« June 2007 | Main | August 2007 »

July 31, 2007

Cheney Disputes Libby Verdict, Voices Support for Gonzales

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001641.html
Cheney Disputes Libby Verdict, Voices Support for Gonzales
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A02 [bush nsc principals] [veep cheney] [veeps are suppose to be seldom seen and almost never heard] [cheney obviously has re-enginerred the role of veep] [this veep speaks out on libby jury—something he should have never touched while still in office, and gonzo] [normally I would say this shows bad judegment but with Cheney, it may be entirely conscious behavior to affect something not readily apparent] [lots of turf battles ongoing between cheney’s neocons and the Rice-Gates axis] [******]
Vice President Cheney said yesterday that he disagreed with the jury's verdict in the trial of his former chief of staff, [******]who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation into the Bush administration's leak of the identity of an undercover CIA officer. [apparently the jury system doesn’t work] [*******]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001641.html
Cheney Disputes Libby Verdict, Voices Support for Gonzales
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A02 [bush nsc principals] [veep cheney] [veeps are suppose to be seldom seen and almost never heard] [cheney obviously has re-enginerred the role of veep] [this veep speaks out on libby jury—something he should have never touched while still in office, and gonzo] [normally I would say this shows bad judegment but with Cheney, it may be entirely conscious behavior to affect something not readily apparent] [lots of turf battles ongoing between cheney’s neocons and the Rice-Gates axis] [******]
Vice President Cheney said yesterday that he disagreed with the jury's verdict in the trial of his former chief of staff, [******]who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation into the Bush administration's leak of the identity of an undercover CIA officer. [apparently the jury system doesn’t work] [*******]
Cheney's remarks about his former aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, appear to conflict with the views of President Bush, who said after the verdict that he "respected" the jury verdict but felt that the 30-month sentence handed to Libby was excessive. [*****]Bush commuted Libby's sentence earlier this month, leaving a fine in place but exempting him from jail time.
Cheney declined to explain his view but said he agreed with Bush's actions: "I thought the president handled it right," he said during an interview with CBS Radio. "I supported his decision." [incredible arrogance] [he pronounces the president’s behavior was appropriate after all] [************]
Cheney also defended embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, saying that Gonzales "has testified truthfully" before Congress and has performed well as head of the Justice Department. [how could cheney possibly now whether AG Gonzales has testified truthfully?] [incredible brass] [***********]
"I'm a big fan of Al's," Cheney said in the radio interview. ". . . I think Al has done a good job under difficult circumstances. The debate between he and the Senate is something they're going to have to resolve. But I think he has testified truthfully." [if I were Gonzo I’d be runnin away from Cheney’s approval] [look what it got Rummy, Libby, others] [********]
Cheney said he does not agree with lawmakers, including Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who say that Gonzales's credibility has been gravely damaged. "I think the key is whether or not he has the confidence of the president, and he clearly does," [*****]Cheney said. [that’s clearly one important matter but he’s also the highest law officer for the US and presumably needs the American people’s confidence as well as Congress’ neither of which he apparently has] [******]
Cheney's remarks about Gonzales come amid growing furor in Congress over the attorney general's candor and after calls by a group of Senate Democrats last week for a perjury investigation.
Much of the uproar centers on Gonzales's characterizations of a warrantless surveillance program run by the National Security Agency. Gonzales has testified that the program publicly described by Bush raised no legal objections, but others have testified that Justice Department lawyers concluded related parts of the program were illegal.
Specter, who was given his first briefing on the NSA program and its history Monday afternoon in an 80-minute meeting with Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, [*********]declined to comment afterward.
He instead handed reporters a prepared statement saying that he expects a letter from the administration by noon today about "matters relating to whether Attorney General Gonzales testified accurately that there was no disagreement in the administration about the Terrorist Surveillance Program," which is the administration's name for at least one part of the operation. [***********]
Also yesterday, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty announced that he had accepted a "leadership role" beginning next week in the Washington office of Baker & McKenzie, an international law firm with many corporate clients. "I'm looking forward to this," McNulty said in an interview. "After 22 years of public service, at this stage of my life, it just couldn't be a better time to go into the private sector."
McNulty played a role in the firing last year of nine U.S. attorneys, which has been another source of controversy for Gonzales. McNulty, who announced he was leaving in May, is one of more than half a dozen senior Justice officials who have quit so far this year.
