« August 2006 | Main | October 2006 »

September 30, 2006

Names of the Dead

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30list.html
September 30, 2006
Names of the Dead
[Americans] [KIA since start of –iraq war] [2700] [*******] [past the 2700 threshold]
The Department of Defense has identified 2,700 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
. . . .
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30list.html
September 30, 2006
Names of the Dead
[Americans] [KIA since start of –iraq war] [2700] [*******] [past the 2700 threshold]
The Department of Defense has identified 2,700 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
. . . .
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Earmarks Find Way Into Spending Bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/washington/30defense.html
September 30, 2006
Earmarks Find Way Into Spending Bill
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK [defense appropriation] [$$$$$$$$$$$] [followup to yesterday’s govt where FY 06-07 appropriation listed] [new FY begins October 1, 2006] [******************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — Less than a year after two bribery scandals produced bipartisan calls for Congress to overhaul the way it finances lawmakers’ pet projects, the $436.6 billion military spending [**********] bill passed Friday is packed with them. [when computed in 2001 dollars, the amount is $502.67 billion] [see http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl calculator] [I placed 436.6 in first slot and moved the year to 2001] [then click and it computed 502.67] [**************]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/washington/30defense.html
September 30, 2006
Earmarks Find Way Into Spending Bill
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK [defense appropriation] [$$$$$$$$$$$] [followup to yesterday’s govt where FY 06-07 appropriation listed] [new FY begins October 1, 2006] [******************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — Less than a year after two bribery scandals produced bipartisan calls for Congress to overhaul the way it finances lawmakers’ pet projects, the $436.6 billion military spending [**********] bill passed Friday is packed with them. [when computed in 2001 dollars, the amount is $502.67 billion] [see http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl calculator] [I placed 436.6 in first slot and moved the year to 2001] [then click and it computed 502.67] [**************]
The bill, which accounts for about half of federal discretionary spending, includes only a small part of the expected costs of next year’s military operations in Iraq. After the fall elections, President Bush is expected to request another supplemental spending measure to pay for the war, just as the administration has for the last three years.
Lawmakers nonetheless found room in the bill to pay for thousands of requests never sought by the Defense Department. These projects, or earmarks, included $2.1 billion for 10 additional C-17 Globemaster III cargo jets, which the Pentagon is trying to discontinue. They are made by Boeing in the home state of Senator Jim Talent, Republican of Missouri, who is locked in a tight race for re-election.
Lawmakers say earmarks can result in contributions to national security as well as to their districts’ economies. The Defense Department complains that such projects divert billions of dollars from programs the Pentagon considers vital. But both sides agree that earmarks’ merits are hard for Congress and the public to assess.
The number of earmarks has tripled over the last 12 years, straining the ability of Congressional staff members to vet each one. The opaque language of spending bills makes it hard for outsiders to know where the money for each project goes. And it is often impossible to know which lawmaker requested a specific project.
The total cost of earmarks is subject to debate. The House Appropriations Committee said the value of the “member projects” in the spending bill this time was $6.7 billion, down from $7.7 billion in the bill approved last year. The Congressional Research Service estimated the total cost of earmarks in last year’s bill at more than $9 billion. Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group, has identified well over 2,000 earmarks in this year’s bill, roughly on par with last year’s.
Among the earmarks identified by Taxpayers for Common Sense were $1.7 million for photon research in upstate New York, care of Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles E. Schumer, both Democrats, and $1.2 million for prostate cancer research involving DNA, a pet cause of Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, who is chairman of the military spending subcommittee and once suffered from the disease.
Lawmakers’ projects have drawn new attention in the past year because they abetted the misdeeds of former Representative Randy Cunningham, a California Republican who accepted bribes in exchange for earmarking money for military contractors, and the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who bribed lawmakers to insert earmarks into spending bills.
But as lawmakers head home for the fall campaign season, Congress has done little to alter the earmarking process.
“The appetite is undiminished,” said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma and a frequent critic of earmarks.
Congressional leaders said they were proud of several broader elements of the spending bill related to the war in Iraq. It includes $70 billion as a bridge until the next supplemental spending request. It provides $22.9 billion to replenish and refurbish equipment for the Army and the Marines. And it pays for a 2.2 percent increase in military pay.
In a shift from previous years, no new items were added — “airdropped,” in the parlance of Capitol Hill — in the conference held to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill. If the conferees had added items, an internal rule passed by the House earlier this month would have required the sponsors to take responsibility publicly.
That did not stop the conference from adding $2.1 billion to pay for the additional C-17 Globemaster transport planes. Boeing, which makes the planes in Long Beach, Calif., and St. Louis, has lobbied for months to keep the military buying more. The Pentagon asked for a final 8 planes; the House and Senate bills added 4 more; and in closed conference, the leaders of the two appropriations committees decided to add 10, bringing the total to 22. Each costs about $200 million.
Senator Talent heralded the earmark on Friday with a statement declaring, “Senate approves Talent’s request to keep the C-17 line open” for “our highly skilled workers in Missouri.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Detainee Bill Shifts Power to President

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30detain.html
September 30, 2006
News Analysis
Detainee Bill Shifts Power to President
By SCOTT SHANE and ADAM LIPTAK [white house] [congress] [“compromise” on pow-enemy combatants] [due process, writ of habeus corpus] [**********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — With the final passage through Congress of the detainee treatment bill, President Bush on Friday achieved a signal victory, shoring up with legislation his determined conduct of the campaign against terrorism in the face of challenges from critics and the courts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30detain.html
September 30, 2006
News Analysis
Detainee Bill Shifts Power to President
By SCOTT SHANE and ADAM LIPTAK [white house] [congress] [“compromise” on pow-enemy combatants] [due process, writ of habeus corpus] [**********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — With the final passage through Congress of the detainee treatment bill, President Bush on Friday achieved a signal victory, shoring up with legislation his determined conduct of the campaign against terrorism in the face of challenges from critics and the courts.
Rather than reining in the formidable presidential powers Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have asserted since Sept. 11, 2001, the law gives some of those powers a solid statutory foundation. In effect it allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them — albeit with a ban on the harshest treatment — beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners.
Taken as a whole, the law will give the president more power over terrorism suspects than he had before the Supreme Court decision this summer in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that undercut more than four years of White House policy. It does, however, grant detainees brought before military commissions limited protections initially opposed by the White House. The bill, which cleared a final procedural hurdle in the House on Friday and is likely to be signed into law next week by Mr. Bush, does not just allow the president to determine the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions; it also strips the courts of jurisdiction to hear challenges to his interpretation.
And it broadens the definition of “unlawful enemy combatant” to include not only those who fight the United States but also those who have “purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.” The latter group could include those accused of providing financial or other indirect support to terrorists, human rights groups say. The designation can be made by any “competent tribunal” created by the president or secretary of defense.
In very specific ways, the bill is a rejoinder to the Hamdan ruling, in which several justices said the absence of Congressional authorization was a central flaw in the administration’s approach. The new bill solves that problem, legal experts said.
“The president should feel he has better authority and direction now,” said Douglas W. Kmiec, a conservative legal scholar at the Pepperdine University School of Law. “I think he can reasonably be confident that this statute answers the Supreme Court and puts him back in a position to prevent another attack, which is the goal of interrogation.”
But lawsuits challenging the bill are inevitable, and critics say substantial parts of it may well be rejected by the Supreme Court.
Over all, the legislation reallocates power among the three branches of government, taking authority away from the judiciary and handing it to the president.
Bruce Ackerman, a critic of the administration and a professor of law and political science at Yale University, sharply criticized the bill but agreed that it strengthened the White House position. “The president walked away with a lot more than most people thought,” Mr. Ackerman said. He said the bill “further entrenches presidential power” and allows the administration to declare even an American citizen an unlawful combatant subject to indefinite detention. [*********]
“And it’s not only about these prisoners,” Mr. Ackerman said. “If Congress can strip courts of jurisdiction over cases because it fears their outcome, judicial independence is threatened.” [*************]
Even if the Supreme Court decides it has the power to hear challenges to the bill, the Bush administration has gained a crucial advantage. In adding a Congressional imprimatur to a comprehensive set of procedures and tactics, lawmakers explicitly endorsed measures that in other eras were achieved by executive fiat. Earlier Supreme Court decisions have suggested that the president and Congress acting together in the national security arena can be an all-but-unstoppable force.
Public commentary on the bill, called the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been fast-shifting and often contradictory, partly because its 96 pages cover so much ground and because the impact of some provisions is open to debate.
“This bill is about so many things, and it’s a mixed bag,” said Elisa Massimino, the Washington director of Human Rights First, a civil liberties group.
Ms. Massimino’s group and others criticized the bill as a whole, but she agreed with the Republican senators who negotiated for weeks with the White House that it would ban the most extreme interrogation methods used by the Central Intelligence Agency and the military.
“The senators made clear that waterboarding is criminal,” Ms. Massimino said, referring to a technique used to simulate drowning. “That’s a human rights enforcement upside.”
The debate over the limits of torture and the rules for military commission dominated discussion of the bill until this week. Only in the last few days has broad attention turned to its redefinition of “unlawful enemy combatant” and its ban on habeas corpus petitions, which suspects have traditionally used to challenge their incarceration.
Law professors will stay busy for months debating the implications. The most outspoken critics have likened the law’s sweeping provisions to dark chapters in history, comparable to the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in the fragile years after the nation’s founding and the internment of Japanese-Americans in the midst of World War II.
Conservative legal experts, by contrast, said critics could no longer say the Bush administration was guilty of unilateral executive overreaching. Congressional approval can cure many ills, Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in his seminal concurrence in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer, the 1952 case that struck down President Harry S. Truman’s unilateral seizure of the nation’s steel mills during the Korean War. [***************]
Supporters of the law, in fact, say its critics will never be satisfied. “For years they’ve been saying that we don’t like Bush doing things unilaterally, that we don’t like Bush doing things piecemeal,” said David B. Rivkin, a Justice Department official in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
How the measure will look decades hence may depend not just on how it is used but on how the terrorist threat evolves. If a major terrorist plot in the United States is uncovered — and surely if one succeeds — it may vindicate the Congressional decision to give the government more leeway to seize and question those who might know about the next attack.
If the attacks of 2001 recede as a devastating but unique tragedy, the decision to create a new legal framework may seem like overkill. “If there is never another terrorist attack and we never obtain actionable intelligence, this will look like a huge overreaction,” said Gary J. Bass, a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton.
Long before that judgment arrives, legal challenges are likely to bring the new law before the Supreme Court. Assuming the justices rule that they retain the power to hear the case at all, they will then decide whether Congress has resolved the flaws it found in June or must make another effort to balance the rights of accused terrorists and the desire for security.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Officials Plan to Move Quickly for Terrorism Trials in Spring

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/washington/30gitmo.html
September 30, 2006
Officials Plan to Move Quickly for Terrorism Trials in Spring
By NEIL A. LEWIS [military tribunals] [the newly arrived pows-enemy combatants] [courts forced the administration’s hand] [now the administration is responding] [**** ******]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — Officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon said Friday that they would move quickly to adopt the regulations on treating terrorism suspects as soon as President Bush signed them law.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/washington/30gitmo.html
September 30, 2006
Officials Plan to Move Quickly for Terrorism Trials in Spring
By NEIL A. LEWIS [military tribunals] [the newly arrived pows-enemy combatants] [courts forced the administration’s hand] [now the administration is responding] [**** ******]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — Officials at the Justice Department and the Pentagon said Friday that they would move quickly to adopt the regulations on treating terrorism suspects as soon as President Bush signed them law.
The military said it planned to go to trial with up to 14 senior members of Al Qaeda, as government lawyers prepared to defend a provision that would strip hundreds of other suspects of their right to challenge in court their detention.
The Justice Department officials said they would argue in court that the new law would wipe out all the suits by the 450 or so detainees who have been held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The bill would retroactively strip the detainees of the ability to file habeas corpus challenges that oblige the government to defend its reasons for detention before a federal judge.
Civil liberties groups are preparing to challenge that aspect of the law, most likely in an appeals court here that is already wrestling with a related suit on habeas corpus that was started before the new measure. The 14 senior Qaeda members at Guantánamo were recently sent there after as long as four years in secret Central Intelligence Agency custody.
The military is planning to put in motionthe new procedures to try those suspects for war crimes before military commissions, though government and private lawyers estimate that the trials could begin no earlier than next spring.
The law provides for explicit Congressional approval of the commissions to try figures like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, thought to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and other senior Qaeda prisoners who were in secret C.I.A. custody.
It is widely accepted that the new trials before a panel of military officers will take some time to organize.
“It’s clear that the trials are not going to occur anywhere in the near future,” said Eugene R. Fidell, a lawyer here who has closely followed the debate on the military commissions.
Kristine Huskey, a professor of clinical law at American University who represents a Guantánamo detainee, said it appeared that any trials would not start until spring at the earliest. Professor Huskey said that at a recent panel at her university, Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Hemingway, the Air Force officer who is legal adviser for the commissions, said the Pentagon was planning to spend the next month or so preparing a manual of procedures for the commissions before proceeding.
In a conference call with civilian lawyers on Thursday, General Hemingway said that his office hoped to move as quickly as possible to begin the trials and that the Pentagon was setting up a new appeals panel for the military commissions that would be composed entirely of military appeals judges.
Under the commission system that the Supreme Court overturned, the appeals panel was to be made up of senior civilian lawyers like Judge Griffin Bell, attorney general under President Jimmy Carter, and William T. Coleman, a former transportation secretary.
Military officials and lawyers have estimated that charges against the Qaeda prisoners are not likely to be brought before the end of January. The hiring of defense lawyers and challenges would make it unlikely that any trial could begin before the spring, [*****]they said.
After the new regulations are published and possibly challenged, it is almost certain that commission prosecutors will begin preparing cases against some or all the 14 new prisoners. Mr. Bush has said they will face war crimes trials. Other officials have suggested that some of the 14 will not be charged.
Any of the 14 who are charged will be assigned military lawyers. At that point, they are likely to acquire civilian defense lawyers, too. Bill Goodman, the legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which has coordinated the assignment of volunteer lawyers for the hundreds of habeas suits, said several lawyers had expressed interest in representing the senior Qaeda officials. [*********]
Government lawyers and civil liberties groups say they expect the constitutionality of blocking habeas suits to be contested in the federal appeals court here.
After Mr. Bush signs the bill, government lawyers said, they expect to file briefs in the pending case in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The government is expected to argue that the suits filed by dozens of lawyers on behalf of all the Guantánamo detainees who were there before the 14 arrived this month are no longer valid.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Iraqi Police Cited in Abuses May Lose Aid

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/middleeast/30iraq.html
September 30, 2006
Iraqi Police Cited in Abuses May Lose Aid
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********] [US military leaders beginning to openly question Maliki govt’s will] [*************************] [see full piece in today’s govt]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 29 — American officials have warned Iraqi leaders that they might have to curtail aid to the Interior Ministry police because of a United States law that prohibits the financing of foreign security forces that commit “gross violations of human rights” and are not brought to justice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/middleeast/30iraq.html
September 30, 2006
Iraqi Police Cited in Abuses May Lose Aid
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********] [US military leaders beginning to openly question Maliki govt’s will] [*************************] [see full piece in today’s govt]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 29 — American officials have warned Iraqi leaders that they might have to curtail aid to the Interior Ministry police because of a United States law that prohibits the financing of foreign security forces that commit “gross violations of human rights” and are not brought to justice.
The Interior Ministry, dominated by Shiites, has long been accused by Sunni Arabs of complicity in torture and killings. [**********]
The American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, said in an interview on Friday that “at this point” Iraq had not been formally notified that its national police were in violation of the legislation, known as the Leahy Law. He said he remained optimistic that Iraqi officials would “do the right thing” and resolve the matter. Nonetheless, he said American officials had begun reviewing programs that might have to be ended. [*********] [see today’s external for Ambassador Kahlilzad’s comments]
The issue centers on one of the most sensitive subjects within the Iraqi government: the joint Iraqi-American inspection in May and subsequent investigation of a prison in eastern Baghdad known as Site 4.
Within the prison there was clear evidence of systematic abuse and torture, including victims who had “lesions resulting from torture” as well as “equipment used for this purpose,” according to a human rights report later published by the United Nations mission in Iraq.
The prison, run by an Interior Ministry national police unit, had more than 1,400 prisoners crowded into a small area. An American officer said some had been beaten or bound and hung by their arms. At least 37 teenagers or children were in the prison.
In another sign of Iraq’s security problems, the Iraqi government late on Friday banned all vehicle and pedestrian traffic in Baghdad until Sunday. No reason was given, but the decision followed news that the United States military had arrested an Iraqi employee of a leading Sunni politician on suspicion that he was helping to plan an attack inside the Green Zone. [**********] [Page A6.][sic.]
The controversy over Site 4 has become emblematic of the problem of militia members infiltrating the Interior Ministry’s security forces and fears that Iraqi leaders are unwilling to take action against rogue groups.
A number of high-ranking officials have been implicated, including one division commander, an American official said. According to United Nations officials, as many as 52 arrest warrants have been issued, though none have been carried out. And shortly after the Site 4 inspection, the government stopped allowing joint Iraqi-American prison inspections.
American officials have long warned about the dangers of militia influence, and had hoped the new government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki would crack down on the groups.
Lately, though, senior American military officials have been voicing increasing concerns about the government’s reluctance to take action against militia members. One senior American military official acknowledged last week, “There’s a political piece to this to see if they deal with these guys.”
The Leahy Law, named for its author, Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, requires that assistance to foreign military and police forces stop if the secretary of state has “credible evidence” implicating them in human rights abuses — unless effective measures are taken to bring offenders to justice. The law covers money in the foreign operations budget and Defense Department training programs.
“There is abundant evidence that Iraqi government forces are committing atrocities with impunity, yet the Pentagon has refused to even report on its procedures for monitoring U.S. aid to these forces,” Mr. Leahy said through an aide on Friday night. “Their controls on the weapons we provide have been lax to nonexistent, and so has been their adherence to the law. This avoids accountability, it taints us to be connected to these abuses, and it needs to change.”
In an interview, Mr. Khalilzad said that the Site 4 investigation was continuing and that he had discussed it several times recently with the new Iraqi interior minister, Jawad al-Bolani.
“There is a Leahy Law that affects support if the terms of the law are not observed and implemented, and he has assured us that he will do so,” Mr. Khalilzad said. “And we are still in discussions with him.” Mr. Khalilzad did not specify how long Iraqi leaders have to take action.
In the past, Western officials in Baghdad have described Mr. Bolani, a Shiite engineer, as committed to removing militia members and other offenders from the ministry. But they have also said his independence from Shiite political parties — the very thing that won him support for the job from a wide range of political parties — also meant that he had little muscle to dislodge politically connected officials.
Mr. Bolani has expressed a willingness to take action on the Site 4 abuses even without pressure from the United States, Mr. Khalilzad said, and he emphasized that American officials had not “threatened” him over the issue.
“He wants to do the right thing,” he said. “Not because of us, but because that’s what Iraqi law would require him to do as well. That’s a much better reason for him to do the right thing than for the U.S. pressing him or the U.S. threatening with some sort of a sanction.”
However, the ambassador also said American officials were examining what programs might be cut if the law were applied. “We’re looking at the potential implications of that, what will be affected, what won’t be affected,” he said.
One reason Mr. Bolani has not taken action in the Site 4 case is that he has not received written confirmation that indictments have been handed up, Mr. Khalilzad said. He said he believed that the number of Interior Ministry officials involved might be closer to a dozen than to the 52 cited by the United Nations. A senior American official said he understood that indictments had been issued.
In an interview on Friday night, Brig. Abdul Karim Khalaf, an Interior Ministry spokesman, did not directly address whether the ministry was at risk of losing American aid. He said allegations that ministry officials were involved in torture were overblown.
But United Nations officials, who have repeatedly called attention to Site 4, warn that the failure to bring those accused of abuse to justice risks fueling sectarian violence by leading the Iraqi people to believe that militiamen and government employees are exempt from the rule of law.
“It can further the violence and counterviolence and revenge killings, because people may seek justice outside the judicial system,” said Gianni Magazzeni, chief of the United Nations human rights office in Iraq. “Any action against impunity would be a step in the right direction.”
In recent interviews, senior American military officials have said time is growing short for Iraqi leaders to take action against militias and corrupt officials, who they say are diverting money from the ministries to political parties.
In a statement on Friday, the commander of United States forces in Iraq, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., distanced himself from such comments, which he said “do not reflect the close partnership” between the American military and Iraqi leaders. General Casey described Prime Minister Maliki as a “determined, courageous leader” who is “doing a good job in a tough environment.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Falling on His Sword

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700106.html
Falling on His Sword
Colin Powell's most significant moment turned out to be his lowest
Sunday, October 1, 2006; W12 [now Colin Powell gets his revenge] [woodward’s state of denial fallout] [started in yesterday’s papers and is in today’s societal, govt, individual-role] [great stuff] [if true, it demonstrates and incredibly dysfunctional white house] [Clinton was correct to get angry last week at the implications of the Chris Wallace ambush] [***********]
ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2004, eight days after the president he served was elected to a second term, Secretary of State Colin Powell received a telephone call from the White House at his State Department office. The caller was not President Bush but Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and he got right to the point. [***********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700106.html
Falling on His Sword
Colin Powell's most significant moment turned out to be his lowest
Sunday, October 1, 2006; W12 [now Colin Powell gets his revenge] [woodward’s state of denial fallout] [started in yesterday’s papers and is in today’s societal, govt, individual-role] [great stuff] [if true, it demonstrates and incredibly dysfunctional white house] [Clinton was correct to get angry last week at the implications of the Chris Wallace ambush] [***********]
ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2004, eight days after the president he served was elected to a second term, Secretary of State Colin Powell received a telephone call from the White House at his State Department office. The caller was not President Bush but Chief of Staff Andrew Card, and he got right to the point. [***********]
"The president would like to make a change," Card said, using a time-honored formulation that avoided the words "resign" or "fire." He noted briskly that there had been some discussion of having Powell remain until after Iraqi elections scheduled for the end of January, but that the president had decided to take care of all Cabinet changes sooner rather than later. Bush wanted Powell's resignation letter dated two days hence, on Friday, November 12, Card said, although the White House expected him to stay at the State Department until his successor was confirmed by the Senate. [***********]
After four long years, Powell had anticipated the end of his service and sometimes even longed for it. He had never directly told the president but thought he had made clear to him during the summer of 2004 that he did not intend to stay into a second term. [***********]
There had been public speculation as the election drew near that the president might ask the secretary of state to reenlist, at least temporarily. Powell was still the most popular member of Bush's team, far more popular with the public than the president himself. Senior Powell aides were convinced that the secretary anticipated an invitation to stay, and they were equally certain that he intended to accept. [***********]The approaching elections in Iraq, hints of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the rumored departure of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a principal Powell nemesis, made the next six months look like a rare period of promise for diplomacy.
The president himself made no contact with Powell after Card's call. For two days, the only person at the State Department Powell told about it was his deputy and friend of decades, Richard Armitage. Powell dropped off his resignation letter, as instructed, after typing it himself on his home computer. [*********] (The White House later pointed out a typo and sent it back to be redone.) Loath to reveal either surprise or insult, he used the letter to claim the decision to leave as his own. [*********]
"Dear Mr. President:" he wrote. "As we have discussed in recent months, I believe that now that the election is over the time has come for me to step down as Secretary of State . . . effective at your pleasure."
He was pleased, Powell said, to "have been part of a team that launched the Global War Against Terror, liberated the Afghan and Iraqi people, brought the attention of the world to the problem of proliferation, reaffirmed our alliances, adjusted to the Post-Cold War World and undertook major initiatives to deal with the problem of poverty and disease in the developing world. In these and in so many other areas, your leadership was the driving force of our success."
AFTER HIS DEPARTURE FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT IN JANUARY 2005, Powell traveled the lecture circuit, making paid speeches on leadership and U.S. foreign policy to corporate boards and industry conventions. He never spoke publicly about the specific circumstances of his resignation as secretary of state except to say, when asked, that Cabinet reshuffles were normal at the end of a four-year mandate, and that his departure had been a "mutual decision" between him and the president. [************
He [Powell] [****] artfully brushed aside inquiries about the many published accounts of deep ideological schisms that had rent Bush's national security team throughout the first term and the private humiliations he reportedly had endured at the hands of powerful colleagues. [**********]
Audiences often asked about his public role in promoting and defending what many now consider to be the most ill-advised act of Bush's presidency: the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Powell usually offered a tepid defense, [******] allowing only that he wished there had been more troops committed to the war and its aftermath, and a better plan to rebuild the country.
Powell had thrown his considerable personal and professional reputation behind the administration's charges that Iraq possessed chemical, biological and perhaps even nuclear weapons, and posed an imminent threat to the United States. In a crucial speech to the United Nations Security Council six weeks before the invasion was launched, he had single-handedly convinced many skeptical Americans that the threat posed by Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was real. [********]
But the war had gone sour almost from the moment U.S. troops rolled triumphantly into Baghdad two months later. Powell's credibility had been seriously undermined when the weapons he cited as the main justification for invasion turned out not to exist.
No one in his legions of admirers wanted to believe that Powell had been duped by the White House -- or, worse yet, that he had knowingly betrayed the nation's trust. Many assumed that he had privately argued against such a clearly misguided adventure and been overruled.
In fact, Powell had never advised against the Iraq invasion, although he had warned Bush of the difficulties and counseled patience. He had no reason to resign over Iraq, he told questioners. But the larger mystery of his tenure as the nation's chief diplomat, fourth in line for succession to the presidency, remained. [*********]
When Bush selected Powell as his secretary of state in December 2000, it was seen as a stroke of political genius that instantly assuaged concerns at home and abroad about the president-elect's conspicuous lack of foreign policy experience. [*******] As national security adviser to one president and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under two more, Powell had helped guide the nation through the end of the Cold War and had brought the military to victory in the Persian Gulf War. By the time he retired from the Army as a four-star general in 1993, he was a national icon of wise leadership -- the "most trusted man in America," according to polls. [***********]
Yet Powell had constantly found himself on the losing side of regular ideological combat inside the Bush administration, particularly against Rumsfeld and the powerful vice president, Dick Cheney, over Iraq and a host of other foreign policy issues. [*****] Though Powell had scored some victories, the rumored humiliations had been real. [******] He had been purposely cut out of major foreign policy decisions more than once, and his advice often had gone unheeded or been only grudgingly accepted by the president. [******] Why hadn't he resigned?
The easy answer had the virtue of truth: Soldiers didn't quit when they disagreed with the decisions of their commanders. The fact that he had been out of uniform for nearly a decade was irrelevant to Powell; he would be a soldier until he drew his last breath.
AS TEXAS GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH BEGAN HIS CAMPAIGN FOR THE PRESIDENCY IN 1999, Powell's initial impression was that Bush was "still getting his sea legs" on foreign policy and national security issues. Powell knew "Sonny," as he referred to him, only in passing, and his private preference was for another Republican candidate: Arizona Sen. John McCain, a fellow military officer and Vietnam veteran.
But Powell had served in the administration of Bush's father and considered himself part of the extended Bush family, with the personal loyalty that kinship entailed. "It wasn't as if I was a stranger, or that anybody had to worry or could imagine that I would not be for Sonny when the time came," he later reflected. He wrote a $1,000 check to McCain and contributed an equal amount to Bush. [*************]
Worried that Powell would outshine their candidate and suspicious of his Republican credentials, Bush's handlers ignored him for most of the campaign -- even as they regularly implied to the media that the respected general was a behind-the-scenes member of the governor's brain trust. [*******] Once McCain was vanquished in the Republican primaries and Bush began a head-to-head battle against Democrat Al Gore, the campaign hinted that Powell would accompany Bush on fact-finding trips overseas and would become his secretary of state. But no one on the Bush team ever approached Powell about such a trip, and there was no substantive discussion of a Cabinet position. [*************]
Powell later recalled that the only conversations he and Bush had had about foreign affairs came just weeks before the election, in the back seats of cars between events on the four days they had campaigned together that fall. [*******] He had no memory of an explicit invitation from Bush to serve in his Cabinet. Once the U.S. Supreme Court declared the Florida recount officially over in early December, Powell later said, "It just sort of happened as it was assumed to happen."
On December 16, three days after Gore conceded defeat, Powell flew to Bush's ranch in Texas to be unveiled as his first Cabinet nominee.
Powell and Cheney stood on either side of the president-elect as he read from prepared remarks to reporters gathered in a Crawford school auditorium. Turning to Powell, Bush invoked Harry Truman's tribute to his own iconic secretary of state, retired Army general George Marshall: " ' He is a tower of strength and common sense. When you find somebody like that, you have to hang on to them.' I have found such a man." When reporters later asked Bush about tears they had seen in his eyes, he replied that it was an emotional moment because "I so admire Colin Powell -- I love his story." [*******]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE SAW THE PRESIDENT FREQUENTLY, THOUGH RARELY ALONE. [********] Powell found Bush better-spoken and more thoughtful in private than his public posturing as a rough-hewn, plain-spoken Texan would indicate, although he found Bush's fidgety impatience irritating, along with his tendency to interrupt everyone, from his Cabinet officers to visiting heads of state. While the president publicly praised the secretary's abilities and stature, their relationship remained stiff and formal. [**********]
Powell insisted to disbelieving aides that Bush listened to, and even acted on, his advice. "The president has good instincts . . . an instinctual grasp" of issues, he often told them. But he usually followed with an acknowledgment that Bush "has got these rough edges -- his cowboy, Texan rough edges -- and when he gets them exposed, there are other people who know how to use them" to their advantage. [********]
Time and time again during the administration's bumpy first year, Powell had seen Rumsfeld and Vice President Cheney intervene to nudge a willing Bush away from moderation and diplomacy, and toward a hard line on foreign policy issues from North Korea to the Middle East. [******]After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by al-Qaeda on New York and Washington, their attention turned sharply toward Iraq, and by the following summer it was clear that the administration was headed toward war with Saddam Hussein. [**********]
Powell found little evidence to support thinly veiled White House suggestions that Hussein had had a hand in the September 11 attacks. But he saw no reason to doubt the CIA's assessment, fervidly promoted and expanded upon by Cheney and the Defense Department, that the Iraqi leader had stockpiles of chemical, biological and perhaps even nuclear weapons, which he was ready to hand over to terrorists bent on destruction of the United States. [***********]
Powell's own war to drive Iraq out of Kuwait in 1991 had been fought with half a million U.S. troops, broad foreign support and a U.N. mandate. He believed the decision to invade was Bush's to make, but that international backing was essential for both political and military success. In August 2002, he succeeded in convincing Bush -- for once, over Cheney's objections -- that there would be no multinational support unless the administration first visibly tried to tame Hussein without war. [*******]
It took five months for Powell's efforts at the U.N. Security Council to craft a solution short of war to reach the point of collapse, caught in the crossfire of administration intransigence, international mistrust of Bush's justification and motives, and Hussein's perfidy. As the Pentagon's war plans were completed and March 2003 was secretly set as the internal deadline for invasion, Bush still found himself with little foreign support and an uncertain American public.
"We've really got to make the case" against Hussein, Bush told Powell in an Oval Office meeting in late January, "and I want you to make it." Only Powell had the "credibility to do this," Bush said. "Maybe they'll believe you." It was a direct order from his commander in chief, and it never occurred to Powell to question it. [***********] [Bush requests Powell personally to handle the UN speech; Powell never questioned it] [***********]
He was told that the case had already been put together by the White House, and he assumed that with a little tweaking he could turn it into a speech that would fit his voice and style. He was taken aback on Tuesday, January 28, when he received the bulk of the document, a 48-page, single-spaced compilation of Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction program, replete with drama, rhetorical devices and a kitchen sink full of allegations. The most extreme version of every charge the administration had made about Hussein, the document had been written, Powell concluded, under the tutelage of Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who shared all of his boss's hard-line views and then some.
Delivery of the speech had been set for the following Wednesday, February 5. Bush planned to announce the date that very night in his State of the Union address to Congress. Acutely aware that he would be selling his own reputation as much as the specific facts, Powell picked up the telephone to tell Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, that he needed more time to get the speech into shape. [*********]
"Condi, please," Powell implored, "let's just tell the president that we're going to put in the State of the Union that Secretary Powell will be going to the U.N. next week. Don't put a date."
"She said, 'Right, right, of course,' " Powell recalled, "and she runs away to change the speech. Then runs back about five minutes later" to call him and say, " ' There's good news and bad news. The good news is we can change the speech.' " The bad news, she said, was that the White House had already told the media, in a preview of the State of the Union address, that Powell's presentation would be made on February 5.
"I could have gotten two more days," Powell later said wistfully. "Whether it would have made any difference or not, I don't know." [***********]
"HERE YOU GO," POWELL SAID, as he dropped the White House document on the desk of his chief of staff, Lawrence Wilkerson. Wilkerson quickly agreed it read more like a badly written novel than something designed to persuade the world. [*********] That afternoon, he assembled a State Department team-- including speechwriter Lynne Davidson and Barry Lowenkron, a senior CIA officer before he joined Powell's policy planning staff -- to set up shop at CIA headquarters, across the Potomac River in Virginia. They would examine the evidence themselves and turn the document into what Wilkerson called "a Colin Powell speech." Cheney aide John Hannah and William Tobey, the counterproliferation director at the White House National Security Council, would meet them there to answer any questions. [***********]
"We were going out to the agency and live there until we got the presentation ready," [*********] Wilkerson later said.
Their job was to make the most convincing, evidence-backed case possible. Powell had little more than a cursory knowledge of the intelligence underlying some of the most damning charges, but in recent months, as pressure built inside the administration and his frustration with the United Nations grew, Powell's language on Iraq had become almost as loose as Cheney's. In a speech to an international economic conference just the week before, he had made charges that his own State Department analysts questioned, mentioning allegations that Iraq had attempted to import uranium and nuclear-related equipment, as well as the presumed ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda. [*******]
But that had been only an indictment; this would have to be a complete, trial-worthy prosecution, designed to convince a skeptical jury that capital punishment, in the form of decapitating the Iraqi regime, was warranted.
In addition to proving the charges against Iraq, Wilkerson believed, they had to protect Powell's integrity against those within the administration who had long been out to tarnish it. There was a widespread belief among the secretary's loyal aides -- privately shared by Powell himself, although he brushed it off as meaningless political gamesmanship in conversations with them -- that both White House political adviser Karl Rove and Cheney had actively plotted to undermine him for the past three years. [******] Powell had laughed when he described to his aides how the vice president, after a discussion of the upcoming U.N. speech, had poked him jocularly in the chest and said, "You've got high poll ratings; you can afford to lose a few points." Cheney's idea of Powell's U.N. mission, Wilkerson thought, was to "go up there and sell it, and we'll have moved forward a peg or two. Fall on your damn sword and kill yourself, and I'll be happy, too." [Wilkerson obviously the source here and for much of what Powell’s thinking was] [*************]
BY THE NEXT DAY, Wilkerson and his team were huddled in the CIA director's conference room, taking the document apart sentence by sentence. Things were not going well. Hannah had brought a clipboard with a three-inch stack of paper that he thumbed through to cite the origin of each allegation -- reports from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, foreign intelligence, the Iraqi National Congress and even newspaper articles.
CIA Director George Tenet and his deputy, John McLaughlin -- backed up by Robert Walpole, the chief CIA officer for nuclear programs; Lawrence Gershwin, the agency's top adviser on "technical" intelligence; and several other specialists -- were constantly dispatching aides to find the original source material.
In some instances, the "evidence" was, in fact, found in an official intelligence report, but only as unconfirmed information that did not appear in the report's conclusions. "They had left out all the caveats, all the qualifiers," Wilkerson recalled. In a few instances, he thought, they had even changed the meaning of the intelligence. [*******]A Senate investigation of the speechwriting process conducted after the invasion would later conclude that the Powell team had had to eliminate "information that the White House had added . . . gathered from finished and raw intelligence," some of which had come from only a single source with no corroboration at all.
By late afternoon, Tenet and Wilkerson agreed to put the White House draft aside and start over, basing the speech on a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq that had been compiled by the CIA the previous fall. [the infamous 2002 NIE on Iraq] [*********]
That night, after the senior CIA and White House officials had left for the day, Wilkerson and his colleagues watched a film he had borrowed from the State Department archives of Adlai Stevenson's historic presentation to the Security Council at the height of the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
The Soviet Union had angrily denied charges that it had deployed nuclear-armed missiles on the island 90 miles off the Florida coast. Stevenson, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations at the time, had responded with irrefutable proof in the form of 26 grainy, poster-size black-and-white photographs of missile sites shot from a U-2 reconnaissance plane, displayed on easels at the front of the council chamber for all the world to see. That "Stevenson moment," Wilkerson told them, was the effect they were after.
Powell, Libby and Stephen Hadley, Rice's deputy, joined the process the next day. [**********]
Cheney had called Powell to say he hoped the secretary would "take a good look at Scooter's stuff." [*******] State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, who accompanied Powell to the CIA sessions, later recalled Libby himself appealing to Powell to look more carefully at the now-discarded White House material. "Powell said: 'I don't want to. I want to use what Larry's been working on.' " [**********]
They settled into a routine over the next few days. The CIA turned over the office suite of the National Intelligence Council -- the internal organization that coordinated with other members of the intelligence community to write National Intelligence Estimates -- to Wilkerson and the others engaged in the nitty-gritty of composing the speech and providing material to the graphic designers lodged in the agency's basement. At around 5 p.m., the writing and research team would move to Tenet's conference room with senior officials, eventually including Rice and Armitage, to spend hours going over the new text and verifying the sourcing for Powell. [**************]
Powell insisted that they eliminate any intelligence that had come from Ahmed Chalabi,[*********] an Iraqi exile favored by the Pentagon and the vice president's office, but widely mistrusted as a charlatan within the State Department. Powell was told by the CIA that evidence that Hussein had built mobile laboratories to conceal his biological weapons programs -- one of the most damning charges -- had been corroborated by four separate sources, including an Iraqi chemical engineer, a civil engineer and an Iraqi military defector. It was, Tenet said, "totally reliable information."
They argued over how to interpret intercepted communications about Iraq's weapons between Iraqi military officers. None seemed definitive, and Wilkerson was worried that they might not mean what the analysts said they meant. But amid the scant information the CIA officials were willing to declassify for public consumption, they said this was the best they had.
The team examined satellite imagery said to reveal prohibited items. Powell was shown, and rejected, a grainy picture of what analysts said was an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) site near Basra. It was impossible to tell where it was or even what it was, he argued. Instead, he approved a U.N. photograph of a generic Iraqi UAV, taken years earlier, to illustrate charges that Hussein was developing drones that could spray deadly weapons of mass destruction on population centers.
CIA analysts showed the team additional photographs they said conclusively revealed chemical weapons production and storage facilities, but then insisted that the pictures were too sensitive to be used in a public presentation. Those they were willing to release often appeared -- at least to the uninitiated in the room -- to illustrate nothing more than trucks parked beside buildings. "Don't you have a picture of chemical weapons canisters being moved around?" Boucher later recalled asking Tenet. [*******] "Something we can point to and say: 'That's a chemical weapon.' " Tenet replied that no country had left prohibited weapons "out on the lawn" since the Cuban missile crisis. "They know we're looking at them. So we have to go with other things that tell us what they're doing."
They spent hours discussing the aluminum tubes Hussein had tried to import. The Energy and State departments continued to disagree with the CIA's assessment that the tubes were designed for nuclear enrichment. McLaughlin, who had brought one of the intercepted tubes to the table and rolled it back and forth as they argued, insisted that the CIA analysis was correct. The agency, Powell later recalled, "pulled in their experts and swore on a stack of Bibles that they'd done every analysis imaginable, and [the tubes] simply were not for rockets, but for [uranium] centrifuges." The tubes stayed in the speech, although with a brief mention of the disagreement among U.S. government agencies as to their purpose. (U.S. investigators in Iraq after the war later concluded they were meant for rockets.)
Bush had referred in his State of the Union address to Iraqi efforts to obtain uranium from Africa -- the same information the CIA had successfully argued should be excised from a speech he gave the previous October because of questionable sources. No one suggested that it be included in Powell's presentation. [**********]
The White House document detailing Hussein's ties to terrorism was, if anything, even more problematic than the portion on weapons of mass destruction. [********] [it was more than problematic; it was downright contrary to what inferences they made from it] [***********]
Powell retreated with Tenet to the director's private office to talk through "what we really know" about the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Powell was shown the transcript of an interrogation of a captured Osama bin Laden aide who swore that al-Qaeda operatives had received biological and chemical weapons training from Iraq, and the charge became a lengthy portion of the speech. (A year after the invasion, the agency acknowledged that the information had come from a single source who had been branded a liar by U.S. intelligence officials long before Powell's presentation.)
Tempers began to fray as the sessions continued into the weekend. Tenet and McLaughlin became irritated with Hadley, who kept pressing to reinsert jettisoned White House language and information. Powell exploded at McLaughlin, who supplied tortured, five-minute answers to seemingly simple questions. Increasingly, the secretary looked to Tenet for reassurance. "George would give the kind of answers the secretary liked," Wilkerson recalled. "Whether you liked that 'slam-dunk' language or not, George, to his credit, would say, 'Absolutely, Mr. Secretary, I stand by that.' " [************]
Powell later recalled that most of their time was spent "trimming the garbage" of the White House's overwrought verbiage and uncorroborated specifics from the speech. Once that was done, Wilkerson concluded long afterward, "what we were all involved in -- groupthink isn't the right word -- it was a process of putting the data to points in the speech rather than challenging the data itself." As they probed for proof of Hussein's lies, no one thought of looking for evidence that might have raised questions about their assumptions that the weapons existed.
WHEN HE ARRIVED IN NEW YORK ON MONDAY AFTERNOON, Powell was as nervous as Wilkerson had ever seen him. He was worried that the language in the speech was still too methodical and technical to win over an audience. Powell's best performances were modeled on what he had learned as a young instructor at Fort Benning and later at the Pentagon: [********]Use a map or some slides, a rough outline or a few key phrases, and then speak naturally. He always knew his material cold, but it was technique that clinched a sale. This time, however, each sentence had been carefully crafted and debated ad nauseam, and he was going to have to read directly from the text.
On Tuesday night, the team had a final, full-dress rehearsal. The cafeteria on the top floor of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations had been reconfigured into a mock-up of the Security Council chamber. Powell used a stopwatch to check his timing, clicking it off every time someone interrupted with a question or comment. The speech was 75 minutes long.
When he finished, the tension of the last several days seemed to dissipate like the air escaping a balloon, leaving him calm and tired. He believed he had done everything he could do. Departing for his room at the Waldorf, where he hoped to get a good night's sleep, he reminded Tenet that "you're going to be there with me tomorrow." He expected the CIA director to sit in full view of the television cameras, just behind him at the Security Council table. Tenet replied, only half-jokingly, that he was the one who would have to face the intelligence committees in Congress if there were any mistakes. [********] Powell told his executive assistant, Craig Kelly, and Boucher to make sure that Tenet was waiting in the side room they would pass through on their way into the Security Council chamber the next morning. Later, he changed his mind and called Tenet to tell him he would swing by the CIA director's hotel and pick him up on the way to the United Nations, just to make sure there were no glitches.
On Wednesday, February 5, Powell entered the chamber just before 10:30 a.m., smiling and stopping to shake hands as he made his way across the floor. With war hanging in the balance, and the power and prestige of the United States on full display, it was a moment of high drama that owed as much to the player as to the play. A nationwide poll released just that morning had found that "when it comes to U.S. policy toward Iraq," Americans trusted Powell more than Bush by 63 to 24 percent.
"I cannot tell you everything that we know," he began after a brief introduction. "But what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling." The facts and Iraq's behavior "demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort -- no effort -- to disarm as required by the international community."
"My colleagues," Powell said, "every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence."
The next day, opinion polls indicated that national opinion had shifted literally overnight; most Americans surveyed said they believed an invasion was justified to protect the nation. [*******]Those closest to Powell were relieved, but worried about both him and the nation. His wife, Alma, had a sense of foreboding; her husband, she thought, was being used by the White House. Powell's daughter Linda, who had listened to the speech on the radio, had found his performance unsettling. His voice was strained, she thought, as if he were trying to inject passion into the dry words through the sheer force of his will.
Wilkerson, who had left the United Nations immediately after the speech and returned to his hotel room to fall into a deep sleep, awoke depressed. Later, when it became clear that much of the speech on which he had worked so hard was based on lies, he would come to think of that week as "the lowest moment of my life." [******] Back in Washington, he ordered special plaques with Powell's signature made up for the State Department aides who had worked so hard to make the presentation happen.
When they were handed out, Powell asked Wilkerson why he hadn't ordered one for himself. Wilkerson replied that he didn't want one.
AS 2004 BEGAN, U.S. TROOPS WERE HEADED TOWARD A SECOND YEAR IN THE IRAQI QUAGMIRE. No weapons of mass destruction had yet been found, and each day's news brought fresh indications that the administration had exaggerated its case against Hussein. Powell's own prominent role came under increasing question. It was now clear that "a lot of probables, a lot of maybes" had been left out of the assessment of Iraq's capabilities, a reporter confronted him. Given a second chance, would he have "rephrased" his U.N. speech? [**********]
"No," Powell replied firmly. "I knew exactly the circumstances under which I was presenting that speech . . . The whole world would be watching, and there would be those who would applaud every word, and there would be those who were going to be skeptical of every word." Whatever doubts were now being raised, he said, the basic conclusions had been solid. "I am confident of what I presented last year. The intelligence community is confident of the material they gave me; I was representing them . . . they stand behind it."
But on Friday, January 23, the CIA announced without explanation that David Kay, the head of its Iraq Survey Group hunting for weapons of mass destruction, was being replaced. Later that day, Kay told reporters he doubted the weapons existed. When Congress demanded answers, Kay said the same thing. [*******] [note: Kay too was a former believer] [thus this was particularly shocking] [**********]
As Powell flew the next day to attend a presidential inauguration in the Republic of Georgia, journalists aboard his plane asked him to reconcile his U.N. speech with Kay's conclusions. "You said a year ago that you thought there was between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons [in Iraq]," one reporter said. "Who's right?"
"I think the answer to the question is I don't know yet," Powell replied.
"What is the open question is: how many stocks they had, if any? And if they had any, where did they go? And if they didn't have any, then why wasn't that known beforehand?"
Powell thought there was no sense denying the obvious questions Kay had raised. But it was the first doubt that any senior administration official had publicly expressed about the central justification for the war. [********] The story made headlines around the world, and an agitated Condoleezza Rice called him the next morning in Georgia. Powell was not surprised; it was not the first time that the White House had blown up at him over what he considered honest comment. Rice, he later recalled, was usually the one to make the call. "She'd say, 'Oh, we've got a problem, what are we going to do about this? How are we going to fix this?' " [************]
On this issue, he thought, there was little to be done. "The fact of the matter is, you can't ignore the possibility, since the guy we sent there for eight months as our guy says there's nothing there," he later recalled telling Rice with exasperation. "So, to say there's got to be something there when he, who has been there for eight months, says there's nothing there . . . You can't do that. You've got to at least accept the possibility." [***********]
The White House, he advised, should "just be quiet" for now.
ON HIS RETURN, POWELL SPENT THE WEEKEND carefully reading Kay's congressional testimony, highlighting portions with a yellow marker and scribbling notes in the margins. With the first anniversary of his U.N. speech just days away, the Sunday newspapers and television talk shows were filled with comparisons between the charges he had made and Kay's conclusions. [*******]
On Monday, February 2, he arrived for an interview at The Washington Post carrying a blue folder with the marked-up testimony inside. He was "absolutely convinced" that the invasion had been the right thing to do, Powell emphatically told the two dozen reporters and editors crowded around a conference table in the newspaper's eighth-floor boardroom.
Would he still have "recommended the invasion" if Tenet had told him a year before "that there are no stockpiles?" one reporter asked.
"I don't know, because it was the stockpiles that presented the final little piece that made it more of a real and present danger and threat to the region and to the world," Powell replied. But there was no point discussing hypotheticals, he said, because "the fact of the matter" was that the CIA, as well as intelligence agencies in Britain and elsewhere, had "suggested the stockpiles were there."
But what if he had known they weren't there? the reporter pressed.
"The absence of a stockpile changes the political calculus," Powell acknowledged. "It changes the answer you get with the little formula I laid out."
To a White House already reeling from the one-two punch of Kay's conclusions and Powell's comments en route to Georgia, it was another worrisome example of the secretary of state's unwillingness to stay "on message." When his remarks appeared in The Post the next morning, "I think the whole White House operation was mad . . . the NSC, the president -- everybody was annoyed," Powell recalled. [*******] "White Houses do not respond well to immediate problems in the morning . . . all the white corpuscles race to the source of the infection, so all the white corpuscles raced to me."
After Rice's inevitable irate telephone call, presidential aides quickly began contacting the media to counteract the secretary's remarks. Annoyed but not surprised, Powell issued a White House-requested "clarification" insisting that Hussein had had the "capability and intent" to produce the weapons even if none had yet been found. Bush, he repeated, had been right to invade.
Still mulling over the situation a week later with a visitor in his dimly lit office, he criticized a persistent White House machismo that took aim at "anything . . . that suggests any weakness in the [administration's] position," regardless of common sense. That, and what he saw as a never-ending effort to humble him personally. [this is the central problem: hubris] [***************]
"There are people who would like to take me down," he said, jerking his thumb in the direction of the White House. "It's been the case since I was appointed. By take down, I mean 'keep him in his place'. . . And there are those who, whether it was me or anyone else, just love somebody getting in trouble, because it's usually to the detriment of the person getting in trouble and to the advantage of someone else."
The episode reinforced his already deep-seated disdain for politics and its practitioners. Political thought and decision-making were often polluted by ideology and the exigencies of the election cycle; soldiers breathed a purer, more rational air. "I was not trained as a politician or a think tank guy or anything else," Powell insisted. "I was trained to consider all possibilities."
"I mean, if you're attacking and suddenly you get attacked from the flank," he continued, using his hands to illustrate a military maneuver, "you don't say, 'I'm going to keep attacking straight ahead [and] ignore this new threat coming at my flank.' " He had been asked whether different information would have changed his assessment of the Iraq situation, and "all of my instincts and all of my background and training at that point said the answer to the question is, 'I'd have to reconsider.' "
He shrugged and brought his hands to rest. "But that's the way it goes."
Powell's irritation at the White House was coupled with a growing anger at the CIA. [******] Right or wrong, at least Bush had willingly shouldered the ultimate responsibility for the decision to go to war. Powell felt he had done his own duty by privately voicing caution even as he gave the president his full support. But it was increasingly apparent that the intelligence community had been careless with the truth and hence with Powell's most precious commodity -- his credibility with the American people.
For a week after Kay's report, the CIA had continued publicly to stand by its prewar weapons assessment. But in a hastily arranged speech at Georgetown University on February 5, Tenet finally admitted the possibility of error. His "provisional bottom line," he said, was that the intelligence community had been "generally on target" in its warnings that Hussein was developing long-range missiles. But the CIA "may have overestimated the progress Hussein was making" on nuclear weapons. [**********]
As for biological weapons stockpiles and mobile laboratories, he said, "we are finding discrepancies in some claims made by human sources" to whom the agency "lacked direct access." The CIA, Tenet said, "did not ourselves penetrate the inner sanctum" of Hussein's programs but had "access to emigres and defectors" along with high-level information from "a trusted foreign partner." They were now in the process of "evaluating" questions such as, "Did we clearly tell policymakers what we knew, what we didn't know, what was not clear, and identify the gaps in our knowledge?"
Although Powell had been advised in recent months of problems with some of the intelligence sourcing, Tenet's speech was "the first time I heard that the CIA was no longer sticking behind its story" in public, he later recalled. He had been given no advance copy of the CIA director's remarks and listened in his office to a broadcast of Tenet's acknowledgment of "discrepancies" and uncertainties.
Powell stared silently at Wilkerson after Tenet finished speaking. "But the question is," Wilkerson said, reaching for a joke, "are you still friends?" [*********]
"I don't think so," Powell replied. [*************]
As the evidence continued to unravel, some in the media suggested that Powell should apologize publicly for peddling false information that had pushed the nation toward war. "Is everyone else going to apologize?" he railed within the four walls of his office. "It's not [just] me getting had. I'm not the only one who was using that intelligence . . . they all stood up in the Senate. The president stood up on this material. [British Prime Minister] Tony Blair stood up on this material . . . The whole global intelligence community bears responsibility." [***************]
But there was no denying that he had been the most visible and effective salesman. He already knew that the label would follow him around forever. "I'm the guy who will always be known as the 'Powell Briefing' . . . I'm not being defensive, because I did it. But Powell wasn't the only one."
PRESENTATION WAS NEARLY AS IMPORTANT TO POWELL AS SUBSTANCE, and after his inelegant dismissal as secretary of state, he wanted at least to control the way his departure was announced. After submitting his letter on Friday, he spent the weekend putting together a plan: He would inform his inner-office staff at exactly 8:20 a.m. the following Monday, November 15. He would tell his senior aides at their regular 8:30 staff meeting. At 10:15, he would send an e-mail to his friends and extended family. He called Card and told him he expected the White House would then publicly announce his resignation. [*****************]
At midmorning Monday, the White House released five separate statements under Bush's name, reporting the resignations of the secretaries of agriculture, energy, education and state, and the head of the Republican National Committee. Each statement was three paragraphs long and titled "President Thanks [official's name]." When White House spokesman Scott McClellan briefed the media shortly after noon, all but one of the resignation questions were about Powell. Had Bush tried to persuade him to stay? Had Powell offered? If so, had the president turned him down? McClellan avoided a direct answer. "I think you saw from Secretary Powell's letter that this is a discussion that they've had for some months now, or over recent months at least . . . And Secretary Powell made a decision for his own reasons that this was now the time to leave." [***********]
The next morning, Bush nominated Rice as his new secretary of state.
Powell saw Bush regularly over the next two months, passing through the Oval Office for routine meetings that took place as if nothing had transpired. Eventually, the White House contacted his office to schedule what it described as a "farewell call" with the president. Such calls were being arranged for each departing Cabinet secretary.
When Powell saw the January 13 appointment on his calendar, his staff told him they assumed it was a goodbye photo opportunity with Bush. They suggested that perhaps he should bring his family.
"We've got a houseful of pictures," Powell replied dryly. Was he supposed to talk to the president? Or was the president supposed to talk to him?
"Am I supposed to say: 'This is what I think?' Or what?"
He didn't have to say anything, he was told. It was just a "farewell call."
As the meeting approached, the White House -- which had scheduled it in the first place -- inexplicably called the State Department to ask for "talking points" that aides could use to brief the president. [*****************]
The appointed time found Powell already in the Oval Office for a routine meeting; when it concluded, he lingered as the others left. As Powell later remembered it, Bush seemed puzzled and called after his departing chief of staff, "Where you going, Andy?"
"Mr. President, I think this is supposed to be our farewell call," Powell prompted.
"Is that why Condi ain't here?" he recalled the president asking.
That was probably the reason, Powell replied.
Card walked back inside, and the three men sat down. Powell had already decided to use the opportunity -- likely his last as secretary of state -- to unload. [***********]
The war in Iraq was going south, he said after a few moments of small talk, and the president had little time left to turn it around. The administration's hope was that the upcoming election there would change the dynamics on the ground, and the Iraqi people would finally be ready and able to begin standing up to the insurgents on their own.
But the administration, he pointed out, had entertained such hopes before over the past two years -- when it had set up a new legal framework for Iraq, when it had first turned a modicum of government power over to handpicked Iraqis and when ousted dictator Saddam Hussein had been captured -- and those hopes had been dashed every time. There would be a window of about two months after the election "to start to see progress," he told Bush. "If by the first of April this insurgency is not starting to ameliorate in some way, then I think you really have a problem." [**************]
Elections, and talking about democracy, were unlikely to stop the insurgency, he said. Only the fledgling Iraqi army could do that, and it was unclear whether it would ever succeed. Its competence was not just a matter of training, Powell said; it was a question of whether the troops believed in what they were fighting for. [**********]
Powell warned about serious internal problems in Bush's own administration, saying that the power he had given the Pentagon to meddle in diplomacy on issues as widespread as North Korea, Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict, along with poisoned personal relations between his State and Defense departments, were seriously undermining the president's diplomacy. Bush dismissed his concern. It wasn't any worse, he said, than the legendary battles between State and Defense during the Reagan administration. [*************]
The session ended with a cordial handshake, and the secretary returned to the State Department. "That was really strange," he reported to Wilkerson. "The president didn't know why I was there." [************************]
Karen DeYoung is an associate editor of The Post. This article is excerpted from Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell, being published October 10 by Knopf. She will be fielding questions and comments about this article Monday at noon at washingtonpost.com/liveonline.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

White House Disputes Book’s Account of Rifts on Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30account.html
September 30, 2006
White House Disputes Book’s Account of Rifts on Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER [sanger first reported in yesterday’s NYTs] [today’s spate of piece an attempt to get in front of NYTs scooping Woodward’s own newspaper the WP] [woodward’s state of denial fallout] [started in yesterday’s papers and is in today’s societal, govt, individual-role] [great stuff] [if true, it demonstrates and incredibly dysfunctional white house] [Clinton was correct to get angry last week at the implications of the Chris Wallace ambush] [***********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — The White House on Friday dismissed a new book’s portrayal of division and discord inside the Bush administration, suggesting that the account by Bob Woodward had been provided by former aides who believed that their advice on troop levels and other questions of strategy in Iraq had been ignored.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/us/30account.html
September 30, 2006
White House Disputes Book’s Account of Rifts on Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER [sanger first reported in yesterday’s NYTs] [today’s spate of piece an attempt to get in front of NYTs scooping Woodward’s own newspaper the WP] [woodward’s state of denial fallout] [started in yesterday’s papers and is in today’s societal, govt, individual-role] [great stuff] [if true, it demonstrates and incredibly dysfunctional white house] [Clinton was correct to get angry last week at the implications of the Chris Wallace ambush] [***********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — The White House on Friday dismissed a new book’s portrayal of division and discord inside the Bush administration, suggesting that the account by Bob Woodward had been provided by former aides who believed that their advice on troop levels and other questions of strategy in Iraq had been ignored.
Even as the White House scrambled to obtain a few copies of the book, “State of Denial,” to be released Monday, administration officials were rebutting specific examples in Mr. Woodward’s account, which described sharp clashes and long-running feuds fueled by the debate over the war. But other administration officials, speaking only if they were not identified, said the details in the book reflected a breakdown of discipline in an administration that once prized its ability to keep its disputes in-house. [********]
“Look, this is a war, and you are going to have a lot of really smart people with completely different opinions,” Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, said at a briefing on Friday afternoon.
In Washington, Mr. Snow said, “you’re going to see people who are on the losing side of arguments being especially outspoken about their opinions.” He added, “The average Washington memoir ought to be subtitled, ‘If they only listened to me.’ “
But Mr. Snow had difficulty explaining why President Bush had failed to listen to such a broad range of officials who had called for more troops, including Robert D. Blackwill, the former top Iraq adviser, and L. Paul Bremer III, the senior American official running the occupation. Nor did Mr. Snow explain why Mr. Bush’s upbeat assessments of a “Plan for Victory” in Iraq, laid out in speeches late last year, contrasted so sharply with the contents of classified memorandums written by officials who warned that failure was also a significant possibility. [***********]
Some of those memorandums were written by Philip D. Zelikow, a counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, including one in early 2005 in which Mr. Zelikow characterized Iraq as “a failed state” two years after the invasion, and another in September 2005, in which he said there was a 70 percent chance of success in achieving a stable, democratic state. That meant, Mr. Zelikow said, that there was a 30 percent chance of failure, including what he called a “significant risk” of “catastrophic failure,” meaning a collapse of the state Mr. Bush has tried to create. [************]
Mr. Zelikow declined to comment on Friday, apart from confirming the accuracy of the words from the memorandums Mr. Woodward cited in the book.
Other senior State Department officials dismissed the book’s account as a familiar one. “This just in — Condi and Rumsfeld argue a lot,” one said. “Didn’t we know that?”
In the past, State Department officials have described extreme tension between the two over Ms. Rice’s sense that Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld was not paying enough attention to detention issues, beginning with the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq that came to light in 2004. [***********]
The book contends that Andrew H. Card Jr., as White House chief of staff, urged Mr. Bush to replace Mr. Rumsfeld. In a telephone interview on Friday, Mr. Card confirmed that he had raised the issue, but suggested that Mr. Woodward had ignored the context. “Right after the election, I went to Camp David and talked to the president, and we talked about a lot of changes, starting with the chief of staff,” [*******]Mr. Card said, recounting how he used to tote around what he called his “hit by a bus book,” a notebook of lists of potential replacements for senior White House staff members and top cabinet officials.
“It’s not inaccurate to say that we talked about Rumsfeld,” he said. “I can understand why Bob would try to create a climate around these conversations.” But he added: “There was no campaign, and I didn’t go out and solicit others to back any view about getting rid of anyone. I could talk about these things with the president, and plant seeds, because there is a cadence to life in Washington and you raise these issues periodically.” [****************]
Mr. Card acknowledged that he renewed the question of replacing Mr. Rumsfeld this year, but again insisted that it was not part of a specific effort to single out the defense secretary for removal.
Many of the episodes Mr. Woodward describes in his book have not been previously disclosed, but others have been reported in other books and news accounts.
Mr. Woodward, the Washington Post reporter and author, cites several instances where Gen. John P. Abizaid, the commander of American forces in the Middle East, criticized Mr. Rumsfeld to top officials. [**********]
On Friday, however, Maj. Chris Karns, a spokesman for the United States Central Command, said General Abizaid had denied ever telling visitors in Qatar that Mr. Rumsfeld “doesn’t have any credibility anymore” [***********]to make the case for strategy in Iraq.
“General Abizaid has nothing but the greatest respect for Mr. Rumsfeld,” Major Karns said. [that’s the kiss of death for certain] [*********]
The book also recounts a recommendation by Mr. Blackwill in September 2003 that 40,000 more troops were needed in Iraq. Mr. Blackwill refused on Friday to discuss his recommendation but said that Ms. Rice, then the national security adviser, and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, “were always more than willing to give me as much time as I wanted to make my arguments.” It was unclear whether Mr. Blackwill’s view was passed on to the president. [*************]
The White House went to extra lengths to dispute Mr. Woodward’s portrait of Mr. Bush as a president who viewed news from Iraq through the best possible lens and who failed to come to grips with reports of a deteriorating security situation. “A couple of weeks ago, the president was being accused of trying to scare people,” Mr. Snow told reporters. “Now, all of a sudden, he’s accused of looking at the world through rose-colored glasses. Neither one is true.”
The memorandums Mr. Woodward writes about — and others that have come to light, including a National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism and Iraq’s role in inspiring terrorists that the White House declassified in part this week — suggest a more complex picture.
The memorandums and intelligence estimate clearly describe escalating terrorism, rising anti-Americanism and the risks of failure. Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice, among others, acknowledged the rising difficulties, but consistently expressed optimism about eventual victory.
In October 2005, for example, shortly after Mr. Zelikow’s memorandum stating that there was a 30 percent chance of failure, Ms. Rice, in an interview with the BBC, referred to “a few violent men who can always wreak havoc, who can always grab the headlines, who can always kill innocent men, women and schoolchildren,” but she would not be drawn into predictions of how long the insurgency could go on.
Mr. Bush’s record is similarly complex. Last November, he began a series of speeches describing a strategy for victory. Mr. Card defended those speeches Friday, saying, “Nothing is 100 percent, but in the case of Iraq, failure is not an option.”
The State Department also disputed the book’s description of a meeting between George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, and Ms. Rice on July 10, 2001, two months before the Sept. 11 attacks. The book describes the meeting as a heated one in which Mr. Tenet hoped to “shake Rice” into developing covert and overt plans to stop Osama bin Laden from attacking.
But Ms. Rice and other State Department officials denied that was the case, noting that the report of the Sept. 11 commission, which had testimony from Mr. Tenet and others at the meeting, made no mention of the July 10 encounter.
“The recollections as portrayed in the Woodward book in no way reflect the public and private testimony under oath of those individuals to the 9/11 commission,” said Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

White House Disputes Book's Report of Anti-Rumsfeld Moves

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901593.html
White House Disputes Book's Report of Anti-Rumsfeld Moves
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 30, 2006; A01 [woodward’s state of denial fallout] [started in yesterday’s papers and is in today’s societal, govt, individual-role] [great stuff] [if true, it demonstrates and incredibly dysfunctional white house] [Clinton was correct to get angry last week at the implications of the Chris Wallace ambush] [***********]
New revelations that White House aides tried twice in the past two years to persuade President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld fueled a caustic election-season debate yesterday over the president's wartime leadership and underscored divisions within his administration. [first reported yesterday by Sanger in NYTs] [************]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901593.html
White House Disputes Book's Report of Anti-Rumsfeld Moves
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 30, 2006; A01 [woodward’s state of denial fallout] [started in yesterday’s papers and is in today’s societal, govt, individual-role] [great stuff] [if true, it demonstrates and incredibly dysfunctional white house] [Clinton was correct to get angry last week at the implications of the Chris Wallace ambush] [***********]
New revelations that White House aides tried twice in the past two years to persuade President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld fueled a caustic election-season debate yesterday over the president's wartime leadership and underscored divisions within his administration. [first reported yesterday by Sanger in NYTs] [************]
The latest book by Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward, "State of Denial," paints a portrait of an administration riven by personal and policy disagreements exacerbated by a deteriorating situation in Iraq that has grown even worse than Bush admits to the public. In Woodward's account, Bush has become increasingly isolated as his team has rejected advice to shift gears in Iraq before it is too late.
The White House tried yesterday to dismiss the significance of Woodward's assertions, while Democrats eagerly seized on the book to bolster their campaign attacks five weeks before midterm elections. Coming days after the partial release of a National Intelligence Estimate concluding that the Iraq conflict has spread the "global jihadist movement," the latest disclosures kept the focus on the missteps and consequences of an unpopular war. [***********]
The book reports that then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. twice suggested that Bush fire Rumsfeld and replace him with former secretary of state James A. Baker III, first after the November 2004 election and again around Thanksgiving 2005. Card had the support of then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his successor, Condoleezza Rice, as well as national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley and senior White House adviser Michael J. Gerson, [*********] according to the book.
Even first lady Laura Bush reportedly told Card that she agreed Rumsfeld had become a liability for her husband, although she noted that the president did not agree. "I don't know why he's not upset with this," [*********] she told Card, according to the book. But Vice President Cheney and senior Bush adviser Karl Rove argued against dumping Rumsfeld, and Bush agreed.
The book details how Rumsfeld alienated key figures throughout the government and military: Rice complained that Rumsfeld would not return her telephone calls, forcing Bush to personally intervene. Rumsfeld rebuffed Card when he conveyed Bush's order to send National Guard troops to Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina until hearing from the president himself. Gen. John P. Abizaid, the senior U.S. commander in the Middle East, concluded that "Rumsfeld doesn't have any credibility anymore." [**********] [if this is true—and it appears that it is—Rumsfeld must do the honorable thing and resign to save Bush’s legacy and to salvage whatever small chance of success remains in the –Iraq War] [*****************]
It also reports on ultimately futile attempts by civilian officials to persuade the Bush team to send more troops to Iraq and outlines secret government findings about escalating attacks on U.S. troops and dire forecasts about the war worsening over the next year rather than improving.
The White House has been bracing for weeks for the book, which is scheduled for release next week and will be excerpted in The Washington Post tomorrow and Monday. Woodward, a Post assistant managing editor, has built a career on producing bestsellers with sensational revelations from unnamed sources that touch off Washington furors and send politicians racing to explain themselves.
The White House cooperated extensively with Woodward's first two books on the Bush presidency, "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack," granting him extraordinary access, including four interviews with the president. The books were criticized by some as overly favorable to Bush. But the White House seems to have anticipated that Woodward's third book would take a more critical view, and Bush declined to speak with him for it. [**********]
After the New York Times managed to buy an early copy of "State of Denial" and reported on it on yesterday's front page, Bush aides frantically called Woodward and asked for copies, which he sent over. A squadron of White House aides then spent hours tearing through the book and doing quick research to try to undercut its more damaging elements. They settled on a strategy of disputing certain conclusions while broadly dismissing it as old news. [***************]
"In a lot of ways, the book is sort of like cotton candy -- it kind of melts on contact," White House spokesman Tony Snow said at a briefing dominated by the topic. "We've read this book before. This tends to repeat what we've seen in a number of other books that have been out this year where people are ventilating old disputes over troop levels." Snow said it was well known that events in Iraq have been difficult and that officials have debated the right approach. "Rather than a state of denial," he said, "it's a state of the obvious." [****************]
Senate Democrats beat Snow to the punch and called their own news conference about the book two hours earlier, before they even had a copy. The title alone quickly became a Democratic mantra throughout the day. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said four times at a separate briefing that Bush was “in denial,” and Democrats released a series of statements and “fact sheets” trumpeting the line.
“The president himself is out of touch with reality, is in denial as to what is happening in Iraq,” Pelosi said. “That could be the only explanation for why he has withheld the truth to the American people.”
Rumsfeld, traveling overseas, said he has not read the book, and he declined to discuss it. A spokesman said the Pentagon would have no comment. Card, Hadley, Gerson and the first lady’s office declined to comment or did not return telephone calls. But Snow, speaking on behalf of Laura Bush, said the first lady’s office called Woodward’s account “flatly not true.” And Snow quoted Rice as saying of her reported dispute with Rumsfeld: “This is ridiculous, and I told that to Woodward.” [***********]
Card confirmed to ABC News yesterday that he suggested replacing Rumsfeld with Baker after the 2004 election as part of broader changes to the Cabinet, but he denied to news services that he led "a campaign" to oust the defense secretary.
"To say that it was a campaign or an orchestrated effort would be wrong," he told Reuters. "But were there times that we talked about potential changes in the Cabinet? Yes. Did they center around Rumsfeld? Not necessarily. They were in a broader context." [*********] He denied that Laura Bush encouraged an effort to remove Rumsfeld. "Mrs. Bush and I never discussed it," [*********]Card told the Associated Press.
The book also reports that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, grew so concerned in the summer of 2001 about a possible al-Qaeda attack that they drove straight to the White House to get high-level attention. [****************************]
Tenet called Rice, then the national security adviser, from his car to ask to see her, in hopes that the surprise appearance would make an impression. But the meeting on July 10, 2001, left Tenet and Black frustrated and feeling brushed off, [******] [this would explain her defensiveness in the 9/11 hearings and recently in response to Clinton’s tete-a-tete with Chrsi Wallace] [*********] Woodward reported. Rice, they thought, did not seem to feel the same sense of urgency about the threat and was content to wait for an ongoing policy review.
The report of such a meeting takes on heightened importance after former president Bill Clinton said this week that the Bush team did not do enough to try to kill Osama bin Laden before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said her husband would have paid more attention to warnings of a possible attack than Bush did. Rice fired back on behalf of the current president, saying the Bush administration "was at least as aggressive" in eight months as President Clinton had been in eight years.
The July 10 meeting of Rice, Tenet and Black went unmentioned in various investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, and Woodward wrote that Black "felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about."
Jamie S. Gorelick, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said she checked with commission staff members who told her investigators were never told about a July 10 meeting. "We didn't know about the meeting itself," she said. "I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it."
White House and State Department officials yesterday confirmed that the July 10 meeting took place, although they took issue with Woodward's portrayal of its results. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, responding on behalf of Rice, said Tenet and Black had never publicly expressed any frustration with her response.
"This is the first time these thoughts and feelings associated with that meeting have been expressed," McCormack said. "People are free to revise and extend their remarks, but that is certainly not the story that was told to the 9/11 commission."
Tenet and Black did not respond to messages yesterday.
Staff writer Glenn Kessler contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

STATE OF DENIAL

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000293.html
STATE OF DENIAL
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 1, 2006; A01 [Woodward’s State of Denial excerpts] [first part] [also save separately in state-of-denialbWoodward-9-30-06.doc] [***********]
In May, President Bush spoke in Chicago and gave a characteristically upbeat forecast: "Years from now, people will look back on the formation of a unity government in Iraq as a decisive moment in the story of liberty, a moment when freedom gained a firm foothold in the Middle East and the forces of terror began their long retreat." [*******]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000293.html
STATE OF DENIAL
By Bob Woodward
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 1, 2006; A01 [Woodward’s State of Denial excerpts] [first part] [also save separately in state-of-denialbWoodward-9-30-06.doc] [***********]
In May, President Bush spoke in Chicago and gave a characteristically upbeat forecast: "Years from now, people will look back on the formation of a unity government in Iraq as a decisive moment in the story of liberty, a moment when freedom gained a firm foothold in the Middle East and the forces of terror began their long retreat." [*******]
Two days later, the intelligence division of the Joint Chiefs of Staff circulated a secret intelligence assessment to the White House that contradicted the president's forecast. [**********]
Instead of a "long retreat," the report predicted a more violent 2007: "Insurgents and terrorists retain the resources and capabilities to sustain and even increase current level of violence through the next year."
A graph included in the assessment measured attacks from May 2003 to May 2006. It showed some significant dips, but the current number of attacks against U.S.-led coalition forces and Iraqi authorities was as high as it had ever been -- exceeding 3,500 a month. (In July the number would be over 4,500.) The assessment also included a pessimistic report on crude oil production, the delivery of electricity and political progress. [***********]
On May 26, the Pentagon released an unclassified report to Congress, required by law, that contradicted the Joint Chiefs’ secret assessment. The public report sent to Congress said the “appeal and motivation for continued violent action will begin to wane in early 2007.” [***************]
There was a vast difference between what the White House and the Pentagon knew about the situation in Iraq and what they were saying publicly. But the discrepancy was not surprising. In memos, reports and internal debates, high-level officials of the Bush administration have voiced their concern about the United States' ability to bring peace and stability to Iraq since early in the occupation. [**************]
(The release last week of portions of a National Intelligence Estimate concluding that the war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for terrorists -- following a series of upbeat speeches by the president -- presented a similar contrast.) [********]
On June 18, 2003, [**********] Jay Garner went to see Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to report on his brief tenure in Iraq as head of the postwar planning office. Throughout the invasion and the early days of the war, Garner, a retired Army lieutenant general, had struggled just to get his team into Iraq. Two days after he arrived, Rumsfeld called to tell him that L. Paul "Jerry" Bremer, a 61-year-old terrorism expert and protege of Henry A. Kissinger, would be coming over as the presidential envoy, effectively replacing Garner. [*************]
"We've made three tragic decisions," Garner told Rumsfeld at their meeting. [***********]
"Really?" Rumsfeld said.
"Three terrible mistakes," Garner said.
He cited the first two orders Bremer signed when he arrived, the first banning as many as 50,000 members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party from government jobs and the second disbanding the Iraqi military. Now there were hundreds of thousands of disorganized, unemployed, armed Iraqis running around. [*] [**]
Third, [***] Garner said, Bremer had summarily dismissed an interim Iraqi leadership group that had been eager to help the United States administer the country in the short term. "Jerry Bremer can't be the face of the government to the Iraqi people. You've got to have an Iraqi face for the Iraqi people," he said.
Garner made his final point: "There's still time to rectify this. There's still time to turn it around." [****************]
Rumsfeld looked at Garner for a moment with his take-no-prisoners gaze. "Well," he said, "I don't think there is anything we can do, because we are where we are." [*************]
He thinks I've lost it, Garner thought. He thinks I'm absolutely wrong. Garner didn't want it to sound like sour grapes, but facts were facts. "They're all reversible," Garner said again.
"We're not going to go back," Rumsfeld said emphatically. [***********]
Later that day, Garner went with Rumsfeld to the White House. But in a meeting with Bush, he made no mention of mistakes. Instead he regaled the president with stories of his time in Baghdad.
In an interview last December, I asked Garner if he had any regrets in not telling the president about his misgivings.
"You know, I don't know if I had that moment to live over again, I don't know if I'd do that or not. But if I had done that -- and quite frankly, I mean, I wouldn't have had a problem doing that -- but in my thinking, the door's closed. I mean, there's nothing I can do to open this door again. And I think if I had said that to the president in front of Cheney and Condoleezza Rice and Rumsfeld in there, the president would have looked at them and they would have rolled their eyes back and he would have thought, 'Boy, I wonder why we didn't get rid of this guy sooner?' " [***********]
"They didn't see it coming," Garner added. "As the troops said, they drank the Kool-Aid." [*****************]
What's the Strategy?
In the fall of 2003 and the winter of 2004, [********] officials of the National Security Council became increasingly concerned about the ability of the U.S. military to counter the growing insurgency in Iraq. [***********]
Returning from a visit to Iraq, Robert D. Blackwill, the NSC's top official for Iraq, [*********] was deeply disturbed by what he considered the inadequate number of troops on the ground there. He told Rice and Stephen J. Hadley, her deputy, that the NSC needed to do a military review. [***********]
"If we have a military strategy, I can't identify it," Hadley said. "I don't know what's worse -- that they have one and won't tell us or that they don't have one."
Rice had made it clear that her authority did not extend to Rumsfeld or the military, so Blackwill never forced the issue with her. Still, he wondered why the president never challenged the military. [*******] Why didn't he say to Gen. John P. Abizaid at the end of one of his secure video briefings, "John, let's have another of these on Thursday and what I really want from you is please explain to me, let's take an hour and a half, your military strategy for victory." [**************]
After Bush's reelection, Hadley replaced Rice as national security adviser. He made an assessment of the problems from the first term.
"I give us a B-minus for policy development," he told a colleague on Feb. 5, 2005, "and a D-minus for policy execution."
Rice, for her part, hired Philip D. Zelikow, an old friend, and sent him immediately to Iraq. She needed ground truth, a full, detailed report from someone she trusted. Zelikow had a license to go anywhere and ask any question. [**********] [shows Rice has at least been willing to try to divine truth] [but ineffectual in challenging titans within] [************]
On Feb. 10, 2005, two weeks after Rice became secretary of state, Zelikow presented her with a 15-page, single-spaced secret memo. "At this point Iraq remains a failed state shadowed by constant violence and undergoing revolutionary political change," Zelikow wrote. [************]
The insurgency was "being contained militarily," but it was "quite active," leaving Iraqi civilians feeling "very insecure," Zelikow said.
U.S. officials seemed locked down in the fortified Green Zone. "Mobility of coalition officials is extremely limited, and productive government activity is constrained."
Zelikow criticized the Baghdad-centered effort, noting that "the war can certainly be lost in Baghdad, but the war can only be won in the cities and provinces outside Baghdad."
In sum, he said, the United States' effort suffered because it lacked an articulated, comprehensive, unified policy. [*********]
Lessons From Kissinger
A powerful, largely invisible influence on Bush's Iraq policy was former secretary of state Kissinger.
"Of the outside people that I talk to in this job," Vice President Cheney told me in the summer of 2005, "I probably talk to Henry Kissinger more than I talk to anybody else. He just comes by and, I guess at least once a month, Scooter and I sit down with him." [**********] (Scooter is I. Lewis Libby, then Cheney's chief of staff.)
The president met privately with Kissinger every couple of months, making him the most regular and frequent outside adviser to Bush on foreign affairs.
Kissinger sensed wobbliness everywhere on Iraq, and he increasingly saw the situation through the prism of the Vietnam War. For Kissinger, the overriding lesson of Vietnam is to stick it out.
In his writing, speeches and private comments, Kissinger claimed that the United States had essentially won the war in 1972, only to lose it because of the weakened resolve of the public and Congress.
In a column in The Washington Post on Aug. 12, 2005, titled "Lessons for an Exit Strategy," Kissinger wrote, "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy." [***************]
He delivered the same message directly to Bush, Cheney and Hadley at the White House.
Victory had to be the goal, he told all. Don't let it happen again. Don't give an inch, or else the media, the Congress and the American culture of avoiding hardship will walk you back. [*************]
He said the eventual outcome in Iraq was more important than Vietnam had been. A radical Islamic or Taliban-style government in Iraq would be a model that could challenge the internal stability of key countries in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Kissinger told Rice that in Vietnam they didn't have the time, focus, energy or support at home to get the politics in place. That's why it had collapsed like a house of cards. He urged that the Bush administration get the politics right, both in Iraq and on the home front. Partially withdrawing troops had its own dangers. Even entertaining the idea of withdrawing any troops could create momentum for an exit that was less than victory.
In a meeting with presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson in early September 2005, Kissinger was more explicit: Bush needed to resist the pressure to withdraw American troops. He repeated his axiom that the only meaningful exit strategy was victory.
"The president can't be talking about troop reductions as a centerpiece," Kissinger said. "You may want to reduce troops," but troop reduction should not be the objective. "This is not where you put the emphasis."
To emphasize his point, he gave Gerson a copy of a memo he had written to President Richard M. Nixon, dated Sept. 10, 1969.
"Withdrawal of U.S. troops will become like salted peanuts to the American public; the more U.S. troops come home, the more will be demanded," he wrote.
The policy of "Vietnamization," turning the fight over to the South Vietnamese military, Kissinger wrote, might increase pressure to end the war because the American public wanted a quick resolution. Troop withdrawals would only encourage the enemy. "It will become harder and harder to maintain the morale of those who remain, not to speak of their mothers."
Two months after Gerson's meeting, the administration issued a 35-page "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq." It was right out of the Kissinger playbook. The only meaningful exit strategy would be victory. [***********************]
Echoes of Vietnam
Vietnam was also on the minds of some old Army buddies of Gen. Abizaid, the Centcom commander. They were worried that Iraq was slowly turning into Vietnam -- either it would wind down prematurely or become a war that was not winnable.
Some of them, including retired Gen. Wayne A. Downing and James V. Kimsey, a founder of America Online, visited Abizaid in 2005 at his headquarters in Doha, Qatar, and then in Iraq.
Abizaid held to the position that the war was now about the Iraqis. They had to win it now. The U.S. military had done all it could. It was critical, he argued, that they lower the American troop presence. It was still the face of an occupation, with American forces patrolling, kicking down doors and looking at the Iraqi women, which infuriated the Iraqi men.
"We've got to get the [expletive] out," he said. [****************]
Abizaid's old friends were worried sick that another Vietnam or anything that looked like Vietnam would be the end of the volunteer army. What's the strategy for winning? they pressed him.
"That's not my job," Abizaid said.
No, it is part of your job, they insisted.
No, Abizaid said. Articulating strategy belonged to others.
Who?
"The president and Condi Rice, because Rumsfeld doesn't have any credibility anymore," [****************] he said.
This March, Abizaid was in Washington to testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He painted a careful but upbeat picture of the situation in Iraq.
Afterward, he went over to see Rep. John P. Murtha in the Rayburn House Office Building. Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, had introduced a resolution in Congress calling for American troops in Iraq to be “redeployed” – the military term for returning troops overseas to their home bases – “at the earliest practicable date.” [*****************]
"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised," Murtha had said. "It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."
Now, sitting at the round dark-wood table in the congressman's office, Abizaid, the one uniformed military commander who had been intimately involved in Iraq from the beginning and who was still at it, indicated he wanted to speak frankly. According to Murtha, Abizaid raised his hand for emphasis, held his thumb and forefinger a quarter of an inch from each other and said, "We're that far apart." [***************]
Frustration and Resignation
That same month, White House chief of staff Andrew H. Card Jr. prepared to leave the administration after submitting his resignation to Bush. He felt a sense of relief mixed with the knowledge that he was leaving unfinished business. [*************]
"It's Iraq, Iraq, Iraq," Card had told his replacement, Joshua B. Bolten. "Then comes the economy." [******************]
One of Card's great worries was that Iraq would be compared to Vietnam. In March, there were 58,249 names on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington. One of Kissinger's private criticisms of Bush was that he had no mechanism in place, or even an inclination, to consider the downsides of impending decisions. Alternative courses of action were rarely considered.
As best Card could remember, there had been some informal, blue-sky discussions at times along the lines of "What could we do differently?" But there had been no formal sessions to consider alternatives to staying in Iraq. To his knowledge there were no anguished memos bearing the names of Cheney, Rice, Hadley, Rumsfeld, the CIA, Card himself or anyone else saying "Let's examine alternatives," as had surfaced after the Vietnam era. [********************]
Card put it on the generals in the Pentagon and Iraq. If they had come forward and said to the president "It's not worth it" or "The mission can't be accomplished," Card was certain, the president would have said "I'm not going to ask another kid to sacrifice for it."
Card was enough of a realist to see that two negative aspects to Bush's public persona had come to define his presidency: incompetence and arrogance. [*******] Card did not believe that Bush was incompetent, and so he had to face the possibility that as Bush's chief of staff, he might have been the incompetent one. In addition, he did not think the president was arrogant. [**************]
But the marketing of Bush had come across as arrogant. Maybe it was unfair in Card's opinion, but there it was.
He was leaving. And the man most responsible for the postwar troubles, the one who should have gone, Rumsfeld, was staying.
Bill Murphy Jr. and Christine Parthemore contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Bush and Kazakh Leader Play Up Partnership

