. The city continues to be a haven and staging area for the Zarqawi-led foreign terrorists who remain a threat to timely elections in Iraq. Well, Zarqawi may or may not be holed up therehe could be in Afghanistan, for all our blind intelligence system knowsbut its clear that Fallujah is liberated territory, as the New York Times made clear in yesterdays page-one lede: Iraqi and American officials say they would prefer to re-enter the city with a sizable force of Iraqi soldiers, perhaps backed up by Americans. But they concede that an Iraqi force capable of mounting an effective assault on Fallujah, a city of 250,000 people, is months or even years away. The Times , too, notes that Zarqawi and Islamist crazies are all over Fallujah, but at least it manages to suggest that secular Iraqi nationalists, including Baathists, are active there, tooand adds: Former members of the Baath Party are using the city as a base to regroup, and recently held a meeting to plot a strategy to return to power, the Iraqi officials said. Now thats news. But where is the reporting on this? Thats the real story in Iraq, not the mystery of the weird U.S. soldier who turned up in Beirut, not the plans to conduct a kangaroo trial of Saddam and hang him. Lets give Scott Ritter the last word, from an Alternet piece on the resistance: The Iraqi resistance is no emerging "marriage of convenience," but rather a product of planning years in the making. Rather than being absorbed by a larger Islamist movement, Saddam's former lieutenants are calling the shots in Iraq, having co-opted the Islamic fundamentalists years ago, with or without their knowledge. The recent anti-American attacks in Fallujah and Ramadi were carried out by well-disciplined men fighting in cohesive units, most likely drawn from the ranks of Saddam's Republican Guard. The level of sophistication should not have come as a surprise to anyone familiar with former Chief of the Republican Guard Sayf al-Rawi's role in secretly demobilizing select Guard units for this very purpose prior to the U.S. invasion. And as the former Director of Tribal Affairs for the Special Security Organization, Rokan Razuki's knowledge of Iraqi tribal realities is unmatched and his connections unrivaled. His continued access to tribal councils is a tremendous threat to any authority in charge of Iraq. The strength of this anti-American resistance depends on how long the United States chooses to "stay the course" in Iraq. The calculus is quite simple: the sooner we bring our forces home, the weaker this movement will be. And, of course, the obverse is true: the longer we stay, the stronger and more enduring this by-product of Bush's elective war on Iraq will be. There is no elegant solution to our Iraqi debacle. It is no longer a question of winning, but rather mitigating defeat. Hear that, John Kerry? You once wanted to bring the boys home, now! Its time again. Friday 9:50 AM Iran in Israeli Sights? [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/iran_in_israeli_sights.php] July 07, 2004 So heres a question: Will Israel provoke yet another crisis in the Persian Gulfnot that the mess in Iraq isnt bad enough already? Theres more and more reason to think that the answer is yes, and that Israel will act in league with the still-in-power U.S. neocons. Arnaud de Borchgrave thinks so. The conservative, anti-neocon commentator penned a piece [http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040704-111252-6746r.htm]  for the Washington Times on Tuesday called Iran in Bombsights? It begins: As the Bush administration concludes it cannot risk Iranian retaliation against a fragile Iraq under U.S. occupation, Israel is dusting off contingency plans to take out Iran's nuclear installations. De Borchgrave isnt in favor of such a strike, making it clear that although an Israeli hit on Irans nukes might help President Bush Nov. 2, it would  only further destabilize the world's most volatile region  the Middle East. (Hes right: Such an attack would be an act of sheer lunacy. But what else is new?) De Borchgrave says Israel is already rehearsing such a strike. He writes: One scenario now bruited would involve a joint U.S.-Israel precision-guided strike against the Bushehr, Natanz and Arak nuclear projects in Iran. But the Bush administration has concluded a U.S. air attack against Iran would trigger a major Iranian campaign to destabilize Iraq. The two countries share a 1,458-kilometer (906-mile) border stretching from Turkey to the Shatt al Arab terminal on the Gulf. Iran also enjoys wide grass-roots support among Iraq's dominant Shi'ite population. A U.S. House of Representatives resolution last May 6 authorized "all appropriate means" to end Iranian nuclear weapons development. The Senate is yet to vote on the resolution. But it leaves no doubt it is a green light for offensive military strikes against Iran's three nuclear facilities. After all the blue-smoke-and-mirrors "intelligence" that justified the U.S. invasion of Iraq 15 months ago, CIA evidence of an Iranian nuclear bomb would have to be incontrovertible. This sets the bar impossibly high. Hence Israel's conclusion it is on its own. Bombs away? Not yet, but they've rehearsed it. Lots of neocons are still pushing for attacking Iran, regime No. 2 in Bushs silly Axis of Evil formulation. (Just take a look at the websites of the Project for a New American Century, the American Enterprise Institute, the Weekly Standard, et al., if you dont believe me.) And the Wall Street Journal is joining the crowd, scribbling an editorial warning that Iran is planning the destruction of Western civilization. The Journal , on July 1, quoted some obscure Iranian mullah saying: We have a strategy for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization. The Journal makes a big deal of the fact that two Iranians fromthat countrys UN mission in New York were expelled for photographing New York tourist attractions, which is so stupid that it is funny. (Note to FBI: try doing something useful.) But the Journal concludes: All of which suggests that maybe its time for U.S. policy to more forcefully and directly support democrats in Iran who want to liberate their country from this terror-sponsoring regime. Soon, perhaps today, the U.S-backed puppet regime in Baghdad plans to slam Iran for supporting the Iraqi resistance, in a move seemingly calculated to poison relations between the two countries. Now, of course, Iran has lots of irons in Iraqs fire. So far, at least, it seems that Iran is holding back from doing what it could do, namely, utterly destroy Iraqs fragile regime in a Shiite upsurge. But if Iraq provokes Teheran, and if Israel hits its nukes, the Gulf will erupt in an uncontrollable explosion. Iran is apparently trying to calm things down. Reports AFP, Irans foreign minister is appealing to Lakhdar Brahimi [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040704/ wl_mideast_afp/iran_iraq_us_un&cid=1514&ncid=1606] , the UN envoy for Iraq: The Americans are trying to publicize false information and create conflict and suspicion between Iraqi officials and the neighboring countries," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi was quoted as telling UN envoy for Iraq Lakhdar Brahimi. "The erroneous actions of the US occupiers is the main cause of insecurity in Iraq," the student news agency ISNA quoted him as saying in talks in Tehran on Saturday. But Irans turbaned supreme leader is rattling the saber [http://jang.com.pk/thenews/jul2004-daily/06-07-2004/main/main9.h tm] , threatening Armageddon if Iran is attacked, specifically referring to Irans scientific installations: Irans supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the United States on Monday that any attack on the Islamic republics interests would be met with a global response, state-run Tehran television reported. "If the enemy attacks our scientific, natural, human or technological interests, the Iranian people will cut off its hand without hesitation and place in danger the interests of the aggressor everywhere in the world," he told a crowd of thousands on a visit to Hamadan in western Iran. Uh oh. Wednesday 10:03 AM Chalabi, Friend of Terrorists [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/chalabi_friend_of_terrorists.ph p] July 06, 2004 Todays Washington Post has a page-one feature on the terrorist leader of the anti-Saudi Islamic movement, Saad al-Faqih, but it leaves on one important connection: his ties to Ahmed Chalabi. Maybe we ought to be worried about more than Chalabis supposed ties to Irans intelligence service. Faqih, as longtime Saudi watchers know, is ensconced in Londons so-called Londonistan, the British intelligence-infested swamp of Islamic activists, from where he issues thunderous attacks on the Saudi government while, at the same time, plotting with terrorist assassins. Although the Post charitably describes al-Faqih as inhabiting a twilight world where the line between dissident and terrorist sympathizer is blurred beyond recognition, I dont see much blurring myself. Hes four-square in terror-land, including apparent involvement in a recent plot to assassinate senior Saudi government leaders. The Saudis have long wanted the British to shut down his so-called Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia (MIRA), but so far theyve resisted. Reports the Post : Saudi officials say that their new set of allegations should compel the British to take action. They contend that a Libyan intelligence officer, Col. Mohamed Ismael, working under the cover of a charitable foundation in Tripoli, the World Islamic Call Society, came to London at least four times last year to meet with Faqih to discuss a plot to kill Abdullah and other members of the royal family. The sessions were allegedly arranged by Abdurahman Alamoudi, an American Muslim leader based in Northern Virginia. During the meetings, the Saudis contend, Ismael gave Faqih 1 million euros (about $1.2 million) for his broadcast activities and personal use. At the final session last October, they allege, Faqih gave Ismael the names of four radicals in Saudi Arabia who he said would carry out the assassinations. By this account, about $1 million was transferred into the country through a travel company in Mecca, which was told the money was for the use of Gaddafi's wife during a pilgrimage there. But the Saudis had monitored the London meetings and were able to arrest the suspected radicals before they could carry out the attacks. Ismael fled to Cairo, where he was arrested and returned to Riyadh. Alamoudi was stopped by British authorities last August with $340,000 inside a valise and the following month was arrested in the United States when he returned there. He is being held in an Alexandria jail on charges related to cash smuggling. Anyway, Faqih is still getting away with it, and hes maintained ties to Al Qaeda members and other assorted Islamist nut jobs. Oh, and he has a connection to one other important nut job, as former CIA official Robert Baer reports in his book See No Evil: In 1997, British authorities were furious when they found out my old Iraqi friend Ahmad Chalabi had rented his studio on Barlby Road in London to a Saudi dissident, Dr. Sad al-Faqih, one of Osama bin Ladens soul mates. Well. Isnt that interesting? While Chalabi was conspiring with the neocons against Iraq in the 1990s, he was also making friends with radical Saudi terrorists. Of course, Saudi Arabia has long been listed as a chief target of the neocons and their friends. Given Ahmad Chalabis warm relations with important Israeli right-wingers, it makes the charges by the Saudi Arabian foreign minister that Zionists might be behind some of the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia lately a little less bizarre-sounding. Tuesday 10:40 AM Saddam Tells Truth [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/saddam_tells_truth.php] July 02, 2004 Apparently Saddam Hussein, during long months in captivity, kept telling the truthexactly the truth that Bush administration interrogators didnt want to hear. In reporting that borders on the idiotic, Neil Lewis and David Johnston today in The New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/02/politics/02SADD.html?hp=&p agewanted=print&position=] quote unnamed U.S. officials who questioned Saddam, who say, We got very little, I would say almost nothing. And then this stunner: The official said Mr. Hussein had willingly discussed the roots of the Baath Party in the 1970s but became uncooperative when the questions turned to illegal weapons or links to Al Qaeda. I never saw anything useful, the official said. Lets leave aside the fact that the roots of the Baath go back to the 1940s, and that by the 1970s Saddam was firmly in power and the Baath (different branches from those same roots) was running both Iraq and Syria. Earth to Lewis and Johnston: WMD? Al Qaeda? So now we know that Saddam continued to tell the truth after his capturethe same truth he and his government told again and again before the war: that Iraq didnt have any WMD and that Iraq didnt have any connections to Al Qaeda. Incredibly, the Times doesnt even nod in that direction, leaving the U.S. official as the last word on the topic. The second Saddam truth, from his appearance in the Chalabi-run kangaroo court, was this. Said Saddam: You know, this is all a theater by Bush, to help him win the election. Anyone disagree?     