Staff writer Michael Abramowitz and washingtonpost.com staff writer Paul Kane contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Bush and Brown Are Allies if Not Buddies

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31prexy.html
July 31, 2007
Bush and Brown Are Allies if Not Buddies
By JIM RUTENBERG [bush administration nsc principals] [president bush] [meeting with pm Gordon brown of uk for first time since he became PM] [special meeting at camp david] [brown’s fairly deft oped yesterday in the WP] [********]
CAMP DAVID, Md., July 30 — On his first official trip to the United States as Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown on Monday displayed what can best be described as a resounding — if dispassionate — show of like-minded camaraderie with President Bush. [*************]
The two leaders showed none of the warmth and coziness that Mr. Bush had shared with Mr. Brown’s predecessor, Tony Blair, a closeness that contributed to Mr. Blair’s political tumble at home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31prexy.html
July 31, 2007
Bush and Brown Are Allies if Not Buddies
By JIM RUTENBERG [bush administration nsc principals] [president bush] [meeting with pm Gordon brown of uk for first time since he became PM] [special meeting at camp david] [brown’s fairly deft oped yesterday in the WP] [********]
CAMP DAVID, Md., July 30 — On his first official trip to the United States as Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown on Monday displayed what can best be described as a resounding — if dispassionate — show of like-minded camaraderie with President Bush. [*************]
The two leaders showed none of the warmth and coziness that Mr. Bush had shared with Mr. Brown’s predecessor, Tony Blair, a closeness that contributed to Mr. Blair’s political tumble at home.
But Mr. Brown offered bullish comments on Britain’s relationship with the United States. On Iraq, Mr. Brown said any future British decision to reduce troops and cede control of a sector to the Iraqis “will be made on the military advice of our commanders on the ground.”
Though it was taken by some in the British news media as a signal of Mr. Brown’s independence, it is also a common formulation that President Bush uses in arguing that he will not be driven to withdraw by domestic politics. United States officials have been watching the British presence in Iraq as a gauge of the reliability of the new British leader.
On terrorism, Mr. Brown said, “Let me just stress that we’re in a generation-long battle against terrorism, against Al Qaeda-inspired terrorism, and this is a battle for which we can give no quarter.” [********] Several of Mr. Brown’s ministers have criticized the term “war on terror,” used frequently by Mr. Bush. His new security minister, Sir Alan West, said it “demeans the value of a war.”
On relations between their countries, Mr. Brown said, “It’s a partnership founded and driven forward by our shared values — what Winston Churchill, who was the first British prime minister to visit Camp David, called the joint inheritance of liberty, a belief in opportunity for all, a belief in the dignity of every human being.”
Despite some veiled differences, Mr. Brown stuck closely to a script that included what the Americans took as words of assurance that he had no plans for radical changes in the partnership, dodging several attempts by reporters here to get him to enunciate how his approach to the United States would differ from that of Mr. Blair.
Mr. Brown’s new Foreign Office minister for Asia and Africa, Mark Malloch-Brown, declared recently that the relationship between Mr. Bush and the prime minister would not “be joined at the hip like the Blair-Bush relationship was.” But officials traveling with Mr. Brown described such statements as either taken out of context or unrepresentative of Mr. Brown’s own views.
British analysts said Monday that Mr. Brown’s comments reflected the fact that the two countries share so much at stake in Afghanistan and Iraq, on global trade and with intelligence efforts to combat terrorism that he needs a close relationship with his American counterpart, like most of the recent British prime ministers before him. [********]
His statements on Iraq were perhaps the most important to the Americans. “Our aim, as is the aim of the United States government, is threefold: security for the Iraqi people, political reconciliation, and that the Iraqis have a stake in the future,” [******]Mr. Brown said after his second of two face-to-face meetings with Mr. Bush here.
Mr. Brown said he hoped to continue what he called a “transition to over-watch” functions in Iraq, a reference to a process begun under Mr. Blair of turning over control of the areas where British troops are in charge to Iraqis. British troops in southern Iraq have moved from combat roles to “over-watch” in three of the four provinces where they hold security responsibility.
Mr. Brown left the door open for a withdrawal, if, he said, his commanders thought it was feasible. “We intend to move to over-watch in the fourth province,” around Basra, he said, but he said details would be completed only after Parliament returns this fall.