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/asia/30prexy.html
September 30, 2006
Bush and Kazakh Leader Play Up Partnership
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG [the Bush and Nazarbayev dog-and-pony show] [what authoritatian regime?] [after all he was elected with some 80-90% of the vote] [*********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — President Bush took another step in his delicate foreign policy waltz with the authoritarian government of Kazakhstan on Friday, praising the oil-rich Central Asian country as “a free nation” while welcoming its president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, to the White House for lunch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/asia/30prexy.html
September 30, 2006
Bush and Kazakh Leader Play Up Partnership
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG [the Bush and Nazarbayev dog-and-pony show] [what authoritatian regime?] [after all he was elected with some 80-90% of the vote] [*********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 — President Bush took another step in his delicate foreign policy waltz with the authoritarian government of Kazakhstan on Friday, praising the oil-rich Central Asian country as “a free nation” while welcoming its president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, to the White House for lunch.
During a brief joint appearance in the Oval Office, Mr. Bush said the two presidents pledged to “support the forces of moderation throughout the world,” while Mr. Nazarbayev, speaking through a translator, reiterated his commitment to ridding his country of nuclear weapons and said the two nations had “truly become close partners.”
Neither man mentioned the sore points in that partnership: the absence of free elections in Kazakhstan, which became an independent state in 1991; state restrictions on the news media; and its recent decision to shut down two prominent American democracy organizations — a move that American officials are trying to reverse.
“We talked about our commitment to institutions that will enable liberty to flourish,” Mr. Bush said. “I have watched very carefully the development of this important country from one that was in the Soviet sphere to one that is now a free nation.”
Despite that transition, Kazakhstan also poses a diplomatic challenge for President Bush, who has made promoting democracy a central component of his foreign policy. On Friday morning, in his latest speech on fighting terrorism, Mr. Bush touted his efforts to build a free nation in Afghanistan and to push Pakistan toward free elections.
The White House views Kazakhstan, a state that has abundant oil and gas reserves and whose population is predominately Muslim, as a critical ally in promoting economic stability and security in that region. One-third of all foreign investment in Kazakhstan comes from the United States, and administration officials say the country has also been a strategic partner in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has a small ordnance removal team working in Iraq, and has given the United States fly-over rights so that military planes can take equipment to Afghanistan.
An administration official, granted anonymity to talk about the meeting, said “the issue of democracy was raised” during the visit. The leaders later put out a joint statement in which they agreed to “reaffirm the importance of democratic development” in institutions such as an independent news media and free and fair elections.
“They’re moving in the right direction,” the official said, “and we think that bringing them in close will give us greater prospects of expecting quicker progress.”
Mr. Bush invited Mr. Nazarbayev to a small lunch rather than holding a state dinner — a sign that Kazakhstan’s leader is working his way into the president’s inner foreign policy circle, but is not all the way there.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
Is Woodward Calling Bush a Liar?
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, September 29, 2006; 12:46 PM [fallout from woodward’s state of denial] [today’s papers are thick with it] [first reported yesterday] [********]
After two books that made President Bush look pretty good, Bob Woodward is out with a new one that comes awfully close to calling the president a liar. [*******]
I can't imagine Woodward himself ever using the word -- it's much too shrill for the poster boy for the mainstream media.
© 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
Is Woodward Calling Bush a Liar?
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, September 29, 2006; 12:46 PM [fallout from woodward’s state of denial] [today’s papers are thick with it] [first reported yesterday] [********]
After two books that made President Bush look pretty good, Bob Woodward is out with a new one that comes awfully close to calling the president a liar. [*******]
I can't imagine Woodward himself ever using the word -- it's much too shrill for the poster boy for the mainstream media.
But is there any other way to describe what seems like the central theme of his new book, tartly titled "State of Denial"?
Woodward is an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, which is scheduled to run excerpts of the book in its Sunday and Monday editions. But the news about the book first came from CBS, which yesterday uncorked a preview of Woodward's upcoming interview on "60 Minutes". The New York Times ran a long piece this morning, after somehow managing to buy a copy of the book four days before the official release date. [*************]
CBS News reports: "Veteran Washington reporter Bob Woodward tells Mike Wallace that the Bush administration has not told the truth regarding the level of violence, especially against U.S. troops, in Iraq. He also reveals key intelligence that predicts the insurgency will grow worse next year. . . . [***************]
"According to Woodward, insurgent attacks against coalition troops occur, on average, every 15 minutes, a shocking fact the administration has kept secret. . . .
"The situation is getting much worse, says Woodward, despite what the White House and the Pentagon are saying in public. 'The truth is that the assessment by intelligence experts is that next year, 2007, is going to get worse and, in public, you have the president and you have the Pentagon [saying], 'Oh, no, things are going to get better,' he tells Wallace. 'Now there's public, and then there's private. But what did they do with the private? They stamp it secret. No one is supposed to know,' says Woodward."
Woodward also tells Wallace that aged Republican war-horse Henry Kissinger is closely advising Bush, telling him there is no exit strategy other than victory. [*******]
"Woodward adds. 'This is so fascinating. Kissinger's fighting the Vietnam War again because, in his view, the problem in Vietnam was we lost our will.' . . .
"President Bush is absolutely certain that he has the U.S. and Iraq on the right course, says Woodward. So certain is the president on this matter, Woodward says, that when Mr. Bush had key Republicans to the White House to discuss Iraq, he told them, 'I will not withdraw, even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me.'"
Here's a video clip , worth watching if for nothing else to hear Woodward say of Kissinger: "He's back!"
David E. Sanger writes in the New York Times: "The book describes a White House riven by dysfunction and division over the war. . . .
"The book says President Bush's top advisers were often at odds among themselves, and sometimes were barely on speaking terms, but shared a tendency to dismiss as too pessimistic assessments from American commanders and others about the situation in Iraq. . . .
"Vice President Cheney is described as a man so determined to find proof that his claim about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was accurate that, in the summer of 2003, his aides were calling the chief weapons inspector, David Kay, with specific satellite coordinates as the sites of possible caches. None resulted in any finds. . . .
"Mr. Woodward's first two books about the Bush administration, 'Bush at War' and 'Plan of Attack,' portrayed a president firmly in command and a loyal, well-run team responding to a surprise attack and the retaliation that followed. As its title indicates, 'State of Denial' follows a very different storyline, of an administration that seemed to have only a foggy notion that early military success in Iraq had given way to resentment of the occupiers."
William Hamilton picked up the story for washingtonpost.com this morning, writing: "Former White House chief of staff Andrew Card on two occasions tried and failed to persuade President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to a new book by Bob Woodward that depicts senior officials of the Bush administration as unable to face the consequences of their policy in Iraq. . . .
"Woodward writes that Bush considered the move, but was persuaded by Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, that it would be seen as an expression of doubt about the course of the war and would expose Bush himself to criticism."
On CNN, Jack Cafferty had this to say: "President Bush is absolutely certain that the United States is on the right track in Iraq. That's according to this new book by Bob Woodward. In fact, Bush is so sure that he supposedly told a group of Republicans gathered at the White House quote, 'I will not withdraw even if Laura and Barney are the only ones supporting me', unquote.
"Apparently it doesn't matter that almost two-thirds of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. That only a quarter of this country thinks we're winning the war in Iraq. And that most Americans think the situation in Iraq has degenerated into a civil war, 65 percent, as long as Barney supports him."
Quite the Turnaround
The new book may also write a new chapter in Woodward's storied career.
Famous for being half of the reporting team credited for exposing the Watergate scandal and bringing down the presidency of Richard Nixon, Woodward went on to become the quintessential Washington insider, publishing scores of stories and books based on highly-placed confidential sources.
His first two books on Bush -- "Bush at War" and "Plan of Attack" -- were largely flattering depictions of the president.
Woodward's image took a major bruising last November, (see my November 16 column ) when it was revealed that he had kept secret for more than two years that he was the first reporter to whom a senior administration official leaked the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.
Woodward apologized for failing to tell his superiors at The Post. But the irony of a journalist sitting on information like that, along with murmurings in Washington about what he had given up in return for the unparalleled access to the Bush White House, combined to raise doubts about his reportage.
So does this book mark a return to Woodward as Washington iconoclast, rather that Woodward as Washington icon?
Perhaps tellingly, the New York Times reported that according to the book, neither Bush nor Cheney agreed to be interviewed this time around.
More Denial
Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon , writing in a Washington Post op-ed, marvel at Bush's current refusal to acknowledge that the war in Iraq has made the terror threat worse.
"Just as President Bush urges that we take the terrorists at their word about their wish to create a new caliphate, we take them at their word about their motivation: Iraq has been crucial. . . .
"Then there is the claim that Iraq has not had a catalytic effect because the terrorists were already after us, an argument the president repeated Tuesday. 'We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. . . . We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993.'
"No doubt the United States would have had a serious struggle against radical Islam after Sept. 11 under any circumstances. But the occupation of Iraq, by appearing to confirm bin Laden's arguments about America's antipathy toward the Muslim world, has had an incendiary effect and made matters dramatically worse."
And blogger Brendan Nyhan notes some unintentional irony in a Bush speech yesterday. Said Bush: "We are a nation at war. I wish I could report differently, but you need to have a President who sees the world the way it is, not the way somebody would hope it would be."
The Abramoff Revelation
And here's some amazing news. After Scott McClellan and others hotly denied that now-convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff had anything more than passing contact with the White House, a Congressional report out today suggests the contrary.
Here's the report from the House Government Reform Committee.
John Bresnahan and Paul Kane write for Roll Call: "A House committee has documented hundreds of contacts between top White House officials and former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his associates, as well as tens of thousands of dollars worth of meals and tickets to sporting events and concerts that were offered to these officials during a three-year period starting in early 2001."
Philip Shenon writes in the New York Times: "The authors of the report said it was generally unclear from available records whether the aides reimbursed Mr. Abramoff for the meals or tickets. Ethics rules bar White House officials from accepting lobbyists' gifts worth more than $20. . . .
"Mr. Rove has described Mr. Abramoff as a 'casual acquaintance,' but the records obtained by the House committee show that Mr. Rove and his aides sought Mr. Abramoff's help in obtaining seats at sporting events, and that Mr. Rove sat with Mr. Abramoff in the lobbyist's box seats for an N.C.A.A. basketball playoff game in 2002.
"After that game, Mr. Abramoff described Mr. Rove in an e-mail message to a colleague: 'He's a great guy. Told me anytime we need something just let him know through Susan.' The message was referring to Susan Ralson, Mr. Abramoff's former secretary, who joined the White House in February 2001 as Mr. Rove's executive assistant.
"Ms. Ralston, who did not return phone calls seeking comment Thursday, was lobbied scores of times by Mr. Abramoff and his partners, the report found, and was instrumental in passing messages between Mr. Abramoff and senior officials at the White House, including Mr. Rove and Ken Mehlman. . . .
"On learning in July 2002 that Mr. Rove planned to dine at Signatures with a party of 8 to 10 people, Mr. Abramoff wrote to a colleague: 'I want him to be given a very nice bottle of wine and have Joseph whisper in his ear (only he should hear) that Abramoff wanted him to have this wine on the house.' In another e-mail message, Mr. Abramoff directed his restaurant staff to 'please put Karl Rove in his usual table.'
"[Dana] Perino, the White House spokeswoman, said the offer of a free bottle of wine was actually proof of how little acquainted Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Rove were because 'Karl doesn't drink alcohol.'"
Peter Wallsten and Walter F. Roche Jr. write in the Los Angeles Times: "A news release from [the committee's Republican chairman, Rep. Thomas M. Davis III]'s office said the 95-page report revealed only 'scant and circumstantial evidence that Abramoff's encounters and entreaties had a dispositive impact on administration policy or personnel decisions.' But it singled out Ralston -- Rove's assistant and Abramoff's former employee -- who was lobbied 69 times, the most contacts with any individual named in the report. She also received numerous tickets to concerts and sporting events.
"'Her role in brokering requests to Rove from her former boss raises questions . . . about some of her activities,' the release said."
Susan Schmidt notes in The Washington Post: "The report did not determine how many of those contacts -- referenced in e-mails and Abramoff's often falsified client bills -- actually occurred. . . .
"'The only thing this report demonstrates is what a lot of us already know: Jack Abramoff had a penchant for exaggerating and charging his clients for minor contacts with government officials,' White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said."
Here's McClellan on January 17, responding to a question about Abramoff's contacts with the White House: "I checked on this. What I was asked is to go and check on this, and I did. And there were only a couple of holiday receptions that he attended, and then a few staff-level meetings on top of that. And that's the way I would describe it.
"Now, what I can't do is go and say with absolute certainty that he did not have any other visits. We did a check at your request and what I have learned from that request is exactly what I am telling you."
As for Rove, McClellan said "he knows Mr. Abramoff. They are both former heads of the College Republicans. That's how they got to know each other way back, I think it was in the early '80s. And my understanding is that Karl would describe it as more of a casual relationship, than a business relationship. That's what he has said."
George Stephanopoulos reports for ABC News: "Outside his home in Washington, D.C., Karl Rove commented exclusively to ABCNews on his dealings with Jack Abramoff.
"In answer to inquiry on whether he had accepted gifts from Abramoff, Rove simply replied, 'afraid not.'"
The Detainee Bill
Rick Klein writes in the Boston Globe: "The Senate yesterday passed a sweeping measure authorizing military tribunals for some suspected terrorists and permitting aggressive interrogations of top terror suspects, handing President Bush a major victory five weeks before crucial congressional elections."
Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman write in The Washington Post: "The Senate joined the House in embracing President Bush's view that the battle against terrorism justifies the imposition of extraordinary limits on defendants' traditional rights in the courtroom. They include restrictions on a suspect's ability to challenge his detention, examine all evidence against him, and bar testimony allegedly acquired through coercion of witnesses. . . .
"Democrats . . . nearly amended the detainee bill to allow foreigners designated as enemy combatants to challenge their captivity by filing habeas corpus appeals with the federal courts. But Republicans held fast, gambling that Democrats will fail in their bid to convince voters that the GOP is sacrificing the nation's traditions of justice and fairness in the name of battling terrorists and winning elections."
R. Jeffrey Smith writes in The Washington Post: "The military trials bill approved by Congress lends legislative support for the first time to broad rules for the detention, interrogation, prosecution and trials of terrorism suspects far different from those in the familiar American criminal justice system."
David G. Savage and Richard Simon write in the Los Angeles Times: "Bush is expected to receive a bill he can sign into law in the next few days, but legal challenges almost assuredly will be pursued against the prosecution process, which the administration considers a key element in its war on terrorism."
I'm still amazed that Democrats didn't filibuster the bill in the Senate. Indeed, 12 Democrats actually voted for it.
By contrast, Carl Hulse , writing in the New York Times, is amazed at how many Democrats voted against it: "The Democratic vote in the Senate on Thursday against legislation governing the treatment of terrorism suspects showed that party leaders believe that President Bush's power to wield national security as a political issue is seriously diminished. . . .
"It was a stark change from four years ago, when Mr. Bush cornered Democrats into another defining pre-election vote on security issues -- that one to give the president the authority to launch an attack against Iraq. At the time, many Democrats felt they had little choice politically but to side with Mr. Bush, and a majority of Senate Democrats backed him."
The White House released this statement from Bush last night: "Today, the Senate sent a strong signal to the terrorists that we will continue using every element of national power to pursue our enemies and to prevent attacks on America. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 will allow the continuation of a CIA program that has been one of America's most potent tools in fighting the War on Terror."
The Morning Visit
Ted Barrett writes for CNN: "President Bush barely mentioned the war in Iraq when he met with Republican senators behind closed doors in the Capitol Thursday morning and was not asked about the course of the war, Sen. Trent Lott, R-Mississippi, said.
"'No, none of that,' Lott told reporters after the session when asked if the Iraq war was discussed. 'You're the only ones who obsess on that. We don't and the real people out in the real world don't for the most part.'"
Gloves Come Off
Jim Rutenberg writes in the New York Times: "President Bush took on the Democrats on Thursday with some of his most pointed language yet this campaign year, telegraphing the start of the last, intensive phase of the election season for the White House. . . .
"'Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on the American homeland in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing,' Mr. Bush said at a fund-raising event for Gov. Bob Riley. 'The party of F.D.R. and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run.' . . .
"Mr. Bush has been honing his offensive against Democrats for weeks as his political team seeks to shift the election-year focus from a debate about him and the unpopular war to one about terrorism in general, his party's efforts to combat it and what he describes as the opposition's promotion of defeatism and retreat.
"But until now he had left the sort of hard-charging talk that he used here to his political strategist Karl Rove, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican national chairman, Ken Mehlman."
Here's the text of the speech in question.
Wall Street Journal Interview
John D. McKinnon writes in the Wall Street Journal: "President Bush said he would speed up his alternative-energy push during the remainder of his term with new spending focused on easing bottlenecks that are slowing the spread of ethanol in the market.
"In an interview with The Wall Street Journal on a swing through Alabama, Mr. Bush said he is seeking ways to overcome difficulties in transporting the fuel, and to increase the number of stations selling it."
Here's the transcript of the interview, in which Bush also suggested that if the elections go his way, he'll take another shot at entitlements.
"Q: Do you envision an entitlement reform combining those two into one effort? In other words, Social Security and Medicare?
"THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's an interesting strategy. I'm working with [Treasury] Secretary Paulson on that. We're obviously watching the elections closely, and we're strategizing internally."
Fighting Over History
President Clinton's fiery interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News last weekend, in which he revived charges that Bush didn't take the threat of terrorism seriously enough before Sept. 11, is still reverberating around Washington.
Michael Duffy writes for Time: "The Bush White House has always been hugely sensitive about this charge because, well, there is some truth to it. The new administration came into office and put terror about third or fourth down on its list of big worries, behind Russia, the ABM treaty, and sorting out that unexpected spy plane problem with the Chinese. (Many Republicans just refuse to believe this.)
"And the person (besides Bush himself) most responsible for ordering things that way was Condoleezza Rice, then the National Security Adviser, a longtime Russia expert. It was always my impression that Rice made it through all the after-action reviews of 9/11 surprisingly unscathed."
E.J. Dionne Jr. writes in his Washington Post opinion column that in the weeks and months after 9/11, "Democrats rallied behind President Bush. For months after the attacks, Democrats did not raise questions about why they had happened on Bush's watch. . . .
"Republicans were arguing simultaneously that it was treasonous finger-pointing to question what Bush did or failed to do to prevent the attacks, but patriotic to go after Clinton. Thus did they build up a mythology that cast Bush as the tough hero in confronting the terrorist threat and Clinton as the shirker. Bad history. Smart politics."
Two Presidents and a Comedian
Caren Bohan writes for Reuters: "When President George W. Bush hosts Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev at the White House on Friday, he will seek to bolster ties with an oil-producing Central Asian country that has lent Washington support on Iraq and Afghanistan.
"But Bush, who has made promoting democracy a centerpiece of his foreign-policy agenda, faces a difficult balancing act with Nazarbayev, whose autocratic ways have been criticized by human rights groups."
From a Washington Post editorial : "Mr. Bush has given numerous speeches in the past several years repudiating what he says was the mistake of backing corrupt authoritarian regimes in the Middle East in exchange for economic and security cooperation, as well as an illusory 'stability.' But that is exactly what he is doing in Kazakhstan -- and in Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Libya and Egypt, among other Muslim countries."
But it's comedy, not hypocrisy, that has Washington abuzz about Kazakhstan today.
Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts write in The Washington Post about Sacha Baron Cohen, the British comic who is currently playing the role of "Borat Sagdiyev -- an anti-Semitic, oversexed Kazakh journalist who spins tales about the national sport of killing dogs and the practice of keeping women in cages -- much to the continuing dismay of the Kazakh government. In a brilliant stunt to promote his movie 'Borat' (opening next month), Baron Cohen held a guerrilla news conference outside the embassy at 16th and O streets NW -- without ever breaking character."
Cohen then led the media hordes to the front gates of the White House.
Andy Sullivan writes for Reuters: "Secret Service agents turned away British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, in character as the boorish, anti-Semitic journalist, when he tried to invite 'Premier George Walter Bush' to a screening of his upcoming movie."
Here are Borat's adventures in photos .
© 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

Pirates of the Mediterranean

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/opinion/30harris.html
September 30, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Pirates of the Mediterranean
By ROBERT HARRIS
Kintbury, England [oped] [comparing current history (Bush admin) with the end of the Roman empire] [interesting comparisons, though arguable] [was Rome’s demise the end of its healthy democracy or was it imperial overreach?]
IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/opinion/30harris.html
September 30, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Pirates of the Mediterranean
By ROBERT HARRIS
Kintbury, England [oped] [comparing current history (Bush admin) with the end of the Roman empire] [interesting comparisons, though arguable] [was Rome’s demise the end of its healthy democracy or was it imperial overreach?]
IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.
The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.
Consider the parallels. The perpetrators of this spectacular assault were not in the pay of any foreign power: no nation would have dared to attack Rome so provocatively. They were, rather, the disaffected of the earth: “The ruined men of all nations,” in the words of the great 19th-century German historian Theodor Mommsen, “a piratical state with a peculiar esprit de corps.”
Like Al Qaeda, these pirates were loosely organized, but able to spread a disproportionate amount of fear among citizens who had believed themselves immune from attack. To quote Mommsen again: “The Latin husbandman, the traveler on the Appian highway, the genteel bathing visitor at the terrestrial paradise of Baiae were no longer secure of their property or their life for a single moment.”
What was to be done? Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” — “I am a Roman citizen” — was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.
But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the 38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius, to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law.
“Pompey was to be given not only the supreme naval command but what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone,” the Greek historian Plutarch wrote. “There were not many places in the Roman world that were not included within these limits.”
Pompey eventually received almost the entire contents of the Roman Treasury — 144 million sesterces — to pay for his “war on terror,” which included building a fleet of 500 ships and raising an army of 120,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Such an accumulation of power was unprecedented, and there was literally a riot in the Senate when the bill was debated.
Nevertheless, at a tumultuous mass meeting in the center of Rome, Pompey’s opponents were cowed into submission, the Lex Gabinia passed (illegally), and he was given his power. In the end, once he put to sea, it took less than three months to sweep the pirates from the entire Mediterranean. Even allowing for Pompey’s genius as a military strategist, the suspicion arises that if the pirates could be defeated so swiftly, they could hardly have been such a grievous threat in the first place.
But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.
Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge their detention in court; the careful wording about torture, which forbids only the inducement of “serious” physical and mental suffering to obtain information; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant — all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the executive.
An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.
In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius Caesar — the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of Pompey’s special command during the Senate debate — was awarded similar, extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state.
It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the system collapsed completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon — and the rest, as they say, is ancient history.
It may be that the Roman republic was doomed in any case. But the disproportionate reaction to the raid on Ostia unquestionably hastened the process, weakening the restraints on military adventurism and corrupting the political process. It was to be more than 1,800 years before anything remotely comparable to Rome’s democracy — imperfect though it was — rose again.
The Lex Gabinia was a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences: it fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to protect. Let us hope that vote in the United States Senate does not have the same result.
Robert Harris is the author, most recently, of “Imperium: A Novel of Ancient Rome.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Out of the Mouths of Aides

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/opinion/30sat1.html
September 30, 2006
Editorial
Out of the Mouths of Aides
[editorial] [what does the administration have to show for its ABC policy vis-à-vis Israel and Palestine?]
It has taken five and a half years, but at least some of President Bush’s aides have begun to acknowledge the patently obvious: There needs to be a serious effort to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/opinion/30sat1.html
September 30, 2006
Editorial
Out of the Mouths of Aides
[editorial] [what does the administration have to show for its ABC policy vis-à-vis Israel and Palestine?]
It has taken five and a half years, but at least some of President Bush’s aides have begun to acknowledge the patently obvious: There needs to be a serious effort to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Without one, the United States has no chance of salvaging its battered reputation in the Islamic world. No chance of rallying moderate Arab leaders to fight extremists or contain Iran. And no chance of ensuring Israel’s lasting security. We just hope that Mr. Bush will now make the long neglected peace effort a central priority for the remaining years of his presidency.
With Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice traveling to the region next week, Mr. Bush should give her an explicit mandate to press Israel, and not just the Palestinians, for real compromises. He should also give her the authority to talk to adversaries, and not just friends, about how to support the effort.
For years, Mr. Bush’s advisers have woven an entire mythology about how Middle East peace required tanks on the road to Baghdad, rather than diplomats on planes to Jerusalem, Ramallah and Damascus.
So it was surprising to hear one of Ms. Rice’s closest aides, Philip Zelikow, the State Department counselor, tell a think-tank audience that some sense of progress on the Arab-Israeli dispute is “just a sine qua non” for getting moderate Arabs and the Europeans to cooperate on Iran and the region’s many other dangerous problems. “We can rail against that belief. We can find it completely justifiable. But it’s fact,” Mr. Zelikow said.
We fear that Mr. Bush and his secretary of state haven’t yet caught up to that. As Ms. Rice prepared to leave, other aides said that the most she would do would be to rally support for the moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and to solicit ideas on how to revive peace talks.
Ms. Rice should use this trip to commit herself to negotiating a comprehensive cease-fire. She can start by telling the Israelis they need to immediately end targeted killings and halt all settlement construction. Ms. Rice needs to make clear to the Palestinians that while words are important, she is less concerned with rhetoric than the ability and willingness of any Palestinian government to halt, rather than abet, all attacks on Israel.
Washington is already encouraging Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, to meet with Mr. Abbas, for more symbolic support. Ms. Rice should instead tell all sides that President Bush’s goal is a full resumption of peace negotiations — and that he will commit the full resources of his presidency to the effort.
Ms. Rice should be willing to go to Damascus — or send a top aide — to tell President Bashar al-Assad that relations can improve if he restrains his clients Hamas and Hezbollah. The Europeans — who have been desperate for the United States to engage — should make the same trip to warn of real punishments should he refuse. [********]
The lesson of this summer’s disastrous wars in Lebanon and Gaza is that the time for listening tours and tactical steps is far past. We hope that Mr. Zelikow’s bosses start paying attention. [*********]
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

A Portrait of Bush as a Victim of His Own Certitude

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/books/30book.html
September 30, 2006
Books of The Times
A Portrait of Bush as a Victim of His Own Certitude
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI [on woodward’s new State of Denial] [c.f., the WP excerpts saved in daily and in separate state-of-denial-bWoodward9-30-06] [*********]
In Bob Woodward’s highly anticipated new book, “State of Denial,” President Bush emerges as a passive, impatient, sophomoric and intellectually incurious leader, presiding over a grossly dysfunctional war cabinet and given to an almost religious certainty that makes him disinclined to rethink or re-evaluate decisions he has made about the war. [*********] It’s a portrait that stands in stark contrast to the laudatory one Mr. Woodward drew in “Bush at War,” his 2002 book, which depicted the president — in terms that the White House press office itself has purveyed — as a judicious, resolute leader, blessed with the “vision thing” his father was accused of lacking and firmly in control of the ship of state. [***********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/books/30book.html
September 30, 2006
Books of The Times
A Portrait of Bush as a Victim of His Own Certitude
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI [on woodward’s new State of Denial] [c.f., the WP excerpts saved in daily and in separate state-of-denial-bWoodward9-30-06] [*********]
In Bob Woodward’s highly anticipated new book, “State of Denial,” President Bush emerges as a passive, impatient, sophomoric and intellectually incurious leader, presiding over a grossly dysfunctional war cabinet and given to an almost religious certainty that makes him disinclined to rethink or re-evaluate decisions he has made about the war. [*********] It’s a portrait that stands in stark contrast to the laudatory one Mr. Woodward drew in “Bush at War,” his 2002 book, which depicted the president — in terms that the White House press office itself has purveyed — as a judicious, resolute leader, blessed with the “vision thing” his father was accused of lacking and firmly in control of the ship of state. [***********]
As this new book’s title indicates, Mr. Woodward now sees Mr. Bush as a president who lives in a state of willful denial about the worsening situation in Iraq, a president who insists he won’t withdraw troops, even “if Laura and Barney are the only ones who support me.” [********] (Barney is Mr. Bush’s Scottish terrier.) Mr. Woodward draws an equally scathing portrait of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, who comes off as a bully and control freak who is reluctant to assume responsibility for his department’s failures, and who has surrounded himself with yes men and created a system that bleached out “strong, forceful military advice.” [******]Mr. Rumsfeld remains wedded to his plan to conduct the war in Iraq with a lighter, faster force (reflecting his idée fixe of “transforming” the military), even as the situation there continues to deteriorate.
Mr. Woodward reports that after the 2004 election Andrew H. Card Jr., then White House chief of staff, pressed for Mr. Rumsfeld’s ouster (he recommended former Secretary of State James A. Baker III as a replacement), and that Laura Bush shared his concern, worrying that Mr. Rumsfeld was hurting her husband’s reputation. Vice President Dick Cheney, however, persuaded Mr. Bush to stay the course with Mr. Cheney’s old friend Mr. Rumsfeld, arguing that any change might be perceived as an expression of doubt and hesitation on the war. [*********] Other members of the administration also come off poorly. Gen. Richard B. Myers is depicted as a weak chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who routinely capitulated to the will of Mr. Rumsfeld and who rarely offered an independent opinion. Former C.I.A. director George J. Tenet is described as believing that the war against Iraq was a terrible mistake, but never expressing his feelings to the president. [******] And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who appears in this volume primarily in her former role as national security adviser) is depicted as a presidential enabler, ineffectual at her job of coordinating interagency strategy and planning. [**************]
For instance, Mr. Woodward writes that on July 10, 2001, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism coordinator, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice to warn her of mounting intelligence about an impending terrorist attack, but came away feeling they’d been given “the brush-off” — a revealing encounter, given Ms. Rice’s recent comments, rebutting former President Bill Clinton’s allegations that the Bush administration had failed to pursue counterterrorism measures aggressively before 9/11. [**********]
As depicted by Mr. Woodward, this is an administration in which virtually no one will speak truth to power, an administration in which the traditional policy-making process involving methodical analysis and debate is routinely subverted. [*******]He notes that experts — who recommended higher troop levels in Iraq, warned about the consequences of disbanding the Iraqi Army or worried about the lack of postwar planning— were continually ignored by the White House and Pentagon leadership, or themselves failed, out of cowardice or blind loyalty, to press insistently their case for an altered course in the war.
Mr. Woodward describes the administration’s management of the war as being improvisatory and ad hoc, like a pickup basketball game, and argues that it continually tried to give the public a rosy picture of the war in Iraq (while accusing the press of accentuating the negative), even as its own intelligence was pointing to a rising number of attacks against American forces and an upward spiral of violence. [*******] A secret February 2005 report by Philip D. Zelikow, a State Department counselor, found that “Iraq remains a failed state shadowed by constant violence and undergoing revolutionary political change” and concluded that the American effort there suffered because it lacked a comprehensive, unified policy. [*************]
Startlingly little of this overall picture is new, of course. Mr. Woodward’s portrait of Mr. Bush as a prisoner of his own certitude owes a serious debt to a 2004 article in The New York Times Magazine by the veteran reporter Ron Suskind, just as his portrait of the Pentagon’s incompetent management of the war and occupation owes a serious debt to “Fiasco,” the Washington Post reporter Thomas E. Ricks’s devastating account of the war, published this summer. Other disclosures recapitulate information contained in books and articles by other journalists and former administration insiders. [*******]
But if much of “State of Denial” simply ratifies the larger outline of the Bush administration’s bungled handling of the war as laid out by other reporters, Mr. Woodward does flesh out that narrative with new illustrations and some telling details that enrich the reader’s understanding of the inner workings of this administration at this critical moment. [*********]
He reports, for instance, that the Vietnam-era Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger “had a powerful, largely invisible influence on the foreign policy of the Bush administration,” urging President Bush and Vice President Cheney to stick it out. [**********] According to Mr. Woodward, Mr. Kissinger gave the former Bush adviser and speechwriter Michael Gerson his so-called 1969 salted peanut memo, which warned President Richard M. Nixon that “withdrawal of U.S. troops will become like salted peanuts to the American public; the more U.S. troops come home, the more will be demanded.” [************]
As with Mr. Woodward’s earlier books, many of his interviews were conducted on background, though, from the point of view of particular passages, it’s often easy for the reader to figure out just who his sources were. In some cases he recreates conversations seemingly based on interviews with only one of the participants. The former Saudi Arabian ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Mr. Card, Mr. Tenet, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage and Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser (to Bush senior), appear to be among the author’s primary sources.
Whereas Mr. Woodward has tended in the past to stand apart from his narrative, rarely pausing to analyze or assess the copious material he has gathered, he is more of an active agent in this volume — perhaps in a kind of belated mea culpa for his earlier positive portrayals of the administration. In particular, he inserts himself into interviews with Mr. Rumsfeld — clearly annoyed, even appalled, by the Pentagon chief’s cavalier language and reluctance to assume responsibility for his department’s failures.
Mr. Woodward reports that when he told Mr. Rumsfeld that the number of insurgent attacks was going up, the defense secretary replied that they’re now “categorizing more things as attacks.” Mr. Woodward quotes Mr. Rumsfeld as saying, “A random round can be an attack and all the way up to killing 50 people someplace. So you’ve got a whole fruit bowl of different things — a banana and an apple and an orange.”
Mr. Woodward adds: “I was speechless. Even with the loosest and most careless use of language and analogy, I did not understand how the secretary of defense would compare insurgent attacks to a ‘fruit bowl,’ a metaphor that stripped them of all urgency and emotion. The official categories in the classified reports that Rumsfeld regularly received were the lethal I.E.D.’s, standoff attacks with mortars and close engagements such as ambushes.”
Earlier in the volume, in a section describing the former Iraq administrator Jay Garner’s reluctance to tell the president about the mistakes he saw the Pentagon making in Iraq, Mr. Woodward writes: “It was only one example of a visitor to the Oval Office not telling the president the whole story or the truth. Likewise, in these moments where Bush had someone from the field there in the chair beside him, he did not press, did not try to open the door himself and ask what the visitor had seen and thought. The whole atmosphere too often resembled a royal court, with Cheney and Rice in attendance, some upbeat stories, exaggerated good news and a good time had by all.” Were the war in Iraq not a real war that has resulted in more than 2,700 American military casualties and more than 56,000 Iraqi civilian deaths, the picture of the Bush administration that emerges from this book might resemble a farce. It’s like something out of “The Daily Show” or a “Saturday Night Live” sketch, with Freudian Bush family dramas and high-school-like rivalries between cabinet members who refuse to look at one another at meetings being played out on the world stage.
There’s the president, who once said, “I don’t have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy,” deciding that he’s going to remake the Middle East and alter the course of American foreign policy. There’s his father, former President George Herbert Walker Bush (who went to war against the same country a decade ago), worrying about the wisdom of another war but reluctant to offer his opinions to his son because he believes in the principle of “let him be himself.” There’s the president’s national security adviser whining to him that the defense secretary won’t return her phone calls. And there’s the president and Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, trading fart jokes.
Mr. Woodward suggests that Mr. Rumsfeld decided to make the Iraq war plan “his personal project” after seeing a rival agency, the C.I.A., step up to run operations in Afghanistan (when it became clear that the Pentagon was unprepared for a quick invasion of that country, right after 9/11). And he suggests that President Bush chose Mr. Rumsfeld as his defense secretary, in part, because he knew his father mistrusted Mr. Rumsfeld, and the younger Bush wanted to prove his father wrong. [***********]
Many of the people in this book seem not only dismayed but also flummoxed by some of President Bush’s decisions. Mr. Woodward quotes Laura Bush as telling Andrew Card that she doesn’t understand why her husband isn’t upset about Mr. Rumsfeld and the uproar over his handling of the war .[*******] And he quotes Mr. Armitage as telling former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell that he’s baffled by President Bush’s reluctance to make adjustments in his conduct of the war. [**********]
“Has he thought this through?” Mr. Armitage asks. “What the president says in effect is, We’ve got to press on in honor of the memory of those who have fallen. Another way to say that is we’ve got to have more men fall to honor the memories of those who have already fallen.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Thousands March to Back Hamas

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-hamas30sep30,1,3074774.story?coll=la-headlines-world
Thousands March to Back Hamas
From the Associated Press
September 30, 2006 [Palestine] [Hamas’ demise may have been exagerated] [followup] [*************]
GAZA CITY — Tens of thousands of Hamas supporters marched Friday in the Gaza Strip amid a drop in the militant group's popularity since it won Palestinian parliamentary elections in January.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-hamas30sep30,1,3074774.story?coll=la-headlines-world
Thousands March to Back Hamas
From the Associated Press
September 30, 2006 [Palestine] [Hamas’ demise may have been exagerated] [followup] [*************]
GAZA CITY — Tens of thousands of Hamas supporters marched Friday in the Gaza Strip amid a drop in the militant group's popularity since it won Palestinian parliamentary elections in January.

Western governments and Israel have cut off financial ties, demanding that Hamas recognize Israel, renounce violence and respect accords with Israel.

The loss of aid has prevented the Palestinian Authority from paying full salaries to its 165,000 employees. Many have responded by striking and calling for the Hamas government to resign. [*************]

Marchers in the Jabaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza on Friday were rejecting "attempts to carry out an internal coup" against the government, Hamas lawmaker Mushir Masri said.

Gaza Strip: Israeli Strike Kills 2 Brothers

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/middleeast/30briefs-005.html
September 30, 2006
World Briefing | Middle East
Gaza Strip: Israeli Strike Kills 2 Brothers
By GREG MYRE [Israel-Palestine] [more of the slow boil of violence between Palestine and Israel] [followup] [*************]
An Israeli military strike killed two Palestinian brothers, 16 and 13, as they approached a rocket launcher near northern Beit Hanun. The military said the two were there to collect the launcher, used to fire five rockets into southern Israel in recent days. [********] Medical workers at Kamal Adwan Hospital said it was not clear whether the boys rode their bike toward the launcher to retrieve it or out of curiosity.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/middleeast/30briefs-005.html
September 30, 2006
World Briefing | Middle East
Gaza Strip: Israeli Strike Kills 2 Brothers
By GREG MYRE [Israel-Palestine] [more of the slow boil of violence between Palestine and Israel] [followup] [*************]
An Israeli military strike killed two Palestinian brothers, 16 and 13, as they approached a rocket launcher near northern Beit Hanun. The military said the two were there to collect the launcher, used to fire five rockets into southern Israel in recent days. [********] Medical workers at Kamal Adwan Hospital said it was not clear whether the boys rode their bike toward the launcher to retrieve it or out of curiosity.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

U.N. Says Israel Blocks Inquiry of Post Attack

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/middleeast/30briefs-006.html
September 30, 2006
World Briefing | Middle East
U.N. Says Israel Blocks Inquiry of Post Attack
By WARREN HOGE [UN] [followup] [during the 34-day war this summer Israel apparently bombed a UNIFIL building] [charges at the time that Israel was taking revenge or some such thing for all the its past grievances of UN] [Israel claimed their maps were bad—which was plausible since similar things have happened with the US] [on the other hand, Israel occasionally has done seemingly inexplicable things: missiling a US ship in 1967 war, so on] [**************]
The United Nations said Israel has refused to give its investigators access to the military commanders responsible for directing a precision-guided bomb attack on a post in southern Lebanon on July 25 that killed four unarmed observers despite more than a dozen warnings during the day from United Nations officials that its people were under fire. Israel has said the airstrike was an error. [********]
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/middleeast/30briefs-006.html
September 30, 2006
World Briefing | Middle East
U.N. Says Israel Blocks Inquiry of Post Attack
By WARREN HOGE [UN] [followup] [during the 34-day war this summer Israel apparently bombed a UNIFIL building] [charges at the time that Israel was taking revenge or some such thing for all the its past grievances of UN] [Israel claimed their maps were bad—which was plausible since similar things have happened with the US] [on the other hand, Israel occasionally has done seemingly inexplicable things: missiling a US ship in 1967 war, so on] [**************]
The United Nations said Israel has refused to give its investigators access to the military commanders responsible for directing a precision-guided bomb attack on a post in southern Lebanon on July 25 that killed four unarmed observers despite more than a dozen warnings during the day from United Nations officials that its people were under fire. Israel has said the airstrike was an error. [********]
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Iraqi Police Cited in Abuses May Lose Aid

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/middleeast/30iraq.html
September 30, 2006
Iraqi Police Cited in Abuses May Lose Aid
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********] [US military leaders beginning to openly question Maliki govt’s will] [*************************] [see full piece in today’s govt]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 29 — American officials have warned Iraqi leaders that they might have to curtail aid to the Interior Ministry police because of a United States law that prohibits the financing of foreign security forces that commit “gross violations of human rights” and are not brought to justice.
. . . .
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/middleeast/30iraq.html
September 30, 2006
Iraqi Police Cited in Abuses May Lose Aid
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********] [US military leaders beginning to openly question Maliki govt’s will] [*************************] [see full piece in today’s govt]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 29 — American officials have warned Iraqi leaders that they might have to curtail aid to the Interior Ministry police because of a United States law that prohibits the financing of foreign security forces that commit “gross violations of human rights” and are not brought to justice.
. . . .
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

U.S. Envoy Says Iraqi Premier Has Short Time to Quell Violence

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901816.html
U.S. Envoy Says Iraqi Premier Has Short Time to Quell Violence
By Amit R. Paley and Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 30, 2006; A14 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********] [US military leaders beginning to openly question Maliki govt’s will] [*************************]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 29 -- The U.S. ambassador to Iraq warned on Friday that time is running out for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to contain the burgeoning sectarian bloodshed that threatens to plunge the country into civil war.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092901816.html
U.S. Envoy Says Iraqi Premier Has Short Time to Quell Violence
By Amit R. Paley and Sudarsan Raghavan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, September 30, 2006; A14 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********] [US military leaders beginning to openly question Maliki govt’s will] [*************************]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 29 -- The U.S. ambassador to Iraq warned on Friday that time is running out for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to contain the burgeoning sectarian bloodshed that threatens to plunge the country into civil war.
"He has a window of a couple months," said the ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad. "If the perception is that this unity government is not able to deal with this issue, then a big opportunity would have been lost and it would take a long time to address this issue." [***********]
His remarks, which came during a surge in reprisal killings across Baghdad, reinforced comments by several senior U.S. military officials this week that Maliki's government must move urgently to tackle the militias and death squads wreaking havoc across the country.
Unlike the military commanders, however, Khalilzad said he and President Bush still have full confidence in Maliki and were "cautiously optimistic" that his government has the political will to rein in the bloodletting. [***********]
In a wide-ranging 45-minute interview at the ambassador's residence, Khalilzad also acknowledged that the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 was partly responsible for the violence engulfing Iraq, creating a "moral responsibility" for the United States to remain in the country to help solve the Sunni-Shiite bloodletting. [*************]
"They need our help," he said. "These circumstances have, in part, to do with the fact that we came in here."
After months of accusing Iran of fomenting violence in Iraq, Khalilzad on Friday also accused Syria of destabilizing the country. He said the Syrian government had harbored insurgents and allowed them to pour across the border into Iraq, adding that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani recently raised concerns with Syrian officials. "It's an issue for both the Iraqis and us to deal with," Khalilzad said.
The ambassador said sectarian violence had replaced the insurgency as the single biggest threat facing Iraq and called on the government to disarm unauthorized militias. He cited two armed groups: the Mahdi Army, controlled by anti-American Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, and the Badr Organization, run by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a major Shiite party.
"They need to be brought under control," Khalilzad said. "They both need to be brought down."
Maliki's focus on political rather than military solutions to the militia problem has shown some signs of success, Khalilzad said, pointing to a recent statement by Sadr that "he wants only peaceful resistance and he doesn't want violence against the coalition."
"That's progress compared to where he was. . . . Now we want to see, on the ground, that actions are consistent with that," Khalilzad said.
Senior U.S. military commanders have recently raised serious concerns that Maliki's government is not moving quickly enough to control militias. That goal is complicated by the fact that the militias are controlled by major political parties that make up the fragile unity government. [**********]
“There is corruption and problems in some of these ministries, but it’s got to be dealt with and it ought to be dealt with by the prime minister and the folks that are inside this government,” said one of the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity during a briefing this week for reporters. “And I think the time is short for them to deal with that over time because this can’t go on like that.” [*************]
On Friday, the top American commander in Iraq said in a statement that Maliki "is very capable and he's doing a good job in a tough environment."
"He has an awful lot of challenges facing him," said Gen. George W. Casey Jr., "and I do believe he is very much up to the task."
Khalilzad said he was satisfied with Maliki's pace in dealing with the militia issue and did not agree with the assessment of many Iraqis that the government is paralyzed. [***********]
"But you can always raise questions: Will it be done? Will it be done on time? Those are issues," he said. "Terrible things are happening. People are dying. Sectarian violence is there."
Last week, the top American commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, said the military was unlikely to draw down the 140,000 troops in Iraq before next spring. [******] Khalilzad declined to comment on specific troop levels or when the United States should withdraw. But he warned that a premature departure could make Iraq an even worse breeding ground for terrorists than Afghanistan was after the decade-long Soviet occupation ended.
“Abandoning Iraq, I think, would have the most serious potential negative consequences of al-Qaeda taking a part of Iraq,” he said. Because Iraq is in the heart of the Middle East and has vast oil wealth, he said, terrorism could be fostered on a scale that would make the Afghanistan of the 1990s, where Osama bin Laden sought refuge, seem like “child’s play.” [**********]
Violence across Iraq claimed dozens of lives on Friday. At least 35 people were killed or found dead, police said, including the brother-in-law of the new chief judge in Saddam Hussein's genocide trial.
Late Friday night, the prime minister's office announced an immediate ban on vehicle and pedestrian traffic that was scheduled to last until early Sunday morning. No explanation was provided.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Iraqi Linked to Sunni Bloc Is Held in Plot, Military Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/middleeast/30sunni.html
September 30, 2006
Iraqi Linked to Sunni Bloc Is Held in Plot, Military Says
By SABRINA TAVERNISE and QAIS MIZHER [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********] [US military leaders beginning to openly question Maliki govt’s will] [*************************]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 29 — American forces detained an Iraqi working for one of Iraq’s most prominent Sunni Arab political leaders on Friday on suspicion that the man was helping to plan a multiple-car suicide bombing inside the Green Zone, [********]a military spokesman said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/middleeast/30sunni.html
September 30, 2006
Iraqi Linked to Sunni Bloc Is Held in Plot, Military Says
By SABRINA TAVERNISE and QAIS MIZHER [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********] [US military leaders beginning to openly question Maliki govt’s will] [*************************]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 29 — American forces detained an Iraqi working for one of Iraq’s most prominent Sunni Arab political leaders on Friday on suspicion that the man was helping to plan a multiple-car suicide bombing inside the Green Zone, [********]a military spokesman said.
Shortly after Iraqi television channels began Friday night to broadcast news of the detention, the Iraqi prime minister’s office took the unusual step of banning all vehicle and pedestrian traffic in Baghdad until Sunday morning. [*********]
The government declined to give a reason for the curfew and did not say whether it was linked to the detention. Authorities had never before banned walking in Baghdad, and the order may indicate fears that Sunni radicals might respond violently.
The military did not identify the man it detained, but said he had been at a compound near the house of Adnan al-Dulaimi, leader of the Iraqi Consensus Front, the largest bloc of Sunni parties in Iraq, which holds about a sixth of the seats in Parliament. [*********]
Mr. Dulaimi confirmed that one of his guards was taken Friday, but he said he did not know the reason.
“Credible intelligence indicates that the individual and seven members of his cell were in the final stages of launching a series of vehicle-borne improvised device attacks inside the international zone, possibly involving suicide vests,” [**********]a military spokesman said.
Mr. Dulaimi identified the man as Khodar Farhan Ghargan. [******] He said the raid of his compound was the third by American troops. He denied Iraqi television reports that troops had also found bomb-making equipment. He said troops did not enter his house. [**********]
“They told me that they wanted some information about one of my guys,” Mr. Dulaimi said. “They searched all the bedrooms of the guards. They found nothing.”
News of the detention was likely to embarrass Sunni Arab political leaders, who have long dismissed accusations among rival Shiites that their guards and staff are insurgents.
Mr. Dulaimi, a hard-line Sunni, has long been at the center of the Sunni political elite, helping to found the largest bloc of Sunni parties and then acting as its leader. He was nominated but not chosen as speaker of Parliament this spring. [***********]
Also on Friday, Iraqi authorities announced the killing of the brother-in-law of the judge who is presiding over the trial of Saddam Hussein. It was not clear whether the shooting was sectarian in nature or tied to the family’s relation to the judge.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Teacher in Hiding After Attack on Islam Stirs Threats

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/europe/30france.html
September 30, 2006
Teacher in Hiding After Attack on Islam Stirs Threats
By ELAINE SCIOLINO [france] [EU] [growing Jihadis movement and ancillary support tail] [note: many Islamists and fundamentalists may sympathize but are not necessarily Jihadis themselves] [see today’s external for virtual jihad in Jordan as an example] [thin line but one worth bearing in mind] [****************]
PARIS, Sept. 29 — A French high school philosophy teacher and author who carried out a scathing attack against the Prophet Muhammad and Islam in a newspaper commentary says he has gone into hiding under police protection after receiving a series of death threats, including one disseminated on an online radical Islamist forum. [*******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/europe/30france.html
September 30, 2006
Teacher in Hiding After Attack on Islam Stirs Threats
By ELAINE SCIOLINO [france] [EU] [growing Jihadis movement and ancillary support tail] [note: many Islamists and fundamentalists may sympathize but are not necessarily Jihadis themselves] [see today’s external for virtual jihad in Jordan as an example] [thin line but one worth bearing in mind] [****************]
PARIS, Sept. 29 — A French high school philosophy teacher and author who carried out a scathing attack against the Prophet Muhammad and Islam in a newspaper commentary says he has gone into hiding under police protection after receiving a series of death threats, including one disseminated on an online radical Islamist forum. [*******]
The teacher, Robert Redeker, 52, wrote in the center-right daily Le Figaro 10 days ago that Muhammad was “a merciless warlord, a looter, a mass-murderer of Jews and a polygamist,” and called the Koran “a book of incredible violence.” [***********]
The Redeker case is the latest manifestation in Europe of a mounting ideological battle that pits those who believe Islam and the Prophet Muhammad can be criticized in the name of free speech against those in the Muslim community who believe no criticism can be tolerated. [********]
A recent speech by Pope Benedict XVI that seemed to link Islam and violence caused such an uproar in the Muslim world that the pope issued a rare expression of regret.
The pope expressed regret for the reaction to his remarks after Muslims demonstrated against him around the world. Just this week, a Berlin opera house decided to cancel performances of the Mozart opera “Idomeneo” because of security fears over a scene showing the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad. The decision prompted an outpouring of protest about what was seen as the surrender of artistic freedom.
In his commentary, Mr. Redeker compared Islam unfavorably to Christianity and Judaism, although he admitted that the history of the Catholic Church was “full of dark pages,” and he criticized the hostile reaction to the pope’s remarks. [******]
“Jesus is a master of love; Muhammad is a master of hatred,” Mr. Redeker wrote, adding, “Whereas Judaism and Christianity are religions whose rites forsake violence and remove its legitimacy, Islam is a religion that, in its very sacred text, as much as in some of its everyday rites, exalts violence and hatred. Hatred and violence dwell in the very book that educates any Muslim, the Koran.” [**********]
Immediately afterward, Mr. Redeker, who teaches in a public high school near Toulouse and is the author of several books on philosophy, began to receive death threats by telephone, e-mail and through the online Islamist Web site known as Al Hesbah, a password-protected forum with ties to Al Qaeda. [*******] The forum published photos of him and what it said was his home address, directions to his home and his cellphone number, according to the SITE Institute, which tracks violent Islamist groups. [********]
That day’s issue of Le Figaro was banned in Egypt and Tunisia. Mr. Redeker was denounced by a commentator on Al Jazeera television.
“I can’t work, I can’t come and go and am obliged to hide,” Mr. Redeker told Europe 1 radio in a telephone interview from an undisclosed location on Friday. “So in some way, the Islamists have succeeded in punishing me on the territory of the republic as if I were guilty of a crime of opinion.” [***********]
Mr. Redeker, who has kept in contact with news agencies by cellphone and e-mail, said that his wife and their children had also been threatened with death. He told Europe 1 that his wife was in hiding with him, but he was less clear about his three children, saying that one of them had been forced to move and that another was in a boarding school.
Asked to describe the sort of threats he had received, Mr. Redeker replied, “You will never feel secure on this earth. One billion, three hundred thousand Muslims are ready to kill you.” [***************]
Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin on Friday called the threats “unacceptable,” adding: “We are in a democracy. Everyone has the right to express his views freely, while respecting others, of course.” [************]
The Interior Ministry has confirmed that Mr. Redeker is under police surveillance, and that counterterrorism experts have begun a preliminary investigation into the threats, which the ministry has described as “dangerous.” Mr. Redeker complained in the radio interview that he had to arrange his own logistics and “find a place to sleep at night or live for a day or two.”
One of the threats came from a contributor to Al Hesbah, who wrote, “It is impossible that this day pass without the lions of France punishing him.” [************]
The contributor called on his Muslim brethren in France to follow the lead of Muhammad Bouyeri, who murdered the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh after he made a film denouncing the plight of abused Muslim women.
“May God send some lion to cut his head,” the contributor said of Mr. Redeker, whom he described as a “pig.”
Mr. Redeker’s situation echoes that of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born Dutch politician who collaborated with Mr. van Gogh on the film and has been relentless in her criticism of some Islamic practices. The subject of numerous death threats from radical Islamists, she was put under the protection of bodyguards in the Netherlands in 2002, and currently has security protection in Washington, where she recently became a fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. [************]
In the Figaro commentary, Mr. Redeker wrote, “Islam tries to dictate its rules to Europe: opening swimming pools at certain hours exclusively for women, forbidding the caricature of this religion, demanding a special diet for Muslim children in school cafeterias, fighting for wearing the veil in school, accusing free thinkers of Islamophobia.” [******************]
Mr. Redeker, who has written against Islam in the past, does not shy from controversy. At the time of the American-led invasion of Iraq, he criticized French pacifists, and he has written extensively about how watching sports competitions is worse than opium. His new book, “Depression and Philosophy,” is about to be published.
At first, Mr. Redeker did not speak out about the threats. In an e-mail message to The New York Times last Tuesday, he said it was not the right time to talk about his plight.
Then, in an interview with the local Toulouse newspaper, La Dépêche du Midi, published Thursday, Mr. Redeker described the death threats, adding, “What is happening to me corresponds fully to what I denounce in my writing: the West is under ideological surveillance by Islam.”
That interview set off a public defense of Mr. Redeker in the name of free speech and condemnations of those who threaten him, which snowballed Friday after his radio interview with Jean-Pierre Elkabbach, the president of Europe 1, who is the host of a popular interview show.
Philippe de Villiers, a far-right politician, wrote President Jacques Chirac a letter on Friday asking that Mr. Redeker be given “shelter — as a symbol — at the Élysée Palace, which is the palace of the republic, rather than let him wander,” according to Agence France-Presse. [*****************]
Le Figaro, in an unusual front-page open letter on Friday signed by the editor and the publisher, said, “We condemn with the greatest conviction the grave attacks on freedom of thought and freedom of expression which this affair has provoked.” [***********]
On Thursday, Education Minister Gilles de Robien was less forceful. He expressed “solidarity” with Mr. Redeker, but cautioned that a “state employee must show prudence and moderation in all circumstances.”
But two large teachers’ unions in separate statements on Friday threw their support behind Mr. Redeker’s right to speak freely, though one of them made clear, “We do not share his convictions.”
Mr. Redeker said that he had no second thoughts about what he wrote. “No regrets,” he said in the radio interview. “I have given a lot of thought in writing this text.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Pakistan spy agency behind Mumbai bombs: police

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000247.html
Pakistan spy agency behind Mumbai bombs: police
By C.J. Kurrien
Reuters
Saturday, September 30, 2006; 11:29 AM [India] [followup on July’s commuter-train attacks in Bombay] [Indian authorities are now saying it wasn’t just jihadis among them but, rather, Pakistani state sympathizers using their good offices] [if true, this is truly explosive] [if false it’s still explosive] [use psci 469] [note: remember India’s is the world 3rd of 4th most populous Muslim contry despite Lord Montbadden’s divisions] [*****************] [ditto]
MUMBAI (Reuters) - Indian police said on Saturday they had found evidence that Pakistan-based Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba carried out the July 11 bombings in Mumbai and Pakistan's military spy agency was behind the plot.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/30/AR2006093000247.html
Pakistan spy agency behind Mumbai bombs: police
By C.J. Kurrien
Reuters
Saturday, September 30, 2006; 11:29 AM [India] [followup on July’s commuter-train attacks in Bombay] [Indian authorities are now saying it wasn’t just jihadis among them but, rather, Pakistani state sympathizers using their good offices] [if true, this is truly explosive] [if false it’s still explosive] [use psci 469] [note: remember India’s is the world 3rd of 4th most populous Muslim contry despite Lord Montbadden’s divisions] [*****************] [ditto]
MUMBAI (Reuters) - Indian police said on Saturday they had found evidence that Pakistan-based Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba carried out the July 11 bombings in Mumbai and Pakistan's military spy agency was behind the plot.
Pakistan and Lashkar swiftly rejected the accusations. A Pakistani foreign ministry spokeswoman called them baseless and irresponsibile.
The bombings of rush-hour commuter trains and stations in India's financial hub, which killed 186 people and wounded hundreds more, was one of the country's worst attacks. [ap piece said 207] [*********]
In the immediate aftermath, investigators blamed disaffected Indian Muslims with links to old foe Pakistan, and named Lashkar-e-Taiba as a prime suspect.
On Saturday, Mumbai's police chief said his team had cracked the case and found solid evidence as a result of what he called one of India's biggest and most widespread investigations. [***************]
"We have solved the July 11 bombings case. The whole attack was planned by Pakistan's ISI and carried out by Lashkar-e-Taiba and their operatives in India," A.N. Roy, Mumbai's police chief, told a news conference. [explosive] [********]
ISI or the Inter-Services Intelligence agency is Pakistan's military spy agency [*****] while Lashkar is a frontline Islamist group fighting against Indian rule in the disputed region of Kashmir.
Although Lashkar was banned by Pakistan in early 2002, security analysts suspect it is still in favor with the ISI.
"These blasts were executed very professionally and with high precision and were well planned," Roy said.
"But we made slow progress, used scientific methods, followed every small lead ... it has been a beautiful piece of highly professional investigation."
PAKISTAN DENIAL
Pakistan reacted angrily to Roy's announcement.
Tariq Azim Khan, Pakistan's Minister of State for Information, called it India's knee-jerk reaction in blaming Pakistan for militant acts when there are several groups running insurgencies within India.
"India has always chosen this path of pointing fingers at Pakistan without evidence," he said. "If they have any evidence, they should provide us evidence and we will carry out our investigations."
A spokesman for Lashkar also denied involvement. [*****] [******]
"We reject the Indian allegations. They have named us in an effort to cover up their own failure and security lapses," said Irbaz Khan by telephone from an unknown location.
The Indian announcement came a day after Mumbai police said they had arrested four more people in connection with the seven blasts that ripped through commuter trains and platforms.
The arrests took the total number in custody for alleged roles in the blasts to 15, Roy said. He said that at least 12 Indian men and 11 Pakistanis were involved in the bombings.
While all the 12 Indians were in custody, one Pakistani man was killed in the blasts, another was shot dead in a gun battle with Mumbai police and the rest had either returned to Pakistan or were at large in India, he said.
Many among the Indians alleged to be involved had visited Pakistan several times and had trained at Lashkar bases in Bahawalpur town in Punjab province, close to the India-Pakistan frontier, Roy said.
TESTING PEACE PROCESS
One of the Pakistani men brought about 15-20 kg (33-44 lb) of RDX explosives to make the bombs in Mumbai which were kept in pressure cookers, placed inside bags and covered with newspapers or umbrellas after being left to explode through timers. [***********]
Funds to carry out the attack also came from Pakistan via a Lashkar operative in Saudi Arabia, Roy said. [********]
The first lead came from tracking telephone conversations. A call from a Mumbai man to an Indian village near the India-Nepal border talking about the blasts led to one of the first arrests of a man from the village, [********]he said.
Two weeks ago, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh agreed on the sidelines of a Non-Aligned summit in Havana to resume a peace process which India had frozen following the Mumbai attacks.
Some Indian analysts said they expected New Delhi to remain committed to the peace process but step up pressure on Pakistan to crack down on groups like Lashkar. [********]
"This is not a setback. India can't afford to close shop," said C. Raja Mohan, strategic affairs editor at the Indian Express newspaper.
"In fact, this will be a test for the joint mechanism set up to fight terrorism and see whether it will work," he said referring to an agreement in Havana to set up a joint agency to tackle terrorism.
© 2006 Reuters

Police in India Say Pakistan’s Spy Agency Planned Train Blasts

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-India-Train-Bombings.html
September 30, 2006
Police in India Say Pakistan’s Spy Agency Planned Train Blasts
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:03 a.m. ET [India] [followup on July’s commuter-train attacks in Bombay] [Indian authorities are now saying it wasn’t just jihadis among them but, rather, Pakistani state sympathizers using their good offices] [if true, this is truly explosive] [if false it’s still explosive] [use psci 469] [note: remember India’s is the world 3rd of 4th most populous Muslim contry despite Lord Montbadden’s divisions] [*****************]
MUMBAI, India (AP) -- The police officer leading the investigation into train bombings that killed more than 200 people in the Indian city of Mumbai in July accused Pakistan's spy agency on Saturday of masterminding the attack. [********] [Pakistani intelligence services notoriously infiltrated by Jihadis] [Pakistani ISI] [***************]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-India-Train-Bombings.html
September 30, 2006
Police in India Say Pakistan’s Spy Agency Planned Train Blasts
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:03 a.m. ET [India] [followup on July’s commuter-train attacks in Bombay] [Indian authorities are now saying it wasn’t just jihadis among them but, rather, Pakistani state sympathizers using their good offices] [if true, this is truly explosive] [if false it’s still explosive] [use psci 469] [note: remember India’s is the world 3rd of 4th most populous Muslim contry despite Lord Montbadden’s divisions] [*****************]
MUMBAI, India (AP) -- The police officer leading the investigation into train bombings that killed more than 200 people in the Indian city of Mumbai in July accused Pakistan's spy agency on Saturday of masterminding the attack. [********] [Pakistani intelligence services notoriously infiltrated by Jihadis] [Pakistani ISI] [***************]
Tariq Azim, Pakistan's minister of state for information, denied the claim, calling it ''sad and unfortunate.''
''We reject this allegation, and demand that India should provide us any evidence, if they have,'' [********] Azim told The Associated Press.
Mumbai police Commissioner A.N. Roy said an intensive investigation that included using truth serum on suspects revealed that Pakistan's top spy agency had ''masterminded'' the bombings. [*********]
Roy said Pakistan's Directorate of Inter Services Intelligence, or ISI, [*******] began planning the attacks in March and later provided training to those who carried out the bombings in Bahawalpur, Pakistan. [************]
''The terror plot was ISI sponsored and executed by Lashkar-e-Tayyaba operatives with help from the Students Islamic Movement of India,'' [*******] Roy said at a news conference to announce the completion of the investigation.
Lashkar is a Pakistan-based Islamic militant group, while the Students Islamic Movement of India, or SIMI, is a banned Islamic group. [*********]
So far 15 people have been arrested, including 11 Pakistanis, Roy said, adding that three Indians were still on the run and another Pakistani was killed in one of the blasts. [************]
Pakistan has in the past denied involvement in the attacks and it was not immediately clear how the revelations would affect the fragile peace process between the nuclear-armed neighbors.
Azim said it was not the first time that Indian officials had blamed Pakistan for an attack.
''Whenever some bad thing happens in India, they start blaming us for it,'' he said. ''Such allegations only give benefit to the real culprits, who escape arrests.'' [****] [****]
In Pakistan, no spokesman for the outlawed Lashkar-e-Tayyaba group was immediately available for comment.
The Indian allegation came days after the BBC reported that a document prepared for Britain's Defense Ministry accused ISI of indirectly supporting terrorist groups including al-Qaida. [****************************]
Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf strongly rejected the documents, while Britain's Ministry of Defense also clarified that the leaked document was academic research and did not represent the British government's view. [************]
On Saturday, the BBC quoted Musharraf as saying the West would be ''brought to its knees'' without Pakistan's support in the war on terror. [thank god he’s our ally] [*********]
In the BBC Radio 4 interview, he also rejected allegations against ISI, saying ''if ISI is not with you, you will fail.''
Roy gave a detailed description of how the explosives were transported into India and by whom. He also described how the bombs were packed into pressure cookers and placed on the trains.
Roy said the Pakistanis slipped into India, some going over their shared border, while others went through neighboring Nepal and Bangladesh. There they were met by Indians who brought them to Mumbai and housed them in rented apartments, [***********] he said.
''It was a professional, precise and well-planned operation,'' he said.
Police cracked the case after tracking down a suspicious call from Mumbai to the Nepal border region, Roy said. There they picked up one of the suspects, who led them to others. [*************]
However, Roy said that many of the suspects had been trained to resist interrogation and only the use of truth serum helped tie loose ends together. [***********] [this sounds rather suspect] [************]]
Seven bombs ripped through suburban trains in Mumbai, India's financial and entertainment capital, killing at least 207 people and injured another 700. Mumbai was formerly known as Bombay.
Lashkar-e-Tayyaba is one of the Islamic groups fighting since 1989 for Kashmir's independence from India or its merger with Pakistan. More than 68,000 people have been killed in the conflict. [*********]
Associated Press Writer Munir Ahmad in Islamabad, Pakistan, contributed to this report.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press

Al Qaeda Increasingly Reliant on Media

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/30jordan.html
September 30, 2006
Al Qaeda Increasingly Reliant on Media
By HASSAN M. FATTAH [alqaeda and global-jihadis hydra] [increasingly reliant on internet and technologies to get their messages out and to control operations virtually] [media Jihad thesis and more evidence that it has morphed into a virtual jihad with virtual alqaeda affiliates and new virtual business model] [this example in Jordan, Amman] [middle east] [use psci 469] [*******]
AMMAN, Jordan — On the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Abu Omar received the call to jihad. Literally. [*******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/30jordan.html
September 30, 2006
Al Qaeda Increasingly Reliant on Media
By HASSAN M. FATTAH [alqaeda and global-jihadis hydra] [increasingly reliant on internet and technologies to get their messages out and to control operations virtually] [media Jihad thesis and more evidence that it has morphed into a virtual jihad with virtual alqaeda affiliates and new virtual business model] [this example in Jordan, Amman] [middle east] [use psci 469] [*******]
AMMAN, Jordan — On the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Abu Omar received the call to jihad. Literally. [*******]
“There’s a present for you,” a voice on the other end of the phone said that morning, he recalled. It was a common code whenever his friends and colleagues wanted to share a new broadcast or communiqué from Al Qaeda over the Internet, [******]he said.
Abu Omar, speaking on the condition that only his nickname be used, said he soon went to one of the Internet cafes he frequents in Amman and began distributing the latest video by Al Qaeda, alerting friends and occasionally adding commentary.
“We are the energy behind the path to jihad,” Abu Omar said proudly. “Just like the jihadis reached their target on Sept. 11, we will reach ours through the Internet.”[********]
Abu Omar, 28, is part of an increasingly sophisticated network of contributors and discussion leaders helping to wage Al Qaeda’s battle for Muslim hearts and minds. A self-described Qaeda sympathizer who defends the Sept. 11 attacks and continues to find inspiration in Osama bin Laden’s call for jihad, Abu Omar is part of a growing army of young men who may not seek to take violent action, but who help spread jihadist philosophy, shape its message and hope to inspire others to their cause. [********]
Though he does not appear to be directly connected to Al Qaeda, Abu Omar does seem to be on a direct e-mail list for groups sympathetic to Al Qaeda, making him a link in a chain that spreads the organization’s propaganda using code and special software to circumvent official scrutiny of their Internet activity. [************]
As Al Qaeda gradually transforms itself from a terrorist organization carrying out its own attacks into an ideological umbrella that encourages local movements to take action, its increased reliance on various forms of media have made Web-savvy sympathizers like Abu Omar ever more important. [*************]
For example, this past Sept. 11, Abu Omar said, a link sent to a jihadist e-mail list took him to a general interest Islamic Web site, which led him to a password-protected Web site, then onto yet another site containing the latest release from Al Qaeda: [******] a lecture by its No. 2 man, Ayman al-Zawahri, threatening attacks on Israel and the Persian Gulf. [******] Abu Omar said he then passed the video to friends and confidants, acting as a local distributor to other sympathizers. [*****]
In recent years, Al Qaeda has formed a special media production division called Al Sahab to produce videos about leaders like Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahri, terrorism experts say. The group largely once relied on Arab television channels like Al Jazeera to broadcast its videos and taped messages. [in Arabic, al sahab translates to the cloud or clouds] [***********]
Al Sahab, whose name means the cloud, [*****] has continued to draw on a video library featuring everything from taped suicide messages by the Sept. 11 hijackers to images of gun battles and bombings spearheaded by Al Qaeda and others, said Marwan Shehadeh, an expert on Islamist movements with the Vision Research Institute in Amman who has close ties to jihadists in Jordan and Syria. [********]
But this year Al Sahab has released many more recordings than in previous years, said Chris Heffelfinger, a specialist in jihadi ideology [*******]at the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, in what many analysts see as a new offensive focusing on the Muslim mainstream. Jihadi Web sites, meanwhile, have continued sprouting on the Internet, serving as a conduit for Al Qaeda’s propaganda. [**********]
Mr. Shehadeh describes Al Sahab as an informal group with video camcorders and laptops. Some news reports have described it as an organization with a mobile production unit that navigates the Pakistani provinces. “The jihadis have successfully used American technology to show the U.S. as a loser,” Mr. Shehadeh said. “This is an open-ended war, and they use media as part of their jihad against Western and Arab regimes.” [******************]
Just days before the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Al Sahab released a barrage of videos, including images of Mr. bin Laden seated with some of the Sept. 11 suicide bombers; a documentary that some have described as a “making of Sept. 11” feature, with testaments by two of the bombers; and the lecture by Mr. Zawahri [**********] that Abu Omar said he received that morning.
What is most striking about the messages is their tone, terrorism analysts say. In the past, the group’s leaders were generally depicted as soldiers in battle, often filmed outdoors with weapons in the background. But the more recent communiqués show Al Qaeda’s leaders in the comfort of a living room or office, set against bookshelves with religious texts. The group has also taken to quoting Western authors and famous speeches, in what seems to be an effort to reach those with Western sensibilities. [***********]
“It’s a clear message: when there’s a gun in the background, they’re saying, ‘I’m a fighter like you’; when there are books in the background, it means, ‘I am a scholar and deserve authority,’ ” [********] said Fares bin Hizam, a journalist who reports on militant groups for the Arab satellite news channel Al Arabiya. “It is a message that resonates well with an impressionable young man who is 17 or 18.” [*******]
One result, terrorism analysts say, is a militant group in transition, seeking to push ideology over direct action, franchising its name and principles to smaller groups acting more independently.
“Al Qaeda has been turning itself from an active organization into a propaganda organization,” said Mr. Heffelfinger. “They now appear to be focused on putting out disinformation and projecting the strength of the mujahedeen. They’re no longer the group that is organizing the mujahedeen. Instead, they are giving guidance to all the movements.” [************]
Men like Abu Omar have become integral to that transformation. Mr. Shehadeh, who introduced Abu Omar to this reporter, says he has known Abu Omar ever since he was a teenager and has observed his gradual embrace of jihadist ideology. He says he has seen Abu Omar’s contributions on numerous chat boards and notes that while Abu Omar is probably not a Qaeda member, he regularly relays news and spreads the group’s message to friends and colleagues. [*************]
In Amman’s more conservative neighborhoods, Abu Omar and several analysts said, one or two jihadists tend to be the organizers, distributing messages and content to volunteers, and controlling membership in jihadist e-mail lists. [***********] [which probably is not illegal or any way illicit in Amman] [*********]
“We are typically observers, but when we see something on the Net, our job is to share it,” Abu Omar said. He no longer trusts news reports on television, he said. He even cast doubt on Al Jazeera, which typically broadcasts Al Qaeda’s videos but is, he said, still beholden to Arab governments. “We become like journalists ourselves.”
Abu Omar, who owns a computer store in one of Amman’s refugee camps, said he became involved in jihadi movements about six years ago, driven in part by his anger over the death of his father, who he said was a fighter with the Palestinian faction Fatah when Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. “On the Net, you can see all the pictures of Palestine and the Muslim world being attacked, and then you see the planes crashing into one of the towers and you think, ‘I can understand it,’ ” [*******]he said.
He goes to an Internet cafe several times a week. In recent years, Jordan’s Internet cafes have begun taking increased security measures, like registering users’ identification cards, he said, but jihadists in Amman alternate among a network of sympathetic cafe owners who allow them to surf anonymously. [*******]
He never uses his own computer to search for jihadi content, and he limits his time online to about 30 minutes — not long enough for the authorities to locate him, [*********]he figures.
In 2005, Jordanian authorities arrested an 18-year-old man, Murad al-Assaydeh, accusing him of using the Internet to threaten attacks on intelligence officials. Abu Omar said several of his friends and comrades had been arrested by the General Information Department in Jordan in connection with Mr. Assaydeh’s case and in subsequent dragnets. Abu Omar said he was once called in for questioning but was released the same day. [***************]
He now changes his e-mail address frequently, he said, and he typically carries software that can delete details of his actions from a computer. [*****] “In the beginning, I thought maybe I would go for jihad in Iraq, but it was very difficult to get there,” he said. “Now I realize it’s better to work on the Net and get the message out.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

In Video, Qaeda Deputy Condemns Bush and Pope

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/30tape.html
September 30, 2006
In Video, Qaeda Deputy Condemns Bush and Pope
By HASSAN M. FATTAH [zawahiri] [another tape] [contemporaneous, or nearly so, events] [clearly he’s alive] [I suspect so too is OBL] [puzzling: why the spate of tapes this year?] [due to Hezbollah’s success (Shiite vs Sunni) from 34-day war with Israel?] [something big is coming—as in the past al Qaeda and leadership warned, perhaps signaled—gave go signal—and took credit for attacks?] [natural result of alqaeda’s virtual franchisement on the internet—effectively a new business model?] [some other reason?] [or combination of the above reasons?] [if second reason is part of the answer, then something big should be coming soon—say by mid November or so—either in Europe, US, Africa, elsewhere] [use psci 469] [*******]
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Sept. 29 — Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaeda’s deputy leader, branded President Bush a “lying failure” and Pope Benedict XVI a “charlatan” in a video released Friday. [********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/30/world/30tape.html
September 30, 2006
In Video, Qaeda Deputy Condemns Bush and Pope
By HASSAN M. FATTAH [zawahiri] [another tape] [contemporaneous, or nearly so, events] [clearly he’s alive] [I suspect so too is OBL] [puzzling: why the spate of tapes this year?] [due to Hezbollah’s success (Shiite vs Sunni) from 34-day war with Israel?] [something big is coming—as in the past al Qaeda and leadership warned, perhaps signaled—gave go signal—and took credit for attacks?] [natural result of alqaeda’s virtual franchisement on the internet—effectively a new business model?] [some other reason?] [or combination of the above reasons?] [if second reason is part of the answer, then something big should be coming soon—say by mid November or so—either in Europe, US, Africa, elsewhere] [use psci 469] [*******]
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates, Sept. 29 — Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaeda’s deputy leader, branded President Bush a “lying failure” and Pope Benedict XVI a “charlatan” in a video released Friday. [********]
The 18-minute video, [*****] Mr. Zawahri’s second in a month, [*****]also responded to recent reports that senior members of Al Qaeda had been transferred to the United States detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba; to the planned deployment of peacekeeping troops in Darfur; and to Pope Benedict’s controversial comments in a lecture this month in which he cited a 14th-century description of aspects of Islam as “evil and inhuman.” [he obviously can make tapes essentially any time he wishes; therefore his movements are not all that restricted] [why does he continue making video tapes while OBL only audio?] [has OBL changed his appearance? Unlikely, no matter what plastic surgery he might have, he’s still a 6’5” arab—he sticks out irrespective of plastic surgery] [is he ill or injured and he does not wish the brothers or the enemy to know?] [is he just more security conscious than Zawahir?] [is Zawahiri preparing the flock for his own leadership?]
“Bush, you failure and liar, why can’t you be courageous for once and confront your people and admit the truth about your losses in Iraq and Afghanistan?” he demanded.
Later, he added, “Why don’t you let them know how many million citizens of America and its allies you intend to kill in search of the imaginary victory and in the breathless pursuit of the imaginary place towards which you are driving your nation’s sons in order to increase your profits?” [huh?] [rambling]
Mr. Zawahri connected the pope’s comments about Islam to other supposed offenses against the religion: Salman Rushdie’s novel “The Satanic Verses,” the reported desecration of a Koran at Guantánamo Bay (later determined to be unfounded) and the uproar over cartoon depictions of the Prophet Muhammad, describing all as part of a campaign by crusaders. [rallying the faithful] [******]
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