Friday 11:22 AM Qatar's Qaeda [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/qatars_qaeda.php] July 01, 2004 So Qatar, the Marx Brothers-like thumb-shaped nation in the Persian Gulf, joins the list of nations protecting Al Qaeda. Oops, that would be the Qatar that also hosts the local headquarters of the U.S. Central Command (Centcom). (Actually, I feel bad comparing Qatar to Fredonia, the fictional Marxist state, since Grouchos regime was at least a republic. Qatar is an oil monarchy.) I dont know much about the war in Chechnya. But the Qatar courts action yesterday sets a new low in the Double Standard Sweepstakes. The facts: Some Russian spies killed a Chechen separatist leader in Qatar. That leader, Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev (try saying that three times fast), was considered to be an Al Qaeda partisan by both the United States and the United Nations, reports todays New York Times . Yesterday a Qatar court convicted the Russians of murder for the killing of Yandarbiyev. Now, presumably, the guy lived within a stones throw of Centcom HQ, since the entire nation of Qatar is only a stones throw across. Umm, couldnt our War President take a few minutes out of his busy schedule to have ordered Centcom to do something about an Al Qaeda dude whod set up his HQ near our HQ? After all, the War President is fighting an all out War On Terrorism Against All Enemies, and here was one of them camping out in plain view. Russia had repeatedly requested the extradition of the guy, but Qatar said no, no, no. Presumably, that was okay with Washington, since Washington pretty much calls the shots in Qatar. Worse, not long ago the CIA fired rockets into a vehicle in nearby Yemen, obliterating it and the alleged terrorist suspects riding in itan Israeli-style targeting killing that didnt raise a lot of protest noise. I didnt see Yemens government trying to track down the killersyet here is Qatar, our ally, nobly bringing Russian spies to justice for taking out another Al Qaeda operative. (The lawyers for the accused Russians, by the way, says Qatars crack security forces tortured the Russians, whoamong other not-nicetieswere bitten by dogs, further proof, perhaps, that Qatar is a U.S. ally.) So my question is: why is it okay for the War President of the United States to order assassinations of Al Qaeda suspects, but its not okay for the president of Russia to do the same? Its a Pandoras Box opened by the Bushs administration global crusade. Thursday 8:21 AM Blind, Or A Coward? [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/blind_or_a_coward.php] June 30, 2004 One of the first things I did when I got back from vacation was to go see Michael Moores Fahrenheit 9/11. Its a brilliant piece of propaganda, entertaining and funny, and it skewers the president deliciously. But am I the only one to notice that in one critically important way, it entirely misses the boat and gets nearly everything wrong? Maybe this has been said beforeIve hardly read all of the criticism of Moorebut if so, I havent seen it. Moore totally avoids the question of Israel. Not only that, but the opening polemic of the movie ties President Bush and company mightily to Saudi Arabia. In one sequence, what seems like several dozen images flash by showing Bush and his advisers shaking hands and chumming it up with leading members of the Saudi royal family. Moore says outright that while Bush is paid $400,000 by U.S. taxpayers in salary, Saudi Arabia has supported Bush and his family with more than $1 billion in business-related subsidies. (That amount, it seems to me, is ridiculously inflated and must be nonsense.) The stated implication is that Bush is more loyal to the Saudis than he is to America. Huh? Here are some questions for Moore: If Bush is so in the pocket of Saudi Arabia, why is he Ariel Sharons strongest backer? Why, when he had Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah down at the Texas ranch a few years ago, did he flip off the Saudis peace plan? And most important, why did he invade Iraqsince Saudi Arabia was strongly opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq? Why did he launch his Iraqi adventure over Saudi objections, with many of his advisers chortling that Saudi Arabia would be next? Why did he stock his administration with militant neocon crusaders who see Saudi Arabia as the main enemy? Why, Michael? I have to conclude the Michael Moore is either blind, or a coward. Blind, if he cant see Bushs craven ties to Israel, driven by the neocons and the Christian Zionists and Bible-thumping fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell, who consider Israel Jesus next stop and see Saudi Arabia as Satanic. Or cowardly, because he knows it and decided not to mention it. Is that because attacking Israel is too hard? Moores photo-montage of Saudi princes borders on the racist, showing Bush & Co. clinging to grinning, Semitic-looking Arabs in flowing white robes one after another. Would we stand for a similar, racist-leaning montage of Bush palling around with grinning, Semitic-looking Jews in skullcaps? 'Course not. More important, Moore completely misses the political boat. Perhaps thats because he relies so heavily on Craig Unger and his book, House of Bush, House of Saud , which makes the same error. And more for Moore. Yes, Bush 41 and his advisersthe Carlyle Group-linked James Baker, et al.were (and are) connected to Saudi Arabia. Did Moore notice that Baker, along with Brent Scowcroft, and other former advisers to Bush 41 (including Colin Powell) were against the Iraq adventure? And that there were reports that Bush 41 himself thought it was a stupid idea? I cant believe that Moore can be so stupid. So I can only conclude that he produced this movie the way he did on purpose. Then I read that he didnt bother inviting Ralph Nader to the Washington, D.C., premiere of the film, and (according to The Washington Post ), Nader called Moore fat. Well. Moore is fatheaded. Wednesday 8:15 AM Meet The New Boss; Same As The Old Boss [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/meet_the_new_boss_same_as_the_o ld_boss.php] June 29, 2004 The new Iraq looks a lot like the old Iraq, doesnt it? Three more American soldiers killed today in Baghdad, and no doubt there are quite a few unused car bombs that had been rigged to disrupt the June 30 handover and that can now be redeployed more leisurely over the next few weeks. Now the real bloodshed will begin. Despite Allawis offer of amnesty to resistance fighters, its likely that the new prime minister will launch the kind of bloody crackdown that even U.S. forces could not have initiated. "Prime Minister Allawi, as head of a sovereign government, may decide he has to take tough measures to deal with a brutal cold-blooded killer," said President Bush yesterday, signaling that the new regime in Baghdad will start to look pretty brutal itself. That statement indicates that the White House will wash its hands of the coming bloodbath by Allawi and Co., making sure that the world gets the message that from now on civil war in Iraq is in Iraqi hands, and Iraqis are to blame. Says The Washington Post: Allawi has promised to use his new authority to take more aggressive actions against insurgents. He said he would announce new security measures in the coming days. He and some of his cabinet members have suggested that a state of emergency may be declared in violent areas, allowing local authorities to impose curfews, ban public demonstrations, and take other steps to restore order. Of course, he and his entire government have big bulls-eyes on their foreheads. Not a single one of them has any credibility with the Iraqi public at large, and certainly not with the resistance. An ad in The New York Times today by MoveOn.org reminds us that in a recent poll Allawi finished 16 out of 17 potential Iraqi politicians, and that number 17 was the new Iraqi president, Ghazi Yawar. Perhaps the fact that Allawi is widely known to be on the CIA payroll has something to do with that. In its editorial, A Secretive Transfer in Iraq, the Times notes: Nobody, including Bush administration officials, can seriously believe that Dr. Allawi and his cabinet are in any position to run Iraq and prepare it for democratic elections& He already seems tempted to look for shortcutslike imposing martial law. The Times warns Allawi, vainly, in my opinion, not to use force to impose a new dictatorial order. That dictatorial order, however, will continue to be backed up by 140,000 U.S. soldiers, apparently with more to come. Bush is stuck so deeply in the Iraqi tar baby that he might as well give up struggling to extricate himself before the election in November; he cant do it. His approval rating, mostly thanks to Iraq, stands at 42 percent, heading down. Tuesday 10:48 AM The End Of NATO [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_end_of_nato.php] June 28, 2004 Finally theres something I agree with the neocons about: NATO. That organization is a dinosaur of the Cold War whose extinction is long overdue. Now, the neoconswhose Iraq project ran afoul of old Europeseem ready to get rid of NATO, too. Todays Wall Street Journal, in an editorial called What Alliance? strips the happy talk away from President Bushs meetings in Turkey, correctly noting that NATO aint having anything do with Bushs Iraq fiasco, and that the idea of NATO training Iraqi forces is literally the least that NATO could do. (The administration, with the support of toadying White House reporters, is portraying it as a major breakthrough.) The Journal slams NATO for contributing a measly 6,500 troops for Afghanistan, then adds: European leaders will congratulate each other for agreeing to train Iraqi security services, a job France and Germany somehow intend to accomplish without sending any troops to Iraq. If thats all the help the U.S. can get from our partners, it may be time to rethink the underlying premise of this alliance. [For] 60 years, American taxpayers footed most of the bill to protect Europe, most recently deploying forces to stop the Balkan wars. Somehow Europeans appear to believe Americans will continue doing this indefinitely, regardless of European behavior and attitudes. They are badly mistaken.  Of course, Bush administration realists and Kerry-style national security experts will huff and puff about the vital need for NATO, an alliance built to fight a Cold War that ended long ago. NATO has already expanded to include most of the Warsaw Pact, and next well be inviting Israel, Iraq, and other Middle East nations to join the fun. (Eventually, every nation in the world except North Korea might be a member.) In any case,  the administration is intent on portraying Bushs trip to NATOand to Turkeythis week as a triumph, but its not. Its a total flop. The New York Times cites an expert from the Nixon Center saying it thusly: I dont think you can turn around three years of U.S. foreign policy with some midnight initiatives. The image of this president in the publics and the worlds eyes is pretty much established. In Turkey, our Evangelist-Leader met with Jewish, Christians and Muslims in Turkey, and thanked them for being so faithful to the Almighty God. But God wasnt mighty enough either to quash the anti-Bush proteststens of thousands in Turkey aloneor to get His followers onto the streets to cheer the Evangelist in Chief. Heres the how the usually pro-Bush Telegraph of London reports on Bush’s motorcade through Europe [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/06/28/ wsum228.