When Mr. Bush was asked if he had faith in Mr. Brown not to “cut and run” from Iraq, a phrase the president had used to express his trust in Mr. Blair, Mr. Bush said he was sure “that Gordon Brown understands that failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the security of our own countries, that failure in Iraq would embolden extremist movements throughout the Middle East.”
Mr. Brown and Mr. Bush also said they intended to recharge the stalled Doha round of global trade talks and to work together toward a Middle East peace plan and toward a solution of the crisis in Darfur. The second-term president and the new prime minister also vowed to cooperate in toughening sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, addressing climate change and alleviating poverty and disease in Africa.
But the two did exhibit some nuanced differences when it came to terrorism. Mr. Brown began his remarks by calling Afghanistan “the front line against terrorism.” Mr. Bush regularly calls Iraq “the central front in the war on terror.” [*******] [how about Pakistan where the threat is actually building, plotting, and preparing another attack on the West on scale of 9/11????] [***************]
Asked about the difference, Mr. Brown said, “I think I described Afghanistan as the first line in the battle against the Taliban, and of course the Taliban in Afghanistan is what we are dealing with in the provinces for which we’ve got responsibility, and doing so with some success.”
A spokesman afterward sought to clarify the remarks by saying, “What he meant was Afghanistan was the first line and remains the first line in where we are taking on the Taliban and Al Qaeda.”
Mr. Brown made clear, on the other hand, that he viewed Iraq as a battle against elements including, but not restricted to, Al Qaeda, saying, “In Iraq, you’re dealing with Sunni-Shia violence, you’re dealing with the involvement of Iran, but you’re certainly dealing with a large number of Al Qaeda terrorists.”
Mr. Bush pronounced himself satisfied with Mr. Brown’s position. “There’s no doubt in my mind that he understands the stakes of the struggle,” he said.
Yet there was not anything approaching the chemistry exhibited between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, who had developed a familiar, offhand banter over the years, with Mr. Bush calling his counterpart “Blair” and Mr. Blair calling Mr. Bush “George.”
Mr. Brown is more formal, and he stood stiffly next to the more freewheeling Mr. Bush, although they said they had shared stories about their families and what aides said was a mutual love of rugby.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Bush Nominee Points to Internal Conflict in Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001914.html
WASHINGTON IN BRIEF
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A04
Bush Nominee Points to Internal Conflict in Iraq
[bush white house] [nsc principals or deputies—unclear] [replacement for General Peter Pace as CJCS] [admiral Mullen] [preparation to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee] [is that Levin now?] [110th congress, 1st session] [***********]
Slow progress in Iraq is undermining U.S. credibility and emboldening Iran's regional ambitions, according to President Bush's nominee to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In written answers to prepared questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen said there has been only limited headway in achieving reconciliation among Iraq's political factions. [****]His answers were obtained yesterday by the Associated Press.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001914.html
WASHINGTON IN BRIEF
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A04
Bush Nominee Points to Internal Conflict in Iraq
[bush white house] [nsc principals or deputies—unclear] [replacement for General Peter Pace as CJCS] [admiral Mullen] [preparation to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee] [is that Levin now?] [110th congress, 1st session] [***********]
Slow progress in Iraq is undermining U.S. credibility and emboldening Iran's regional ambitions, according to President Bush's nominee to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In written answers to prepared questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen said there has been only limited headway in achieving reconciliation among Iraq's political factions. [****]His answers were obtained yesterday by the Associated Press.
Resolving the internal conflict in Iraq "remains the precondition to an Iraq that can govern, defend and sustain itself," Mullen said.
Mullen sidestepped a question about how he would craft an exit strategy for U.S. forces in Iraq, saying that American interests in Iraq and the Middle East "require a pragmatic, long-term commitment that will be measured in years, not months." [*******]
Now the chief of naval operations, Mullen, 60, was selected to replace Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace. The committee is scheduled to consider Mullen's nomination today. [*******]
House Seeks Japan's Apology for Sex Slaves
The U.S. House of Representatives called on Japan to apologize for forcing thousands of women into sexual servitude to its soldiers during and before World War II.
On a voice vote, the House approved a nonbinding resolution on the Japanese government's role in forcing up to 200,000 "comfort women" into a wartime brothel program starting in the 1930s.
The vote marked a rare rebuke of the United States' closest ally in Asia. The Japanese Embassy in Washington would not comment on the vote, leaving it to government officials in Tokyo.