September 29, 2006

Names of the Dead

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/us/29list.html
September 29, 2006
Names of the Dead
2,698 [KIA] [***][most of since “mission accomplished on may 4, 2003—that 124o days ago]
The Department of Defense has identified 2,698 [KIA] [***]American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
. . .
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/us/29list.html
September 29, 2006
Names of the Dead
2,698 [KIA] [***][most of since “mission accomplished on may 4, 2003—that 124o days ago]
The Department of Defense has identified 2,698 [KIA] [***]American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
. . .
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Congress Is Told of Failures of Rebuilding Work in Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29contracts.html
September 29, 2006
Congress Is Told of Failures of Rebuilding Work in Iraq
By JAMES GLANZ [one of the reason the US is failing in Iraq] [nobody is responsible for anything in this administration] [privatization of certain functions is fine as long as there is oversight and/or auditing in timely way] [but in this administration such things are aftertoughts] [they do not constitute the sort of big ideas this administration is found of thinking it deals with regularly] [************] [ditto]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — In a sweeping new assessment of reconstruction failures in Iraq, a federal inspector told Congress on Thursday that 13 of 14 major projects built by the American contractor Parsons that were examined by his agency were substandard, with construction deficiencies and other serious problems.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29contracts.html
September 29, 2006
Congress Is Told of Failures of Rebuilding Work in Iraq
By JAMES GLANZ [one of the reason the US is failing in Iraq] [nobody is responsible for anything in this administration] [privatization of certain functions is fine as long as there is oversight and/or auditing in timely way] [but in this administration such things are aftertoughts] [they do not constitute the sort of big ideas this administration is found of thinking it deals with regularly] [************] [ditto]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — In a sweeping new assessment of reconstruction failures in Iraq, a federal inspector told Congress on Thursday that 13 of 14 major projects built by the American contractor Parsons that were examined by his agency were substandard, with construction deficiencies and other serious problems.
The final project, a prison near the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriya, was terminated for other reasons, said the inspector, Stuart Bowen, who heads the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction. Delays and cost overruns led to its cancellation.
Whether because the political stakes in Iraq have risen with the approach of the November elections, or simply because of the scope of the problems, Mr. Bowen’s testimony set off outrage on both sides of the political aisle on a topic — reconstruction failures — that previously was mostly in the sights of Congressional Democrats.
“So when they get the construction right, something else goes wrong?” said Representative John M. McHugh, Republican of New York, referring to cost and schedule problems that had plagued many projects.
“Wow — thank you,” Mr. McHugh said, seemingly speechless for a moment after Mr. Bowen answered in the affirmative.
Work by two of the other largest contractors in Iraq — Bechtel and KBR, which was formerly known as Kellogg Brown & Root and is a subsidiary of Halliburton — also came in for severe criticism during the lengthy hearing.
The problems with Iraq reconstruction have become notorious enough that protesters engulfed Cliff Mumm, president of the Bechtel infrastructure division, as he emerged onto the street and tried to hail a taxi after his testimony before the House Government Reform Committee.
“Eviction notice for Bechtel and its subsidiaries!” a protester shouted through a megaphone.
Democrats and Republicans on the panel posed some of the most scathing questions yet to executives from Parsons, a company that has received little but criticism in the last year for projects including prisons, border forts, clinics and hospitals.
Before his testimony, Mr. Bowen made available copies of an inspection report on one of the 13 substandard projects, a $72 million police college in Baghdad where plumbing work was so poor that the pipes burst, dumping urine and fecal matter throughout the college’s buildings. The Washington Post reported on some of those problems on Thursday.
Earnest O. Robbins II, a Parsons vice president, struggled to explain how tests could have missed such fundamental problems, in which the pipes were often not joined by proper fixtures but simply set end to end and fastened with concrete.
How could the tests “not reveal these massive, massive problems?” asked Representative Chris Van Hollen, a Democrat from Maryland.
“I have some conjectures and that’s all it would be,” Mr. Robbins said, “and that is, it took a while of use for this to manifest itself, for the fittings to come loose or whatever.”
The industry witnesses also fired back at their Congressional questioners, pointing out that their work generally met with the approval of government entities that were supposed to be overseeing the work. Mr. Mumm, of Bechtel, brought a hush to the room when he listed 24 Iraqi employees on the hospital project who had been killed by local militias or insurgents, greatly slowing the work. The Iraqi site manager was murdered, the site engineer’s daughter was kidnapped and “they summarily marched out our mechanical contractor and murdered 12 of them,” Mr. Mumm said.
Democrats spent much of the day connecting the reconstruction effort, which has cost an estimated $30 billion to $45 billion in Iraqi and American financing, to the wider effort in Iraq.
“This debacle is not just a waste of taxpayers’ funds, and it doesn’t just impact the reconstruction,” Representative Henry A. Waxman, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said of one of the failed projects. “It impedes the entire effort in Iraq. This is the lens in which the Iraqis will view America.”
Representative Tom Davis, the Virginia Republican who is the committee’s chairman, began his own remarks by charging that critics of the reconstruction “oversimplify, distort and prejudge the outcome of a complex contracting process to fit the preordained conclusion that everything goes wrong in Iraq.”
But then even Mr. Davis concluded that when it came to reconstruction, “original plans were wildly optimistic,” and that only a fraction of originally planned water and electricity projects had been completed. As the hearing wore on, Mr. Davis expressed shock at statistics like the 13 of 14 projects that Mr. Bowen had found were substandard.
“What is going on here?” Mr. Davis asked. The question was never fully answered.
The 14 Parsons projects included three border forts in the north with undersize and inadequate structural beams and incomplete security measures; five health clinics around Kirkuk with crumbling concrete; and a hospital in Babil Province that also had structural problems.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Iraq Contractor's Work Is Further Criticized

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801048.html
Iraq Contractor's Work Is Further Criticized
13 of 14 Projects Found Wanting by Audit
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 29, 2006; A15 [one of the reason the US is failing in Iraq] [nobody is responsible for anything in this administration] [privatization of certain functions is fine as long as there is oversight and/or auditing in timely way] [but in this administration such things are aftertoughts] [they do not constitute the sort of big ideas this administration is found of thinking it deals with regularly] [************]
The contractor that botched construction of a $75 million police academy in Baghdad so badly that human waste dripped from the ceilings has produced shoddy work on 13 out of 14 projects reviewed by federal auditors, the top official monitoring Iraq's reconstruction told Congress yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801048.html
Iraq Contractor's Work Is Further Criticized
13 of 14 Projects Found Wanting by Audit
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 29, 2006; A15 [one of the reason the US is failing in Iraq] [nobody is responsible for anything in this administration] [privatization of certain functions is fine as long as there is oversight and/or auditing in timely way] [but in this administration such things are aftertoughts] [they do not constitute the sort of big ideas this administration is found of thinking it deals with regularly] [************]
The contractor that botched construction of a $75 million police academy in Baghdad so badly that human waste dripped from the ceilings has produced shoddy work on 13 out of 14 projects reviewed by federal auditors, the top official monitoring Iraq's reconstruction told Congress yesterday.
In a House hearing on what has gone wrong with reconstruction contracts in Iraq, Parsons Corp. quickly became the focus, taking bipartisan heat for its record of falling short on critical projects. The Pasadena, Calif., firm was supposed to build facilities at the heart of the $21 billion U.S.-led reconstruction program, including fire stations, border forts and health-care centers. But inspectors have found a litany of flaws in the firm's work. The one project reviewed by auditors that was being constructed correctly, a prison, was taken away from Parsons before its completion because of escalating costs.
In a report released yesterday, inspectors found that the Baghdad Police College posed a health risk after feces and urine leaked through the ceilings of student barracks. The facility, part of which will need to be demolished, also featured floors that heaved inches off the ground and a room where water dripped so heavily that it was known as "the rain forest."
The academy was intended as a showcase for U.S. efforts to train Iraqi recruits who eventually are expected to take control of the nation's security from the U.S. military. But lawmakers said yesterday they feared it will become a symbol of a different sort.
"This is the lens through which Iraqis will now see America," Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said. "Incompetence. Profiteering. Arrogance. And human waste oozing out of ceilings as a result."
Stuart W. Bowen Jr., special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, said the project failed in part because Parsons had fallen down in its responsibility to manage the work.
"It boils down to a lack of oversight," Bowen said. His office will go back in the coming months to review all of Parsons' work in Iraq, which totals about $1 billion.
Parsons Senior Vice President Earnest O. Robbins II acknowledged the police academy construction was unacceptable, but told congressmen that poor work by Iraqi subcontractors, tight deadlines and a deteriorating security situation were to blame.
"We awarded over 1,700 subcontracts to Iraqi firms, and at the peak of construction we had over 11,000 Iraqis employed," Robbins said. "Even the day-to-day oversight of those Iraqi subcontractors was, as a result of cost and security reasons, conducted almost entirely by Iraqis hired and trained by Parsons."
Robbins said the company consistently faced "a shortage of capable Iraqi managers and skilled craftsmen."
Contractors in Iraq have been a frequent target of Democratic critics in the three and a half years since the U.S. invasion, with Texas oil services giant Halliburton Co. becoming the most prominent example of what many Democrats consider war profiteering. Until now, the work of Parsons -- an employee-owned engineering and construction firm that had $3 billion in revenue last year -- had not attracted much attention. But Parsons came under fire from Republicans and Democrats alike yesterday.
"On both sides of the aisle, we think this is outrageous. We want to get to the bottom of this," said Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.).
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) pressed Robbins to give the government its money back. "Don't you think that Parsons, given what turned out to be a very shoddy job, should return some of its profits to the taxpayer?" Van Hollen said.
"No sir, I do not," Robbins replied, explaining that it was up to the Army Corps of Engineers, which managed the contract, to determine how much profit the company makes. Parsons earns a basic profit amounting to 3 percent of its costs, but can make an additional 12 percent profit depending on its performance, Robbins said.
Robbins declined to say how much the company earned on the police academy contract but said the Corps of Engineers had deemed the company's work acceptable when construction wrapped up in the spring. Corps spokeswoman Suzanne Fournier said it had taken several months for the project's flaws to become apparent, and that Parsons has agreed to fix the problems at no additional cost. She said that work will probably be done by the end of October.
Bowen told lawmakers it would be nearly impossible for the government to get a refund on the work because of the way the contract was structured.
At the beginning of the reconstruction effort, work was parceled out to some of the largest U.S. construction firms. Because of the volatility in Iraq, the government agreed to bear the risk of any surge in costs. Instead of setting contract values ahead of time, companies were given "cost-plus" contracts that reimbursed the firms for expenses and included a built-in percentage for profit. Critics have said the arrangement encouraged companies to run up their costs.
Under the contracts, the firms were expected to design electricity facilities, prisons, medical centers, water stations and other infrastructure that Iraq would need to become self-sustaining. But the companies were also asked to divide as much of the actual work as possible among Iraqi subcontractors.
Now, those original contracts are ending, even though much of the work remains undone. In some cases, the Iraqi subcontractors have been elevated to prime contractor after the U.S. firms failed to complete their assignments.
Bowen said that of all the projects his office has inspected, about 70 percent have met the requirements in their contracts.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Senate Approves $70B for War Spending

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092900425.html
Senate Approves $70B for War Spending
By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press
Friday, September 29, 2006; 10:58 AM [supplemental budget] [***************] [$$$$$$$$$$$$] [so defense appropriation for FY 06-07 which begins on October 1, 2006: $448 billion dollars in 2006 dollars] [***************]
WASHINGTON -- The Senate unanimously approved $70 billion more for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Friday as part of a record Pentagon budget. [*********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092900425.html
Senate Approves $70B for War Spending
By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press
Friday, September 29, 2006; 10:58 AM [supplemental budget] [***************] [$$$$$$$$$$$$] [so defense appropriation for FY 06-07 which begins on October 1, 2006: $448 billion dollars in 2006 dollars] [***************]
WASHINGTON -- The Senate unanimously approved $70 billion more for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Friday as part of a record Pentagon budget. [*********]
The bill, now on its way to the White House for President Bush's signature, totals $448 billion. [********] It was passed by a 100-0 vote after minimal debate.
Approval by a comfortable margin came despite intense partisan divisions over the course of the Iraq war, which is costing about $8 billion a month. Another infusion of money will be needed next spring.
The House-Senate compromise bill provides $378 billion for core Pentagon programs, about a 5 percent increase, though slightly less than President Bush asked for. The $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan is a down payment on war costs the White House has estimated will hit $110 billion for the budget year beginning Oct. 1. [**********]
Congress has now approved $507 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and heightened security at overseas military bases since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to the Congressional Research Service. The war in Iraq has cost $379 billion and the conflict in Afghanistan now totals $97 billion.
The Iraq war continues to be unpopular with voters, according to opinion polls, but even Democratic opponents of the war voted for the Pentagon measure, which provides funding for body armor and other support for U.S. troops overseas.
"America is in deep trouble in Iraq," said Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "The continuing violence and death is ominous.... Militias are growing in strength and continue to operate outside the law. Death squads are rampant."
The growing price tag of the Iraq conflict is partly driven by the need to repair and replace military equipment worn out in harsh, dusty conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan or destroyed in battle. Almost $23 billion was approved for Army, Marine Corps and National Guard equipment such as helicopters, armored Humvees, Bradley armored fighting vehicles, radios and night-vision equipment.
Lawmakers allotted $1.9 billion for new jammers to counter improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan and $1 billion is provided for body armor and other personal protective gear.
There is also a stack of pet projects for lawmakers' homes states and districts, including $372 million obtained for Hawaii, home of Daniel Inouye, top Democrat on the defense appropriations panel.
"There are 2,000 earmarks in the bill directed by Members of Congress _ somewhere around $8 billion _ and a large portion of those don't have anything to do with the mission of the Defense Department," said Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
The legislation would be the first of 11 spending bills to clear Congress for the new budget year. The homeland security bill is the only other ready to pass before Congress leaves Washington this weekend. Nine bills funding domestic programs and foreign aid will wait until a lame duck session. That means delays in funding increases for veterans health care.
So little progress has been made on other bills that the Pentagon measure also carries a stopgap funding bill to keep open through Nov. 17 agencies whose funding bills won't have passed. Only the homeland security measure is expected to also pass before Congress leaves Washington to campaign.
The core bill contains $86 billion for personnel costs, enough to support 482,000 Army soldiers and 175,000 Marines. That would provide for a 2.2 percent pay increase for the military, as Bush requested in his February budget.
The bill provides $120 billion for operations and maintenance costs, just less than the Pentagon request. And $81 billion goes for procurement of new weapons, with $76 billion dedicated to research and development costs.
That's still not enough for the White House, which requested $4 billion more. But House appropriators diverted that money to ease cuts in domestic programs. Earlier this year, the Senate passed a version shifting $9 billion to domestic programs but backed off in the face of a White House veto threat.
On the Net:
Information on the defense bill, H.R. 5631, may be found at http://thomas.loc.gov/
© 2006 The Associated Press

Senate Approves Detainee Bill Backed by Bush

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800824.html
Senate Approves Detainee Bill Backed by Bush
Constitutional Challenges Predicted
By Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 29, 2006; A01 [potential for pow abuse/ detainees] [election-year politics] [****************]
Congress approved landmark changes to the nation's system of interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects last night, preparing the ground for possible military trials for key al-Qaeda members under rules that critics say will draw stiff constitutional challenges.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800824.html
Senate Approves Detainee Bill Backed by Bush
Constitutional Challenges Predicted
By Charles Babington and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 29, 2006; A01 [potential for pow abuse/ detainees] [election-year politics] [****************]
Congress approved landmark changes to the nation's system of interrogating and prosecuting terrorism suspects last night, preparing the ground for possible military trials for key al-Qaeda members under rules that critics say will draw stiff constitutional challenges.
The Senate joined the House in embracing President Bush's view that the battle against terrorism justifies the imposition of extraordinary limits on defendants' traditional rights in the courtroom. They include restrictions on a suspect's ability to challenge his detention, examine all evidence against him, and bar testimony allegedly acquired through coercion of witnesses.
The Senate's 65 to 34 vote marked a victory for Bush and fellow Republicans a month before the Nov. 7 elections as their party tries to make anti-terrorism a signature campaign issue. Underscoring that strategy, the House last night voted 232 to 191 to authorize Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, with GOP leaders hoping to add it to their list of accomplishments even though it has no chance of Senate passage before this weekend's scheduled adjournment. On the final wiretapping vote, 18 Democrats joined 214 Republicans to win passage. Thirteen Republicans, 177 Democrats and one independent voted nay.
Democrats resisted both measures and nearly amended the detainee bill to allow foreigners designated as enemy combatants to challenge their captivity by filing habeas corpus appeals with the federal courts. But Republicans held fast, gambling that Democrats will fail in their bid to convince voters that the GOP is sacrificing the nation's traditions of justice and fairness in the name of battling terrorists and winning elections.
"As our troops risk their lives to fight terrorism, this bill will ensure they are prepared to defeat today's enemies and address tomorrow's threats," Bush said after the vote.
With control of both houses possibly at stake this fall, yesterday's debates were often impassioned and deeply partisan. House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) called Democrats "dangerous." Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the nation is losing its "moral compass."
The Senate approved the detainee legislation after Bush's allies narrowly fended off five amendments. The vote on final passage drew support from 53 Republicans and 12 Democrats, while 32 Democrats, one independent and one Republican -- Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) -- voted nay.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) voted for the bill after telling reporters earlier that he would oppose it because it is "patently unconstitutional on its face." He cited its denial of the habeas corpus right to military detainees. In an interview last night, Specter said he decided to back the bill because it has several good items, "and the court will clean it up" by striking the habeas corpus provisions.
The Supreme Court triggered the congressional action by striking down in late June Bush's earlier system for trying suspects in military commissions.
The new bill is designed to legalize military commissions and to clarify interrogation techniques that CIA officers may use on terrorism suspects considered "unlawful enemy combatants," who are granted fewer protections than are prisoners of war. Hundreds of such detainees have been held for several years without trial at the U.S. military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, while others were held at secret prisons overseas.
The new measure, which the House approved 253 to 168 on Wednesday, rejects Bush's earlier bid to narrow U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of such detainees. But it grants the executive branch substantial leeway in deciding how to comply with treaty obligations regulating actions that fall short of "grave breaches" of the conventions.
It would bar military commissions from considering testimony obtained through interrogation techniques that involve "cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment or punishment," which the Constitution's Fifth, Eighth and 14th amendments prohibit. The bar would be retroactive only to Dec. 30, 2005 -- when Congress adopted the Detainee Treatment Act -- to protect CIA operatives from possible prosecution over interrogation tactics used before that date.
Yesterday's main drama involved Specter's bid to amend the bill to grant the habeas corpus right to foreign detainees. Habeas corpus appeals -- a legal cornerstone -- allow prisoners to ask a judge to rule on the legality of their detention.
Specter and his allies said the habeas corpus right must apply to all persons -- including noncitizens -- held in U.S. custody. Most other Republicans said foreigners designated by the military as "unlawful enemy combatants" do not deserve habeas corpus protections.
Specter's amendment failed, 51 to 48. Senate Republicans voting for the habeas corpus amendment were Specter, Chafee, Gordon Smith (Ore.) and John E. Sununu (N.H.). Ben Nelson (Neb.) was the only Democrat who opposed the amendment. Four amendments drafted by Democrats also failed, mostly along party lines.
Republicans, especially in the House, plan to use the military commission and wiretapping legislation as a one-two punch against Democrats this fall. The legislative action prompted extraordinarily blunt language from House GOP leaders, foreshadowing a major theme for the campaign. Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) issued a written statement on Wednesday declaring: "Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and 159 of her Democrat colleagues voted today in favor of MORE rights for terrorists."
GOP leaders continued such attacks after the wiretapping vote. "For the second time in just two days, House Democrats have voted to protect the rights of terrorists," Hastert said last night, while Boehner lashed out at what he called "the Democrats' irrational opposition to strong national security policies."
Democrats tried to deflect such attacks by focusing on the newly released National Intelligence Estimate, partially leaked on Saturday, which concludes that the Iraq war has become a "cause celebre" for terrorists. But Republicans maneuvered their attacks toward that issue as well.
"The Democrats' jubilance with the national intelligence leak over the weekend underscores just how dangerous I think my friends on the other side of the aisle are when it comes to national security," Boehner said yesterday.
Democrats said they will take the high road. "There will be 30-second attack ads and negative mail pieces, and we will be called everything from cut-and-run quitters to Defeatocrats, to people who care more about the rights of terrorists than the protection of Americans," predicted Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). "While I know all of this, I'm still disappointed, and I'm still ashamed, because what we're doing here today -- a debate over the fundamental human rights of the accused -- should be bigger than politics."
Democratic leaders stressed that the attacks will not work. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, cited polling that he said suggested that matters such as warrantless wiretapping and military commissions are "secondary issues," lagging well behind Iraq in the public's mind. Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) said it is "beyond [his] ability to comprehend" how a member of Congress could be accused of supporting terrorism.
But Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a prominent Democratic polling firm, tried to raise alarms yesterday with the release of focus group findings that suggest that the attacks would work if not countered forcefully. "Attacks on Democrats for opposing any effort to stop terrorists . . . were highly effective," the pollsters' memo stated.
Under the House surveillance bill, the National Security Agency could conduct electronic surveillance of international communications for up to 45 days without a warrant, but the administration would then have to obtain permission from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and, in most cases, would have to notify lawmakers.
But the congressional intelligence committees could recertify any warrantless wiretapping repeatedly, in 45-day increments, without referral to the court. And restraints on the program could be suspended in the aftermath of a terrorist attack or when the president determines that the country is under "imminent threat." The "imminent threat" provision was added at the insistence of the Bush administration.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Senate Approves Broad New Rules to Try Detainees

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washington/29detain.html
September 29, 2006
Senate Approves Broad New Rules to Try Detainees
By KATE ZERNIKE [detainees/pow abuse potential] [gitmo] [********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The Senate approved a measure on Thursday on the interrogations and trials of terrorism suspects, establishing far-reaching rules to deal with what President Bush has called the most dangerous combatants in a different type of war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washington/29detain.html
September 29, 2006
Senate Approves Broad New Rules to Try Detainees
By KATE ZERNIKE [detainees/pow abuse potential] [gitmo] [********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The Senate approved a measure on Thursday on the interrogations and trials of terrorism suspects, establishing far-reaching rules to deal with what President Bush has called the most dangerous combatants in a different type of war.
The vote was 65 to 34. It was cast after more than 10 hours of often impassioned debate that touched on the Constitution, the horrors of Sept. 11 and the role of the United States in the world.
Both parties also positioned themselves for the continuing clash over national security going into the homestretch of the midterm elections. The vote showed that Democrats believe that President Bush’s power to wield national security as a political issue is seriously diminished.
The bill would set up rules for the military commissions that will allow the government to proceed with the prosecutions of high-level detainees including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, considered the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
It would make illegal several broadly defined abuses of detainees, while leaving it to the president to establish specific permissible interrogation techniques. And it would strip detainees of a habeas corpus right to challenge their detentions in court.
The bill is the same as one that the House passed, eliminating the need for a conference between the two chambers. The House is expected to approve the Senate bill Friday, sending it to the president to be signed.
The bill was a compromise between the White House and three Republican senators who had resisted what they saw as Mr. Bush’s effort to rewrite the nation’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions. Although the president had to relent on some major provisions, the vote allows him to claim victory in achieving a main legislative priority.
“As our troops risk their lives to fight terrorism, this bill will ensure they are prepared to defeat today’s enemies and address tomorrow’s threats,” the president said in a statement after the vote.
Republicans argued that the new rules would provide the necessary tools to fight a new kind of enemy.
“Our prior concept of war has been completely altered, as we learned so tragically on Sept. 11, 2001,” Senator Saxby Chambliss, Republican of Georgia, said. “And we must address threats in a different way.”
Democrats argued that the rules were being rushed through for political gain too close to a major election and that they would fundamentally threaten the foundations of the American legal system and come back to haunt lawmakers as one of the greatest mistakes in history.
“I believe there can be no mercy for those who perpetrated the crimes of 9/11,” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, said. “But in the process of accomplishing what I believe is essential for our security, we must hold onto our values and set an example that we can point to with pride, not shame.”
Twelve Democrats crossed party lines to vote for the bill. One Republican, Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, voted against it.
But provisions of the bill came under criticism from Republicans as well as Democrats, with several crossing lines on amendments that failed along narrow margins.
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, arguing for an amendment to strike a provision to bar suspects from challenging their detentions in court, said it “is as legally abusive of the rights guaranteed in the Constitution as the actions at Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and secret prisons were physically abusive of detainees.”
The amendment failed, 51 to 49.
Even some Republicans who voted for the bill said they expected the Supreme Court to strike down the legislation because of the provision barring court detainees’ challenges, an outcome that would send the legislation right back to Congress.
“We should have done it right, because we’re going to have to do it again,” said Senator Gordon H. Smith, Republican of Oregon, who voted to strike the provision and yet supported the bill.
The measure would broaden the definition of enemy combatants beyond the traditional definition used in wartime, to include noncitizens living legally in the United States as well as those in foreign countries and anyone determined to be an enemy combatant under criteria defined by the president or secretary of defense.
It would strip at Guantánamo detainees of the habeas right to challenge their detention in court, relying instead on procedures known as combatant status review trials. Those trials have looser rules of evidence than the courts.
It would allow of evidence seized in this country or abroad without a search warrant to be admitted in trials.
The bill would also bar the admission of evidence obtained by cruel and inhuman treatment, except any obtained before Dec. 30, 2005, when Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act, that a judge declares reliable and probative.
Democrats said the date was conveniently set after the worst abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.
The legislation establishes several “grave breaches” of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention that are felonies under the War Crimes Act, including torture, rape, murder and any act intended to cause “serious” physical or mental pain or suffering.
The issue was sent to Congress as a result of a Supreme Court decision in June that struck down military tribunals that the Bush administration had established shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. The court ruled that the tribunals violated the Constitution and international law.
The White House submitted a bill this month to authorize a tribunal system, setting off intraparty fighting as the three Senate Republicans, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John McCain of Arizona and John W. Warner Jr. of Virginia, insisted that they would not support a provision that in any way appeared to alter the commitments under the Geneva Conventions.
Such a redefinition, they argued, would send a signal to other nations that they, too, could rewrite their commitments to the 57-year-old conventions and, ultimately, lead to Americans seized in wartime being abused and tried in kangaroo courts.
The White House and the senators came to their agreement last week.
Democrats and human rights groups objected to changes in the legislation over the weekend, as the House and White House drafted final language, including defining enemy combatants and setting rules on search warrants.
“We should get this right, now, and we are not doing so by passing this bill,” Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat who is the minority leader, said before the vote. “Future generations will view passage of this bill as a grave error.”
Human rights groups called the vote to approve the bill “dangerous” and “disappointing.” Critics feared that it left the president a large loophole by allowing him to set specific interrogation techniques.
Senators Graham, McCain and Warner rebutted that vociferously, arguing in floor statements, as well as in a colloquy submitted into the official record, that the measure would in no way give the president the authority to authorize any interrogation tactics that do not comply with the Detainee Treatment Act and the Geneva Conventions, which bar cruel and inhuman treatment, and that the bill would not alter American obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
“The conventions are preserved intact,” Mr. McCain promised his colleagues from the floor.
After the vote, Mr. Graham said: “America can be proud. Not only did she adhere to the Geneva Conventions, she went further than she had to, because we’re better than the terrorists.”
Besides the amendments that would have struck the ban on habeas corpus cases, the others that failed included one that would have established a sunset on the measure to allow Congress to reconsider it in five years and one that would have require the C.I.A. to submit to Congressional oversight.
Another failed amendment would have required the State Department to inform other nations of what interrogation techniques it considered illegal for use on American troops, a move intended to prompt the administration to say publicly what techniques it considers out of bounds.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

House Approves Power for Warrantless Wiretaps

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washington/29nsa.html
September 29, 2006
House Approves Power for Warrantless Wiretaps
By ERIC LICHTBLAU [nsa spygate] [election year behavior] [*******]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The House voted on Thursday to give the president the formal power to order wiretaps on Americans without a court order for 90 days, even as a federal judge in Detroit once again declared the administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants to be illegal.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washington/29nsa.html
September 29, 2006
House Approves Power for Warrantless Wiretaps
By ERIC LICHTBLAU [nsa spygate] [election year behavior] [*******]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The House voted on Thursday to give the president the formal power to order wiretaps on Americans without a court order for 90 days, even as a federal judge in Detroit once again declared the administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants to be illegal.
The House approved the surveillance measure, 232 to 191, after rejecting efforts by Democrats and some Republicans to impose greater restrictions on the wiretapping authority.
It appears all but certain that Congress will not reach an agreement on a final surveillance bill before its pre-election recess this week.
Senate Republicans held out hope that they would vote on Friday or Saturday on a bill of theirs that takes a different approach to regulating wiretapping and has the backing of the White House.
Even if the Senate acts this week, lawmakers agreed, there would not be time before the recess for House-Senate negotiators to reach an accord on a final plan, depriving the White House of the chance to sign a bill into law before Election Day.
The legislation took on greater urgency on Thursday after the court ruling in Detroit, as Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of Federal District Court gave the government a week to appeal her decision of Aug. 17 on the wiretapping program or shut it down.
In her earlier ruling, Judge Taylor had found that the surveillance program that President Bush approved after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks was illegal and unconstitutional, violating First and Fourth Amendment protections by allowing wiretaps on Americans’ international communications without a court-ordered warrant.
Judge Taylor reaffirmed that finding after a hearing on Thursday, when she said that she thought it was unlikely that the United States Court of Appeals for Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, would overrule her. Her decision, she said, was based on “settled law.”
The Justice Department immediately filed an emergency motion with the appeals court, asking it to suspend Judge Taylor’s ruling while it considers “the important legal issues” raised by the case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. Stopping the program while the appeals court considers it would pose “a drastic risk of harm to the nation,” the department said in its filing.
Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who leads the House Intelligence Committee, said the Detroit ruling “underscores the importance of Congressional approval of legislation to modernize” federal surveillance laws in the fight against terrorism.
The bill that the House passed on Thursday with Mr. Hoekstra’s backing formalized the president’s authority to act outside the confines of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Congress passed that act in 1978 in response to domestic spying on political figures and antiwar protesters.
The bill gives the president the authority to order wiretaps for up to 90 days without a court order on Americans suspected of having ties to terrorists if the president determines there is an “imminent threat” to the United States.
Representative Heather A. Wilson, the New Mexico Republican who wrote the measure, said it would also impose additional Congressional oversight after what she called the administration’s “inappropriate” failure to brief the full Intelligence Committees on the surveillance program.
Ms. Wilson said she believed that the bill struck the right balance between giving the government the tools it needed to fight terrorism and protecting the privacy and civil liberties of Americans.
“This is not some drift net,” she said.
A bipartisan amendment offered by Representatives Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, and Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, sought to limit wiretaps without warrants to a maximum of 7 days rather than 90. The amendment would affirm the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as the “exclusive” means of conducting intelligence surveillance.
Mr. Schiff said in an interview that Ms. Wilson’s bill would effectively gut the current intelligence law and give the president broad and sweeping authority at the expense of the courts. His effort failed, 221 to 202. Ms. Wilson’s measure also faced behind-the-scenes resistance from the Bush administration, which had pressed her to bring the bill more in line with the Senate version to speed a final bill, Senate officials said.
The Senate bill would offer a differing and somewhat broader approach to resolving the issue by submitting the entire surveillance program to the foreign intelligence court for a one-time review of its constitutionality.
Critics of the approach said it would give the president virtually unchecked authority if the program were to be declared legal.
Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who worked out the compromise with the White House, said he saw it as the only viable way to ensure some measure of judicial review over the program.
John Carpenter contributed reporting from Detroit.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Card Urged Bush to Replace Rumsfeld, Woodward Says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092900368.html
Card Urged Bush to Replace Rumsfeld, Woodward Says
By William Hamilton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 29, 2006; 10:46 AM [Bush chief of staff for nearly 7 years Andrew Card] [apparently tried to get rid of Rummy] [believed rummy was out of control] [see today’s societal where Woodward’s new book—bombshells-o’-plenty] [***********]
Former White House chief of staff Andrew Card on two occasions tried and failed to persuade President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to a new book by Bob Woodward that depicts senior officials of the Bush administration as unable to face the consequences of their policy in Iraq. [*************]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/29/AR2006092900368.html
Card Urged Bush to Replace Rumsfeld, Woodward Says
By William Hamilton
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 29, 2006; 10:46 AM [Bush chief of staff for nearly 7 years Andrew Card] [apparently tried to get rid of Rummy] [believed rummy was out of control] [see today’s societal where Woodward’s new book—bombshells-o’-plenty] [***********]
Former White House chief of staff Andrew Card on two occasions tried and failed to persuade President Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to a new book by Bob Woodward that depicts senior officials of the Bush administration as unable to face the consequences of their policy in Iraq. [*************]
Card made his first attempt after Bush was reelected in November, 2004, arguing that the administration needed a fresh start and recommending that Bush replace Rumsfeld with former secretary of state James A. Baker III. Woodward writes that Bush considered the move, but was persuaded by Vice President Cheney and Karl Rove, his chief political adviser, that it would be seen as an expression of doubt about the course of the war and would expose Bush himself to criticism. [*********]
Card tried again around Thanksgiving, 2005, this time with the support of First Lady Laura Bush, who according to Woodward, felt that Rumsfeld's overbearing manner was damaging to her husband. Bush refused for a second time, and Card left the administration last March, convinced that Iraq would be compared to Vietnam and that history would record that no senior administration officials had raised their voices in opposition to the conduct of the war. [***********]
The book is the third that Woodward, an assistant managing editor at The Washington Post, has written on the Bush administration since the terrorist attacks of September, 11, 2001. The first two were attacked by critics of the Bush administration as depicting the president in a heroic light. But the new book's title, "State of Denial," [********] conveys the different picture that Woodward paints of the Bush administration since the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003. [*************]
Woodward writes that there was a vast difference between what the White House and Pentagon had known about the situation in Iraq and what they were saying publicly. In memos, reports and internal debates administration officials have voiced their concern about the conduct of the war, even while Bush and cabinet members such as Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have insisted that the war was going well.
Last May, Woodward writes, the intelligence division of the Joint Chiefs of Staff circulated a secret intelligence estimate predicting that violence will not only continue for the rest of this year in Iraq but increase in 2007. [******************]
"Insurgents and terrorists retain the resources and capabilities to sustain and even increase current level of violence through the next year," said the report, which was distributed to the White House, State Department and other intelligence agencies.
The report presented a similarly bleak assessment of oil production, electricity generation and the political situation in Iraq.
"Threats of Shia ascendancy could harden and expand Shia militant opposition and increase calls for coalition withdrawal," [*********] the report said.
Woodward writes that Rice and Rumsfeld have been warned repeatedly about the deteriorating situation in Iraq.
Returning from his assignment as the first head of the Iraq Postwar Planning Office, retired Lt. Gen. Jay Garner told Rumsfeld on June 23, 2003, that the United States had made "three tragic mistakes" in Iraq. [***************]
The first two, he said, were the orders his successor, L. Paul Jerry Bremer, had given banning members of the Baath Party from government jobs and disbanding the Iraqi military. The third was Bremmer's dismissal of an interim Iraqi leadership group that had been eager to help the United States administer the country in the short term. [**************]
"There's still time to rectify this," he said. "There's still time to turn it around."
But Rumsfeld dismissed the idea, according to Woodward. "We're not going to go back," Rumsfeld said. [***************]
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Bush Attacks 'Party of Cut and Run'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801844.html
Bush Attacks 'Party of Cut and Run'
By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 29, 2006; A12 [bush] [white house] [with fewer than 50 days until the November 7th election, albeit a midterm one, Bush goes political on Iraq] [note comes just 18 days after he called for national unity on Iraq and gsave] [see noted above at end of the NYTs version where I quote some of Bush September 11th speech] [so little time, so much desperation] [*********] [ditto]
BIRMINGHAM, Sept. 28 -- In his sharpest partisan attack of this election campaign, President Bush denounced Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Thursday and said "the party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801844.html
Bush Attacks 'Party of Cut and Run'
By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 29, 2006; A12 [bush] [white house] [with fewer than 50 days until the November 7th election, albeit a midterm one, Bush goes political on Iraq] [note comes just 18 days after he called for national unity on Iraq and gsave] [see noted above at end of the NYTs version where I quote some of Bush September 11th speech] [so little time, so much desperation] [*********] [ditto]
BIRMINGHAM, Sept. 28 -- In his sharpest partisan attack of this election campaign, President Bush denounced Democratic critics of his Iraq policy on Thursday and said "the party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run."
Seeking to rebut Democrats who say a new intelligence report indicates that Iraq is fueling terrorism rather than helping to counter it, Bush said voters face a choice "between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror."
Republicans "understand the nature of the enemy," he said. "We know the enemy wants to attack us again," whereas Democrats "offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing."
Despite assertions in a recently declassified intelligence report that the war in Iraq has become "a cause celebre" that is inspiring new jihadists and fueling anti-Americanism, Bush restated his position that the country is safer since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Absent the war, he said, extremists would find other excuses to attack Americans and other Westerners.
He said that leaving Iraq before that country is stabilized would embolden terrorists while exposing the United States to economic blackmail and the prospect of even-more-lethal threats.
"The greatest danger is not that America's presence in Iraq is drawing new recruits to the terrorist cause," he said. "The greatest danger is that an American withdrawal from Iraq would embolden the terrorists and help them find new recruits to carry out even more destructive attacks on the American homeland."
Bush's remarks added fresh fuel to an escalating partisan fight over conclusions from the National Intelligence Estimate. Bush grudgingly released portions of the report on Tuesday after some of its contents were leaked to news media outlets.
The report, which was completed in April, says the number of potential terrorists is growing as the war in Iraq enflames radical Muslims and fans hatred of America. The assessment also says that although anti-terrorism efforts have been largely successful in crippling al-Qaeda, the overall terrorist threat is becoming more diffuse, making it harder to identify potential terrorists and prevent attacks.
The document concludes that the factors fueling the growth in jihadism outweigh its vulnerabilities, meaning the terrorist threat is likely to grow. The paper reflects the collective judgment of the nation's 16 intelligence agencies.
"George Bush has no credibility left on national security," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "No matter how many stump speeches he gives on the campaign trail, the American people can see the damage his tough talk has done to America's safety."
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who heads the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, accused Bush of ignoring key facts in the intelligence document. "When the president pays no attention to the findings of 16 nonpartisan, non-political intelligence agencies in our government, there's only more trouble ahead for our county and our soldiers," he said.
Speaking before a large and enthusiastic audience at a fundraising luncheon for Alabama Gov. Bob Riley (R), Bush attempted to turn criticism of his Iraq policy into a cudgel.
Bush quoted an unnamed congresswoman -- later identified by the White House as Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the top-ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee -- as ridiculing Bush's frequent assertion that "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here."
"We didn't create terrorism by fighting terrorism," Bush responded. "Iraq is not the reason why the terrorists are at war against us."
Bush also criticized many Democrats for not supporting his approach to trying terrorism suspects. Pointing to Wednesday's vote on a bill passed by the House authorizing military tribunals for the suspects, Bush reminded his audience that 160 Democrats -- "including the entire Democrat leadership" -- voted against the measure, which passed 253 to 168.
Opponents have said the measure is at odds with core American values because it would allow evidence gathered without a warrant or gained through coercion to be used against terrorism suspects. Plus, they argued, it could invite brutal treatment of U.S. troops captured abroad.
While the intelligence report painted a grim picture of the growing terrorist threat, Bush asserted that it also provided support for his administration's strategy for fighting it. The report called Iraq a pivotal battleground in the wider anti-terrorism effort -- a point Bush makes frequently. Also, the document said, extremism's lack of appeal to the vast majority of Muslims offers hope for victory.
Before coming to Birmingham, Bush visited nearby Hoover, where he was briefed on the use of corn-based ethanol to fuel that city's municipal fleet.
Later, Bush traveled to New Albany, Ohio, where he headlined a fundraiser for embattled Rep. Deborah Pryce (R). The event was at the sprawling estate of Leslie H. Wexner, chairman and chief executive officer of Limited Brands, the retailing conglomerate that includes the Limited, Victoria's Secret and Bath & Body Works. The event, which was closed to the press, was expected to raise $500,000 for Pryce.
Political researcher Zachary A. Goldfarb in Washington contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Bush Attacks Democrats Over Iraq and Terror

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/us/politics/29bush.html
September 29, 2006
Bush Attacks Democrats Over Iraq and Terror
By JIM RUTENBERG [bush] [white house] [with fewer than 50 days until the November 7th election, albeit a midterm one, Bush goes political on Iraq] [note comes just 18 days after he called for national unity on Iraq and gsave] [see noted at end where I quote some of Bush September 11th speech] [so little time, so much desperation] [*********]
BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Sept. 28 — President Bush took on the Democrats on Thursday with some of his most pointed language yet this campaign year, telegraphing the start of the last, intensive phase of the election season for the White House.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/us/politics/29bush.html
September 29, 2006
Bush Attacks Democrats Over Iraq and Terror
By JIM RUTENBERG [bush] [white house] [with fewer than 50 days until the November 7th election, albeit a midterm one, Bush goes political on Iraq] [note comes just 18 days after he called for national unity on Iraq and gsave] [see noted at end where I quote some of Bush September 11th speech] [so little time, so much desperation] [*********]
BIRMINGHAM, Ala., Sept. 28 — President Bush took on the Democrats on Thursday with some of his most pointed language yet this campaign year, telegraphing the start of the last, intensive phase of the election season for the White House.
Speaking to a crowd of more than 2,000 supporters in this Bush-friendly Southern city, the president took Democrats to task for their criticism of the Iraq war, for their votes this week against legislation creating military tribunals to try terrorism suspects and for what he called misleading descriptions of the latest National Intelligence Estimate on global terrorism.
“Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on the American homeland in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction and endless second-guessing,” Mr. Bush said at a fund-raising event for Gov. Bob Riley. “The party of F.D.R. and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run.” [*********] [note how he uses the part of FDR and Truman below in his September 11th speech—quite differently] [*************]
The National Intelligence Estimate, completed in April and reflecting a consensus of 16 American intelligence agencies, concluded among other things that the Iraq war had become a “cause célèbre” for Islamic extremists. But other sections in the estimate say terrorists would be demoralized by defeat in Iraq, and Mr. Bush declared that “some in the other party have been quoting selectively from the document for partisan political gain.”
“The Democrats are using the N.I.E. to mislead the American people and justify their policy of withdrawal from Iraq,” the president said. “The American people need to know what withdrawal from Iraq would mean. By withdrawing from Iraq before the job is done, we would be doing exactly what the extremists and terrorists want.” [*********]
Mr. Bush has been honing his offensive against Democrats for weeks as his political team seeks to shift the election-year focus from a debate about him and the unpopular war to one about terrorism in general, his party’s efforts to combat it and what he describes as the opposition’s promotion of defeatism and retreat.
But until now he had left the sort of hard-charging talk that he used here to his political strategist Karl Rove, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican national chairman, Ken Mehlman. [*************]
Minutes after the speech, during which he received several standing ovations, the Democrats hit back.
The administration has “gone from shock and awe to an American public shocked at how awful the situation in Iraq is,” Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement sent by e-mail to reporters. “Rather than heed the warnings in the N.I.E., President Bush politicized [*******] this discussion, and the Republican Congress has stood on the sidelines.”
In his criticism, Mr. Bush also singled out members of the Democratic leadership. Referring to “a senior Democrat in Congress” without mentioning her by name, he recalled a recent comment in which Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said: “The president says that fighting them there makes it less likely we’ll have to fight them here. The opposite is true.”
The president pointed to Ms. Harman’s remark as an example of how “some in Washington, some decent people, patriotic people,” think that “we should not be on the offensive in this war on terror.”
“History,” he said, “tells us that logic is false.”
Through a spokesman, Ms. Harman said Thursday evening, “If the president reads his own intelligence, he will see that his failed strategy in Iraq is making the terrorist threat more dangerous.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
[*****] [Note: the following is among what the president said in his September 11 speech to commemorate the 5-year anniversary. Tonight it will have been 18 days since the president said these things. It’s truly amazing how politicicied it’s become. It’s clearly not all the administration’s fault. However, how can the president so brazenly invoke political cravenness so soon after he uttered the following? “Across the broader Middle East, the extremists are fighting to prevent such a future. Yet America has confronted evil before, and we have defeated it -- sometimes at the cost of thousands of good men in a single battle. When Franklin Roosevelt vowed to defeat two enemies across two oceans, he could not have foreseen D-Day and Iwo Jima -- but he would not have been surprised at the outcome. When Harry Truman promised American support for free peoples resisting Soviet aggression, he could not have foreseen the rise of the Berlin Wall -- but he would not have been surprised to see it brought down. Throughout our history, America has seen liberty challenged, and every time, we have seen liberty triumph with sacrifice and determination.” . . . . Then a couple paragraphs later “Winning this war will require the determined efforts of a unified country, and we must put aside our differences and work together to meet the test that history has given us. We will defeat our enemies. We will protect our people. And we will lead the 21st century into a shining age of human liberty.”] [****************]

Iran's Uranium Glitch

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801453.html
Iran's Uranium Glitch
Technical Troubles Offer Time for Diplomacy
By David Ignatius
Friday, September 29, 2006; A21 [oped] [iran’s wmd] [*********]
Intelligence analysts believe that Iran is encountering technical difficulties in mastering the complex process of uranium enrichment. That means the West may have a bit more time than previously expected to pursue a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff. [*********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801453.html
Iran's Uranium Glitch
Technical Troubles Offer Time for Diplomacy
By David Ignatius
Friday, September 29, 2006; A21 [oped] [iran’s wmd] [*********]
Intelligence analysts believe that Iran is encountering technical difficulties in mastering the complex process of uranium enrichment. That means the West may have a bit more time than previously expected to pursue a diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff. [*********]
The problem, according to intelligence officials, is that the centrifuges that are supposed to enrich uranium are overheating. Some are breaking down and must be replaced. As a result, Iran has not ramped up its enrichment effort as quickly as analysts had expected. [************]
This assessment is based on recent conversations with analysts from several Western nations that are watching the Iranian program closely and on an unpublished report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that was completed Aug. 31. To me, it's the equivalent of adding some extra time to the clock in a tense football game. The urgency remains, but there is an opportunity for a few additional plays before the game is over.
"There's time, purely from the point of view of the technical development of the threat, to let diplomacy play out in the case of Iran," says Harvard professor Ashton B. Carter, who closely follows the issue. [***********]
The technical difficulties involve the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz, [*******] north of Isfahan in central Iran. The Iranians broke IAEA seals at Natanz in January and began enriching uranium. It's a highly complex process, in which uranium gas is injected into the linked array of centrifuges that spin at roughly the speed of sound. [********] President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced April 11 that the Iranians had succeeded in enriching uranium to an initial level of 3.5 percent, and in June Iran told the IAEA it had achieved 5 percent enrichment. That's far below the 90 percent level needed for a nuclear weapon, but it suggested the Iranians were on their way to mastering the technology. [***************]
Western analysts had expected that the Iranians would move quickly to expand the enrichment effort to meet their near-term goal of having six cascades of 164 centrifuges each, or a total of nearly 1,000 centrifuges. The danger here was technological mastery rather than raw output of uranium. [********] Even with 3,000 centrifuges operating, intelligence analysts estimate that it would take two to three years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for one bomb. [*******]Iran's eventual goal is a massive array of more than 50,000 centrifuges at Natanz. [***********]
But problems surfaced this summer. The Aug. 31 IAEA report, marked "Restricted Distribution," noted that since June, Iran had been feeding uranium into a small 20-centrifuge test cascade "for short periods of time," and that it had conducted various tests in June, July and August of the initial 164-centrifuge cascade. "The installation of a second 164-machine cascade is proceeding," the report noted, but it added that Iran planned to test the second cascade in September without injecting uranium.
What happened to slow the expected pace? IAEA analysts have told U.S. and European officials that it appears the centrifuges are overheating when uranium gas is injected. "The Iranians are unable to control higher temperatures, and after a short period they must stop because of higher temperatures. So far they haven't been able to solve this," [**********] says one Western intelligence official who has been briefed on the IAEA findings. In addition, this official said, some centrifuges "are simply crashing -- 10 or so have broken down and must be replaced."
There's a lively debate among intelligence analysts about what may be causing these problems. One theory holds that Iran's home-produced uranium, mixed with foreign ore, isn't sufficiently pure for the delicate centrifuges, but other analysts reject that argument. Several analysts I talked to agreed, however, that if Iranian scientists continue with enrichment, they are likely to solve the technical problems eventually through trial and error. [******************]That's why U.S. and European officials are still calling for Iran to suspend enrichment, before they have cracked the puzzles they are encountering.
Iran continues to insist that its nuclear program is peaceful. And although it's taken for granted in many Western countries that these statements mask a secret plan to build nuclear weapons, intelligence analysts from several nations told me they lack decisive evidence of an Iranian bomb effort. So far, there is no "smoking gun," said an intelligence analyst from one Western nation. Nevertheless, the United States, Israel and some European countries remain convinced that a covert weapons program exists.
The clock is still ticking. That's the real import of these new intelligence findings. Iran and the West still have time to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear showdown. This genie isn't quite out of the bottle. [***************]
The writer co-hosts, with Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues athttp://www.washingtonpost.com. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Of Course Iraq Made It Worse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801455.html
Of Course Iraq Made It Worse
By Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon
Friday, September 29, 2006; A21 [oped] [by authors of Age of Sacred Terror] [on recent leaked NIE that says Iraq has become a cause celebre for Jihadis] [NSSherlock][ **********] [use psci 469]
The declassified judgments from the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism caused a stir in the political world this week, but for most -- we would guess almost all -- scholars of jihadist terrorism, they are largely uncontroversial. The war in Iraq, the lack of reform in the Muslim world and anger at its endemic corruption and injustice, the pervasiveness of anti-Western sentiment -- all these have long been identified as major drivers of radical Islamist terror.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801455.html
Of Course Iraq Made It Worse
By Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon
Friday, September 29, 2006; A21 [oped] [by authors of Age of Sacred Terror] [on recent leaked NIE that says Iraq has become a cause celebre for Jihadis] [NSSherlock][ **********] [use psci 469]
The declassified judgments from the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism caused a stir in the political world this week, but for most -- we would guess almost all -- scholars of jihadist terrorism, they are largely uncontroversial. The war in Iraq, the lack of reform in the Muslim world and anger at its endemic corruption and injustice, the pervasiveness of anti-Western sentiment -- all these have long been identified as major drivers of radical Islamist terror.
What's striking, instead, is that anyone could still disagree with this assessment of the role of Iraq, as President Bush and commentators such as Robert Kagan ["More Leaks, Please," op-ed, Sept. 26] have done. [*********] It's a shame that more of the document wasn't released, because none of the evidence or argumentation to support the claim that Iraq has added fuel to the jihadist fire was included. And there's no good reason most or all of it shouldn't be released.
In fact, though, you don't need an NIE to demonstrate the most controversial judgment -- that the war in Iraq has worsened the terrorist threat. The official coordinated evaluation by Britain's domestic security and foreign intelligence services noted that "the conflict in Iraq has exacerbated the threat from international terrorism and will continue to have an impact in the long term." This conclusion is echoed by interior ministries, law enforcement agencies and intelligence services in every part of the world. [***********]
Since the United States invaded Iraq, there has been a significant increase in the number of people committed to the jihadist cause. [*********]There is, of course, no turnstile counting those hopping aboard the jihadist train, as the NIE excerpt concedes. Demands for an unattainable precision on this aren't realistic.
Although jihadist activity is burgeoning around the world, many of the new recruits can be grouped into three categories. [*] The first are the "homegrown" terrorists who may have little connection to al-Qaeda or other [**] existing groups but who have been won over by the ideas of Osama bin Laden [inspired by OBL but autonomous] [********] and his followers. [***] Self-starters have appeared not only in Madrid, Leeds and London but also in Canada, the Maghreb, the Middle East and Pakistan.
Some question whether these people have really been spurred by Iraq. Just as President Bush urges that we take the terrorists at their word about their wish to create a new caliphate, we take them at their word about their motivation: Iraq has been crucial. The Madrid bombers were explicit about their desire to punish Spain for its support of the United States in Iraq; friends and neighbors recounted that those who bombed the London subway system were obsessed with Iraq. And time and again, investigators have found that these new recruits hoarded Internet videos packed with scenes of violence from Iraq -- part of a narrative of heroic defiance that is deeply compelling to some young Muslims.
The two other categories of recruits are centered in Iraq itself. [*] One consists of the foreign fighters, who, it turns out, are not the remnants of al-Qaeda that the administration believed would flock to their doom in Iraq. [**********] According to both Saudi and Israeli scholars who have studied the biographies of foreign fighters killed in Iraq, very few had prior experience of Islamic radicalism. They were drawn by their perception that the indignity of Iraqi occupation had to be fought. [********]
[**] The final category is Iraqi jihadists. There were virtually none in Iraq before the invasion. [**********]Now Sunni insurgent organizations espousing jihadism are dominated by Iraqis, who number in the thousands. As the NIE judgments suggest, those groups, which have already carried out bombings in Jordan, are likely to look for more targets outside Iraq.
The terrorists are increasing not only in numbers but also in lethality. As leaked government reports and expert analyses have observed, jihadists have been able to improve their bombmaking and urban warfare skills in Iraq in a way they could not in Afghanistan. A Marine intelligence report indicated last month that they have also acquired a sanctuary in Anbar province that the United States is probably incapable of destroying.
Defenders of the war in Iraq, such as Vice President Cheney, contend that since the United States has not been hit since Sept. 11, the threat cannot be growing. In fact, the terrorists understand that for now it is easier to kill Americans in Iraq than in America, and at this they have succeeded. After the Heathrow plot to destroy U.S.-bound commercial jets and the disclosure of a homegrown cell next-door in Canada, suggesting that the danger is subsiding bespeaks obliviousness or denial. [**********]
Then there is the claim that Iraq has not had a catalytic effect because the terrorists were already after us, an argument the president repeated Tuesday. "We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. . . . We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993." [true but beside the point] [***********]
No doubt the United States would have had a serious struggle against radical Islam after Sept. 11 under any circumstances. But the occupation of Iraq, by appearing to confirm bin Laden's arguments about America's antipathy toward the Muslim world, has had an incendiary effect and made matters dramatically worse. [bingo] [*********]
The invasion of Iraq was the wrong answer to the terrorist challenge, for which we will pay a high price for years to come. The continued need to defend that move by the administration and its partisans is preventing the nation from crafting the necessary strategy to meet the terrorist challenge and make Americans safer. The evidence is at hand.
Daniel Benjamin is a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Steven Simon is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. They served on the National Security Council staff from 1994 to 1999.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Book Says Bush Ignored Urgent Warning on Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washington/29account.html
September 29, 2006
Book Says Bush Ignored Urgent Warning on Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER [newspaper analysis of Woodward’s new book and its charges] [why there was nothing in today’s WP is beyond me] [surely, as with his other books, the Post is going to run a series on it] [look for it] [***********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top Iraq adviser who said that thousands of additional American troops were desperately needed to quell the insurgency there, [******] according to a new book by Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter and author. The book describes a White House riven by dysfunction and division over the war. [consider the timing: early May Pres Bush gave the “mission accomplished speech on the USS Lincoln off San Diego] [June, July, and I believe August indicators of things heading south quickly] [and if true in September the president received a warning from a top adviser???] [top aide: Robert Blackwill, then the top NSC staffer on Iraq; but also Andrew Card as seen in today’s govt] [******************]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/washington/29account.html
September 29, 2006
Book Says Bush Ignored Urgent Warning on Iraq
By DAVID E. SANGER [newspaper analysis of Woodward’s new book and its charges] [why there was nothing in today’s WP is beyond me] [surely, as with his other books, the Post is going to run a series on it] [look for it] [***********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The White House ignored an urgent warning in September 2003 from a top Iraq adviser who said that thousands of additional American troops were desperately needed to quell the insurgency there, [******] according to a new book by Bob Woodward, the Washington Post reporter and author. The book describes a White House riven by dysfunction and division over the war. [consider the timing: early May Pres Bush gave the “mission accomplished speech on the USS Lincoln off San Diego] [June, July, and I believe August indicators of things heading south quickly] [and if true in September the president received a warning from a top adviser???] [top aide: Robert Blackwill, then the top NSC staffer on Iraq; but also Andrew Card as seen in today’s govt] [******************]
The warning is described in “State of Denial,” scheduled for publication on Monday by Simon & Schuster. The book says President Bush’s top advisers were often at odds among themselves, and sometimes were barely on speaking terms, but shared a tendency to dismiss as too pessimistic assessments from American commanders and others about the situation in Iraq.
As late as November 2003, Mr. Bush is quoted as saying of the situation in Iraq: “I don’t want anyone in the cabinet to say it is an insurgency. I don’t think we are there yet.” [*************]
Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld is described as disengaged from the nuts-and-bolts of occupying and reconstructing Iraq — a task that was initially supposed to be under the direction of the Pentagon — and so hostile toward Condoleezza Rice, then the national security adviser, that President Bush had to tell him to return her phone calls. [**********] [use nsc ms] [*******] The American commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, is reported to have told visitors to his headquarters in Qatar in the fall of 2005 that “Rumsfeld doesn’t have any credibility anymore” to make a public case for the American strategy for victory in Iraq. [************] [wow] [**********] [use nsc ms] [c.f., in today’s govt Andrew Card apparently told bush to dump rummy]
The book, bought by a reporter for The New York Times at retail price in advance of its official release, is the third that Mr. Woodward has written chronicling the inner debates in the White House after the Sept. 11 attacks, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the subsequent decision to invade Iraq. Like Mr. Woodward’s previous works, the book includes lengthy verbatim quotations from conversations and describes what senior officials are thinking at various times, without identifying the sources for the information. [**************]
Mr. Woodward writes that his book is based on “interviews with President Bush’s national security team, their deputies, and other senior and key players in the administration responsible for the military, the diplomacy, and the intelligence on Iraq.” [********] Some of those interviewed, including Mr. Rumsfeld, are identified by name, but neither Mr. Bush nor Vice President Dick Cheney agreed to be interviewed, the book says. [**************]
Robert D. Blackwill, then the top Iraq adviser on the National Security Council, is said to have issued his warning about the need for more troops in a lengthy memorandum sent to Ms. Rice. The book says Mr. Blackwill’s memorandum concluded that more ground troops, perhaps as many as 40,000, were desperately needed. [*********]
It says that Mr. Blackwill and L. Paul Bremer III, then the top American official in Iraq, later briefed Ms. Rice and Stephen J. Hadley, her deputy, about the pressing need for more troops during a secure teleconference from Iraq. It says the White House did nothing in response. [*********]
The book describes a deep fissure between Colin L. Powell, Mr. Bush’s first secretary of state, and Mr. Rumsfeld: When Mr. Powell was eased out after the 2004 elections, he told Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, that “if I go, Don should go,” referring to Mr. Rumsfeld. [******************]
Mr. Card then made a concerted effort to oust Mr. Rumsfeld at the end of 2005, according to the book, but was overruled by President Bush, who feared that it would disrupt the coming Iraqi elections and operations at the Pentagon. [see today’s govt] [**********]
Vice President Cheney is described as a man so determined to find proof that his claim about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was accurate that, in the summer of 2003, his aides were calling the chief weapons inspector, David Kay, with specific satellite coordinates as the sites of possible caches. [*************] None resulted in any finds. [this is too bizarre: how did they have satellite coordinates unless dod’s own intell funneling infor to veep—that is, Wolfowitz, Feith, Luti, Libby] [***********]
Two members of Mr. Bush’s inner circle, Mr. Powell and the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet, are described as ambivalent about the decision to invade Iraq. When Mr. Powell assented, reluctantly, in January 2003, Mr. Bush told him in an Oval Office meeting that it was “time to put your war uniform on,” a reference to his many years in the Army. [****************]
Mr. Tenet, the man who once told Mr. Bush that it was a “slam-dunk” that weapons of mass destruction existed in Iraq, apparently did not share his qualms about invading Iraq directly with Mr. Bush, according to Mr. Woodward’s account. [********]
Mr. Woodward’s first two books about the Bush administration, “Bush at War” and “Plan of Attack,” portrayed a president firmly in command and a loyal, well-run team responding to a surprise attack and the retaliation that followed. As its title indicates, “State of Denial” follows a very different storyline, of an administration that seemed to have only a foggy notion that early military success in Iraq had given way to resentment of the occupiers. [*********************]
The 537-page book describes tensions among senior officials from the very beginning of the administration. Mr. Woodward writes that in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Tenet believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was impeding the effort to develop a coherent strategy to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Mr. Rumsfeld questioned the electronic signals from terrorism suspects that the National Security Agency had been intercepting, wondering whether they might be part of an elaborate deception plan by Al Qaeda. [***********************************]
On July 10, 2001, the book says, Mr. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, met with Ms. Rice at the White House to impress upon her the seriousness of the intelligence the agency was collecting about an impending attack. But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously. [**********]
In the weeks before the Iraq war began, President Bush’s parents did not share his confidence that the invasion of Iraq was the right step, the book recounts. Mr. Woodward writes about a private exchange in January 2003 between Mr. Bush’s mother, Barbara Bush, the former first lady, and David L. Boren, a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a Bush family friend. [***********]
The book says Mrs. Bush asked Mr. Boren whether it was right to be worried about a possible invasion of Iraq, and then to have confided that the president’s father, former President George H. W. Bush, “is certainly worried and is losing sleep over it; he’s up at night worried.” [*******************]
The book describes an exchange in early 2003 between Lt. Gen. Jay Garner, the retired officer Mr. Bush appointed to administer postwar Iraq, and President Bush and others in the White House situation room. It describes senior war planners as having been thoroughly uninterested in the details of the postwar mission. [*********]
After General Garner finished his PowerPoint presentation — which included his plan to use up to 300,000 troops of the Iraqi Army to help secure postwar Iraq, the book says — there were no questions from anyone in the situation room, and the president gave him a rousing sendoff. [************************]
But it was General Garner who was soon removed, in favor of Mr. Bremer, whose actions in dismantling the Iraqi army and removing Baathists from office were eventually disparaged within the government.
The book suggests that senior intelligence officials were caught off guard in the opening days of the war when Iraqi civilian fighters engaged in suicide attacks against armored American forces, the first hint of the deadly insurgent attacks to come. [***********]
In a meeting with Mr. Tenet of the Central Intelligence Agency, several Pentagon officials talked about the attacks, the book says. It says that Mr. Tenet acknowledged that he did not know what to make of them. [****************]
Mr. Rumsfeld reached into political matters at the periphery of his responsibilities, according to the book. At one point, Mr. Bush traveled to Ohio, where the Abrams battle tank was manufactured. Mr. Rumsfeld phoned Mr. Card to complain that Mr. Bush should not have made the visit because Mr. Rumsfeld thought the heavy tank was incompatible with his vision of a light and fast military of the future. [**********]Mr. Woodward wrote that Mr. Card believed that Mr. Rumsfeld was “out of control.” [*********]
The fruitless search for unconventional weapons caused tension between Vice President Cheney’s office, the C.I.A. and officials in Iraq. [*********]Mr. Woodward wrote that Mr. Kay, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq, e-mailed top C.I.A. officials directly in the summer of 2003 with his most important early findings.
At one point, when Mr. Kay warned that it was possible the Iraqis might have had the capability to make such weapons but did not actually produce them, waiting instead until they were needed, the book says he was told by John McLaughlin, the C.I.A.’s deputy director: “Don’t tell anyone this. This could be upsetting. Be very careful. We can’t let this out until we’re sure.”
Mr. Cheney was involved in the details of the hunt for illicit weapons, the book says. One night, Mr. Woodward wrote, Mr. Kay was awakened at 3 a.m. by an aide who told him Mr. Cheney’s office was on the phone. It says Mr. Kay was told that Mr. Cheney wanted to make sure he had read a highly classified communications intercept picked up from Syria indicating a possible location for chemical weapons. [**********] [incredible]
Mr. Woodward and a colleague, Carl Bernstein, led The Post’s reporting during Watergate, and Mr. Woodward has since written a string of best sellers about Washington. More recently, the identity of Mr. Woodward’s Watergate source known as Deep Throat was disclosed as having been W. Mark Felt, a senior F.B.I. official.
In late 2005, Mr. Woodward was subpoenaed by the special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case. He also apologized to The Post’s executive editor for concealing for more than two years that he had been drawn into the scandal.
Mark Mazzetti and David Johnston contributed reporting from Washington, and Julie Bosman from New York.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Faster Pace by China on Rise in Currency

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/business/worldbusiness/29yuan.html
September 29, 2006
Faster Pace by China on Rise in Currency
By KEITH BRADSHER and STEVEN R. WEISMAN [China] [potentially America’s next state threat—future cold war] [N in TNT] [********] [currency: finally letting the yuan appreciate relative to dollar] [************]
HONG KONG, Sept. 28 — It’s been just days since Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. returned from China, but already the Chinese government has sharply stepped up the appreciation of its currency, allowing it to push through an important level against the dollar on Thursday for the first time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/business/worldbusiness/29yuan.html
September 29, 2006
Faster Pace by China on Rise in Currency
By KEITH BRADSHER and STEVEN R. WEISMAN [China] [potentially America’s next state threat—future cold war] [N in TNT] [********] [currency: finally letting the yuan appreciate relative to dollar] [************]
HONG KONG, Sept. 28 — It’s been just days since Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. returned from China, but already the Chinese government has sharply stepped up the appreciation of its currency, allowing it to push through an important level against the dollar on Thursday for the first time.
The recent climb — less than a full percentage point since the beginning of September — is still modest and perhaps will not last. But it is producing cautious hope in the Bush administration that the Chinese government may be lifting its opposition to a revaluation that could ease China’s huge trade surplus with the United States.
And partly in response to the currency lift in China, two influential senators in Washington announced Thursday that they were pulling back legislation that would punish China with tariffs if it did not allow the value of its currency to rise, a step that would make exports to the United States more expensive and imports from America more competitive.
Though modest, the rise this month in the value of China’s currency, the yuan, has been at a rate more than four times the currency’s appreciation for most of the past year.
On Thursday, China’s government let the yuan push through 7.9 to the dollar, the latest in a series of daily highs that for the last two weeks has proceeded at an annualized rate of 17 percent.
The White House and Mr. Paulson had vigorously opposed the measure by Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, arguing that putting pressure on the Chinese would backfire. The administration also argued that imposing tariffs as the bill contemplated would violate international rules. Mr. Paulson called for the bill to be pulled back after he returned from China last Friday.
Mr. Schumer said Thursday that he and Mr. Graham would work with other senators to write a bill for submission next year that would press the Chinese but not do anything that might contravene rules of the World Trade Organization.
“There’s a view in both the administration and in Congress that our legislation and the Paulson visit to China has given an impetus for the Chinese to move,” he said in an interview. “Our bill was an admittedly blunt instrument. We have decided that it has run its course and that it is time to move to another approach that complies with the W.T.O.” Analysts disagreed on Thursday whether the Chinese action was significant, a harbinger of a trend or a feint that could be reversed easily.
The strengthening of the currency in September, at an annualized rate of 10 percent, compares with an annual appreciation of less than 2.5 percent for most of the year after China’s small revaluation in July 2005.
“The reality is they’re moving at a faster pace,” said Jonathan Anderson, the chief Asia economist at UBS. Others said the pace was likely to be temporary.
“The Chinese are doing this as a gesture of good will,” said Tao Dong, the chief Asia economist at Credit Suisse, while adding that he expected the pace of appreciation to settle down soon to about 5 percent a year.
Beijing’s leaders have long bridled at foreign criticism, prompting some China watchers to suggest that quiet diplomacy, rather than confrontation, may be more productive in bringing about an appreciation of the yuan.
Mr. Paulson accumulated decades of experience in dealing with China while at Goldman Sachs, where he served as president before resigning last summer to become Treasury chief. He has pursued a much more low-key approach this summer than his predecessors or American lawmakers, preferring to raise the currency issue in private with Chinese leaders.
Bush administration officials and many analysts cautioned against enthusiasm that the currency appreciation will continue. In the past, the currency has sometimes risen slightly only to fall back again later.
“We’re not crowing over this,” said an administration official, asking not to be identified because the administration policy is not to comment on these matters.
“If you look back over the last year, there is reason for caution,” the official added. “Does this represent a change? Or does it mean that the Chinese are letting us feel good about the Paulson trip and then planning to go back to what they were doing.”
Nicholas Lardy, a senior China analyst at the International Institute of Economics, said it was too soon to say whether China had embarked on a trend toward revaluation.
“Extrapolation on the basis of a trend like this is a dangerous business,” Mr. Lardy said. “It could be a good will gesture for Paulson. But if there’s little more net change over the next six months, people will say that the Chinese are just taking us in again.”
Just two weeks ago, before the World Bank and International Monetary Fund annual meetings in Singapore, Chinese officials had repeated their longstanding promises to let the market start playing a greater role in the currency’s value, without giving any indication of a timetable.
This month, Mr. Paulson met with top Chinese leaders and established a “strategic economic dialogue” between senior officials in the United States and China to discuss a range of economic issues, including currency. Mr. Paulson said the dialogue would be aimed at enlisting broad support among Chinese leaders to push for economic changes in a variety of areas, including currency policy.
Mr. Paulson said he was encouraged by his meetings with various officials, including President Hu Jintao, but he cautioned against expecting quick results. Nevertheless, the slight increase in China’s currency has prompted speculation that the Chinese wanted to reward him.
The yuan’s rise also comes at a time when the Chinese economy seems to have settled down to sustained but controlled economic growth. That may make Chinese officials more prepared to experiment a little more with the value of the yuan.
After signs emerged last spring of possible overheating in investment, China’s central bank raised interest rates and tightened bank reserve requirements, among other measures. The moves, like a halt to projects that had started without the central government’s permission, have helped temper growth.
The official New China News Agency reported on Thursday that Xu Yifan, the deputy director of the National Bureau of Statistics, had predicted the Chinese economy would grow about 10 percent this year for the third year in a row.
Year-over-year growth had jumped to 11.3 percent in the second quarter.
“The various measures that were taken have worked, they’ve taken some of the steam out,” said Michael R. P. Smith, the president and chief executive of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, which encompasses almost all of the Asian operations of HSBC.
Overall economic growth continues in China at a pace that any other country would love to match, Mr. Smith said in an interview on Wednesday afternoon, adding that the Chinese economy “is galloping, but it’s in control.”
The exception is the trade surplus, which is soaring and has set records for four months in a row through August. “The one big problem sticking out in China like a thumb, like a five-ton thumb, is the trade surplus,” Mr. Anderson said.
The People’s Bank of China, the country’s central bank, said when it revalued the currency by 2.1 percent in July last year that it would start setting the value of the yuan based on a basket of foreign currencies, and would no longer peg it just to the dollar.
But in practice, the central bank has allowed the yuan to appreciate at a fairly steady but very gradual pace against the dollar; statistical analyses of changes in the yuan’s value have shown almost no correlation to currencies other than the dollar. The yuan rose 0.07 percent in Shanghai trading on Thursday to trade at 7.8965 dollars at 5:30 p.m.
To prevent the currency from appreciating more rapidly, the central bank has bought dollars and sold yuan on a large scale. It has accumulated the world’s largest foreign exchange reserves, which are on track to reach $1 trillion in the coming weeks.
Keith Bradsher reported from Hong Kong andSteven R. Weisman from Washington.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Jewish Group Snatches Girl in West Bank Raid

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-mideast-abduction.html
September 29, 2006
Jewish Group Snatches Girl in West Bank Raid
By REUTERS
Filed at 6:37 a.m. ET [Israel] [domestic politics run amok] [religious group enters occupied territory to snatch a half jewish girl] [it’s as though a protestant Californian impregnated a Mexican woman] [said woman gave birth in Mexico and began raising girly as Catholic] [father and a group of fundamentalist protestants conspire and cross the border then snatch her, to bring her back to California] [or vice versa] [hell would be raised diplomatically] [**************]
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Members of a Jewish group this week snatched a 6-year-old girl who was born to a Jewish mother but lived with her Palestinian father in the West Bank.

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-mideast-abduction.html
September 29, 2006
Jewish Group Snatches Girl in West Bank Raid
By REUTERS
Filed at 6:37 a.m. ET [Israel] [domestic politics run amok] [religious group enters occupied territory to snatch a half jewish girl] [it’s as though a protestant Californian impregnated a Mexican woman] [said woman gave birth in Mexico and began raising girly as Catholic] [father and a group of fundamentalist protestants conspire and cross the border then snatch her, to bring her back to California] [or vice versa] [hell would be raised diplomatically] [**************]
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Members of a Jewish group this week snatched a 6-year-old girl who was born to a Jewish mother but lived with her Palestinian father in the West Bank.
The members of Yad L'achim, an organization that describes its aim as rescuing ``Jewish souls,'' snatched the girl during a night-time raid on a house in Tulkarm, in the north of the Israeli-occupied West Bank, [****]Israeli newspaper Ma'ariv said.
``We turned to the police and other services, but none of them was able to help us. So we used one of our undercover units,'' [*******]Mati Dushenski, a spokesman for Yad L'achim, told Reuters, confirming Wednesday's operation.
``We have done many similar operations in the past,'' [*******] he said. [if they have done so with impungnity then the Israeli government has been remiss] [********]
Ma'ariv said the Yad L'achim unit, armed with assault rifles, had forced the father and daughter into a van and driven off. The father was released in an olive grove outside Tulkarm and the child was taken to a secret location to meet her mother.
A Palestinian newspaper reported that the Jewish gunmen had long beards and had worn Arab headdresses in an apparent effort to disguise themselves as locals.
The girl's father was quoted in Ma'ariv as saying that he and the girl's mother met seven years ago, fell in love and married. The mother converted to Islam and moved to Tulkarm where he had another wife and five children.
Together they had a daughter who was raised as a Muslim.
The mother told Yad L'achim that her husband had pretended to be a French-American Jew, the organization said. She said she hadn't known that her husband was already married and that after their wedding, she wasn't allowed to leave the house.
Yad L'achim said the woman had left her husband and taken her daughter to live in the Israeli city of Ashdod in June this year, but that her husband had subsequently come and taken the daughter back with him to Tulkarm.
``This is one of many cases that we had to take care of with our undercover units that operate in the territories,'' Rabbi Shalom Dov Lifshitz, the head of Yad L'achim, told Ma'ariv.
The mother was said to be preparing a legal suit to maintain custody of the child.
Copyright 2006 Reuters Ltd.