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/06/28/ixnewstop.html] , mixed with typical Bush bumble-speak: Otherwise the impression from the motorcade was the same: anti-Bush graffiti, lines of armed policemen, roadblocks, and emptied roads. "Tomorrow I will travel to Turkey for the Nato summit," he said before correcting himself: "Actually, today I will travel to Turkey. Tomorrow is the Nato summit." One administration official went on to insist that a demonstration only counted when there were 100,000 people on the streets. But even in the insulated world of the presidential "bubble," it was hard to sustain that view as the motorcade cruised to the airport through roads that had been sealed to keep protesters at bay. Monday 11:04 AM Gone Fishing [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/gone_fishing.php] June 25, 2004 Bob Dreyfuss takes a well-deserved rest the week of June 21 and gives his typing fingers a break. Check back June 28 for a new installment of TDR . Friday 9:34 AM Was TNR Wrong? Duh. [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/was_tnr_wrong_duh.php] June 18, 2004 In a hilarious attempt at self criticism, The Editors at The New Republic have excreted a piece called Were We Wrong? (Their answer: No.) You have to read this nonsense [http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040628&s=editorial062804]  for yourself. But here is the flavor of it, from the editors of what might be The Worst Magazine in the World. They do admit: The central assumption underlying this magazine's strategic rationale for war now appears to have been wrong. (Theyre referring to the idea that Iraq was busily building a nuclear weapon.) Duh. Everyone with any sense knew that before the war. Those with no sense figured it out a few weeks after the war. Then there is TNR, just realizing it now. Should we have known that the key assumption underlying our strategic rationale for war would prove false? ask TNRs editors, plaintively. Well, okay, says TNR , there were lots of people shouting that Iraq didnt have nukes, or even a live program, and maybe in retrospect, we should have paid more attention to these warning signs. But, at the time, there seemed good reason not to. (I can think of one good reason: Marty Peretz is a pro-Israel warmonger.) Anyway, for having followed Mr. Peretz down the garden path: We feel regret--but no shame. Noshame is foreign to TNRs war fanatics. Why? Because if our strategic rationale for war has collapsed, our moral one has not. So. We are getting lectures on moral causes for war from TNR. Meanwhile, one of TNRs scribblers has come out blasting realism. This impressionist is none other than that Bill Kristol wanna-be, Lawrence F. Kaplan. In last weeks issue, Kaplan goes after the emerging realist consensus (on which, see my next item, below). With Iraq awash in violence, foreign policy realism is the rage in both the Bush and Kerry camps. But can realists really fight the war on terrorism? asks Kaplan. In a silly piece called Springtime for Realism, Kaplan struggles (and fails) to defend the pro-war cliques views. He cites recent Bush criticism of realists who have lost contact with a fundamental reality, and opines: Trouble is, the very realists whom President Bush decries are now running his foreign policy. (That, of course, is plainly false: a few would-be realists are trying to clean up the mess that The New Republics friends created in Iraq, and not very wellwhile the neocons, at last count, are still all in place.)   Maybe its time for mass resignations from TNR. Any takers? And speaking of mass resignations, read on. Mass Resignation "If we were on active duty," said Charles W. Freeman Jr., ambassador to Saudi Arabia under Bush's father and a signer of the document, "this would be the equivalent of a mass resignation." Freeman, who also heads the Middle East Policy Council, is just one of 27 members of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, the latest establishment revolt against President Bushs neocon-inspired foreign policy. Earlier this week they held a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington to announce the creation of the bipartisan group. Explicitly political, they want Bush out. Heres the Los Angeles Times account [http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/latimes196.htm] : The call for President Bush's defeat in a statement released Wednesday by a group of former diplomats and military officials highlighted the stark divide that has opened among foreign policy experts over the administration's national security strategy. Although some of the 27 members of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change are identified most closely with Democratic administrations, almost all served presidents of both parties  either as ambassadors, executive branch officials or military officers. In that way, the group's formation symbolizes how Bush's search for new approaches to safeguard America has triggered a backlash among the centrist foreign policy establishment. It also indicates that the debate over Bush's direction could provoke the sharpest realignment of loyalties on foreign affairs since the emergence of neoconservative thinkers roughly 30 years ago. A central critique by the group is that Bush abandoned alliance-based strategies that had provided the foundation of U.S. security since World War II. "Today, we see that structure crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the realities of the world around it," said Phyllis Oakley, a former State Department official in the Reagan and Clinton administrations and a group member. Those signing the sharply worded statement included Arthur A. Hartman, ambassador to the Soviet Union for President Reagan; and Jack F. Matlock, who assumed that post toward the end of Reagan's second term and held it under President George H.W. Bush. Others were William Harrop, the elder Bush's ambassador to Israel; retired Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, the Air Force chief of staff during the Persian Gulf War; retired Adm. William J. Crowe, the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman under Reagan; and Donald McHenry, the U.N. ambassador under President Carter. This is on top of strong opposition to Bushs Iraq misadventure from top military and intelligence officials such as General William Odom, former chief of the National Security Agency; Gen. Anthony Zinni, ex-commander of CENTCOM; and many others.   Friday 12:11 PM "In A World of Shit" [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/in_a_world_of_shit.php] June 17, 2004 A remarkable briefing yesterday at the Middle East Institute by Ahmed S. Hashim, a Naval War College professor just returned from Iraq, painted in broad outlines the potentially catastrophic situation that the Bush administration faces in Iraq   the next few months. With polls [http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=532 337] showing that just two percent of Iraqis view the United States as liberators, Hashims report was sobering indeed. Making it clear that he was speaking only for himself, and not for any U.S. government  body, Hashim said, We went into Iraq with ideological lenses.  U.S. war planners avoided thinking about the worst that could happen, he said. If you start with a rosy scenario and work backward, youre in a world of shit. And thats where we are. The subject of Hashims report was the evolving resistance in Iraq  . Hes an expert on the subject, having penned an article on the Sunni insurgency last year, which you can read by  clicking here [http://www.mideasti.org/articles/doc89.html] .  And earlier this year, serving as an adviser to the U.S. military in Iraq, he spent weeks (under fire) gathering information on the Iraqi insurgency in B aghdad, Basra and many other Iraqi cities. The resistance, he reports, in highly organized. They have web sites, both the Baathists and the Islamists. Its an incredibly sophisticated outreach program. The organizational infrastructure for the resistance is not visible to U.S. counterinsurgency teams. Why? Its in the mosques. The mosques are organizational centers. Across Iraq, people are reverting to the mosque for leadership, and a country that was heavily secular for decades is drifting deeply into the religious, Islamic fundamentalist campboth Sunni and Shia. In Fallujah and Ramadi, strongholds of former Saddam loyalists and Sunnis, former Iraqi army officers are increasingly reverting to the Islamic camp, abandoning their secular, pro-Baathist ways. Theyve gone back to religion, said Hashim. At the same time, theyve held on to the fierce Iraqi nationalism that theyve imbibed over the past 30 years. Hashim predicted the growth of what he calls a complex warfare pattern over the next few months. The insurgency will grow. Iraqi organized crime is expanding by leaps and bounds, tied to drug lords in Iran and Afghanistan. Theyve coalesced into a kind of Iraqi mafia. Communal tensions between Sunni and Shia will get worse, but Hashim also predicted intra-communal warfare among various factions of Kurds, Sunni and Shia. The idea that the Kurds, or the Sunni, or the Shia are monolithic is absurd, he said. Even sheer greed plays a role, said Hashim: The sabotage and disruptions of pipelines throughout Iraq is being caused by tribal militias who were paid by Saddams government for oil security, and were then cut off by the U.S. forcesand are so taking their revenge. So, he expects things to get worse, with ethnic cleansing in some areas, the spread of what he calls incipient civil war, and the looming threat of massive national resistance. Sounds like a fine backdrop for the November election.   Thursday 9:51 AM CFR Joins Jihad [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/cfr_joins_jihad.php] June 16, 2004 The Council on Foreign Relations, the august paragon of foreign policy propriety, has apparently cast its lot in with Samuel Huntington and the Clash of Civilizations jihadis who are spearheading the campaign against Saudi Arabia. (Huntington, incidentally, has a long op-ed in todays Wall Street Journal suggesting that America is, indeed, a "Christian nation," and all others need not apply.) In its latest anti-terrorism broadside, released yesterday and entitled (not felicitously) Update on the Global Campaign Against Terrorist Financing, a CFR task force [http://www.cfr.org/pub7110/press_release/bipartisan_panel_commen ds_us_and_saudi_efforts_to_disrupt_terrorist_financing_but_says_m ore_progress_needed.php] lambastes Saudi Arabia for its failure to combat supporters of terrorism in the kingdom. Much of the report [http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Revised_Terrorist_Financing.pdf]  is boilerplate and noncontroversial, and the report praises Saudi Arabia for having taken important actions to disrupt domestic Al Qaeda cells, and for improved and increased tactical law enforcement and intelligence cooperation with the United States. Saudi Arabias law enforcement and intelligence officials are now regularly killing Al Qaeda members and sympathizers in violent confrontations," it says. But in criticizing Saudi Arabia for failing to crack down on conservative Wahhabi Muslims who propagate their brand of Islam around the world, the CFR report quotes extensively from a body called the U.S Commission on International Religious Freedom [http://www.uscirf.gov/index.php3?scale=1024] . That commission has been notorious for collecting Christian and Jewish conservatives and neocons over the years in support of Huntington-style anti-Muslim jihads, and previous members have included jihadis such as Elliott Abrams and John Bolton, both now key officials in the Bush administration. Among its current members are Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Nina Shea of the right-wing liberationist Freedom House, Felice Gaer of the American Jewish Committee and assorted other crusaders. The Commission, in its work on Saudi Arabia, paints Wahhabism with a broad brush. The Commission is concerned about numerous credible reports that the Saudi government and members of the royal family directly and indirectly fund the global propagation of an exclusivist religious ideology, Wahhabism, which allegedly promotes hatred, intolerance, and other abuses of human rights, including violence. The concern is not about the propagation of Islam per se, but about allegations that the Saudi governments version of Islam promotes abuses of human rights, including violent acts. It goes on. All this is quoted in the CFRs report, which cites the Commission several times. Note the word allegedly in the just-cited quote. Wahhabism is indeed a backward-looking ideology, and some Wahhabis are no doubt supporters of terror. But the CFR, and the Commission, are engaging in a guilt-by-association chain of reasoning that goes like this: the Saudi government has ties to Saudi Arabias Wahhabi establishment; Wahhabis are benighted Muslim conservatives who have little tolerance for more enlightened Islamic thinkers; some Muslim conservatives support terrorism; some terrorists have ties to Al Qaeda: therefore, the Saudi government supports Al Qaeda. This is silly reasoning. It echoes the silly argument that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al Qaeda; it echoes the Richard Perle-inspired belief that Saudi Arabia is the brains behind Islamic terrorism; it echoes Michael Ledeens wrongheaded belief that Saudi Arabia is one of the terror masters, like Iran; and it ignores the fact that Saudi Arabia is not only battling Al Qaeda in a fight to the death, but that Saudi Arabia is perhaps Al Qaedas No. 1 target and enemy Wednesday 9:14 AM Investigation Summer [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/investigation_summer.php] June 15, 2004 It isnt going to be a happy summer for Bush administration intelligence and military officials. The number of investigations is proliferating so rapidly, with many reports scheduled to be released this summer, that the White House may look back on the first half of 2004 as the good old days, despite the hammering Bush has already taken. There are almost too many inquiries to count. There are several investigations of U.S. intelligence in connection with Iraq, the 9/11 commission is finishing its work, the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame investigation is proceeding, there are several panels looking at the Abu Ghraib scandal, investigators are examining who leaked what to Ahmed Chalabi, there is Halliburton dirt to be revealed and more. In normal times, any one of these would be enough to knock the pins out from under a president, but taken together its a blitzkrieg. First to explode, it seems, will be  the (apparently) soon-to-be-released report on Iraq WMD and U.S. intelligence by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. The CIA and the White House have been dragging their feet on this one, trying to purge information from it on national security groundsbut more likely on Bush re-election grounds. Reports Reuters [http://asia.