-- From News Services
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Iran Is Critical as U.S. Unveils Arms Sales in the Middle East

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073000623.html
Iran Is Critical as U.S. Unveils Arms Sales in the Middle East
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A15 [bush white house] [nsc principals on down] [dod and state] [arms sale to Saudis first reported on weekend] [pushback inevitable] [now phase two where administration attempts to role out its justifications like a political campaign] [bush administration mo] [putting onus on Iran is smart politically though as few in congress in any position to disagree, especially if this means administration will not unleash another harebrained “pre-emptive” attack] [********] [ditto]
SHANNON, Ireland, July 30 -- The United States and Iran exchanged tough accusations on Monday as the Bush administration unveiled a huge package of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and five other Gulf countries expected to total at least $20 billion, as well as separate 10-year agreements for $43 billion in military aid to Israel and Egypt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073000623.html
Iran Is Critical as U.S. Unveils Arms Sales in the Middle East
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A15 [bush white house] [nsc principals on down] [dod and state] [arms sale to Saudis first reported on weekend] [pushback inevitable] [now phase two where administration attempts to role out its justifications like a political campaign] [bush administration mo] [putting onus on Iran is smart politically though as few in congress in any position to disagree, especially if this means administration will not unleash another harebrained “pre-emptive” attack] [********] [ditto]
SHANNON, Ireland, July 30 -- The United States and Iran exchanged tough accusations on Monday as the Bush administration unveiled a huge package of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and five other Gulf countries expected to total at least $20 billion, as well as separate 10-year agreements for $43 billion in military aid to Israel and Egypt.
Less than a week after the second round of the new U.S.-Iran dialogue, Tehran charged that the U.S. plan to sell sophisticated weapons to the six Arab states will only further destabilize the volatile region.
U.S. policy "is creating fear and concerns in the countries of the region and trying to harm the good relations between these countries," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters in Tehran. "What the Persian Gulf region needs is security, stability, peace, prosperity and economic development."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates left for the Middle East on Monday to discuss details of the arms sales as well as efforts to stabilize Iraq and generate progress in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. [********]
"For the secretary of state and the secretary of defense to travel together to any region, including the Middle East, at a minimum is very rare, if not unprecedented," Gates said en route to Egypt. "I think that it is a statement first of all of the importance of this region in terms of U.S. vital interests and the importance we attach to reassuring our friends out here of our staying power." [*************]
Rice dismissed Tehran's concerns and countered that Iran's meddling and influence are behind growing insecurity in the Middle East.
"There isn't a doubt that Iran constitutes the single most important single-country strategic challenge to the United States and to the kind of the Middle East that we want to see," Rice told reporters traveling with her en route to a refueling stop in Ireland.
America's top diplomat blasted Iran for "support for terrorism that is a threat to the democratic forces in Lebanon, support for the most radical forces in the Palestinian territories . . . or support for Shiite militias and the transfer of technologies that are endangering the lives of our soldiers and endangering a free Iraq." [************]
U.S. officials said that Iran is not the only reason behind the new packages of weapons sales and military aid, but Tehran was the constant undercurrent in briefings by U.S. officials in Washington and on the road.
“Iran has worried everybody in the region. It supports everything that the rest of the world is trying to defend against,” R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in a telephone briefing.
Burns said that Washington had tried to “open the door” to Iran in two rounds of talks involving the top U.S. and Iranian envoys in Baghdad, and through negotiations led by the European Union on Iran’s nuclear program. “And we’ve been rebuffed by Iran,” he said.
Rice and Gates will meet Arab leaders in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, over the next two days to discuss the new packages. Rice insisted that the Bush administration has not imposed demands on its allies in exchange for the arms and aid deals.
“This isn’t an issue of quid pro quo,” Rice told reporters. “We are working with these states to fight back extremism.” [***********]
But in Washington, Burns acknowledged that the United States has some expectations. "Given the fact that Iraq is the number one American foreign policy interest globally, we would want our friends in the region to be supportive not only of what the United States is doing in Iraq, but of the Iraqi government itself," he said.
Washington has only a notional list of the weapons sought by allies and has not provided specifics. But Saudi Arabia is expected to receive upgrades to its warplanes, new naval vessels and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), which turn standard bombs into "smart" precision-guided bombs, U.S. officials say. Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman are expected to make smaller purchases.