NATO Agrees to Lead Allies in All Afghanistan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801600.html
NATO Agrees to Lead Allies in All Afghanistan
Under Accord, U.S. Will Transfer 12,000 Troops in Eastern Sector to British-Led Force
Reuters
Friday, September 29, 2006; A16 [Afghan] [hydra] [insurgency] [this year’s spring-summer offensive the most potent since US invaded in Oct 2001] [latest] [followup] [real increase in the pace of killings] [NATO is taking it seriously, quite clearly] [perhaps too little too late, perhaps not] [***********]
PORTOROZ, Slovenia, Sept. 28 -- NATO agreed Thursday to take command of military operations across all of insurgency-hit Afghanistan next month after the United States pledged to transfer 12,000 American troops in the country to the NATO force.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801600.html
NATO Agrees to Lead Allies in All Afghanistan
Under Accord, U.S. Will Transfer 12,000 Troops in Eastern Sector to British-Led Force
Reuters
Friday, September 29, 2006; A16 [Afghan] [hydra] [insurgency] [this year’s spring-summer offensive the most potent since US invaded in Oct 2001] [latest] [followup] [real increase in the pace of killings] [NATO is taking it seriously, quite clearly] [perhaps too little too late, perhaps not] [***********]
PORTOROZ, Slovenia, Sept. 28 -- NATO agreed Thursday to take command of military operations across all of insurgency-hit Afghanistan next month after the United States pledged to transfer 12,000 American troops in the country to the NATO force.
Pentagon officials said the transfer of troops currently in Afghanistan's eastern region would result in the biggest deployment of U.S. forces under foreign command since World War II.
Afghanistan is experiencing a level of violence not seen since extremist Islamic Taliban rulers were ousted in 2001.
Militant attacks in eastern Afghanistan, near the border with Pakistan, have tripled in some areas, the U.S. military said Thursday, despite a peace agreement on the Pakistani side meant to end the violence.
The NATO accord came as European nations failed to plug all troop shortfalls identified by commanders battling the Taliban insurgency. As a result of the accord, the United States will provide 14,000 of the approximately 32,000 NATO troops that will be under British command. About 2,000 of the U.S. troops were already serving in the NATO force.
"I am grateful that the United States has decided to bring its forces under ISAF," Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told reporters after a NATO meeting in Slovenia, referring to NATO's International Security Assistance Force.
"It should not be used as an argument that we can now rest on our laurels," he added, urging other allies to come forward with extra troops for the more dangerous south.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said it was "perfectly understandable" if other NATO allies restricted where their troops could operate but added that such restrictions undermined NATO's flexibility on the ground.
The Taliban resurgence has soured relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, crucial allies in the U.S.-led war against Islamic militants.
The two countries have agreed to tighten security cooperation and to hold meetings of tribal leaders to encourage them to pursue militants, Afghanistan's ambassador in Washington said Thursday.
Ambassador Said T. Jawad, providing details of a dinner at the White House on Wednesday that was attended by the Afghan and Pakistani presidents, said Pakistan had agreed to take action against militants based on Afghan intelligence.
"Pakistan agreed that if it is provided with specific demands, names or lists of targets that it will comply," Jawad said in a brief interview.
The Afghan government has expressed anger at the support available to the resurgent Taliban in Pakistan and is suspicious of a peace agreement struck in Pakistan this month.
The pact is intended to end violence by pro-Taliban militants in Pakistan's North Waziristan border region and choke off cross-border attacks in Afghanistan.
But the number of attacks on the Afghan side of the mountainous border, in the provinces of Paktika and Khost, has risen since the pact was signed, the U.S. military said.
"There has been an increase in activity, certainly along the border region, especially in the southeast areas across from North Waziristan," said Air Force Lt. Col. John Paradis, a military spokesman.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

NATO to Command 12,000 G.I.’s in Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/asia/29nato.html
September 29, 2006
NATO to Command 12,000 G.I.’s in Afghanistan
By DAVID S. CLOUD [Afghan] [hydra] [insurgency] [this year’s spring-summer offensive the most potent since US invaded in Oct 2001] [latest] [followup] [real increase in the pace of killings] [NATO is taking it seriously, quite clearly] [perhaps too little too late, perhaps not] [***********]
PORTOROZ, Slovenia, Sept. 28 — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld agreed Thursday to put 12,000 American combat troops in eastern Afghanistan under NATO command, possibly as soon as next month, [*******] officials said. [I recall when President Clinton considered the same thing and there were howls from conservatives and neoconservatives] [it will be interesting to see if they similarly get heartburn when one of their own does this] [I personally have no problem in principle] [NATO and the US are largely integrated already] [US military commanders know what to do and what not to do ande I trust them to ensure America’s troops’ interests are considered properly] [********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/asia/29nato.html
September 29, 2006
NATO to Command 12,000 G.I.’s in Afghanistan
By DAVID S. CLOUD [Afghan] [hydra] [insurgency] [this year’s spring-summer offensive the most potent since US invaded in Oct 2001] [latest] [followup] [real increase in the pace of killings] [NATO is taking it seriously, quite clearly] [perhaps too little too late, perhaps not] [***********]
PORTOROZ, Slovenia, Sept. 28 — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld agreed Thursday to put 12,000 American combat troops in eastern Afghanistan under NATO command, possibly as soon as next month, [*******] officials said. [I recall when President Clinton considered the same thing and there were howls from conservatives and neoconservatives] [it will be interesting to see if they similarly get heartburn when one of their own does this] [I personally have no problem in principle] [NATO and the US are largely integrated already] [US military commanders know what to do and what not to do ande I trust them to ensure America’s troops’ interests are considered properly] [********]
The command shift, approved at a two-day meeting of NATO defense ministers at this Adriatic resort town, would extend the alliance’s area of operations across all of Afghanistan. It would still leave about 10,000 American troops, including Special Operations units, under exclusive American control.
The Bush administration has long sought to draw the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into a larger role in providing security and reconstruction assistance in the country.
Although the move would not increase the number of combat troops in Afghanistan, it comes as a show of unity at a time when Taliban rebels have intensified attacks against NATO forces that took over responsibility for security in the south just two months ago, [********] several officials said. The American decision to place more than half its forces in Afghanistan under the Atlantic alliance’s theater commander, Lt. Gen. David J. Richards of Britain, would put the alliance in control of 32,000 soldiers from 37 countries.
NATO has showed “resolve, a lot of resolve, to stay the course in Afghanistan,” Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told reporters after the foreign ministers approved the NATO expansion. [***********]
Mr. Rumsfeld told reporters that the extension of the alliance’s command into the American sector in the east, along the border with Pakistan, would happen “in the days and weeks ahead.” The exact timing of the move appeared linked to whether European governments themselves would provide additional forces that NATO military planners have requested for southern Afghanistan, as well as progress on easing country-by-country restrictions that limit their use in combat.
In discussions on Thursday, a NATO official said several countries discussed providing additional troops or equipment, including Denmark, the Czech Republic and Canada. But major European powers, including France, Germany, Italy and Spain, have not sent additional troops to the south. [***********]
Asked whether the American soldiers might be used to buttress the alliance’s efforts in the south, where British, Canadian and Dutch forces have faced tough fighting while inflicting heavy casualties on Taliban fighters recently, a NATO spokesman, James Appathurai, said he knew of no limits imposed by Washington on where they could go.
But American officials said it was unlikely that American units would be shifted in large numbers to the south because they were needed on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, where attacks have also intensified.
Mr. Rumsfeld said that, in addition to supplying more forces and equipment, NATO governments were under pressure to lift so-called national caveats that restrict how and where their forces could be employed in Afghanistan. The biggest hurdle, officials said, are countries that bar their troops from being moved to the south, where the toughest fighting has been occurring. It is “difficult for the commander when he is not able to move forces around,” Mr. Rumsfeld said, [********]adding that the caveats in the aggregate created a “situation that is not acceptable.”
But Mr. de Hoop Scheffer said that Germany, which has around 3,000 troops in Afghanistan, mostly in the north where there is little fighting, informed other NATO ministers that it would not lift restrictions that prevented its forces from being moved to the south. Any such redeployment must be approved by the German Parliament, where there is strong opposition to involving its forces in possible combat.
Mr. Rumsfeld said it was impossible to know precisely whether wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were resulting in more terrorists being killed than they were creating. [********]He did not make specific comments on a recently declassified intelligence report that said that Iraq had become a “cause célèbre” for jihadists. He said that because he had been traveling he did not know which portions of the report had been made public.
But, he said, “The implication that if you stop killing or capturing people who are trying to kill you, then therefore the world would be a better place, is obviously nonsensical.” [*********]
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Iraqi Journalists Add Laws to List of Dangers

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29media.html
September 29, 2006
Iraqi Journalists Add Laws to List of Dangers
By PAUL von ZIELBAUER [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********] [US military leaders beginning to openly question Maliki govt’s will] [*************************]
BAGHDAD — Ahmed al-Karbouli, a reporter for Baghdadiya TV in the violent city of Ramadi, did his best to ignore the death threats, right up until six armed men drilled him with bullets after midday prayers. [********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29media.html
September 29, 2006
Iraqi Journalists Add Laws to List of Dangers
By PAUL von ZIELBAUER [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********] [US military leaders beginning to openly question Maliki govt’s will] [*************************]
BAGHDAD — Ahmed al-Karbouli, a reporter for Baghdadiya TV in the violent city of Ramadi, did his best to ignore the death threats, right up until six armed men drilled him with bullets after midday prayers. [********]
He was the fourth journalist killed in Iraq in September alone, out of a total of more than 130 since the 2003 invasion, the vast majority of them Iraqis. But these days, men with guns are not Iraqi reporters’ only threat. Men with gavels are, too. [****]
Under a broad new set of laws criminalizing speech that ridicules the government or its officials, some resurrected verbatim from Saddam Hussein’s penal code, roughly a dozen Iraqi journalists have been charged with offending public officials in the past year. [*********]
Currently, three journalists for a small newspaper in southeastern Iraq are being tried here for articles last year that accused a provincial governor, local judges and police officials of corruption. The journalists are accused of violating Paragraph 226 of the penal code, which makes anyone who “publicly insults” the government or public officials subject to up to seven years in prison.
On Sept. 7, the police sealed the offices of Al Arabiya, a Dubai-based satellite news channel, for what the government said was inflammatory reporting. And the Committee to Protect Journalists says that at least three Iraqi journalists have served time in prison for writing articles deemed criminally offensive. [********]
The office of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has lately refused to speak with news organizations that report on sectarian violence in ways that the government considers inflammatory; some outlets have been shut down. [*******]
In addition to coping with government pressures, dozens of Iraqi journalists have been kidnapped by criminal gangs or detained by the American military, on suspicion that they are helping Sunni insurgents or Shiite militias. One, Bilal Hussein, who photographed insurgents in Anbar Province for The Associated Press, has been in American custody without charges since April.
And all Iraqi journalists have to live with the fear of death, which often dictates extreme security measures. Abdel Karim Hamadie, the news manager for Al Iraqiya Television, said he sometimes went months without leaving the station’s compound.
“The last time I went home was three weeks ago,” he said, showing off a small room adjacent to his office where he sleeps each night. “Before that, I spent three months at work. I used to hit my chair because I was so angry. But then I got a new chair.”
American diplomats here say they admire the dedication of Iraqi reporters in covering the war and the government’s efforts to create a democracy.
“Journalists here work under very, very difficult conditions,” said a United States Embassy official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “They are taking fire from every direction. They’ve got the defamation law hanging over their heads. They’ve got their political opponents gunning for them. They are trying very hard, and we want to encourage them.”
Under Mr. Hussein, reporters and editors were licensed and carefully watched. Even typewriters had to be registered with the government. During that time, some reporters got by on the conviction that their articles, about the government’s glorious new water projects or certain victory in the war with Iran, were at least patriotic.
“I never praised Saddam himself, never,” said Shihab al-Tamimi, 73, who runs the Iraqi Journalists Union from a battered old mansion here. “But I praised the project, for the good of the country.”
Now, Iraqi journalists still operate with considerable freedoms, at least compared with those in Saudi Arabia and other neighboring countries, and many Iraqis have achieved a new level of professionalism by working closely with Western journalists. So despite the growing government pressure, the news media have become increasingly aggressive.
Ethical boundaries, though, often remain murky. It was disclosed last year that the Lincoln Group, an American public relations firm hired by the Pentagon, paid Iraqi news outlets to print positive articles on the American presence here and provided stipends to Iraqi journalists in exchange for favorable treatment.
Even though the Iraqi news media have made strides, the journalists themselves are being killed at an extraordinary rate.
Since the Iraq war began, more than 130 journalists — most of them Iraqi — have been fatally shot, beaten or tortured to death, according to the Journalistic Freedoms Observatory, the most prominent domestic advocacy group for journalists to emerge since the invasion. (The Committee to Protect Journalists, which requires more evidence to verify reported killings, lists 79 journalists and 28 news workers.)
Most of the victims — reporters, photographers and editors — were working for local newspapers and television stations.
“Don’t be surprised if you wake up one day to find that I have also been killed,” said Habib al-Sadr, the chief executive of the government-financed Iraqi Media Network, the nation’s largest media organization. In the network’s office lobby, a display case holds the photographs of 13 reporters and editors killed on the job since 2003, including Amjad Hameed, the head of the network’s television channel, Al Iraqiya.
“The road to democracy is not smoothly paved,” Mr. Sadr said during a recent interview in his office, cigarette smoke curling around his face. “It is filled with bombs.”
Despite the danger, Falah al-Mishaal, the editor of Al Sabah, the government-run newspaper in Baghdad, said he enjoyed his job now because he felt like a real journalist.
“Now, we are free,” he said in an interview in late July. “We can write whatever we want.”
Three weeks after the interview, a man drove a minibus filled with explosives into Al Sabah’s rear parking lot and blew it up, killing two people and wounding 20 others.
September has been particularly deadly for journalists.
Safa Ismael Enad, a freelance news photographer, was buying film at his favorite print shop in eastern Baghdad on Sept. 13 when two men with guns walked in, fired two shots into his chest and dragged his bleeding body away.
Three days earlier, gunmen blocked Abdul-Kareem al-Rubaie, a designer for Al Sabah, as he traveled to work one sunny morning, and they shot him through the windshield. Last month, Mohammad Abbas Mohammad, a newspaper editor, was shot to death in western Baghdad, and Ismail Amin Ali, a blunt-spoken columnist, was killed on the street across town on the same day.
The disdain for truly free expression cuts across sectarian lines. The men who killed Mr. Karbouli after warning him to stop his critical reporting on the insurgency were almost certainly Sunni. The former governor of Wasit Province, and the judges and police officials who brought charges against the three journalists for questioning their ethics, were all Shiites.
In April, Mastura Mahmood, a young journalist for the women’s weekly paper Rewan, was charged with defamation for an article that quoted an anti-government demonstrator in Halabja comparing the Iraqi police there with the Baathists who once ran the country. She was arrested and then released on bail.
In May, a court in Sulaimaniya, in Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region, sentenced two journalists, Twana Osman and Asos Hardi, to six-month suspended jail terms for an article claiming that a Kurdish official had two telephone company employees fired after they cut his phone service for failing to pay his bill.
“These cases show that Iraqi officials are quick to use the same kinds of onerous legal tools as their neighbors to punish outspoken media,” said Joel Campagna, the Middle East program director for the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Last month, more than 70 news organizations signed a nine-point pledge supporting the national reconciliation plan of Prime Minister Maliki, promising not to use inflammatory statements or images of people killed in attacks, and vowing to “disseminate news in a way that harmonizes with Iraq’s interests.” Days later, the police barred journalists from photographing corpses at the scenes of bombings and mortar attacks. Since then, policemen have smashed several photographers’ cameras and digital memory cards.
At Al Arabiya, the Baghdad station shuttered by the Iraqi authorities earlier this month, the studio door handle is sealed in red wax and bound in police tape. (The door is adorned with a photo of Atwar Bahjat, who was kidnapped, tortured and killed in Samarra in February while reporting on the bombing of a Shiite shrine.)
Some news executives express support for Al Arabiya’s closing.
“It is the right of the Iraqi government, as it combats terrorism, to silence any voice that tries to harm the national unity,” said Mr. Sadr, of the Iraqi Media Network.
Sahar Nageeb and an Iraqi employee of The New York Times contributed reporting.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

After Burst of Violence, as Many as 60 Bodies Are Found in Baghdad

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html
September 29, 2006
After Burst of Violence, as Many as 60 Bodies Are Found in Baghdad
By MICHAEL LUO [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********] [US military leaders beginning to openly question Maliki govt’s will] [*************************]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 28 —As many as 60 bodies, many of them shot in the head at close range and bearing signs of torture, were discovered across the city on Thursday, an Interior Ministry official said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html
September 29, 2006
After Burst of Violence, as Many as 60 Bodies Are Found in Baghdad
By MICHAEL LUO [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********] [US military leaders beginning to openly question Maliki govt’s will] [*************************]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 28 —As many as 60 bodies, many of them shot in the head at close range and bearing signs of torture, were discovered across the city on Thursday, an Interior Ministry official said.
The death toll was one of the highest in weeks and came as American and Iraqi troops continued to sweep Baghdad’s most dangerous neighborhoods in a broad effort to control the capital. Killings of this kind, often driven by sectarian hatred, increased sharply here after the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February.
Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, a United States military spokesman, said Wednesday that such killings and other murders continued to claim more people in Baghdad than suicide bombings. Military officials had predicted a rise in violence with the advent of Ramadan, the holy month that began earlier this week.
Also on Thursday, an Islamist Internet site posted an audio clip of a man it identified as Hamza al-Muhajir, an Egyptian who the American military has said is Al Qaeda’s new chief in Iraq. In the 20-minute clip, the man exhorts fellow Sunni fighters to “work hard in this holy month to capture some Christian dogs,” to trade for an Egyptian sheik, Omar Abdel Rahman, who is imprisoned in the United States. Sheik Abdel Rahman, a blind Muslim cleric, was convicted in 1995 of plotting to blow up several New York City landmarks.
He also warned Sunni Arabs who he said had been working with the American occupation to change their ways by the end of Ramadan, considered by Muslims to be the month of forgiveness.
The authenticity of the audio clip could not be immediately verified.
Meanwhile, one of most damaging of several bombings in the capital on Thursday occurred in Shaab, a mostly Shiite neighborhood in northeastern Baghdad that had just been the focus of one of the concentrated sweeps by American and Iraqi troops trying to clear and hold problem-plagued areas as part of a new security plan for the capital.
A car parked near the headquarters of the Iraqi Army unit in the neighborhood exploded as a convoy of Iraqi military vehicles passed, an Interior Ministry official said. The blast, at about 7:15 a.m., killed two Iraqi soldiers and wounded eight others, as well as four civilians.
The blast was the first of several explosions across the city. Another car bomb exploded shortly afterward in Baya, a mixed neighborhood in the southwestern part of the city, killing one resident and wounding four others, the Interior Ministry official said.
A roadside bomb tore into a police patrol in Karada, a commercial district in central Baghdad at 8:30 a.m., wounding two policemen. Forty minutes later, another explosive device blew up in Yarmouk, in the western part of the city, killing a policeman and wounding three civilians.
A car bomb exploded around noon near one of the most popular movie theaters in Baghdad, Al Nasr. When the police arrived at the scene, another bomb went off. In total, four people, two of them police officers, were killed by the explosions, and 10 others were hurt.
There was also violence in the northern city of Kirkuk, where a suicide car bomber slammed into an Iraqi police convoy as it was leaving the American military base, said Col. Aiwa Khursheed, a police official. The explosion killed a policeman and wounded 11 others.
Omar al-Neami contributed reporting.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Poll Says Most Iraqis Want U.S. Out

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29poll.html
September 29, 2006
Poll Says Most Iraqis Want U.S. Out
By REUTERS [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [despite what we repeatedly read in the western press about even sunnis now wishing the US to stay to forestall night of the long knives, poll shows Iraqis want US out ASAP] [this first reported in WP 2-3 days ago] [****]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — About three-quarters of Iraqis believe that American forces are provoking more conflict than they are preventing in Iraq and that they should be withdrawn within a year, [roughly 75%] [******] according to a poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, a group from the University of Maryland.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29poll.html
September 29, 2006
Poll Says Most Iraqis Want U.S. Out
By REUTERS [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [despite what we repeatedly read in the western press about even sunnis now wishing the US to stay to forestall night of the long knives, poll shows Iraqis want US out ASAP] [this first reported in WP 2-3 days ago] [****]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — About three-quarters of Iraqis believe that American forces are provoking more conflict than they are preventing in Iraq and that they should be withdrawn within a year, [roughly 75%] [******] according to a poll conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, a group from the University of Maryland.
The poll of 1,150 people, conducted Sept. 1 to 4, had a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. It found growing support for attacks against American-led forces, with a majority of Iraqis now favoring them.
The poll was released Wednesday, a day after President Bush declassified portions of a national intelligence report that asserted the Iraq war had become a “cause célèbre” that was breeding deep resentment in the Muslim world and helping Islamist militants cultivate supporters. [*********]
The poll found that 78 percent of Iraqis believe that the American military presence causes more conflict than it prevents, [****] including 97 percent of Sunnis, 82 percent of Shiites and 41 percent of Kurds. [nearly 8 out of 10 iraqis] [**********]
Among Iraq’s three main communities, only Kurds tended to see the American military presence as a stabilizing force, with 56 percent agreeing with that statement versus 17 percent of Shiites and 2 percent of Sunnis.
Most Iraqis — 71 percent — said American soldiers should be withdrawn within a year, [********] but only 37 percent favored an American withdrawal in the next six months. [****]Only Sunnis wanted American forces out within six months, and only Kurds favored a longer United States presence, as much as two years or more. [some 7 out of 10 believe US out by one year’s time; nearly 4 out of 10 say out by sixth months; meaning a little more that 6 out of 10 don’t want US as soon as six-months time] [*****]
The poll also found growing support for attacks on American forces, with 61 percent of the respondents saying they approved, compared with 47 percent in January. Support for the attacks was strongest among Sunnis, at 92 percent. But support among Shiites rose to 62 percent in September from 41 percent in January. Only 16 percent of Kurds favored attacks on American troops.
The poll used face-to-face interviews and a complicated methodology to try to obtain a representative sample.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Belgium Rules Sifting of Bank Data Illegal

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801846.html
Belgium Rules Sifting of Bank Data Illegal
Prime Minister Says SWIFT Group Wrongly Cooperated With U.S. Anti-Terrorism Effort
By John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, September 29, 2006; A14 [Belgium consortium] [SWIFT] [followup] [gave US banking data for US counter terror efforts] [story leaked earlier this past spring] [now it appears to EU members that the action was unwarranted] [**************] [ditto]
PARIS, Sept. 29 -- A secret U.S. program to monitor millions of international financial transactions for terrorist links violated Belgian and European law and will have to be changed, the Belgian government said Thursday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092801846.html
Belgium Rules Sifting of Bank Data Illegal
Prime Minister Says SWIFT Group Wrongly Cooperated With U.S. Anti-Terrorism Effort
By John Ward Anderson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, September 29, 2006; A14 [Belgium consortium] [SWIFT] [followup] [gave US banking data for US counter terror efforts] [story leaked earlier this past spring] [now it appears to EU members that the action was unwarranted] [**************] [ditto]
PARIS, Sept. 29 -- A secret U.S. program to monitor millions of international financial transactions for terrorist links violated Belgian and European law and will have to be changed, the Belgian government said Thursday.
The decision, announced by Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt, came as the country's Data Privacy Commission released a 20-page report finding that the Belgium-based Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or SWIFT, had improperly turned over data from millions of global financial transactions to U.S. anti-terrorism investigators.
"It has to be seen as a gross miscalculation by SWIFT that it has, for years, secretly and systematically transferred massive amounts of personal data for surveillance without effective and clear legal basis and independent controls in line with Belgian and European law," the report says.
Leonard H. Schrank, SWIFT's chief executive, said in a telephone interview that the cooperative "believes we complied with everything and respected to the fullest extent possible the privacy law in Belgium. But the trouble is data privacy laws in Europe are quite difficult to follow. They're not drafted for national security issues."
SWIFT said in a statement that it had relinquished data to the U.S. Treasury Department only after it had been "subject to valid and compulsory subpoenas" from U.S. authorities.
The Belgian ruling is the latest in a string of European complaints about how the United States is conducting global operations against terrorism. European governments, politicians, human rights groups and citizens have also criticized the treatment of inmates at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the operation of secret prisons by the CIA -- including some reportedly in Europe -- and the CIA's extrajudicial transfers of terror suspects.
Europeans tend to support strong efforts against terrorist groups -- many of their countries have terror cells within their borders, and two, Britain and Spain, have suffered major attacks on their transit systems. But many Europeans believe that U.S. policies go too far and fuel radicalism in the Muslim world.
Belgian authorities announced no plans for legal action against SWIFT, which conveys funds among 7,800 banks in 206 countries and territories. Verhofstadt called the anti-terrorist monitoring "an absolute necessity" and said U.S. and European negotiators should find a way to bring it into compliance with European law.
Asked about the Belgian ruling, U.S. Treasury spokeswoman Molly Millerwise said in an e-mail that the department was "mindful of privacy concerns and for that very reason implemented significant safeguards" for what the department calls the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.
"The U.S. Treasury Department welcomes the suggestion of the Belgian government to engage in greater dialogue at an EU level on how to make the [tracking program] a more cooperative effort. The dialogue is already underway with our European counterparts; such cooperation can only further our common goals," Millerwise said.
Schrank added, "The message today is that there is a recommendation at long last that says, let's get the E.U. and the U.S. sitting down to get a framework for dealing with national intelligence and counterterrorism and the concerns of data privacy. Border security and data privacy are drawn different in every country, and the politicians have to draw the line."
None of the network's banks had made a privacy complaint in connection with the program, he said. "No one that I am aware of has been harmed in any way. . . . Thousands of lives have been saved" as a result of the program, he said. "Let's not forget that."
The Bush administration has called its secret international banking surveillance program a vital tool in uncovering terrorist networks. When newspapers first reported the program's existence in June, President Bush called the disclosure "disgraceful."
The program was begun without congressional or court approval shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. With SWIFT's cooperation, U.S. investigators tapped records from the cooperative's banks, a total of millions of transactions, looking for suspicious patterns and links to terrorists.
A SWIFT spokesman said Thursday that "the status of the program is unchanged."
A European Union working group that oversees data protection is investigating SWIFT's transfers of data and is to release its report in November. After a meeting this week in Brussels, the group said it has "immediate concerns about the lack of transparency which has surrounded these arrangements."
Verhofstadt said SWIFT was "in a conflicting situation between American and European laws." But he said the cooperative "made several evaluation mistakes during the executing of the American subpoenas. From the very beginning, SWIFT should have been aware that fundamental European laws should also be respected."
The prime minister added, "Fundamental differences exist between the E.U. and the U.S.A. concerning legislations and the principles governing the treatment of personal data, mainly in the domain of the level of protection, which is higher in Europe. . . .
"SWIFT is also clearly responsible because they made all the crucial decisions regarding data communication" to the U.S. Treasury, "behind the back of its 7,800 clients."
The report faulted SWIFT for not notifying European authorities of the program from its inception.
SWIFT said its "compliance was legal, limited, targeted, protected, audited and overseen." It added, "SWIFT also did its utmost to comply with the European data privacy principles of proportionality, purpose and oversight."
Staff writer Dafna Linzer in New York and researcher Corinne Gavard in Paris contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Belgians Say Banking Group Broke European Rules in Giving Data to U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/europe/29swift.html
September 29, 2006
Belgians Say Banking Group Broke European Rules in Giving Data to U.S.
By DAN BILEFSKY, International Herald Tribune [Belgium consortium] [SWIFT] [followup] [gave US banking data for US counter terror efforts] [story leaked earlier this past spring] [now it appears to EU members that the action was unwarranted] [**************]
BRUSSELS, Sept. 28 — The Belgian banking consortium Swift breached European privacy rules when it aided a United States antiterrorism program by providing confidential information about money transfers, Belgium’s privacy protection commission concluded Thursday. [********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/europe/29swift.html
September 29, 2006
Belgians Say Banking Group Broke European Rules in Giving Data to U.S.
By DAN BILEFSKY, International Herald Tribune [Belgium consortium] [SWIFT] [followup] [gave US banking data for US counter terror efforts] [story leaked earlier this past spring] [now it appears to EU members that the action was unwarranted] [**************]
BRUSSELS, Sept. 28 — The Belgian banking consortium Swift breached European privacy rules when it aided a United States antiterrorism program by providing confidential information about money transfers, Belgium’s privacy protection commission concluded Thursday. [********]
“It has to be seen as a gross miscalculation by Swift that it has, for years, secretly and systematically transferred massive amounts of personal data for surveillance without effective and clear legal basis and independent controls in line with Belgian and European law,” the report said.
Swift, or the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, has come under scrutiny for participating in a Bush administration program that allows analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency and officials from other United States agencies to search for possible terrorist financing activity among the millions of confidential financial transactions it oversees.
The Bush administration has defended the once-secret program, which began after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. But critics in Europe argue that it has placed American security interests ahead of European civil liberties.
A European Union working group debated this week whether the program violated European banking law and is considering whether an independent auditor should be appointed to prevent possible privacy abuses. It agreed to put off its final report until next month, in part to allow officials in Belgium to weigh in with their own report.
Presenting the findings of the investigation, Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt of Belgium said he recognized that sharing data on financial transfers was essential in the global effort to curb terrorism. But he took Swift to task for passing on confidential financial information without adequate safeguards that European privacy rules would be respected. [**********]
“Swift finds itself in a conflicting position between American and European law,” Mr. Verhofstadt said. “But it should have received stronger guarantees of privacy protection based on European standards — not by American standards, which are not as strong.” [***********]
Such guarantees should have included stronger safeguards that the information was being used only for terrorism investigations, Belgian officials said.
Under European law, companies are forbidden from transferring confidential personal data to another country unless that country offers adequate protections. The European Union does not consider the United States to be a country that offers sufficient legal protection of individual data.
Swift and officials with the United States Treasury Department, which oversees the program, have insisted that the American government’s demands for documents were narrowly tailored and limited. The Belgian investigation found that, at least at the outset of the operation, the American agencies obtained “massive” amounts of information in what it described as a “carpet-sweeping technique” to gather financial transactions from particular countries. The Americans used “a very wide definition of terrorism” in their demands for records before negotiations with Swift led to a narrower definition of what transactions might be relevant, the investigation found.
While Swift did not provide a precise number for the financial transactions that it turned over to American officials, the Belgian investigation said that 2.5 billion records last year alone “could have been the subject of subpoenas.”
Swift has defended the transfers on the grounds that it has offices in the United States and that it was meeting its legal obligations by upholding the laws of the United States.
But the commission rejected this argument. It said Swift was still subject to Belgian rules, regardless of whether the data transferred to the American authorities came exclusively from the company’s United States subsidiary rather than its global headquarters in Brussels.
Referring to the broad administrative subpoenas issued to Swift by the United States Treasury, the commission said, “Swift should have realized that exceptional measures based on American rules do not legitimize hidden, systemic violations of fundamental European principles related to data protection over a long period of time.”
Mr. Verhofstadt said Belgium’s privacy protection commission had not moved to take legal action against Swift. Instead, he said, Belgium would push its European Union partners to open talks with the United States on a new agreement on the transfer of financial records to be used in terrorism investigations.
Swift dismissed criticism that it had done anything unlawful, saying it received strong assurances that the data would be used exclusively for terrorism investigations. But the chief executive of Swift, Leonard Schrank, agreed that the United States and Europe needed a common framework to reconcile data protection with the fight against terrorism. [*************]
“We need an agreement between the E.U. and the U.S. that recognizes the global threat of terrorism but has a comfort level for those seeking to guarantee data protection,” he said. “We are caught between complying with the U.S. and European rules, and it’s a train wreck. But what we have done saves lives in the U.S. and Europe and we must not lose sight of that.” [***********]
He declined to say whether Swift was still transferring such data to the United States, but said the consortium was still obligated to answer subpoenas from the American authorities because it conducted substantial business in the United States. [*********]
Eric Lichtblau contributed reporting from Washington.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

European Official Reports Progress in Talks With Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html
September 29, 2006
European Official Reports Progress in Talks With Iran
By JUDY DEMPSEY, International Herald Tribune
By JUDY DEMPSEY [iran] [wmd] [EU officials report progress] [my guess is that the Iranian regime with continue to string this out as long as possible] [thus giving in enough that officials can surmise progress is being made] [but in actuality probably giving nothing or very little] [all iran must do is cause its Euro counterparts—who are eager to play good cop ot America’s bad cop—to see glimmers of hope] [*********]
BERLIN, Sept. 28 — Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, said Thursday that “some important progress” had been made in two days of talks over resolving Iran’s nuclear ambitions and that more talks would be held next week.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html
September 29, 2006
European Official Reports Progress in Talks With Iran
By JUDY DEMPSEY, International Herald Tribune
By JUDY DEMPSEY [iran] [wmd] [EU officials report progress] [my guess is that the Iranian regime with continue to string this out as long as possible] [thus giving in enough that officials can surmise progress is being made] [but in actuality probably giving nothing or very little] [all iran must do is cause its Euro counterparts—who are eager to play good cop ot America’s bad cop—to see glimmers of hope] [*********]
BERLIN, Sept. 28 — Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, said Thursday that “some important progress” had been made in two days of talks over resolving Iran’s nuclear ambitions and that more talks would be held next week.
“We have had the opportunity of being together for several hours and of working with great intensity,” Mr. Solana said after the talks with Ali Larijani, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator. “We have made some important progress on the elements related to how the potential negotiations can take place.” [*************]
Mr. Solana was referring to a package of political, economic and technological incentives that six nations — France, Germany, Britain, the United States, Russia and China — offered Iran in June in return for a suspension of Tehran’s uranium enrichment program.
Diplomats said that reaching the point of negotiations on the incentives depended on establishing a timetable for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.
“It is now a question of sequencing,” said a European diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter. “This is about Iran specifically agreeing to when it will start suspending its uranium enrichment program.” [interesting] [this may indicate more progress than I suggested in header comments] [*********]
Despite the optimistic report here, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said Thursday that his nation would not be deterred from its nuclear ambitions, though he said that Iran was ready for fair negotiations. [*********]
“We support negotiations and talks in the framework of law and fair conditions and on the basis of defending the obvious right of the Iranian nation,” he said during a speech at a rally in Karaj, a city west of Tehran. But he said, as he has previously, that Iran would not suspend enrichment.
“Why are they insisting that we suspend our atomic work?” he said. “Because they control the advertising network of the world, and they want to tell the nations that they were right and Iran wanted to produce nuclear weapons, and after that they would never let us continue our program.” [***********]
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Berlin Opera May Be Staged if Police Offer More Security

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/europe/29germany.html
September 29, 2006
Berlin Opera May Be Staged if Police Offer More Security
By MARK LANDLER [germany] [eu] [followup from yesterday’s external] [note: Lebanese Muslims in Germany attempted to detonate commuter trains] [see July 2006, external] [here Germans feeling pressure from growing Islamic community over Mohammed and how to handle issue] [followup to yesterdaty’s external where opera that depicted jesus’ and mohammed’s heads] [***********]
BERLIN, Sept. 28 — Stung by harsh public criticism, the German opera house that canceled a Mozart opera for fear of provoking a violent reaction from Muslims said Thursday that it was considering reinstating the production, provided it could obtain adequate security from the police. [********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/europe/29germany.html
September 29, 2006
Berlin Opera May Be Staged if Police Offer More Security
By MARK LANDLER [germany] [eu] [followup from yesterday’s external] [note: Lebanese Muslims in Germany attempted to detonate commuter trains] [see July 2006, external] [here Germans feeling pressure from growing Islamic community over Mohammed and how to handle issue] [followup to yesterdaty’s external where opera that depicted jesus’ and mohammed’s heads] [***********]
BERLIN, Sept. 28 — Stung by harsh public criticism, the German opera house that canceled a Mozart opera for fear of provoking a violent reaction from Muslims said Thursday that it was considering reinstating the production, provided it could obtain adequate security from the police. [********]
“We’re discussing what we can do,” a spokesman for the Deutsche Oper Berlin, Alexander Busche, said in an interview. “There has to be a new statement on security from the police.”
City officials said they were ready to work with the Deutsche Oper on security for the opera, “Idomeneo,” and were encouraged by expressions of support from German Muslim leaders, despite a scene in the production that features the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad.
In a statement, Berlin’s chief security official, Ehrhart Körting, acknowledged that the Deutsche Oper’s decision to cancel the production probably should have been made after more consultation among the opera house, the police and other local authorities.
The flurry of second-guessing came after intense criticism by German officials, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, that the opera house had surrendered its artistic freedom and yielded to fears of terrorism. [*******]
Mr. Busche declined to say when the production might be staged, or under what security arrangements. He noted that the Deutsche Oper’s director, Kirsten Harms, had not removed “Idomeneo” from the repertory, even after she canceled four performances scheduled for November. She cited security concerns after the police received an anonymous threat from a caller.
“Ms. Harms said from the very beginning that we might show it again at some point, when there is new information, new security arrangements, a new situation in the world,” Mr. Busche said.
The momentum toward reversing the decision increased after a conference on Wednesday between government officials and representatives of Germany’s more than three million Muslims. Though its purpose was to open a dialogue between Muslims and non-Muslims, it also allayed fears of a violent Muslim reaction to the opera, at least within Germany. [***************]
Mr. Körting, who attended the meeting, said it was “helpful” that the Muslim leaders “made it clear that German Muslims don’t see damage to their religious feelings in the restaging of the production.”
Critics have noted that while this tempest rages in Berlin, a theater in Frankfurt has been performing “The Last Virgin,” a play about Israeli-Palestinian relations that satirizes both Islam and Judaism, sometimes savagely. A German Jewish group protested that it was anti-Semitic. [**********]
A growing number of people predict a similar plan for “Idomeneo,” though perhaps on a more elaborate scale. “They will show it,” said Michael Naumann, a former culture minister. “They will install security devices, and there will be hundreds of police surrounding the opera house. Mozart is enjoying all this, from somewhere beyond.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

In Britain, Musharraf Is Questioned on Terror Ties

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/29britain.html
September 29, 2006
In Britain, Musharraf Is Questioned on Terror Ties
By ALAN COWELL [London] [UK] [EU] [after flacking his new book in the US, Musharraf—America’s not terribly reliable ally—doing same in UK] [however, there thankfully the media and people don’t give him a pass] [**************]
LONDON, Sept. 28 — President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan arrived here on Thursday and found himself facing accusations that his country’s intelligence service had indirect ties to Al Qaeda and that his government committed widespread human rights abuses as an ally of the United States in its effort to curb terrorism. [**********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/world/29britain.html
September 29, 2006
In Britain, Musharraf Is Questioned on Terror Ties
By ALAN COWELL [London] [UK] [EU] [after flacking his new book in the US, Musharraf—America’s not terribly reliable ally—doing same in UK] [however, there thankfully the media and people don’t give him a pass] [**************]
LONDON, Sept. 28 — President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan arrived here on Thursday and found himself facing accusations that his country’s intelligence service had indirect ties to Al Qaeda and that his government committed widespread human rights abuses as an ally of the United States in its effort to curb terrorism. [**********]
He arrived after a rocky visit in Washington, where President Bush used a White House dinner to try to mediate between the Pakistani leader and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan over their mutual accusations of responsibility for the resurgence of the Taliban, Afghanistan’s former rulers.
Although the two leaders did not shake hands in public, General Musharraf indicated in remarks broadcast live on Pakistani television on Thursday that some tensions had eased. “The meeting that I held with President Bush and Hamid Karzai last night was very good,” [******]he said, according to The Associated Press. “It was decided that we should have a common strategy. We have to fight terrorism. We have to defeat it, defeat it jointly.” [*************]
A report of a leaked document, which said that Pakistan’s intelligence service indirectly supported the Taliban, played into the argument over the growing insurgency in Afghanistan, [*****] where Britain and the United States have sent forces. The document was said by the BBC to have originated in Britain’s Defense Academy, a research agency sponsored by the Ministry of Defense. [it is well know that elements within Pakistan intel created the Taliban and continues to foster them] [they believe having a reliable partner in Afghanistan provides Pakistan with strategic depth] [**********]
Separately, Amnesty International, the human rights group, accused Pakistan of abuses, including the torture of terrorism suspects and the illegal transfer of detainees to the United States.
Britain’s Defense Ministry did not challenge the authenticity of the leaked document, but it said that the paper did not represent official policy and was part of academic research. [********] The document, details of which were broadcast Wednesday night on BBC television, was quoted as saying that indirectly, Pakistan, through the security agency, “has been supporting terrorism and extremism, whether in London on 7/7,” the date when suicide bombers attacked three subway trains and a double-decker bus last year, “or in Afghanistan or Iraq.” [*****] It said Pakistan’s security services played a “dual role,” combating terrorism while at the same time promoting an Islamic coalition called Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal [*******] “and so indirectly supporting the Taliban.”
“Pakistan is not currently stable but on the edge of chaos,” the document said, urging the dismantling of the security service. [****]Echoing a recent American intelligence assessment, parts of which were declassified this week, it also said the war in Iraq “has served to radicalize an already disillusioned youth, and Al Qaeda has given them the will, intent, purpose and ideology to act.”
Before he arrived in London, General Musharraf took strong exception to the leaked document. The security agency, he said, “is a disciplined force, breaking the back of Al Qaeda,” he told the BBC. [******]He is to deliver a speech in Oxford on Friday after meeting Thursday evening with Mr. Blair at Chequers, the British prime minister’s country retreat, west of London.
After the two-hour meeting, Mr. Blair’s spokesman said the prime minister had assured General Musharraf that the leaked document did not represent official British policy.
In its report released late Thursday, Amnesty International said Pakistan had “committed numerous human rights violations as a result of its cooperation in the U.S.-led ‘war on terror.’ ”
“Hundreds of people have been arbitrarily detained,” it said.
In response to the report, a Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Tasneem Aslam, said, “As far as detentions go, yes, people have been detained, but we have a challenge, we have to weigh the costs.”
“It’s a tough call not only for Pakistan, but for all countries fighting terrorism,” she said. “It is a challenge to strike a balance; while we respect individual rights, we have to prevent terrorist acts.”[*************]
Carlotta Gall contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Hundreds Abducted as Suspects, Group Says

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-briefs29.4sep29,1,4132448.story?coll=la-headlines-world
IN BRIEF / PAKISTAN
Hundreds Abducted as Suspects, Group Says
From Times Wire Reports
September 29, 2006 [Pakistan] [the new Afghanistan] [Jihad central] [besides which Jihadis have gone to virtual worlds on internet] [I suppose this helps account for why the US keeps putting up with Musharraf despite his patent unreliability] [unfortunate that his actions are likely creating new recruits] [use psci 469] [*************]
Pakistan has abducted hundreds of people as part of the U.S.-declared war on terrorism, [****] often secretly holding them for months while they were interrogated, human rights group Amnesty International said today. [of course so has the US apparently and only after court forced bush admin did it begin to come clean on details: how many? For what were they arrested? What evidence?] [********]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-briefs29.4sep29,1,4132448.story?coll=la-headlines-world
IN BRIEF / PAKISTAN
Hundreds Abducted as Suspects, Group Says
From Times Wire Reports
September 29, 2006 [Pakistan] [the new Afghanistan] [Jihad central] [besides which Jihadis have gone to virtual worlds on internet] [I suppose this helps account for why the US keeps putting up with Musharraf despite his patent unreliability] [unfortunate that his actions are likely creating new recruits] [use psci 469] [*************]
Pakistan has abducted hundreds of people as part of the U.S.-declared war on terrorism, [****] often secretly holding them for months while they were interrogated, human rights group Amnesty International said today. [of course so has the US apparently and only after court forced bush admin did it begin to come clean on details: how many? For what were they arrested? What evidence?] [********]

The group said that some suspects were held in Pakistan but that many were handed over to U.S. custody and held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; Bagram, Afghanistan; or at secret prisons. [latest evidence is those black sites have been closed down due to leak of their presence; the admin got caught so it’s parsed some of the actual bad guys from the detritus collected, shut down black sites (I think), and sent the worst of the worse to gitmo] [fewer than 20 in number] [but clearly bad guys] [one problem is they have either been tortured or trained to say they were tortured so when they get into the military tribunals it may turn into a real legal circus] [***********]

In many cases, U.S. agents paid a bounty of $5,000 to people, usually intelligence agents, who simply declared other people terrorists, seized them and handed them over for interrogation with no legal process, the rights group said.

Audiotape Calls for Abduction of Westerners

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraqaeda29sep29,1,7119589.story?coll=la-headlines-world
Audiotape Calls for Abduction of Westerners
By Solomon Moore
Times Staff Writer
September 29, 2006 [-ir] [hydra] [zarqawi’s replacement] [audio tape first reported yesterday in external] [followup] [bill of particulars] [use psci 469] [********]
BAGHDAD — An audiotape allegedly from the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq urges followers to kidnap Westerners to barter for the release of a cleric imprisoned for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, [******]and encourages them to fight on despite the deaths of 4,000 fellow insurgents.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraqaeda29sep29,1,7119589.story?coll=la-headlines-world
Audiotape Calls for Abduction of Westerners
By Solomon Moore
Times Staff Writer
September 29, 2006 [-ir] [hydra] [zarqawi’s replacement] [audio tape first reported yesterday in external] [followup] [bill of particulars] [use psci 469] [********]
BAGHDAD — An audiotape allegedly from the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq urges followers to kidnap Westerners to barter for the release of a cleric imprisoned for his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, [******]and encourages them to fight on despite the deaths of 4,000 fellow insurgents.

The taped message, posted Thursday on the Internet, says the hostages would be used to force the release of Omar Abdel Rahman, serving a life sentence for his involvement in the first bombing of the Trade Center. [***********]

The identity of the speaker, alleged to be Abu Ayyub Masri, [******] also known as Sheik Abu Hamza or "Al Muhajir" [*****] to U.S. intelligence officials, could not be independently verified. [Abu Hamza al Huhaijir aka Abu Ayyub al Masri] [but close enough] [************]

The speaker also calls on tribes that have turned against Al Qaeda to rejoin the movement. [****] In translated excerpts provided by the SITE Institute, a privately funded group studying terrorism, the speaker urges Islamic scholars to support Al Qaeda and praises Sunni Arab tribes "who secretly and publicly supported us and provided us with the financing and the men." [***********]

After Abu Musab Zarqawi, Masri's predecessor, was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June, and with the subsequent capture of several of his aides, officials said they had disrupted the group. A senior U.S. military official said Wednesday that several tribes in the western province of Al Anbar, a Sunni insurgent stronghold, had begun attacking Al Qaeda fighters.

The tape offers the first acknowledgment of the toll the conflict has had on Al Qaeda fighters. "We fear that our hard work will go to waste because the blood we shed in Iraq was too much — over 4,000 foreign fighters and more than double this number in supporters of good and blessed causes," [*******] the speaker says. [ironic; alqaeda in –iraq is treating arab blood as though it’s less than the blood of non-Arabs; in T. Friedman DVD Arabs were complaining that the US-West act as if their blood is worth less than non-Arab blood] [**************]

The speaker also calls on Muslims with specialized skills to join Al Qaeda:

"My final message is to the people with special qualifications, the highly experienced, the scientists of chemistry and physics, electronics and management, media — all the deep specialties — in particular nuclear scientists and explosive engineering. We say that we badly need you. The jihad battlefield needs your scientific ambitions, and all of the American camps are the best experimental fields for your knowledge." [**************************************]
solomon.moore@latimes.com

Zarqawi Successor Exhorts Scientists

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800654.html
Zarqawi Successor Exhorts Scientists
Tape Urges Experts To Join Fight in Iraq
Associated Press
Friday, September 29, 2006; A15 [-ir] [hydra] [zarqawi’s replacement] [audio tape first reported yesterday in external] [followup] [bill of particulars] [use psci 469] [********]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 28 -- Al-Qaeda in Iraq's leader, [*****] in a chilling audiotape released Thursday, called for nuclear scientists to join his group's holy war [*******] and urged insurgents to kidnap Westerners so they could be traded for a blind Egyptian sheik [*******] who is serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800654.html
Zarqawi Successor Exhorts Scientists
Tape Urges Experts To Join Fight in Iraq
Associated Press
Friday, September 29, 2006; A15 [-ir] [hydra] [zarqawi’s replacement] [audio tape first reported yesterday in external] [followup] [bill of particulars] [use psci 469] [********]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 28 -- Al-Qaeda in Iraq's leader, [*****] in a chilling audiotape released Thursday, called for nuclear scientists to join his group's holy war [*******] and urged insurgents to kidnap Westerners so they could be traded for a blind Egyptian sheik [*******] who is serving a life sentence in a U.S. prison.
The fugitive group leader said experts in the fields of "chemistry, physics, electronics, media and all other sciences -- especially nuclear scientists and explosives experts" [********] should join his group's holy war against the West.
"We are in dire need of you," said the speaker, who identified himself as Abu Hamza al-Muhajer [****]-- also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri. [*****] "The field of jihad can satisfy your scientific ambitions, and the large American bases are good places to test your unconventional weapons, whether biological or dirty, as they call them." [*************] [evidence that –iraq has become jihadis’ proving grounds] [*****]
The 20-minute audio was posted on a Web site that frequently airs al-Qaeda messages. [*****] The voice could not be independently identified, but it was thought to be Muhajer's. He is believed to have succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was killed in a U.S. airstrike north of Baghdad in June, [******]as head of the al-Qaeda-linked organization.
Thursday's message focused attention on Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, 68, an Egyptian cleric who was convicted in 1995 of seditious conspiracy for his advisory role in a plot to assassinate Egypt's president and blow up five New York City landmarks. [*******]
"I appeal to every holy warrior in the land of Iraq to exert all efforts in this holy month so that God may enable us to capture some of the Western dogs to swap them with our sheik and get him out of his dark prison," [***********] said Muhajer, who is also Egyptian. [*********] [interesting return to the Blind Sheik as the ulema or authoritative scholar who my bless specific actions and give them religious justification] [******]
He also said more than 4,000 foreign militants have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 -- the first known statement from the insurgents about their death toll.
It was unclear why Muhajer would advertise the loss of the group's foreign fighters, but martyrdom is revered among Islamic fundamentalists and could be used as a recruiting tool. [********]Analysts said the announcement was probably a boast aimed at drumming up support.
"It's showing the level of dedication to their cause, the level of sacrifice jihadists are making," said Ben N. Venzke, director of the Alexandria-based IntelCenter, which monitors terrorism communications.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

September 28, 2006

Another Contract for Company That Planted News in Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/washington/28lincoln.html
September 28, 2006
Another Contract for Company That Planted News in Iraq
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [-ir] [cronyism and largesse] [more war profiteering that I can remember in a long, long time] [more of same] [***************]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 27 (AP) — A public relations company that participated in a United States military program that paid Iraqi newspapers for articles favorable to allied forces has been awarded another multimillion-dollar media contract with American forces in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/washington/28lincoln.html
September 28, 2006
Another Contract for Company That Planted News in Iraq
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [-ir] [cronyism and largesse] [more war profiteering that I can remember in a long, long time] [more of same] [***************]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 27 (AP) — A public relations company that participated in a United States military program that paid Iraqi newspapers for articles favorable to allied forces has been awarded another multimillion-dollar media contract with American forces in Iraq.
The public relations firm, the Lincoln Group, won a two-year contract to monitor a number of English and Arabic news outlets and to produce public-relations products like talking points or speeches for American forces in Iraq, [***]officials said Tuesday.
“Lincoln Group is proud to be trusted to assist the multinational forces in Iraq with communicating news about their vital work,” a company spokesman, Bill Dixon, said in a statement.
Details about the contract were confirmed by the United States military spokesman in Iraq, Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, and were described in documents posted on a federal government Web site outlining contracts awarded. [************]
The contract is worth roughly $6.2 million per year over a two-year period, Colonel Johnson said.
The idea, according to contract documents, is to use the information to “build support” in Iraqi, Arab, international and American audiences for what the military describes as its goals in Iraq, such as destroying the insurgency and helping Iraqis build a democracy.
The list of news outlets to be watched includes The New York Times, Fox Television and the satellite channel Al Arabiya.
There was considerable debate last year when it became known that the Lincoln Group had been part of a United States military operation to pay Iraqi newspapers to run positive articles about coalition activities. [***********]
Colonel Johnson would not comment on how the Lincoln Group was chosen, saying it was a “standard contracting process.” He said the contract did not include any provisions to purchase favorable coverage or pay for favorable articles. The Lincoln Group, based in Washington, would not comment on the contract beyond the statement issued.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Rice Says Sudan Could Face More Sanctions Over Darfur

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/africa/28diplo.html
September 28, 2006
Rice Says Sudan Could Face More Sanctions Over Darfur
By HELENE COOPER [rice] [state] [on Sudan] [once she extended her next on Irael (forcing the August 14 ceasefire) she was already on the neocons hit list] [earlier this year here then deputy, Zoelick, brokered Sudan agreement where rebels were actually the ones who refused to sign it] [her she is pushing some more] [probably a principled position?] [****************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday raised the threat of more international sanctions against Sudan if the government did not stop military operations in the Darfur region and unconditionally accept a United Nations peacekeeping force.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/africa/28diplo.html
September 28, 2006
Rice Says Sudan Could Face More Sanctions Over Darfur
By HELENE COOPER [rice] [state] [on Sudan] [once she extended her next on Irael (forcing the August 14 ceasefire) she was already on the neocons hit list] [earlier this year here then deputy, Zoelick, brokered Sudan agreement where rebels were actually the ones who refused to sign it] [her she is pushing some more] [probably a principled position?] [****************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday raised the threat of more international sanctions against Sudan if the government did not stop military operations in the Darfur region and unconditionally accept a United Nations peacekeeping force.
“If the Sudanese government chooses confrontation — if it continues waging war against its own citizens, challenging the African Union, undermining its peacekeeping force, and threatening the international community — then the regime in Khartoum will be held responsible, and it alone will bear the consequences,” Ms. Rice said during a speech to the Africa Society.
“The international community must make clear to the leaders of Sudan that this is the choice they face,” she said.
The 53-nation African Union has about 7,200 peacekeeping soldiers in Darfur and was scheduled to hand over its task to a larger United Nations force in September. But President Omar Hassan al-Bashir has fiercely opposed such a move, and in the meantime, the union has announced that it will send more troops to the region while pressure on him continues.
The union force has not had much success in stopping violence in Darfur that has continued despite a cease-fire in May. Ms. Rice was blunt during her speech, laying the blame for the bloodshed at the feet of Mr. Bashir’s government.
“Citing attacks by rebels in the area, the government of Sudan recruited a tribe of Arab nomads, known as the janjaweed, who have long resented the Africans of Darfur,” Ms. Rice said. “Funded, armed and encouraged by the Sudanese government, the janjaweed attacked village after village in Darfur — torturing and executing the men and the boys; beating and raping the women and the girls.”
Ms. Rice challenged Mr. Bashir’s authority to refuse the United Nations peacekeeping force. “We cannot, we will not, accept Sudan’s opposition,” she said. “Since the Sudanese government will not save the lives of its own people, then the United Nations must act.” [**************]
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

House Approves Bill on Detainees

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092701287.html
House Approves Bill on Detainees
253 to 168 Vote Backs Bush on Prosecution Of Terrorism Suspects
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 28, 2006; A01 [bush] [white house] [visited the other end of Pennsylvania avenue to push the detainee “compromise”] [detainee/pow potential for abuse] [********] [ditto]
The House approved an administration-backed system of questioning and prosecuting terrorism suspects yesterday, setting clearer limits on CIA interrogation techniques but denying access to courts for detainees seeking to challenge their imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092701287.html
House Approves Bill on Detainees
253 to 168 Vote Backs Bush on Prosecution Of Terrorism Suspects
By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 28, 2006; A01 [bush] [white house] [visited the other end of Pennsylvania avenue to push the detainee “compromise”] [detainee/pow potential for abuse] [********] [ditto]
The House approved an administration-backed system of questioning and prosecuting terrorism suspects yesterday, setting clearer limits on CIA interrogation techniques but denying access to courts for detainees seeking to challenge their imprisonment at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.
The 253 to 168 vote was a victory for President Bush and fellow Republicans. Bush had yielded some ground during weeks of negotiations, but he fully embraced the language that the House approved with support from 34 Democrats and all but seven Republicans.
Senators also began debating the measure yesterday and defeated, along party lines, a Democratic-sponsored amendment that would have expanded detainees' legal rights. Senators predicted that their chamber will approve the legislation today, which would enable Bush to hold a signing ceremony on a high-profile and intensely debated bill about a month before the Nov. 7 elections.
Barring a last-minute snag, the House and Senate action will conclude three months of debate that began in late June, after the Supreme Court struck down the military commissions Bush had established to try people suspected of being members of al-Qaeda. Designated as enemy combatants, such suspects enjoy fewer rights than prisoners of war, and much of the congressional debate centered on which, if any, rudimentary legal rights should apply to them.
The administration was also eager to protect CIA officers from possible prosecution or from lawsuits stemming from their use of aggressive interrogation techniques such as extended sleep deprivation, hypothermia and "waterboarding," which simulates drowning.
Bush is scheduled to meet with GOP senators in the Capitol this morning for a final pep rally before the measure's expected passage. Republicans hope to campaign on the bill as proof of their party's tough stand against terrorists. Many congressional Democrats decided to swallow their misgivings and vote for the bill to avoid being portrayed as less than vigilant against suspects captured in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Thirty-four Democrats joined 219 Republicans in supporting the legislation.
"It is outrageous that House Democrats, at the urging of their leaders, continue to oppose giving President Bush the tools he needs to protect our country," said House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio).
Such comments infuriated Democrats, who said they stand second to no one in fighting terrorists but fear the United States is abandoning fundamental principles of fairness. The bill "is really more about who we are as a people than it is about those who seek to harm us," said House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). "Defending America requires us to marshal the full range of our power: diplomatic and military, economic and moral. And when our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well."
After the June 29 Supreme Court ruling, the White House proposed legislation to address the high court's criticisms and still embrace much of its military commission setup and interrogation practices. But a trio of Republican senators forced Bush to modify several points.
The compromise legislation does not seek to narrow U.S. obligations under the Geneva Conventions in the treatment of prisoners, as Bush had hoped. But it would give the executive branch substantial leeway in deciding how to comply with treaty obligations in actions that fall short of "grave breaches" of the conventions.
It would bar military commissions from considering testimony obtained through interrogation techniques that involve "cruel, unusual or inhumane treatment or punishment," which is proscribed by the 5th, 8th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution. But the bar would be retroactive only to Dec. 30, 2005, when Congress adopted the Detainee Treatment Act, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), to protect CIA operatives from being prosecuted over interrogation tactics used before then.
Yesterday, Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) condemned the loophole, accusing administration officials of trying "to legitimize the mistreatment of detainees and to undermine some of the cornerstone principles of our legal system."
But GOP sponsors said the language is essential to protect well-intentioned CIA officers from vague guidelines. "The Constitution says we will provide for the common defense, not provide for the criminal defense" of enemy combatants, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) said during a rare instance in which both houses debated the same legislation simultaneously.
Some of the fiercest debates focused on whether foreign terrorism suspects should have access to U.S. courts for challenging the legality of their detention, a right known as habeas corpus.
House Republicans blocked Democrats from offering amendments, including one that would have extended the habeas corpus right to detainees. House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.) said terrorism suspects have enough rights without habeas corpus, including the right to a lawyer, to be presumed innocent, to cross-examine witnesses and to collect evidence. "Let's bring justice before the eyes of the children and widows of Sept. 11," he implored on the House floor.
But Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said: "This is how a nation loses its moral compass, its identity, its values and, eventually, its freedom. . . . We rebelled against King George III for less restrictions on liberty than this." Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said the habeas corpus right is so fundamental that it "is un-American" to deny it to detainees held by U.S. forces.
The Senate will vote today on an amendment to grant the habeas corpus right to detainees. Supporters say the Supreme Court would rule the legislation unconstitutional without a habeas corpus provision, but opponents say the House would balk at the amendment.
The legislation loosely defines "cruel or inhuman treatment" of detainees, which would constitute a war crime. The administration said the term should apply to techniques resulting in "severe" physical or mental pain, but lawmakers set the standard at "serious." The abused detainee's symptoms would have to include "serious and non-transitory mental harm, which need not be prolonged."
For lesser offenses barred by the Geneva Conventions -- those falling between cruelty and minor abuse -- the legislation would authorize the president to interpret "the meaning and application" of relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The administration's language would have to be published rather than provided in secret to some lawmakers.
House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) praised the legislation, saying Americans should not give foreigners suspected of being enemy combatants the rights that U.S. citizens enjoy. "The Global War on Terror is different from any war we have ever known," he said in a statement. "As a country we must understand that adaptation to these new situations is critical in order to achieve victory over those who seek to hurt us as a nation."
But the Center for Constitutional Rights condemned the bill, saying it would "authorize the indefinite detention of non-citizens without access to courts -- even if they are not charged with any crime."
Staff writers Jonathan Weisman and R. Jeffrey Smith contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Bush Travels to Hill to Push Detainee Bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/washington/29detaincnd.html
September 28, 2006
Bush Travels to Hill to Push Detainee Bill
By CARL HULSE and KATE ZERNIKE [bush] [white house] [visited the other end of Pennsylvania avenue to push the detainee “compromise”] [detainee/pow potential for abuse] [********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — President Bush traveled to Capitol Hill this morning to urge the Senate to pass a bill establishing a new system for interrogating and trying terror suspects, a day after the House approved the legislation. [***********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/washington/29detaincnd.html
September 28, 2006
Bush Travels to Hill to Push Detainee Bill
By CARL HULSE and KATE ZERNIKE [bush] [white house] [visited the other end of Pennsylvania avenue to push the detainee “compromise”] [detainee/pow potential for abuse] [********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — President Bush traveled to Capitol Hill this morning to urge the Senate to pass a bill establishing a new system for interrogating and trying terror suspects, a day after the House approved the legislation. [***********]
The argument in the Senate today seems likely to focus on potential changes to the bill, rather than on its overall fate, since the Democrats reached an agreement on Wednesday with Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, to forego any filibuster in return for consideration of amendments.
After a closed-door session with Senate Republicans, Mr. Bush sought to cast the debate over the bill as a matter of crucial importance in the safety of the country.
“The American people need to know that we’re working together to win this war on terror,” he said. “Our most important responsibility is to protect the American people from further attack. And we cannot be able to tell the American people we’re doing our full job unless we have the tools to do so.”
Democrats have criticized President Bush and the Republican leadership, saying they are trying to ram momentous legal changes through in a rush so they can use the votes in this fall’s Congressional campaign.
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, issued a statement after Mr. Bush’s visit noting that “for five years, Democrats stood ready to work with the President and the Republican Congress to establish sound procedures for the trials of these terrorists.”
“Unfortunately, President Bush ignored the advice of our uniformed military and set up a flawed system that failed to prosecute a single terrorist and was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court,” Mr. Reid said.
The legislation is a response to a Supreme Court ruling in June that threw out the system of military tribunals set up by the Bush administration.
The House, in a politically charged decision, voted 253 to 168 in favor of the bill, which contains extensive new rules governing the questioning of terror suspects and bringing them before military tribunals. If the Senate follows suit on Thursday, as is expected, it would deliver Republicans a major national security victory before the elections.In the House, 219 Republicans and 34 Democrats, many in more competitive districts, supported the bill; 160 Democrats and 7 Republicans opposed it; the opponents included the Democratic leadership and major party voices on the military and intelligence issues. [*************]
Republicans immediately sought to portray the vote as a defining one between the two parties. “It is outrageous that House Democrats, at the urging of their leaders, continue to oppose giving President Bush the tools he needs to protect our country,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the majority leader.
But Democrats said the legislation would reverse fundamental American values by allowing seizure of evidence in this country without a search warrant, allowing evidence obtained through cruel and inhuman treatment, and denying relief or appeal to people like Maher Arar, whom the United States sent to Syria for interrogation that included torture even after the Canadian government told American officials he was not a terrorist.
“This is un-American, this is unconstitutional, this is contrary to American interests, this is not what a great and good and powerful nation should be doing,” said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont.
Backers of the measure said the legislation would guarantee terror suspects adequate rights while not hindering interrogations.
“We are dealing with the enemy in war, not defendants in our criminal justice system,” said Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California and chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “In time of war it is not practical to apply the same rules of evidence that we apply in civil trials or courts martial for our troops.” [***************]
Leading Democrats said the approach would result in government-sanctioned mistreatment of detainees. They predicted it would be again thrown out by the Supreme Court, leaving the United States remaining without a system to try terrorists after a wait that has already extended five years beyond Sept. 11, 2001.
“If you want to be tough on terrorists, let’s not pass something that rushes to judgment and has legal loopholes that will reverse a conviction,” said Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.
Fellow Democrats said the measure could be interpreted by other nations as reducing America’s commitment to the rights of prisoners of war.
“When our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 Democrat in the House.
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, characterized the bill as the product of an administration that “has been relentless in its determination to legitimize the abuse of detainees.”
But Republicans argued repeatedly that the nation is facing a faceless and brutal enemy that lurks in the shadows, requiring a new way of thinking on the part of the United States and giving new importance to the ability to freely interrogate them.
“Information is the key weapon we have to prevent them from killing us and prevent them from attacking others in the future,” said Representative Mac Thornberry, Republican of Texas, who said he worried the measure might go too far in tying the hands of American operatives.
The House debate was interrupted repeatedly by protesters in the gallery, who were removed by security workers. [***********]
The bill was a compromise worked out between the White House and three Senate Republicans who for weeks had resisted the administration’s approach. They contended the White House’s initial bill would violate the Constitution and redefine the nation’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions, signaling to other nations that they too could rewrite the rules on dealing with combatants seized in wartime. [****************]
The intraparty rift had threatened to derail Republican hopes to champion theirs as the party of national security, but before the debate began, Mr. Frist smilingly declared, “Republicans united.” Mr. Bush accepted Mr. Frist’s invitation to meet with Republican senators on Thursday morning as they prepared to vote to rally their support and build their spirits before Republicans hit the campaign trail. [*************]
Democrats had stayed mainly on the sidelines during the fight among Republicans, but the pending votes in the House and Senate have forced them to take firm positions on the bill. Senate Democrats did allow a vote to go forward, escaping criticism that they were obstructing the measure, and thus denying Republicans a potential political hammer.
House Democrats were prevented from offering any amendments. Under the Senate agreement, Democrats were allowed four proposed amendments. One, by Mr. Levin, would have adopted the approach endorsed by the Armed Services Committee and the three Republicans who resisted the Bush administration: Senators John Warner of Virginia, John McCain of Arizona, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. It failed on a 54-to-43 vote, with two Democrats, Senators Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska, crossing party lines.
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, pressed an amendment that would strike a provision from the bill that prohibits terror suspects from challenging their detention in the courts. “What the bill seeks to do is set back basic rights by some 900 years,” said Mr. Specter, who traced the ability to challenge one’s detention to the Magna Carta.
Concerned the legislation was being rushed through before an election without most senators understanding what was in the final version, Democratic Senators Robert C. Byrd of Virginia and Barack Obama of Illinois planned to offer a sunset provision that would require Congress to review the military commissions, as the trials are known, in five years.
Republicans said they were confident they could hold off any changes when the remaining amendments come up for a vote on Thursday.
While Republicans were nearing success on a key element of their agenda with the terrorism bill, disputes among top Republicans in the House and Senate were threatening other measures they hoped to pass, particularly a domestic security spending bill and a Pentagon policy bill. Lawmakers were scrambling to resolve the differences to avoid leaving the bills on the shelf. They have already abandoned efforts to strike a final agreement on a measure governing a National Security Agency surveillance program, though the House is scheduled to consider the bill on Thursday.
John O’Neil contributed reporting from New York.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

At Dinner Table, Bush Plays Role of Mediator

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700208.html
At Dinner Table, Bush Plays Role of Mediator
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 28, 2006; A16 [bush] [white house] [attempting to chaperon Musharraf and Karzai] [what a mess] [meanwhile, Pakistan continues to get more dangerous by the day] [*****************] [ditto]
President Bush welcomed the feuding leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the White House last night for an unusual round of personal diplomacy aimed at forging better relations between two key partners in U.S. efforts to hunt down members of al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700208.html
At Dinner Table, Bush Plays Role of Mediator
By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 28, 2006; A16 [bush] [white house] [attempting to chaperon Musharraf and Karzai] [what a mess] [meanwhile, Pakistan continues to get more dangerous by the day] [*****************] [ditto]
President Bush welcomed the feuding leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the White House last night for an unusual round of personal diplomacy aimed at forging better relations between two key partners in U.S. efforts to hunt down members of al-Qaeda and other Islamic terrorists.
Dining on spicy sea bass and pumpkin cake with Bush and his most senior advisers were Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and his Afghan counterpart, Hamid Karzai. The two have been sniping at each other for months over what Karzai considers Pakistan's tolerance of Taliban militants crossing the border to mount armed attacks in Afghanistan.
Musharraf has testily rebutted Karzai's assertions, but U.S. officials are worried that the deteriorating relations between the two men threaten their effort to pacify Afghanistan and hunt down Osama bin Laden, who is believed to be hiding in the mountainous region of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan.
"They really get under each other's skin," said one senior U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly about the White House dinner before it got started last night.
Administration officials said they hoped at the very least the two men would find less public forums to express their annoyance with each other. Shortly before going into the White House last night, Bush told reporters in the Rose Garden that the dinner was "a chance for us to strategize together, to talk about the need to cooperate."
"These two men are personal friends of mine," Bush said, with Karzai and Musharraf standing by his side, not looking at each other. "They are strong leaders who have a understanding of the world in which we live. They understand that the forces of moderation are being challenged by extremists and radicals."
The dinner lasted about 2 1/2 hours, and the White House offered only a vague indication of what occurred. A White House statement said the three leaders "committed to supporting moderation and defeating extremism through greater intelligence sharing, coordinated action against terrorists, and common efforts to enhance the prosperity of the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan."
The three-way summit came as the Bush administration, already grappling with crises over the Iraq war and over Iran's nuclear ambitions, is confronting a resurgent Taliban.
Although toppled five years ago in a U.S.-led invasion, the Taliban now controls swaths of southern Afghanistan and has fought increasingly violent battles with NATO troops patrolling the border regions. The number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan in recent months has swelled to more than 20,000.
Tense relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan date back years. Pakistan was one of three countries to recognize the previous Taliban government that sheltered bin Laden. Pakistan broke with the Taliban after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and the leaders have blamed each other in recent months for insufficient zeal in fighting Islamic militants along the countries' long border.
Answering questions last week at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, Karzai said Taliban leader Mullah Omar is hiding out in the Pakistani provincial capital of Quetta and suggested that Musharraf is not interested in hunting him down.
For his part, Musharraf has suggested that Karzai has bad information and, as he said in an interview on CNN this week, is not telling the truth about circumstances in Afghanistan. "He knows everything, but he's purposely denying -- turning a blind eye, like an ostrich," Musharraf said.
Musharraf has also been using his visit to the United States to promote his new memoirs, which offer provocative statements about his battle with Islamic militants. U.S. officials believe that bin Laden is in Pakistan, but Musharraf speculates that because of the large number of Saudis living in the Konar province of Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda leader is probably hiding there.
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Bush Plays Chaperon for Awkward Encounter

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/asia/28prexy.html
September 28, 2006
Bush Plays Chaperon for Awkward Encounter
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG [bush] [white house] [attempting to chaperon Musharraf and Karzai] [what a mess] [meanwhile, Pakistan continues to get more dangerous by the day] [*****************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — For the past week, the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan have been in the United States, circling one another like wary cats as they lobbed insults across the airwaves from a distance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/asia/28prexy.html
September 28, 2006
Bush Plays Chaperon for Awkward Encounter
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG [bush] [white house] [attempting to chaperon Musharraf and Karzai] [what a mess] [meanwhile, Pakistan continues to get more dangerous by the day] [*****************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — For the past week, the presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan have been in the United States, circling one another like wary cats as they lobbed insults across the airwaves from a distance.
On Wednesday night, they stood glumly — more like caged cats — in the Rose Garden with President Bush, who had invited them to the White House for dinner and a little talking-to.
“We’ve got a lot of challenges facing us,” Mr. Bush said, with President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan on his right and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan a safe distance away on his left. “All of us must protect our countries, but at the same time we all must work to make the world a more hopeful place.”
Having already met separately with the two men — he received General Musharraf on Friday and President Karzai on Tuesday — Mr. Bush used his three-minute speech to proclaim them both “personal friends of mine” and describe the intimate dinner as “a chance for us to strategize together.”
Peter Brookes, a national security expert at the Heritage Foundation, put it another way. “They’re looking for marriage counseling,” he said, “and maybe President Bush will provide some of that.”
The strains in their relationship — each blames the other for the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan — are so obvious that Mr. Bush openly joked about the breach in the East Room of the White House on Tuesday, with Mr. Karzai at his side.
“It will be interesting for me to watch the body language of these two leaders to determine how tense things are,” Mr. Bush told reporters then, though he insisted later he was only teasing.
“I’ll be good,” Mr. Karzai responded.
Though Mr. Karzai politely referred to General Musharraf as “my brother,” that has been pretty much the extent of the politesse this week. As General Musharraf toured about, promoting his new autobiography on television programs as varied as “60 Minutes” and “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart,” he has made clear his disdain for Mr. Karzai, whom he accuses of “turning a blind eye” to his own deteriorating political situation.
“He is like an ostrich with his head buried in the sand,” the general said.
Mr. Karzai was a tad more muted; asked by Wolf Blitzer of CNN on Friday whether he thought General Musharraf was himself “an ostrich,” he did not take the bait. But he has made no bones about the fact that he sees the Pakistani leader as giving the Taliban safe haven across the border. [**********]
Complicating matters is a deal General Musharraf recently signed with tribal chiefs along the Afghanistan border; Mr. Karzai views it as a pact to cede control to the Taliban. [**********]
“Terrorism has only enemies and knows no boundaries,” Mr. Karzai told the Council on Foreign Relations last week. “The only course is to kill it. You cannot train a snake to bite someone else.”
Whether Mr. Bush can tame the war of words is unclear, but foreign policy experts across the political spectrum give him credit for trying.
“You do have two leaders who want to have a good relationship with the United States and particularly George Bush,” said Ivo H. Daalder, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, “so that does provide Bush an opportunity to say, ‘You guys need to cooperate. We have a common enemy.’ I admire him for doing this. It’s the right thing to do.” [*************]
Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said Mr. Bush’s primary challenge was “not only to broker a verbal cease-fire,” but also to get the two men to “deal with the core issue” of their dispute over the Taliban.
“What’s ironic is these two leaders need each other,” he said. “Their personal futures as well as their countries’ futures are very much intertwined, yet there is tremendous mistrust and bad blood.” [*************]
That much was evident Wednesday in the Rose Garden body language, which was as interesting as Mr. Bush had predicted. Although the two foreign leaders were handshake-distance apart — and some thought the president might prod them into one — no hands were extended.
Instead, both stood stiff and expressionless as the president spoke, their hands clasped tightly in front of them. When Mr. Bush ended the awkwardness by announcing, “Let’s go eat dinner,” General Musharraf gave a quick salute to the press corps. President Karzai extended his arms, palms up, in an empty embrace of the sky.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Iraq Report Is Due in ’07; Skeptics Want to See It Now

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/washington/28intel.html
September 28, 2006
Iraq Report Is Due in ’07; Skeptics Want to See It Now
By MARK MAZZETTI [context: last weekend the NYTs and WP reported on leaked portions of NIE on Iraq] [subsequently the DNI released 10% or 4 pages of it] [nothing particularly shocking in it] [it says what everyone knew: iraq has become a cause celebre for Jihadis around the world; they are growing and dispersing; so on] [now turns out there’s another NIE—apparently even more disheartening—that is not due for releae until 2007, safely after the elections] [usc nsc ms] [*************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — In the fall of 2002, weeks before the midterm elections, American intelligence agencies were racing to complete an assessment of Iraq as the Senate prepared to vote on a resolution sought by the White House to prepare the groundwork for war. [************]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/washington/28intel.html
September 28, 2006
Iraq Report Is Due in ’07; Skeptics Want to See It Now
By MARK MAZZETTI [context: last weekend the NYTs and WP reported on leaked portions of NIE on Iraq] [subsequently the DNI released 10% or 4 pages of it] [nothing particularly shocking in it] [it says what everyone knew: iraq has become a cause celebre for Jihadis around the world; they are growing and dispersing; so on] [now turns out there’s another NIE—apparently even more disheartening—that is not due for releae until 2007, safely after the elections] [usc nsc ms] [*************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — In the fall of 2002, weeks before the midterm elections, American intelligence agencies were racing to complete an assessment of Iraq as the Senate prepared to vote on a resolution sought by the White House to prepare the groundwork for war. [************]
Four years later, in the shadow of another midterm campaign, the agencies are again drafting a formal assessment on Iraq. But this time, the document is one that the White House might prefer to see finished later rather than sooner. [**********]
In mid-August, John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, gave the go-ahead for a National Intelligence Estimate that will address security in Iraq and the potential for civil war there. [*********] White House and intelligence officials say the work is still in its early stages and will not be done until next year. [********]
But Democrats contend that the White House is “slow rolling” the document — that is, deliberately withholding what could be bleak conclusions — until after the November elections. The Democrats have intensified those complaints since the White House, under political pressure, on Tuesday released parts of a separate intelligence report, a sober assessment of global terrorism. [**********]
On Wednesday, Representative Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, even said sources had told her that a draft of the document had been finished. [********]
“I have heard that it’s complete, and that it’s grim,” Ms. Harman said.
Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, fired back, calling Ms. Harman’s assertion “flat wrong.”
“There is not a waiting Iraq document that reflects the National Intelligence Estimate that’s sitting around gathering dust waiting until after the election,” Mr. Snow said.
The intelligence estimate is being done at the behest of members of Congress, including Senator Pat Roberts, Republican of Kansas and chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It will be the American intelligence community’s [*****] first comprehensive assessment on the state of the Iraqi insurgency and the sectarian violence in the country since the summer of 2004. [**********]
Intelligence analysts are supposed to keep political calculations out of their work. At the same time, those who have worked at the National Intelligence Council, [*********] the group in charge of producing the intelligence estimates, say the sometimes politically charged nature of the reports’ conclusions make it impossible to operate in a political vacuum.
“The challenge for intelligence officers is how to walk a fine line, not only with regard to judgments, but with regard to timing,” said Paul R. Pillar, who until a year ago oversaw American intelligence assessments about the Middle East.
Alan Pino, Mr. Pillar’s successor at the National Intelligence Council, is now the one walking the fine line. As the national intelligence officer for assessments about the Middle East, Mr. Pino is in charge of a process that usually lasts several months: from first deciding what specific subjects a National Intelligence Estimate will examine to ensuring that the government’s 16 intelligence agencies sign off on the final draft.
The clock on the current report started running with Mr. Negroponte’s approval in August, and on Tuesday, Frances Fragos Townsend, the president’s domestic security adviser, said it would probably be completed in January.
In a letter to Mr. Negroponte on Wednesday, Ms. Harman called the timetable “unacceptable,” and suggested that he might be trying to hold the report until after Election Day.
“N.I.E.’s have been produced in as little as several weeks, as in the case of the 2002 report on Iraqi W.M.D.,” Ms. Harmon wrote. [*********]
Republicans counter that the 2002 Iraq assessment was hardly a model to emulate. Several government investigations have discredited the conclusions of that report, which asserted that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. That estimate was hastily assembled in the fall of 2002, requested by lawmakers who said they wanted the intelligence community’s best judgments about Iraq before they voted to authorize the invasion. [**************]
But after American troops invaded Iraq in March 2003, Iraq became the primary focus of American intelligence agencies. They have produced volumes of analysis on the insurgency and sectarian violence in Iraq, and on the political and economic situation there.
This, some experts say, already gives intelligence officials the building blocks for a National Intelligence Estimate that could be completed in a relatively short time.
“There’s not a lot of basic research that needs to be done, that’s for sure,” Mr. Pillar said.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Rushing Off a Cliff

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html
September 28, 2006
Editorial
Rushing Off a Cliff
[editorial] [the sorts of legislation that gets passed in an election year] [***********]
Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser. [***********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html
September 28, 2006
Editorial
Rushing Off a Cliff
[editorial] [the sorts of legislation that gets passed in an election year] [***********]
Here’s what happens when this irresponsible Congress railroads a profoundly important bill to serve the mindless politics of a midterm election: The Bush administration uses Republicans’ fear of losing their majority to push through ghastly ideas about antiterrorism that will make American troops less safe and do lasting damage to our 217-year-old nation of laws — while actually doing nothing to protect the nation from terrorists. Democrats betray their principles to avoid last-minute attack ads. Our democracy is the big loser. [***********]
Republicans say Congress must act right now to create procedures for charging and trying terrorists — because the men accused of plotting the 9/11 attacks are available for trial. That’s pure propaganda. Those men could have been tried and convicted long ago, but President Bush chose not to. He held them in illegal detention, had them questioned in ways that will make real trials very hard, and invented a transparently illegal system of kangaroo courts to convict them. [***********]
It was only after the Supreme Court [******]issued the inevitable ruling striking down Mr. Bush’s shadow penal system that he adopted his tone of urgency. It serves a cynical goal: Republican strategists think they can win this fall, not by passing a good law but by forcing Democrats to vote against a bad one so they could be made to look soft on terrorism.
Last week, the White House and three Republican senators announced a terrible deal on this legislation that gave Mr. Bush most of what he wanted, including a blanket waiver for crimes Americans may have committed in the service of his antiterrorism policies. Then Vice President Dick Cheney and his willing lawmakers rewrote the rest of the measure so that it would give Mr. Bush the power to jail pretty much anyone he wants for as long as he wants without charging them, to unilaterally reinterpret the Geneva Conventions, to authorize what normal people consider torture, and to deny justice to hundreds of men captured in error. [**********]
These are some of the bill’s biggest flaws: [*********]
[*] Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of “illegal enemy combatant” in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The president could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
[**] The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret [*****]— there’s no requirement that this list be published.
[***] Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. [******]These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.
[****] Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based on the Geneva Conventions, [*********] directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.
[*****] Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable — already a contradiction in terms — and relevant. [*******]Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.
•There is not enough time to fix these bills, especially since the few Republicans who call themselves moderates have been whipped into line, and the Democratic leadership in the Senate seems to have misplaced its spine. If there was ever a moment for a filibuster, this was it.
We don’t blame the Democrats for being frightened. The Republicans have made it clear that they’ll use any opportunity to brand anyone who votes against this bill as a terrorist enabler. But Americans of the future won’t remember the pragmatic arguments for caving in to the administration. [****************]
They’ll know that in 2006, Congress passed a tyrannical law that will be ranked with the low points in American democracy, our generation’s version of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Dispute on Intelligence Report Disrupts Republicans’ Game Plan

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/us/politics/28capital.html
September 28, 2006
Political Memo
Dispute on Intelligence Report Disrupts Republicans’ Game Plan
By ADAM NAGOURNEY [not oped] [but political memo on election-year politics of the declassified NIE—or the partially declassified NIE] [and other intriguing matters] [*********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — The dispute over a newly disclosed National Intelligence Estimate has threatened a pre-election script in which the White House had sought to put Democrats on the defensive on national security. [********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/us/politics/28capital.html
September 28, 2006
Political Memo
Dispute on Intelligence Report Disrupts Republicans’ Game Plan
By ADAM NAGOURNEY [not oped] [but political memo on election-year politics of the declassified NIE—or the partially declassified NIE] [and other intriguing matters] [*********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — The dispute over a newly disclosed National Intelligence Estimate has threatened a pre-election script in which the White House had sought to put Democrats on the defensive on national security. [********]
As the White House saw it, this was to have been the week in which Republicans seized the advantage by pushing two antiterrorism bills through Congress over the objections of recalcitrant Democrats.
Instead, on Wednesday for the second day in a row, Democrats seized on the intelligence report as confirmation of their case that the Iraq war has in fact compounded the global terrorism threat. [**********]
Republicans responded by saying Democrats were distorting the findings or were exploiting important intelligence information for political gain. In Congress, the Republicans appeared to give up on passing one of the two antiterrorism bills, the one on surveillance. [***********]
Republicans said even if they were momentarily put off course, they were confident that in the end this fight would not help the Democrats. Democrats, they said, lose every time they try to fight Republicans on the issue of security. [********]
“This debate is bringing Republicans back into the political process,” said Representative Tom Cole of Oklahoma, who is a contender to be the next leader of the Republican Congressional campaign committee. “If we’re going to have an election where swing voters are the main concern, I’ll be happy to talk about national security.”
Republican leaders also criticized the 160 House Democrats, including Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, who voted Wednesday against a measure sought by President Bush to change the conditions for trying and questioning terrorism suspects.
The House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, said, “The same terrorists who plan to harm innocent Americans and their freedoms would be coddled, if we followed the Democratic plan.”
Democrats made clear that even though many of them opposed the bill, they would not block it from becoming law, a distinction that they believe will make it more difficult for the White House to use this vote against them. [************]
If anything this week, the back-and-forth between the parties — on the intelligence report, on the bills and on the war itself — seemed to produce at best a muddled result, rather than the sharp contrast that the White House had sought.
Democrats have watched with concern as Mr. Bush hammered his arguments on Iraq and terrorism.
There are new indications that Democrats regard the intelligence report as an opportunity to undercut what had been a main argument of Mr. Bush. [***] [***]
It took Democrats barely three days to seize on the intelligence findings in a new television advertisement in one of the most contested races in the country, the challenge to Representative Nancy L. Johnson, Republican of Connecticut, who supports the war. The campaign of Ms. Johnson’s opponent, Christopher Murphy, began broadcasting the commercial, which says, “President Bush’s war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism and made us less secure here at home.”
Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, who is leading the Democrats’ campaign to win Congress, said the intelligence assessment undercut the White House attempt to move the election from Iraq and to stronger Republican ground, terrorism.
“They had a strategy for this fall to be about national security, and the entire debate this week has turned into the president’s failure in Iraq,” Mr. Emanuel said. “That is not where they want to be right now.”
Republicans disputed the argument that the events were as significant or damaging as Democrats said. Nevertheless, the events were the latest indication that Democrats now see the war in Iraq as an issue that can help them win critical districts and that candidates and party leaders would, unlike in the elections of 2002 and 2004, challenge any attempt by the White House to claim primacy on the issue of terrorism.
Jim Jordan, a Democratic analyst, argued that Republicans were paying a price for having linked the Iraq war to terrorism in previous campaigns.
“They would rather talk about terrorism than Iraq,” Mr. Jordan said. “The problem they have got is they formed a linkage between the two that helped them in ’04 and hurt them in ’06.”
In pushing back and trying to gain dominance in the debate, Republicans made two arguments. The first was that Democrats were purposely mischaracterizing what the report said.
“The key passage in the National Intelligence Estimate declassified and released yesterday was that for us to cut and run in Iraq would simply embolden our enemy in a way that they were emboldened when we left Somalia,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas.
The second was to suggest that Democrats were trying to exploit intelligence for political gain and to insinuate that they were responsible for leaking the information. [*********]
“The purpose of the leak was to distort the premise of the National Intelligence Estimate to try to lend weight to the Democratic argument that the war in Iraq does not really matter, we are losing the war in Iraq, and it doesn’t have anything to do with the war on terror,” said Senator Christopher S. Bond, [********] Republican of Missouri.
It was too soon to tell, aides to both parties said Wednesday, whether the arguments will hold much sway with voters, much less break through all the arguments occurring here and in Congressional campaigns at home.
Yet one thing was clear. Republicans were not talking about what they wanted to be talking about. And at a time when Democrats are trying to turn the debate from national security, where they are not strong, to the war, which is Mr. Bush’s weakness, the intelligence reports provided what Democrats said was a weapon that they very much needed.
“We are less safe today because of the Iraq war,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who is Mr. Emanuel’s Senate counterpart. “That is a very trenchant argument.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Protesters Fuel a Long-Shot Bid to Oust Taiwan’s Leader