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&story ID=5419518] : The CIA has nearly finished declassifying a highly critical report about prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and returned most of it to Congress on Monday with parts it believes should be kept secret marked in brackets, government sources said. The Senate Intelligence Committee report examines one of the main reasons used by the United States for going to war against Iraqintelligence that said Baghdad had weapons of mass destruction. No large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons have been found. The committee will meet on Tuesday behind closed doors to discuss the report including its conclusions and the CIA's redactions. The panel was expected to vote on whether to approve the roughly 400-page report. The 9/11 panel [http://www.9-11commission.gov/] , whose report ought be released at the end of July, will also hammer Bush and the CIA, generating a wave of headlines thatno matter what subtleties there arewill portray Bush as having goofed by not mobilizing America after he got the warning  that Al Qaeda was plotting. (You can read about the commissions work here.) Reports AP [http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040614/D836VUGG0.html] : The Sept. 11 commission holds its 12th and last hearing Wednesday and Thursday& The commission, which faces a July 26 deadline for its final report, is winding down its 1 1/2-year investigation in which it interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses, including Bush, and reviewed more than 2 million documents. Meanwhile, one of many looks into the Abu Ghraib messthis one chaired by former S©ecretary of Defense James Schlesingerhas reportedly interviewed top intelligence officials at the Pentagon, including Stephen Cambone, who controls a $30 billion empire of intelligence technology, satellites, secret Special Forces units, and gosh-knows-what: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4205308,00.h tml] In a statement, the panel confirmed it conducted more than a half dozen interviews and its chairman, former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, vowed the members would ``provide an unvarnished assessment of how these abuses happened." The panel didn't identify the individuals it interviewed Monday. But an official familiar with the investigation said members met with the Pentagon's intelligence chief Stephen Cambone; Maj. Gen. Donald Ryder, the Army's provost marshal general; Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who commands U.S.-run prisons in Iraq; and Col. Thomas M. Pappas, commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade implicated in the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity, given the sensitive nature of the investigation. John Kerry, who specialized in investigations in the Senate (meanwhile forgetting to legislate anything), must be marveling at the irony: official investigators are going to help elect him this summer. Tuesday 10:26 AM Bigger Than Iraq [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/bigger_than_iraq.php] June 14, 2004 The weekends events in Iraq make it clear that the buzz of supposedly good news that mesmerized press and pundits after the UN vote and  the G8 meeting has evaporated. Two deputy ministers killed in two days, a wave of car bombings, more dead Americans, and Muqtada Sadr forming a political party, right out in the opennot a pretty picture. So lets turn our attention to Iraqs two neighbors, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Before the war in Iraq, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins, told me that by invading Iraq the Bush administration would accelerate the spread of Al Qaeda-style movements in Saudi Arabia, and its happening. The country is said to be in a state of incipient civil war, and the royal family is apparently unable to stem the spread of the bin Ladenite poison. Saudi Arabias ambassador to the United States has called on the kingdom to conduct an all-out war against the terrorists, but it could be too little, too late. Make no mistake, however: if Saudi Arabia falls to radicals, U.S. forces will occupy that countrys oil fields faster than you can say imperialism. And if that happens, it will be Phase 2 of the neocons expanded plans for the Middle East: first topple Saddam and flatten Iraq, as another former ambassador to Saudi Arabia described the essence of the neocon Iraq strategy, and then move on to Saudi Arabia. Ive stopped warning that bin Laden might take over Saudi Arabia, Akins told me last year. I think thats exactly what they want. And then American forces would move in. No U.S. government could tolerate the collapse of Saudi Arabia. Oil experts are already pointing out that sources of oil outside Saudi Arabia and Iraq are rapidly being drained, meaning that those two countries are basically the only two sources of expanded future supply. Period. Next, Iran:  The New York Times magazine [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/13/magazine/13NUKES.html]  on Sunday screamed: Is Iran Going Nuclear? Todays Wall Street Journal attacks the Bush administration for going soft on Iran, joining Europe is wringing its hands over Irans nuclear research. The neocons are maintaining their steady drumbeat of war talk over Iran, and at a recent American Enterprise Institute session one speaker suggested that Israel might strike first, blowing away Irans reactors or research centers. The Iranians are said to be aware that if Bush is re-elected, they are a likely target for getting the Saddam Treatment, and theyre planning accordingly. Maybe Saudi Arabia can quiet the insurgency; maybe Iran will make a deal over its nuclear program and play nice in Iraq, where its forces have built up enormous ability to sway Iraqs future. But if not, we could be in for a long, hot summernot only in Iraq, but Saudi Arabia and Iran, too. Monday 12:12 PM Chirac Puts The NO In NATO [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/chirac_puts_the_no_in_nato.php] June 11, 2004 Could America s clumsy diplomacy get any worse? Is it any wonder European leaders want Kerry? The G-8 meeting is one gigantic screw-up, from the refusal of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to attend it to the administrations refusal to invite Qatar our most important Gulf allybecause it hosts Al Jazeera . And then there is the NATO issue. Bush isnt going to be getting NATO support for Iraqs government anytime soon, probably never, though the president tried to put the best face on things. Apparently the Europeans (the old ones, not the new ones like Poland ) decided that they would give Bush the UN resolution he wanted, with modifications, so Bush could have a face-saving victory in New York. But at the G-8 meeting, Bush got bupkis. AFP is reporting that the German leader dismisses the UN resolution as basically useless in the mess called Iraq : German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder expressed doubts [http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040610200023.gu6hm5as.html]  Thursday over whether a new UN Security Council resolution on Iraq 's sovereignty would bring stability to the war-torn country. "The resolution is a political basis, is an attempt, to improve the chances of stabilising" Iraq, Schroeder said on the sidelines of the Group of Eight summit in the U.S. state of Georgia. "Whether that attempt can succeed is an open question. I am not optimistic about this," he said. Optimism is in short supply, of course, in regard to Iraq, where civil war still looms, violence makes even simple trips unsafe and resistance forces of all kinds are proliferating. French President Chirac, rather than attack Bush directly, decided to praise the food at the G-8 summit, no doubt straining the French leaders diplomatic skills to the utmost. But he made it clear that Bush aint getting help from NATO. Bush said the Iraqi people need help, imploring NATOs aid, but: Bush's comments were made after a private meeting with a skeptical French President Jacques Chirac. They came as the annual Group of Eight summit of big industrial powers wound down without Bush winning additional commitments from summit partners for help on Iraq. Chirac has objected to Bush's suggestion that NATO take a greater role in Iraq. Those differences clearly extended into Chirac's meeting with Bush. Bush said he and Chirac discussed "whether or not there is a continued role for NATO" in Iraq. "We understand the Iraqi people need help to defend themselves, to rebuild their country and, most importantly, to hold elections," Bush said. When his turn came to speak, Chirac did not mention the dispute over Iraq but spoke instead of how much he had enjoyed the G-8 summit, particularly the food. "Over the last few days, this cuisine here in America was certainly on a par with French cuisine," he said. [http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=54&u_sid=1118 936] NATO meets later this month in Turkey. Friday 9:51 AM Chalabi? Remember Him? The Spy? [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/chalabi_remember_him_the_spy.ph p] June 10, 2004 President Bush is not the only neocon with amnesia about Ahmed Chalabi, the lying spy who (still) would love to be Iraqs chieftain, but who now has to overcome that little matter of giving U.S. secrets to Irans mullahs. No, Bush isnt the only one, but he is the funniest. Consider these two items. First, last week the president said he could only remember meeting Chalabi in a rope line at the State of the Union address. Reported The New York Times on June 2: At the White House on Tuesday, President Bush sought to play down the role of Mr. Chalabi and his group as a source of information in his administration's decision to go to war in Iraq. ''My meetings with him were very brief,'' Mr. Bush said, saying that he might have met with Mr. Chalabi at the State of the Union address as part of a ''rope line'' greeting. ''I haven't had any extensive conversations with him.'' I guess Bush forgot what he told Tim Russert in his February 8 Meet the Press sit-down interview, where he noted that Chalabi and the Shia fellow had plopped their butts down right in the Oval Office: MR. RUSSERT: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein? PRES. BUSH: They're not going to develop that. The reason I can say that is because I'm very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that because right here in the Oval Office I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment, that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion. I remember speaking to Mr. al-Hakim here, who is a fellow who has lost 63 family members during the Saddam reign. His brother was one of the people that was assassinated early on in this past year. I expected to see a very bitter person. If 63 members of your family had been killed by a group of people, you'd be a little bitter. He obviously was concerned, but heI said, you know, "I'm a Methodist, what are my chances of success in your country and your vision?" And he said, "It's going to be a free society where you can worship freely." This is a Shia fellow. Well, the climate in Iraq may not yet be quite right for Methodists to start building churches. Anyway, also denying thrice that he knows Chalabi well is Dougie Feith, who was Chalabis longtime neocon dance partner. In the Los Angeles Times [http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news1/latimes185.htm] , Feith denies having been intimate with Ahmed: Feith, the No. 3 Pentagon official, has been struggling to put to rest what he regards as unfair charges that he was trying to create a separate intelligence network in the Pentagon to guide administration decisions, and that he was an "intimate" of Chalabi. Feith met with Chalabi fewer than 10 times, said a spokesman. Ten times? That seems like more often than Bill Clinton, the author, met with Monica, and we know they were intimate. Which brings us to the May 29 New York Times story, about how the neocons outside of government were besieging the White House to plead Chalabis case, while those inside are basically shutting up: Influential outside advisers to the Bush administration who support the Iraqi exile leader Ahmad Chalabi are pressing the White House to stop what one has called a ''smear campaign'' against Mr. Chalabi, whose Baghdad home and offices were ransacked last week in an American-supported raid. Last Saturday, several of these Chalabi supporters said, a small delegation of them marched into the West Wing office of Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to complain about the administration's abrupt change of heart about Mr. Chalabi and to register their concerns about the course of the war in Iraq. The group included Richard N. Perle, the former chairman of a Pentagon advisory group, and R. James Woolsey, director of central intelligence under President Bill Clinton. Members of the group, who had requested the meeting, told Ms. Rice that they were incensed at what they view as the vilification of Mr. Chalabi, a favorite of conservatives who is now central to an F.B.I. investigation into who in the American government might have given him highly classified information that he is suspected of turning over to Iran. "There is a smear campaign under way, and it is being perpetrated by the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. and a gaggle of former intelligence officers who have succeeded in planting these stories, which are accepted with hardly any scrutiny," Mr. Perle, a leading conservative, said in an interview. Yet, the Times continued, there is deafening silence from inside the administration, all of whose officials seem to have met Chalabi only on rope lines: Although Mr. Chalabi's supporters outside the administration have been caustic in their comments about his treatment, there has been relative silence so far from Mr. Chalabi's supporters within the administration. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, who favored going to war in Iraq and was a patron of Mr. Chalabi, did not respond to numerous requests this week for an interview. Mr. Wolfowitz's spokesman, Charley Cooper, said in an e-mail message that Mr. Wolfowitz believed that Mr. Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress ''have provided valuable operational intelligence to our military forces in Iraq, which has helped save American lives.'' Mr. Cooper added in the message that ''Secretary Wolfowitz hopes that the events of the last few weeks haven't undermined that.'' The current views of Vice President Dick Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, are not known. Both strongly supported Mr. Chalabi before and during the war in Iraq. Last Saturday, participants in the meeting with Ms. Rice and her deputy, Stephen Hadley, said Ms. Rice told them she appreciated that they had made their views known. But she gave no hint of her own opinion, participants said, and made no concessions to their point of view. Although Rice decline to give a hint of her own opinion, somehow I doubt that Perle and Co. would like to hear it if she did. Thursday 9:06 AM Kurds Threaten Civil War [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kurds_threaten_civil_war.php] June 09, 2004 The Kurds of Iraq cant just opt out of Iraqs new central government, for one glaringly obvious reason: Their so-called Kurdistan doesnt have any oil. By opting out, not only would the Kurds anger Turkey (and Iran) but theyd consign themselves to a barren rump state of deserts and mountains. So the Kurds are really threatening civil war. In order to survive, theyd have to seize control of Iraqs northern oil fields and pipelines centered around Kirkuk, which is not historically a Kurdish city. Not only would that mean violent ethnic cleansing and retaliatory Shiite fundamentalist pogroms against the 800,000 Kurds in Baghdad, but it would be a casus belli for the Iraqi government. No Iraqi regimefrom Saddams to the fake one led by Iyad Allawi, the terrorist and CIA agentcan allow the Kurds to take the oil. Soft-heartedand soft-headedthinkers often defend the Kurds for their suffering, from leftie-turned-right Christopher Hitchens to William Safire of The New York Times . Today Safire writes: President Bush may be double-crossing the Kurds, our most loyal friends in Iraq. (Actually the Kurds are loyal to no one, though they have been in the pay of everyone: after World War II, the Kurds were KGB-controlled; then they were picked by SAVAK and the Mossad, when the left took over Iraq in 1958; then they worked for the CIA in the 1970s. Anyone want them in 2004?) But in reality, the Kurds have been planning and plotting independence for more than a decade, while paying lip service to talk about a strong Iraqi central government. The Kurdish rebellion is only the latest sign that, despite the happy-happy talk at the UN and the G8, Iraq is going to hell in a handbasket (a cliché that Ive never understooda handbasket? Maybe Safire can explain it to me). President Bush sees his re-election as being controlled by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, so hell do anything to placate the scowly fundamentalist. Sistani has issued his latest fatwa -style pronunciamento declaring that he doesnt like the Transitional Administration Law, the much-ballyhooed draft constitution that won so much praise earlier this year when it was adopted. Then, Bush called it a major step forward. Now, its trash. Bush will do anything to keep Sistani smiling. (Well, okay, the guy never smiles.) Season tickets to the Rangers? Sure. Throw out that silly draft constitution and get the Kurds mad? Sure. Wednesday 10:07 AM Media Lost on Iraq [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/media_lost_on_iraq.php] June 08, 2004 Once again, as during the run up to the war in Iraqwhen the media served as cheerleader for the war and loyally reported extensively on Iraqs vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destructionthe U.S. media is again lost on Iraq. Like a herd of stampeding cattle storming this way and that, theyve changed course again. A few weeks ago, a casual perusal of the reports in the American press revealed an Iraq in chaos, with a widespread resistance to the occupation, a fractious Iraqi elite, a steady drumbeat of U.S. casualties and predictions by respected analysts like Gen. Anthony Zinni and Bill Odom that Americas mission in Iraq had failed. Now it's hearts and flowers. What happened? Almost totally missing from news reportsor buriedis the continuing violence in Iraq. (Today, car bombs and attacks killed dozens more Iraqis and two more U.S. soldiers.) The U.S. casualties are all the more remarkable because the occupation forces have sharply cut back deployments and operations, after having handed Fallujah to the resistance and given Muqtada Sadrs forces a pass in the Shiite areas of Baghdad and southern Shiite cities. More important, the press is touting the new Iraqi government, whose ersatz president is about to sit down tomorrow with President Bush at the G-8 meeting. The imposition on Iraq of a quisling government, led by former CIA agents and portly pro-American sheikhs doesnt mean stability. The greedy Kurds, whose militia are being allowed to stand, are already threatening to pull out of the government [http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=F2FA5681-25A3-43AA-9 A3F1BBF419423D0] : The main Kurdish political parties are threatening to pull out of Iraq's interim government unless a new United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraq endorses Kurdish autonomy. Masoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party and Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan made the threat in a publicly released letter to President Bush. The two Kurdish leaders said Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq should be included in the new U.N. resolution or otherwise recognized as law-binding on the transitional government, both before and after elections. Mr. Barzani and Mr. Talabani also expressed what they called their bitter disappointment that no Kurd was chosen to be either interim prime minister or president of Iraq. Meanwhile, Shiite leaders are blasting the Kurds for resisting Iraqs central authority. (A key Shiite leader was assassinated today.) In Fallujah, radical (Sunni) Islamists are reportedly taking control of the city, turning it into an operations center for the Muslim Brotherhood and its allies. And in todays Washington Post a photograph, not analyzed, shows what appears to be tens of thousands of Sadr supporters filling the streets of the Shiite area of Baghdad, Sadr City. It goes on. But the tone of U.S. press coverage, thanks to a relentless Bush administration PR effort in support of the patsies now pretending to take over Iraq, has changed dramatically. The new regime in Iraq is portrayed seriously, rather than clownishly, the supposed dismantling of Iraqs militia groups is given headlines (hint: dont believe its happening), and the UNs rubber stamp over the U.S. fait accompli in Iraq is taken as sign that Bush is accommodating the world body, rather than tromping over it. Tuesday 8:36 AM Rummy's Lawyers: Torture OK [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/rummys_lawyers_torture_ok.php] June 07, 2004 Liberals who dont read the Wall Street Journal ought to take a look the Journals lead story today, entitled: Pentagon Report Set Framework for Use of Torture. Yes, you read that right. Heres the opening paragraph: Bush administration lawyers contended last year that the president wasnt bound by laws prohibiting torture and that the government agents who might torture prisoners at his direction couldnt be prosecuted by the Justice Department. Its based on a 100-page memo (classified) that was given to Rummy after torture-inclined Guantanamo interrogators complained that they werent getting enough info from the detainees there. (The thought that the Afghanswho were randomly rounded-up and included childrenmight not know anything apparently didnt occur to these folks.) Says the Journal : At [the memos] core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens, normal strictures on torture might not apply. If we didnt need another reminder about why ordinary people express distaste for lawyers, heres how the Pentagons shysters split the torture hairs: "The infliction of pain or suffering, whether it is physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture, the report advises. Such suffering must be severe, the lawyers advise, and they rely on a dictionary definition to suggest that it must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure. The report goes on to say that Congress has no business trying to regulate whether U.S. soldiers or other officials torture prisoners, since that would violate the commander-in-chiefs constitutional power to wage war. Sometimes the greater good for society will be accompanied by violating the literal language of the criminal law, says the report.   Monday 9:02 AM Tenet's Out. Next? [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/tenets_out_next.php] June 04, 2004 I dont believe for a second that the White House forced George Tenet out. But if there are personal reasons for Tenets quitting, they have to do with personal animosity that Tenet has toward the White House for its effort to blame him and the CIA for its own willful mistakes on Iraq. Not that Tenet isnt to blame for his own predicament. Faced with intense pressure in 2001 from Cheney, Rumsfeld and the phalanx of Perle-led neocons to go along with the push for war in Iraq, Tenet caved. His own CIA analysts didnt believe that Iraq was a threat (nor did they believe that Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda or WMD), but Tenet added the White Houses preferred political spin onto his agencys estimates. And he sat stony-faced behind Colin Powell during the latters ill-fated (and lie-filled) UN speech in February 2003, effectively giving CIA endorsement to the misinformation that Powell spewed forth. So Tenet was caught in his own web. But when the going got rough, Bush and Co. pointed their fingers at Tenet and the CIA, blaming that agency for the errors, even though those errors were forced on it by Cheney, the Pentagons Office of Special Plans and the White House itself. When the finger-pointing got bad, Tenet hit back, giving a speech  in which he declared that the CIA never said that the threat from Iraq was imminent. In other words, Bush had rushed into a war that could well have waited. Tenet might have added (but didnt) that the CIA had long opposed doing business with Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. But Tenet didnt have either the muscle, or enough friends, to fight back hardespecially given the apparent willingness of the House and Senate intelligence committees to blame him and the CIA (as opposed to the neocon mafia) for the bungled Iraq intelligence effort. So, in my opinion, Tenet was just sick and tired of battling the White House, the neocons and the Congressand hed lost support inside the agency because of his decision to abandon principle and sign on to the Big Lie over Iraq. Those who say Tenets resignation will help Bush dont get it. When a member of your national security team quits in the middle of the Great War on Terror, its a bad sign. Most people will interpret it as evidence that the Bush team is falling apart. And there is a lot more bad news to comeinvestigative reports, the 9/11 inquiry, the WMD inquiry, Abu Ghraiband a chance that others will follow Tenet. The decision to quit by James Pavittthe CIA deputy direction for operations and its chief spookought to worry the White House, too. And the Chalabi inquiry, which is starting to get juicy, will add some fuel to the fire. Friday 9:32 AM Swagger [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/swagger.php] June 03, 2004 Lakhdar Brahimi's charge that he was under extreme pressure from the United States over his effort to put together an Iraqi government is yet another Bush administration scandal. For months I've