The $20 billion figure is seen as a "floor," and more assistance could be forthcoming, a senior defense official said, but requests that ultimately must go to Congress have not been finalized.
To shore up two other allies in the region, the Bush administration plans to wrap up new military assistance agreements providing $30 billion in aid to Israel and $13 billion to Egypt over 10 years, the State Department announced.
In contrast to past objections over large arms sales to Arab countries, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that his government will have no objections to the arms sales to Arab governments. [************]
"We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states, and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran," Olmert said at a weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday.
Key Democrats, including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), are already voicing reservations about the arms package.
Rice said that consultations had already begun on Capitol Hill. "I'm certain that we can convince Congress first of all that we know how to maintain our obligations in terms of accountability for the security packages. We know how to be aware of and responsive to everyone's concerns that there not be any shift in the military balance between the parties in the region," Rice said, referring to concerns that Arab nations would endanger Israel's security.
Staff writer Josh White, traveling with Gates, contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

U.S. Arms Plan for Mideast Aims to Counter Iranian Power

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/europe/31weapons.html
July 31, 2007
U.S. Arms Plan for Mideast Aims to Counter Iranian Power
By MARK MAZZETTI and HELENE COOPER [bush white house] [nsc principals on down] [dod and state] [arms sale to Saudis first reported on weekend] [pushback inevitable] [now phase two where administration attempts to role out its justifications like a political campaign] [bush administration mo] [putting onus on Iran is smart politically though as few in congress in any position to disagree, especially if this means administration will not unleash another harebrained “pre-emptive” attack] [********]
WASHINGTON, July 30 — The Bush administration said Monday that its plan to provide billions of dollars in advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel over the next 10 years was intended in part to serve as a bulwark against Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East. [******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/europe/31weapons.html
July 31, 2007
U.S. Arms Plan for Mideast Aims to Counter Iranian Power
By MARK MAZZETTI and HELENE COOPER [bush white house] [nsc principals on down] [dod and state] [arms sale to Saudis first reported on weekend] [pushback inevitable] [now phase two where administration attempts to role out its justifications like a political campaign] [bush administration mo] [putting onus on Iran is smart politically though as few in congress in any position to disagree, especially if this means administration will not unleash another harebrained “pre-emptive” attack] [********]
WASHINGTON, July 30 — The Bush administration said Monday that its plan to provide billions of dollars in advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel over the next 10 years was intended in part to serve as a bulwark against Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East. [******]
The White House plan must overcome opposition from lawmakers who are skeptical that the weapons will have any effect in blunting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and who worry that a flood of new weapons could ignite a tinderbox in the region.
In closed briefings last week on Capitol Hill, participants in the sessions said, some lawmakers had asked pointed questions about why the White House was using the Iranian threat to justify the arms sales. They expressed doubt that the new weaponry, which includes satellite-guided bombs, missiles and new naval vessels, could deter Iran from proceeding with its nuclear program.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the plans on Monday before she left for the Middle East to meet with officials from Egypt, Jordan and the Persian Gulf states, though details of the planned weapons sales were first reported over the weekend. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates also left Monday for a visit to the region. [*********]
The final package will be formally presented for Congressional approval in September, and for now many influential lawmakers appear to have adopted a wait-and-see approach. Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, and Representative Tom Lantos, Democrat of California, who lead the Congressional committees that will consider the proposal, indicated Monday that they would reserve judgment on the merits of the plan until September.
But signaling a possible battle between the White House and Congress, Mr. Lantos said lawmakers wanted assurances that the weapons package “include only defensive systems,” not weaponry that could be used by Arab states to attack Israel’s military.
Ms. Rice took pains to dispute the notion that the Bush administration was trying to buy Saudi cooperation on American policy initiatives in Iraq and Israel in exchange for the military package. Three times during a briefing with reporters aboard her plane en route to the Middle East, she said no quid pro quo was involved in the arms sale.
“We are working with these states to give a chance to the forces of moderation and reform,” she said on an overnight flight before a refueling stop in Shannon, Ireland.
Ms. Rice’s deputies and other administration officials have voiced complaints that Saudi Arabia is financing opponents of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and that the Saudis have been rejecting American pleas to be friendlier to the Maliki government. But Ms. Rice chose to strike a positive note in advance of her scheduled meeting on Tuesday night with King Abdullah in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, instead blaming Iran and Syria for trouble in Iraq.