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/asia/28taiwan.html
September 28, 2006
Protesters Fuel a Long-Shot Bid to Oust Taiwan’s Leader
By KEITH BRADSHER [N in TNT] [Taiwan] [activists] [the old, the KMT, versus the new] [use psci 350] [****************]
TAIPEI, Taiwan, Sept. 27 — Only a longtime democracy and independence activist like Shih Ming-teh, whose credentials include having his teeth shattered twice by guards during a quarter century in prison under martial law, would dare revive the color red in Taiwanese politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/asia/28taiwan.html
September 28, 2006
Protesters Fuel a Long-Shot Bid to Oust Taiwan’s Leader
By KEITH BRADSHER [N in TNT] [Taiwan] [activists] [the old, the KMT, versus the new] [use psci 350] [****************]
TAIPEI, Taiwan, Sept. 27 — Only a longtime democracy and independence activist like Shih Ming-teh, whose credentials include having his teeth shattered twice by guards during a quarter century in prison under martial law, would dare revive the color red in Taiwanese politics.
For the past 19 days, Mr. Shih has led a sit-in in front of the presidential palace here by red-clad demonstrators. They demand the resignation of President Chen Shui-bian, the man who now runs the democracy and the political party that Mr. Shih helped to create. [********]
Mr. Shih’s campaign, which has drawn up to several hundred thousand people during one evening’s rally but a dwindling crowd in the past few days, emboldened the opposition to start a long-shot legislative effort on Tuesday to recall the president. But Mr. Shih, a man sometimes described as the Nelson Mandela of Taiwan, [*******] is now leading a movement that, as he acknowledged in an interview, is heavily composed of Nationalists, his longtime enemies who once ran the country under martial law.
Leaders of President Chen’s Democratic Progressive Party, which Mr. Shih ran in the 1990’s as chairman, are bitter to see him now aligned with many Nationalists. [*****] “I hope he doesn’t forget those are the guys who tried to kill him, and now they support him as if he is a god,” said Mark Chen, [********] the secretary general of the presidential office.
Mr. Shih’s choice of red for what he describes as an anticorruption, “people power” movement is especially surprising. The color is associated here with the Chinese Communist Party on the mainland and with Mao’s Cultural Revolution, a period of political persecution that lasted from 1966 to 1976.
Red was taboo in Taiwanese politics for decades after Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalists fled here in 1949, following their loss in China’s civil war to the Communists. [******]Under martial law, the secret police engaged in a series of witch hunts for Communists, killing and imprisoning thousands; Mr. Shih and others like him who advocated democracy and political independence for Taiwan, when the Nationalists still claimed the mainland, were accused of treason.
Mr. Shih said there should be nothing the matter with red now. “I am a very confident man, and red has been politically labeled for too long in Taiwan — the people have the right to choose any color,” he said with a mischievous, closed-lipped smile. [*****]
Mr. Shih accuses the president and his family of corruption, but he is not the only one making that accusation. This summer, civil-service prosecutors charged the president’s son-in-law, Chao Chien-ming, with insider trading and sought an eight-year prison term for him. Mr. Chao denied any wrongdoing, and the case is still pending.
Prosecutors are also investigating accusations that the president’s wife, Wu Shu-chen, may have obtained large numbers of gift certificates from a department store chain that was seeking government permission for a change of ownership. They have also looked at whether President Chen and his wife adequately accounted for money from a special fund personally controlled by Taiwan’s presidents for decades for use in secret diplomatic initiatives.
Mark Chen, the presidential office’s secretary general, who is also a former foreign minister and who is not related to the president, said in an interview at the presidential palace on Tuesday that “our president is clean and the first lady is clean.” He accused the Taiwanese media of inflating allegations of misconduct.
He also noted that the president, in an effort to clear his name and his wife’s, recently allowed prosecutors to interview him even though the Constitution grants him immunity from prosecution.
The Nationalists have repeatedly tried to push President Chen from office, staging violent protests after the president won re-election in a disputed vote in 2004.
Allegations of corruption are especially touchy in Taiwan. The Nationalists ended martial law in 1987 and then lost the presidential election in 2000, to a considerable extent because of popular indignation at widespread corruption. It was nicknamed the “black gold” issue here because many of the bribes and other illegal payments came from organized crime, [********] and funereal-looking black suits are practically a uniform for many gangsters here.
By contrast, the Democratic Progressive Party has long presented itself as largely free of corruption. [********]
Mr. Shih said that it would be better for the Democratic Progressive Party if President Chen stepped down instead of serving the 20 months remaining in his second term. With the president’s approval ratings below 20 percent in opinion polls, his continued stay in office could help the Nationalists win the Taipei and Kaohsiung mayoral elections this December, [*********] legislative elections in December next year and the presidential election in March 2008, Mr. Shih suggested.
The party has hit back at Mr. Shih by releasing photographs of his recent meeting in Bangkok with a financier who is on Taiwan’s list of the 10 most-wanted fugitives for deals that have left Taiwanese banks facing large losses. But Mr. Shih said the entire sit-in effort, including a stage, a large-screen television and other supplies, had been paid for with donations of $3 apiece by a million citizens from across Taiwan. [*********]
Mr. Shih, who will turn 66 in January, is a leader of a generation of tough, street-wise demonstrators who fought Chiang Kai-shek’s police and languished in his jails. But charismatic lawyers like President Chen, 55, a graduate of National Taiwan University’s law school, pushed Mr. Shih’s generation of activists aside at a Democratic Progressive Party leadership conclave in 2000.
Mr. Shih practically disappeared from politics afterward, refusing even to accept a senior presidential appointment, and he has managed to return to the center of the political stage with his unusual campaign only in recent weeks. Beijing and American officials have stayed silent about the political dispute here. But President Chen did set off a controversy over the weekend when he said that people in Taiwan should “seriously consider” whether to come up with a new definition of its territory.
The Taiwanese Constitution vaguely defines this territory in a way that can be interpreted to include mainland China and even Mongolia. This definition allows China, the United States and other countries to maintain that there is still one China that encompasses Taiwan and the mainland. President Chen has repeatedly promised not to change sovereignty issues in the Constitution, which the mainland has warned could be the basis for war.
Weekend and evening rallies at the site of the sit-in since Sept. 9 have drawn crowds that peaked at more than 300,000 people on Sept. 15. But about 200 people were present at Mr. Shih’s sit-in on Wednesday morning, and some in Taiwan are wearying of the standoff.
Many are waiting for the results of the initial inquiry into the first lady’s activities, scheduled to be released sometime in October; Mr. Shih said he planned to start holding rallies against the president in other Taiwanese cities soon, and moved his sit-in on Wednesday evening from the presidential palace to the grounds of a nearby railway station. The presidential palace remains ringed with barbed wire as a precaution, and armored vehicles with mounted water cannons are parked inside.
Nobody here expects a repeat of either the street protests that have toppled presidents in the Philippines or the military coups that have periodically brought down governments in Thailand, most recently last week. Mr. Shih said he had urged anyone with the rank of a two-star general or above not to come to his demonstrations, even if they might sympathize.
“There will not be a coup in Taiwan,” he said categorically. “A neutral military is very important for a democratic country.”
Mr. Shih himself has a well-coiffed mane of dark hair and has not been lying in the street every night with his followers. Mentioning his long years in prison, he said, “If I look young, it’s because I was frozen for 25 years.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Olmert Hopes to Meet With Abbas Soon

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Israel-Palestinians.html
September 28, 2006
Olmert Hopes to Meet With Abbas Soon
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:10 a.m. ET [Israel] [despite the setbacks of this summer’s 2-front war with Hezbollah and Hamas—and other groups in Palestine] [and despite the on again off again approach to forming unity govt between abu mazen’s presidency (PA) and Legislators (Hamas)] [apparent movement] [************]
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in interviews broadcast Thursday that he hopes to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in coming days for what would be their first real talks since he came to power.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Israel-Palestinians.html
September 28, 2006
Olmert Hopes to Meet With Abbas Soon
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 5:10 a.m. ET [Israel] [despite the setbacks of this summer’s 2-front war with Hezbollah and Hamas—and other groups in Palestine] [and despite the on again off again approach to forming unity govt between abu mazen’s presidency (PA) and Legislators (Hamas)] [apparent movement] [************]
JERUSALEM (AP) -- Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in interviews broadcast Thursday that he hopes to meet with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in coming days for what would be their first real talks since he came to power.
But Abbas aides said the Palestinian leader is not interested in holding a summit unless he has assurances it would deal with more than the fate of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier captured by Hamas-linked militants.
The prime minister is under intense domestic pressure for his conduct of the war against Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon that ended last month. He gave wide-ranging interviews to Israel's two main radio stations to defend his government's stance on everything from possible talks with Syria to the chances of pursuing new peace moves with the Palestinians.
Contacts ceased between Israel and the Palestinians after the Hamas militant group won January's parliamentary elections. Relations further declined after Hamas-linked militants attacked an Israeli army post on June 25, killing two soldiers and capturing Shalit. Israeli responded with a widescale offensive in the Gaza Strip.
There has been talk about holding a summit since Olmert was elected in March. The two leaders had a brief informal breakfast meeting, but no working session. [***********]
Asked in his interview with Israel Radio when such a meeting was likely, Olmert said: ‘’In the coming days, I hope. I, in any case, asked him. I told him that I would be happy to meet with him.’’ [***************]
However, Palestinian lawmaker Saeb Erekat, an Abbas confidant who usually helps set up such meetings, said no preparations for a summit were under way. [**********]
''I think President Abbas said he is willing to meet Mr. Olmert. I hope we can prepare a meeting very well. Such meetings need preparation,'' he said.
When asked whether such a meeting could happen soon, he paused before saying: ''I cannot comment if it can be in the coming days.''
The militants have said they would not free Shalit unless Israel releases hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails. Olmert, who has repeatedly rejected that demand, said he would not release prisoners, even as a goodwill gesture, before Shalit's release. [**********************]
''I am not making gestures,'' Olmert told Israel Radio in an interview broadcast Thursday. ''Until Gilad Shalit is freed, I will not deal with freeing Palestinian prisoners.''
Olmert said he hoped a meeting with Abbas would lead to broader peace talks and ultimately a deal to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.
Peace talks have been frozen for years. Israel cut off contacts with the Palestinian Cabinet after the election of Hamas, which calls for Israel's destruction. However, Israel has said it would maintain ties with Abbas, of the more moderate Fatah Party, who was elected separately last year. Abbas has been trying to pressure Hamas to soften its stance. [*********]
If no peace deal can be worked out, Olmert said in the interviews he would carry out his plan to unilaterally withdraw from most of the West Bank while strengthening Israel's hold over large settlement blocs. However, Olmert's aides have said he has abandoned the plan following his plunge in popularity after the war in Lebanon, which killed more than 150 Israelis and more than 850 Lebanese.
Recent polls showed that less than a quarter of Israelis were happy with Olmert's job performance and nearly 70 percent disapproved of his actions as prime minister.
Olmert presented Israel's performance in the war as a clear victory -- an assessment disputed by many in Israel and Lebanon -- and said he did not foresee another violent conflict beyond minor border skirmishes between Israel and Hezbollah in the near future.
''I do not rule out that the sources that activated Hezbollah from the beginning, the Iranians and to some degree the Syrians, will make every effort to activate them in the future, and it could be that as a result we can expect tests,'' Olmert said. ''But, in my opinion, the chance that Hezbollah will be dragged into a broad military conflict of the type that we had is very small. The reality has changed and Hezbollah knows this well.''
The Lebanon war erupted July 12 after Hezbollah carried out a cross-border raid, killing three soldiers and capturing two others. After 34 days of fighting, the war ended with a U.N.-brokered cease-fire that has brought thousands of Lebanese troops and international peacekeepers into southern Lebanon to patrol the border area. [***********]
Olmert waved off recent demonstrations, in which dozens of Lebanese residents -- waving yellow Hezbollah flags -- threw stones at Israeli soldiers patrolling the border. So long as the protesters are unarmed, he said, they are meaningless. [**********]
''The flags that you see are flags of Lebanese residents who identify with Hezbollah, and we never thought that we would be able to kill or remove all the people in south Lebanon who live this way,'' [********] Olmert said. ''None of them is walking around with weapons, and all those who tried to carry weapons were killed by our forces in Lebanon in the past two months.'' [***********]
The war also created new momentum in relations between Israel and moderate Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, he said.
Olmert was evasive when asked about Israeli media reports that he had met secretly in recent days with a senior representative of the Saudi government in Jordan. ''I think all the speculation on this issue is superfluous,'' Olmert told Israel's Army Radio. [*************]
Saudi Arabia's Foreign Ministry has denied such a meeting.
Olmert expressed appreciation for the Saudi government's restraint in criticizing Israel during the Lebanon war.
''During the war, we fought against Muslims, and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Abu Dhabi and other governments, including Indonesia, talked -- in the context of this war -- against the Muslims and not against us,'' he said.
Olmert also rejected a Syrian overture to open peace negotiations, accusing Syrian President Bashar Assad of harboring terrorists, including Hamas' top leaders, who are accused of orchestrating Shalit's capture. [*****************]
''It (Syria) was and remains the main supporter of the Palestinian terror groups who daily try to carry out terrorism against the state of Israel. In my opinion, this is not a foundation on which it is possible to hold peace negotiations,'' [*******]Olmert said.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press

Canadian Seeks to Defend Losses in Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/americas/28canada.html
September 28, 2006
Canadian Seeks to Defend Losses in Afghanistan
By CHRISTOPHER MASON [Canada] [growing losses in Afghanistan] [Canadians demanding to know why] [answer: this year’s spring-summer offensive has been significant one since 2001 toppling of Taliban and their alQaeda clients—or vice versa] [sadly, the US is so bogged down in –Iraq and the administration so bogged down in legacy and saving a looming midterm elections that Afghan has been allowed to slide—to America’s peril in my view] [more evidence of worsening situation] [***************]
TORONTO, Sept. 27 — The growing number of casualties in Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan and the resulting political fallout has led Prime Minister Stephen Harper to begin a campaign to reassure Canadians that it is worth the money spent and the lives lost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/americas/28canada.html
September 28, 2006
Canadian Seeks to Defend Losses in Afghanistan
By CHRISTOPHER MASON [Canada] [growing losses in Afghanistan] [Canadians demanding to know why] [answer: this year’s spring-summer offensive has been significant one since 2001 toppling of Taliban and their alQaeda clients—or vice versa] [sadly, the US is so bogged down in –Iraq and the administration so bogged down in legacy and saving a looming midterm elections that Afghan has been allowed to slide—to America’s peril in my view] [more evidence of worsening situation] [***************]
TORONTO, Sept. 27 — The growing number of casualties in Canada’s military mission in Afghanistan and the resulting political fallout has led Prime Minister Stephen Harper to begin a campaign to reassure Canadians that it is worth the money spent and the lives lost.
The pace of casualties has been growing since spring as Canada’s 2,300 troops have taken on greater responsibilities in the dangerous Kandahar Province of southern Afghanistan as part of the NATO force in Afghanistan. Critics say the government spent little time preparing Canadians for the inevitable rise in casualties that would come with a larger role in the mission.
In all, nine Canadians have died in Afghanistan so far this month, accounting for a quarter of the 36 troops who have been killed since Canada’s Afghan mission began in 2002.
During the first week in September, four Canadian service members were killed in one of the largest battles fought by the country’s forces since the Korean War. Days later another was killed by an American plane in an episode that led to calls for an investigation and dominated newspapers’ letters to the editor for days.
Faced with political pressure and declining numbers in opinion polls, Mr. Harper has gone to great lengths to counter the sobering image of coffins arriving on Canadian soil.
He has given a speech on national television defending the mission, praised Canada’s role in Afghanistan during a speech to the United Nations, given rare interviews on both national broadcasters and had a visit from President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, who addressed Parliament about Canada’s mission in his country.
Mr. Harper took office in February with a handful of domestic priorities, like stiffer penalties for gun crimes and tax cuts, and little focus on foreign policy. But since the election, 28 Canadian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan and so foreign policy has become the overwhelming focus of Mr. Harper’s government.
“As the events of Sept. 11 so clearly illustrate, the horrors of the world will not go away if we turn a blind eye to them, no matter how far off they may be,” Mr. Harper said in his speech on national television to mark the anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
He said on Sept. 15 that Canada would add 200 soldiers and 20 tanks to strengthen its contingent in Afghanistan.
Critics say Mr. Harper is trying to make up for lost time with an effort that should have begun when Canadian politicians voted in May to extend the Afghanistan mission until 2009.
“There should have been more of a government effort to explain why we were there and why we were taking casualties over the summer,” said Jack Granatstein, a fellow with the Canadian Defense and Foreign Affairs Institute. “He’s playing catch-up so to speak.”
But support has been slow to build in a country that identifies itself as a peacekeeping nation.
“I think it’s a shock for many people in our country that we’re involved in something that is not blue helmets and no rifles,” Defense Minister Gordon O’Connor said in early September.
Mr. Harper’s recent efforts have suffered a number of setbacks. Last week, Canada’s military commander declared victory over the Taliban in the Panjwaii district southwest of Kandahar. Hours later a suicide bomber attacked troops who were handing out toys, schools supplies and candy to villagers, killing four Canadians and wounding 10 others.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

U.S. Troops Report Pro-Taliban Drive

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800018.html
U.S. Troops Report Pro-Taliban Drive
Associated Press
Thursday, September 28, 2006; A16 [Afghan] [hydra] [insurgency] [this year’s spring-summer offensive has been significant one since 2001 toppling of Taliban and their alQaeda clients—or vice versa] [sadly, the US is so bogged down in –Iraq and the administration so bogged down in legacy and saving a looming midterm elections that Afghan has been allowed to slide—to America’s peril in my view] [more evidence of worsening situation] [***************]
KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 27 -- U.S. troops on Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan have seen a threefold increase in attacks since a truce between Pakistan and pro-Taliban tribesmen, said a U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800018.html
U.S. Troops Report Pro-Taliban Drive
Associated Press
Thursday, September 28, 2006; A16 [Afghan] [hydra] [insurgency] [this year’s spring-summer offensive has been significant one since 2001 toppling of Taliban and their alQaeda clients—or vice versa] [sadly, the US is so bogged down in –Iraq and the administration so bogged down in legacy and saving a looming midterm elections that Afghan has been allowed to slide—to America’s peril in my view] [more evidence of worsening situation] [***************]
KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 27 -- U.S. troops on Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan have seen a threefold increase in attacks since a truce between Pakistan and pro-Taliban tribesmen, said a U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
He said the Sept. 5 peace pact has contributed to the Taliban's resurgence and that ethnic Pashtun rebels no longer are fighting Pakistani troops but are using the North Waziristan border region as a control hub for launching attacks in Afghanistan.
Insurgents Wednesday attacked an Afghan police checkpoint in southern Helmand province, and at least 25 rebels were killed in an ensuing clash with NATO-led troops, the alliance said in a statement.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Military Officials Add to U.S. Criticism of Iraq’s Government

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html
September 28, 2006
Military Officials Add to U.S. Criticism of Iraq’s Government
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********] [US military leaders beginning to openly question Maliki govt’s will] [*************************] [important turning point; with yesterday’s poll reported showing that most Iraqis want America to withdraw ASAP, could be the opening to take] [********************]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 27 — Senior American military officials are warning that time is growing short for Iraq to root out militias inside and outside the government and purge ministries of corrupt officials who are diverting large sums of money to their own political parties. [***********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html
September 28, 2006
Military Officials Add to U.S. Criticism of Iraq’s Government
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********] [US military leaders beginning to openly question Maliki govt’s will] [*************************] [important turning point; with yesterday’s poll reported showing that most Iraqis want America to withdraw ASAP, could be the opening to take] [********************]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 27 — Senior American military officials are warning that time is growing short for Iraq to root out militias inside and outside the government and purge ministries of corrupt officials who are diverting large sums of money to their own political parties. [***********]
“We are now at a time when we have a little bit of influence there,” a senior military official said. Referring to the problem of militias, he added, “There is going to come a time when I would argue we are going to have to force this issue.” [*********]
The official said political parties who were plundering ministries were squandering chances to make progress that could reduce sectarian violence.
“I can tell you in every single ministry how they are using that ministry to fill the coffers of the political parties,” the official said. “They are doing that because that is exactly what Saddam Hussein did.” [***********]
Another sign of how acute Iraq’s security woes have become emerged Wednesday: the past week saw the highest number of suicide bomb attacks of any week since the American-led invasion in 2003, according to the chief United States military spokesman in Iraq, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV.[***********]
“This has been a tough week,” General Caldwell said. “This week’s suicide attacks were at their highest level in any given week.” But such attacks, he said, are still not the No. 1 killer of Baghdad civilians. “Murders and executions are,” he said.
In recent weeks American and Iraqi officials have privately voiced concerns that Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki might not have the will or the political dexterity to bring the country together and avoid a full-scale civil war. Mr. Maliki, they say, is hamstrung and beholden to rival political parties with their own large militias.
Comments offered by senior United States military officials in the last few days have been even more pointed and take in not only the Maliki administration but also the whole of the Iraqi government bureaucracy. The senior military officials agreed to speak only without being identified, because of the delicate nature of the issue. [************]
Another senior military official said Mr. Maliki needed to move quickly to rid ministries of death squads and militiamen. “I think the time is short for them to deal with that over time, ’cause this can’t go on like that,” the official said. Speaking about the militias and other problems, he added that “people will get tired if they don’t see any action on this.”
The Iraqi national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, said Mr. Maliki had little support within his own government to take action. [**********]
“The situation is really serious,” Mr. Rubaie said. “There is no cohesion in the government to help him. There are so many circles he needs to take into consideration when he wants to make a decision. There is a lack of will to stop the violence among the politicians.” [*************]
An American raid on Wednesday in the restive city of Baquba, north of Baghdad, killed four women and four men. The military identified the men as “suspected terrorists,” but family members said they were innocent. [*********]
The military said American forces had taken heavy fire from a building where terrorists were believed to be hiding, even after interpreters announced that the forces were in the area.
The military said that troops had killed two men it described as terrorists, and that United States aircraft had fired “multiple rounds” at the building. The military said that the dead found inside included another two male terrorists and four women, and that two terrorists and one woman had been wounded. Weapons and a global positioning system were found.
Relatives said the eight people killed were from the same family and had no ties to terrorism. Associated Press Television News quoted the homeowner’s daughter, Manal Jassim, as saying: “They were all innocent people. We were sleeping when they entered our house at dawn. I found my father, mother, aunt and sister-in-law lying dead. We were an 11-member family. Eight were killed.”
The western Baghdad neighborhood of Huriya continued to be a sectarian battleground where militiamen terrorize and kill Sunni Arabs. According to an Interior Ministry official, gunmen in two cars on Wednesday sprayed fire at Sunnis gathered near a mosque, killing 10 and wounding 11.
A car bomb in Huriya wounded two civilians, and another car bomb exploded elsewhere in Baghdad, killing five people and wounding eight, the Interior Ministry official said.
The United States military said a marine from Regimental Combat Team Seven was killed Monday during “enemy action” in Anbar Province, west of Baghdad. No details were provided.
An American soldier also died Wednesday, after being attacked by small-arms fire in southern Baghdad.
Sabrina Tavernise and Qais Mizher contributed reporting.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Bombings, Shootings Kill Dozens in Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700583.html
Bombings, Shootings Kill Dozens in Iraq
By Patrick Quinn
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 28, 2006; 9:13 AM [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********]
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A car bomb killed five people Thursday and wounded another 34 after it exploded near a restaurant in central Baghdad, police said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092700583.html
Bombings, Shootings Kill Dozens in Iraq
By Patrick Quinn
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 28, 2006; 9:13 AM [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [***********]
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A car bomb killed five people Thursday and wounded another 34 after it exploded near a restaurant in central Baghdad, police said.
Bombing and shootings killed at least 21 people in and around the capital, and police reported finding 40 bodies.
The car bomb exploded at noon near the Abu Tibeekh restaurant in Sadoun Street in central Baghdad. [******] Many of the injured had serious burns and some were not expected to survive, police Lt. Ali Mohsen said at the Kindi Hospital.
Although the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan is under way, some Iraqis -- including Iraqi Christians -- are not abstaining from eating meals during daytime hours. [*************]
Two Iraqi soldiers were killed and 10 more injured when a suicide car bomb slammed into a checkpoint in northeast Baghdad, police said.
The attack came in the Shaab neighborhood, one that just been cleared by U.S. and Iraqi troops as part of the Operation Together Forward security drive in the capital.
The bodies of 40 men, more apparent victims of sectarian death squads, have been found dumped in eastern and western Baghdad in the past 24 hours, police said. All showed signs of torture, had been shot, and had their hands and feet bound, police Lt. Thayer Mahmoud said. [**********]
Gunmen killed seven people, including five policemen and a woman, in different locations in the province of Diyala just north of Baghdad, police said.
The included two police and a woman who were killed in Muqdadiyah, about 60 miles north of Baghdad. The two policemen were brothers. Another three officers and his brother were killed in the city of Baqouba.
A shootout between Iraqi soldiers and a truckload of gunmen resulted in the death of six militants southwest of Baghdad, said Col. Khalil al-Zawbaey, spokesman for the 2nd Brigade.
The top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, said Wednesday that murders and execution-style killings are the No. 1 cause of civilian deaths in Baghdad. Much of the violence has been attributed to death squads, many of which are thought to be offshoots of mainly Shiite militias. [*******]
He added that there had been a spike in violence in Baghdad with the onset of Ramadan, which Sunnis began observing Saturday and Shiites on Monday, and that suicide attacks were at their highest level ever.
"This has been a tough week," he said.
A child was killed in the southern Baghdad neighborhood of Dora when a mortar shell landed on a house, police said.
Seven policemen and three Interior Ministry special forces were injured in three different bombings in the capital.
Southwest of Samarra, a city 60 miles north of Baghdad, two fuel tankers were hit with roadside bombs and blew up, police said. Police initially said the attack had been on an oil pipeline.
© 2006 The Associated Press

Cleric Said to Lose Reins of Parts of Iraqi Militia

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/middleeast/28sadr.html
September 28, 2006
Cleric Said to Lose Reins of Parts of Iraqi Militia
By SABRINA TAVERNISE [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [in what may be good news, al Sadr is thought to have lost some control of his militia] [although, as always, be careful what you hope for] [***********]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 27 — The radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr has lost control of portions of his Mahdi Army militia that are splintering off into freelance death squads and criminal gangs, a senior coalition intelligence official said Wednesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/middleeast/28sadr.html
September 28, 2006
Cleric Said to Lose Reins of Parts of Iraqi Militia
By SABRINA TAVERNISE [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [politics and violence since big 3 (dec 2005 elections; Feb 22, 2006 attack on famous shii’a mosque; april 22 elevation of current PM Maliki) and since the summer’s war between Hezbollah and Israel] [latest] [followup] [disturbing daily tolls in the sectarian violence continue at steady pace] [in what may be good news, al Sadr is thought to have lost some control of his militia] [although, as always, be careful what you hope for] [***********]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 27 — The radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr has lost control of portions of his Mahdi Army militia that are splintering off into freelance death squads and criminal gangs, a senior coalition intelligence official said Wednesday.
The question of how tightly Mr. Sadr holds the militia, one of the largest armed groups in Iraq, is of critical importance to American and Iraqi officials. Seeking to ease the sectarian violence raging across the country, they have pressed him to join the political process and curb his fighters, who see themselves as defenders of Shiism — and often as agents of vengeance against Sunnis. [it has always been portrayed as intensely loyal to Sadr] [**********]
But as Mr. Sadr has taken a more active role in the government, as many as a third of his militiamen have grown frustrated with the constraints of compromise and have broken off, often selling their services to the highest bidders, [*********] said the official, who spoke to reporters in Baghdad on condition of anonymity because he was not permitted to speak publicly on intelligence issues.
“When Sadr says you can’t do this, for whatever political reason, that’s when they start to go rogue,” the official said. “Frankly, at that point, they start to become very open to alternative sources of sponsorship.” The official said that opened the door to control by Iran. [**************************]
Mr. Sadr’s militia — dominated by impoverished Shiites who are loosely organized into groups that resemble neighborhood protection forces — has always operated in a grass-roots style but generally tended to heed his commands. It answered his call to battle American forces in two uprisings in 2004, and stopped fighting when he ordered it. But as the violence in Iraq has spread, evidence of freelancing Shiites has accumulated.
After the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, bands of militants dressed in black, the favorite color of Sadr loyalists, drove into neighborhoods, kidnapping and killing Sunnis. Mr. Sadr, who was abroad at the time, returned home and gave a rare public speech calling on his followers to stop, even proposing joint prayer sessions with Sunni clerics. [********] Still, the rampage continued.
In Basra, a province in southeastern Iraq, Mr. Sadr has less direct control over militiamen, and they have tended to operate to suit their own agenda. Local leaders there have said that he has disciplined some members and fired others, but with little overall effect. He has run through four different leaders in Basra, according to the intelligence official, and has even had to shut offices temporarily, when local leaders ignored him and acted on their own. [***************]
Mr. Sadr is still immensely powerful, with as many as 7,000 militiamen in Baghdad, the official said. And the cleric has turned that firepower into political might. His candidate list won about 30 seats in Parliament this year, one of the largest shares. The participation was a central goal for American officials, who tried for months to persuade him to stop fighting and enter politics.
Still, six major leaders here no longer answer to Mr. Sadr’s organization, according to the intelligence official. Most describe themselves as Mahdi Army members, the official said, and even get money from Mr. Sadr’s organization, but “are effectively beyond his control.” [*****] Some of those who moved away from Mr. Sadr saw him as too accommodating to the United States. Others saw him as too bound by politics, particularly as killings of Shiite civilians in mixed neighborhoods began to soar. [********]
“They’re not content to sit there and just defend their family on the street corner,” the official said. “They want to go out and take on what they view as Al Qaeda or Baathists or both in aggressive measure.” [********]
One example is Abu Dera, [******] a fighter in the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City in the capital who used to be loyal to Mr. Sadr. Residents said that as he began to gain a reputation for killing Sunni figures, Mr. Sadr told him to stop. But he ignored the order, and now he is referred to as the “Shiite Zarqawi,” after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist leader who exhorted Sunnis to kill Shiites. [****************]
“He started against the Americans, but he moved on to killing Sunnis,” said Sattar Awad, a 29-year-old resident of the district. “People here look at him as a brave man.”
American forces are hunting for Mr. Dera, the intelligence officer said, but he has eluded capture.
Although the splintering has solved some problems for the American military, it has raised new ones. “In some ways it makes it easier for me because I now have digestible doses I can deal with,” said a senior American military official at a briefing on Wednesday, also in Baghdad. “At the same time it creates problems because they are harder to find when they are splintered.” [************]
The splintering has changed the tone of the American military’s interaction with the Mahdi Army in Sadr City. In past years, American forays into the area would often draw a storm of grenade attacks. But recent American moves into the area have been carried out relatively peacefully: Mr. Sadr has not ordered attacks because the men being sought were freelancers like Abu Dera, the intelligence officer said. [********]
The fighters’ defections have raised the troubling prospect of more avenues of influence for Iran, the senior intelligence official said. The official cited shipments of weapons with labels that trace back to Iranian weapons manufacturers as evidence that Iran was actively aiding groups in Iraq. And that assistance has not just been limited to Mahdi Army offshoots. “They’re not sure who will come out on top, so they fund everybody,” the official said of Iran.
Even Mr. Sadr, who fashions himself as the quintessential Iraqi nationalist, has reached out to Iran’s government, making a very public trip to Iran for talks early this year. He is also trying to reassert control over his power base at home, and to expand his influence, the intelligence official said. “What Sadr is looking for is discipline,” [*******]the official said.
He said Mr. Sadr had begun to increase his exposure in the northern city of Kirkuk and in Diyala Province, both mixed-population areas north of Baghdad where sectarian disputes have been on the rise. There, he is trying to appeal by casting himself as a defender of Shiites against Kurdish and Sunni Arab factions.
Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Ahmadinejad Says Enrichment Won't Stop

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800245.html
Ahmadinejad Says Enrichment Won't Stop
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 28, 2006; 10:51 AM [iran] [wmd] [followup] [latest] [talks continue with Iran showing just enough good will for most to be willing to continue down negotiation path] [meanwhile, who knows what Iran is doing with its wmd] [Ahmadinejad has given talks from his Hotel room near UN] [US allowed him into NYC] [he’s made the most of it though I think is shrewdeness has been overstated: that Hugo Chaves was acting so clownish made Ahmadinejade—and President Bush for that matter—look very poised and diplomatic by comparison] [********]
TEHRAN, Iran -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday rejected demands that Tehran suspend its uranium enrichment activities, saying his government was determined to continue pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. [*******]
Ahmadinejad spoke after top Iranian and European negotiators ended their latest round of talks in Berlin, saying they had "come to some positive conclusions" but failed to reach an agreement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800245.html
Ahmadinejad Says Enrichment Won't Stop
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 28, 2006; 10:51 AM [iran] [wmd] [followup] [latest] [talks continue with Iran showing just enough good will for most to be willing to continue down negotiation path] [meanwhile, who knows what Iran is doing with its wmd] [Ahmadinejad has given talks from his Hotel room near UN] [US allowed him into NYC] [he’s made the most of it though I think is shrewdeness has been overstated: that Hugo Chaves was acting so clownish made Ahmadinejade—and President Bush for that matter—look very poised and diplomatic by comparison] [********]
TEHRAN, Iran -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday rejected demands that Tehran suspend its uranium enrichment activities, saying his government was determined to continue pursuing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. [*******]
Ahmadinejad spoke after top Iranian and European negotiators ended their latest round of talks in Berlin, saying they had "come to some positive conclusions" but failed to reach an agreement.
"They asked for a one-day halt (of uranium enrichment). We said we won't do it," [********] Ahmadinejad told thousands of people Thursday in Karaj, west of the capital, Tehran.
He said the U.S. and its European allies wanted Iran to suspend enrichment in order to force a permanent halt, because they were opposed to Tehran's progress. But he said Iran would not give in.
"Those who have filled their arsenal with nuclear weapons and conduct new tests every day want on political pretexts to deny the Iranian nation its full definite right of using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," he told the crowd.
"The Iranian nation won't give in to one iota of coercion," [*******]he added.
Ahmadinejad said the Europeans have asked Iran during negotiations to suspend enrichment, citing technical problems, but Iran rejected their demand.
"They (Europeans) asked us to suspend work for three months. ... Three months' suspension means a huge loss, means three months' reversal from technology. Who will pay for the losses? ... Then they reached a point that they asked for a one-day halt. We said we won't do it," he said.
Iran has ignored a U.N. Security Council resolution to halt uranium enrichment by Aug. 31. Enrichment can produce either fuel for a reactor or material for a warhead.
Six countries _ the United States, China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany _ have offered Iran a package of incentives in return for Tehran in return for suspending its uranium enrichment and returning to full-scale negotiations. The six are considering seeking sanctions in the U.N. Security Council if Tehran does not comply. [********]
The United States and several of its allies believe Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Tehran maintains its program is peaceful and merely aimed at generating electricity.
Iran has said it will never give up its right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel, but at times it has indicated it may temporarily suspend large-scale activities to ease tensions.
© 2006 The Associated Press

Iranian and Europe Envoy Open Talks on Uranium Enrichment

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html
September 28, 2006
Iranian and Europe Envoy Open Talks on Uranium Enrichment
By JUDY DEMPSEY
International Herald Tribune [iran] [wmd] [followup] [latest] [talks continue with Iran showing just enough good will for most to be willing to continue down negotiation path] [meanwhile, who knows what Iran is doing with its wmd] [Ahmadinejad has given talks from his Hotel room near UN] [US allowed him into NYC] [he’s made the most of it though I think is shrewdeness has been overstated: that Hugo Chaves was acting so clownish made Ahmadinejade—and President Bush for that matter—look very poised and diplomatic by comparison] [********]
BERLIN, Sept. 27 — The European Union’s foreign policy chief and Iran’s senior nuclear negotiator met Wednesday night in an effort to resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html
September 28, 2006
Iranian and Europe Envoy Open Talks on Uranium Enrichment
By JUDY DEMPSEY
International Herald Tribune [iran] [wmd] [followup] [latest] [talks continue with Iran showing just enough good will for most to be willing to continue down negotiation path] [meanwhile, who knows what Iran is doing with its wmd] [Ahmadinejad has given talks from his Hotel room near UN] [US allowed him into NYC] [he’s made the most of it though I think is shrewdeness has been overstated: that Hugo Chaves was acting so clownish made Ahmadinejade—and President Bush for that matter—look very poised and diplomatic by comparison] [********]
BERLIN, Sept. 27 — The European Union’s foreign policy chief and Iran’s senior nuclear negotiator met Wednesday night in an effort to resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.
The talks, at a government villa just outside Berlin, were arranged Tuesday after the Iranian representative, Ali Larijani, had twice postponed meetings with Javier Solana, the European foreign policy official.
The meeting was first to have been held in Brussels and then last week on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York.
The talks adjourned late Wednesday evening and were to resume Thursday morning.
“These talks in Berlin are very important,” said a European Union diplomat who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the talks are in process. “At stake is how both sides might agree to restart formal negotiations in return for Iran suspending its uranium enrichment program.”
Iran has repeatedly declared that its enrichment programs are for civilian use and that it has a right to develop such a nuclear capacity. But the United States and Europe fear that the enrichment activity is part of a nuclear weapons program.
The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China — and Germany have been negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program.
Only hours before the talks began on Wednesday, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Tehran would “not back down” from its position on enrichment.
The six nations in June offered Iran a package of political and economic incentives on the condition that it suspend its uranium enrichment program. The Security Council has passed a resolution saying it will proceed toward sanctions if Iran does not suspend enrichment.
Mr. Solana has been trying for weeks to seek clarifications from Mr. Larijani over if, how and when Iran would suspend uranium enrichment. In return, the six countries would be prepared to start a new round of formal negotiations.
The Iranians started to negotiate on the incentives package only three weeks ago, when Mr. Solana and Mr. Larijani met in Vienna, according to diplomats, who said the issues involved have been clarified.
“There are two issues at stake,” said a Western diplomat familiar with the talks who spoke on the condition of anonymity under diplomatic rules. “One is verification, meaning that if Iran suspends its program, it must allow full verification by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, to verify that suspension. These talks are a nonstarter without a watertight verification regime.”
The second issue is what diplomats called the “sequencing.” The Western diplomat said Mr. Solana was aiming to obtain from Iran a firm timetable for when and how suspension might take place and when the formal negotiations would start.
These two issues dominated talks held in Paris on Monday and Tuesday between Robert Cooper, a top European Union diplomat and adviser to Mr. Solana, and Javad Vaidi, deputy secretary general of Iran’s National Security Council.
It is unclear if Britain, France and Germany, which had been taking the lead in the incentives offer, are prepared to start preliminary formal negotiations before Iran starts suspending its enrichment program.
France hinted this month that it might be prepared to adopt this stance.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

For Kazakh Leader’s Visit, U.S. Seeks a Balance

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/asia/28kazakh.html
September 28, 2006
For Kazakh Leader’s Visit, U.S. Seeks a Balance
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ILAN GREENBERG [Kazakhstan] [USFP] [conflicted over promoting democracy and short-term expediency of an ally in an important part of the world] [similar to the tensions during the Cold War over support of unsavory dictators as they were the lesser of two evils; Communism always seen as the greater of two] [Cheney involved demonstrating, perhaps, that he doesn’t quite buy President Bush’s commitment to democracy—perhaps it’s a quaint notion for him] [***********]
ASTANA, Kazakhstan, Sept. 26 — When Vice President Dick Cheney came to this oil-rich Central Asian nation this spring he expressed admiration for what he called its “political development.” [*******]Yet just a day before his visit began, the authoritarian government effectively shut down the two most prominent American democracy organizations working here. [*************]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/asia/28kazakh.html
September 28, 2006
For Kazakh Leader’s Visit, U.S. Seeks a Balance
By STEVEN LEE MYERS and ILAN GREENBERG [Kazakhstan] [USFP] [conflicted over promoting democracy and short-term expediency of an ally in an important part of the world] [similar to the tensions during the Cold War over support of unsavory dictators as they were the lesser of two evils; Communism always seen as the greater of two] [Cheney involved demonstrating, perhaps, that he doesn’t quite buy President Bush’s commitment to democracy—perhaps it’s a quaint notion for him] [***********]
ASTANA, Kazakhstan, Sept. 26 — When Vice President Dick Cheney came to this oil-rich Central Asian nation this spring he expressed admiration for what he called its “political development.” [*******]Yet just a day before his visit began, the authoritarian government effectively shut down the two most prominent American democracy organizations working here. [*************]
While American officials are negotiating to reverse the government’s decision, they have yet to complain about it publicly.
As President Bush prepares to receive the Kazakh president, Nursultan A. Nazarbayev, at a state dinner in Washington on Friday, the episode reflects the delicate balance the administration has struck with a country of growing strategic importance that has a record of corruption, flawed elections and rights violations, including the killings of two opposition leaders in the last year in disputed circumstances. [*************]
Critics here say the episode also illustrates the Bush administration’s willingness to sacrifice democracy, a centerpiece of its foreign policy, when it conflicts with other foreign policy goals. [***********************************]
“There are four enemies of human rights: oil, gas, the war on terror and geopolitical considerations,” said Yevgeny A. Zhovtis of the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law, an organization that has received financing from the American Embassy and the National Endowment for Democracy. “And we have all four.”
The Bush administration has promoted democratic reforms in Kazakhstan for years, but it also appears eager to mollify a president who has been a comparatively moderate Muslim leader in Central Asia, [*******]who has allowed NATO aircraft headed to Afghanistan to fly over the country and sent a company of soldiers to Iraq, and who controls vast resources of oil and gas, much of it extracted by American companies.
In a meeting on Monday in New York with Foreign Minister Kasymzhomart Tokayev, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke generally about democracy and human rights in Kazakhstan, a senior State Department official said, but did not raise the matter of the two democracy groups — the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and the International Republican Institute. [*********]
In Washington, Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council, said the White House was aware of the problem with the institutes but added that he could not say whether President Bush would raise it this week, since the discussions were not scripted in advance. Still, he said, “Democratization is a very important part of the agenda.”
The backlash against promotion of democracy is by no means limited to Kazakhstan. The institutes, which are nonprofit, nonpartisan groups financed by the United States government, have been eyed warily not just here but in Russia, China and an array of authoritarian Central Asian countries that were alarmed by the “color revolutions” in Serbia, Georgia and, particularly, Ukraine. [*********]
As outlined in a recent report by the National Endowment for Democracy, many of them, including Kazakhstan, have followed the lead of Russia and severely restricted nongovernmental organizations. Some countries, notably Belarus, but also the Persian Gulf state of Bahrain, have closed them down altogether. [*********]
For Kazakhstan, as for the Bush administration, the coming visit has created an opportunity for improving relations that have been strained in recent years, even as Russia has taken advantage of its own political and economic influence. [*********]
The strains have stemmed from American concerns over corruption, restrictions on the news media and President Nazarbayev’s consolidation of political control.
The Kazakh government has its own concerns with American policy. They include a criminal case in New York against James H. Giffen, an American businessman, that implicates Mr. Nazarbayev in a bribery scheme dating from the 1990’s, and lukewarm American support for Kazakhstan’s bid to preside over the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. [******************]
Here in Kazakhstan, Mr. Nazarbayev’s visit has been portrayed as a chance for him to enhance his international prestige by improving relations with the United States. “The time has come when we can raise our relations to a completely new level,” Mr. Nazarbayev told reporters in Astana earlier this month.
Kazakhstan, the ninth largest country in the world in area but with only 15 million people, the majority of them Muslims, has experienced an energy-fueled economic boom that has transformed it into a regional power. [*********]
Mr. Nazarbayev is genuinely popular inside the country, though that popularity is certainly nurtured by the government’s control of television, which provides lavish, uncritical coverage. Even independent surveys of voters leaving the polls showed him winning re-election handily last December, with a vote as high as 82 percent, compared with the official result of 91 percent. [********]The lower figure came from a poll financed by the International Republican Institute.
Mr. Nazarbayev’s opponents said the government’s need to pad what would have been a clear victory anyway highlighted a growing trend toward authoritarianism. Oraz Jandosov, a co-chairman of a democratic opposition party, True Bright Path, said the most disturbing consequences of the power and impunity enveloping Mr. Nazarbayev’s government were the deaths of two opposition leaders.
One, Zamanbek N. Nurkadilov, was found shot three times, once in the head, last November. His death was subsequently declared a suicide. The other, Altynbek Sarsenbaiuly, was killed in February along with two bodyguards on a road outside Almaty, the country’s biggest city.
In August, an aide in the upper house of Parliament, Yerzhan Utembayev, and several officers of the secret services were convicted of those killings, though few here believed the declared motive: that Mr. Utembayev had been angered that Mr. Sarsenbaiuly had accused him of being a drunk in a newspaper interview three years earlier.
The actions against the American democracy programs followed soon after Mr. Sarsenbaiuly’s killing, reflecting a trend to stifle any open discussion of the country’s problem.
In a letter to the American Embassy, a copy of which was shown to The New York Times, Kazakh prosecutors charged the two institutes under a law that forbids “material assistance” to political parties. The institutes were accused of “the handing over of materials” and “illegal instances of transport” during their work with political and civic groups. [**********]
The accusations fit a pattern of harassment in the months leading up to last year’s election, when government tax and financial agencies repeatedly investigated and audited dozens of private organizations. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the institution Mr. Nazarbayev hopes to lead as chairman in 2009, criticized the election for “a number of significant shortcomings,” including “an atmosphere of intimidation.”
Four American officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the continuing negotiations over the institutes, said neither institute had paid for or otherwise supported partisan activity.
Two people involved in the discussions said former Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and Senator John McCain of Arizona, the chairwoman and chairman of the Democratic and Republican institutes respectively, had written a letter to Mr. Bush urging him to raise the issue with Mr. Nazarbayev during his visit.
American officials continue to express support for Kazakhstan’s opposition and for democracy here in general.
Mr. Cheney, when he visited, met over breakfast with opposition leaders for an hour and 20 minutes in a hotel in Astana, the capital. Mr. Jandosov, who was there, said he welcomed the chance to explain “what the real situation was,” but expressed regret that the meeting came the morning after Mr. Cheney appeared in public with Mr. Nazarbayev and expressed support for him.
Murat Laumulin of the Kazakhstan Institute of Strategic Studies, a research organization with close ties to the government, said Mr. Nazarbayev’s government had made concessions to the United States in the field of energy and in the Bush administration’s fight against Islamic terrorism, among other areas, and thus merited a reprieve in demands for swift democratization.
“Kazakhstan has gone along with a lot of the American oil agenda with the unspoken understanding that the Kazakhstan population is not going to be provoked,” Mr. Laumulin said. “There isn’t to be a ‘color revolution’ here, and for five to seven years we don’t have to worry about needing to introduce genuine democracy. We get a strategic pause.” [*****************]
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

At German Conference on Muslim Relations, One Vote Is Unanimous: Mozart Must Go On

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/europe/28germany.html
September 28, 2006
At German Conference on Muslim Relations, One Vote Is Unanimous: Mozart Must Go On
By MARK LANDLER [germany] [eu] [note: Lebanese Muslims in Germany attempted to detonate commuter trains] [see July 2006, external] [here Germans feeling pressure from growing Islamic community over Mohammed and how to handle issue] [followup to yesterdaty’s external where opera that depicted jesus’ and mohammed’s heads] [***********]
BERLIN, Sept. 27 — Amid all the issues that divide Germany’s Muslims and non-Muslims — from women’s rights to the teaching of Islam in schools — there was one point on which the 30 participants in a landmark conference held here on Wednesday could agree, according to its organizer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/europe/28germany.html
September 28, 2006
At German Conference on Muslim Relations, One Vote Is Unanimous: Mozart Must Go On
By MARK LANDLER [germany] [eu] [note: Lebanese Muslims in Germany attempted to detonate commuter trains] [see July 2006, external] [here Germans feeling pressure from growing Islamic community over Mohammed and how to handle issue] [followup to yesterdaty’s external where opera that depicted jesus’ and mohammed’s heads] [***********]
BERLIN, Sept. 27 — Amid all the issues that divide Germany’s Muslims and non-Muslims — from women’s rights to the teaching of Islam in schools — there was one point on which the 30 participants in a landmark conference held here on Wednesday could agree, according to its organizer.
They would like to see the Deutsche Oper of Berlin reinstate the Mozart opera it canceled earlier this week after receiving an anonymous threat that the production — which features a scene with the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad — could put the opera house at risk. [********]
The 30 representatives, drawn equally from the German government and Germany’s Muslim population, could even go see the opera together, said Wolfgang Schäuble, the interior minister, who organized and served as chairman of the conference, held in an 18th-century baroque palace.
With that suggestion, made at a news conference after the session, Mr. Schäuble artfully linked the public uproar over the cancellation of Mozart’s “Idomeneo” to this long-planned gathering, which was meant to demonstrate Germany’s resolve to reach out to its more than three million Muslims.
“We have, in a very tolerant tone, laid out quite different positions,” Mr. Schäuble said. “That was the point.”
In some ways, the opera affair galvanized the meeting — underlining the urgency and complexity of the issues facing Germany, as it seeks to integrate a Muslim population that is growing in size and, in the view of some, growing farther apart from mainstream German society. [*********]
“There was general agreement that we would like to see the opera come back,” said Mehmet Yildirim, the general secretary of the Turkish-Islamic Union. “But there were different perspectives on the issue.” [***********]
He said that while the atmosphere on Wednesday was positive, he was less sure that Germany and its Muslim population would be able to work together over a period of years to solve their more basic differences.
The conference, which had been planned soon after Angela Merkel was elected chancellor last fall, comes at a time of heightened debate over whether Germans have been too quick to compromise their values in the face of anger, or merely the threat of anger, on the part of Muslims.
Even before the cancellation of the opera, there were misgivings here about the repeated expressions of regret by Pope Benedict XVI, a German, for his recent remarks about Islam and violence.
On Wednesday, Mrs. Merkel added her voice to a chorus of political and cultural leaders who criticized the Deutsche Oper.
“I think the cancellation was a mistake,” she said to reporters. “Self-censorship does not help us against people who want to practice violence in the name of Islam. It makes no sense to retreat.”
A top cultural official in Berlin, Thomas Flierl, said the city would like to stage “Idomeneo” as soon as possible. The Deutsche Oper said it was open to rescheduling it, provided that a “suitable date” could be found. On Tuesday, the director of the opera house, Kirsten Harms, said she would first have to resolve the political and diplomatic implications.
Ms. Harms has been roundly scorned. But critics said the Berlin government, particularly its chief security official, Ehrhard Körting, should have given her more advice.
At the conference, the issues were no less sensitive, ranging from the teaching of Islamic religion in public schools to the training of imams in Germany, and from the construction of mosques to the discrimination against Muslims living in this country, the majority of whom are of Turkish origin.
The meeting was a necessary step because the government needs to get a feel for the Islamic point of view, said Ayyub Axel Köhler, chairman of the Central Council of Muslims.
Complicating attempts at dialogue, Muslims in Germany are a fractured group. The government took note of that by inviting independent figures like Seyran Ates, a Turkish-German lawyer who represents victims of domestic abuse. Mr. Schäuble, an experienced and influential member of Mrs. Merkel’s Christian Democratic Party, supports teaching Islam in schools. But he also insists that Muslim schoolgirls be allowed to take physical education — an activity some conservative Muslim families resist. [*********]
Mr. Schäuble, who oversees antiterrorism policy, warned Muslim leaders that they must abide by the German Constitution and the principles of a democratic society if they wanted to be included in the conference. [**********]
In an interview with Der Spiegel this week, he made clear the limits of his tolerance. “I can promise you this,” he said, “anyone who calls me an infidel at the conference will be in for a fight.” [*************]
The session was closed to the news media, but judging by the conciliatory tone afterward, it did not seem likely that anybody called him one.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Al-Qaida in Iraq: 4,000 Insurgents Dead

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800654.html
Al-Qaida in Iraq: 4,000 Insurgents Dead
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 28, 2006; 10:41 AM [-ir] [hydra] [zarqawi’s replacement] [another audio tape] [*******************]
CAIRO, Egypt -- The new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq said in an audio message posted on a Web site Thursday that more than 4,000 foreign insurgent fighters have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. [******] It was believed to be the first major statement from insurgents in Iraq about their losses.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/28/AR2006092800654.html
Al-Qaida in Iraq: 4,000 Insurgents Dead
The Associated Press
Thursday, September 28, 2006; 10:41 AM [-ir] [hydra] [zarqawi’s replacement] [another audio tape] [*******************]
CAIRO, Egypt -- The new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq said in an audio message posted on a Web site Thursday that more than 4,000 foreign insurgent fighters have been killed in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. [******] It was believed to be the first major statement from insurgents in Iraq about their losses.
"The blood has been spilled in Iraq of more than 4,000 foreigners who came to fight," [******] said the man, who identified himself as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir [*****]_ also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri [****]_ the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. The voice could not be independently identified.
The Arabic word he used indicated he was speaking about foreigners who joined the insurgency in Iraq, not coalition troops. [*******]
Al-Masri is believed to have succeeded Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who died in a U.S. airstrike north of Baghdad in June.
© 2006 The Associated Press

From the Ashes, a Chunk of America Beckons in Somalia

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/africa/28blackhawk.html
September 28, 2006
Mogadishu Journal
From the Ashes, a Chunk of America Beckons in Somalia
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN [Somalia] [Africa] [strategic horn] [since US withdrew in 1993, the transitional govt has formed to run Somalia apart from previous warlord system] [however, Somalia Islamists and Jihadis (foreign and indigenous) have been attempting to co-opt resistance to transitional govt] [America’s historic links to Mogadishu since at least 1992] [***************]
MOGADISHU, Somalia, Sept. 23 — They call her the “Black Hawk Down” lady.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/africa/28blackhawk.html
September 28, 2006
Mogadishu Journal
From the Ashes, a Chunk of America Beckons in Somalia
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN [Somalia] [Africa] [strategic horn] [since US withdrew in 1993, the transitional govt has formed to run Somalia apart from previous warlord system] [however, Somalia Islamists and Jihadis (foreign and indigenous) have been attempting to co-opt resistance to transitional govt] [America’s historic links to Mogadishu since at least 1992] [***************]
MOGADISHU, Somalia, Sept. 23 — They call her the “Black Hawk Down” lady.
And in the corner of her dirt yard, beneath rags drying in the sun and next to a bowl of filthy wash water, she keeps a chunk of history that most Americans would probably like to forget.
It is the battered nose of a Black Hawk helicopter, from one of the two that got shot down in Mogadishu on Oct. 3, 1993, in an infamous battle that killed 18 Americans, led to a major foreign policy shift and spawned a big movie.
The Black Hawk Down lady stands fiercely at her gate and charges admission to see it.
“You, you, you,” she said on a recent day, jabbing her finger at three visitors. “Pay, pay, pay.”
American military officials, who were sent e-mail messages with pictures, said the nose piece did appear to be from one of the Black Hawks brought down that day. But they said they had no interest in retrieving it, for a memorial or any other purpose. [******]
So it remains a strange tourist attraction in a strange and war-weary place, where bazooka guns hang in the market next to slabs of fly-bitten goat meat, and children at school casually recite passages about massacres in English class. And just as the Black Hawk Down episode has special significance for Americans, it does, too, for many Somalis, who take enormous pride in having humiliated a superpower that day. [*****]
The Black Hawk Down lady’s real name is Hawa Elmi. She grew up a nomad, herding camels in Somalia’s deserts, and never went to school. She moved to Mogadishu in the 1960’s, when it was a showcase of Italian architecture, a gem along the sea.
She is 66, loud and excitable. The other day during an interview, every answer came in shouts.
On the afternoon of Oct. 3, 1993, Ms. Elmi said, she was sitting in her yard, minding her own business, when a helicopter slammed into the back of her house. A task force of Army Rangers and Delta Force commandos were trying to snatch the henchmen of one of Mogadishu’s most notorious warlords, [*******] Mohammed Farah Aidid. But the mission quickly went sideways — a soldier slipped off a rope while rappelling from a helicopter, a rescue convoy got lost in the maze of Mogadishu’s streets and Somali militiamen plucked off two Black Hawks with rocket-propelled grenades.
The neighborhood closed in on the trapped Americans, and by the time the battle was over, 18 elite American soldiers were dead and dozens were wounded and approximately 1,000 Somalis had been killed. [*************]
A few days later, President Clinton began drawing up plans to pull out the troops. [****]
Ecstatic Somalis ransacked the wreckage, stripping the helicopters and melting down the metal. Some people even ripped insignia patches off the bodies of the soldiers to keep as grim souvenirs.
Maxamed Cali Geedi, who fought for Mr. Aidid years ago, still carries a set of insignia from an American sergeant’s uniform.
“To remember my friends who were killed,” he explained.
But Ms. Elmi had a different plan. Her husband had died a long time ago, and she had six children to feed. Two of her older sons were killed, she said, when the helicopter crashed. She dragged the cracked nose piece, about five feet across but actually pretty light because it was made of fiberglass, back to her house. She lives in the middle of a neighborhood named Tokyo, because it is so packed. It is a warren of tin shacks and sandy streets, as shot up and smashed by cannon fire as the rest of Mogadishu.
Ms. Elmi began humbly, charging neighborhood boys the equivalent of a few cents to get a peek at her one exhibit, the last known chunk of wreckage from what Somalis refer to as Ma-alinti Rangers, the Day of the Rangers.
But after the movie “Black Hawk Down” came out in 2001 — and pirated copies found their way to Mogadishu — business boomed.
“So many people came, I cannot count,” she said. “White people, brown people, black people.”
When asked why they come, she snapped: “How should I know? Do you think I am mind reader?”
The entrance fee is now around $3 for foreigners; locals get a discount and pay 75 cents.
Anthony C. Zinni, a retired American general who helped oversee operations in Somalia in 1993, said he thought it was a little weird that residents in a city littered with so much war wreckage would pay anything to see this. “Nothing, however, about Somalia surprises me,” [******] he added.
Ms. Elmi said that foreign visitors (most likely journalists and aid workers) usually tipped well, but that many times rude militiamen barged in and refused to pay at all.
Those days are largely over. Mogadishu is now ruled by Islamist clerics who have delivered a level of order and stability that the city had not seen for years, though that may not last. [*******] Part of the reason they rose to power was that the Islamists tapped into anti-American sentiment by challenging warlords backed by the United States.
Some people say they fear the Islamists will impose a draconian version of Islam in Somalia, which up until recently had been relatively secular. [*********]
But Ms. Elmi said she loved the Islamists. And she has her own reasons.
“They bring peace,” she said. “And peace brings tourists.”
Mohammed Ibrahim contributed reporting.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

In Tribal Pakistan, an Uneasy Quiet

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092702054.html
In Tribal Pakistan, an Uneasy Quiet
Pact Fails to Deter Backing for Taliban
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, September 28, 2006; A01 [Pakistan] [as new Afghanistan] [while musharraf’s new book is selling and musharraf visits the US—indeed, last evening Bush hosted a dinner with Musharraf and Karzia to work out differences—the situation in Pakistan is tense] [recently reported (external) a power outage cause spreading rumors of coup while Musharraf was at UN] [**************]
PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Sept. 27 -- Three weeks after Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, announced a peace pact with Taliban radicals in a tribal area bordering Afghanistan, recent visitors say there is now pin-drop silence in a territory that once shook with artillery and bomb blasts. [********] Religious patrols are enforcing law and order, they say, in place of Pakistan army troops who have withdrawn to their barracks. [********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/27/AR2006092702054.html
In Tribal Pakistan, an Uneasy Quiet
Pact Fails to Deter Backing for Taliban
By Pamela Constable
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, September 28, 2006; A01 [Pakistan] [as new Afghanistan] [while musharraf’s new book is selling and musharraf visits the US—indeed, last evening Bush hosted a dinner with Musharraf and Karzia to work out differences—the situation in Pakistan is tense] [recently reported (external) a power outage cause spreading rumors of coup while Musharraf was at UN] [**************]
PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Sept. 27 -- Three weeks after Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, announced a peace pact with Taliban radicals in a tribal area bordering Afghanistan, recent visitors say there is now pin-drop silence in a territory that once shook with artillery and bomb blasts. [********] Religious patrols are enforcing law and order, they say, in place of Pakistan army troops who have withdrawn to their barracks. [********]
But as the toll from violence rises across the border in Afghanistan, with suicide bombings killing 22 people in three cities this week, there are reports that militant Pakistani tribal leaders, while complying with their pledge to reduce the presence of foreign Islamic fighters, intend to defy the peace pact by sending local fighters and suicide bombers into Afghanistan. [*************]
Musharraf continues to deny Afghan charges that the Pakistani government is sheltering and encouraging the revived Taliban insurgency from the tribal zones. [*********] But people interviewed in northwest Pakistan said there is widespread support in the tribal region for the Taliban movement's harsh Islamic morality and its war against U.S. forces and their allies in Afghanistan. [******]
The tribal zones are a cluster of seven remote and rugged border districts where Pakistan's central government has never exerted more than nominal control. AK-47 assault rifles are common household possessions. Most of the people are Pashtun, the same ethnic group that dominates neighboring southern Afghanistan and that gave rise to the Taliban movement in the 1990s. [*****] Many Pashtun don't recognize the Pakistan-Afghan border, crossing it at will in both directions.
Under terms of the Sept. 5 agreement, Musharraf pledged to withdraw troops who had been attacking armed Islamic groups in the tribal area. In return, the fighters agreed to stop attacks on both sides of the border and expel foreign fighters unless they take up a peaceful life. [*******]
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has faulted the pact in the past as taking pressure off the Taliban. But in remarks to reporters Tuesday in Washington he toned down his remarks, saying he would take a "wait-and-see attitude." [****] Karzai said he was encouraged to learn that the pact had been signed with tribal elders, not with Taliban commanders.
But the traditional system of tribal self-governance has been weakened during three years of conflict with Pakistan troops. More than 200 tribal chiefs have reportedly been killed. It is not clear whether the Taliban leadership feels bound to any agreement made by local elders. [*******]
In the past two weeks, an elderly Afghan man accused of spying was decapitated in North Waziristan, the tribal area where the pact was signed. The teenage brother of a Pakistani journalist slain there earlier this year was also found dead. One source said he had been told that a group of teenagers, fresh from religious and military training, had recently headed for the border to carry out suicide bombings in Afghanistan. [*****]
In a recent telephone interview with a Pakistani reporter, senior Taliban leader Dadullah Akhund said he had told local Taliban members to cease attacks in Pakistan but to continue their fight "abroad" against the U.S. military. [*******] He said that he had 500 suicide bombers and 12,000 fighters at his disposal and that by next spring the Taliban would have enough force to launch major attacks on Kabul, [******] the Afghan capital.
The revived Taliban insurgency has already cut a swath of violence across Afghanistan. This year, more than 2,000 people have been reported killed in numerous provinces. [*******]NATO forces are struggling to secure southern provinces where the fighting is focused.
On both sides of the border, critics of the peace pact condemn it as a farce. They described it as a major concession to the Islamic radicals by Musharraf after he failed to quell them by force, and a ruse to persuade the United States and European powers that he is serious about stopping the Taliban.
"This deal has handed over North Waziristan to the Taliban," Afrasiab Khattak, a human rights activist and secular politician, said in an interview in Peshawar, located in the so-called settled areas outside the tribal region. [*****]He said a hierarchy of Taliban commanders had taken control of North Waziristan, collecting taxes and meting out rough justice.
"The war in Afghanistan is totally from this side," Khattak said. "It is a new round of jihad, and it is not going to remain inside the tribal enclaves." [*********************]
U.S. officials have long believed that al-Qaeda members from various Muslim countries as well as renegade Taliban fighters had sought refuge in the tribal areas after the U.S.-led ouster of Taliban rule in Kabul in 2001. [******] In recent months, fighters of an Uzbek Muslim militia, expert in explosives and sabotage, have reportedly been operating in the area. [*******] At U.S. urging, Pakistani troops in 2003 began staging repeated raids in the region but encountered tough resistance.
Several Pakistani journalists with contacts in North Waziristan have reported that since the peace pact was signed, local Islamic militants and clerics have abided by its term to ask foreigners to leave, making appeals from mosque loudspeakers. Groups of armed men affiliated with local religious parties are now enforcing order, [******] the journalists said.
Officials of the major religious party that dominates the northwest tribal region -- though they were closely involved in negotiating the pact -- deny that there are any Taliban or foreign fighters in Waziristan at all. These leaders insisted the agreement was signed with local tribesmen who had nothing to do with attacks inside Afghanistan.
Qari Abdullah, a religious leader from the Jamiat-e-Ulema-i-Islami party in Bannu, a Pakistani city just outside North Waziristan, said Tuesday that his party was committed to bringing peace, democracy and development to the city's district. [*********]
“If the West calls us fundamentalists and terrorists, they are wrong,” Abdullah said in an interview in his mosque. “If we had not helped make peace possible, North Waziristan would have turned into another Beirut.” He asserted that the Taliban had been falsely blamed for attacks in Afghanistan: “The question is why there is an American army bombing innocent civilians, 15,000 kilometers from its own country.” [**********]
Foreign journalists are not allowed to enter the tribal region, but some of its prevailing atmosphere and attitude spill into neighboring areas of Pakistan. During a visit this week to Bannu, the closest city to the zone, a reporter found a curious mixture of rapid modernization and strong support for the Taliban. [**********]
Many people interviewed said admiringly that the Taliban had brought Islamic justice and moral order to Afghanistan, which it ruled from 1996 to 2001. They expressed little fear of the reported presence of Taliban or al-Qaeda fighters in the neighboring tribal areas, and some condoned the recent late-night bombings of two CD shops in Bannu, presumed to be a Taliban warning against music. [**********]
Many people interviewed in Peshawar and Bannu tended to dismiss the troubles facing Afghanistan as the result of indigenous tribal enmities and historical conflicts. [*******] Few except a handful of secular activists gave any credence to the repeated claims by the Afghan government of Pakistani interference and sponsorship of Islamic insurgents.
“We like the Taliban because they are against drugs, television, CDs and other sinful things,” said Aminullah, 35, who sells sacks of grain in a market. “Bush is the real warlord who is invading other countries and making Muslims hate America.” [*****]
Once an isolated backwater of donkey carts and thorny fields, Bannu now teems with signs of construction and modernization, including a new hospital, new schools and cellphone shops. At the same time, residents said the area has become increasingly conservative in its religious views and that dozens of new Islamic academies, [*******]or madrassas, have opened. Some people embodied these contrasts as they spoke.
"The Taliban are quiet in the tribal area, but now they are starting to cause some problems here," said Amanullah, the owner of a busy cellphone shop adorned with verses from the Koran. "Their actions are bad but their ideas are right. If they became the government here, it would be good. We would have no cinemas, no vulgarity, nothing with a bad impact on our women and children."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Qaeda Figure Tied to Pearl Case

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/28pearl.html
September 28, 2006
Qaeda Figure Tied to Pearl Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Pakistan] [as new Afghanistan] [in musharraf’s new book he apparently names names] [although my recollection is that earlier this year Pakistani authorities nabbed the guy or one of the guys involved in luring Pearl to meeting where he was snatched and murdered] [**************]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Sept. 27 (AP) — The top operative of Al Qaeda who is accused of masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks either killed or took part in killing the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, [********] President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan said in his new book, the first time he has made such a statement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/28pearl.html
September 28, 2006
Qaeda Figure Tied to Pearl Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Pakistan] [as new Afghanistan] [in musharraf’s new book he apparently names names] [although my recollection is that earlier this year Pakistani authorities nabbed the guy or one of the guys involved in luring Pearl to meeting where he was snatched and murdered] [**************]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Sept. 27 (AP) — The top operative of Al Qaeda who is accused of masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks either killed or took part in killing the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, [********] President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan said in his new book, the first time he has made such a statement.
General Musharraf wrote that the Qaeda operative, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, took part in the killing of Mr. Pearl in Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi, [********] after the journalist’s kidnapping on Jan. 23, 2002. Mr. Mohammed [KSM ]was arrested in Pakistan in 2003 and is in American custody in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
“The man who may have actually killed Pearl or at least participated in his butchery, we eventually discovered, was none other than Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, [****]Al Qaeda’s No. 3,” General Musharraf wrote in “In The Line of Fire,” released Monday.
His statement could be used to try to clear Ahmed Omar Sheikh, one of four Islamic militants convicted [*****] in the killing, who is appealing his death sentence, the prisoner’s lawyer said Wednesday. [******]
Mr. Mohammed has never been officially linked to Mr. Pearl’s killing, during police investigations or the trial that resulted in the conviction of the four men. One of the men was sentenced to death, and the other three to life in prison.
But some American officials and The Wall Street Journal suggested that Mr. Mohammed had killed Mr. Pearl. Pakistan denied the claims at the time. [*******]
Mr. Musharraf also wrote that Mr. Mohammed helped lay the groundwork for the London subway and bus bombings on July 7, 2005, and a plot to attack Heathrow Airport with hijacked passenger planes. [*******] It was the first public accusation that Mr. Mohammed might be linked to the subway and bus attacks, which killed 56 people, including four bombers. [thus if true, the question of whether al Qaeda was connected to London 7/7 is answered] [********]
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

France: Moroccan Linked to 9/11 Hijackers on Trial

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/europe/28briefs-005.html
September 28, 2006
World Briefing | Europe
France: Moroccan Linked to 9/11 Hijackers on Trial
By JOHN TAGLIABUE [france] [eu] [followup] [link to 9/11] [alleged] [on trial in france] [*************]
Karim Mehdi, [****] a Moroccan suspected of having links with two men involved in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, went on trial in Paris on a charge of “criminal association in connection with a terrorist enterprise.” [*****] Arrested in 2003, he is the only person to face charges arising out of a sweeping French investigation into the 2001 attacks. [*****] According to documents read in court, he was in contact with Ziad al-Jarrah, the hijacker pilot of United Airlines Flight 93, as well as Ramzi bin al-Shibh, one of the men accused of helping plan the attacks. [*****] Mr. Mehdi told the court that he met the two men only once, on a visit to Hamburg, Germany, where a cell of Al Qaeda whose members included the hijackers operated.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/world/europe/28briefs-005.html
September 28, 2006
World Briefing | Europe
France: Moroccan Linked to 9/11 Hijackers on Trial
By JOHN TAGLIABUE [france] [eu] [followup] [link to 9/11] [alleged] [on trial in france] [*************]
Karim Mehdi, [****] a Moroccan suspected of having links with two men involved in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, went on trial in Paris on a charge of “criminal association in connection with a terrorist enterprise.” [*****] Arrested in 2003, he is the only person to face charges arising out of a sweeping French investigation into the 2001 attacks. [*****] According to documents read in court, he was in contact with Ziad al-Jarrah, the hijacker pilot of United Airlines Flight 93, as well as Ramzi bin al-Shibh, one of the men accused of helping plan the attacks. [*****] Mr. Mehdi told the court that he met the two men only once, on a visit to Hamburg, Germany, where a cell of Al Qaeda whose members included the hijackers operated.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

September 27, 2006

Montenegro: Rumsfeld Seeks Help From Newest Army

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/europe/27briefs-001.html
September 27, 2006
World Briefing | Europe
Montenegro: Rumsfeld Seeks Help From Newest Army
By REUTERS
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld asked for the support of Europe’s newest country in the war on terrorism and promised to help train Montenegro’s modest army to NATO standards. He met Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic to discuss how the former Yugoslav republic, which became independent from Serbia three months ago, might help America’s military operations, perhaps with peacekeeping or special operations forces. Mr. Djukanovic made no commitment to provide troops to current American operations, according to United States officials, but he told reporters: “We are prepared to participate in the U.S.-led coalition to fight terrorism. What form that will take, we did not discuss in any great detail.” Montenegro has a population of just 650,000. It has just scrapped the draft and plans to reduce its current military force to around 2,500 from 4,000.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/europe/27briefs-001.html
September 27, 2006
World Briefing | Europe
Montenegro: Rumsfeld Seeks Help From Newest Army
By REUTERS
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld asked for the support of Europe’s newest country in the war on terrorism and promised to help train Montenegro’s modest army to NATO standards. He met Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic to discuss how the former Yugoslav republic, which became independent from Serbia three months ago, might help America’s military operations, perhaps with peacekeeping or special operations forces. Mr. Djukanovic made no commitment to provide troops to current American operations, according to United States officials, but he told reporters: “We are prepared to participate in the U.S.-led coalition to fight terrorism. What form that will take, we did not discuss in any great detail.” Montenegro has a population of just 650,000. It has just scrapped the draft and plans to reduce its current military force to around 2,500 from 4,000.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Senators Criticize Border Security Measures

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27brfs-005.html
September 27, 2006
Senators Criticize Border Security Measures
By RACHEL L. SWARNS [senates maverick republicans on border security] [again a thorn in the bushies’ side] [******]
The Republican architects of the Senate immigration bill criticized the border security measures under consideration in Congress as piecemeal and inadequate. Senators John McCain of Arizona, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said they supported border security, including a measure to add fencing to the border with Mexico. But they said that such measures alone would fail to deal with the illegal residence in this country of about 11 million immigrants as well as labor shortages in particular industries. The senators called for an approach similar to the Senate bill, which would tighten border security, toughen penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants, put most illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship and create a guest-worker plan to address labor shortages. [******]They acknowledged that passage of such legislation was unlikely before the elections.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27brfs-005.html
September 27, 2006
Senators Criticize Border Security Measures
By RACHEL L. SWARNS [senates maverick republicans on border security] [again a thorn in the bushies’ side] [******]
The Republican architects of the Senate immigration bill criticized the border security measures under consideration in Congress as piecemeal and inadequate. Senators John McCain of Arizona, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said they supported border security, including a measure to add fencing to the border with Mexico. But they said that such measures alone would fail to deal with the illegal residence in this country of about 11 million immigrants as well as labor shortages in particular industries. The senators called for an approach similar to the Senate bill, which would tighten border security, toughen penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants, put most illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship and create a guest-worker plan to address labor shortages. [******]They acknowledged that passage of such legislation was unlikely before the elections.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

House Passes Detainee Bill as Senate Begins Debate

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27cnd-detain.html
September 27, 2006
House Passes Detainee Bill as Senate Begins Debate
By CARL HULSE and KATE ZERNIKE [congress] [detainees/pows abuse] [followup] [*********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — The House this afternoon approved a new approach to interrogating and trying terror suspects and the Senate opened debate on the legislation, as Congress sought to create a system that could wring information from terrorists and bring them to justice in a way that meets court scrutiny.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27cnd-detain.html
September 27, 2006
House Passes Detainee Bill as Senate Begins Debate
By CARL HULSE and KATE ZERNIKE [congress] [detainees/pows abuse] [followup] [*********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 — The House this afternoon approved a new approach to interrogating and trying terror suspects and the Senate opened debate on the legislation, as Congress sought to create a system that could wring information from terrorists and bring them to justice in a way that meets court scrutiny.
Despite serious objections from some Democrats and a few Republicans, the legislation appeared headed to approval, delivering Republicans and President Bush one of the accomplishments on national security they hoped to achieve before the election. The bill passed the House by a vote of 253 to 168.
“The time to act is now,” said Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, as he opened the Senate debate after reaching an agreement with Democrats to limit efforts the alter the bill and bring it to a vote as early as Thursday.
Backers of the measure said the legislation — sought by President Bush after the Supreme Court in June struck down the administration’s system for trying detainees — would guarantee terror suspects adequate rights while not hindering the interrogators who seek information from them.
“We are dealing with the enemy in war, not defendants in our criminal justice system,” said Representative Duncan Hunter, Republican of California and chairman of the Armed Services Committee. “In time of war, it is not practical to apply the same rules of evidence that we apply in civil trials or courts martial for our troops.”
Leading Democrats said the bill would allow the Bush administration to detain suspects indefinitely without offering them any appeal in court and could result in government-sanctioned mistreatment of detainees. They predicted it would be again thrown out by the Supreme Court, leaving the United States remaining without a system to try terrorists after a wait that has already extended five years beyond the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
“If you want to be tough on terrorists, let’s not pass something that rushes to judgment and has legal loopholes that will reverse a conviction,” said Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee and a chief party voice on military issues.
Other Democrats said the measure could be interpreted by other nations as reducing the United States’ commitment to the rights of war prisoners and represented a fundamental shift in the nation’s legal system.
“When our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the second-ranking Democrat in the House.
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, characterized the bill as the product of an administration that “has been relentless in its determination to legitimize the abuse of detainees.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Deal Likely on Detainees but Not on Wiretapping

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27detain.html
September 27, 2006
Deal Likely on Detainees but Not on Wiretapping
By CARL HULSE and KATE ZERNIKE [nsa spygate] [bush white house] [congress] [no compromise] [but on detainees, possibly] [**********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — Congress on Tuesday was headed toward a split decision on President Bush’s pre-election national security agenda, moving closer to passage of legislation on the handling of terrorism suspects while all but giving up hope of agreeing on a final bill to authorize the administration’s eavesdropping program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27detain.html
September 27, 2006
Deal Likely on Detainees but Not on Wiretapping
By CARL HULSE and KATE ZERNIKE [nsa spygate] [bush white house] [congress] [no compromise] [but on detainees, possibly] [**********]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — Congress on Tuesday was headed toward a split decision on President Bush’s pre-election national security agenda, moving closer to passage of legislation on the handling of terrorism suspects while all but giving up hope of agreeing on a final bill to authorize the administration’s eavesdropping program.
Lawmakers in both the House and Senate said it now appeared doubtful that bills covering the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping program could pass both houses and be reconciled before Congress adjourns this weekend, an outcome that would deny Republicans one of the main achievements they hoped to take into the election.
“We would like to, but I think that might be a stretch,” said Representative John A. Boehner, the House majority leader, about getting a final agreement. He said the House would still proceed with its own measure this week in hopes of working out disagreements with the Senate after the election.
But Republicans were optimistic about eliminating last-minute concerns over a separate measure laying out rules for interrogating terrorism suspects and trying them before military tribunals. They said they were hoping to send the bill to Mr. Bush by the end of the week for a signing ceremony that could help them kick off the home stretch of the campaign with a message that Republicans were taking strong steps to protect the nation from terror attacks.
“I think we are good to go,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina and one of three Republican senators who last week forced the administration into negotiations over the detainee measure.
Democrats, while being careful to say that they had made no decision to block the detainee bill, expressed rising concerns about changes to the proposal that they said went beyond what Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, had described Monday as merely “technical changes.”
The changes had been made over the weekend, as negotiators from the House and White House adjusted a compromise that had been reached between the White House and Senate Republicans on Thursday.
In one change, the original language said that a suspect had the right to “examine and respond to” all evidence used against him. Mr. Graham and his colleagues in resisting the White House, Senators John W. Warner of Virginia and John McCain of Arizona, had insisted that the provision was necessary to prevent so-called secret trials. The bill submitted late Monday dropped the word “examine” and left only “respond to,” reviving complaints about secret trials, this time from Democrats.
In another, the original compromise said that evidence seized “outside the United States” could be admitted in court even if it had been obtained without a search warrant, a provision Republicans and Democrats agreed was necessary to deal with the unusual circumstances of seizing evidence on the battlefield.
The bill introduced Monday dropped the words “outside the United States,” which Democrats said meant that prosecutors could ignore American legal standards on search warrants within the country. The bill also broadened the definition of an unlawful enemy combatant, from anyone “engaged in hostilities against the United States” to include anyone who “has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States.”
“These are significant changes, not technical changes,” said Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, where the original bill backed by Senators Warner, McCain and Graham was approved. “It’s hard to know how to vote on a bill that’s this much in motion.”
Republicans and the White House defended the change on unlawful combatants. It is narrower than the definition originally proposed by the White House, which said that anyone who materially supported hostilities could be prosecuted because it added the phrase “intentionally and purposefully.” Senate and White House staff members said this would resolve the problem of what one Senate aide described as “the grandmother in Switzerland” who writes a check for charity that ends up going to a terrorist organization.
“Most of us feel if someone is engaged in actively assisting Al Qaeda or terrorists that they should fall under this legislation,” Mr. McCain said.
Republicans and the White House explained the change to the provision about viewing evidence as, in Mr. Graham’s words, “literally just a drafting error,” and said the word “examine” would be restored.
Republicans also said they were trying to reach a compromise on the habeas corpus provision of the bill, which would deny a suspect the right to challenge his detention in court.
Democrats, who have found themselves on the losing end of the national security debate the past two national elections, said the changes to the bill had not yet reached a level that would cause them to try to block it altogether.
“We want to do this,” said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader. “And we want to do it in compliance with the direction from the Supreme Court. We want to do it in compliance with the Constitution.”
Though there was momentum in both the House and Senate for the surveillance legislation, lawmakers were taking different approaches, and those involved said it had become apparent that a final resolution could not be quickly achieved. As a result, senators said they doubted that scarce floor time would be consumed moving it through the Senate before the recess when a final bill was out of reach.
“I don’t think it is likely we will address it this week,” said Senator John E. Sununu, Republican of New Hampshire and one of the lawmakers who has been negotiating the legislation with the Department of Justice.
The House bill, sponsored by Representative Heather Wilson, a New Mexico Republican who serves on the Intelligence Committee, could reach the House floor for a vote on Thursday. It seeks to “modernize” wiretapping law but, in the view of critics, would also give the president broader authority to conduct surveillance without court orders as long as he reported to Congress after doing so.
The bill has major differences from a Senate plan that would submit the entire wiretapping program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to rule on its constitutionality.
Eric Lichtblau contributed reporting.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

No Compromise On Wiretap Bill

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601272.html
No Compromise On Wiretap Bill
Focus Now on House Version
By Jonathan Weisman and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A04 [nsa spygate] [bush white house] [congress] [no compromise] [**********]
A high-profile Republican effort to clarify the legality of President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program will almost certainly not pass before Congress recesses at week's end for the fall campaign, leaving the legislation in deep trouble, congressional leaders conceded yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601272.html
No Compromise On Wiretap Bill
Focus Now on House Version
By Jonathan Weisman and Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A04 [nsa spygate] [bush white house] [congress] [no compromise] [**********]
A high-profile Republican effort to clarify the legality of President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program will almost certainly not pass before Congress recesses at week's end for the fall campaign, leaving the legislation in deep trouble, congressional leaders conceded yesterday.
Efforts to reach agreement on a single version of the bill that could be brought before the Senate and House this week foundered yesterday on the insistence of key House members that they vote on a House version that they say is significantly tougher than the Senate's. House Republican leaders are deferring to the House bill's primary author, Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.), who is locked in one of the tightest House election contests of the season.
"I don't think that's possible," Wilson said of the House and Senate reaching agreement on a compromise bill. "Our focus has to be on passing the House bill."
House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said GOP leaders would still like to pass a bill this week "but that may be a bit of a stretch."
Failure to act this week would jeopardize Congress's ability to ever authorize the National Security Agency's surveillance efforts, which Republicans see as vital to national security but which many Democrats and civil libertarians regard as unconstitutional. GOP leaders say that if legislation is not completed, they will revisit the issue in a lame-duck session of Congress that will be convened after the Nov. 7 elections.
But most independent political analysts expect Democrats to pick up between three and five seats in the Senate, and possibly more. Without the political pressure of a looming election and with a strengthened hand coming in the next Congress, Senate Democrats would probably filibuster Republican wiretapping legislation this year, congressional Democrats said.
Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, warned that a bill could still appear Friday night or Saturday morning, appended to other legislation. But she added, "If it doesn't happen at 3 a.m. Saturday, it will be become much harder for them to pass a bad bill."
Bills to authorize warrantless wiretapping and military commissions were supposed to pass this month as the twin centerpieces of a legislative agenda designed to bolster the party's national security credentials. But the surveillance bill was in trouble from the start.
White House officials never thought they needed congressional action to continue the NSA's warrantless surveillance, but Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and White House officials did work out legislation that would allow but not require the administration to submit the program to a secret court for constitutional review. Specter maintains that his bill would restore judicial review to a program that President Bush has made the domain of the executive branch alone.
But criticism of the Specter measure has been bipartisan. Opponents say a broad review of the program's constitutionality will do nothing to restore oversight of individual wiretaps. And recent changes to the bill have raised still more questions.
At administration insistence, Senate negotiators agreed to steer legal rulings about the president's broad surveillance to the Court of Review, a little-known appeals court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The three-judge court has rendered only one opinion in its 30-year history, and that opinion included its view that the president has inherent constitutional authority to eavesdrop without warrants as part of the U.S. effort against terrorism.
The Court of Review's commentary in its 2002 ruling has become the language cited by Bush and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales as proof the program passes constitutional muster.
Members of the Senate and administration have repeatedly said in public statements since June that their surveillance legislation would submit the president's program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for review. But the FISA court and the Court of Review are quite dissimilar.
The 10-member FISA court does a brisk, nearly daily business considering whether to allow the government secret warrants to surveil terrorism and international-spying suspects. And several of the FISA court's members were disturbed last year to learn the president had authorized spying behind the court's back; some have pointedly questioned the program's legality in private discussions with top Justice Department officials.
Wilson drafted legislation that she said would restore some congressional oversight to the wiretapping program and maintain the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's right to issue warrants on wiretaps.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Bush Brings Afghanistan, Pakistan to the Table