been writing that Washington had to support Brahimi; now we know that Bremerwho Brahimi called a dictatorsabotaged the UN envoy. Yesterday, President Bush, in his latest Iraq speech, warned Americans to beware of the swagger and demented logic of the fanatic. He ought to know. My comment: That's exactly the attitude that the French, Russian, Spanish, Germans and others in New York ought to have toward President Bush as they try to hammer out a UN Security Council resolution. Thursday 9:21 AM Spies, Lies, Al Qaeda Ties [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/spies_lies_al_qaeda_ties.php] June 02, 2004 The intelligence tangle over Iraq keeps getting deeper, and the neocons seem so deeply entangled in it that its probably impossible for them to get out. Theyve tied themselves tightly to the lies and spies associated with the war on Iraq, and now any one of a dozen investigations could expose the whole cabal to the sunlightand possibly put a few of them in prison. What's been rumored for weeks now finally ended up on page 1 of The New York Times . Ahmed Chalabi, the Wizard of Oz of the Iraq war, blabbed to the Iranian secret service that the National Security Agency had broken the diplomatic code of the mullahs intelligence system. Its a devastating charge against Chalabi, who reportedly told Iran that he got the information from an American who was drunk. (Quick! FBI! Which one of the Pentagon neocons is prone to alcohol abuse?) Anyway, an FBI investigation is now trying to find out exactly who was the source who blabbed out that secret to Chalabi and, more important, why. That personundoubtedly one of the small ring of plotters in the Department of Defense who were close to Chalabi, from Dougie Feith to Bill Luti to Harold Rhode to Michael Rubincould go to jail. Remarkable is the fact that Richard Perle and Co. continue to defend Chalabi. Perle told the Times that the CIA had turned against Chalabi because hed refused to be the CIAs puppet. (Id say giving vital data to Irans maniacal mullahs is not the work of a CIA puppet; whose puppet Chalabi truly is remains to be seen.) Ive seen no evidence of improper behavior on his part, says Perle. No evidence whatsoever." Meanwhile, other neocons and their mouthpieces, including The Wall Street Journal,  continue to badmouth the CIA and to defend Chalabiand theyre whipping up a new controversy over Iraqs supposed ties to Al Qaeda. The Journal praises Chalabi yet again in todays editorial, Iraqis in Charge, taking a nasty potshot at the CIA for undermining him. Noting that the transitional regime in Iraq is headed by a former CIA agent, Iyad Allawi, the Journal opines: At least the CIA wont be among those trying to undermine this interim government, the way it did Mr. Chalabi and the Governing Council." Secretary of State Colin Powell, the nemesis of the neocons, is reportedly opening up a new front, according to the Times . Hes bugging the CIA to explain why it listened to Chalabi & Co. Government officials have described Mr. Powell as still angry about the intelligence briefings that served as the basis for his United Nations speech. (That would be the February 2003 lie-filled account of Iraqs WMD and ties to terrorism.) Powell, long known as an advocate of using overwhelming force in going to war, ought to marshal exactly that sort of force to annihilate his enemy now. Not knowing when to shut up, the neocons have opened a new front, too. The Weekly Standards intrepid reporter Stephen F. Hayes, who is quickly emerging as a mini-me of the near-psychotic Laurie Mylroie, has penned a new book called The Connection , a tome describing in book-length format the spurious charge that Iraq and Al Qaeda were partners in crime. Once again, the villain of Hayes tale is the CIA, which for some reason refused to agree with Mylroie, Hayes and the neocons that Iraq was behind 9/11, the Oklahoma City bombing and the Lincoln assassination. Hayes book is getting big play in the right-wing echo chamber, and the American Enterprise Institute is having a forum for Hayes tomorrow. And here I am, wondering if Ahmed Chalabi has ties to Al Qaeda. After all, the government of Jordan has officially accused Chalabi of having blown up its embassy in Baghdad last summer. Wednesday 8:09 AM Bungled Again [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/bungled_again.php] June 01, 2004 By now, we dont expect the Bush administration to do anything right in Iraq. But the process of putting together the new transitional Iraqi government has been so badly bungled that its nothing short of astonishing. The deaths keep comingfive U.S. soldiers killed Sunday, several dozen Kurds slaughtered in a car bombing today in Baghdadand it promises to get worse. The good news: the new regime doesnt include any Chalabis. The bad news: just about everything else. First of all, its clear that Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN representative in Iraq who supposedly had American support in assembling the government, had no such thing. Despite all of the pious words from President Bush and others, Brahimi was hemmed in by the United States, and each and every one of his choices was subject to U.S. veto. In other words, just like the now-dissolved [http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/01/iraq.main/index.html]  Iraqi Governing Clowncil (IGC)which dissolved itself today after contributing mightily to the messthe transitional regime will be widely seen as a U.S. puppet force. That doesnt bode well for stability in Iraq. Worst of all, the appointment of exile leader Iyad Allawi as Iraqs interim prime minister puts in place exactly the wrong persona former military man whos been on the CIA payroll for yearsinstalled, no less, by an upstart IGC, which nominated Allawi on its own accord. From the beginning, Brahimi said that he wanted a government of technocratsof clean, non-politicians whod not only have some chance of winning the confidence of most Iraqis, but whod also have the imprimatur of the United Nationsmeaning that they wouldnt be tainted as having been imposed either by Paul Bremer, the outgoing U.S. czar, or by the Governing Clowncil. Now we have a government that, while half-heartedly supported by Brahimi, has been imposed on Brahimi either by Bremer, the IGC, or both. Meanwhile, the IGC, which had absolutely no support among Iraqisa recent Washington Post poll found that only 0.1 percent of Iraqis (one tenth of one percent!) wanted the IGC to pick future Iraqi leadersended up doing just that. Over Brahimis objections, they demanded the installation of a Sunni tribal chief with Shiite ties, picking Ghazi Yawar to serve as Iraqs new president. Apparently the IGC forgot that it is a non-representative body with no credibility. Even more amazing is the fact that Bremer, whos acting like the short-timer he is, went along with the IGCs choice. Because the stakes are so high, this new Iraqi team is a done deal. Brahimi will put the best face on it, and it will probably get the endorsement of the United Nations sometime this month, with lip service to full sovereignty. But the 3,000-person U.S. embassy and the 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will continue to control things, at least through the presidential election. And, with an Iraqi government picked not by the UN but by the U.S.-created IGC, those thousands of Americans will be just so many targets. Tuesday 9:55 AM Terror and Lies [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/terror_and_lies.php] May 27, 2004 Crusader-in-Chief John Ashcroft seized control of George Bushs re-election effort yesterday. Hoping that faked-up warnings of an imminent terror attack by Al Qaeda would rally support in Bushs imploding polls, Ashcroft cited credible intelligence from multiple sources to warn that Al Qaeda was planning to hit the United States hard this summer. Just in case we didnt get the point, a Bush administration official quoted in the pro-Bush Washington Times , the Moonie News, said that the coming attack might even involve weapons of mass destruction. A WMD attack remains on the table for the bad guys. Although Osama bin Laden has not used these attack modes yet, clearly he is interested in them. Really? Would those be the same sources who said that Iraq was an imminent threat? And that Iraq supported Al Qaeda? (False and false, of course.) The Washington Times announced all this in a screaming headline with photos of seven supposed terroristssomehow omitting that lawyer in Oregon, who is now collecting FBI apologiesbut it received enormous coverage in sane newspapers, too. Well God bless The New York Times. Ashcrofts baloney appeared nowhere on page one.  Instead, it was relegated to page A14, in an article whose headline said: Some Question the Threat and Its Timing [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/politics/27terror.html] . Wow. Heres an excerpt: There's no real new intelligence here, and a lot of this has been out there already, said one administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity. There is really no significant change that would require us to change the alert level of the country. The names of six of the seven were publicly circulated by the authorities months ago, and officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said that they had no reason to believe that any of the suspects were in the United States. Some intelligence officials said they were uncertain that the link between the fresh intelligence and the likelihood of another attack was as apparent as Mr. Ashcroft made it out to be. Harold Schaitberger, head of the International Association of Firefighters, told reporters in a conference call organized by Mr. Kerrys campaign that he found the timing of the announcement to be politically convenient at best because it came after we see the presidents approval ratings plummet. Thursday 9:11 AM Pentagon Spies? [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/pentagon_spies.php] May 26, 2004 The fallout from the fall of Ahmad Chalabi looks like it might splash all over the Pentaconsthe neocon hardliners in the Pentagon who've backed Chalabi since the '90s. And Chalabi's backers are worried. Here's today's Wall Street Journal editorial, citing a report in The New York Times that U.S. intelligence officials are investigating Pentagon officials: Critics of Mr. Bush's Iraq policy are using the raid and the leaks as an excuse for demanding a purge of anyone who ever supported Mr. Chalabi. A Monday piece in The New York Times , based on more anonymous leaks, noted that 'intelligence officials' are investigating a handful of officials in Washington and Iraq who dealt regularly with Mr. Chalabi.' Are they Iranian agents, too? Maybe, and maybe not. But next, here's a report from The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224075,00.html] : An intelligence source in Washington said the CIA confirmed its long-held suspicions when it discovered that a piece of information from an electronic communications intercept by the National Security Agency had ended up in Iranian hands. The information was so sensitive that its circulation had been restricted to a handful of officials. "This was 'sensitive compartmented information'SCIand it was tracked right back to the Iranians through Aras Habib," the intelligence source said. The DIA is also reported to have launched its own inquiry into the INC-Iran link. An intelligence source in Washington said the FBI investigation into the affair would begin with Mr. Chalabi's "handlers" in the Pentagon, who include William Luti, the former head of the office of special plans, and his immediate superior, Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defence for policy. There is no evidence that they were the source of the leaks. Other INC supporters at the Pentagon may have given away classified information in an attempt to give Mr. Chalabi an advantage in the struggle for power surrounding the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government on June 30. Next is this, from UPI yesterday, reporting that the FBI is investigating a Pentagon official and a former Pentagon official for having passed classified info to Chalabi. Though not named, the two officials in the UPI story are, according to my sources, Harold Rhode, an official in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment, and Michael Rubin, now at the American Enterprise Institute. Reports UPI: Officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority are suspected of having leaked sensitive CIA and Pentagon intercepts to the U.S.