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601565.html
Bush Brings Afghanistan, Pakistan to the Table
President Is Pushing Karzai and Musharraf Toward Commonalities
By Glenn Kessler and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A22 [bush] [white house] [USFP] [cajoling Musharraf and Karzai] [to what end?] [************]
President Bush met yesterday with Afghanistan President Harmid Karzai and last Friday with Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Tonight, joined by Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, he will bring both men into the old family dining room of the White House for a private chat. "It will be interesting for me to watch the body language of these two leaders to determine how tense things are," Bush told reporters. [*******]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601565.html
Bush Brings Afghanistan, Pakistan to the Table
President Is Pushing Karzai and Musharraf Toward Commonalities
By Glenn Kessler and Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A22 [bush] [white house] [USFP] [cajoling Musharraf and Karzai] [to what end?] [************]
President Bush met yesterday with Afghanistan President Harmid Karzai and last Friday with Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Tonight, joined by Vice President Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, he will bring both men into the old family dining room of the White House for a private chat. "It will be interesting for me to watch the body language of these two leaders to determine how tense things are," Bush told reporters. [*******]
Bush said he was “kind of teasing” about watching the body language, but the intimate dinner has all the earmarks of a peace conference. Karzai and Musharraf have been sniping at each other from long-distance for months, and Rice was dispatched to Kabul and Islamabad last June to try to ease tensions.
The meeting comes as chaos is increasing in southern Afghanistan, as the Taliban grows bolder and the Afghan government’s grip on power weakens. Meanwhile, Musharraf recently signed a deal with tribal chiefs that many experts believe turned over much of the area along Afghanistan’s border to the control of Pakistani-based Taliban forces.
“Our interests coincide,” Bush said yesterday, saying both Karzai and Musharraf want Osama bin Laden captured. “There is an understanding that by working together it is more likely that all of us can achieve common objectives, which are stable societies that are hopeful societies, that prevent extremists from stopping progress and denying people a hopeful world.”
Administration officials noted that this is the second meeting Bush has brokered between the two men, and it was an effort to build a common strategy between two countries that have been at odds for decades. “When the three leaders sit down, they will not be talking about the short-term tactics,” said an administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the meeting had not taken place. “They are talking about the long-term situation that helps those two countries put their relations on a sound footing.”
Carlos Pascual, vice president at the Brookings Institution and former coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization at the State Department, said the dinner is necessary for setting the foundation for greater cooperation on their borders. He said both the Taliban and drug lords now move at will across the border, which is potentially destabilizing to both countries.
“This summit is an American effort to try to make Karzai and Musharraf recognize each other’s problems,” said Husain Haqqani, director of the Center for International Relations at Boston University and a former Pakistani government official and journalist. “I think what Bush hopes to achieve – he wants to look Musharraf in the eye once again, and he wants to look Karzai in the eye – and he wants them to make promises to one another.” [***********]
But Haqqani said such personal diplomacy "can only succeed if it is followed by detailed and meticulous intelligence work and diligent diplomacy at a lower level," adding: "It's not like sitting down with two quarrelling kids and saying let's forget about it and move on. . . . Both sides have historic agendas, problems and issues."
All three presidents have faced difficulties and disappointments in their fight against the Taliban this year.
The United States has turned over the southern part of Afghanistan to NATO forces. But NATO forces have come under unexpected attack from Taliban forces, potentially delaying a reduction of U.S. troops.
Meanwhile, U.S. aid to Afghanistan has gotten crunched as it has become more difficult to fund through emergency appropriations. In the fiscal year ending this month, the administration requested $3.3 billion for Afghan reconstruction and the buildup of security forces (including a supplemental request), down from $4.35 billion in fiscal 2005. For 2007, the administration has requested $1.1 billion, though some experts feel the current crisis will require yet another emergency spending bill.
Karzai is straining to hold his country together but is losing popular support because of increasing violence, corruption, drug trafficking and an inability to demonstrate tangible progress since the fall of the Taliban. He has complained that he is being undercut by Islamabad's failure to rein in jihadists operating out of Pakistan, a charge Musharraf disputes.
"My fear is that Afghanistan is beginning to look like Iraq -- we're seeing the beginning Iraqification of Afghanistan," said Richard N. Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior State Department official in Bush's first term.
Musharraf's peace deal with tribal chiefs comes as elections are scheduled for next year in Pakistan -- and after three assassination attempts against him. The fight against the Taliban has resulted in high casualties among the Pakistani military and is unpopular among Pakistanis.
There are signs that Musharraf -- who seized power in a bloodless coup nearly seven years ago -- is maneuvering to extend his presidential term. U.S. officials have been wary about pressing Musharraf too hard, seeking to balance demands for action against extremist groups with tangible U.S. rewards, such as sales of F-16 fighter jets. [*******]
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Backing Policy, President Issues Terror Estimate

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/middleeast/27intel.html
September 27, 2006
Backing Policy, President Issues Terror Estimate
By MARK MAZZETTI [the iraq NIE] [leaked over the weekend] [4 pages declassified last night] [more coming?] [*************] [ditto]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — Portions of a National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism that the White House released under pressure on Tuesday said that Muslim jihadists were “increasing in both number and geographic dispersion” and that current trends could lead to increasing attacks around the globe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/middleeast/27intel.html
September 27, 2006
Backing Policy, President Issues Terror Estimate
By MARK MAZZETTI [the iraq NIE] [leaked over the weekend] [4 pages declassified last night] [more coming?] [*************] [ditto]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — Portions of a National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism that the White House released under pressure on Tuesday said that Muslim jihadists were “increasing in both number and geographic dispersion” and that current trends could lead to increasing attacks around the globe.
The report, a comprehensive assessment of terrorism produced in April by American intelligence agencies, said the invasion and occupation of Iraq had become a “cause célèbre” for jihadists. It identified the jihad in Iraq as one of four underlying factors fueling the spread of the Islamic radicalism, along with entrenched grievances, the slow pace of reform and pervasive anti-American sentiment.
The intelligence estimate said American-led counterterrorism efforts in the past five years had “seriously damaged the leadership of Al Qaeda and disrupted its operations.” But it said that Al Qaeda continued to pose the greatest threat to American interests among terrorism organizations, and that the global jihadist movement overall was “spreading and adapting to counterterrorism efforts.”
The estimate predicted that over the next five years the factors fueling the spread of global jihad were likely to be more powerful than those that might slow it.
The White House ordered portions of the intelligence estimate declassified to counter what it described as mischaracterizations about its findings in news reports.
The Bush administration had initially resisted releasing the document but changed course after being pressured to declassify the report by Republicans, including Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, and by the conservative editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.
At a news conference on Tuesday where he announced the release of portions of the document, President Bush suggested forcefully that news reports in the past two days about the document had been based on politically motivated leaks.
“You know, to suggest that if we weren’t in Iraq we would see a rosier scenario, with fewer extremists joining the radical movement, requires us to ignore 20 years of experience,” Mr. Bush said. He added: “My judgment is: The only way to protect this country is to stay on the offense.”
The intelligence estimate says that if jihadists who leave Iraq perceive themselves, or are perceived by others, to have failed, fewer fighters will be inspired to keep fighting.
Democrats seized on the document’s conclusions as proof that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake.
“The war in Iraq has made us less safe,” said Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the Senate intelligence committee. Mr. Rockefeller said the judgments contained in the intelligence estimate “make it clear that the intelligence community — all 16 agencies — believe the war in Iraq has fueled terrorism.”
The estimate was the first formal appraisal of the terrorism threat by American intelligence agencies since the invasion of Iraq began in March 2003. The public release of any portion of such a document is highly unusual. The White House declassified fewer than 4 pages of what officials described as a document of more than 30 pages, saying that to release more of it would endanger intelligence sources and methods.
The release of the findings added fuel to an intense political debate about the administration’s record in combating terrorism. Mr. Bush used the news conference to reassert his view that the Iraq war was not to blame for the growth of Islamic radicalism.
He also attributed the disclosure of some of the assessment findings to what he said were government officials leaking classified information to “create confusion in the minds of the American people” weeks before an important Congressional election.
The first article on the findings was published Sunday in The New York Times after more than five weeks of reporting. More than a dozen United States government officials and outside experts were interviewed for the article, including employees of several government agencies and both supporters and critics of the Bush administration.
Democrats also criticized the White House for only declassifying part of the report, and the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, tried and failed to persuade Republicans to agree to a vote that would have shut the doors of the House of Representatives to allow members to read the entire classified report.
Officials who have read the entire document said the still-classified portion contained a more detailed analysis of the impact of the Iraq war on the global jihad movement. Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House intelligence committee, said that what the White House released Tuesday was broadly consistent with the classified portion of the report.
National intelligence estimates are the most authoritative documents that American intelligence agencies produce on a specific national security issue. They represent the consensus view of the 16 intelligence agencies in government, and are approved by John D. Negroponte, director of national intelligence.
The release on Tuesday of portions of the document was the second time that the Bush administration had come under political pressure to declassify a national intelligence estimate.
In July 2003, the White House released the principal judgments of an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq’s weapons programs in an attempt to address a furor over the origins of President Bush’s statement, made in a State of the Union address, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to buy nuclear materials in Niger.
In recent months, without disclosing the existence of the intelligence estimate on terrorism, some senior American intelligence officials have given glimpses into its conclusions. During a speech in San Antonio in April, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, who was then Mr. Negroponte’s deputy, said new jihadist networks and cells were increasingly likely to emerge.
“If this trend continues, threats to the U.S. at home and abroad will become more diverse and that could lead to increasing attacks worldwide,” General Hayden said, using the exact language of the intelligence assessment made public on Tuesday. General Hayden is now director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
But the intelligence assessment paints a starker picture of the role that the Iraq war is playing in shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders than that presented either in recent White House documents or in speeches by President Bush tied to the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.
The intelligence report specifically cited the role of the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who led the Iraqi group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, in attracting new recruits for the jihad cause in Iraq, and stated that “should al-Zarqawi continue to evade capture and scale back attacks against Muslims, we assess he could broaden his popular appeal and present a global threat.”
He was killed by American forces in June.
Frances Fragos Townsend, the president’s homeland security adviser, suggested to reporters on Tuesday that the killing of Mr. Zarqawi might ultimately help dampen the appeal of jihad in Iraq.
At the same time, the report concludes that the increased role of Iraqis in managing the operations of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia “might lead veteran foreign jihadists to focus their efforts on external operations.”
To be successful in combating the spread of a radical ideology, the assessment states, the United States government “must go well beyond operations to capture or kill terrorist leaders.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Study Doesn’t Share Bush’s Optimism on Terror Fight

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27assess.html
September 27, 2006
News Analysis
Study Doesn’t Share Bush’s Optimism on Terror Fight
By DAVID E. SANGER [the iraq NIE] [leaked over the weekend] [4 pages declassified last night] [more coming?] [*************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — Three years ago, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote a memo to his colleagues in the Pentagon posing a critical question in the “long war’’ against terrorism: Is Washington’s strategy successfully killing or capturing terrorists faster than new enemies are being created? [**********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/washington/27assess.html
September 27, 2006
News Analysis
Study Doesn’t Share Bush’s Optimism on Terror Fight
By DAVID E. SANGER [the iraq NIE] [leaked over the weekend] [4 pages declassified last night] [more coming?] [*************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 — Three years ago, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld wrote a memo to his colleagues in the Pentagon posing a critical question in the “long war’’ against terrorism: Is Washington’s strategy successfully killing or capturing terrorists faster than new enemies are being created? [**********]
Until Tuesday, the government had not publicly issued an authoritative answer. But the newly declassified National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism does exactly that, and it concludes that the administration has failed the Rumsfeld test. [*******]
Portions of the report appear to bolster President Bush’s argument that the only way to defeat the terrorists is to keep unrelenting military pressure on them. But nowhere in the assessment is any evidence to support Mr. Bush’s confident-sounding assertion this month in Atlanta that “America is winning the war on terror.’’ [******]
While the spread of self-described jihadists is hard to measure, the report says, the terrorists “are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion.”
It says that a continuation of that trend would lead “to increasing attacks worldwide’’ and that “the underlying factors fueling the spread of the movement outweigh its vulnerabilities.’’
On Tuesday evening the White House issued what it called a fact sheet lining up the intelligence estimate’s findings with President Bush’s own words in recent months, comparing, for example, the report’s account of the the spread of new terror cells independent of Al Qaeda to Mr. Bush’s references to “homegrown terrorists’’ from Madrid to Britain.
But there is a difference in tone between Mr. Bush’s public statements and the classified assessment that is unmistakable.
The report says that over the next five years “the confluence of shared purpose and dispersed actors will make it harder to find and undermine jihadist groups.’’
It also suggests that while democratization and “exposing the religious and political straitjacket that is implied by the jihadists’ propaganda’’ might dim the appeal of the terrorist groups, those factors are now outweighed by the dangerous brew of fear of Western domination, the battle for Iraq’s future and the slow pace of real economic or political progress.
Yet the intelligence report bears none of Mr. Bush’s long-range optimism. Rather it dwells on Mr. Rumsfeld’s darker question, which he put cheekily as, “Is our current situation such that ‘the harder we work, the behinder we get?’ ”
Tuesday’s declassified report asked a more subtle version of that question. It notes that while democratization might “begin to slow the spread’’ of extremism, the “destabilizing transitions’’ caused by political change “will create new opportunities for jihadists to exploit.’’
And while Mr. Bush talks often of transforming the Middle East, the report speaks of the “vulnerabilities’’ created by the fact that “anti-U.S. and antiglobalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies.’’
The result, it said, was that other groups around the world are radicalizing “more quickly, more widely and more anonymously in the Internet age.’’
In short, it describes a jihadist movement that, for now, is simply outpacing Mr. Bush’s counterattacks. [*******]
“I guess the overall conclusion that you get from it is that we don’t have enough bullets given all the enemies we are creating,’’ said Bruce Hoffman, a professor of security studies at Georgetown University. [*******]
What was most remarkable about the intelligence estimate, several experts said, was the unremarkable nature of its conclusions. [*******]
“At one level it is unsurprising stuff,’’ said Paul Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia on the intelligence council until last year. “But there is definitely much there that you haven’t heard the president say,’’ he added, “including the role that Iraq has played’’ in inspiring disaffected Muslims to join an anti-American jihadist movement.
Administration officials expressed their certainty on Tuesday that the leak of parts of the report was an example of politically inspired cherry picking, to use a term from earlier arguments over intelligence about unconventional weapons.
“Here we are, coming down the stretch in an election campaign, and it’s on the front page of your newspapers,’’ Mr. Bush said at a news conference with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. “Isn’t that interesting? Somebody has taken it upon themselves to leak classified information for political purposes.’’
And at the center of the political debate is Iraq. Frances Fragos Townsend, the director of homeland security at the White House, used a conference call with reporters on Tuesday evening to call attention to the intelligence finding that “the Iraq conflict has become a cause célèbre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world, and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.’’
“Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves and be perceived to have failed,’’ the findings went on, “we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.’’
Ms. Townsend argued that “this really underscores the President’s point about the importance of our winning in Iraq,’’ she said.
As a political matter, at least for the next few weeks, the intelligence findings will only fuel the argument over Iraq on both sides. Mr. Bush has grown increasingly insistent that nothing he has done in Iraq has worsened terrorism. America was not in Iraq during the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, he said, or during the bombings of the U.S.S. Cole or embassies in Africa, or on 9/11.
But that argument steps around the implicit question raised by the intelligence finding: whether postponing the confrontation with Saddam Hussein and focusing instead on securing Afghanistan, or dealing with issues like Iran’s nascent nuclear capability or the Middle East peace process, might have created a different playing field, one in which jihadists were deprived of daily images of carnage in Iraq to rally their sympathizers.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

A Dishonest Debate on The Iraq War

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601691.html
A Dishonest Debate on The Iraq War
By Jonathan Finer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A27
NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- Perhaps the truest statement uttered about Iraq in a long time came this month from Connecticut's Democratic nominee for Senate, Ned Lamont. The political novice beat Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in this summer's most closely watched primary by sticking to a simple message, relentlessly repeated: Withdraw the troops now. But when asked after a foreign policy address at Yale Law School how he envisaged events unfolding in Iraq once the soldiers are sent home, Lamont stumbled through a vague, but candidly off-message, response. "I think we now have a lot of lousy choices," he concluded.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601691.html
A Dishonest Debate on The Iraq War
By Jonathan Finer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A27
NEW HAVEN, Conn. -- Perhaps the truest statement uttered about Iraq in a long time came this month from Connecticut's Democratic nominee for Senate, Ned Lamont. The political novice beat Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in this summer's most closely watched primary by sticking to a simple message, relentlessly repeated: Withdraw the troops now. But when asked after a foreign policy address at Yale Law School how he envisaged events unfolding in Iraq once the soldiers are sent home, Lamont stumbled through a vague, but candidly off-message, response. "I think we now have a lot of lousy choices," he concluded.
Lamont is right that perilous decisions lie ahead, with potentially dire consequences no matter who wins the argument. But you'd hardly know that from the midterm election campaign, even though it is shaping up as a referendum on the future of the war. The oversimplified debate on Iraq -- "stay the course" or "send more troops" vs. "pull out" or at least "set a deadline" -- is the policy equivalent of Scylla or Charybdis. Either alternative, particularly if exercised with the lack of forethought and attention to detail that attended the buildup to the war, could bring disastrous consequences.
For politicians in campaign mode, self-assurance almost always trumps intellectual honesty, so there are few, if any, acknowledged tough calls. But candidates who make an issue of the war could start by addressing problems that have no easy solutions. Those, such as Lamont, who want U.S. troops withdrawn, should explain how they will prevent the resulting vacuum from being filled by Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias -- two groups hellbent on exterminating each other's communities -- as has happened in virtually every region vacated by coalition forces so far.
The Shiite south -- including Karbala, Najaf and Maysan provinces, which coalition forces made the first test cases for withdrawal -- is now a virtual Militiastan, ruled by armed gangs and warlords playing the part of politicians. In Hilla, the Iraqi commander of an effective (and even rarer, non-sectarian) police unit that works closely with U.S. Special Forces told me this summer that local officials, including his governor, regularly call him to their offices to pressure him to incorporate more militia members into his ranks, even threatening him with dismissal. He has survived at least a half-dozen assassination attempts.
In Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, where British forces have dramatically scaled back their patrols (as some withdrawal proponents would like to see U.S. troops do in other cities), the murder rate tripled this year and at least four Shiite militias are waging a bloody turf war. When British troops withdrew from the city of Amarah, militia loyalists ransacked their base and celebrated what they called a victory over "the occupier."
Iraq's Sunni cities, where U.S. forces have conducted their largest operations since the fall of Saddam Hussein, remain dominated by eclectic bands of insurgents who fled or hid among their neighbors during dozens of American assaults and reemerged as U.S. troop levels were drawn down.
Nowhere has this pattern been more evident than Tall Afar, a northern city that President Bush hailed as one of Iraq's success stories. U.S. forces have launched two full-scale invasions there, including one last September that was the largest since the siege of Fallujah. Last week, a suicide bomber killed at least 20 people waiting at one of Tall Afar's crowded gas stations, the latest in a string of attacks there in recent months.
Those who want to maintain the U.S. presence in Iraq -- or even increase it -- have their own explaining to do. They should start with how redistributing or adding troops, whether a few battalions or an entire division, would change what has been an undeniable failure of U.S. forces to control even the terrain in which they are concentrated, such as Baghdad. Periodic "security plans" for the Iraqi capital -- which usually involve shifting thousands of troops from the hinterlands -- have never suppressed violence in a lasting way.
They could also describe how they avoid further solidifying the Iraqi army's dependence on the U.S. Army. In the predominately Sunni town of Hawijah, an insurgent hotbed, a young Army lieutenant named Aaron Tapalman told me this year that he didn't think his battalion was doing much good. "Sometimes I think we just give them something to shoot at," he said.
That comment came at the end of a day in which Tapalman had exhausted every motivational arrow in the infantry officer's quiver -- reasoned argument, appeals to conscience and duty, even intimidation -- to cajole Iraqi soldiers he was training into doing their jobs. First they refused to patrol the town in hardened Humvees because a local sheik had told them they wouldn't go to heaven if they died in an American vehicle. Later, they responded with resounding inaction when ordered to investigate a plastic bag by the highway that could have been a bomb. "Someday we're not going to be here anymore," Tapalman implored them, his face contorted with disgust.
We'll have a better sense of when that warning might come to pass in six weeks. Those elected in November will be forced to choose what they consider the least bad option on Iraq from range of policies sure to cause pain. If you've spent any time in Iraq, you're inevitably asked what should be done. After traveling back and forth there since 2003, the most indelible impression I am left with -- aside from the sheer scale of the destruction and suffering -- is that there will be no easy end to this war. Voters are not being prepared for that reality.
A more robust, and honest, dialogue would be a good place to start. If there's one thing we've learned from nearly four years in Iraq it's that glossing over hard questions is the surest path to failure.
In Lamont's recent address, his most extensive comments on foreign policy to date in a race that hinges on the issue of the war, he said little about the consequences of his call for withdrawal, opting instead for bite-size platitudes about emboldening Iraqis to stand up for themselves and expanding the coalition by appealing to allies for help. Lieberman, who is running as an independent, was even less forthcoming during his own national security address in Hartford three days later. In that speech, the senator, who has called for more U.S. military trainers to be deployed with Iraqi troops and has boiled down the race to "Lamont's plan for giving up on Iraq versus my plan for getting the job done there," did not even mention Iraq.
The writer was a Post correspondent in Baghdad from May 2005 to July 2006. He is on leave from The Post.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

The Big Question Democrats Are Ducking

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601137.html
The Big Question Democrats Are Ducking
By David Ignatius
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A27
No matter how you slice it, the National Intelligence Estimate warning that the Iraq war has spawned more terrorism is big trouble for President Bush and his party in this election year. It goes to the heart of Bush's argument for invading Iraq, which was that it would make America safer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601137.html
The Big Question Democrats Are Ducking
By David Ignatius
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A27
No matter how you slice it, the National Intelligence Estimate warning that the Iraq war has spawned more terrorism is big trouble for President Bush and his party in this election year. It goes to the heart of Bush's argument for invading Iraq, which was that it would make America safer.
Many Democrats act as if that's the end of the discussion: A mismanaged occupation has created a breeding ground for terrorists, so we should withdraw and let the Iraqis sort out the mess. Some extreme war critics are so angry at Bush they seem almost eager for America to lose, to prove a political point. Even among mainstream Democrats, the focus is "gotcha!" rather than "what next?" That is understandable, given the partisanship of Republican attacks, but it isn't right.
The issue raised by the National Intelligence Estimate is much grimmer than the domestic political game. Iraq has fostered a new generation of terrorists. The question is what to do about that threat. How can America prevent Iraq from becoming a safe haven where the newly hatched terrorists will plan Sept. 11-scale attacks that could kill thousands of Americans? How do we restabilize a Middle East that today is dangerously unbalanced because of America's blunders in Iraq?
This should be the Democrats' moment, if they can translate the national anger over Iraq into a coherent strategy for that country. But with a few notable exceptions, the Democrats are mostly ducking the hard question of what to do next. They act as if all those America-hating terrorists will evaporate back into the sands of Anbar province if the United States pulls out its troops. Alas, that is not the case. That is the problem with Iraq -- it is not an easy mistake to fix.
An example of the Democrats' fudge on Iraq was highlighted yesterday by Post columnist Dana Milbank in his description of retired Maj. Gen. John Batiste's appearance before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee. Senators cheered Batiste's evisceration of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld but tuned out Batiste's call for more troops and more patience in Iraq, and his admonition: "We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge."
Here's a reality check for the Democrats: There is not a single government in the Middle East, with the possible exceptions of Iran and Syria, that favors a rapid U.S. pullout from Iraq. Why? The consensus in the region is that a retreat now would have disastrous consequences for America and its allies. Yet withdrawal is the Iraq strategy you hear from most congressional Democrats, whether they call it "strategic redeployment" or something else.
I wish Democrats (and Republicans, for that matter) were asking this question: How do we prevent Iraq from becoming a failed state? Many critics of the war would argue that the worst has already happened -- Iraq has unraveled. Unfortunately, as bad as things are, they could get considerably worse. Following a rapid American pullout, Iraq could descend into a full-blown civil war, with Sunni-Shiite violence spreading throughout the region. In this chaos, oil supplies could be threatened, sending prices well above $100 a barrel. Turkey, Iran and Jordan would intervene to protect their interests. James Fallows titled his collection of prescient essays warning about the Iraq war "Blind Into Baghdad." We shouldn't compound the error by being "blind out of Baghdad," too.
The Democrat who has tried hardest to think through these problems is Sen. Joseph Biden. He argues that the current government of national unity isn't succeeding in holding Iraq together and that America should instead embrace a policy of "federalism plus" that will devolve power to the Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish regions. Iraqis are already voting for sectarian solutions, Biden argues, and America won't stabilize Iraq unless it aligns its policy with this reality. I disagree with some of the senator's conclusions, but he's asking the right question: How do we fix Iraq?
America needs to reckon with the message of the National Intelligence Estimate. Iraq has compounded Muslim rage and created a dangerous crisis for the United States. The Democrats understandably want to treat Iraq as George Bush's war and wash their hands of it. But the damage of Iraq can be mitigated only if it again becomes the nation's war -- with the whole country invested in finding a way out of the morass that doesn't leave us permanently in greater peril. If the Democrats could lead that kind of debate about security, they would become the nation's governing party. But what you hear from most Democrats these days is: Gotcha.
The writer co-hosts, with Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria, PostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues athttp://www.washingtonpost.com. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

The Fine Art of Declassification

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/opinion/27wed1.html
September 27, 2006
Editorial
The Fine Art of Declassification
[editorial] [declassified NIE] [last two days frenetic activity] [*********]
It’s hard to think of a president and an administration more devoted to secrecy than President Bush and his team. Except, that is, when it suits Mr. Bush politically to give the public a glimpse of the secrets. And so, yesterday, he ordered the declassification of a fraction of a report by United States intelligence agencies on the global terrorist threat. [********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/opinion/27wed1.html
September 27, 2006
Editorial
The Fine Art of Declassification
[editorial] [declassified NIE] [last two days frenetic activity] [*********]
It’s hard to think of a president and an administration more devoted to secrecy than President Bush and his team. Except, that is, when it suits Mr. Bush politically to give the public a glimpse of the secrets. And so, yesterday, he ordered the declassification of a fraction of a report by United States intelligence agencies on the global terrorist threat. [********]
Mr. Bush said he wanted to release the document so voters would not be confused about terrorism or the war when they voted for Congressional candidates in November. But the three declassified pages from what is certainly a voluminous report told us what any American with a newspaper, television or Internet connection should already know. The invasion of Iraq was a cataclysmic disaster. The current situation will get worse if American forces leave. Unfortunately, neither the report nor the president provide even a glimmer of a suggestion about how to avoid that inevitable disaster. [*******]
Despite what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, have tried to make everyone believe, one of the key findings of the National Intelligence Estimate, which represents the consensus of the 16 intelligence agencies, was indeed that the war in Iraq has greatly increased the threat from terrorism by “shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives.” [*******] [use nsc ms] [*******]
It said Iraq has become “the cause célèbre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.” It listed the war in Iraq as the second most important factor in the spread of terrorism — after “entrenched grievances such as corruption, injustice and fear of Western domination.” And that was before April, when the report was completed. Since then, things have got much worse. ( The report was written before the killing in June of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The authors thought such an event would diminish the danger in Iraq. It has not.)
Mr. Bush decided to release this small, selected chunk of the report in reaction to an article on the intelligence assessment that appeared in The Times over the weekend. As a defense of his policies, it serves only to highlight the maddening circular logic that passes for a White House rationale. It goes like this: The invasion of Iraq has created an entire new army of terrorists who will be emboldened by an American withdrawal. Therefore, the United States has to stay indefinitely and keep fighting those terrorists.
By that logic, the more the United States fights, the longer the war stretches on.
It’s obvious why Mr. Bush did not want this report out, and why it is taking so long for the intelligence agencies to complete another report, solely on Iraq, that was requested by Congress in late July. It’s not credible that more time is needed to do the job. In 2002, the intelligence agencies completed a report on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction in less time. Mr. Bush also made selected passages of that report public to buttress his arguments for war with Iraq, most of which proved to be based on fairy tales.
Then, Mr. Bush wanted Americans to focus on how dangerous Saddam Hussein was, and not on the obvious consequences of starting a war in the Middle East. Now, he wants voters to focus on how dangerous the world is, and not on his utter lack of ideas for what to do about it.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

New Premier Seeks a Japan With Muscle and a Voice

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/asia/27japan.html
September 27, 2006
New Premier Seeks a Japan With Muscle and a Voice
By MARTIN FACKLER [japan] [ethos] [use psci 350] [**********]
TOKYO, Sept. 26 — In his first act after being installed as prime minister, Shinzo Abe, a popular nationalist who has vowed to make Japan more assertive globally, appointed a cabinet on Tuesday packed with social conservatives and foreign-policy hawks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/asia/27japan.html
September 27, 2006
New Premier Seeks a Japan With Muscle and a Voice
By MARTIN FACKLER [japan] [ethos] [use psci 350] [**********]
TOKYO, Sept. 26 — In his first act after being installed as prime minister, Shinzo Abe, a popular nationalist who has vowed to make Japan more assertive globally, appointed a cabinet on Tuesday packed with social conservatives and foreign-policy hawks.
Mr. Abe, 52, bowed deeply in front of lawmakers after winning 339 votes in the 476-member lower house, which selects the prime minister.
Earlier in the day, Mr. Abe’s predecessor and political mentor, Junichiro Koizumi, vacated the prime minister’s residence in central Tokyo after nearly five and a half years. Mr. Abe had been virtually guaranteed to succeed Mr. Koizumi, 64, since winning last week’s leadership election in the Liberal Democratic Party, which has governed Japan for most of the past half-century.
Mr. Abe is Japan’s youngest prime minister since World War II and the first to be born after the war. His ascension appears to be a changing of the guard in a country that has kept a low profile in international affairs since its defeat in 1945. He enters office riding a crest of popularity, as his message of renewed national pride has found followers amid the resurgence of Japan’s long dormant economy.
“Japan must be a country that shows leadership and that is respected and loved by the countries of the world,” Mr. Abe said Tuesday in his first news conference as prime minister. “I want to make Japan a country that shows its identity to the world.”
At the same time, Mr. Abe (pronounced AH-bay) said he wanted to improve relations with South Korea and China, which soured after Mr. Koizumi paid visits to a Shinto shrine honoring Japan’s war dead.
Mr. Abe called on the leaders of South Korea and China to meet with him, something both countries refused to do with Mr. Koizumi. So far, Mr. Abe has been vague about whether he will visit the shrine.
He told reporters that one goal of his administration was to revise Japan’s pacifist Constitution, written after World War II by American occupation forces, to permit a full-fledged military. He also indicated that he favored closer military cooperation with Washington. These goals have alarmed many here who worry that any upgrading of the status of the armed forces could damage ties with Asian neighbors, which fear a revival of Japanese militarism.
After winning leadership of the governing party last week, Mr. Abe reportedly spent several days holed up in his country retreat near Mount Fuji, drawing up his cabinet. His choices, said Tomoaki Iwai, a professor of politics at Nihon University, and others, gave a decidedly hawkish bent to the new administration.
Mr. Abe increased the number of advisers to the prime minister, adding new posts for national security, education and the issue of Japanese citizens kidnapped by North Korea. Many of his appointees are in their 50’s, a decade younger than most cabinet ministers in the past.
One of the most watched appointments was to the new job of national security adviser, which went to Yuriko Koike, 54, a former television reporter. Ms. Koike has been a vocal supporter of the economic sanctions on North Korea linked to its refusal to provide more information on the fate of Japanese citizens kidnapped two decades ago.
Another was the education adviser, Eriko Yamatani, 56, a critic of sex education and the teaching of “excessive” equality of the sexes in schools.
The new state minister in charge of sex equality, Sanae Takaichi, 45, has opposed allowing women to have different legal family names from their husbands, a freedom women sued to win in the late 1980’s.
The defense agency chief, Fumio Kyuma, a 65-year-old party veteran and a friend of Mr. Abe’s, and the foreign minister, Taro Aso, 66, who ran against Mr. Abe in last week’s leadership vote, retained their positions.
There are few political heavyweights in top economic posts, reflecting what some economists and political scientists said was a shift in priorities toward foreign policy and national security. Mr. Koizumi, in contrast, filled economic posts with prominent reformers like Heizo Takenaka, a former economics professor credited with fixing Japan’s debt-ridden banking system.
Mr. Abe said he wanted to continue Mr. Koizumi’s market-oriented reforms but also pledged to fight the growing discrepancies in incomes and opportunities that they have helped create. Mr. Koizumi’s critics blasted him for turning egalitarian Japan into an American-style society of winners and losers.
But Mr. Abe seemed to speak most forcefully on security issues, and on the need for Japan to have a larger voice in global affairs. One of his goals, he said, will be getting Japan a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Israel Releases Hamas Official

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/middleeast/27cnd-mideast.html
September 27, 2006
Israel Releases Hamas Official
By GREG MYRE [Israel] [domestic politics] [released Palestinian deputy PM] [*******]
JERUSALEM, Sept. 27 — An Israeli military court today released the Palestinian deputy prime minister, Nasser al-Shaer, one of more than 30 Hamas lawmakers and cabinet ministers who have been detained by the Israelis over the past three months.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/middleeast/27cnd-mideast.html
September 27, 2006
Israel Releases Hamas Official
By GREG MYRE [Israel] [domestic politics] [released Palestinian deputy PM] [*******]
JERUSALEM, Sept. 27 — An Israeli military court today released the Palestinian deputy prime minister, Nasser al-Shaer, one of more than 30 Hamas lawmakers and cabinet ministers who have been detained by the Israelis over the past three months.
Mr. Shaer, who was the highest-ranking official held, was arrested on Aug. 19 but was not charged with any crime, and the court cited a “lack of evidence” in ordering his release today.
“My arrest was not justified,” Mr. Shaer told The Associated Press. “It was part of the aggression waged against the Palestinian people.”
Mr. Shaer headed to his hometown of Nablus, in the West Bank, where he was greeted enthusiastically by supporters at a reception hall. However, the court said that for the next two weeks, Mr. Shaer would not be allowed to go to Ramallah, where his office is located and which serves as the Palestinian political headquarters in the West Bank.
Israel began rounding up the Hamas legislators in the West Bank after Palestinian militants, including the armed wing of Hamas, seized an Israeli soldier on June 25 and took him into the Gaza Strip. The soldier, Cpl. Gilad Shalit, is still being held, despite an Israeli military incursion in Gaza and the crackdown on Hamas lawmakers.
Israel, which classifies Hamas as a terrorist organization, has charged many of the Hamas lawmakers with belonging to an illegal organization.
A military court ruled on Sept. 12 that 18 of the Hamas legislators should be freed. But on Monday, a military appeals court reversed the ruling, and those legislators and others remain in jail while awaiting trial.
At an Israeli cabinet meeting today, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and top security officials said they were prepared to intensify military operations in Gaza if Palestinian militants continue to fire rockets from the territory into southern Israel.
Earlier today, an Israeli airstrike killed a 14-year-old Palestinian girl, Dam Hamad, near the border of the Gaza Strip and Egypt.
The Israeli military said it had intelligence that a home along the border was being used to hide the entrance to a smuggling tunnel linked to Egypt.
The military called the home and told residents to leave, because the house was about to be bombed. Shortly afterward, the military dropped two bombs, destroying the home and leaving a huge crater, Palestinian witnesses said.
However, falling concrete and other debris killed the girl, who was in a home nearby, according to Dr. Ali Musa, head of Al Najar Hospital in Rafah.
In the West Bank, Israeli security officials said they arrested two 17-year-old Palestinians and seized a 22-pound bomb belt they were planning to use in a suicide attack. After soldiers arrested Abduallah Qatawi and Jihad Dukan, the two teenagers took the soldiers to the place where the bomb was hidden, the security officials said.
In another development, an Israeli court sentenced a Jewish settler to four life sentences for a shooting spree that killed four Palestinians in the West Bank.
The settler, Asher Weissgan, killed the four Palestinians in an industrial zone in Shiloh on Aug. 17, 2005, the day that the Israeli military began forcibly removing all Jewish settlers from Gaza.
Prosecutors said that Mr. Weissgan carried out the killings in an attempt to prevent the Gaza withdrawal from taking place. Mr. Weissgan was convicted of the killings earlier this month.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Israel Sets Goal of Pulling Troops Out of Lebanon by Sunday

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/middleeast/27mideast.html
September 27, 2006
Israel Sets Goal of Pulling Troops Out of Lebanon by Sunday
By STEVEN ERLANGER [Lebanon] [ceasefire still holding] [Israel to get remainder of its troops out by this weekend] [**************]
TEL AVIV, Sept. 26 — Israeli troops are expected to be out of Lebanon before the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur begins on Sunday night, according to Israeli officials and the United Nations after a meeting in Naqura, Lebanon, on Tuesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/middleeast/27mideast.html
September 27, 2006
Israel Sets Goal of Pulling Troops Out of Lebanon by Sunday
By STEVEN ERLANGER [Lebanon] [ceasefire still holding] [Israel to get remainder of its troops out by this weekend] [**************]
TEL AVIV, Sept. 26 — Israeli troops are expected to be out of Lebanon before the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur begins on Sunday night, according to Israeli officials and the United Nations after a meeting in Naqura, Lebanon, on Tuesday.
“It is my belief that with the necessary cooperation by both parties we should see the I.D.F. leave south Lebanon by the end of this month,” Maj. Gen. Alain Pellegrini, commander of the United Nations forces in Lebanon, said of the Israeli Defense Forces.
In Jerusalem, the Israeli defense minister, Amir Peretz, told Parliament that Israel hoped to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon under a United Nations resolution “during this week or at the latest several days later.”
Mr. Peretz said Israel wanted reassurances about the rules of engagement for both the United Nations and Israel in the case of cease-fire violations by the Shiite militia group Hezbollah.
Later Tuesday, however, Israeli officials suggested that some of those issues remained unresolved, including how to deal with protests along the border and whether the United Nations forces would act against Hezbollah if necessary or simply inform the Lebanese Army about violations.
The resolution, passed some six weeks ago, put an end to 34 days of fighting between Hezbollah and Israel that included bombings of southern Beirut and some 4,000 Hezbollah rockets fired on the cities of northern Israel.
Israel had said it wanted to leave Lebanon by the end of last week, before the Jewish New Year, but delayed, saying the United Nations forces, which are supposed to reinforce the Lebanese Army, were not up to strength. They number barely more than 5,000 now, only about 3,000 more than when the war ended and far short of the 15,000 called for under the resolution.
But the Israeli Army also did not want to pull out of Lebanon before a big Hezbollah rally last Friday, when its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, appeared in public for the first time to declare a divine victory.
Israel also said it would continue aerial surveillance over Lebanon to prevent the resupply of weapons to Hezbollah until the resolution was fully carried out. That includes the release of two captured Israeli soldiers and the monitoring of the largely unmarked border between Lebanon and Syria, which helped to supply Hezbollah with sophisticated arms from Iran and Syria itself.
The United Nations forces say that such flights constitute Israeli violations of the cease-fire.
Israeli forces have now left approximately 90 percent of the buffer zone in southern Lebanon captured during the war, handing over areas to the Lebanese Army and the United Nations force.
But Israel has also left behind what United Nations officials said could be as many as a million unexploded bomblets from cluster bombs fired by artillery during the last days of the war, the United Nations said.
On Tuesday, Arjun Jain of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said in Beirut that 200,000 Lebanese displaced by the Israel-Hezbollah war were being delayed from returning home because of the unexploded bomblets.
“Displacement is going to continue for many months to come,” Mr. Jain said.
Since the cease-fire, 14 Lebanese have been killed and 90 injured by the bomblets, the United Nations said, while about 40,000 of the bomblets have been cleared. The officials estimate that about 40 percent of the cluster bombs failed to explode.
In one of a series of New Year interviews, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has again dismissed the idea of peace talks with Syria. “As long as I serve as prime minister, the Golan Heights will remain in our hands because it is an integral part of the state of Israel,” Mr. Olmert said.
Israel captured the strategic plateau in the 1967 war and unilaterally annexed it in 1981. Some Israelis have suggested that given the threat from Iran, Israel should accept a Syrian offer for peace talks to try to wean Syria, a Sunni country, away from its alliance with Tehran.
In an attack on Tuesday, Palestinians fired rockets into Sderot, wounding a soldier. [Reuters reported that hospital officials said Israeli forces bombed a house in Rafah in the Gaza Strip on Wednesday, killing a teenage Palestinian girl in a nearby building and wounding 10 others.]
In Gaza, hopes for a unity government including Hamas and Fatah dimmed a bit more when a prominent Hamas leader, Mahmoud Zahar, said, “We won’t recognize Israel and the previous signed agreements.”
He added, “Such agreements have been a burden to Palestinian daily lives, and the government won’t let Israel’s hand strike against us in all directions while we depend on unfruitful negotiations.”
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is expected to travel to Cairo for talks with the Egyptians.
Taghreed El-Khodary contributed reporting from Gaza City.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Attacks in Afghanistan Grow More Frequent and Lethal

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/asia/27afghan.html
September 27, 2006
Attacks in Afghanistan Grow More Frequent and Lethal
By CARLOTTA GALL [Afghan] [hydra] [insurgency] [this year’s spring-summer offensive has been significant one since 2001 toppling of Taliban and their alQaeda clients—or vice versa] [sadly, the US is so bogged down in –Iraq and the administration so bogged down in legacy and saving a looming midterm elections that Afghan has been allowed to slide—to America’s peril in my view] [more evidence of worsening situation] [***************]
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Sept. 26 — Afghanistan suffered two deadly bombings on Tuesday that killed 20 people, providing another sign of the increasing size and power of suicide attacks and roadside bombs by insurgents.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/asia/27afghan.html
September 27, 2006
Attacks in Afghanistan Grow More Frequent and Lethal
By CARLOTTA GALL [Afghan] [hydra] [insurgency] [this year’s spring-summer offensive has been significant one since 2001 toppling of Taliban and their alQaeda clients—or vice versa] [sadly, the US is so bogged down in –Iraq and the administration so bogged down in legacy and saving a looming midterm elections that Afghan has been allowed to slide—to America’s peril in my view] [more evidence of worsening situation] [***************]
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Sept. 26 — Afghanistan suffered two deadly bombings on Tuesday that killed 20 people, providing another sign of the increasing size and power of suicide attacks and roadside bombs by insurgents.
The more devastating attack occurred when the police stopped a suicide bomber as he approached a security checkpoint near the governor’s office in Lashkar Gah, in southern Helmand Province, and he detonated explosives strapped to his chest.
The bomber killed 18 people, 6 of them policemen and soldiers. The rest of the casualties, including a woman, were civilians who had gathered at a central mosque to sign up for the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca, said the police chief of Helmand, Gen. Muhammad Nabi Mullahkhel.
South of Kabul, the capital, a bomb planted under a bridge struck a NATO military vehicle, killing an Italian soldier and an Afghan child nearby.
The suicide attack in Lashkar Gah was the second there in a month, and one of more than 60 in Afghanistan this year, United Nations officials said. The tactic was rarely used by insurgents a year ago.
Civilians increasingly have been paying the price of the more frequent and devastating attacks. More than 150 civilians have been killed by suicide bombings this year, the head of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, Tom Koenigs, said recently, before the attacks on Tuesday.
The bombings, once relatively ineffective, now increasingly claim casualties in the double digits. On Aug. 3, a suicide bomber struck in the district bazaar of Panjwai, near Kandahar, killing 21. A suicide attack killed another 21 people in Lashkar Gah on Aug. 28.
On Sept. 18, a bomber in Kabul rammed his car into an American military convoy, causing a huge explosion that ripped apart an armored Humvee and killed 16 people, 2 of them American soldiers and the rest passers-by.
The use of roadside bombs has also increased. Two powerful bombs were laid on roads close to Kabul in recent weeks.
The bomb bomb near the capital, positioned under a bridge less than 10 miles south of Kabul, also wounded five soldiers and five civilians, according to officials. The hurt civilians were driving in a car behind the convoy.
Military and intelligence officials in Afghanistan are divided about whether the tactics and technology used in suicide bombings and roadside bombs have been brought from Iraq, where they are so common, or if insurgents here are simply copying those tactics.
Canadian and American soldiers on operations in the southern province of Kandahar last week said they saw a clear connection with tactics in Iraq. One called it the “Iraqization” of the insurgency here, whether through personal contacts or the Internet.
Canadian soldiers, for instance, said they recently found a scarecrow by a roadside rigged with explosives. In Iraq, insurgents have rigged corpses beside roads with explosives.
Suicide bombers are also now using explosive vests, which are far more powerful than before, the soldiers said. In another bombing on Sept. 18, a man on a bicycle who rode up to Canadian soldiers handing out gifts to children in the southern village of Char Kota, in Pashmul, had on a vest rigged with explosives. The detonation killed four soldiers and injured several more who were in full body armor, as well as wounding two dozen children.
There are signs of more careful training as well. The bomber who killed the governor of Paktia Province on Sept. 10 managed to penetrate security by claiming to have a letter of recommendation addressed to the governor.
He then threw himself onto the hood of the governor’s car, detonating his explosive vest up against the windshield and killing everyone inside the car, according to government and military officials.
The high level of civilian casualties has appeared to cause a split in the Taliban, with some apparently opposed to suicide bombing, NATO military officials said.
Taliban fighters who occupied the Panjwai district in July and August tried to distance themselves from the suicide bombing that killed so many civilians and damaged shops in August. They posted leaflets saying that outsiders, or “foreign Taliban,” were responsible for the suicide bombing and that such violators would receive capital punishment.
“They were worried about their image,” said Olli-Pekka Nissinen, a NATO media operations officer.
Villagers and farmers in the Panjwai area, where heavy fighting has taken place over the past three weeks, also blamed foreigners or outsiders for the suicide bombing, and said that ordinary Taliban were just intent on fighting NATO forces.
A witness of the Sept. 18 suicide bombing in nearby Pashmul, Khair Muhammad, whose two daughters were wounded in the blast, said the bomber appeared to be an Arab.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show
Leaders' Views Out of Step With Public
By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A22 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [despite what we repeatedly read in the western press about even sunnis now wishing the US to stay to forestall night of the long knives, poll shows Iraqis want US out ASAP] [****]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, [****]according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601721.html
Most Iraqis Favor Immediate U.S. Pullout, Polls Show
Leaders' Views Out of Step With Public
By Amit R. Paley
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A22 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [despite what we repeatedly read in the western press about even sunnis now wishing the US to stay to forestall night of the long knives, poll shows Iraqis want US out ASAP] [****]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 26 -- A strong majority of Iraqis want U.S.-led military forces to immediately withdraw from the country, saying their swift departure would make Iraq more secure and decrease sectarian violence, [****]according to new polls by the State Department and independent researchers.
In Baghdad, for example, nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department polling results [******]obtained by The Washington Post.
Another new poll, scheduled to be released on Wednesday by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 71 percent of Iraqis questioned want the Iraqi government to ask foreign forces to depart within a year. By large margins, though, Iraqis believed that the U.S. government would refuse the request, with 77 percent of those polled saying the United States intends keep permanent military bases in the country. [*******]
The stark assessments, among the most negative attitudes toward U.S.-led forces since they invaded Iraq in 2003, contrast sharply with views expressed by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Last week at the United Nations, President Jalal Talabani said coalition troops should remain in the country until Iraqi security forces are “capable of putting an end to terrorism and maintaining stability and security.” [*****]
"Only then will it be possible to talk about a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq," he said.
Recent polls show many Iraqis in nearly every part of the country disagree.
"Majorities in all regions except Kurdish areas state that the Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) should withdraw immediately, adding that the MNF-I's departure would make them feel safer and decrease violence," concludes the 20-page State Department report, titled "Iraq Civil War Fears Remain High in Sunni and Mixed Areas." The report was based on 1,870 face-to-face interviews conducted from late June to early July.
The Program on International Policy Attitudes poll, [*****]which was conducted over the first three days of September for WorldPublicOpinion.org, found that support among Sunni Muslims for a withdrawal of all U.S.-led forces within six months dropped to 57 percent in September from 83 percent in January.
"There is a kind of softening of Sunni attitudes toward the U.S.," said Steven Kull, director of PIPA and editor of WorldPublicOpinion.org. [******]"But you can't go so far as to say the majority of Sunnis don't want the U.S. out. They do. They're just not quite in the same hurry as they were before."
The PIPA poll, which has a margin of error of 3 percent, was carried out by Iraqis in all 18 provinces who conducted interviews with more than 1,000 randomly selected Iraqis in their homes. [*********]
Using complex sampling methods based on data from Iraq's Planning Ministry, the pollsters selected streets on which to conduct interviews. They then contacted every third house on the left side of the road. When they selected a home, the interviewers then collected the names and birth dates of everyone who lived there and polled the person with the most recent birthday.
Matthew Warshaw, a senior research manager at D3 Systems, which helped conduct the poll, said he didn't think Iraqis were any less likely to share their true opinions with pollsters than Americans. "It's a concern you run up against in Iowa or in Iraq," he said. "But for the most part we're asking questions that people want to give answers to. People want to have their voice heard."
The greatest risk, he said, was the safety of the interviewers. Two pollsters for another Iraqi firm were recently killed because of their work.
The State Department report did not give a detailed methodology for its poll, which it said was carried out by an unnamed Iraqi polling firm. Lou Fintor, a spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said he could not comment on the public opinion surveys.
The director of another Iraqi polling firm, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared being killed, said public opinion surveys he conducted last month showed that 80 percent of Iraqis who were questioned favored an immediate withdrawal. Eight-five percent of Sunnis in that poll supported an immediate withdrawal, a number virtually unchanged in the past two years, except for the two months after the Samarra bombing, when the number fell to about 70 percent, the poll director said.
"The very fact that there is such a low support for American forces has to do with the American failure to do basically anything for Iraqis," said Mansoor Moaddel, a professor of sociology at Eastern Michigan University, who commissioned a poll earlier this year that also found widespread support for a withdrawal. "It's part of human nature. People respect authority and power. But the U.S. so far has been unable to establish any real authority."
Interviews with two dozen Baghdad residents in recent weeks suggest one central cause for Iraqi distrust of the Americans: They believe the U.S. government has deliberately thrown the country into chaos.
The most common theory heard on the streets of Baghdad is that the American military is creating a civil war to create an excuse to keep its forces here.
"Do you really think it's possible that America -- the greatest country in the world -- cannot manage a small country like this?" Mohammad Ali, 42, an unemployed construction worker, said as he sat in his friend's electronics shop on a recent afternoon. "No! They have not made any mistakes. They brought people here to destroy Iraq, not to build Iraq."
As he drew on a cigarette and two other men in the store nodded in agreement, Ali said the U.S. government was purposely depriving the Iraqi people of electricity, water, gasoline and security, to name just some of the things that most people in this country often lack.
"They could fix everything in one hour if they wanted!" he said, jabbing his finger in the air for emphasis.
Mohammed Kadhem al-Dulaimi, 54, a Sunni Arab who used to be a professional soccer player, said he thought the United States was creating chaos in the country as a pretext to stay in Iraq as long as it has stayed in Germany.
"All bad things that are happening in Iraq are just because of the Americans," he said, sipping a tiny cup of sweet tea in a cafe. "When should they leave? As soon as possible. Every Iraqi will tell you this."
Many Iraqi political leaders, on the other hand, have been begging the Americans to stay, especially since the February bombing of a Shiite Muslim shrine in Samarra, which touched off the current round of sectarian reprisal killings between Sunnis and Shiites.
The most dramatic about-face came from Sunni leaders, initially some of the staunchest opponents to the U.S. occupation, who said coalition forces were the only buffer preventing Shiite militias from slaughtering Sunnis.
Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, the outspoken Sunni speaker of parliament who this summer said that "the U.S. occupation is the work of butchers," now supports the U.S. military staying in Iraq for as long as a decade.
"Don't let them go before they have corrected what they have done," he said in an interview this month. "They should stay for four years. This is the minimum. Maybe 10 years."
Particularly in mixed neighborhoods here in the capital, some Sunnis say the departure of U.S. forces could trigger a genocide. Hameed al-Kassi, 24, a recent college graduate who lives in the Yarmouk district of Baghdad, worried that rampages by Shiite militias could cause "maybe 60 to 70 percent of the Sunnis to be killed, even the women, old and the young."
"There will be lakes of blood," Kassi said. "Of course we want the Americans to leave, but if they do, it will be a great disaster for us."
In a barbershop in the capital's Karrada district Tuesday afternoon, a group of men discussed some of the paradoxical Iraqi opinions of coalition troops. They recognized that the departure of U.S.-led forces could trigger more violence, and yet they harbored deep-rooted anger toward the Americans.
"I really don't like the Americans who patrol on the street. They should all go away," said a young boy as he swept up hair on the shop's floor. "But I do like the one who guards my church. He should stay!"
Sitting in a neon-orange chair as he waited for a haircut, Firas Adnan, a 27-year-old music student, said: "I really don't know what I want. If the Americans leave right now, there is going to be a massacre in Iraq. But if they don't leave, there will be more problems. From my point of view, though, it would be better for them to go out today than tomorrow."
He paused for a moment, then said, "We just want to go back and live like we did before."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Iranian Ex-Lawmaker Alleges Torture

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601511.html
Iranian Ex-Lawmaker Alleges Torture
Jailed Reformist Spoke Out at Memorial Service, Rights Group Says, Citing Witnesses
By Nora Boustany
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A20 [iran] [former lawmaker] [part of former reformers?] [**********]
Ali Akbar Mousavi Khoini, a former Iranian lawmaker who has been jailed without charges in Tehran for more than 100 days, was briefly released from detention last Thursday to attend a memorial service, where he shouted out allegations of torture and other harsh treatment, [************] according to his lawyers and other witnesses quoted by a human rights organization.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601511.html
Iranian Ex-Lawmaker Alleges Torture
Jailed Reformist Spoke Out at Memorial Service, Rights Group Says, Citing Witnesses
By Nora Boustany
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; A20 [iran] [former lawmaker] [part of former reformers?] [**********]
Ali Akbar Mousavi Khoini, a former Iranian lawmaker who has been jailed without charges in Tehran for more than 100 days, was briefly released from detention last Thursday to attend a memorial service, where he shouted out allegations of torture and other harsh treatment, [************] according to his lawyers and other witnesses quoted by a human rights organization.
"For the past 20 days, prison officials have chained my hands and feet. I am being tortured," [*****]Khoini loudly announced to bystanders at the memorial service for Khoini’s father, according to several people at the event who relayed the incident to New York-based Human Rights Watch.
“I am held in solitary confinement and interrogated four times a day,” Khoini reportedly shouted. “They wake me up in the middle of the night to interrogate me. They are trying to turn me to a mental patient.” Referring to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, he added, “They are forcing me to denounce my beliefs, to repent for my activities, and to ask forgiveness from Khamenei.” [******]
Calls to the Iranian mission to the United Nations in New York, seeking comment, were not returned. [*****]
Khoini, the son of a cleric and a member of Iran's reformist bloc, [*****] had long challenged Iran's judiciary and intelligence services for human rights abuses during his tenure as a legislator from 2000 to 2004. He made frequent visits to prisons and publicly searched for secret detention centers in his efforts to expose what he called inhumane practices. He was disqualified by conservative clerics from seeking reelection. [*****]
He was arrested at a rally June 12 and has been held at Tehran's Evin prison with no access to lawyers, according to Human Rights Watch officials and attorneys working for his release.
Iranian news reports said Khoini's wife, Zohreh Islamian, has not been allowed to see him for the past month and only once has been able to speak to him by telephone. At the memorial service, held to mark the 40th day after his father's death, security guards prevented Khoini from seeing his wife when he arrived, according to witnesses cited by Human Rights Watch. One of Khoini's lawyers, Mohammad Sharif, told the Reuters news agency in Tehran that "Khoini's wife had noticed signs of physical impact, especially on his head."
Reuters also quoted Sharif as saying Khoini was under pressure to write a letter requesting a pardon.
Human Rights Watch called on Khamenei to order the immediate and unconditional release of Khoini. "Iran's leaders have held Mousavi Khoini for more than 100 days without charge," according to Joe Stork, the group's deputy Middle East director. "Iran has a notorious record when it comes to getting political prisoners to 'repent' under torture," he added.
"The same intelligence apparatus that he tried to hold accountable is subjecting him to torture," Stork said. "The authorities should end this vendetta immediately and release him."
Since July 30, two prisoners incarcerated for what the Iranian government considers subversive political beliefs have died under suspicious conditions in Iranian jails, according to Human Rights Watch.
Hadi Ghaemi, another official with the group, interviewed by telephone in New York, said, "The Tehran government was looking for the opportune moment to seize him when he was spotted at a women's rally on June 12 and carried away."
Ali Afshari, a former Iranian student leader, said he was greatly pained by the report of Khoini's treatment.
Afshari, 33, who came to the United States 10 months ago and is working with the Washington-based National Endowment for Democracy, had himself served several prison terms over three years in Iran, including 400 days of solitary confinement.
"This is all very bitter," he said. "When I heard of Ali Akbar's torture, my own experience came to life. I can feel what he is going through." He and Khoini, 36, had come together 10 years ago as central committee members in the Islamic Student Association, which grouped university student activists.
The Islamic Student Association was one of the organizations created by supporters of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic republic, and the group later became a vehicle for reformists, like Khoini and Afshari, to challenge what they considered heavy-handed tactics by the Iranian authorities.
An online journal called Gozaar, meaning Transition, devoted to the discussion of democracy and human rights in Iran, and launched this month in Persian and English, will feature an interview with Khoini's wife and the wives of other detained political activists, according to Mariam Memarsadeghi of the group Freedom House.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Russia Agrees to Send Fuel for Iran Nuclear Plant

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/middleeast/27russia.html
September 27, 2006
Russia Agrees to Send Fuel for Iran Nuclear Plant
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Russia-Iran relations] [enriched uranium] [former USSR] [followup to earlier deal that was sidelined] [*******]
MOSCOW, Sept. 26 (AP) — Russia will ship fuel to a nuclear power plant it is building in Iran by March under an agreement signed by the two countries on Tuesday, Russian news agencies reported. [*******]]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/middleeast/27russia.html
September 27, 2006
Russia Agrees to Send Fuel for Iran Nuclear Plant
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Russia-Iran relations] [enriched uranium] [former USSR] [followup to earlier deal that was sidelined] [*******]
MOSCOW, Sept. 26 (AP) — Russia will ship fuel to a nuclear power plant it is building in Iran by March under an agreement signed by the two countries on Tuesday, Russian news agencies reported. [*******]]
The agreement, signed by senior Russian and Iranian nuclear officials, represents a small victory for Iran, but seems certain to inflame Western anxiety over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Iran says it needs the fuel for a peaceful nuclear program to generate electricity.
But the fuel could also be enriched to create weapons-grade material, and the United States and other nations have accused Iran of using its nuclear program to develop atomic weapons.
The European Union’s foreign policy chief is scheduled to meet Iran’s top nuclear negotiator soon for talks on a package of incentives that Britain, France, Germany, the United States, China and Russia are hoping will encourage Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and enter negotiations.
If it does not, the United States would like to push for sanctions against Iran, though there is not full agreement with the other nations on such a course. [*****]
Iran has already missed an Aug. 31 deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment activities. [*******]
Russian news agencies reported that the deal on Tuesday had been signed by Sergei Shmatko, head of Russia’s state-run company Atomstroiexport, and Mahmoud Hanatian, vice president of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization.
An additional protocol sets out a time frame for starting up an $800 million plant in Bushehr, which will be Iran’s first. [*******]
“The document provides for supplying Russian fuel for the atomic energy plant in March, physical start-up in September 2007 and electric generation by November 2007,” Mr. Hanatian said, according to Itar-Tass.
Mr. Shmatko said about 80 tons of fuel would be supplied, according to Interfax and Itar-Tass.
Western nations fear that Tehran could try to divert nuclear fuel used at the Bushehr plant and seek to enrich it further for potential use in a weapon.
To try to ease Western concerns over Bushehr, Russia has agreed with Iran that Tehran will ship spent fuel back to Russia.
However, Iran has resisted Russia’s proposal to conduct all of Iran’s uranium enrichment on Russian soil. [**********] [*************]
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Islamic Envoys Add to Call for Full Apology From Pope

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/europe/27pope.html
September 27, 2006
Islamic Envoys Add to Call for Full Apology From Pope
By REUTERS [pope] [recent unfortunate remarks] [followup] [pope calls for interfaith understanding] [anything but saying he’s sorry] [further, he’s know as a pope who is skeptical of what interfaith understanding can achieve especially with respect to Islam] [*************] [he’s beginning to go abit overboard it seems to me] [why did he repeat such a ridiculous conversation in the first place if he was going to spend a month apologizing for it?]
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 26 (Reuters) — An organization of 56 Islamic nations pressed Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday to apologize for his comments linking Muslims and violence, keeping alive a two-week-old controversy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/europe/27pope.html
September 27, 2006
Islamic Envoys Add to Call for Full Apology From Pope
By REUTERS [pope] [recent unfortunate remarks] [followup] [pope calls for interfaith understanding] [anything but saying he’s sorry] [further, he’s know as a pope who is skeptical of what interfaith understanding can achieve especially with respect to Islam] [*************] [he’s beginning to go abit overboard it seems to me] [why did he repeat such a ridiculous conversation in the first place if he was going to spend a month apologizing for it?]
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 26 (Reuters) — An organization of 56 Islamic nations pressed Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday to apologize for his comments linking Muslims and violence, keeping alive a two-week-old controversy.
Foreign ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, or O.I.C., approved a statement urging the Vatican to “retract or redress” the comments, in which the pope cited quotes saying the Muslim faith was spread by violence.
The group issued its statement a day after Pope Benedict assured diplomats from some 20 Muslim nations and the leaders of Italy’s Muslim community that he respected them and was committed to dialogue.
It was the fourth time he had tried to make amends, without actually apologizing directly, for his Sept. 12 speech at a university in his native Germany.
Several of the envoys attending the unprecedented meeting at the pope’s summer residence south of Rome said they felt that he had gone a long way to help end the controversy.
But others said they still thought an apology was in order.
The pope had enraged Muslims by quoting a 14th-century Byzantine Christian emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, who said, “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
The statement said the foreign ministers “believe that it is befitting to the Vatican to retract or redress the said statement, in demonstration of the correct spirit of Christianity in dealing with Islamic issues.”
The ministers expressed “profound regrets” over the remarks and said they feared that the pope’s language “might engender a situation of tension between the Muslim world and the Vatican, to the detriment of the real interests of the two parties.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Opera Canceled Over a Depiction of Muhammad

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/europe/27germany.html
September 27, 2006
Opera Canceled Over a Depiction of Muhammad
By JUDY DEMPSEY and MARK LANDLER [germany] [eu] [recently—I think July—Lebonese Muslims in Germany attempted to detonate commuter trains] [here Germans feeling pressure from growing Islamic community over Mohammed and how to handle issue] [***********]
BERLIN, Sept. 26 — A leading German opera house has canceled performances of a Mozart opera because of security fears stirred by a scene that depicts the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad, [******]prompting a storm of protest here about what many see as the surrender of artistic freedom.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/europe/27germany.html
September 27, 2006
Opera Canceled Over a Depiction of Muhammad
By JUDY DEMPSEY and MARK LANDLER [germany] [eu] [recently—I think July—Lebonese Muslims in Germany attempted to detonate commuter trains] [here Germans feeling pressure from growing Islamic community over Mohammed and how to handle issue] [***********]
BERLIN, Sept. 26 — A leading German opera house has canceled performances of a Mozart opera because of security fears stirred by a scene that depicts the severed head of the Prophet Muhammad, [******]prompting a storm of protest here about what many see as the surrender of artistic freedom.
The Deutsche Oper Berlin said Tuesday that it had pulled “Idomeneo” from its fall schedule after the police warned of an “incalculable risk” to the performers and the audience. [********]
The company’s director, Kirsten Harms, said she regretted the decision but felt she had no choice. She said she was told in August that the police had received an anonymous threat, but she acted only after extensive deliberations.
Political and cultural figures throughout Germany condemned the cancellation. Some said it recalled the decision of European newspapers not to reprint satirical cartoons about Muhammad, after their publication in Denmark generated a furor among Muslims. [*******]
Wolfgang Börnsen, a culture spokesman for Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative bloc in Parliament, accused the opera house of “falling on its knees before the terrorists.” [*********]
“It is a signal to other stages in Germany, or even elsewhere in Europe, to put no works on their programs that criticize Islam,” [*****]he said.
The disputed scene is not part of Mozart’s opera, but was added by the director, Hans Neuenfels. In it, the king of Crete, Idomeneo, carries the heads of Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha and Poseidon on to the stage, placing each on a stool. [**********]
“Idomeneo,” first performed in 1781, tells a mythical story of Poseidon, or Neptune, the god of the sea, who toys with men’s lives and demands spiteful sacrifice.
The cancellation of the performances fanned a debate in Europe about whether the West is compromising values like free expression to avoid stoking anger in the Muslim world.
Already in Germany, there is growing sentiment that Pope Benedict XVI may have overdone his contrition for a recent speech in Bavaria, in which he cited a historical reference to Islam as “evil and inhuman.” [******] The speech set off waves of protests in Muslim countries.
The interior minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, who has defended the pope and called for more dialogue with Muslims in Europe, said canceling the opera was unacceptable and “crazy.”
Michael Naumann, a former German culture minister, said, “It’s a slap in the face of artistic freedom, by the artists themselves.” Mr. Naumann, now the publisher of the weekly newspaper Die Zeit, added, “The pope showed the way by being so extraordinarily apologetic.” [*********]
The sulfurous public reaction prompted some people to speculate that the decision might eventually be reversed.
Ms. Harms said the “Idomeneo” production, which was first staged by the Deutsche Oper in 2003, would remain on the opera’s program. It could be performed later, she said, though she would have to consider the political and diplomatic aspects of “this complex issue.”
The scene with the severed heads aroused controversy among Muslims and Christians when the Deutsche Oper first staged it. But the company was not the target of any organized protests, and the Deutsche Oper put four performances on its calendar for this November.
Then, in August, came the anonymous threat. [*************]
“All this came in light of the cartoon controversy,” said a police spokesman, Uwe Kozelnik. “We started to investigate and finally concluded that disturbances could not be ruled out.”
While the police said they did not pressure the Deutsche Oper to cancel the opera, they supported the decision.
Berlin’s chief security official, Ehrhart Körting, drew a parallel between the decision and that of German newspapers earlier this year to resist reprinting the cartoons depicting Muhammad.
“Even the German journalists’ association criticized the reprinting of the cartoons because their publication could hurt the religious feelings of one group of people,” Mr. Körting said in a statement.
Muslim leaders in Germany reacted cautiously. Several planned to participate in a conference on Wednesday organized by the government to foster a better dialogue with Germany’s 3.2 million Muslims. [*************]
The leader of the Islamic Council, Ali Kizilkaya, told a radio station in Berlin that he welcomed the cancellation, saying a depiction of decapitated Muhammad “could certainly offend Muslims.” [********]
“Nevertheless, of course, I think it is horrible that one has to be afraid,” Mr. Kizilkaya said, according to The Associated Press. “That is not the right way to open dialogue.”
The head of the Central Council of Muslims in Germany, Ayyub Axel Köhler, declined to comment on the decision, saying he wanted to learn more about the circumstances.
Those circumstances appear to be in some dispute.
At a news conference on Tuesday, Ms. Harms said she broached the possibility of removing the offending scene with Mr. Neuenfels. When he resisted, she let the matter drop.
However, a lawyer for Mr. Neuenfels, Peter Raue, said Ms. Harms telephoned the director on Sept. 9 to tell him she planned to cancel the performances. The issue of tinkering with the ending never came up, Mr. Raue said, and in any event, “you couldn’t change it; it is part of the story.”
The scene devised by Mr. Neuenfels puts a sanguinary ending on an opera that, in the way Mozart wrote it, ends with King Idomeneo giving up his throne to appease the god of the sea, and blessing the romantic union of his son Idamante with the Greek princess Ilia.
The severed heads of the religious figures, Mr. Raue said, was meant by Mr. Neuenfels to make a point that “all the founders of religions were figures that didn’t bring peace to the world.”[********]
André Kraft, spokesman for Komische Oper, a more adventurous opera house where Mr. Neuenfels is engaged in another Mozart production, described the 65-year-old director as “a secularist who does not believe religion solves the problems of the world.”
For the Deutsche Oper, the cancellation is a major crisis for a prestigious opera company that has been in transition. Founded in 1912 as the Deutsches Opernhaus, the company moved to its present building in western Berlin in 1961, opening with a production of Mozart’s “Don Giovanni.”
Ms. Harms was appointed director in 2004, coming from a less prominent opera house in the northern German city of Kiel. While there, she said, she faced a bomb threat to the opera house. Ms. Harms plans to present her first production, a little-known work by Alberto Franchetti called “Germania,” on Oct. 15.
Some critics of the decision to cancel said it revealed the weaknesses of Berlin’s generously supported cultural institutions.
“Because they are subsidized by the German state, there is a great deal of artistic independence, but also a lack of accountability and intellectual rigor,” said Gary Smith, the director of the American Academy in Berlin.
The practice of updating classical operas — often with current political or social themes — is common in Germany. But the cancellation of “Idomeneo” could make this production a landmark of another kind.
“I’ve never heard of something like this, or even similar to it,” said Nikolaus Lehnhoff, a prominent German opera director. “I have seen many politically incorrect performances in Berlin. I think the reaction to the pope’s speech has sensitized the cultural scene.”
Judy Dempsey reported from Berlin, and Mark Landler from Frankfurt.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Thai Military to Keep Hand in Government for Time Being

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/asia/27thai.html
September 27, 2006
Thai Military to Keep Hand in Government for Time Being
By SETH MYDANS [Thailand] [SEA] [recent bloodless coup while PM in NY at UN] [in external a few days ago it made a much bigger deal of Thailand’s struggle the past two years with Jihadis living in southern Thailand] [followup] [**********]
BANGKOK, Sept. 26 — One week after seizing power in a coup, the leader of Thailand’s military junta said Tuesday that it would not disband after appointing a civilian prime minister in the next few days but would stay on in an advisory role.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/27/world/asia/27thai.html
September 27, 2006
Thai Military to Keep Hand in Government for Time Being
By SETH MYDANS [Thailand] [SEA] [recent bloodless coup while PM in NY at UN] [in external a few days ago it made a much bigger deal of Thailand’s struggle the past two years with Jihadis living in southern Thailand] [followup] [**********]
BANGKOK, Sept. 26 — One week after seizing power in a coup, the leader of Thailand’s military junta said Tuesday that it would not disband after appointing a civilian prime minister in the next few days but would stay on in an advisory role.
Thai newspapers reported Tuesday that the generals had offered the prime minister’s job to Supachai Panitchpakdi, a former head of the World Trade Organization, but the coup leader, Gen. Sonthi Boonyaratkalin, declined to confirm that.
At a news conference, General Sonthi did not make clear how much power he intended to exercise, but he said national security in the coming months was unpredictable. It was the first indication by the generals that they intended to retain power in the new government.
“As of today the situation is calm, orderly and peaceful,” he said, “but we do not know what is going to happen in the future.”
Abhisit Vejjajiva, the leader of the Democratic Party, said General Sonthi seemed to be backing away from his promise, made on the night of the coup last Tuesday, that within two weeks, “We are gone.”
“If they hold on to power,” Mr. Abhisit said, “it will be the opposite of what was announced.”
General Sonthi said martial law would remain in effect until the situation was stable, though he did not say what he considered stability to be. One indication of his concern was a decree issued Sunday that banned political activity or meetings in the rural areas that were the electoral base of Thaksin Shinawatra, the ousted prime minister.
At the time of the coup, the military was split between officers supporting or opposing Mr. Thaksin. During his five years in power he put loyalists in control of almost every sector of government and region of the country.
“Let us not forget that Mr. Thaksin, although out of power for now, has not thrown in the towel yet,” wrote Veera Prateepchaikul, deputy editor in chief of the daily Bangkok Post, in a column. “He is still very much loved by the grass-roots population and has built up a huge network of support over the years.”
A small anti-coup movement has begun, largely among students, who have led opposition to past coups. Political analysts say it could swell into a larger problem for the military if the junta does not quickly replace itself with a civilian administration.
A group of civil society groups urged the junta to withdraw its restrictions on free assembly and free press; to restore the Constitution, particularly its articles on civil rights; and to appoint officials who are free of corruption and have no ties to the Thaksin government.
Under the junta’s plan, an interim prime minister would hold office during the yearlong drafting of a new constitution and preparations for a parliamentary election that would restore democracy.
Investigations of Mr. Thaksin’s and his associates’ assets and of possible government corruption have begun. They could affect his decision whether to return.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

September 26, 2006

Guantanamo's Uneasy Ramadan

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo26sep26,0,4193516.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Guantanamo's Uneasy Ramadan
Tensions and religious teaching mix at prison, as a court challenge calls for Muslim chaplains.
By Rich Connell and Robert J. Lopez
Times Staff Writers
September 26, 2006 [gitmo] [upcoming Ramadan] [how to handle it] [************]
With the beginning of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, authorities at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp have stepped up efforts to teach guards about the religious observance, amid signs that radical strains of Islam are becoming a potent organizing tool at the facility. [**********]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gitmo26sep26,0,4193516.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Guantanamo's Uneasy Ramadan
Tensions and religious teaching mix at prison, as a court challenge calls for Muslim chaplains.
By Rich Connell and Robert J. Lopez
Times Staff Writers
September 26, 2006 [gitmo] [upcoming Ramadan] [how to handle it] [************]
With the beginning of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, authorities at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp have stepped up efforts to teach guards about the religious observance, amid signs that radical strains of Islam are becoming a potent organizing tool at the facility. [**********]

The cellblocks, which now house 14 suspected Al Qaeda leaders as well as more than 400 other detainees, have been rocked by a riot and three suicides in recent months. [************]

And many of the disturbances have involved allegations that guards are not sensitive to the religious practices of the detainees.

A court challenge filed late last week in U.S. District Court in Washington accused the U.S. of illegally denying detainees access to Muslim chaplains, who some religious leaders argue could help calm tensions inside the barbed wire. The motion was supported by one of the largest Muslim advocacy organizations in the country.

The military quietly stopped assigning Muslim chaplains to the base in Cuba more than two years ago, after one — an Army captain — was targeted in a controversial espionage investigation. [***************]

Interviews with military personnel, meanwhile, indicate bitterness is rising in the ranks over what many regard as overreaching religious sensitivity, including banning guards from touching any detainee's Koran during cell searches.

Chris Molnar, a California National Guard soldier who served as senior chaplain at Guantanamo until earlier this year, said managing religion in the politically treacherous and volatile environment at the camp is among the most challenging tasks facing military leaders. [****************]

"I saw the command structure struggling to deal with this … respecting a person's religion, but not letting them use that as a hammer to beat us over the head," [*******]said Molnar, a Lutheran pastor in San Luis Obispo.

The prominence of religious issues at Guantanamo was underscored recently in a senior military official's article on the camp website and the front page of the base newspaper. The report expressed respect and appreciation for the significance of Ramadan and explained the military's plan to support the holy month rite of daytime fasting. [*********]

Staff would work "around the clock" to provide "Ramadan-specific" meals that include dates, nuts and honey, the official reported, adding that commanders have doubled nighttime portions and provided medical monitoring to ensure that detainees received adequate nutrients. [***********]

Navy Cmdr. Robert Durand, a base spokesman, said the presentations were primarily intended for guards.

"This is an extremely important religious event in the lives of these detainees," Durand said. "What we're basically trying to say, in educating the guard force, is, 'This is what we're doing and why we're doing it.' " [**********]

In the court challenge filed Friday in Washington on behalf of a Pakistani detainee, attorney Gaillard T. Hunt said Muslim chaplains would help reduce suicide attempts among detainees, a problem that has fueled calls in the U.S. and abroad to close the camp.

An official with the Council on American-Islamic Relations, as well as two Muslim chaplains who work in the federal prison system, filed declarations in support of the motion. They, along with a third chaplain, said they were willing to counsel prisoners at Guantanamo. [*************]

"Counseling is what disarms them from the very hostile environment they are in. It's very useful in calming tensions," Shakeel Syed, one of the chaplains, said in an interview.

The motion was filed on behalf of Saifullah Paracha, 59, who is accused of being an Al Qaeda financier and taking part in a plan to smuggle weapons into the United States. Hunt said Paracha has never been charged with a crime and is "pro-American and anti-terrorist."

A Justice Department spokesman said Monday that officials would not comment on Hunt's chaplain motion because of ongoing litigation. Camp officials say they provide medical and counseling professionals to combat suicides among detainees. [*******]

The officials also say that there are not enough Muslim chaplains in the U.S. armed forces to assign to Guantanamo and that detainees would be suspicious of any religious personnel provided by the military. Currently, a civilian Muslim contractor advises camp commanders. He is not a chaplain, officials said, but is available to discuss religious issues with detainees.

Lt. Col. Lora Tucker, a camp spokeswoman, said even if a military chaplain were assigned to Guantanamo, "he would not be working with the detainees."

That was not the case in the past. Five military chaplains served continuously in the early years of the camp and counseled detainees on proper interpretations of Islam and suicide prevention.

The Defense Department initially publicized its use of Muslim chaplains to work with detainees and defuse tensions, including those arising from a 2002 hunger strike among suspected Al Qaeda leaders who were angered after guards disrupted a prayer rite. [************]

Durand, the base spokesman, said Muslim chaplains are no longer needed because officials have incorporated their earlier advice into daily operations.

The last military chaplain left in 2004, following the arrest of former Army Capt. James Yee. The Muslim chaplain was accused of taking classified records from the base. The Army attempted to connect him to a purported spy ring at the base. In the end, all of the charges were dropped and Yee received an honorable discharge. [*************]

Yee said he was targeted because of his religion; he maintained that Muslim chaplains had not been assigned in part because of a general distrust of Muslims by the military. [***********]

"Practically every Muslim I knew in Guantanamo was the object of suspicion," Yee said, "simply because of that person's faith."

Molnar, the Lutheran chaplain, echoed that sentiment. "Some people were very suspicious of them because of their religious beliefs," he said. "I'm afraid how this is going to come out sounding, but it's the truth."

He oversaw a staff of five chaplains, none of them Muslim, a fact that has sparked international criticism. A United Nations report earlier this year on conditions at the camp said the failure to provide Muslim clergy for detainees violated minimum standards of treatment.

Molnar said that prisoners in lockups like Guantanamo often used religion as a wedge "to get around the desires or authority of those above them."

Other officers and guards go even further, saying detainees have used religion to manipulate camp commanders.

"The deference that was given to them under the guise of religion was unbelievable," said one Army officer who served this year at the base and asked not to be identified because of personal security concerns. [***********]

Since the camp opened in January 2002, the most contentious religious issue has been treatment of the Koran, one of the few items detainees are permitted to keep in their cells. A military investigation last year confirmed instances of intentional and accidental desecration of the Koran. [************]

To quell protests about mishandling of the text by non-Muslims, guards at first were ordered to don medical gloves before touching a Koran. Now, only civilian Muslim interpreters are allowed to move and inspect the holy texts during cell searches.

Durand said there appeared to be no Islamic prohibition on non-Muslims handling the Koran. But, he said, "we want to make clear we show respect to Islam … that we do nothing that could be construed to be denigrating to the Koran."

Such procedures are stricter than those used by the federal Bureau of Prisons, and military guards note that Korans have been used to pass messages and could hide weapons.

Some military officials say it may have been a tactical mistake to stop providing Muslim chaplains. Many of the detainees are poorly educated and look up to those who can read and cite Koranic verses, according to former troops who worked inside the camps. This has opened the way for radical interpretations by religious leaders on the cellblocks and helped justify such actions as suicides, according to personnel who served at the camp.

"There were people who exerted influence," Molnar said. "They had a profound effect on detainees."

Camp spokeswoman Tucker disputed that religious leaders had made some detainees more militant. "They came here already radicalized," [*********]she said.
rich.connell@latimes.com
robert.lopez@latimes.com

For Democrats, Welcome Words on Rumsfeld -- if Not the War

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501114.html
For Democrats, Welcome Words on Rumsfeld -- if Not the War
By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A02 [the retired generals calling for rummy’s head and the implications thereof] [they have also suggested that General Richard Meyers and Gen Pace have been lapdogs] [it’s getting good and ugly] [love it] [********]
Maj. Gen. John Batiste, the former commander of the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, had complained loudly about the handling of the Iraq war since he retired 11 months ago -- but no one invited him to present his views to Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501114.html
For Democrats, Welcome Words on Rumsfeld -- if Not the War
By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A02 [the retired generals calling for rummy’s head and the implications thereof] [they have also suggested that General Richard Meyers and Gen Pace have been lapdogs] [it’s getting good and ugly] [love it] [********]
Maj. Gen. John Batiste, the former commander of the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq, had complained loudly about the handling of the Iraq war since he retired 11 months ago -- but no one invited him to present his views to Congress.
"I find that outrageous," the general said. "I have a sense for what I'm talking about."
Yesterday, Batiste got his moment -- sort of. Shunned by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Batiste and two other retired officers spoke before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, a rump group with little legislative clout but access to a proper Senate hearing room. And Batiste made up for lost time. [***********]
"Donald Rumsfeld is not a competent wartime leader," said Batiste, wearing a pinstripe suit, calling himself a "lifelong Republican" and bearing a slight resemblance to Oliver North. [*******] "He surrounds himself with like-minded and compliant subordinates who do not grasp the importance of the principles of war, the complexities of Iraq or the human dimension of warfare. . . . Bottom line: His plan allowed the insurgency to take root and metastasize to where it is today." [**********]
Further, Batiste charged, Rumsfeld "reduced force levels to unacceptable levels, micromanaged the war" and created an environment where U.S. troops "are doing unconscionable things." [**********]
“Our world is much less safe today than it was on September 11,” Batiste said, echoing the administration’s newly leaked intelligence estimate.
Batiste, who retired in protest rather than accept a three-star promotion, was a persuasive witness – and Democrats were joyous. “Your statement, I believe, defines the word ‘courage,’ “ Sen. Byron Dorgan (N.D.) gushed. Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) pumped his fist and gave Batiste and his colleagues pats on the biceps. And Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) proclaimed, giddily: “This hearing today could change our country.” [*********]
Perhaps. But Democrats, while celebrating Batiste's criticism of the administration, exercised some selective listening at the hearing when Batiste and his colleagues offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq. [**********]
"We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," Batiste warned.
"We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes.
"We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces. [************]
That last remark caused Schumer to shake his head, indicating he was not so sure. And, indeed, the retired officers' recommendations were off-message for the Democrats. Six of the seven Democrats at the hearing supported legislation calling for the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq this year. One, Richard Durbin (Ill.), voted for the pullout to be mostly complete by next summer. [*********]
The officers' bipartisan scolding disappointed some of the antiwar activists in the crowd, who wore colorful shirts with messages such as "Troops Home Fast" and "Say No to War."
"Peace is the solution, not more war," one activist shouted as the session ended.
But on balance, the retired officers' strong words about the war's conduct outweighed their calls for a greater commitment to Iraq. "Secretary Rumsfeld built his team by systematically removing dissension," Batiste said. "At one point, he threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a postwar plan."
Rumsfeld "has tried and continues to fight this war on the cheap," Eaton added. "The Army is in terrible shape, and the Marines aren't much better." [**************]
"It is time for him to provide the nation the last in a long series of services and step down," Hammes said coolly.
Rumsfeld himself, meeting with Afghanistan's president yesterday, answered the dissidents' calls for his resignation with a two-word answer. "I'm not," he told reporters, and then he asked for a different question. [*********]
But those at the hearing practiced no such economy of words. Dorgan twice referred to William Manchester's "Glory and the Dream." Antiwar Rep. Walter Jones (N.C.), the lone Republican participant, quoted Rudyard Kipling: If any question why we died/ Tell them, because our fathers lied.
In between literary allusions, senators worked to squeeze every possible criticism out of the witnesses. When Batiste spoke about the need for strong leadership, Durbin tried to lead the witness. "What I hear you saying," Durbin said, "is we're talking about political competence, too."
"Absolutely," Batiste complied.
The questioners skillfully directed the witnesses toward past failures rather than their expansive prescriptions for the future. A notable exception was the relatively hawkish Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), who, as the last questioner, invited the officers to comment on the effect of a specific withdrawal date.
"The result will be a civil war of some magnitude that will turn into a regional mess," Batiste said without hesitation.
As he stood to leave, Batiste worried that this last point -- the need to stay in Iraq -- might be overlooked. "The hard part," he told reporters, "is moving forward."
Did he detect any enthusiasm for making a bigger effort in Iraq?
"God help us if there's not," the general said.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Rice Challenges Clinton's Remarks on Pre-9/11 Policies

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092606rice,0,2631948.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Rice Challenges Clinton's Remarks on Pre-9/11 Policies
From Associated Press
7:11 AM PDT, September 26, 2006 [rice] [state] [over weekend while Clinton relaunched his initiative to help the world poor and ill, he got into a row with Chris Wallace on a television interview where Wallace apparently made an agreement to use half the interview for the Clinton iniative] [instead Wallace jumped on Clinton’s failures to take out bin Laden while president or to link to Mogadishu in timely way and so on] [Clinton got in his face and enumerated all the things that were attempted under him including the assassination of OBL] [some say Clinton was feinging anger and had planned this response to the recent mocudrama based loosely—very loosely—on 9/11 report] [in Clinton’s response he also said he had at least tried whereas his right-wing critics sat on their hands for 8 months] [so now Rice must repond] [round and round and round it goes, where it will stop, nobody knows] [*************]
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged former President Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue Osama bin Laden, and she accused President Bush's predecessor of leaving no comprehensive plan to fight al-Qaida. [according to the 9/11 report he did leave them Clarke’s delunda plan as well as Clarke] [subsequently the plan they enacted following 9/11 looked very much like Clarke’s earlier one] [**************]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092606rice,0,2631948.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Rice Challenges Clinton's Remarks on Pre-9/11 Policies
From Associated Press
7:11 AM PDT, September 26, 2006 [rice] [state] [over weekend while Clinton relaunched his initiative to help the world poor and ill, he got into a row with Chris Wallace on a television interview where Wallace apparently made an agreement to use half the interview for the Clinton iniative] [instead Wallace jumped on Clinton’s failures to take out bin Laden while president or to link to Mogadishu in timely way and so on] [Clinton got in his face and enumerated all the things that were attempted under him including the assassination of OBL] [some say Clinton was feinging anger and had planned this response to the recent mocudrama based loosely—very loosely—on 9/11 report] [in Clinton’s response he also said he had at least tried whereas his right-wing critics sat on their hands for 8 months] [so now Rice must repond] [round and round and round it goes, where it will stop, nobody knows] [*************]
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice challenged former President Clinton's claim that he did more than many of his conservative critics to pursue Osama bin Laden, and she accused President Bush's predecessor of leaving no comprehensive plan to fight al-Qaida. [according to the 9/11 report he did leave them Clarke’s delunda plan as well as Clarke] [subsequently the plan they enacted following 9/11 looked very much like Clarke’s earlier one] [**************]

"What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years," Rice said Monday during a meeting with editors and reporters at the New York Post.

The newspaper published her comments today, after Clinton appeared on "Fox News Sunday" in a combative interview in which he defended his handling of the threat posed by bin Laden and said he "worked hard" to have the al-Qaida leader killed.

"That's the difference in me and some, including all of the right-wingers who are attacking me now," Clinton said in the interview. "They ridiculed me for trying. They had eight months to try, they did not try."

Rice disputed his assessment.

"The notion somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false -- and I think the 9/11 commission understood that," [***********]she said.

Rice took exception to Clinton's statement that he "left a comprehensive anti-terror strategy" for incoming officials when he left office.

"We were not left a comprehensive strategy to fight al-Qaida," she told the newspaper, [********] which is owned by News Corp., which also owns Fox News Channel.

In the TV interview, Clinton accused host Chris Wallace of a "conservative hit job" and asked: "I want to know how many people in the Bush administration you asked, 'Why didn't you do anything about the Cole?' I want to know how many people you asked, 'Why did you fire Dick Clarke?"' [*************]

He was referring to the USS Cole, attacked by terrorists in Yemen in 2000, and former White House anti-terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke.

Rice said Clarke "left when he did not become deputy director of homeland security."

The interview has been the focus of much attention -- drawing nearly 1.2 million views on YouTube and earning the show its best ratings in nearly three years.

Rice questioned the value of the dialogue. [*********]

"I think this is not a very fruitful discussion," she said. "We've been through it. The 9/11 commission has turned over every rock and we know exactly what they said." [********] [tacitly agreeing]

Peacekeepers Have ‘Robust’ Mandate, Rice Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/middleeast/26diplo.html
September 26, 2006
Peacekeepers Have ‘Robust’ Mandate, Rice Says
By THOM SHANKER [rice] [state] [on Lebanon’s multilateral peacekeeping force] [how robust is its mission] [read: is it there to disarm Hezbollah?] [Hezbollah has already made preemptive statement that it shall not be disarmed] [rice has stuck her neck out on this and needs to see some success] [***********]
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon yesterday to act on what she termed “a very robust” mandate approved by the United Nations that grants international troops authority to challenge anyone who attempts to block their mission, and to use force if necessary. [**********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/middleeast/26diplo.html
September 26, 2006
Peacekeepers Have ‘Robust’ Mandate, Rice Says
By THOM SHANKER [rice] [state] [on Lebanon’s multilateral peacekeeping force] [how robust is its mission] [read: is it there to disarm Hezbollah?] [Hezbollah has already made preemptive statement that it shall not be disarmed] [rice has stuck her neck out on this and needs to see some success] [***********]
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the peacekeeping mission in southern Lebanon yesterday to act on what she termed “a very robust” mandate approved by the United Nations that grants international troops authority to challenge anyone who attempts to block their mission, and to use force if necessary. [**********]
“The language says that anything and anyone who keeps them from fulfilling their responsibilities is to be challenged on that, and they even have the right to use force if they need to,” Ms. Rice said. “That mandate was written in a very robust fashion.”
She acknowledged, however, that “it’s always a matter of how it’s interpreted.”
Members of the international force sent to Lebanon under a United Nations Security Council resolution passed one month ago have said that they cannot set up checkpoints, search cars or trucks, homes or businesses, or detain suspects.
Commanders of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or Unifil, say the Security Council resolution places Lebanese sovereignty paramount — meaning they first must be authorized to take such actions by the Lebanese Army.
In an interview yesterday with editors and reporters of The New York Times, Ms. Rice said, “I would hope that Unifil would interpret its mission in a way that allows it to really do what it is supposed to do, which is not to allow a return to the status quo ante in the south.” [***********]
A goal of Security Council Resolution 1701 was to increase the numbers and military punch of the international force in Lebanon, [*******]as well as to create the conditions for the Lebanese military to move into the south. Both operations are viewed as important to separate Israeli and Hezbollah forces, halt attacks and prevent Hezbollah from rearming.
The question of how commanders of the international force have interpreted the mandate on the ground “is something we will follow up on,” [********]Ms. Rice said.
Ms. Rice noted that the expanded Unifil mission was new and that it was not yet operating with the full number of desired troops. But she stressed that the peacekeepers “certainly got the authority to do whatever they need to do to do their job.”
“That’s very clear, and it says so,” she added. “I think there probably ought to be a conversation with Unifil about how it sees its responsibilities.”
In assessing political progress since the resolution was approved, Ms. Rice said that “Lebanon had come to a standstill, politically, well before the Hezbollah attack.” Yesterday she said, “I think you could make an argument that after the war things have begun to move — some of them sideways, some of them forward, but they have begun to move. I’m not sure that anything has begun to move backwards.” [********]
The political situation in Lebanon “is very fragile,” she acknowledged. But the fact that the Lebanese government and the Lebanese armed forces have extended their reach into southern Lebanon “is a major achievement,” [********] she said.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Democrats Focus on Terrorism Report in Attacks on Bush

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501310.html
Democrats Focus on Terrorism Report in Attacks on Bush
Conclusion of Rising Extremism Since Iraq Invasion Is Used to Counter Assertion That the World Is Safer
By Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A03 [Dems make most of the leaked NIE] [so anxious to pay back Bush and Rove for the swift boating of the 2004 elections and ample other injustices as the no doubt see it, they are jumping on this big time] [could the upcoming November 7 election play a part?] [*********]
Democratic lawmakers yesterday seized on elements of a new classified intelligence assessment as validation of their long-standing position that the Iraq war has been a distraction from the broader war against terrorists, seeing the new study as an opportunity to undermine President Bush's determined offensive to turn terrorism to political advantage in the midterm elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501310.html
Democrats Focus on Terrorism Report in Attacks on Bush
Conclusion of Rising Extremism Since Iraq Invasion Is Used to Counter Assertion That the World Is Safer
By Michael Abramowitz and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A03 [Dems make most of the leaked NIE] [so anxious to pay back Bush and Rove for the swift boating of the 2004 elections and ample other injustices as the no doubt see it, they are jumping on this big time] [could the upcoming November 7 election play a part?] [*********]
Democratic lawmakers yesterday seized on elements of a new classified intelligence assessment as validation of their long-standing position that the Iraq war has been a distraction from the broader war against terrorists, seeing the new study as an opportunity to undermine President Bush's determined offensive to turn terrorism to political advantage in the midterm elections.
A classified National Intelligence Estimate, completed in April but disclosed in news reports over the weekend, offers the U.S. intelligence community's first formal evaluation of global trends in terrorism since the April 2003 invasion of Iraq. U.S. officials said the report concludes that the Iraq war has fueled the growth of Islamic extremism and terror groups, but White House officials responded that the reports reflected a selective and distorted interpretation of the study.
Democratic lawmakers said the NIE finding undermines Bush's frequent claim that the toppling of Saddam Hussein's government has made the world more secure and confirms the need for a major change in strategy in Iraq. The findings were featured prominently at a hearing Senate Democrats held yesterday to review the conduct of the war and were cited by several retired generals offering harsh critiques of the administration's preparation for the Iraq war.
"The report underscores that the longer Bush and his enablers . . . keep us in Iraq, the more we undermine our own security," said Democrat Paul Hodes, who is seeking to oust incumbent Rep. Charles Bass (R-N.H.).
After weeks in which White House officials believed they had partly succeeded in reframing the elections around terrorism, rather than Iraq, the new report threatened to reverse those gains. Democrats also sought to benefit from a new interview Bush gave to CNN, in which the president said, "When the final history is written on Iraq, it will look just like a comma, because there is . . . a strong will for democracy." They said it was a sign that he was lightly dismissing the war in Iraq.
Administration officials rejected calls from Democrats -- and some Republicans -- to release an unclassified version of the report, and one official said the NIE discussed how the Iraq war has been used as a propaganda tool by terror groups.
Frances Fragos Townsend, the top White House adviser on terrorism, said one paragraph in nine pages of "key judgments" from the intelligence community discusses how "the war in Iraq is being used by extremists to spread the global extremist message," but added, "It does not say it has made us less safe." The "one thing that would make us less safe" is an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, [*******]she added.
Senate Majority Whip Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) noted that there have been no attacks on the United States since Sept. 11, 2001, and he described the new reports as "selective leaks put out within five or six weeks of the election designed to help the Democrats get control of the Congress." [********]
According to officials familiar with the classified report interviewed by The Washington Post over the weekend, the study found that rather than contributing to eventual victory in the international counterterrorism struggle, the war in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position. Many experts on terrorism regard that finding as unexceptional -- indeed the CIA predicted it before the Iraq invasion -- but it runs counter to the argument presented by the president and his senior advisers. [**********]
Bush has repeatedly claimed that he attacked Iraq to defeat terrorists, accused Hussein of sponsoring terrorists and, as he put it in a speech last month to the American Legion, considers the world "better off" with "the tyrant gone from power" in Baghdad. He has described Iraq as the "central front" in the war against terrorists, noting frequently how Osama bin Laden has urged his followers to go to Iraq to fight the Americans. [and it certainly has become one of them since the 2003 invasion, ironically] [*********]
In a recent round of speeches on terrorism tied to the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush did not directly address the issue of whether the war in Iraq has spawned a surge in Islamic radicalism and terrorism.
White House press secretary Tony Snow declined to say yesterday whether the president agrees with the conclusion that Iraq has made terrorism worse. "I am not going to parse that particular statement," he said. "If we leave before we have a stable democracy, it will certainly embolden terrorist organizations." [**********]
One prominent GOP pollster said the new disclosures could put at risk any gains the White House may have made in recent weeks tying the war in Iraq to a broader war on terrorism. "Anything that undermines the connection between the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq is not helpful to us," said pollster Tony Fabrizio. "If nothing else, it puts the president on the defensive."
At yesterday's Democratic hearing, several retired generals said the NIE buttressed their complaints that the administration had prepared inadequately for the Iraq invasion and its aftermath.
"If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe," said retired Maj. Gen John Batiste, former commander of the Army's 1st Infantry Division.
Senate Intelligence Committee Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.V.) called for the report to be declassified, saying its contents would not expose intelligence sources or intelligence-gathering methods. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) penned a letter to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), demanding hearings on the estimate's conclusions.
Sen Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Intelligence Committee, joined in the call to declassify the new NIE. He said the administration should do so, so "the American people can see the material for themselves and come to their own conclusions," adding: "There is a false impression that the NIE focuses solely on Iraq and terrorism. That is not true. This NIE examines global terrorism in its totality."
Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

White House Considers Declassifying Intelligence Report

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092600524.html
White House Considers Declassifying Intelligence Report
Reuters
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; 10:58 AM [after initial response—talking points read by Bartlett and Ms. Townsend—to the leaks of NIE tidbits, and following Senator Roberts call for declassification, white house reconsiders] [***********]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration said on Tuesday it may declassify an intelligence report in order to respond to Democrats who say the document shows the Iraq war has been a distraction from the war on terrorism. [*********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092600524.html
White House Considers Declassifying Intelligence Report
Reuters
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; 10:58 AM [after initial response—talking points read by Bartlett and Ms. Townsend—to the leaks of NIE tidbits, and following Senator Roberts call for declassification, white house reconsiders] [***********]
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration said on Tuesday it may declassify an intelligence report in order to respond to Democrats who say the document shows the Iraq war has been a distraction from the war on terrorism. [*********]
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said officials were "giving serious consideration" to releasing the National Intelligence Estimate on the U.S. terrorism threat to demonstrate that the section being seized on by Democrats is only one part of the overall picture. [********]
The report, part of which was leaked to the media, has become an issue in the runup to November 7 mid-term elections when control of both houses of Congress is at stake.
Part of the report said U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Iraq war has made the worldwide threat from Islamist extremists more dangerous.
It has inspired their growing militant movement and created a ready source of anti-American rhetoric, current and former intelligence officials familiar with the document say.
Perino said one paragraph in the lengthy report was "wildly taken out of context" and that some officials believe the whole document, provided to the U.S. Congress in April, should be released to put that paragraph in context. [*********]
Democrats hoping to overturn Republican control of the U.S. Congress quickly latched on to the issue to charge that Bush's pursuit of the Iraq war was a distraction from the overall war on terrorism.
Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, Republican chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, urged the administration on Monday to declassify the document so Americans could reach their own conclusions. [******] [see above in today’s govt] [*****]
© 2006 Reuters

Senators Call for Release of Intelligence Estimate on Terrorism

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/washington/26intel.html
September 26, 2006
Senators Call for Release of Intelligence Estimate on Terrorism
By MARK MAZZETTI [SSIC chair Roberts calls for NIE to be declassified] [presumably he believes it would show those who read it a much more complete story of Iraq insofar as it increases Jihadis threats] [c.f. today’s govt, below, White House and Dems’ angles] [*****************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — The top Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee called on Monday for the White House to declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism that was produced in April.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/washington/26intel.html
September 26, 2006
Senators Call for Release of Intelligence Estimate on Terrorism
By MARK MAZZETTI [SSIC chair Roberts calls for NIE to be declassified] [presumably he believes it would show those who read it a much more complete story of Iraq insofar as it increases Jihadis threats] [c.f. today’s govt, below, White House and Dems’ angles] [*****************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — The top Republican and Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee called on Monday for the White House to declassify the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism that was produced in April.
But Bush administration officials said they did not intend to make the document public. [************]
The existence of the document was disclosed over the weekend by The New York Times. American officials who have read the document said its conclusions included a judgment that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq had helped fuel the global jihad movement and that Islamic radicalism had spread since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. [**********]
Senators Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who is committee chairman, and John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the ranking Democrat, said the report should be released to improve understanding of the terrorism threat that the United States faces. [********]
“I think the administration should declassify this document so the American people can see the material for themselves and come to their own conclusions,” Mr. Roberts said in a statement.
Mr. Roberts and Mr. Rockefeller said the estimate should be stripped of sensitive material before being released.
The estimate also cites progress in attacking terrorist networks throughout the world, particularly efforts to kill or capture Qaeda senior leaders, the administration officials said.
White House officials said Monday that making the information public would only help terrorists gain a better understanding of how much the United States knows of their operations.
“What we don’t want to do is tell them what we know so they know how to operate around that,” Frances Townsend, the White House domestic security adviser, said in an interview on CNN. “The leaking of classified documents is always very dangerous, and it’s particularly dangerous in this case.” [*************]
The intelligence estimate is the first formal assessment of the terrorism threat by American spy agencies since the Iraq war began in 2003. [************]
It is the consensus of the 16 spy agencies across government.
The counselor to the president, Dan Bartlett, told CNN on Monday that releasing the report would have a chilling effect on the intelligence analysts “who are trying to give very candid advice or very candid estimates.”
In the House, Democrats promised to continue pressing the White House to release the document and wrote a letter to Speaker J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois calling for formal hearings into the findings.
Among those who signed the letter was Representative Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. [********]
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Iraq Just One Factor, Negroponte Says

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501631.html
Iraq Just One Factor, Negroponte Says
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A03 [DNI Negroponte] [first comments were reported in yesterday’s govt] [followup] [Pincus turn to divine info on the leaked NIE that now is Negroponte’s shop] [and how the DNI reacts to such leaks] [use nsc ms] [*********]
Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte said last night that the war in Iraq is generating a new generation of jihadist leaders and operatives but that the United States can still root them out by continuing to fight in Iraq. [*********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501631.html
Iraq Just One Factor, Negroponte Says
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A03 [DNI Negroponte] [first comments were reported in yesterday’s govt] [followup] [Pincus turn to divine info on the leaked NIE that now is Negroponte’s shop] [and how the DNI reacts to such leaks] [use nsc ms] [*********]
Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte said last night that the war in Iraq is generating a new generation of jihadist leaders and operatives but that the United States can still root them out by continuing to fight in Iraq. [*********]
If jihadist efforts in Iraq fail "or be perceived to have failed, fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight," [*****] Negroponte said at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
He made it clear that the fighting in Iraq is one of only several factors influencing the global terrorist threat to the United States -- factors described in a still-classified National Intelligence Estimate that has received heavy political attention since being reported over the weekend. [**********]
The intelligence chief's remarks came at the end of a long-planned speech on the role of science and technology in intelligence activities, and they thrust him into a political debate between Democrats and the White House, generated by the disclosure of elements of the 30-page NIE. [***************]
Sources familiar with that document have said that it characterizes the war in Iraq as expanding the terrorist threat to the United States. [**********]
Beginning by observing that "Iraq represents a small portion of the overall NIE," Negroponte covered at greater length other elements involved in promoting the terrorist threat, points he made in a short statement Sunday. [**********]
In that statement, he said the NIE "highlighted the importance of the outcome in Iraq," but he did not include what he said last night: "The Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives." [*******]
The NIE, completed in April and sent to the House and Senate intelligence committees, created little stir at the time because it was consistent, Negroponte said last night, with “our assessments on previous occasions.” [******]
In describing reasons for the growth and spread of terrorist groups, Negroponte listed the "Iraq jihad" behind others, such as corruption and injustice of secular governments as well as "fear of Western domination" and "the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social and political reforms in many Muslim-majority nations." [***********]
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

G.O.P. Reaches Tentative Deal on Domestic Spying Legislation

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/washington/26nsa.html
September 26, 2006
G.O.P. Reaches Tentative Deal on Domestic Spying Legislation
By ERIC LICHTBLAU [nsa sypgate story] [followup] [now GOP has reached a tentative deal with white house on it] [imagine my surprise] [just before they all return to their states or districts Republicans may now argue that they have helped the president keep Americans safer by spying on alqaeda] [of course, that they also spy on American’s will doubtlessly be downplayed as an externality of the new world in which we must live] [****************]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/washington/26nsa.html
September 26, 2006
G.O.P. Reaches Tentative Deal on Domestic Spying Legislation
By ERIC LICHTBLAU [nsa sypgate story] [followup] [now GOP has reached a tentative deal with white house on it] [imagine my surprise] [just before they all return to their states or districts Republicans may now argue that they have helped the president keep Americans safer by spying on alqaeda] [of course, that they also spy on American’s will doubtlessly be downplayed as an externality of the new world in which we must live] [****************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — Republican leaders said Monday that they had reached a tentative agreement to garner political support for legislation on domestic surveillance, in part by sidestepping the question of whether the president has the constitutional authority to order wiretapping without a court order. [**********]
There was wide disagreement about the plan’s impact. Supporters billed the most recent version as a way of requiring a court order for most domestic wiretaps. But civil rights advocates and even some administration officials suggested that it would maintain the status quo in allowing the continuation of wiretapping without warrants under a program approved by President Bush.
Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who leads the Judiciary Committee, said that in recent negotiations, the White House had agreed to delete language from his bill that critics said would have implicitly acknowledged the president’s constitutional authority to order wiretapping without a warrant. [********]
Three Republican senators — Larry E. Craig of Idaho, John E. Sununu of New Hampshire and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — had raised concerns about this and other aspects of the Specter bill, which would submit the wiretapping program to a secret court to rule on its constitutionality. With the changes, they said they could support the legislation, and Mr. Specter predicted he would have enough Senate votes to gain passage. [*********]
The three said the new plan would protect “the rights afforded to citizens in the Constitution,” in part by requiring that the administration get a court order if it wanted to listen to conversations of an American citizen or others defined as “U.S. persons.” In a statement, they said the new plan would require that “in order to conduct electronic surveillance of a U.S. person, a court-ordered warrant is necessary.”
Some lawmakers and civil rights advocates said they believed that the three senators had mischaracterized or misinterpreted what they had agreed to and that the White House was retaining the right to order wiretaps without a warrant.
The administration declined to say when it would choose to seek warrants under the new plan. [********]
The program approved by Mr. Bush “does allow for the interception without court order of international communications where one end is within the United States, and this agreement would provide this authority and would establish a process for moving to individualized court orders with respect to individuals within the United States,” said Brian Roehrkasse, a Justice Department spokesman. He declined to elaborate. [********]
Some opponents of the wiretapping program said they saw the new plan as a step backward because of technical language that would narrow the definition of what constitutes “electronic surveillance” that requires a court order and would effectively make warrants optional.
“This is a major setback for the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties,” said Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies. [*******]
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

McCain Names Practices Detainee Bill Would Bar

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400952.html
McCain Names Practices Detainee Bill Would Bar
Senator Says 3 Interrogation Methods Are Among the 'Extreme Measures' the Plan Would Outlaw
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 25, 2006; A05 [mccain] [on recent “compromise”] [detainees, pow abuse] [***********]
A Republican senator who played a leading role in drafting new rules for U.S. interrogations of terrorism suspects said yesterday that he believes a compromise bill embraced by party leaders and the White House will bar some of the most extreme techniques said to have been used by the CIA.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400952.html
McCain Names Practices Detainee Bill Would Bar
Senator Says 3 Interrogation Methods Are Among the 'Extreme Measures' the Plan Would Outlaw
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 25, 2006; A05 [mccain] [on recent “compromise”] [detainees, pow abuse] [***********]
A Republican senator who played a leading role in drafting new rules for U.S. interrogations of terrorism suspects said yesterday that he believes a compromise bill embraced by party leaders and the White House will bar some of the most extreme techniques said to have been used by the CIA.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) named three measures that he said would no longer be allowed under a provision barring techniques that cause serious mental or physical suffering by U.S. detainees: extreme sleep deprivation, forced hypothermia and "waterboarding," which simulates drowning. He also said other "extreme measures" would be banned.
McCain's remarks were unusual because public officials involved in the lengthy public debate about U.S. interrogation practices have rarely made specific references to the CIA's actions. Instead, they have made general claims about the need for rough interrogations or a desire to stop abusive behavior.
"It's clear we have to have the high moral ground," said McCain, a former POW tortured by prison guards in Vietnam, on CBS's "Face the Nation." "I am confident that some of the abuses that were reportedly committed in the past will be prohibited in the future."
McCain spoke after officials of Human Rights Watch and others pressed him to spell out ways in which the controversial draft legislation would constrain the CIA's actions. The bill, introduced in the Senate on Friday, does not mention specific interrogation methods, causing some experts to say it would leave room for abuses. President Bush endorsed the bill after CIA Director Michael V. Hayden said it meets his agency's needs.
McCain, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and their staffs were heavily involved in drafting the bill's language, so McCain's reading of it may carry weight in any court battle over its meaning. Aides said he did not clear his remarks with the Bush administration in advance, and spokesmen for the CIA and the White House declined to say yesterday whether they accept McCain's conclusions.
"We cannot and will not comment on specific interrogation measures," CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said, adding that the agency will act lawfully. The CIA has asserted unofficially that its most extreme measures were used on only a handful of detainees.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who wants to shepherd the detainee bill to congressional passage this week, also declined to give a specific reading of it yesterday. Asked repeatedly on ABC's "This Week" what the legislation would allow, Frist said, "I'm not going to comment on individual techniques," and he condemned doing so.
"No responsible person is going to come in and basically say, 'These are the 10 techniques we use and these are the 10 that are not used,' " said Frist, who is sometimes mentioned as a McCain rival for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. "It helps the terrorists."
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) yesterday praised the bill as "a big improvement" over the administration's initial proposals. But he said on CNN's "Late Edition" that he opposes provisions in it that would bar terrorism suspects from challenging their detention or treatment in federal court. "That has to be changed," said Specter, who plans to hold a hearing on the issue this morning.
The proposed legislation does not say what interrogators can do. Instead, it states indirectly, in amendments to the 10-year-old War Crimes Act, that those who cause detainees "severe or serious physical or mental pain or suffering" can be charged with a felony. This includes, according to the bill's definitions, anyone who causes serious physical abuse, a substantial risk of death, extreme physical pain, burns or serious physical disfigurement, or a loss or impairment of "the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty."
The bill would also replace an existing ban on interrogation practices that cause "prolonged" mental pain or suffering with a more sweeping ban on those that inflict "serious and non-transitory mental harm (which need not be prolonged)." This provision would be applicable only to interrogations that occur after the date the legislation is passed -- and thus it would effectively immunize from prosecution CIA interrogators who have inflicted short-term but serious mental harm on detainees.
The White House had preferred to bar questioning that caused "severe" and "prolonged" harm; McCain and his allies sought to obstruct interrogations that caused "almost instantaneous" mental harm. "If the detainee faints, that is not what we were trying to capture," said one of the congressional negotiators, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive negotiations. "But we wanted to prohibit anything that would cause a lasting effect, or anything that would go up to that line."
The CIA exposed some of the estimated 100 people held at various times in its foreign prison system to temperature extremes, lengthy sleep deprivation and stress positions such as prolonged forced standing, officials said. But the agency never fully briefed McCain, Graham or their staffs on the interrogations, a circumstance that handicapped the discussions last week.
McCain was nonetheless particularly adamant that the CIA be permanently blocked from using waterboarding, which he regards as torture, even though intelligence officials have said privately that it has not been used for several years. McCain -- who has previously described being beaten and painfully bound by ropes in Vietnam -- said yesterday he recognizes that stress positions could be "important" and that while it "was never our intent" to stop the CIA interrogation program, he wanted to stop the "extreme application" of such techniques.
As lawmakers and officials struggled to find compromise language, they consulted a dictionary Web site's entries for the words "momentary," "temporary," "transitory" and "fleeting," two congressional sources said.
The key to the deal, congressional sources said, was the Senate lawmakers' acceptance of national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley's demand that violations of the ban on serious, non-transitory and not necessarily prolonged mental harm could bring prosecution only for future interrogations. The demand grew out of CIA and Justice Department concerns that interrogators would be exposed to war-crimes charges for their past actions.
Alberto J. Mora -- who opposed the administration's interrogation policies while serving as the Navy's judge advocate general from 2001 until the end of last year -- said in May that "we know the treatment may have reached the level of torture in some instances." Mora's remarks referred to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Negroponte Highlights U.S. Successes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400986.html
Negroponte Highlights U.S. Successes
Intelligence View That War Is Increasing Terror Is 'Fraction of Judgments,' He Says
From News Services
Monday, September 25, 2006; A04 [dni] [Negroponte] [on successes in gsave] [use nsc ms] [*************]
The conclusion of U.S. intelligence analysts that the Iraq war has increased the threat from terrorism is only "a fraction of judgments" in a newly disclosed National Intelligence Estimate, [******] Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte said yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400986.html
Negroponte Highlights U.S. Successes
Intelligence View That War Is Increasing Terror Is 'Fraction of Judgments,' He Says
From News Services
Monday, September 25, 2006; A04 [dni] [Negroponte] [on successes in gsave] [use nsc ms] [*************]
The conclusion of U.S. intelligence analysts that the Iraq war has increased the threat from terrorism is only "a fraction of judgments" in a newly disclosed National Intelligence Estimate, [******] Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte said yesterday.
The NIE, completed in April, reflects the consensus view of 16 government intelligence services, including the CIA. The Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that the classified document concludes that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has fueled Islamic extremism and contributed to the spread of terrorist cells.
"What we have said, time and again, is that while there is much that remains to be done in the war on terror, we have achieved some notable successes against the global jihadist threat," Negroponte said in a statement. "The conclusions of the intelligence community are designed to be comprehensive, and viewing them through the narrow prism of a fraction of judgments distorts the broad framework they create."
Democrats yesterday seized on the intelligence community's assessment.
The document, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.) said in a statement, "should be the final nail in the coffin for President Bush's phony argument about the Iraq war."
Rep. Jane Harman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said on CNN's "Late Edition": "Even capturing the remaining top al-Qaeda leadership isn't going to prevent copycat cells, and it isn't going to change a failed policy in Iraq."
But leading Senate Republicans said that the intelligence finding shouldn't cause the United States to abandon military operations in Iraq.
"We need to prevail in Iraq and . . . if we fail, then our problems will be much more complicated," Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) said on CBS's "Face the Nation." [*****]
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Three Retired Officers Demand Rumsfeld's Resignation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500731.html
Three Retired Officers Demand Rumsfeld's Resignation
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 25, 2006; 5:14 PM [more retired officers calling for rummy’s head] [retired officers represent active to some extent] [thus, this is very likely indicative of a more general dissatisfaction with rummy from the uniformed military] [*******]
Three retired military officers who served in Iraq called today for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, telling a Democratic "oversight hearing" on Capitol Hill that the Pentagon chief bungled planning for the U.S. invasion, dismissed the prospect of an insurgency and sent American troops into the fray with inadequate equipment. [**********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500731.html
Three Retired Officers Demand Rumsfeld's Resignation
By William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 25, 2006; 5:14 PM [more retired officers calling for rummy’s head] [retired officers represent active to some extent] [thus, this is very likely indicative of a more general dissatisfaction with rummy from the uniformed military] [*******]
Three retired military officers who served in Iraq called today for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, telling a Democratic "oversight hearing" on Capitol Hill that the Pentagon chief bungled planning for the U.S. invasion, dismissed the prospect of an insurgency and sent American troops into the fray with inadequate equipment. [**********]
The testimony by the three --two retired Army major generals and a former Marine colonel -- came a day after disclosure of a classified intelligence assessment that concluded the war in Iraq has fueled recruitment of violent Islamic extremists, helping to create a new generation of potential terrorists around the world and worsening the U.S. position. [*********]
In testimony before the Democratic Policy Committee today, retired Maj. Gen. John R.S. Batiste, who commanded the 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005 and served as a senior military assistant to former deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, charged that Rumsfeld and others in the Bush administration "did not tell the American people the truth for fear of losing support for the war in Iraq." [********]
He told the committee, "If we had seriously laid out and considered the full range of requirements for the war in Iraq, we would likely have taken a different course of action that would have maintained a clear focus on our main effort in Afghanistan, not fueled Islamic fundamentalism across the globe, and not created more enemies than there were insurgents." [********]
Joining his call for Rumsfeld to resign were retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, who was responsible for training Iraq's military and police in 2003 and 2004, and retired Marine Col. Thomas X. Hammes, who served in Iraq in 2004 and helped establish bases for the reconstituted Iraqi armed forces.
Rumsfeld, appearing at a news briefing with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, rejected the demands for his resignation. Asked about the Capitol Hill hearing and whether he was considering stepping down, Rumsfeld shook his head slightly and mouthed the word "no" before calling for the next question. [******]
Democrats today sought to make the most of the National Intelligence Assessment and of the retired officers' remarks at the hearing, which Democratic leaders said they had to hold by themselves outside the regular congressional process because of the Republican leadership's persistent "neglect" of oversight. [*********]
"On the heels of the disclosure that America's intelligence community has concluded that the war in Iraq has increased the terrorist threat, today's hearing deals a fatal blow to any claim that staying the current course is an acceptable strategy for success in Iraq," said a statement issued by the office of Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.).
Batiste charged in his testimony that Rumsfeld "is not a competent wartime leader" and surrounded himself with "compliant" subordinates.
"Secretary Rumsfeld ignored 12 years of U.S. Central Command deliberate planning and strategy, dismissed honest dissent, and browbeat subordinates to build 'his plan,' which did not address the hard work to crush the insurgency, secure a post-Saddam Iraq, build the peace and set Iraq up for self-reliance," [******] Batiste said.
In addition, Rumsfeld "refused to acknowledge and even ignored the potential for the insurgency," the retired general said. "At one point, he threatened to fire the next person who talked about the need for a post-war plan," [******] Batiste added.
"Secretary Rumsfeld's dismal strategic decisions resulted in the unnecessary deaths of American servicemen and women, our allies, and the good people of Iraq," Batiste said. "He was responsible for America and her allies going to war with the wrong plan and a strategy that did not address the realities of fighting an insurgency."
Eaton told the panel, "We went in with a bad plan," adding that "stay the course is not a strategy."
Hammes said removing the regime of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein "introduced major instability not just in Iraq, but in the greater Middle East." And while the Bush administration has repeatedly said the war in Iraq is critical to U.S. security, "it has asked nothing of the majority of U.S. citizens," he said.
"While asking major sacrifices, to include the ultimate sacrifice, from those Americans who are serving in Iraq, we are not even asking our fellow citizens to pay for the war," Hammes complained. "Instead we are charging it to our children and grandchildren."
Responding to critics who have charged that the National Intelligence Assessment shows the failure of Bush's Iraq war policy, the White House today sought to put the best face on the document, which was completed in April and disclosed in the news media Sunday. [********]
"One thing that the reports do not say is that war in Iraq has made terrorism worse," White House spokesman Tony Snow said. [*********]
The National Intelligence Assessment “is not limited to Iraq,” he told a news briefing. “The false impression has been created that the NIE focuses solely on Iraq and terrorism. This NIE examines global terrorism in its totality, the morphing of al-Qaeda and its affiliates and other ihadist movements. It assesses that a variety of factors, in addition to Iraq, fuel the spread of ihadist, including longstanding social grievances, slowness of the pace of reform and the use of the Internet. And it also notes that should ihadists be perceived to have failed in Iraq, fewer will be inspired to carry on the fight.” [************] [important clarification if true]
All these points already have been stated publicly by Bush, Snow asserted.
"Obviously, we're not going to go into what the classified report does say, but what we did see in the newspapers yesterday, the substance, is precisely what the president has been saying," he told reporters.
Separately, Vice President Cheney today accused Democrats of advancing a "strategy of resignation and defeatism in the face of determined enemies."
In a speech at a Republican fundraiser in Milwaukee, Cheney indicated that he was not backing away from national security issues despite Democrats' criticism that the administration has mishandled the war in Iraq.
"As we make our case to the voters in this election season, it's vital to keep issues of national security at the top of the agenda," Cheney told Wisconsin Republicans, Reuters news agency reported. He specifically criticized Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, as well as Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
Reid replied in a statement, "When the U.S. intelligence community confirmed that America is losing the war on terror because of Bush failures in Iraq, this White House lost all credibility on matters of national security. With Iraq in a civil war, Afghanistan moving backwards and our own borders unsecured, it's clear George Bush and Dick Cheney are desperate to hide their record and distort the truth."
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

FBI Is Casting A Wider Net in Anthrax Attacks

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092401014.html
FBI Is Casting A Wider Net in Anthrax Attacks
By Allan Lengel and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 25, 2006; A01 [fbi] [the anthrax case from late 2001 never solved] [my recollection is that the case focused on ex scientist] [followup] [**********]
Five years after the anthrax attacks that killed five people, the FBI is now convinced that the lethal powder sent to the Senate was far less sophisticated than originally believed, widening the pool of possible suspects in a frustratingly slow investigation. [*********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092401014.html
FBI Is Casting A Wider Net in Anthrax Attacks
By Allan Lengel and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 25, 2006; A01 [fbi] [the anthrax case from late 2001 never solved] [my recollection is that the case focused on ex scientist] [followup] [**********]
Five years after the anthrax attacks that killed five people, the FBI is now convinced that the lethal powder sent to the Senate was far less sophisticated than originally believed, widening the pool of possible suspects in a frustratingly slow investigation. [*********]
The finding, which resulted from countless scientific tests at numerous laboratories, appears to undermine the widely held belief that the attack was carried out by a government scientist or someone with access to a U.S. biodefense lab. [*******]
What was initially described as a near-military-grade biological weapon was ultimately found to have had a more ordinary pedigree, containing no additives and no signs of special processing to make the anthrax bacteria more deadly, law enforcement officials confirmed. In addition, the strain of anthrax used in the attacks has turned out to be more common than was initially believed, [****]the officials said.
As a result, after a very public focus on government scientists as the likely source of the attacks, the FBI is today casting a far wider net, as investigators face the daunting prospect of an almost endless list of possible suspects in scores of countries around the globe.
"There is no significant signature in the powder that points to a domestic source," said one scientist who has extensively studied the tan, talc-like material that paralyzed much of Washington in the deadliest bioterrorism attack in U.S. history. [*****]
The FBI says it remains optimistic that it will find whoever killed five people -- two of them from the Washington area -- in a series of bioterrorism-by-mail attacks that rocked a nation still in shock from the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes. The bureau has assigned fresh leadership to the case -- Special Agent Ed Montooth -- and retains a full-time investigative force of 17 agents and 10 postal inspectors. "There is confidence the case will be solved," said Joseph Persichini Jr., acting assistant director in charge of the FBI's Washington field office.
The prevailing views about the anthrax powder, meanwhile, have been coalescing among a small group of scientists and FBI officials over several years but rarely have been discussed publicly. In interviews and a recently published scientific article, law enforcement authorities have acknowledged that much of the conventional wisdom about the attacks turned out to be wrong.
Specifically, law enforcement authorities have refuted the widely reported claim that the anthrax spores had been "weaponized" -- specially treated or processed to allow them to disperse more easily. They also have rejected reports that the powder was milled, or ground, to create finer particles that can penetrate deeply into the lungs. Such processing or additives might have suggested that the maker had access to the recipes of biological weapons made by the United States in the 1950s and 1960s.
In fact, the anthrax powder used in the 2001 attacks had no additives, writes Douglas J. Beecher, a scientist in the FBI laboratory's Hazardous Materials Response Unit, in an article in the science journal Applied and Environmental Microbiology. [*******]
"A widely circulated misconception is that the spores were produced using additives and sophisticated engineering supposedly akin to military weapons production," Beecher writes in the journal's August edition, in what is believed to be the most expansive public comment on the nature of the powder by any FBI official. "The idea is usually the basis for implying that the powders were inordinately dangerous compared to spores alone."
The FBI would not allow Beecher to be interviewed about his article. But other scientists familiar with the forensic investigation echoed his description. Whoever made the powder produced a deadly project of exceptional purity and quality -- up to a trillion spores per gram -- but used none of the tricks known to military bioweapons scientists to increase the lethality of the product. Officials stressed that the terrorist would have had to have considerable skills in microbiology and access to equipment. [*******]
"It wasn't weaponized. It was just nicely cleaned up," said one knowledgeable scientist who spoke on the condition he not be identified by name because the investigation is continuing. "Whoever did it was proud of their biology. They grew the spores, spun them down, cleaned up the debris. But there were no additives."[*******]
Moreover, scientists say, the particular strain of anthrax used in the attacks has turned to out to be a less significant clue than first believed. The highly virulent Ames strain was first isolated in the United States and was the basis for the anthrax weapons formerly created by the United States. The use of the Ames strain in the 2001 attack was initially seen as a strong clue linking the terrorist to the U.S. biodefense network.
But the more the FBI investigated, the more ubiquitous the Ames strain [*****]seemed, appearing in labs around the world including nations of the former Soviet Union.
“Ames was available in the Soviet Union,” said former Soviet bioweapons scientist Sergei Popov, now a biodefense expert at George Mason University. “It could have come from anywhere in the world.”
Many law enforcement officials believe that ever-improving technology eventually could lead to a break in the case. Ongoing tests could lead authorities to the lab where the anthrax originated – something authorities have said for years could help close the case.
More traditional tactics are still being used: The FBI has conducted 9,100 interviews and issued 6,000 subpoenas in one of the most exhaustive and expensive investigations in the bureau’s history. Authorities say investigators continue to have a number of specific individuals in their sights, describing the suspect list as “fluid.”
One prevailing theory among investigators is that the attacks came from within the United States rather than from an overseas terrorist organization.
However, a law enforcement official said, “we have not closed the door on any possibilities. There’s a discrete number of individuals who continue to be investigated, both internationally and domestically.”
Over the years, officials have publicly identified only one “person of interest,” and that was more than four years ago. Steven J. Hatfill, a former Army scientist, has denied wrongdoing and has never been charged. He is suing the Justice Department, alleging that officials leaked false information about him that caused great harm.
Law enforcement officials won’t talk about Hatfill.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, in a meeting this month with Washington Post reporters and editors, would not say whether any single individual continues to draw special attention as a “person of interest.” [***********]
“I’m not telling you that right now the bureau is focused on someone or not focused on someone,” Chertoff said. “There are in my experience a lot of instances where we might know or have a good reason to believe who committed a criminal act, but we may not be able to prove it. So when you say something is not solved, you should not assume from the fact that there is no criminal prosecution we don’t have a good idea of what we think happened.” [************]
Persichini, of the FBI's Washington office, acknowledged frustrations but said that "no one in the FBI has for a moment stopped thinking about the innocent victims of these attacks, nor has the effort to solve this case in any way been slowed.
"While not well known to the public, the scientific advances gained from this investigation are unprecedented and have greatly strengthened the government's ability to prepare for -- and prevent -- biological attacks in the future," Persichini said.
Nonetheless, failure to solve the mystery has bred public skepticism.
"If the FBI's investigation has become a cold case, then it's time for [FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III] to acknowledge that and take steps to deal with it," said Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), a frequent critic of the FBI. "I'm concerned that the FBI may have spent too much time focusing [on] one theory of what happened and too little effort on the other possibilities."
Staff writer Spencer S. Hsu and staff researcher Meg Smith contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Study of Iraq War and Terror Stirs Strong Political Response

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/world/middleeast/25terror.html
September 25, 2006
Study of Iraq War and Terror Stirs Strong Political Response
By PHILIP SHENON and MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 — Democratic lawmakers, responding to an intelligence report that found that the Iraq war has invigorated Islamic radicalism and worsened the global terrorist threat, said the assessment by American spy agencies demonstrated that the Bush administration needed to devise a new strategy for its handling of the war. [**********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/world/middleeast/25terror.html
September 25, 2006
Study of Iraq War and Terror Stirs Strong Political Response
By PHILIP SHENON and MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 — Democratic lawmakers, responding to an intelligence report that found that the Iraq war has invigorated Islamic radicalism and worsened the global terrorist threat, said the assessment by American spy agencies demonstrated that the Bush administration needed to devise a new strategy for its handling of the war. [**********]
Representative Jane Harman of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said that while she could not discuss details of the classified National Intelligence Estimate, “Every intelligence analyst I speak to confirms that” the Iraq war had contributed to the increased terrorist threat.
“Even capturing the remaining top Al Qaeda leadership isn’t going to prevent copycat cells, and it isn’t going to change a failed policy in Iraq,” Ms. Harman said on CNN’s “Late Edition.” “This administration is trying to change the subject. I don’t think voters are going to buy that.” [************]
In public comments on Sunday, Republican Congressional leaders did not dispute the accuracy of the reports about the intelligence estimate, although they continued to defend the American presence in Iraq.
”I think it’s obvious that the difficulties we’ve experienced in Iraq have certainly emboldened” terrorist groups, Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican, said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.”
“But I would also argue that these people didn’t need any motivation to attack us on Sept. 11,” he said.
The intelligence estimate, an assessment by America’s 16 intelligence agencies, found that the war in Iraq, rather than stemming the growth of terrorism, had helped fuel its spread across the globe. [*******]
The estimate was completed in April, and is the first formal review of global terrorism by the United States since the Iraq war began. More than a dozen government officials and terrorism experts described the estimate to The New York Times, but spoke on condition of anonymity because its contents are classified. [*********]
Several of the lawmakers who appeared on Sunday talk shows said they had not seen the classified document, whose disclosure comes weeks before the Nov. 7 elections. Intelligence reports from American spy agencies are not circulated widely on Capitol Hill, and Congressional officials said neither the House nor the Senate intelligence committees had been formally briefed on the report.
In a statement released Sunday, the White House said the characterization of the report in The New York Times “is not representative of the complete document.” The White House did not release any specifics about the report, citing the fact that it was classified.
John D. Negroponte, [*********] director of national intelligence, said in a statement on Sunday that conclusions about the Iraq war are only a part of the overall intelligence assessment, and that viewing the report’s conclusions “through the narrow prism of a fraction of judgments distorts the broad framework they create.” [********]
“While there is much that remains to be done in the war on terror, we have achieved some notable successes against the global jihadist threat,” he said.
The White House also issued three pages of excerpts from recent speeches by President Bush, including remarks about the continuing threats from terrorist groups inspired by Al Qaeda.
The House Democratic leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, said in a statement that news reports about the intelligence estimate were “further proof that the war in Iraq is making it harder for America to fight and win the war on terror.”
Her Senate Democratic counterpart, Harry Reid of Nevada, said that “no election-year White House P.R. campaign can hide this truth — it is crystal clear that America’s security demands we change course in Iraq.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

More Leaks, Please

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500912.html
More Leaks, Please
Questioning the Iraq Intelligence Report
By Robert Kagan
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A21 [oped] [neocon guru Robert kagan on leaks] [specifically the NIE that was leaked over the weekend] [see past couple days of govt] [*********]
It's too bad we won't get to see the full National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism" selectively leaked to The Post and the New York Times last week. [*********] The Times headline read "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat." But there were no quotations from the NIE itself, so all we have are journalists' characterizations of anonymous comments by government officials, [*******]whose motives and reliability we can't judge, about intelligence assessments whose logic and argument, as well as factual basis, we have no way of knowing or gauging. Based on the press coverage alone, the NIE's judgment seems both impressionistic and imprecise. On such an important topic, it would be nice to have answers to a few questions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092500912.html
More Leaks, Please
Questioning the Iraq Intelligence Report
By Robert Kagan
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A21 [oped] [neocon guru Robert kagan on leaks] [specifically the NIE that was leaked over the weekend] [see past couple days of govt] [*********]
It's too bad we won't get to see the full National Intelligence Estimate on "Trends in Global Terrorism" selectively leaked to The Post and the New York Times last week. [*********] The Times headline read "Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat." But there were no quotations from the NIE itself, so all we have are journalists' characterizations of anonymous comments by government officials, [*******]whose motives and reliability we can't judge, about intelligence assessments whose logic and argument, as well as factual basis, we have no way of knowing or gauging. Based on the press coverage alone, the NIE's judgment seems both impressionistic and imprecise. On such an important topic, it would be nice to have answers to a few questions.
For instance, what specifically does it mean to say that the Iraq war has worsened the "terrorism threat"? [******] Presumably, the NIE's authors would admit that this is speculation rather than a statement of fact, since the facts suggest otherwise. [******] Before the Iraq war, the United States suffered a series of terrorist attacks: the bombing and destruction of two American embassies in East Africa in 1998, the terrorist attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Since the Iraq war started, there have not been any successful terrorist attacks against the United States. [*******] That doesn't mean the threat has diminished because of the Iraq war, but it does place the burden of proof on those who argue that it has increased.
Probably what the NIE's authors mean is not that the Iraq war has increased the actual threat. According to the Times, the report is agnostic on whether another terrorist attack is more or less likely. [********]Rather, its authors claim that the war has increased the number of potential terrorists. Unfortunately, neither The Post nor the Times provides any figures to support this. Does the NIE? [******] Or are its authors simply assuming that because Muslims have been angered by the war, some percentage of them must be joining the ranks of terrorists?
As a poor substitute for actual figures, The Post notes that, according to the NIE, members of terrorist cells post messages on their Web sites depicting the Iraq war as "a Western attempt to conquer Islam." No doubt they do. But to move from that observation to the conclusion that the Iraq war has increased the terrorist threat requires answering a few additional questions: How many new terrorists are there? How many of the new terrorists became terrorists because they read the messages on the Web sites? And of those, how many were motivated by the Iraq war as opposed to, say, the war in Afghanistan, or the Danish cartoons, or the Israel-Palestine conflict, or their dislike for the Saudi royal family or Hosni Mubarak, or, more recently, the comments of the pope? [*********] Perhaps our intelligence agencies have discovered a way to examine, measure and then rank the motives that drive people to become terrorists, though I tend to doubt it. But any serious and useful assessment of the effect of the Iraq war would, at a minimum, try to isolate the effect of the war from everything else that is and has been going on to stir Muslim anger. Did the NIE attempt to make that calculation?
Such an assessment would also require some estimate of what the terrorist threat would look like today if the war had not happened. [*****]For instance, did the authors of the NIE calculate the effect of the Sept. 11 attacks on the recruitment of terrorists or the effect of the bombings in Madrid and London? It is certainly possible that these events produced an increase in would-be terrorists by showing the possibility of sensational success. So if there is an overall increase, how much of it was the result of Iraq or the Danish cartoons or other perceived Western offenses against Islam, and how much of it is a continuing response to al-Qaeda's own terrorist successes before, on and after Sept. 11?
Finally, a serious evaluation of the effect of the Iraq war would have to address the Bush administration's argument that it is better to fight terrorist recruits in Iraq than in the United States. [*****] This may or may not be true, although again the administration would seem to have the stronger claim at the moment. But a serious study would have to measure the numbers of terrorists engaged in Iraq, and the numbers who may have been killed in Iraq, against any increase in the numbers of active terrorists outside Iraq as a result of the war. [*******]Did the NIE make such a calculation?
There is, in addition to all this, a question of context. What should we do if we believe certain actions might inspire some people to become potential terrorists? Should we always refrain from taking those actions, or are there cases in which we may want to act anyway? We have pretty good reason to believe, for instance, that the Persian Gulf War in 1991, and the continuing presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the war, was a big factor in the evolution of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. [******] We are pretty sure that American support of the Afghan mujaheddin against the Soviet occupation forces in the late 1970s and early '80s also contributed to the growth of Islamic terrorism.
Knowing this, would we now say that we made a mistake in each of those cases? Would an NIE argue that we would be safer today if we had not helped drive the Soviets from Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein from Kuwait? The argument in both cases would be at least as sound as the argument about the most recent Iraq war. [*******]
In fact, the question of what actions make us safer cannot be answered simply by counting the number of new terrorist recruits those actions may inspire, even if we could make such a count with any confidence. I would worry about an American foreign policy driven only by fear of how our actions might inspire anger, radicalism and violence in others. As in the past, that should be only one calculation in our judgment of what does and does not make us, and the world, safer. [*********]
Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post. His book "Dangerous Nation," a history of American foreign policy, will be published next month.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Immigration Reform, in Pieces

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/opinion/26tue1.html
September 26, 2006
Editorial
Immigration Reform, in Pieces
[editorial] [immigration reform and midterm elections] [******]
This can’t be what President Bush had in mind when he gave a prime-time speech about immigration in May. “An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive,” he told the nation, “because all elements of this problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all.” [*********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/opinion/26tue1.html
September 26, 2006
Editorial
Immigration Reform, in Pieces
[editorial] [immigration reform and midterm elections] [******]
This can’t be what President Bush had in mind when he gave a prime-time speech about immigration in May. “An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive,” he told the nation, “because all elements of this problem must be addressed together, or none of them will be solved at all.” [*********]
That was then. Now we have the Republican-controlled House passing a pre-election lineup of narrow enforcement measures packaged to give voters a false impression of resolve. Mr. Bush has even given up talking a good game on immigration: he says he will sign the Republican legislation as a “first step” toward the real reform he has said he wants but has done depressingly little to achieve. [**********]
Republican leaders want you to think they are hard at work overhauling the broken immigration system in the last days before going home. But don’t be fooled by the noise and dust. These are piecemeal rehashes of legislation the House passed last December. [*****] They include a 700-mile border fence that would cost more than $2 billion and would not work, and tough-sounding but profoundly undemocratic bills that would allow the indefinite detention of some illegal immigrants seeking asylum, make it easier to deport people without judicial review, and require voters to prove citizenship before participating in federal elections. The latter measure attacks an imaginary problem — voting fraud by illegal immigrants — and would disenfranchise countless Americans who are old and poor.
Among the most poisonous provisions is one that would give state and local police agencies authority to enforce federal immigration laws. Police departments big and small have bristled at the idea, saying they lack the expertise and the resources to enforce immigration law. They say it would cripple crime fighting by severing hard-won relationships with potential victims and witnesses: immigrants who will end up fearing and avoiding them.
But for every police chief who sees this as a foolish attack on law enforcement, there is a sheriff or local politician, like Steve Levy, the Suffolk County executive on Long Island, who is just itching to seize control of his or her own little corner of the immigration battlefield. It’s an every-mayor-for-himself approach that would only worsen the ad hoc incoherence of the national immigration system.
Once again it’s up to the Senate to resist the restrictionist free-for-all. Republicans have been trying to make this difficult by seeking to slip their toxic measures into must-pass bills for the Homeland Security and Defense Departments. The senators who have held out for comprehensive reform, which includes giving immigrants a realistic way to work and get right with the law, must stick together to defeat the House campaign.
The House’s election hunt for border-security sound bites shows how susceptible to demagoguery the debate can be. Anti-immigrant fervor is a flame that spreads easily. But leadership can help people look beyond resentment and fear. Once upon a time, Mr. Bush was a sense-talking governor from a border state who understood this. Now he has joined the leaders of his party in calling on the nation to cower behind electric fences, searchlights and squad cars. It’s painful to see what he has turned into, and frustrating, in these days of immigration panic, to keep waiting for a real leader to emerge.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Border Enforcement Is Not Enough

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/22/AR2006092200877.html
Border Enforcement Is Not Enough
By David B. Muhlhausen
Special to washingtonpost.com's think Tank Town
Monday, September 25, 2006; 12:00 AM [oped] [border enforcement and national security] [and more, oh my] [*********]
Despite vast differences, the House and Senate immigration reform bills share a common strategy on border security. Both would build fences (real and "virtual") and beef up border patrols to keep out migrants.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/22/AR2006092200877.html
Border Enforcement Is Not Enough
By David B. Muhlhausen
Special to washingtonpost.com's think Tank Town
Monday, September 25, 2006; 12:00 AM [oped] [border enforcement and national security] [and more, oh my] [*********]
Despite vast differences, the House and Senate immigration reform bills share a common strategy on border security. Both would build fences (real and "virtual") and beef up border patrols to keep out migrants.
But sealing the borders will not, in and of itself, reduce the number of illegal aliens living in this country. Indeed, research suggests that the approach may well produce the opposite effect.
Admittedly, the experts are not unanimous. Some researchers conclude increased border enforcement makes little difference in reducing illegal immigrations. Others find it helps, while still others say it exacerbates the problem.
But a review of the entire body of research clearly suggests that enhanced border security will, at best, do little to reduce the overall number of illegal immigrants living in the U.S. Why? Because even as it pares the entry of illegals, it slows the flow of illegal immigrants leaving the United States
The most comprehensive investigation of this phenomenon, conducted by University of Arizona Professor Manuela Angelucci, finds that each additional border patrol agent hired:
• Stops roughly 771 to 1,621 individuals from entering the country illegally.
• Encourages roughly 831 to 1,966 illegals already living here to extend their stay, for fear of being caught trying to exit or re-enter the country.
The upshot of putting more manpower on the border, then, is unclear. Taking into account the likely length of "extended stays" by would-be illegal emigrants, it appears that this initiative may yield a net reduction of as many as 503 illegal residents for each additional agent hired, or a net increase that is nearly twice as large (995 illegal residents).
Three factors work to undermine the effectiveness of the Border Patrol:
First, the wage disparity between the U.S. and Latin American countries provides a powerful incentive to cross the border. The U.S. minimum hourly wage is $5.15, while the minimum daily wage in Mexico is $4.50. In Honduras, the minimum daily wage ranges between $3.24 and $5.17, depending on the worker's occupation. Given this economic reality, the potential reward of higher earnings in this country would still outweigh the higher risk of apprehension from beefed up border security. Research indicates that those determined to enter the United States illegally in search of a better life will likely keep trying to cross the border until they succeed.
Second, the deterrent effect of dramatically expanding the Border Patrol will be undercut if those who are caught are not strongly penalized. Currently, the federal government imposes virtually no sanctions (such as fines or detention) on the illegal immigrants it apprehends. Instead, nearly all detained illegal immigrants sign a voluntary departure form promising to return to their home countries. In 1998, the feds prosecuted only 1.25 percent of the 1.6 million illegals they detained. For the overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants, the cost of being apprehended is the loss of a day's wages.
Third, the rigor with which the Border Patrol enforces the law appears to vary according to domestic labor demands. While the agency's public mission is to guard the border, research indicates that it relaxes enforcement when the demand for migrant workers is high.
Professor Gordon H. Hanson of the University of California, San Diego, and Antonio Spilimbergo of the International Monetary Fund found that price increases in low-skilled sectors are associated with decreases in the amount of "linewatch" hours devoted to watching the U.S.-Mexico border by Border Patrol agents. Specifically, when the price of fruits, vegetables and livestock rises, the number of linewatch hours declines. Similarly, when these prices fall, linewatch hours increase. A similar relationship between housing starts in the West and linewatch hours exists as well.
Clearly, a crackdown in border enforcement is not enough to solve the problem of illegal immigration. Immigration reform must also:
• Address the "demand" side of the equation, by cracking down on employers who hire illegal migrants.
• Simplify procedures to accommodate an expanded guest-worker program, so that immigrants may legally fill temporary jobs and easily return their country of origin.
• Encourage economic reforms in countries of origin.
In short, we need to consider far more than the largely symbolic act of hiring thousands of new Border Patrol agents and building fences.
If America wishes to significantly reduce the number of people living here illegally, we must adopt an immigration strategy that encompasses border security, interior enforcement and a lawful temporary work program. Unfortunately, Congress appears enamored of a "border first" approach that sounds tough, but will likely do little to reduce illegal immigration.
David B. Muhlhausen, Ph.D., is a senior policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.
© 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

Everyone's Jewish

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400947.html
Everyone's Jewish
By Charles Krauthammer
Monday, September 25, 2006; A21 [oped] [jewishness and anti Semitism or anti Jewish-ism] [***************]
Strange doings in Virginia. George Allen, former governor, one-term senator, son of a famous football coach and in the midst of a heated battle for reelection, has just been outed as a Jew. An odd turn of events, given that his having Jewish origins has nothing to do with anything in the campaign and that Allen himself was oblivious to the fact until his 83-year-old mother revealed to him last month the secret she had kept concealed for 60 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400947.html
Everyone's Jewish
By Charles Krauthammer
Monday, September 25, 2006; A21 [oped] [jewishness and anti Semitism or anti Jewish-ism] [***************]
Strange doings in Virginia. George Allen, former governor, one-term senator, son of a famous football coach and in the midst of a heated battle for reelection, has just been outed as a Jew. An odd turn of events, given that his having Jewish origins has nothing to do with anything in the campaign and that Allen himself was oblivious to the fact until his 83-year-old mother revealed to him last month the secret she had kept concealed for 60 years.
Apart from its political irrelevance, it seems improbable in the extreme that the cowboy-boots-wearing football scion of Southern manner and speech should turn out to be, at least by origins, a son of Israel. [*****] For Allen, as he quipped to me, it's the explanation for a lifelong affinity for Hebrew National hot dogs. For me, it is the ultimate confirmation of something I have been regaling friends with for 20 years and now, for the advancement of social science, feel compelled to publish. [*********]
Krauthammer's Law: Everyone is Jewish until proven otherwise. I've had a fairly good run with this one. First, it turns out that John Kerry -- windsurfing, French-speaking, Beacon Hill aristocrat -- had two Jewish grandparents. Then Hillary Clinton -- methodical Methodist -- unearths a Jewish stepgrandfather in time for her run as New York senator.
A less jaunty case was that of Madeleine Albright, three of whose Czech grandparents had perished in the Holocaust and who most improbably contended that she had no idea they were Jewish. To which we can add the leading French presidential contender (Nicolas Sarkozy), a former supreme allied commander of NATO (Wesley Clark) and Russia's leading anti-Semite (Vladimir Zhirinovsky). One must have a sense of humor about these things. Even Fidel Castro claims he is from a family of Marranos.
For all its tongue-in-cheek irony, Krauthammer's Law works because when I say "everyone," I don't mean everyone you know personally. Depending on the history and ethnicity of your neighborhood and social circles, there may be no one you know who is Jewish. But if "everyone" means anyone that you've heard of in public life, the law works for two reasons. Ever since the Jews were allowed out of the ghetto and into European society at the dawning of the Enlightenment, they have peopled the arts and sciences, politics, and history in astonishing disproportion to their numbers. [********]
There are 13 million Jews in the world, one-fifth of 1 percent of the world's population. [*****] Yet 20 percent of Nobel Prize winners are Jewish, a staggering hundredfold surplus of renown and genius. This is similarly true for a myriad of other "everyones" -- the household names in music, literature, mathematics, physics, finance, industry, design, comedy, film and, as the doors opened, even politics.
But it is not just Jewish excellence at work here. There is a dark side to these past centuries of Jewish emancipation and achievement -- an unrelenting history of persecution. The result is the other more somber and poignant reason for the Jewishness of public figures being discovered late and with surprise: concealment. [****]
Look at the Albright case. Her distinguished father was Jewish, if tenuously so, until the Nazi invasion. He fled Czechoslovakia and, shortly thereafter, converted. Over the centuries, suffering -- most especially, the Holocaust -- has proved too much for many Jews. Many survivors simply resigned their commission.
For some, the break was defiant and theological: A God who could permit the Holocaust -- ineffable be His reasons -- had so breached the Covenant that it was now forfeit. They were bound no longer to Him or His faith.
For others, the considerations were far more secular and practical. Why subject one's children to the fear and suffering, the stigmatization and marginalization, the prospect of being hunted until death that being Jewish had brought to an entire civilization in Europe?
In fact, that was precisely the reason Etty Lumbroso, Allen's mother, concealed her identity. Brought up as a Jew in French Tunisia during World War II, she saw her father, Felix, imprisoned in a concentration camp. Coming to America was her one great chance to leave that forever behind, for her and for her future children. She married George Allen Sr., apparently never telling her husband's family, her own children or anyone else of her Jewishness. [********]
Such was Etty's choice. Multiply the story in its thousand variations and you have Kerry and Clinton, Albright and Allen, a world of people with a whispered past. Allen's mother tried desperately to bury it forever. In response to published rumors, she finally confessed the truth to him, adding heartbreakingly, "Now you don't love me anymore" -- and then swore him to secrecy.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

'Iraq Is Not in Chaos'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400922.html
'Iraq Is Not in Chaos'
Monday, September 25, 2006; A21
Last Wednesday, Newsweek-Washington Post's Lally Weymouth interviewed Iraqi President Jalal Talabani in New York. Excerpts: [***********]
Q. What happened in your meeting with President Bush?
A. We told him our progress in trade, the economy, training the army . . . and we asked him to provide the Iraqi army with the necessary arms for improving the capacity of the army. We also thanked him for his continuous support of Iraq. Don't forget, we were living under the worst kind of dictatorship.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400922.html
'Iraq Is Not in Chaos'
Monday, September 25, 2006; A21
Last Wednesday, Newsweek-Washington Post's Lally Weymouth interviewed Iraqi President Jalal Talabani in New York. Excerpts: [***********]
Q. What happened in your meeting with President Bush?
A. We told him our progress in trade, the economy, training the army . . . and we asked him to provide the Iraqi army with the necessary arms for improving the capacity of the army. We also thanked him for his continuous support of Iraq. Don't forget, we were living under the worst kind of dictatorship.
What did the president say to you?
That he will continue to support the Iraqi people and will remain there until we ask him to leave.
Reportedly the U.S. government is losing faith in Prime Minister [Nouri al-]Maliki.
President Bush assured us that he will support the Maliki government. We assured him that all Iraqi political parties support Maliki. He has done many important things for Iraq. He has ordered all of the militias to stop their activities.
But they haven't stopped.
They are not operating as before.
When should the U.S. troops leave?
In seven provinces, the American army has withdrawn. The Iraqi army is replacing American forces in many cities. We hope that at the end of this year we will be able to control 12 provinces. We will remain in need of the American and coalition forces until we've trained our army and will be able to face terrorism and defeat it.
How long will that be?
I think within two years we will be able to train our army and have the capacity to face terrorism. . . . The presence of American forces -- even a symbolic one -- will frighten those who are trying to interfere in our affairs.
Are you talking about Iran?
Our prime minister just came back from Iran. He got good promises from Iran on security -- promises that they will never permit any kind of interference in the internal affairs of Iraq.
Do you believe that?
Our prime minister tells me he got real and serious promises. Let us see.
What do you think of the popular theory that Iraq should split into three parts?
I don't think so. Iraq will not break up into three parts. Iraq will remain united -- we will have a united, federal Iraq. Kurds are struggling for the unity of Iraq -- Sunnis and Shiites, the same. There are differences among the Shiites and Sunnis which must be resolved, but not about the partition of Iraq.
So, while many here in the U.S. believe the war is a mess, you believe the opposite.
Iraq is not in chaos. There are many provinces that are calm -- where people live in prosperity. . . . I want to assure the American people that Iraqis are now enjoying democracy and human rights and are struggling to secure the country. [********]
Would you welcome U.S. bases in Kurdistan?
Yes, they are welcome. Kurdistan wants the Americans to stay. In some places Sunnis want the Americans to stay -- Sunnis think the main danger is coming from Iran now. There is a change in the mind of the Sunnis. The Sunnis are for having good relations with America. The [Shiites] have started to think that. [********]
Will the U.S. put bases in Kurdistan?
I think we will be in need of American forces for a long time -- even two military bases to prevent foreign interference. I don't ask to have 100,000 American soldiers -- 10,000 soldiers and two air bases would be enough. This will be [in] the interest of the Iraqi people and of peace in the Middle East. [********]
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Do Unto Your Enemy...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/opinion/25rieckhoff.html
September 25, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Do Unto Your Enemy...
By PAUL RIECKHOFF [oped] [pow/detainees] [recent maneuverings on GOP compromise with white house] [*************]
IN 2002, I attended the Infantry Officer Basic Course at Fort Benning, Ga. At “the Schoolhouse,” every new Army infantry officer spent six months studying the basics of his craft, including the rules of war.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/opinion/25rieckhoff.html
September 25, 2006
Op-Ed Contributor
Do Unto Your Enemy...
By PAUL RIECKHOFF [oped] [pow/detainees] [recent maneuverings on GOP compromise with white house] [*************]
IN 2002, I attended the Infantry Officer Basic Course at Fort Benning, Ga. At “the Schoolhouse,” every new Army infantry officer spent six months studying the basics of his craft, including the rules of war.
I remember a seasoned senior officer explaining the importance of the Geneva Conventions. He said, “When an enemy fighter knows he’ll be treated well by United States forces if he is captured, he is more likely to give up.” [********]
A year later on the streets of Baghdad, I saw countless insurgents surrender when faced with the prospect of a hot meal, a pack of cigarettes and air-conditioning. America’s moral integrity was the single most important weapon my platoon had on the streets of Iraq. It saved innumerable lives, encouraged cooperation with our allies and deterred Iraqis from joining the growing insurgency. [*********]
But those days are over. America’s moral standing has eroded, thanks to its flawed rationale for war and scandals like Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo and Haditha. [******] The last thing we can afford now is to leave Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions open to reinterpretation, as President Bush proposed to do and can still do under the compromise bill that emerged last week. [********]
Blurring the lines on the letter of Article 3 — it governs the treatment of prisoners of war, prohibiting “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment” — will only make our troops’ tough fight even tougher. It will undermine the power of all the Geneva Conventions, immediately endanger American troops captured by the enemy and create a powerful recruiting tool for Al Qaeda.
But the fight over Article 3 concerns not only Al Qaeda and the war in Iraq. It also affects future wars, because when we lower the bar for the treatment of our prisoners, other countries feel justified in doing the same. [***]Four years ago in Liberia, in an attempt to preserve his corrupt authority, President Charles Taylor adopted the Bush administration’s phrase “unlawful combatants” to describe prisoners he wished to try outside of civilian courts. Today Mr. Taylor stands before The Hague accused of war crimes.
It is not hard to imagine that one of our Special Forces soldiers might one day be captured by Iranian forces while investigating a potential nuclear weapons program. [******] What is to stop that soldier from being water-boarded, locked in a cold room for days without sleep as Iranian pop music blares all around him — and finally sentenced to die without a fair trial or the right to see the evidence against him?
If America continues to erode the meaning of the Geneva Conventions, we will cede the ground upon which to prosecute dictators and warlords. We will also become unable to protect our troops if they are perceived as being no more bound by the rule of law than dictators and warlords themselves. [*********]
The question facing America is not whether to continue fighting our enemies in Iraq and beyond but how to do it best. My soldiers and I learned the hard way that policy at the point of a gun cannot, by itself, create democracy. The success of America’s fight against terrorism depends more on the strength of its moral integrity than on troop numbers in Iraq or the flexibility of interrogation options. [*************]
Several Republican combat veterans, including former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Senators Lindsay Graham, John McCain and John Warner, have recognized that the president’s stance on Article 3 is a threat to our troops and to our interests. It would be insulting for the president to assume he knows more about war than they do.
But the compromise the president struck with the senators last week leaves the most significant questions unresolved. The veterans must hold their ground — and the White House must recognize that our troops need all the moral authority they can get. [**********]
Paul Rieckhoff,the executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, isthe author of “Chasing Ghosts: A Soldier’s Fight for America From Baghdad to Washington.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Chemical Plants, Still Unprotected

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/opinion/25mon1.html
September 25, 2006
Editorial
Chemical Plants, Still Unprotected
[editorial on chemical plants] [c.f., recent govt reports on efforts for dhs to takeover chemical and similar plants during times of duress] [**********]
Congress still has done nothing to protect Americans from a terrorist attack on chemical plants. Republican leaders want to give the impression that that has changed. But voters should not fall for the spin. If the leadership goes through with the strategy it seems to have adopted last week to secure these highly vulnerable targets, national security will be the loser.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/opinion/25mon1.html
September 25, 2006
Editorial
Chemical Plants, Still Unprotected
[editorial on chemical plants] [c.f., recent govt reports on efforts for dhs to takeover chemical and similar plants during times of duress] [**********]
Congress still has done nothing to protect Americans from a terrorist attack on chemical plants. Republican leaders want to give the impression that that has changed. But voters should not fall for the spin. If the leadership goes through with the strategy it seems to have adopted last week to secure these highly vulnerable targets, national security will be the loser.
The federal government is spending extraordinary amounts of money and time protecting air travel from terrorist attacks. But Congress has not yet passed a law to secure the nation’s chemical plants, even though an attack on just one plant could kill or injure as many as 100,000 people. The sticking point has been the chemical industry, a heavy contributor to political campaigns, which does not want to pay the cost of reasonable safety measures.
The Senate and the House spent many months carefully developing bipartisan chemical plant security bills. Both measures were far too weak, but they would have finally imposed real safety requirements on the chemical industry. The Republican leadership in Congress blocked both bills from moving forward. Instead, whatever gets done about chemical plant security will apparently be decided behind closed doors, and inserted as a rider to a Department of Homeland Security appropriations bill.
It is outrageous that something as important as chemical plant security is being decided in a back-room deal. It is regrettable that Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, the chairwoman of the committee that produced the Senate bill, does not carry enough influence with her own party’s leadership to get a strong chemical plant security bill passed. The deal itself, the likely details of which have emerged in recent days, is a near-complete cave-in to industry, and yet more proof that when it comes to a choice between homeland security and the desires of corporate America, the Republican leadership always goes with big business.
Any federal chemical plant law should make it clear that states have the right to impose stricter requirements to protect their citizens from harm. The Senate and House bills said this, but the rider apparently will not. A reasonable law would make it clear that the secretary of homeland security can order chemical plants to adopt specific safety measures, like replacing highly dangerous chemicals with ones that pose less of a danger to people in the surrounding area. The House bill did this, but the rider apparently will not give the secretary this basic power.
It is likely that the backroom deal will also exempt water treatment and drinking water facilities from regulation, meaning that millions of Americans could needlessly be put at risk of an attack on a chlorine tank, and that it will make the rules about when and how chemical plants must submit safety plans hopelessly vague.
It is not too late to abandon this bad deal and pass a strong law. In a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, just 25 percent of those asked approved of the job Congress is doing. Its handling of the chemical plant security issue gives a good indication why.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Europeans Favor Admitting Romania and Bulgaria, Then Retooling

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/europe/26europe.html
September 26, 2006
Europeans Favor Admitting Romania and Bulgaria, Then Retooling
By DAN BILEFSKY, International Herald Tribune
By DAN BILEFSKY [N in TNT] [EU and Romania and Bulgaria] [*************]
BRUSSELS, Sept. 25 — Romania and Bulgaria will receive a qualified endorsement on Tuesday to join the European Union on Jan. 1, but the bloc will warn that expansion must then halt until the organization makes needed structural changes, [******] the European Commission president said Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/europe/26europe.html
September 26, 2006
Europeans Favor Admitting Romania and Bulgaria, Then Retooling
By DAN BILEFSKY, International Herald Tribune
By DAN BILEFSKY [N in TNT] [EU and Romania and Bulgaria] [*************]
BRUSSELS, Sept. 25 — Romania and Bulgaria will receive a qualified endorsement on Tuesday to join the European Union on Jan. 1, but the bloc will warn that expansion must then halt until the organization makes needed structural changes, [******] the European Commission president said Monday.
José Manuel Barroso, the commission president, said the admission of the two countries was the last phase of integration in a European Union that has been stretched beyond capacity for now.
“The upcoming enlargement with Bulgaria and Romania will be the last stage of enlargement allowing the reunification of Europe,” he said. “We are not in a position to further integrate Europe without further institutional reform. There are limits to our absorption capacity.” [********]
He added that the European Union’s moribund constitution, which proposed a streamlined voting system to accommodate an expanded membership, would have made further enlargement more manageable. But after the constitution’s emphatic rejection last year in France and the Netherlands, Mr. Barroso said the union either had to revive the charter or make the needed changes another way. [********]
His warning was echoed Monday by Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin of France, [********] who cautioned that further expansion of the bloc — which currently has 25 member nations — risked making it unworkable.
“We need principles on common rules before we can contemplate further stages of enlargement,” he said after meeting in Brussels with Mr. Barroso.
The call to freeze enlargement could affect efforts by Croatia, Serbia, Turkey, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Albania to become members. Croatia could be the country most immediately affected. [********]It has been pursuing political and economic changes with the aim of joining the European Union in 2009.
The statements on Monday reflected what had been called “expansion fatigue” since the union’s enlargement in May 2004 from 15 countries to 25, with 470 million people. Skepticism about the benefits of expansion contributed to the “no” votes on the constitution last year in France and the Netherlands, where there was particular concern about admitting Turkey, with its largely Muslim population.
Enlargement has become a symbol of the European Union’s remoteness from its people, with many Europeans expressing opposition to further expansion.
Some European countries, led by Britain and with the enthusiastic backing of the United States, have supported further expansion because the promise of European Union membership has accelerated steps like Turkey’s revamping of its penal code and the arrest of accused war criminals in Croatia. But countries like France fear that further expansion will undermine their influence while making the bloc so unwieldy it will become paralyzed.
The tougher line on expansion will be reflected in the commission report on Tuesday about Romania and Bulgaria, which will warn of harsh penalties if the countries do not complete required steps, including tackling corruption and organized crime.
The report by the European Commission, the European Union’s executive body, will serve as a recommendation on whether to admit the countries, but the ultimate decision rests with European Union member countries, which will decide before the end of the year.
The two countries hope that membership will help raise their per capita income, which is one-third the European Union average.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Hamas Lawmakers to Remain in Jail