-funded Iraqi National Congress, which passed them on to the government of Iran, according to federal law enforcement officials and serving and former U.S. intelligence officials. These sources also acknowledged that the Bush administration has been the victim of an enormous Iran-perpetrated intelligence fraud that worked to provoke a U.S. military invasion of Iraq in order to defeat Iran's bitter, long-time enemy, a campaign of deception which one U.S. source called "positively a most brilliant and extraordinarily successful operation." This source said that some of the intercepts are believed to have been given to Chalabi by two U.S. officials of the Coalition Provision Authority, both of whom are not named here because UPI could not reach them for comment. Other targets of the probe include senior and other Pentagon officials who dealt with Chalabi on a regular basis, this source said. One former CPA official has returned to the United States and is employed at the American Enterprise Institute, the former very senior official said, a fact which FBI sources confirmed without additional comment. When I asked Rubin if the story was accurate, he replied with the three-word message: "It is untrue." It's not clear where all this might lead. Certainly, the CIA is a sworn enemy of Chalabi, and it has been for many years. And certainly, Chalabi's enemies would love to use the scandal over Chalabi's Iran connections to tarnish his Pentacon allies. But it seems to me unlikely that they would risk a formal investigation unless they had some concrete evidence to support what otherwise would be a witch hunt. Wednesday 10:00 AM Oil and Israel [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/oil_and_israel.php] May 25, 2004 The two unmentionables about Iraq are suddenly getting mentioned. The real reasons for the attack on Iraq had nothing to do with WMDs, that ultimate red herring. The real reasons: oil and Israel. Let's take oil first. Prince Turki al -Faisal [http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/forms/printstory.asp?section= Breaking&storyId=868913&tw=wn_wire_story] , the Saudi ambassador to the UK and no radical he, charges that the invasion of Iraq might have had something to do with what's under Iraq's sand: The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was a colonial war and there were some in the United States who saw it as a means of getting their hands on Iraqi oil, a senior Saudi ambassador was quoted as saying Monday. Prince Turki al-Faisal, ambassador to Britain and Ireland, told the Irish Independent newspaper Washington's stated aims in going to war in Iraq masked a more cynical reality. "No matter how exalted the aims of the U.S. in that war, in the final analysis it was a colonial war very similar to the wars conducted by the ex-colonial powers when they went out to conquer the rest of the world ...," Prince Turki said. John Kerry, ever Mr. Cautious ("if only I can stay two points to the left of Bush I can win"), suggested that oil might have had something do with the invasion, too. Kerry, who's constantly bashing the Saudis, didn't exactly line up with Prince Turki. And he didn't exactly sound like an anti-imperialist, either. But he did suggest that oil was a factor. In a Washington Times piece [http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040524-103200-9250r.htm]  entitled "Kerry hints at link between oil, Iraq war," the Times reports: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry yesterday suggested that America's dependence on foreign oil is the major reason the United States went to war with Iraq. "A strong America begins at homewith energy independence from the Middle East. Let's ensure that no young American soldier has to fight and die because of our dependence on foreign oil," the Massachusetts senator said. Okay, not exactly courageous, but it's a start. Speaking of courage though, have you seen Sen. Fritz Hollings' statement that Israel, too, was a major reason for the war in Iraq? Hollings, the white-haired courtly southern gentleman, who's finally retiring and getting out of Dodge, wrote an article for the Charleston Post and Courier on May 6 (now posted on Hollings' website [http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/opinion/2004506A17.html] ), noting that perhaps President Bush was motivated to attack Iraq more by his desire to protect Ariel Sharon's Israel than any other reason. Wrote Hollings : Of course there were no weapons of mass destruction. Israel's intelligence, Mossad, knows what's going on in Iraq. They are the best. They have to know. Israel's survival depends on knowing. Israel long since would have taken us to the weapons of mass destruction if there were any or if they had been removed. With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush's policy to secure Israel. Led by Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer, for years there has been a domino school of thought that the way to guarantee Israel's security is to spread democracy in the area. You don't come to town and announce your Israel policy is to invade Iraq. But George W. Bush, as stated by former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and others, started laying the groundwork to invade Iraq days after inauguration. And, without any Iraq connection to 9/11, within weeks he had the Pentagon outlining a plan to invade Iraq. For making that courageous statement, Hollings noted in a statement two weeks [http://hollings.senate.gov/~hollings/statements/2004521A35.html] later that he was attacked for being anti-Semitic. Yet he went on to accuse the Project for a New American Century of developing that "domino policy for Israel," and he added that he was sticking to his guns: "That is exactly what it is. But they know how to make you tuck tail and run. Not the Senator from South Carolina. We don't run."   Tuesday 2:28 PM Mister Forty Percent [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/mister_forty_percent.php] So Bushs popularity now stands at a new low, with 40 percent of Americans saying that they approve of the job that the president is doing. My question is: What is that 40 percent thinking? Its a sad commentary on America that two out of five Americans [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52151-2004May24.h tml] still support President Bush, and for the life of me I cant figure out whats going through their minds. Did you notice last night, watching the presidents speechyou had to turn to the cable channels because the networks didnt botherthose grim-faced Secret Service agents surrounding the president as he spoke? Now he was addressing the Army War College, looking out over a sea of uniforms and medals. At first I thought: this is odd. And then I realized that of all the constituencies in the United States, its probably the U.S. Army that is angriest at Bush. So maybe he needed that protection. Angriest of all might be Gen. Ricardo Abu Ghraib Sanchez, the top U.S. general in Iraq, whos getting dumped. Youd think Bush might want to make a big deal of sending a four-star general to Iraq to replace Sanchez, but youd be wrong. Bush could have taken the occasion to announce a Big New Deal, sending the armys No. 2 to Iraq to take charge in a crisis, but no: in fact, Bush announced exactly nothing, unless you count the idea of razing Abu Ghraib prison. Speaking of Abu Ghraib, Bush totally mangled the pronunciation. The first time he said it, he nearly choked on the wordsit seemed almost as if hed never seen the word before. Subsequently, he pronounced it Aboo Goo Rub. Doesnt this man pay attention? Ever a man of mystery, Bush didnt explain, well, anything. He didnt explain the mysterious process at the UN Security Council, where the United States is trying to get some sort of resolution about Iraqs future, but whose content is totally up for grabs. He didnt explain what Iraq s new government might look like or what powers it might have. He didnt explain the Aboo Goo Rub thing at all, including whos responsible. He didnt explain the raid on Ahmad Chalabidoes the guy work for Iran or not, or does he still work for Richard Perle? Or is that the same thing? He didnt explain why we firebombed a wedding. I could go on. He didnt explain why were continuing to allow the militias in Iraq to exist, after we said wed dismantle them. And mostly, he didnt explain what we are going to do if Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the scowly, bearded fatwa man, decides he doesnt like Lakhdar Brahimis UN plan and insteadno doubt after consulting some obscure Koranic textdecides he likes Ahmad Chalabi more. That is the $64 billion question that Mr. Forty Percent needs to answer. Tuesday 8:35 AM The Chalabi Plot? [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_chalabi_plot.php] May 21, 2004 Could it be, could it, that the U.S. attack on the portly fraud Ahmad Chalabi, willintentionally or nothelp Chalabi emerge as a hero in post-June 30 Iraq? Maybe not exactly, but there is more to the story than meets the eye. Certainly, Chalabi seems guilty of maintaining a secret relationship with the intelligence service of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and many news accounts report that Chalabi passed highly sensitive information to Iran  that, CBS reports [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/20/iraq/main618637.shtml] , could get Americans killed. Thats enough to get the CIA, which apparently led the raid against him, to hit him hard. But there is more. Lets look at some of the pieces. Two days ago, in this space, I quoted Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon liaison to Chalabi who is now settled back in at the American Enterprise Institute, saying this: "By telegraphing that he is not the favorite son of America, the administration will bolster him, showing he is his own man." Note: this was written by Rubin a few days beforeyes, beforethe raid on Chalabis offices. Next there is this. In todays New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/21/politics/21EXIL.html] , Richard Perle of AEI, Chalabis best friend in Washington, suggests that yesterdays raid might actually help the lying Chalabi. Says Perle: They have gone in recent days, at the CIA and the State Department, from saying he has no influence to a panic that he is really quite effective and could emerge with great influence. The crude nature of this action will actually have the reverse effect, and bolster Ahmad. Ditto in todays Wall Street Journal editorial, The Chalabi Treatment, which also suggests that by posing as anti-American Chalabi can gain: We certainly think that Mr. Chalabi deserves the benefit of the doubt& With Mr. Brahimi [Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN envoy] like to freeze him out after June 30, Mr. Chalabi will be able to devote himself to building a party to run in the elections currently scheduled for January 2005. Its no compliment to our work in Iraq that we have turned opposition to America into an Iraqi political asset. As I've been reporting in this space for months, Chalabi has purposely been seeking to distance himself from Washington for a long time, fuming at this and that and trying to forge an alliance with the Shiite fundamentalists in southern Iraqincluding the all-powerful (and all-backward) Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the scowly, bearded fatwa man. What Brahimi is doing is important, but even more important is what Sistani thinks about it. If Chalabis pugnacious, let my people go nonsense helps firm up an alliance with Sistani, then he will be back on top. Friday 10:42 AM U.S. Army Raids Chalabi [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/us_army_raids_chalabi.php] May 20, 2004 Finally, the U.S. army hit the right target, after (oops!) massacring dozens of Iraqi wedding attendees yesterday. That target was Ahmed Chalabi. It sounds to me like the first serious sign that the U.S. military is trying to clear the decks for the soon-to-come announcement of the new Iraqi government by UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi , who is bitterly opposed by Chalabi. Heres the CNN report [http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/20/chalabi.raid/index.htm l] : BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN)U.S. military personnel and Iraqi police Thursday raided the compound of the Iraqi National Congress and the nearby home of Iraqi Governing Council member Ahmed Chalabi, formerly a close adviser to the Pentagon. Chalabi aides said its part of a "smear campaign by the CIA" and U.S. Administrator Paul Bremer is trying to intimidate Chalabi because of his call for full Iraqi sovereignty and his insistence that the United Nations Food for Oil program be investigated. Chalabi's nephew, Salim Chalabi, said the forces entered his uncle's home, put a gun to Chalabi's head and threatened him. In addition, an SUV was backed into the garage of the compound with people dressed in civilian clothes carrying out files from inside the headquarters. Salim Chalabi, who serves as Iraq's war crimes prosecutor, said the U.S. military personnel and Iraqi police entered his uncle's home with their weapons drawn, and threatened Chalabi's security personnel. Describing what his uncle told him, Salim said the forces were "looking for something" and were upset with Chalabi.  