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/middleeast/26hamas.html
September 26, 2006
Hamas Lawmakers to Remain in Jail
By THE NEW YORK TIMES [Israel] [holding Hamas lawmakers in Israeli jails] [Israeli courts have been wrestling with whether Israel has the right to hold them and so on] [followup] [******************]
JERUSALEM, Sept. 25 — An Israeli military appeals court in the West Bank on Monday reversed an earlier ruling and said that 18 Hamas lawmakers and cabinet ministers would have to remain in jail pending trial. [*********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/middleeast/26hamas.html
September 26, 2006
Hamas Lawmakers to Remain in Jail
By THE NEW YORK TIMES [Israel] [holding Hamas lawmakers in Israeli jails] [Israeli courts have been wrestling with whether Israel has the right to hold them and so on] [followup] [******************]
JERUSALEM, Sept. 25 — An Israeli military appeals court in the West Bank on Monday reversed an earlier ruling and said that 18 Hamas lawmakers and cabinet ministers would have to remain in jail pending trial. [*********]
A military court on Sept. 12 ordered Israel to release the Hamas members, but military prosecutors appealed. The men are charged with belonging to a terrorist organization. Aziz Dweik, the speaker of parliament and one of those being held, called the ruling a political decision. [********]
Israel has detained about 40 Palestinian legislators and cabinet ministers in the West Bank over the past three months. The crackdown began after Palestinian militants seized an Israeli soldier on June 25. [*********]
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Israeli Premier and Saudi Said to Hold Secret Meeting

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/middleeast/26mideast.html
September 26, 2006
Israeli Premier and Saudi Said to Hold Secret Meeting
By GREG MYRE [Israel’s PM Ehud Olmert apparently met with a senior Saudi interlocutor] [certainly sounds plausible] [Saudi cannot be happy about Hezbollah gain in popularity since its 34-day war with Israel] [Shiia crescent and so on] [********]
JERUSALEM, Sept. 25 — An Israeli newspaper reported Monday that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert held a secret meeting about 10 days ago with a senior Saudi Arabian official to discuss issues that included Iran’s nuclear program and prospects for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. [*********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/middleeast/26mideast.html
September 26, 2006
Israeli Premier and Saudi Said to Hold Secret Meeting
By GREG MYRE [Israel’s PM Ehud Olmert apparently met with a senior Saudi interlocutor] [certainly sounds plausible] [Saudi cannot be happy about Hezbollah gain in popularity since its 34-day war with Israel] [Shiia crescent and so on] [********]
JERUSALEM, Sept. 25 — An Israeli newspaper reported Monday that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert held a secret meeting about 10 days ago with a senior Saudi Arabian official to discuss issues that included Iran’s nuclear program and prospects for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. [*********]
In response to the reports, Mr. Olmert and his aides said he did not meet with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. However, they declined to answer directly when asked if he met with any other senior Saudi leader. [************]
“I did not meet with the Saudi king and I did not meet with anyone who should cause a sensation in the media,” [*****]Mr. Olmert was quoted as saying on Ynetnews.com, a Web site affiliated with Yediot Aharonot, the Israeli newspaper that first carried the story.
If a meeting did take place, it would indicate a significant development for two countries that have never had diplomatic ties. Officials from Israel and Saudi Arabia have quietly shared intelligence information, but have never met publicly, said David Kimche, chief of the Israel Council on Foreign Relations. [*************]
Both countries are concerned about Iran and its nuclear program, and — with a majority of Saudi Arabia’s Muslims being Sunnis — are also concerned about links between Shiite Muslim groups stretching from Iran to Lebanon, [************]he said.
Yediot Aharonot, citing unidentified government officials, said Mr. Olmert’s meeting took place with an unidentified official who is close to the Saudi king. It did not say where the talks took place.
Later Monday, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported on its Web site that there might have been a meeting between one of Mr. Olmert’s envoys and a Saudi official in a third country.
In Saudi Arabia, there was no official comment.
In recent weeks, Saudi Arabia has sought to revive a 2002 peace initiative that calls on Arab countries to normalize ties with Israel in exchange for the creation of a Palestinian state along Israel’s pre-1967 war borders. Israel has rejected the plan, though Mr. Olmert praised King Abdullah when discussing the proposal. [*******]
Israel has full diplomatic relations with just two Arab countries, Egypt and Jordan. [**********] There have been lower-level ties with other states, though many of those dealings have been frozen during the Israeli-Palestinian fighting over the past six years. Saudi Arabia is among many Arab countries that have never had official ties with Israel, and even the suggestion of an informal contact is considered an extremely delicate matter.
“If there was a meeting, and I believe there was, the Saudis obviously thought it would be very discreet,” Mr. Kimche said. “I’m sure they are shocked this has come out.”
In July, when the Lebanese group Hezbollah staged a cross-border raid, igniting a one-month war with Israel, Saudi Arabia was among several Arab nations that initially criticized Hezbollah. It later criticized Israel for its intense bombardment of Lebanon, which resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths. [********]
Still, Mr. Olmert told Ynetnews.com that Saudi Arabia showed “responsibility and judgment” during the war.
Yediot Aharonot reported last week that Saudi Arabia and Israel began holding discussions during the fighting this summer. In an interview with Mr. Olmert last week, the newspaper asked him whether there had been contacts. “I do not have to answer every question,” Mr. Olmert replied.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

U.N. Inquiry Into Death of Lebanon’s Ex-Premier Focuses on Killers

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/middleeast/26nations.html
September 26, 2006
U.N. Inquiry Into Death of Lebanon’s Ex-Premier Focuses on Killers
By WARREN HOGE [UN] [Mehlis report investigation from couple years ago] [now renewed under another name but the same report: did Syria’s high govt officials order and or participate in the assassination of Rafik Hariri?] [followup] [*********]
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 25 — The director of the United Nations commission investigating the killing of Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister of Lebanon, reported Monday that it had confirmed preliminary findings that the attack was the work of a suicide bomber but was still pursuing the identities of the participants in the highly organized plot. [*******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/middleeast/26nations.html
September 26, 2006
U.N. Inquiry Into Death of Lebanon’s Ex-Premier Focuses on Killers
By WARREN HOGE [UN] [Mehlis report investigation from couple years ago] [now renewed under another name but the same report: did Syria’s high govt officials order and or participate in the assassination of Rafik Hariri?] [followup] [*********]
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 25 — The director of the United Nations commission investigating the killing of Rafik Hariri, the former prime minister of Lebanon, reported Monday that it had confirmed preliminary findings that the attack was the work of a suicide bomber but was still pursuing the identities of the participants in the highly organized plot. [*******]
In a largely technical 22-page report, Serge Brammertz, the prosecutor leading the inquiry, said he had developed evidence from the crime scene about the bombing to a level suitable for presentation to a court and was intent on doing the same thing with evidence pointing to the conspirators. [********]
Mr. Hariri, who opposed Syrian domination of his country, was killed along with 22 others when a huge truck bomb exploded as his convoy was moving along a downtown Beirut street on Feb. 14, 2005. The public outrage and mass street demonstrations that followed led Syria to comply with international demands and a Security Council resolution calling on it to withdraw its troops from Lebanon after a 29-year presence. [********]
Mr. Brammertz is scheduled to brief the Security Council on his report on Friday.
The report was the third from Mr. Brammertz, a Belgian on leave as deputy prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, who succeeded Detlev Mehlis [********]of Germany in January as director of the commission. The Brammertz reports [******]have been more judicial and technical in tone than the two produced by Mr. Mehlis, which read like crime narratives and pointedly accused Syrian intelligence forces of directing the attack and obstructing his inquiry. [***********]
Mr. Brammertz said he had a better experience with the Syrians. “The cooperation that the commission has received from the Syrian Arab Republic has remained generally satisfactory, and the commission continues to require its full support in providing information and facilitating interviews with individuals located in Syrian territory,” [*****]he said in the report.
He said he was also getting “ongoing strong support” from the Lebanese authorities, even during the 34-day war between Israel and Hezbollah this summer. The combat forced the entire international staff of the commission to relocate to Cyprus for safety reasons, he said.
John R. Bolton, the United States ambassador, said Monday that he was impressed by the methodical manner with which Mr. Brammertz was proceeding. He said that from many conversations with Mr. Brammertz, “I know that he’s impatient with bureaucratic obstacles and he’s pushing ahead.”
Mr. Bolton noted that it was important as a case neared trial for a prosecutor to establish reasons for eliminating alternative theories that defense lawyers might pursue as well as to establish the evidence to support the prosecutor’s theory of how the incident actually occurred.
The investigation has previously established that the planners of the attack were organized and meticulous and demonstrated a sophisticated knowledge of how to stage such killings.
The commission said it had discovered links between the Hariri bombing and 14 other political assassinations in Lebanon that the Security Council asked it in June to review.
The report suggested that this would help it establish the “political environment” surrounding Mr. Hariri. Before his death, Mr. Hariri had been warned of threats against him from the Syrian government. [***********]
The mandate of the commission, created by the Council in December 2005, has been extended once and is scheduled to run until June 15, 2007.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

In Lebanon, a War's Lethal Harvest

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501500.html
In Lebanon, a War's Lethal Harvest
Threat of Unexploded Bombs Paralyzes the South
By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A01 [Lebanon] [sad but inevitable aftermath of war] [namely, unexploded munitions continue to kill civilians returing to their homes] [and will continue for some time probably] [if Israel used US cluster bombs it may have violated end-user agreements that govern how US munitions sold to others may be used] [followup] [******************]
DEIR QANOUN, Lebanon -- The messages scrawled in red on the concrete, stone and cinder-block walls near Ali Saqlawi's house are worded differently but mean the same: "CB," "cb strike," "cluster strike." Arrows point with deceptive precision in every direction. Saqlawi, a mechanic, needs no warning. He has already seen the thousands of bomblets the size of cellphones that littered his town, the detritus from hundreds of cluster bombs fired in the last days of the 33-day war with Israel. [******]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501500.html
In Lebanon, a War's Lethal Harvest
Threat of Unexploded Bombs Paralyzes the South
By Anthony Shadid
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A01 [Lebanon] [sad but inevitable aftermath of war] [namely, unexploded munitions continue to kill civilians returing to their homes] [and will continue for some time probably] [if Israel used US cluster bombs it may have violated end-user agreements that govern how US munitions sold to others may be used] [followup] [******************]
DEIR QANOUN, Lebanon -- The messages scrawled in red on the concrete, stone and cinder-block walls near Ali Saqlawi's house are worded differently but mean the same: "CB," "cb strike," "cluster strike." Arrows point with deceptive precision in every direction. Saqlawi, a mechanic, needs no warning. He has already seen the thousands of bomblets the size of cellphones that littered his town, the detritus from hundreds of cluster bombs fired in the last days of the 33-day war with Israel. [******]
"I saw them where your feet are," he said, pointing to the ground next to the rubble of what was once his house and garage. He waved toward the parched lemon groves across the cratered street. "You'll find them there," he said. He pointed at the olive orchard behind him, awaiting a reluctant harvest by workers too fearful to enter. "It's all bombs over there," he said.
The scourge of munitions from the cluster bombs now littering southern Lebanon, mostly American-made but some manufactured in Israel, will be a "lasting legacy," the United Nations has said. [********]U.N. officials estimate that the Israeli military fired 90 percent of the bombs during the last 72 hours of the conflict, which began on July 12 after Hezbollah fighters seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid and ended with a cease-fire on Aug. 14. As many as 1 million of the bomblets are unexploded, they say, wounding or killing three people a day. The threat of stumbling across a bomblet has paralyzed life in parts of the south that depend on the harvest of tobacco and now-abandoned groves of bananas, olives and citrus.
"No one's going into the orchards," the 27-year-old Saqlawi said.
His brow sweaty, he watched a bulldozer claw at the wreckage of his house and business. Gray dust billowed up; iron rods still crusted with concrete snapped forward. To the side were the contents of his garage -- mangled car parts and burned tires.
"Rubble and bombs," he said.
International law does not prohibit the use of cluster bombs, which can spread dozens, sometimes hundreds, of smaller munitions, or bomblets, over an area the size of two football fields. But because of their wide dispersal, human rights groups have condemned their use in civilian areas, [*******]saying they violate international bans on indiscriminate attacks. The Reagan administration imposed a six-year ban on their sale to Israel after a congressional investigation determined that Israel had misused the weapons during its 1982 invasion of Lebanon. The State Department said it is investigating whether Israel violated agreements with the United States on their use during the conflict this summer. [*********]
U.N. officials have said they are still grappling with a problem whose scope has grown by the day. About 100 de-miners on contract to the United Nations are trying to defuse munitions in which as many as two in five of the bomblets failed to detonate. They said many of the bomblets might have failed to explode because they struck soft ground, were snared in trees or other obstructions or were fired too low to the ground to detonate on impact.
Early on, officials estimated that cluster munitions littered 400 sites, anywhere from a house to an entire village. The number now stands at 590, and U.N. officials said they are dumbfounded by the intensity of the firing in the war’s last days, when it was clear a cease-fire was approaching.
“It’s impossible for me to work out what the logic was,” said David Shearer, the U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Lebanon. “To me, it just seems outrageous that it would happen as it did.” [*********]
Added Chris Clark, the program manager for the U.N. Mine Action Coordination Center: "What we've seen are strikes on top of strikes on top of strikes on top of strikes. It's tantamount to shooting a dead body 20 times."
The Israeli military has limited its statements on the matter, reiterating that the munitions are not banned. Last weekend, a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces pointed to a public statement first made during the war. "All the weapons and munitions used by the IDF are legal under international law and their use conforms with international standards," it read. [*********]
Hezbollah launched an average of about 100 rockets a day into Israel during much of the conflict, climbing to 240 near the end, with many of the rockets landing in populated civilian areas. Some U.N. officials speculated that the Israeli military's inability to stop the rocket firing led it to use weapons that sprayed across a wider area. The result was what U.N. officials euphemistically refer to as "contamination" -- a density of unexploded munitions higher than that left in Kosovo in 1999 and in Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. [**************]
In the 2 1/2 years after the Kosovo conflict, de-miners cleared fewer than 25,000 cluster bomblets, Clark said. In four weeks here, they have cleared more than 30,000 bomblets. Adding to the problem, the landscape remains littered with as many as 400,000 land mines left by Israel and its Lebanese allies during the occupation that ended in 2000.
So far, U.N. officials say, exploding cluster bomblets have killed 14 people and wounded 90 since the war ended. [*********]
"In the areas where there were strikes, it's the most extensive contamination I've ever seen," said Clark, who has worked in Kosovo, Sudan, Kuwait, Iraq, Bosnia and Afghanistan. It "is just off the scale."
In the town of Majdel Selm, a short distance from where bulldozers were demolishing the bombed-out remnants of houses, Simon Lovell, a de-miner with the British firm Bactec International, pointed to an American-made bomblet that he had marked off with tape and wooden stakes. Farther off, amid peach, orange and olive trees, lay three others, easy to miss with an untrained eye.
"We treat them almost as a minefield," he said.
Lovell, a former naval diver with a tanned face and adrenaline-fueled exuberance, used to disarm sea mines. He pointed out the bomblets, examples of what he called "a pretty unsmart bomb." The coming rains, he said, would bury them deeper, making them even harder to spot. When they are detonated, they can hurl shrapnel 40 yards.
"The task here is going to be immense," he said.
Shrapnel pockmarked the unfinished two-story house perched over the orchard, its windows still broken. The owner, Marwan Abu Taam, said he and his wife, Shirin Rida, stayed with relatives during the war. When he returned, he walked through the field three or four times without seeing the bomblets, despite the tell-tale signs: a piece of white plastic that keeps the bomblets in tidy rows inside the shell and the white ribbon that helps guide them as they fall. His wife and 2-year-old son, Ali, won't walk outside.
"No one can move anywhere on the land," she said, as her son leaned against her leg.
Southern Lebanon, a furrowed land of valleys and rock-strewn hills, is one of the country's poorest regions. Half the population relies entirely on agriculture. Aid officials say some farmers have taken to burning their unharvested crops in hopes of detonating the bomblets.
Along the barren hills outside Majdel Selm, several goats killed by the bomblets were piled up, the stench of their rotting carcasses carried by the breeze.
"You know how you sprinkle seeds on the ground?" asked Hussein Ali, a 47-year-old municipal worker who had brought Lovell to a hilltop where dozens of bomblets lay unexploded. "That's what the bombs are like down here."
Ali and some of his neighbors acknowledged that there were Hezbollah fighters in the town. But as they looked at the bare hillsides, the men wondered aloud about the military logic of targeting such fields with cluster munitions.
"Maybe if there were trees or something," Ali said.
In Saqlawi's village of Deir Qanoun, Lovell found four holes where residents had picked up 1,013 bomblets on their own. Residents said landowners were paying the more daring among them $1 to $2 for each bomblet they disposed of. The bomblets were piled in crates and boxes. Along the road, a tractor driver asked a passerby, "Will I die if I go in there?"
Down the street, Saqlawi hopped among the piles of rubble where he used to live with his wife and 6-month-old son, Hussein.
"Everything's gone," he said, "the house, the trees, the olive harvest. Everything's gone."
He gave a bitter grin. "Praise God," he said.
Correspondent Scott Wilson in Jerusalem contributed to this report.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Afghan Women's Activist Assassinated by Gunmen

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501630.html
Afghan Women's Activist Assassinated by Gunmen
By Noor Khan
Associated Press
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A15 [Afghan] [hydra] [insurgency] [this year’s spring-summer offensive has been significant one since 2001 toppling of Taliban and their alQaeda clients—or vice versa] [sadly, the US is so bogged down in –Iraq and the administration so bogged down in legacy and saving a looming midterm elections that Afghan has been allowed to slide—to America’s peril in my view] [more evidence of worsening situation] [***************] [ditto]
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Sept. 25 -- A teacher for more than three decades and an advocate for women's rights, Safia Ama Jan ran an underground school for girls during Taliban rule. On Monday, two men on a motorbike gunned her down as she left for work -- identifying their target despite her full burqa .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501630.html
Afghan Women's Activist Assassinated by Gunmen
By Noor Khan
Associated Press
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A15 [Afghan] [hydra] [insurgency] [this year’s spring-summer offensive has been significant one since 2001 toppling of Taliban and their alQaeda clients—or vice versa] [sadly, the US is so bogged down in –Iraq and the administration so bogged down in legacy and saving a looming midterm elections that Afghan has been allowed to slide—to America’s peril in my view] [more evidence of worsening situation] [***************] [ditto]
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Sept. 25 -- A teacher for more than three decades and an advocate for women's rights, Safia Ama Jan ran an underground school for girls during Taliban rule. On Monday, two men on a motorbike gunned her down as she left for work -- identifying their target despite her full burqa .
The assassination underscored the increasingly brazen attacks by militants on government officials and schools in Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai, who was visiting Washington, condemned the killing as an act of radicalism.
"The enemies of Afghanistan must understand that we have millions of people like [Ama Jan] who will continue to serve this great nation," he said.
Ama Jan, a provincial director for the Ministry of Women's Affairs, was slain outside her home in the southern city of Kandahar, said Tawfiq ul-Ulhakim Parant, senior adviser to the women's ministry in Kabul. Mullah Sadullah, a regional Taliban commander, asserted responsibility for the killing.
"The enemy of Afghanistan killed her, but they should know it will not derail women from the path we are on," Fariba Ahmedi, a parliament member, said at Ama Jan's funeral in a packed Shiite Muslim mosque.
In a statement, Laura Bush expressed sympathy and said the killing showed "how the struggle to end terrorism is also a struggle to preserve the fundamental rights and dignity of women."
Ama Jan's death comes at a time of rising violence at the hands of Taliban fighters. This month, a suicide bomber assassinated a provincial governor, and militants killed 19 construction workers. Attacks on schools are also increasing. Militants last year burned down or attacked 146 schools, and this year have attacked 158 schools, an official said.
The school attacks appear motivated partly by Taliban opposition to education for girls, but they also seem to be part of a broader strategy to undermine Karzai's U.S.-backed government.
Bush applauded Ama Jan's education efforts. "By educating its women, Afghanistan will produce more inspiring leaders like Safia Ama Jan -- women willing to risk everything to see their country peaceful and free," she said.
Ama Jan, who was said to be in her sixties, was urged to quit her work by her family because of the growing danger, said her son, Naqibullah. "She said, 'It's my country, I won't quit my job. I want to do this work for our women, for our country,' " he said.
In Kandahar alone, Ama Jan had opened six schools where almost 1,000 women learned how to bake and sell their goods at market. She also taught them to use computers.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Gunmen Kill Afghan Official Who Backed Women’s Rights

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/asia/26afghan.html
September 26, 2006
Gunmen Kill Afghan Official Who Backed Women’s Rights
By CARLOTTA GALL [Afghan] [hydra] [insurgency] [this year’s spring-summer offensive has been significant one since 2001 toppling of Taliban and their alQaeda clients—or vice versa] [sadly, the US is so bogged down in –Iraq and the administration so bogged down in legacy and saving a looming midterm elections that Afghan has been allowed to slide—to America’s peril in my view] [more evidence of worsening situation] [***************]
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Sept. 25 — A senior Afghan official specializing in women’s rights was gunned down here on her way to work on Monday morning by suspected Taliban gunmen. [*********] It was the highest-level assassination of a woman in Afghanistan in the five years since the Taliban were ousted from power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/asia/26afghan.html
September 26, 2006
Gunmen Kill Afghan Official Who Backed Women’s Rights
By CARLOTTA GALL [Afghan] [hydra] [insurgency] [this year’s spring-summer offensive has been significant one since 2001 toppling of Taliban and their alQaeda clients—or vice versa] [sadly, the US is so bogged down in –Iraq and the administration so bogged down in legacy and saving a looming midterm elections that Afghan has been allowed to slide—to America’s peril in my view] [more evidence of worsening situation] [***************]
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan, Sept. 25 — A senior Afghan official specializing in women’s rights was gunned down here on her way to work on Monday morning by suspected Taliban gunmen. [*********] It was the highest-level assassination of a woman in Afghanistan in the five years since the Taliban were ousted from power.
Safia Amajan, 65, had served as chief of the women’s affairs department in Kandahar Province for five years, working for women’s rights and education and vocational training. A former teacher and high school principal, she was well known and much liked in Kandahar.
“It is a very tragic loss,” said Sonja Bachmann, a United Nations political officer who knew Ms. Amajan well. “She did a good job, she worked in a very low-key way and worked hard to raise awareness about women’s issues.”
A spokesman claiming to speak for the Taliban claimed responsibility for the killing in a telephone call, Reuters reported.
Hundreds of women gathered at the city’s main Shiite mosque, where Ms. Amajan’s body lay wrapped in a white shroud decorated with golden Koranic script, to mourn her loss. “There is no security for anyone now in Kandahar,” one woman said, sobbing through her veil.
Ms. Amajan was shot as she was walking from her house up a narrow street to the main road shortly after 7 a.m., said shopkeepers in the area.
A gunman shot her four times with a pistol, said Muhammad Haidar, an official who worked in her office.
Her nephew, Muhammad Asif, 45, said that no one reported seeing the gunmen. “A carpenter was close to the scene and heard the shots and he called people,” he said. Her husband also heard the shooting, came out of their house and found her lying in the street, Mr. Asif said.
The police were looking for two men who escaped by motorcycle, said the provincial governor, Asadullah Khaled, who went to the crime scene. The police found tracks of the motorcycle driving away from the scene, he said.
Ms. Amajan preferred to take a taxi or public transport, even though her office had cars and drivers, her nephew said. “She wanted to keep a low profile,” he said. “We wanted her to come and live with us in town, but she used to say, ‘If it’s God’s will, they will take me anywhere.’ ”
Mr. Haidar said that she had not received specific threats but that everyone in the office knew of the danger posed by the Taliban, who have in the past attacked teachers and government officials. In another recent high-level assassination, a suicide bomber killed the governor of Paktia Province.
But to gun down a woman in the street, in this strictly conservative tribal society, is rare and shocking to many, and it has reinforced the fear in this southern city, which was once the Taliban spiritual headquarters, at the continuing violence and growing Taliban threats. A United Nations official noted that five people were kidnapped Sunday in the city.
“People are scared, of course,” Mr. Haidar said. “How can we feel secure when the head of our department is killed in front of her house?”
Ms. Amajan’s relatives and employees ruled out any personal enmity as a motive, saying she was a religious woman, the mother of an 18-year-old son and a person of unimpeachable character.
“She was a poor woman, from a poor background and was very well connected to the local women’s networks in Kandahar,” Ms. Bachmann said. “In the south things are very difficult, and she worked to improve things for women — and she worked very well with us in the United Nations.”
President Hamid Karzai, on a visit to the United States, condemned the killing. “The enemies of Afghanistan are trying to kill those people who are working for the peace and prosperity of Afghanistan,” he said in a statement released in Kabul.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Attacks in Afghanistan Kill Soldiers and Civilians

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Afghanistan.html
September 26, 2006
Attacks in Afghanistan Kill Soldiers and Civilians
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:27 a.m. ET [Afghan] [hydra] [insurgency] [this year’s spring-summer offensive has been significant one since 2001 toppling of Taliban and their alQaeda clients—or vice versa] [sadly, the US is so bogged down in –Iraq and the administration so bogged down in legacy and saving a looming midterm elections that Afghan has been allowed to slide—to America’s peril in my view] [more evidence of worsening situation] [***************]
LASHKAR GAH, Afghanistan (AP) -- A suicide bomber struck outside the compound of a southern Afghan governor on Tuesday, killing 18 people, including several Muslim pilgrims seeking paperwork to travel to Mecca, [*******]officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Afghanistan.html
September 26, 2006
Attacks in Afghanistan Kill Soldiers and Civilians
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:27 a.m. ET [Afghan] [hydra] [insurgency] [this year’s spring-summer offensive has been significant one since 2001 toppling of Taliban and their alQaeda clients—or vice versa] [sadly, the US is so bogged down in –Iraq and the administration so bogged down in legacy and saving a looming midterm elections that Afghan has been allowed to slide—to America’s peril in my view] [more evidence of worsening situation] [***************]
LASHKAR GAH, Afghanistan (AP) -- A suicide bomber struck outside the compound of a southern Afghan governor on Tuesday, killing 18 people, including several Muslim pilgrims seeking paperwork to travel to Mecca, [*******]officials said.
The attacker detonated his suicide vest when Afghan soldiers stopped him at the compound's security gate, said Ghulam Muhiddin, spokesman for the Helmand provincial governor.
The bomber had been walking toward a vehicle of the private military contractors who provide security for the governor, said Squadron Leader Jason Chalk, a NATO spokesman.
Nine Afghan soldiers and nine civilians were killed, said Rahmatullah Mohammdi, director of the hospital in Lashkar Gah. Seventeen people were wounded, he said.
The governor, Mohammed Daoud Safi, was inside the compound and was not injured in the attack.
Among the civilians waiting outside the compound were Afghan pilgrims seeking permission to travel to Mecca in Saudi Arabia, Muhiddin said. The main mosque in Lashkar Gah sits across from the compound. [********]
Qari Yousaf Ahmadi, who claims to be a spokesman for Taliban affairs in southern Afghanistan, contacted The Associated Press and said the militant group was responsible for the attack. [*******]Ahmadi's exact ties to the militants are not known.
Militants have stepped up attacks in southern Afghanistan in recent months, including the use of roadside and suicide bombs. Twenty-one people died in Lashkar Gah in late August when a suicide bomber tried to kill an ex-police chief, and last week militants killed 19 construction workers riding on a bus in neighboring Kandahar province. [*****]
Meanwhile, a bomb attack Tuesday against a NATO patrol south of the Afghan capital killed an Italian soldier and a child, officials said.
A remote-control bomb planted under a bridge detonated when a three-vehicle military convoy passed by, said Ali Shah Paktiawal, Kabul police criminal director.
Chief Corp. Maj. Giorgio Langella was killed in the blast, and five Italian soldiers were wounded, the Italian Defense Ministry said in Rome.
A child riding in a car behind the NATO convoy was killed, NATO said. Four other civilians in the car were wounded.
Two people were detained for questioning in the blast, which went off about five miles south of Kabul, police said.
The bloodied body of the slain soldier, with his bullet-proof vest still on, lay on the ground alongside his weapon shortly after the blast, according to an Associated Press reporter at the scene.
Six Italian troops carried the victim's body to a military helicopter that landed near the blast site. Other helicopters hovered overhead as police and Italian troops cordoned off the area.
Italy [*****]has some 1,600 troops in the 20,000-strong NATO-led force in Afghanistan.
Taliban-linked militants have stepped up their attacks across Afghanistan the last several months, though attacks in Kabul are still much rarer than in the country's south. [*********]
Attacks in the capital are mostly aimed at foreign military troops. On Sept. 8, a suicide car bomber rammed into a U.S. Humvee, killing 16 people, including two U.S. soldiers. The attack was Kabul's deadliest since the 2001 toppling of the Taliban. [******]
In eastern Paktika province, seven armed men died when an explosives vest one of them was carrying detonated in the Yousef Kheil district on Monday, said Gov. Mohammad Akram Akhpelwak. There were no other casualties.
A suicide bomber on foot killed himself Tuesday while trying to attack a vehicle carrying security workers traveling to the border in Khost province, in eastern Afghanistan, said Gen. Mohammad Ayub, the provincial police chief. No one else was injured in the blast.
Copyright 2006 The Associated Press

Europe Panel Faults Sifting of Bank Data

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/us/26swift.html
September 26, 2006
Europe Panel Faults Sifting of Bank Data
By ERIC LICHTBLAU [EU panel] [one place where the US has had success in gsave is financial transactions of Jihadis hydra] [now some of those tools being scrutinized as potentially improper] [*****************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — A European Union panel has serious doubts about the legality of a Bush administration program that monitors international financial transactions, the group’s leader said Monday, [****] and plans to recommend tighter controls to prevent privacy abuses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/us/26swift.html
September 26, 2006
Europe Panel Faults Sifting of Bank Data
By ERIC LICHTBLAU [EU panel] [one place where the US has had success in gsave is financial transactions of Jihadis hydra] [now some of those tools being scrutinized as potentially improper] [*****************]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — A European Union panel has serious doubts about the legality of a Bush administration program that monitors international financial transactions, the group’s leader said Monday, [****] and plans to recommend tighter controls to prevent privacy abuses.
“We don’t see the legal basis under the European law, and we see the need for some changes,” said Peter Schaar, a German official who leads the panel, in a telephone interview. The group is to deliver a final report this week in Brussels, and Mr. Schaar said he expected it to conclude that the program might violate European law restricting government access to confidential banking records.
The program, started by the Bush administration weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, allows analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency and other American intelligence agencies to search for possible terrorist financing activity among millions of largely international financial transactions that are processed by a banking cooperative known as Swift, which is based in Belgium.
The European Union panel will not call for the program to be stopped, officials said. But it is expected to recommend that additional safeguards be put in place to check how financial records are shared with American intelligence officials. For the last three years, a Washington consulting firm, Booz Allen Hamilton, has audited the program, but Mr. Schaar said his panel would recommend that an outside auditor from Europe be brought in to protect against abuses. [********]
“That’s a crucial point for us,” he said. “There must be independent supervision. We don’t see such independent supervision under the current situation, and this must be established.” [**********]
The Treasury Department, which oversees the program, declined to comment Monday on the panel’s findings.
The Bush administration has strongly defended the effectiveness and legality of the once-secret program as a tool in fighting terrorism, and it sharply criticized The New York Times for disclosing the arrangement in June. Although one government intelligence analyst was removed from the Swift team for conducting improper searches, officials at the Treasury Department and Booz Allen say they have not found any broader instances of abuse in the program.
Critics, including many privacy advocates and some banking industry executives, have questioned the propriety of giving American intelligence officials broad access, without court orders, to private data. [**********]
The disclosure of the program prompted several investigations in Europe and Canada. The European Union panel, which includes representatives from 25 countries and is formally known as the Article 29 data protection working party, would be the first international group to weigh in on the legal issues. Its findings, while advisory in nature, are expected to carry considerable influence in Europe in the debate over the program, [*********]officials say.
The European Union panel begins meeting in Brussels on Tuesday, and Mr. Schaar said he expected it would adopt a report based on a draft that has already been circulated among the members. While he would not discuss the exact language because it had not been finalized, he said the report would be “critical” of the legal basis for the American government’s use of the Swift data.
The panel, which interviewed Swift officials and other banking industry executives over the last several months, has focused on legal and policy issues. A parallel review by banking officials in Belgium is looking more closely at the actual operations of the banking program.
Joe Lockhart, a spokesman for Swift, said the group would await the release of the European Union report before commenting on its findings. But he added that “Swift complied with valid subpoenas issued by the United States Treasury Department and believes it has acted in accordance with U.S. and European data privacy law.”
The Treasury Department has used broad administrative subpoenas to get access to transactions from Swift, often millions of records at a time. While a small proportion of the transactions route money entirely within the United States, the program is focused on tracking money coming into and out of the United States or foreign-to-foreign transactions. American officials say the intelligence gleaned from the transactions has been valuable in identifying possible terrorist financiers.
Some legal experts agree with administration officials that the program is legal, while others say it appears to fall into a gray area in American law regarding the protection of confidential banking records.
But legal experts say banking privacy restrictions imposed by the European Union and others in Europe impose tight restrictions on how private banking data can be shared, even in the course of law enforcement and intelligence-gathering investigations.
“The main item from my point of view is that the fundamental civil rights of the European citizens have to be safeguarded,” said Mr. Schaar, who also serves as the federal data protection commissioner for Germany. “There are doubts about the legality of this program.”
The group’s report comes at a time of tensions between Europe and the United States over American counterterrorism policies.
Europeans have objected, for instance, to the C.I.A.’s operation of formerly secret prisons in Europe for the interrogation of “high value” terrorism suspects. And the European Union’s highest court in May struck down an agreement giving the United States access to personal details about passengers on trans-Atlantic flights, forcing the United States and its European partners to rework the agreement.
Privacy advocates, who brought formal complaints over the Swift program in 40 countries after its disclosure, say they hope that a critical ruling from the European Union working group will lead to similar changes.
“What we’re hoping is that they’ll basically tell Swift what they did was illegal,” said Gus Hosein, a senior fellow at Privacy International in London, which brought the complaints over the program. He said he expected that a critical report from the Article 29 group could lead to fuller investigations of the program, financial penalties against Swift in those countries where it operates, and possibly a suspension of the program.
As part of the European Union panel’s review, Privacy International and the American Civil Liberties Union prepared a report criticizing Booz Allen’s role in monitoring the program. The report raised questions about the firm’s objectivity, citing its long history as a government contractor and the fact that former intelligence officials are among its executives.
But Booz Allen rejected such charges on Monday. “What clients are buying from us,” said Marie Lerch, a spokeswoman for the firm, “is independence and objectivity.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

In Book, Musharraf Expands on North Korean Nuclear Link

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/asia/26musharraf.html
September 26, 2006
In Book, Musharraf Expands on North Korean Nuclear Link
By DAVID E. SANGER [musharraf on AQ Khan] [new book in which, among other things, he claims the US threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age unless the cooperated against al Qaeda/Taliban] [***********] [use psci 498] [gala]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan wrote in a memoir published Monday that he now believes that the equipment sent to North Korea several years ago by Pakistan’s nuclear chief included some of Pakistan’s most technologically advanced nuclear centrifuges. [*********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/asia/26musharraf.html
September 26, 2006
In Book, Musharraf Expands on North Korean Nuclear Link
By DAVID E. SANGER [musharraf on AQ Khan] [new book in which, among other things, he claims the US threatened to bomb Pakistan back to the stone age unless the cooperated against al Qaeda/Taliban] [***********] [use psci 498] [gala]
WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 — President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan wrote in a memoir published Monday that he now believes that the equipment sent to North Korea several years ago by Pakistan’s nuclear chief included some of Pakistan’s most technologically advanced nuclear centrifuges. [*********]
The assertion deepened the mystery about how much progress North Korea has made in what is often called its second, and very secret, nuclear program.
Mr. Musharraf has been promoting the new book, “In the Line of Fire” (Free Press), everywhere from the East Room of the White House to appearances on the morning talk shows.
In it, he says for the first time that his suspicions about the activities of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear engineer who build an illicit nuclear network that also supplied Iran and Libya, dated from 1999. [*********]
“I received a report suggesting that some North Korean nuclear experts, under the guise of missile engineers, had arrived” at Pakistan’s nuclear laboratories “and were being given secret briefings,” [*******] the book says.
The timing is significant, because it was not until more than three years later, in 2002, that the United States gathered solid evidence that North Korea was trying to enrich uranium, a step toward producing nuclear fuel for weapons that requires centrifuge technology. [****]But Mr. Musharraf, who took over as president in 1999 in a coup, apparently never shared his suspicions with the United States. [*******]
“It’s a significant admission,” one senior American intelligence official said, “since the Pakistanis spent years denying that there was any evidence of dealings with North Korea and telling us, ‘No problem here.’ ’’ The official would not agree to let his name be used and said he had not had time to read the book closely. [********]
North Korea has openly boasted of producing plutonium, a different approach to getting fuel for nuclear weapons, at its main nuclear facility at Yongbyon since it forced international inspectors to leave the country three and a half years ago.
But through much of the 1990’s, the plutonium program was frozen under an agreement reached with the Clinton administration. Mr. Musharraf’s account — which seems to be based on his own recollections and on Pakistani interrogations of Dr. Khan, who is under house arrest and undergoing treatment for cancer — supports other intelligence reports that North Korea began searching in the 1990’s for an alternative way to a bomb. [***********]
It settled on the same approach Iran is using: enriching uranium, [*********] with prototypes and designs provided by Dr. Khan and his network for tens of millions of dollars. Iran says its enrichment is solely for peaceful purposes.
But American intelligence officials say it is still unclear where in North Korea this uranium enrichment may be under way, or how much progress may have been made.
Indeed, American assessments of North Korea’s nuclear programs have been largely guesswork. In late 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency estimated that North Korea could produced a uranium-based atomic weapon by 2004 or 2005. [******] But the widespread assumption now among North Korea experts is that the country is still some time away from that achievement. [************]
A year ago, Christopher R. Hill, the assistant secretary of state for Asian affairs, said that “where there is not a consensus, is how far they have gone with this.”
Part of the mystery surrounds what kind of technology North Korea received. At first it was assumed that it bought Pakistan’s cast-offs, like a first-generation centrifuge, the P-1, identical to the kind that Iran is now trying to get running at its main nuclear fuel plant. But Mr. Musharraf’s account suggests that North Korea might have leapt ahead to the next generation, the P-2, which can enrich more uranium, and faster. [******]
The Bush administration has said it had no hard evidence of any enrichment effort until 2002, when its negotiators confronted North Korea with evidence they had been cheating on a nuclear-freeze agreement reached with the Clinton administration. [*********]The North Koreans seemed to confirm the existence of a secret program to enrich uranium at that time, but since then have said they were misunderstood and have denied any such effort.
Mr. Musharraf’s account is important because it suggests that North Korea and Iran are working with the same advanced equipment, at secret locations.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran boasted earlier this year that his engineers are also working on the P-2, in what he termed a “research program.” But inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations nuclear monitoring agency, have never been shown the advanced machines in either country. [********]
Mr. Musharraf denies in the book that any senior Pakistani officials, himself included, knew about Dr. Khan’s illicit activities. He never explains how Dr. Khan was able to fly his goods to North Korea and Iran on Pakistani military aircraft. [******] He describes the engineer as “such a self-centered and abrasive man that he could not be a team player.”
“He had a huge ego,” Mr. Musharraf writes, adding that, “he had managed to build himself up into Albert Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer rolled into one.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Thai Junta to Stay After Appointing P.M.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/asia/26cnd-thai.html
September 26, 2006
Thai Junta to Stay After Appointing P.M.
By SETH MYDANS [Thailand] [SEA] [recent bloodless coup while PM in NY at UN] [in external a few days ago it made a much bigger deal of Thailand’s struggle the past two years with Jihadis living in southern Thailand] [followup] [**********]
BANGKOK, Sept. 26 -- One week after seizing power in a coup, the leader of Thailand’s military junta said today that it would not disband after naming a civilian prime minister in the next few days but would stay on in an advisory role. [*****]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/asia/26cnd-thai.html
September 26, 2006
Thai Junta to Stay After Appointing P.M.
By SETH MYDANS [Thailand] [SEA] [recent bloodless coup while PM in NY at UN] [in external a few days ago it made a much bigger deal of Thailand’s struggle the past two years with Jihadis living in southern Thailand] [followup] [**********]
BANGKOK, Sept. 26 -- One week after seizing power in a coup, the leader of Thailand’s military junta said today that it would not disband after naming a civilian prime minister in the next few days but would stay on in an advisory role. [*****]
Thai newspapers reported that the generals had offered the prime minister’s job to Supachai Panitchpakdi, a former head of the World Trade Organization, but the coup leader, Gen. Sonthi [******]Boonyaratkalin, declined to confirm this. [*******]
At a news conference, General Sonthi did not make clear how much power he intended to exercise, but said national security in the coming months remained unpredictable. It was the first indication by the generals that they intend to retain power in the new government.
“We do not know what the internal situation will be in the future,” he said. “As of today the situation is calm, orderly and peaceful, but we do not know what is going to happen in the future.”
Abhisit Vejjajiva, the leader of the Democratic Party, said General Sonthi seemed to be backing away from his promise, made on the night of the coup last Tuesday, that within two weeks, “We are gone.” [*******]
"If they hold on to power," Mr. Abhisit said, "it will be the opposite of what was announced and we hope that it will not happen."
General Sonthi said the martial law he imposed when he seized power would remain in effect until the situation is stable. One indication of his concern was a decree issued Sunday that banned political activity or meetings in the rural areas that are Thaksin’s base. [***********]
At the time of the coup, the military was split between officers supporting or opposing Thaksin Shinawatra, the ousted prime minister. [********] During his five years in power Mr. Thaksin had put loyalists in control of almost every sector of government and region of the country.
"Let us not forget that Mr.Thaksin, although out of power for now, has not thrown in the towel yet," wrote Veera Prateepchaikul, deputy editor-in-chief of The Bangkok Post daily newspaper, in a column. "He is still very much loved by the grassroots population and has built up a nuge network of support over the years."
Some Thai newspaper commentators are saying it does not appear that the junta had thoroughly prepared the steps to be taken after its seizure of power.
The military leaders are being criticized for their decision not to immediately freeze the assets of Mr. Thaksin and his associates, for appointing some figures associated with Mr. Thaksin to key positions and for failing to make policy statements on important national issues apart from security. [********]
A small anti-coup movement has begun, and political analysts say it could swell into a larger problem for the junta if the military does not quickly replace itself with a civilian administration.
A group of civil society groups calling itself the N.G.O.’s Network for Political and Social Reform urged the junta today to withdraw its restrictions on free assembly and free press; to restore the constitution, particularly its articles on civil rights; and to appoint officials who are free of corruption and have no ties to the Mr. Thaksin government.
Chaiwat Satha-anand, a political scientist at Thammasat University, said he understood the reasons for ousting Mr. Thaksin but he said he was disturbed by its broad and immediate acceptance by the public. [************]
"It is sad to see how popular this coup has become because accepting violent situations to political problems could also be seen as a sign of despair," he wrote in a column in the Bangkok Post.
In its report on the selection of a prime minister The Nation daily newspaper said Mr. Supachai had tentatively accepted an offer to lead the interim government.
Mr. Supachai, who is now head of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in Geneva, has held a number of financial posts in the Thai government, including that of commerce minister after the Asian financial crisis in 1997.
Under the junta’s plan, the interim prime minister would hold office during the year-long drafting of a new constitution and preparations for a parliamentary election that would restore democracy.
"I have someone in mind but would rather not say it at this time," General Sonthi said. "I will try to pick a prime minister as soon as possible." [*********]
He said he would name a civilian who would be free to make his own decisions and appoint his own 35-member cabinet. But he said his definition of a civilian prime minister included former members of the military. [*********]
General Sonthi said the military rulers had been in touch with Mr. Thaksin, who is now in London, and that as a Thai citizen he was free to return whenever he wants.
"But I think Mr. Thaksin can decide for himself," General Sonthi said. "I think Mr. Thakskin may not come right now because he can see the situation is unstable."
Investigations have begun into the assets of Mr. Thaksin and his associates and into possible government corruption and these could affect his decision whether to return.
A nine-member investigating committee was formed Sunday and its chairman, Sawat Chotiphanit, said, "If we find evidence that they tried to transfer their assets overseas we will freeze the assets."
As it prepares to settle in for the long term, General Sonthi said the junta, which had insisted on being called the Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy, was renaming itself the National Security Council.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Pope Assures Ambassadors of His Respect for Muslims

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/europe/26pope.html
September 26, 2006
Pope Assures Ambassadors of His Respect for Muslims
By IAN FISHER [pope] [recent unfortunate remarks] [followup] [pope calls for interfaith understanding] [anything but saying he’s sorry] [further, he’s know as a pope who is skeptical of what interfaith understanding can achieve especially with respect to Islam] [*************]
CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, Sept. 25 — Pope Benedict XVI sought again on Monday to repair the church’s rift with the Islamic world, telling ambassadors from 22 Muslim countries that he respected Muslims and that “interreligious and intercultural dialogue is a necessity.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/europe/26pope.html
September 26, 2006
Pope Assures Ambassadors of His Respect for Muslims
By IAN FISHER [pope] [recent unfortunate remarks] [followup] [pope calls for interfaith understanding] [anything but saying he’s sorry] [further, he’s know as a pope who is skeptical of what interfaith understanding can achieve especially with respect to Islam] [*************]
CASTEL GANDOLFO, Italy, Sept. 25 — Pope Benedict XVI sought again on Monday to repair the church’s rift with the Islamic world, telling ambassadors from 22 Muslim countries that he respected Muslims and that “interreligious and intercultural dialogue is a necessity.”
In a brief meeting here that was broadcast live on the satellite network Al Jazeera, the pope did not apologize or refer directly to his speech nearly two weeks ago that set off waves of protest in Muslim countries. The speech quoted a Byzantine emperor in the 14th century as calling Islam “evil and inhuman.”
“The circumstances that have given rise to our gathering are well known,” he told the envoys, who were joined by representatives of Italian Muslim groups.
Rather, in a speech that lasted about five minutes, he said that he respected “Muslim believers.” He said he hoped that Christians and Muslims could “work together, as indeed they already do in many common undertakings, in order to guard against all forms of intolerance and to oppose all manifestations of violence.”
The meeting underscored the Vatican’s strong desire to defuse tensions caused by the speech and to set the worlds of Islam and Catholicism back on good terms.
On Sept. 17, Benedict said he was “very sorry” that his remarks at a German university the previous week precipitated a storm of anger during which several churches were firebombed and extremist groups threatened the pope’s life. A nun was gunned down in Somalia, though the exact reason remains unclear.
Three days later, he issued a second expression of regret, saying that his words, mostly about faith and reason, largely criticizing the West, had been misunderstood. Some Muslims have been demanding a more explicit apology, not only for the reaction to his words but also for the words themselves.
In the meeting here at the papal summer palace, just outside Rome, Benedict did not make such an apology, but strongly pledged himself to engaging in problems between Muslims and Christians.
“Dear friends, I am profoundly convinced that in the current world situation it is imperative that Christians and Muslims engage with one another in order to address the numerous challenges that present themselves to humanity,” he said, in a speech delivered in French.
Benedict is generally considered skeptical of open-ended dialogue among faiths, and he did not sketch out a program or timetable for such talks. But the church is particularly concerned about the dwindling number of Christians in Muslim areas, including the West Bank, Lebanon and Iraq, and Benedict did fleetingly mention one principle in his vision for more hard-nosed talks aimed at concrete results.
He spoke of a “more authentic reciprocal knowledge” between the faiths. In the past he has spoken of the need for “reciprocity,” or the idea that Christians in Muslim countries should enjoy the same rights and protections to worship as Muslims do in Christian countries.
The meeting on Monday seemed more a statement of good will than an effort to start a broader dialogue in earnest. The pope spoke to the ambassadors to the Holy See, some of whom flew in from the embassies in Paris or Switzerland where they are based, relatively briefly, first in his address and then during handshakes and greetings afterward.
The event lasted about half an hour.
But several participants said they appreciated the gesture, which they said ended the immediate crisis.
“It was very clear that he showed his profound respect,” said Albert Edward Yelda, the ambassador from Iraq. “He stated that he wanted all people to work together and exist peacefully.”
Saying that the angry reaction to the pope’s words was justified, Mr. Yelda said, however, that Monday was “a day of truth and reconciliation” and that he looked forward to further steps to bring Catholics and Muslims together.
“We have to reconcile,” he said. “And we need a dialogue based on truth, as well as a genuine constructive dialogue.”
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Leading Muslim Scholar Is Denied U.S. Travel Visa

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501635.html
Leading Muslim Scholar Is Denied U.S. Travel Visa
By Larry Neumeister
Associated Press
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A11 [Muslim scholar] [Tari Ramadan—same guy who was offered Notre Dame position a year or so ago] [apparently nationalized Swiss resident] [currently teaching at Oxford] [denied entry visa to US?] [unclear why] [**********] [ditto]
NEW YORK, Sept. 25 -- The government has rejected the visa application of one of Europe's best-known Muslim intellectuals, saying that he supported a terrorist group. His attorneys allege that the United States is using charitable donations he made as a pretext for stifling his views.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501635.html
Leading Muslim Scholar Is Denied U.S. Travel Visa
By Larry Neumeister
Associated Press
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A11 [Muslim scholar] [Tari Ramadan—same guy who was offered Notre Dame position a year or so ago] [apparently nationalized Swiss resident] [currently teaching at Oxford] [denied entry visa to US?] [unclear why] [**********] [ditto]
NEW YORK, Sept. 25 -- The government has rejected the visa application of one of Europe's best-known Muslim intellectuals, saying that he supported a terrorist group. His attorneys allege that the United States is using charitable donations he made as a pretext for stifling his views.
Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss citizen who teaches at Oxford University, was denied a temporary business and tourism visa Thursday "based solely on his actions, which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization," Janelle Hironimus, a State Department spokeswoman, said Monday.
Hironimus said she could not reveal specifics about Ramadan's case because of confidentiality rules regarding visa applications.
The American Civil Liberties Union said the U.S. government notified Ramadan that he was being excluded because he donated $765 to French and Swiss organizations that provide humanitarian aid to Palestinians.
The ACLU said the organizations are legitimate charities in France, but the Bush administration said the groups gave money to the militant group Hamas, and it has invoked a law allowing it to exclude people who it believes have supported terrorism.
Ramadan has said that he opposes the U.S. invasion of Iraq and U.S policies in Israel and the Palestinian territories but that he has no connections to terrorism, opposes Islamic extremism and promotes peaceful solutions.
He said in a statement that he is disappointed about the government's decision but is glad that the State Department abandoned its initial allegation that he endorsed terrorism.
"I think it's clear from the history of this case that the U.S. government's real fear is of my ideas," he said. "I am excluded not because the government truly believes me to be a national security threat, but because of my criticisms of American foreign policies in the Middle East; because of my opposition to the invasion of Iraq; and because of my criticism of some of the Bush administration's policies with respect to civil liberties."
Hironimus defended the government's policies, saying the United States "welcomes the exchange of culture and ideas with the Islamic world." She said that in the past three years more than 450 religious scholars and leaders, the vast majority of them Muslim, have visited the United States as guests of the government.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Muslim Scholar Barred by U.S. Denies Support for Terrorism

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/europe/26scholar.html
September 26, 2006
Muslim Scholar Barred by U.S. Denies Support for Terrorism
By REUTERS [Muslim scholar] [Tariq Ramadan—same guy who was offered Notre Dame position a year or so ago] [apparently nationalized Swiss resident] [currently teaching at Oxford] [denied entry visa to US?] [unclear why] [**********]
PARIS, Sept. 25 — A prominent Swiss Muslim intellectual said Monday that the United States government had dropped charges against him of supporting terrorism, but that it had refused to allow him to enter the country. [*******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/europe/26scholar.html
September 26, 2006
Muslim Scholar Barred by U.S. Denies Support for Terrorism
By REUTERS [Muslim scholar] [Tariq Ramadan—same guy who was offered Notre Dame position a year or so ago] [apparently nationalized Swiss resident] [currently teaching at Oxford] [denied entry visa to US?] [unclear why] [**********]
PARIS, Sept. 25 — A prominent Swiss Muslim intellectual said Monday that the United States government had dropped charges against him of supporting terrorism, but that it had refused to allow him to enter the country. [*******]
Tariq Ramadan, now an academic at Oxford University, said he had received an official letter effectively clearing him of charges that kept him from taking up a teaching position at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. [*********]
However, the letter from the United States Embassy in Bern, Switzerland, explained the continued ban by saying he had contributed about $770 to a Palestinian support group, [********] he said.
“This is an ideological exclusion,” he said by telephone from London. “This is the only way they can justify their decision after two years of investigation.” [********]
The State Department confirmed that it had denied Mr. Ramadan a visa, but said it had nothing to do with his views.
“A U.S. consular officer has denied Dr. Tariq Ramadan’s visa application,’’ said a State Department spokesman, Kurtis Cooper, “for providing material support to a terrorist organization. [*********]
“The consular officer concluded that Dr. Ramadan was inadmissible based solely on his actions, which constituted providing material support to a terrorist organization.”
Mr. Ramadan, who has been a vocal critic of the United States over the war in Iraq and its support for Israel, received a visa in 2004, but the United States later revoked it on advice from the Department of Homeland Security, [********]which gave no reason for its decision.
He gave up the Notre Dame position but fought to have the ban lifted and his name cleared.
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the United States government in January on behalf of Mr. Ramadan and institutes that had invited him to speak, saying the government had improperly denied visas to scholars critical of the Bush administration.
In June, a federal judge in New York criticized the government for delaying his visa application and ruled it must make a decision in the case within three months. [****]
The Civil Liberties Union said it was considering an appeal of the decision denying the visa.
Mr. Ramadan said his contributions to the French-based Committee for Charity and Aid to Palestinians were apparently seen as support for the Palestinian movement Hamas, which the United States government considers a terrorist organization.
However, he said he had sent the funds in 2000, long before Hamas was declared terrorist. He noted that the aid group was legal in France, and that the French city of Lille had cooperated with it for several years. [**********]
Mr. Ramadan, who regularly condemns terrorism and Islamist violence, is popular among young European Muslims for his efforts to reconcile their European and Islamic identities. His reputation in British and American academic circles is one of a moderate expert on Muslim affairs. [*********]
In France, [*****] though, officials and the news media see him as someone who preaches hard-line Islam to Muslim audiences and moderation when speaking to non-Muslims. He denies the charge. [********]
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Qaeda Operative Is Killed in Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html
September 26, 2006
Qaeda Operative Is Killed in Iraq
By SABRINA TAVERNISE [hydra] [alqaeda in –ir] [alqaeda in mesepotamia] [another leader killed] [this first reported in yesterday’s external] [*********]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 25 — A senior operative of Al Qaeda who brazenly escaped from a high-security American prison in Afghanistan last year was killed Monday in a predawn raid by British [*****]soldiers in a quiet, wealthy neighborhood in southern Iraq, an American official and an official in Basra said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html
September 26, 2006
Qaeda Operative Is Killed in Iraq
By SABRINA TAVERNISE [hydra] [alqaeda in –ir] [alqaeda in mesepotamia] [another leader killed] [this first reported in yesterday’s external] [*********]
BAGHDAD, Sept. 25 — A senior operative of Al Qaeda who brazenly escaped from a high-security American prison in Afghanistan last year was killed Monday in a predawn raid by British [*****]soldiers in a quiet, wealthy neighborhood in southern Iraq, an American official and an official in Basra said.
About 250 soldiers wearing night-vision goggles and carrying specially equipped rifles stormed a house in the Junainah neighborhood of Basra, intending to capture the operative, whom the spokesman for the British military in Iraq identified as Omar al-Faruq, an Iraqi. [******] They were fired upon as they entered, and shot back, killing Mr. Faruq.
The British military spokesman, Maj. Charles Burbridge, said Mr. Faruq was “a terrorist of considerable significance” who had been hiding in Basra, but declined to say whether he was the same man who had escaped from the American military detention center in Bagram, Afghanistan, in July 2005. An American official in Washington and an official in Basra, neither of whom was authorized to speak publicly on the subject, said Mr. Faruq was the same man.
At the time of his arrest, in Jakarta, Indonesia, in June 2002, Mr. Faruq was described as one of the most important Qaeda figures ever captured by the United States. He reportedly told C.I.A. interrogators at Bagram that he had been sent to the region to plan large-scale attacks against American embassies and other targets in Southeast Asia. [*******]
Bush administration officials said in 2002 that he had given them information about an impending Qaeda attack in the region that year, not long before a bomb blast on the Indonesian island of Bali killed more than 180 people. [********]
After his arrest, he was transferred to the American detention center at Bagram, 40 miles north of Kabul, where he was held by the military. Military personnel said in interviews last year that he was taken from the detention center by C.I.A. operatives. He had been sent back to Bagram by the time of his escape [******] and was on a list of prisoners recommended for transfer to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, military officials said. In a videotape released on the Internet this year, a man identified as Faruq al-Iraqi, or Faruq the Iraqi, recounted roughly the same chronology.
The escapes embarrassed the United States, and American military officials at Bagram disclosed them only belatedly. [******] The fact that Mr. Faruq was among those who got out emerged much later — during an unrelated Army trial in November 2005 of a sergeant who had been accused of mistreating him in 2002.
Though Iraq is awash with insurgents who identify themselves as members of Al Qaeda, the most senior Qaeda leaders have rarely been Iraqi. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed this year, was a Jordanian, and Ayman al-Zawahri is an Egyptian. [********]
But Mr. Faruq, who was born in 1969 to Iraqi parents, grew up in Kuwait, according to a Basra police official and American and British military officials. [****]In Kuwait, he would have had better access to radical Islamic networks, because Saddam Hussein ran Iraq as a police state and did not allow radical Islam to spread.
Even so, many Iraqis who had lived for years in Kuwait were ejected by that government after Iraq invaded in 1991. Mr. Faruq’s family, it appears, was among the returnees: his mother and two brothers live in Iraq, according to a neighbor of the family in Basra, and the spokesman for the Basra police, Col. Abdul Kareem al-Zaidy. [******]
It was not clear how Mr. Faruq came to be in Iraq. Even with his Iraqi roots, it was unusual for him to surface here. Crossing borders — even Iraq’s relatively porous ones — would have been tricky because he was so well known in intelligence circles. His choice of hiding places is even more puzzling: southern Iraq is a Shiite region where a small Sunni Arab minority is increasingly persecuted, and moving around in the area would have been difficult. [*************]
“It’s surprising for someone like him to be able to make it to Iraq, where everyone knows how he looks,” [*******] said Rita Katz, director of SITE, a Washington group that tracks Islamic militants. “The guy has long Al Qaeda records.” [*******]
According to the neighbor who lives next door to the house where Mr. Faruq was killed, who gave only his first name, Ali, Mr. Faruq entered Iraq from Kuwait about 20 days ago. He had been staying with a brother, Tariq, in the town of Zubayr, the one large Sunni enclave just south of Basra, about 20 miles from the Kuwait border, Ali said. He said he had learned of Mr. Faruq’s return from another of his brothers, Mohamed.
Mr. Faruq’s mother, who lives in Basra, had fallen ill, and Mr. Faruq arrived for a visit within the past few days, Ali said.
Major Burbridge said the British soldiers had received intelligence about where Mr. Faruq would be and when, “and acted on it very quickly.”
Colonel Zaidy, the Basra police spokesman, said by telephone from Basra on Monday night that in Iraq the man went by a different name, Mahmoud Ahmed Mohamed al-Rashid. The tribal name is common for Sunni Arabs in Basra.
Since his jailbreak in 2005 — in which he and three other detainees sneaked out of their cell, changed out of their uniforms and slipped through a transom over a door — Mr. Faruq was believed to be in Afghanistan and active among Islamic groups. He has surfaced in references on Islamist Web sites several times, and was featured in a videotape at least once.
The videotape, released in February 2006, shows a man identified as Faruq al-Iraqi dressed in an Arab headdress and a long-sleeve, button-down white shirt with ammunition strapped to his chest and seated under a leafy tree. [************]
Speaking animatedly and gesturing with a small stick, the man spoke of his experience in the American prison system in Afghanistan. At first, he said, he was asked routine questions and later was transferred to a center nicknamed the “prison of darkness,” because there was no light inside. He said he was abused, with cords tied tightly around his wrists and music played at excruciating volumes. [*********]
He said that interrogators accused him of destroying the World Trade Center, and that they would blast the sound of an explosion, saying it was the planes hitting the towers, and then of people screaming. [****] He straightened up and let out a shout to imitate the sound.
More is known about Mr. Faruq’s life than about those of many other insurgent leaders, though much of the information has come from the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, a senior Qaeda operative in American custody. [*****]Mr. Faruq was said to have accompanied Mr. Zawahri, Al Qaeda’s leading strategist, on a visit to Aceh, Indonesia, and, according to a C.I.A. report cited by Time magazine in 2002, was responsible for a series of bombings in Indonesia [******]in 2000 that killed more than a dozen people.
Ali, the neighbor in Basra, said Mr. Faruq had usually worn a beard but was now clean shaven. He said his family was looking for a wife for him. He was said to have married in Indonesia before his arrest.
Colonel Zaidy said Mr. Faruq’s body had been hit with five bullets.
Versions of the raid differed. Major Burbridge said the British soldiers were able to “achieve an element of surprise” in the raid, in part because it was nighttime but also because the neighborhood was quiet and relatively peaceful. He said Mr. Faruq was alone in the house, though Ali said he saw one of Mr. Faruq’s relatives outside during the raid. The man asserted that British soldiers had put a bag over his head.
“It’s regrettable that as a result of an exchange of fire he died,” Major Burbridge said.
Ali said that he heard sounds of a scuffle and that the British soldiers shouted at someone to stop. A man’s voice answered “God is great” in Arabic.
Also on Monday, Iraqi members of Parliament began forming committees to discuss new rules that would allow for the creation of large federal regions, an extremely divisive issue here. Politicians decided recently to postpone any detailed new guideline until 2008.
At least eight people were killed in Iraq on Monday, and more than a dozen were wounded, Iraqi officials said.
The American military reported that insurgents shot an American soldier near Mosul on Monday. The soldier later died from the wounds.
Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting from Washington, and Qais Mizher from Baghdad.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Islamic Militia Fires On Protesters in Somalia

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501492.html
WORLD IN BRIEF
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A17
Islamic Militia Fires On Protesters in Somalia
[Somalia] [Africa] [strategic horn] [since US withdrew in 1993, the transitional govt has formed to run Somalia apart from previous warlord system] [however, Somalia Islamists and Jihadis (foreign and indigenous) have been attempting to co-opt resistance to transitional govt] [here the Islamists have moved on another important city] [this time the denizens were not so pleased to see them apparently] [***************] [ditto]
KISMAAYO, Somalia -- Islamic fighters in this Somali port city opened fire Monday toward residents who were burning tires, throwing stones and chanting to protest the takeover of the city hours earlier by the Islamic Courts militia.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/25/AR2006092501492.html
WORLD IN BRIEF
Tuesday, September 26, 2006; A17
Islamic Militia Fires On Protesters in Somalia
[Somalia] [Africa] [strategic horn] [since US withdrew in 1993, the transitional govt has formed to run Somalia apart from previous warlord system] [however, Somalia Islamists and Jihadis (foreign and indigenous) have been attempting to co-opt resistance to transitional govt] [here the Islamists have moved on another important city] [this time the denizens were not so pleased to see them apparently] [***************] [ditto]
KISMAAYO, Somalia -- Islamic fighters in this Somali port city opened fire Monday toward residents who were burning tires, throwing stones and chanting to protest the takeover of the city hours earlier by the Islamic Courts militia.
A 13-year-old boy was shot dead and two other people injured as violence raged for hours in Somalia's third-largest city, witnesses said. "We have been taken over by extremists. The Islamic Courts have taken us by force," protester Dahabo Dirie said.
Riding trucks mounted with machine guns, Islamic Courts fighters guarded streets and forbade gatherings after the protests died down. The militia, which in June seized control of the capital, Mogadishu, poured into Kismaayo overnight to extend its grip on south-central Somalia and flank the powerless interim government on three sides.
Kismaayo residents, near the border with Kenya, said some of the militiamen stirred up an already tense mood by burning the Somali flag and raising an Islamic one, after taking the city hours earlier without firing a shot.
* * *
AFRICA
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia -- The African Union will add 4,000 troops to its Darfur peacekeeping mission, bolstering the 7,000 poorly funded and ill-equipped A.U. forces monitoring a battered cease-fire, an A.U. official said Monday.
The move came as international pressure on Sudan rises to allow a force of 20,000 U.N. troops into Darfur to replace the current A.U. contingent.
An estimated 200,000 people have died in Darfur since violence flared in 2003, and 2.5 million have been displaced in the fighting among government forces, rebels and militias.
Also, Qatar's U.N. ambassador, Nassir Abdulaziz al-Nasser, said about $50 million had been raised for the force by Arab nations, out of a target of $100 million.
ASIA
• KATHMANDU, Nepal -- All 24 people aboard a helicopter chartered by the World Wildlife Fund conservation group were killed after the aircraft crashed in bad weather two days ago, officials said. The wreckage was found by a Nepali army team after rain hampered initial rescue efforts. Nepal ordered an investigation into the crash.
• DHAKA, Bangladesh -- Five suspected Islamic militants were sentenced to 10 years in prison for bombings last year outside Dhaka's airport,[***] a government prosecutor said. Those found guilty are members of Jumatul Mujaheddin Bangladesh, [*****] a banned Islamic group suspected in a series of bombings in Bangladesh since August 2005, the prosecutor said.
• • BANGKOK -- Former World Trade Organization head Supachai Panitchpakdi tentatively accepted an invitation from Thailand's new military rulers to be interim prime minister, Thai newspapers reported Tuesday.
THE AMERICAS
• FRAIJANES, Guatemala -- Security forces took over a Guatemalan prison that had been controlled for more than 10 years by inmates who produced drugs, lived in spacious houses, had luxury goods brought in and even rented out space for stores and restaurants.
Seven prisoners died when 3,000 police and soldiers firing automatic weapons stormed the Pavon prison just after dawn.
Guards patrolled only the prison's perimeter and ran the administration section while inmates organized criminal empires on the outside from their cellblocks and the houses they built on the sprawling prison's large grounds.
• MEXICO CITY -- Violence flared again in Mexico's tourist city of Oaxaca, where protesters are seeking to oust the state governor. President Vicente Fox's government vowed to resolve the conflict before its term ends in November.
• MEXICO CITY -- President-elect Felipe Calderon slammed U.S. plans to build more fences on its southern border, saying it would not solve illegal immigration.
EUROPE
• PARIS -- A prominent Swiss Muslim intellectual said the U.S. government had dropped charges against him of supporting terrorism but had refused to lift an entry ban. Tariq Ramadan, who is now teaching at Britain's Oxford University, said he had received an official letter effectively clearing him of charges that kept him from taking up a teaching post at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.
Ramadan, who has been a vocal critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and support for Israel, received a visa in 2004, but it was later revoked on advice from the Department of Homeland Security, which gave no reason for its decision.
• COPENHAGEN -- Youths angered by a court decision to evict squatters from a downtown building hurled stones, bottles and eggs at police officers during a protest. More than 200 were detained.
• MOSCOW -- Dozens of leftist activists were arrested near the Kremlin after they forced their way into the Finance Ministry's offices to protest government policies, witnesses said. Members of the National Bolshevik Party waved red flags, lit torches and shouted anti-government slogans from the ministry's windows before police arrived.
• LONDON -- Britain's Defense Ministry sought to prevent the public from knowing about the work of a unit that investigated reported sightings of unidentified flying objects, or UFOs, a published report said.
"The [ministry] examines any UFO sighting reports it receives thoroughly, to establish whether there is any evidence to suggest that U.K. airspace has been compromised by unauthorized air activity," a defense official said.
THE MIDDLE EAST
• SANAA, Yemen -- Tribesmen released four French tourists after holding them hostage for more than two weeks, officials in France and Yemen said. The tribesmen kidnapped the tourists to pressure Yemen's government to release jailed relatives.
-- From News Services
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Demonstrations Become Clashes After Islamists Take Somali City

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/africa/26somalia.html
September 26, 2006
Demonstrations Become Clashes After Islamists Take Somali City
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN [Somalia] [Africa] [strategic horn] [since US withdrew in 1993, the transitional govt has formed to run Somalia apart from previous warlord system] [however, Somalia Islamists and Jihadis (foreign and indigenous) have been attempting to co-opt resistance to transitional govt] [here the Islamists have moved on another important city] [this time the denizens were not so pleased to see them apparently] [***************]
NAIROBI, Kenya, Sept. 25 — Kismayo, one of the largest cities in Somalia, fell to Islamic forces without a shot on Monday [****] — but then the trouble started.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/world/africa/26somalia.html
September 26, 2006
Demonstrations Become Clashes After Islamists Take Somali City
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN [Somalia] [Africa] [strategic horn] [since US withdrew in 1993, the transitional govt has formed to run Somalia apart from previous warlord system] [however, Somalia Islamists and Jihadis (foreign and indigenous) have been attempting to co-opt resistance to transitional govt] [here the Islamists have moved on another important city] [this time the denizens were not so pleased to see them apparently] [***************]
NAIROBI, Kenya, Sept. 25 — Kismayo, one of the largest cities in Somalia, fell to Islamic forces without a shot on Monday [****] — but then the trouble started.
After the city’s warlords fled and hundreds of Islamist fighters poured in, demonstrators took to the streets and hurled stones at the Islamists. [****]
Islamist troops responded with machine guns, opening fire on the demonstrators and killing at least one teenage boy, [****] witnesses said.
“We don’t want the Islamic courts!” the demonstrators yelled, referring to the Council of Islamic Somali Courts, the official name of the Islamic forces. [*******]
It was the latest episode of turmoil in a country notorious for it. The Islamist forces took over Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital, in June and have been expanding their reach ever since. The people of Mogadishu have by and large supported them, thankful for the stability they brought after 15 years of anarchy. [*******]
But apparently many in Kismayo did not feel the same way. Kismayo is a major port city on the southern Somali coast, not far from Kenya. It was ruled by warlords called the Jubba Valley Alliance, which had vowed to resist the Islamists. [********]
On Sunday night, as hundreds of Islamist fighters in heavily armed vehicles encircled the city, the warlords fled and their militias evaporated behind them. [********]
On Monday morning, the troops rolled into the center of town and were initially greeted with cheers.
“Welcome to Islam,” announced one of the Islamist commanders, Sheik Hassan Turki. [***********]
Witnesses reported that a band of fighters then took down a Somali flag and in its place hoisted a black Islamic one. [****] Demonstrations followed, with young men rushing into the streets to burn tires, set up barricades and throw stones.
By nightfall, the situation was calmer, witnesses said, but still edgy.
Adding to the tension were news reports that hundreds of Ethiopian troops had crossed the border into Somalia in what appeared to be a bid to protect the fragile transitional government in Baidoa, a midsize city north of Kismayo. [******]
Islamist leaders in Mogadishu vehemently object to the presence of foreign troops on Somali soil. One reason why they seized Kismayo, they said, was to establish a base to deter any foreign troops from trying to enter Somalia from Kenya. [**********]
Mohammed Ibrahim contributed reporting from Mogadishu, and Abukar Karyare from Baidoa.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

War Turns the Tide For Israeli Settlers

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400757.html
War Turns the Tide For Israeli Settlers
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, September 25, 2006; A01 [Israel] [since 34-day war] [domestic politics] [the settlers seeing the writing on the wall and reaction] [*********]
AMONA, West Bank -- The movement to expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which only a few months ago appeared to be a divided, waning political force, is experiencing a revival [*******]after a summer of war that caused many Israelis to question the wisdom of abandoning more territory.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400757.html
War Turns the Tide For Israeli Settlers
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, September 25, 2006; A01 [Israel] [since 34-day war] [domestic politics] [the settlers seeing the writing on the wall and reaction] [*********]
AMONA, West Bank -- The movement to expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank, which only a few months ago appeared to be a divided, waning political force, is experiencing a revival [*******]after a summer of war that caused many Israelis to question the wisdom of abandoning more territory.
Little more than a year ago, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdrew all Jewish settlers and Israeli troops from the Gaza Strip. After Sharon's debilitating stroke in January, his deputy, Ehud Olmert, won national elections in March on a promise to evacuate dozens of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and to uproot the smaller, unauthorized communities known as outposts in a bid to define Israel's final borders. [******]
But after a month-long war in southern Lebanon and as sporadic fighting continues in Gaza, a highly unpopular Olmert has put his West Bank withdrawal plan on hold. His government has stepped up construction in the large settlement blocs, including areas the Bush administration has warned Israel against developing, and the West Bank settlement population of a quarter-million people is growing.
"This state does not operate by a policy," said Yehuda Yifrach, 30, who still lives with his wife, Ayelet, and three children on this windblown hilltop even though in February Israeli military bulldozers demolished the shipping container that was their home. "They only go by the polls at the time." [********]
The settlers’ change of fortune stems from Israel’s conflicts in the Gaza Strip and southern Lebanon, regions the country had occupied and abandoned in the recent past. Islamic gunmen staged cross-border raids from those areas this summer, capturing three Israeli soldiers who are still being held.
Some Israelis are drawing lessons from the war that have helped vindicate the settlers, whose large financial claim on the national treasury and strident opposition to an independent state for the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank have angered many here over the years. Israel occupied those regions in the 1967 Middle East war.
“The Lebanon war may have bought them time,” said Dror Etkes of Peace Now, a group that opposes Israel’s settlement policy. “But the demographics and the overarching view of an Israeli majority about what the state should look like has not changed. So neither has the precarious nature of the settlements.” [*******]
In evacuating the Gaza settlements last year, Sharon said he was seeking to define more defensible borders and protect Israel's Jewish majority by jettisoning the strip's 1.4 million Palestinians, who might someday demand the right to vote in Israel if not given a state of their own.
Soon after, Sharon, Olmert and others quit the Likud party, leaving the settlers' most powerful sponsor in shambles. The new party they founded, Kadima, easily won the most seats in the March elections, while Likud finished tied for a distant third.
But guerrillas in Gaza have continued to pepper southern Israel with crude rockets, and the radical Islamic movement Hamas, whose stronghold is Gaza, has been elected to lead the Palestinian government. Hamas does not recognize Israel's right to exist even within its pre-1967 borders, nor does Hezbollah, the Lebanese Shiite Muslim militia whose seizure of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 touched off the recent war. [********]
"The settlements are Israel's anchor in these places," said Effie Eitam, a legislator from the National Union, the settlers' political arm, who was injured in Amona in February when settlers clashed with police. "Israel is about to review its entire defense doctrine," he added, "and most Israelis understand it is time to rethink the whole paradigm of giving up land for things less certain." [******]
A poll published Thursday in the Haaretz newspaper showed Olmert's job approval rating at 22 percent and indicated Kadima would lose 13 of its 29 parliamentary seats if elections were held today. Meanwhile, Likud, led by former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, would double its strength in the legislature to 24 seats, making it the largest faction. [***********]
But Shaul Goldstein, a settler leader who is identified with the movement's pragmatic wing, said he expects Olmert to resurrect the West Bank withdrawal plan as soon as he determines that prospects are slim for successful peace talks with the Palestinians or Syria. [******]
In the meantime, he said, the movement will consider whether to form a new party to influence the withdrawal plan or to fight it by other means. The hard-line wing, embodied by Eitam, has proposed more-radical options that appear to have little chance of winning public support. [*******]
During a memorial service this month for a soldier killed in Lebanon, Eitam, a former general who commanded a brigade in Gaza, told the gathering that "we will have to expel a large majority of the Arabs of Judea and Samaria," using Israeli terminology for the West Bank.
"We are still very divided," said Goldstein, who is chairman of the Gush Etzion settlement bloc. "The whole right-wing movement in Israel is frustrated, even though many in the left wing can now see that our warnings about withdrawing from Gaza were not simply propaganda."
A state commission last year identified more than 100 unauthorized outposts in the West Bank and Gaza before its evacuation. Unlike larger Jewish settlements in the territories -- all of which are deemed illegal under international law -- the outposts were built without the explicit approval of the Israeli government.
Outposts are usually no more than a few shipping containers and trailers that often expand the boundaries of established settlements to neighboring hilltops. Many of them, including Amona, are built on private Palestinian land.
Sharon promised the Bush administration that he would raze about two dozen outposts erected since he took office in March 2001, although none has been dismantled to date. Less than a month after taking over from Sharon, Olmert ordered Israeli soldiers and border police to remove nine trailers from this outpost. Pro-settlement demonstrators pelted the soldiers with rocks, sand and paint; scores of people were injured. The rest of Amona was left standing.
Last week, Defense Minister Amir Peretz ordered the military to raze 47 illegal buildings in some West Bank outposts, which Peace Now says contain thousands of illegal structures. The order, which has yet to be carried out, also called for the demolition of 39 buildings that Israel says the Palestinians constructed illegally.
At the same time, Olmert has this month alone advertised for bids to build 854 new housing units in West Bank settlements, most of them in the large blocs he intends to keep. The construction runs counter to the U.S.-backed peace blueprint known as the "road map," [*********]which Olmert says he supports as the best way to reach an agreement with the Palestinians.
In addition to the new housing, a large Israeli police headquarters has been nearly completed on a parcel of land east of Jerusalem where the Bush administration has long opposed any Israeli construction. Senior U.S. officials have warned that building in the so-called E-1 area would cut off the southern West Bank from economic centers in the north and further complicate the creation of a coherent Palestinian state.
"No settlement will be dismantled until we get legitimacy for the settlement blocs," said Otniel Schneller, a Kadima lawmaker and settler involved in planning the West Bank withdrawal. "The Americans' lack of flexibility is now causing this stalemate. If they would say yes to the settlement blocs, then there would be areas that we could develop and other areas we could not. If the U.S. does not understand this, the government will be in a stalemate."
Stewart Tuttle, spokesman for the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv, said the United States does not have "a separate policy for this or that settlement, or this or that area. Our policy is the same across the board. Israel, like the Palestinians, has obligations under the road map. Israel's is to cease settlement activity and dismantle illegal outposts."
In Amona, the structure that was to have been the outpost's first concrete house sits unfinished, the work frozen. The road remains unpaved, and the 35 families here remain uncertain whether to develop their hilltop or prepare to abandon it.
In front of a trailer, the wood frame for a swing set is taking shape alongside a barbecue and a baby carriage. Moti and Yael, a husband and wife who declined to give their last name, said the new playground for their three children was a step toward moving ahead with a life that has been in a kind of limbo for months.
Yael, who teaches high school English in the adjacent settlement of Ofra, predicted that the West Bank withdrawal would resurface soon. She said a "left-wing" friend from Haifa, the coastal city pounded by Hezbollah rockets during the war, already wants Olmert to dust off his plan.
"This settlement has a feel of being stuck," said Yael, 33. "But things change quickly here. Soon the country will forget the war." [*****]
© 2006 The Washington Post Company

U.N. Force Is Treading Lightly on Lebanese Soil

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/world/middleeast/25force.html
September 25, 2006
U.N. Force Is Treading Lightly on Lebanese Soil
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN [Lebanon] [followup] [UN and multilater force that has decamped in Lebanon since August 14] [more on Lebanon’s complex political dynamics] [**************]
TIBNIN, Lebanon, Sept. 24 — One month after a United Nations Security Council resolution ended a 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia, members of the international force sent to help keep the peace say their mission is defined more by what they cannot do than by what they can.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/25/world/middleeast/25force.html
September 25, 2006
U.N. Force Is Treading Lightly on Lebanese Soil
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN [Lebanon] [followup] [UN and multilater force that has decamped in Lebanon since August 14] [more on Lebanon’s complex political dynamics] [**************]
TIBNIN, Lebanon, Sept. 24 — One month after a United Nations Security Council resolution ended a 34-day war between Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah militia, members of the international force sent to help keep the peace say their mission is defined more by what they cannot do than by what they can.
They say they cannot set up checkpoints, search cars, homes or businesses or detain suspects. If they see a truck transporting missiles, for example, they say they can not stop it. They cannot do any of this, they say, because under their interpretation of the Security Council resolution that deployed them, they must first be authorized to take such action by the Lebanese Army.
The job of the United Nations force, and commanders in the field repeat this like a mantra, is to respect Lebanese sovereignty by supporting the Lebanese Army. They will only do what the Lebanese authorities ask.
The Security Council resolution, known as 1701, was seen at the time as the best way to halt the war, partly by giving Israel assurances that Lebanon’s southern border would be policed by a robust international force to prevent Hezbollah militants from attacking. When the resolution was approved, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, one of its principal architects, said the force’s deployment would help “protect the Lebanese people and prevent armed groups such as Hezbollah from destabilizing the area.”
But the resolution’s diplomatic language skirted a fundamental question: what kind of policing power would be given to the international force? The resolution leaves open the possibility that the Lebanese Army would grant such policing power, but the force’s commanders say that so far, at least, that has not happened.
“There’s a lot of misunderstanding what we are doing here,” said Lt. Col. Stefano Cappellaro, an Italian commander with the San Marco Regiment.
The force, known as the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or Unifil, now has 5,000 troops on the ground, including 1,000 from Italy, and is stepping gently as it tries to carve out a role in a country that is feeling its way through the postwar period. It is early in the United Nations mission, but officials say that their most difficult task, and one they are adamant about achieving, is not being drawn into any power struggles between the religious and political factions in Lebanon. “We will not get involved in any domestic or regional politics,’’ said Milos Strugar, senior adviser to the force.
The force is larger and better equipped than an earlier Unifil contingent, which has been on the border with Israel for years. But at the moment, the Lebanese government and the United Nations have a similar agenda in trying to win the trust of the Lebanese people and not have the force become a tool of political factions looking to incite domestic conflict. The goal is to be viewed as a peacekeeping force, not an occ