Theres more. They also raided the Iraq National Congress offices: The forces also cordoned off the Iraqi National Congress headquarters in a separate building nearby, taking guns away from the security there, Salim said. Iraqi National Congress spokesman Entifadh Qanbar, speaking to CNN from Washington, said the compound was raided "in a very savage way." Even pictures on the wall were smashed. Even his holy Koran, his personal holy Koran was taken as a document." Even his holy Koran? Chalabi must have been hiding his embezzled bank funds in it, if so. The INC blamed the CIA for the raid, which is plausible, because the CIA has long been suspicious of the lying Chalabi, who was recently accused by Newsweek of covert ties to Irans Shiite fundamentalist government. According to Andrew Cockburn [http://www.counterpunch.org/chalabi05202004.html] , Chalabi was planning a coup detat in Iraq. As Ive been reporting for weeks, Chalabi and Ayatollah Sistani have been getting closer and closer, and mobilizing forces against Brahimi. Says Cockburn: Lashing out against his exclusion from power, [Chalabi] has in effect been laying the groundwork for a coup, assembling a Shia political coalition with the express aim of destabilising the "Brahimi" government even before it takes office. "He has been mobilising forces to make sure the UN initiative fails," one well connected Iraqi political observer, who knows Chalabi well, told me today. "He has been tellling these people that Brahimi is part of a Sunni conspiracy against the Shia." Next target: raid the American Enterprise Institute? Thursday 10:20 AM Neocon Lets Cat Out of Bag [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/neocon_lets_cat_out_of_bag.php] May 19, 2004 Michael Rubina young staffer at the American Enterprise Institute whos just left the Pentagon, where he played a small role as a neocon cog in the Office of Special Plans war machinelet a herd of cats out of the bag about his favorite Iraqi phony, Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. Chalabi, of course, is the roly-poly perpetrator of intelligence fraud and the convicted bank embezzler who still hopes to be leader of Iraq. Lately, Chalabi has scuttled into a would-be alliance with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the scowly fatwa man. In doing so, hes had the temerity to criticize the United States, leading some fuzzy thinkers to believe that Chalabi, whose puppet strings are made of steel, might be trying to show some independence from Washington. Well, says Rubin, who served as one the Pentagons liaisons to Chalabi, thats exactly what they want you to think: Much of the information he collected was to roll up the insurgency and Ba'athist cells. It caught people red-handed," said Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon adviser who is now at a conservative think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute. "By telegraphing that he is not the favorite son of America, the administration will bolster him, showing he is his own man." In other words, its all a big con game. The still-neocon-dominated Pentagonwhich this week stopped funding Chalabi’s INC [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/05/19/ wirq19.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/05/19/ixnewstop.html] is playing its last card, hoping that it can boost Chalabis sagging fortunes by pretending to sever ties with him. That, the neocons hope, will allow Chalabi to strengthen his ties to Sistani, the king-making mullah who, they hope, holds Iraqs fate in his wrinkled hands. Wednesday 11:19 AM Our Terrorist [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/our_terrorist.php] May 18, 2004 The assassination of the Iraqi Governing Clowncil president yesterday morning is only the latest sign that Iraq is unhinged, and that the Bush administration is out of repair hinges. But what's curious about the coverage of the killing is how whitewashed [http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/18/iraq.main/]  it is. The dead manEzzedine Salim (not his real name!)was a member of an Iran-backed, extremist Islamic fundamentalist organization called Al Dawa. He's described in press accounts now as a mild-mannered writer and teacher." Al Dawa was founded in the late 1950s in Iraq by Shiite mullahs and ayatollahs who hated Communism, socialism and the Baath Party, and for more than 40 years theyve left an unbroken trails of murder, assassinations, and bombings in their wake. Under various Iraqi governments, before and after Saddam Hussein, Al Dawa carried out a campaign of terror . In the 1970s they regularly assassinated Iraqi officials and then joined hands with the Iran s Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. After 1979, backed by Iran, Al Dawas terror campaign stepped upat a time when the United States was trying to work with Saddams Iraq against the threat of Iranian expansionism. (Also working with Saddam, of course, was virtually the entire rest of the world, from the USSR to Saudi Arabia.) Also in the 1980s, Al Dawa expanded its terrorism to Kuwait, bombing the U.S. and French embassies. How is it, for an administration supposedly committed to fighting Islamic terror, that a representative of exactly that movement becomes de facto president of the nation were allegedly liberating? How is it that an Islamic terrorist sympathizer gets treated to reverential press coverage after his death by the same American media that constantly cheerlead the Bush administrations Global War on Terrorism? I guess there are good terrorists and bad ones. But the United States has, over the years, found it hard to distinguish which is which. Often, as in Afghanistan, weve backed good ones only to find out, to our shock, that they turned out later to be bad ones. How does Washington tell good from bad? Inquiring minds want to know.   Tuesday 9:02 AM Toward A New Iraq? [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/toward_a_new_iraq.php] May 17, 2004 Tick, tick, tick. The countdown is underway to June 30, and yet what happens on that day is still as perilously unclear as ever. On Friday, I went over to the American Enterprise Institute to take the temperature of the neocons and Pentacons on Iraq. Theyre worried. Theres a lot of concern about how things are moving forward, says Danielle Pletka, AEIs vice president for national security policy. There are some worrying signs about the future. The most worrying: the fact that the U.S. military handed control of Fallujah to a former Saddam-era Iraqi general and, effectively, to the resistance. Does it mean, Pletka worries, the elevation of a Sunni leader in Iraq?" But its hard to see exactly whats so worrying about that, and it seems to be precisely where Lakhdar Brahimi of the United Nations is headed, unless he can find a Shiite Iraqi leader unconnected to the Shiite fundamentalists. In Bushs Iraq, that is becoming harder and harder to do, since even secular Shiite leaderslike Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congresshave migrated over to become allies of the fundamentalists, from Al Dawa and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq to the scowly fatwa man, Ayatollah Sistani. Now it appears that Sistani & Co. Inc. are trying to bring even Muqtada al-Sadr into the flock, suggesting that Muqtada the Mad might be a useful part of the transitional government.  Lets hope that Brahimi has more sense than that.  Meanwhile, Brahimis missionand the work for a UN resolution to support Brahimis workis lost in confusion, since no one in Washington seems to know anything about what Iraq will look like after June 30, and theyre not giving out a lot of clues about their thinking. The Bush administration cant even get its story straight about whether U.S. troops will be forced to pack up and leave Iraq if the next Iraqi government asks them to go. Condi Rice is in Moscow [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3717377.stm] , begging the Russians not to veto a UN resolution that is being cooked up by London and Washington while Russia, France, and Germany say they wont give the United States a blank check in Iraq. The French foreign minister was knocking on doors in Washington last week, too, trying to find out a hint or two of what the Anglo-Americans are cooking up. A long piece in the May 13 Wall Street Journal [http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB108439973419309908-Idje oNplal3mpypZ4KHaaiEm4,00.html] makes it clear that the United States is working hard to make sure that the new Iraqi governments power will be exactly zip. Reported the Journal: As Washington prepares to hand over power, U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer and other officials are quietly building institutions that will give the U.S. powerful levers for influencing nearly every important decision the interim government will make. In a series of edicts issued earlier this spring, Mr. Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority created new commissions that effectively take away virtually all of the powers once held by several ministries. The CPA also established an important new security-adviser position, which will be in charge of training and organizing Iraq 's new army and paramilitary forces, and put in place a pair of watchdog institutions that will serve as checks on individual ministries and allow for continued U.S. oversight. Meanwhile, the CPA reiterated that coalition advisers will remain in virtually all remaining ministries after the handover. Questions about the U.S. role, and intent to manipulate the UN, were also raised by the 22-member Arab League (remember them? the Arabs? the organization that includes Iraq?): The head of the Arab League [http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-world- forum-iraq,0,3295738.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines]  accused the United States on Saturday of sidelining Arab countries in Iraq 's reconstruction efforts and questioned the upcoming role of the United Nations in the war-ravaged country. Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa, who has criticized the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, told delegates at the World Economic Forum that Iraq's future is being discussed "only by a few countries" without the involvement of the league's 22 members. He questioned the role of the United Nations, which is expected to take a role in Iraq 's reconstruction after the United States hands over power to local authorities on June 30. "Will that be a genuine role or a cover" for occupation? he asked. "Does the end of occupation mean the withdrawal of the (American) troops?" Good questions.   Monday 7:58 AM No To Kerry-McCain [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/no_to_kerrymccain.php] Pay-any-price liberals are salivating over the idea of Sen. John McCain in the No. 2 spot on the Democratic ticket in November. Im not. But on Saturday The New York Times ran a front-page story [http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/15/politics/campaign/15MCCA.html]  touting McCain as the next Democratic hero: The enthusiasm of Democrats for Mr. McCain, an Arizona Republican, is so high that even some who have been mentioned as possible Kerry running mates  including Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida and Bob Kerrey, the former Nebraska senator  are spinning scenarios about a "unity government," effectively giving Mr. Kerry a green light to reach across the political aisle and extend an offer. Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who once worked for Mr. Kerry, said such a ticket "would be the political equivalent of the Yankees signing A-Rod," referring to Alex Rodriguez, the team's star third baseman. At what cost? Im against George W. Bush in large part because of the war in Iraq, a criminal enterprise that has blackened America overseas and destroyed Iraq. But McCain, in my mind, is responsible for his actions in a far bloodier conflict: the war in Vietnam. (So is Kerry, but at least Kerry realized the error of his ways and joined the antiwar movement.)  Both McCain, and his father the admiral in charge of the Pacific theater during the Vietnam war were enthusiastic, bomb-them-back-to-hell advocates of the war in Vietnam, and McCains imprisonment does nothing, in my mind, to expiate his guilt for killing thousands of Vietnam during bombing raids in North Vietnam.  (For an account, see my article, McCains Vietnam, in The Nation [http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20000103&s=dreyfuss& ;c=1] .) IIf Kerry does pick McCainokay, I know its unlikelyI will become an enthusiastic supporter of Ralph Nader. At that point, it truly wont matter who wins.     Monday 7:04 AM The Iraq Effect [http://www.tompaine.com/articles/the_iraq_effect.php] May 16, 2004 Heres some good news: A Newsweek magazine poll [http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/cpress/200405 15/ca_pr_on_wo/bush_poll&cid=2149&ncid=2149] released Saturday put Bush's overall job approval at 42 per cent, the lowest yet in that poll. Other recent surveys have rated Bush in the mid-40s. "Iraq  is sucking the life out of other issue deliberations among the voters in the campaign," said political scientist Douglas Strand of the University of California-Berkeley. Sunday 6:06 PM [Subscribe] [ /] [ /] Sign up for our free daily dispatch. Privacy Policy [ /] [ /] [ /] [ /] [ /] [ /] [ /] [ /] [Enrich Public Discourse, Tax Free. Give to TomPaine.com.] [ /] [ /] [ /] [ border=] © 2004 TomPaine.com [http://www.tompaine.com/] ( Project of The Institute for America's Future [http://www.ourfuture.org/institute/] ) | Privacy Policy | Site Map | Contact Us | About Us ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************