“It’s very interesting that the Saudis, on the border issue with Iraq, have been very active on the entry of terrorists trying to cross into Iraq from Saudi Arabia,” she said. That was one reason, she said, that militants often entered through Syria. [talk about bobbing and weaving and ducking reality] [********]
Mr. Gates told reporters traveling with him that the trip with Ms. Rice was meant to convey “the importance we attach to reassuring our friends out here of our staying power.” [*********]
A senior Defense Department official on Mr. Gates’s plane said Mr. Gates also planned to encourage Saudi Arabia to enforce international sanctions meant to punish Iran for its nuclear activities. [***********]
R. Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs, said Monday that a majority of the weapons systems intended for the Gulf states were defensive.
But some defense experts said any battle between Congress and the White House over the definition of “defensive” versus “offensive” weapons systems might be futile because the terms can be malleable.
“There is no bright-line distinction,” said John Pike, a weapons expert at GlobalSecurity.org, a research group. “They would be talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
The Bush administration plan already appears to have the blessing of Israel’s government, which has historically opposed American weapons sales to Saudi Arabia. On Sunday, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said at a cabinet meeting that Israelis “understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states, and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran.” [that’s quite a change from the past] [*******]
Administration officials said that the nations receiving weapons under the plan had all voiced growing concern about Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon and its financial support for terrorism, and that the new weaponry would counterbalance Iran’s regional ambitions.
Mr. Burns said that under the plan American military aid for Israel would increase to $3 billion annually over 10 years, from $2.4 billion now. Mr. Burns said Egypt, another crucial Sunni Arab country under pressure from Washington to embrace Iraq’s Shiite-led government, would receive a total of $13 billion.
But Mr. Burns declined to provide specifics about the packages intended for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations, saying those details were still being hammered out.
In the past, Israel has successfully lobbied the United States against selling AIM-9X missiles, used on jet fighters for aerial combat, to countries like Egypt out of fear that they could shift the military balance in the Middle East. A Congressional aide familiar with details of the Bush administration plans said AIM-9X missiles were part of the package planned for Egypt.
Mark Mazzetti reported from Washington, and Helene Cooper from Washington and Shannon, Ireland.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Sept. 10 in Waziristan

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001271.html
Sept. 10 in Waziristan
What Will Be Done About al-Qaeda's Camps?
By David Ignatius
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A19 [oped] [what the US should do in Pakistan?] [*****]
The National Intelligence Estimate released July 17 put the problem plainly enough: Al-Qaeda has "regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" using a new haven in the lawless frontier area of northwest Pakistan known as Waziristan. [****]
The question is: What is the United States going to do about it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001271.html
Sept. 10 in Waziristan
What Will Be Done About al-Qaeda's Camps?
By David Ignatius
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A19 [oped] [what the US should do in Pakistan?] [*****]
The National Intelligence Estimate released July 17 put the problem plainly enough: Al-Qaeda has "regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" using a new haven in the lawless frontier area of northwest Pakistan known as Waziristan. [****]
The question is: What is the United States going to do about it?
For those who might have forgotten in the six years since Sept. 11, 2001, what a reconstituted al-Qaeda could do, the intelligence analysts explained that the terrorist group has "the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks and/or fear among the U.S. population." The analysts noted that al-Qaeda continues to seek biological, radiological and nuclear weapons "and would not hesitate to use them." [***********]
Perhaps it is human nature not to see threats clearly until a disaster happens -- even if it's the second time around. How else to explain the limited public response to this clear and emphatic warning? Maybe the Bush administration has cried wolf about terrorism so often that people have stopped believing anything the government says. Or that the whole subject is now obscured by the choking fog of Iraq, [******]as in the president's mind-numbing formulation of the threat: "They are al-Qaeda . . . in . . . Iraq."
But the question remains: What should the United States do about al-Qaeda's new haven in Pakistan, from which it may already be plotting attacks that could kill thousands of Americans? It is Sept. 10, metaphorically, with a little increment of time still remaining. We can see "the looming tower," to borrow the title of Lawrence Wright's fine book. But how do we stop the airplanes? [********]
The Bush administration will attack "actionable targets anywhere in the world, putting aside whether it was Pakistan or anyplace else," warned Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser. That drew the predictable indignant response from the Pakistani government, which doesn't want to go after the al-Qaeda cells in Waziristan but doesn't want anyone else to do it, either.
So again, what should the United States do? The lesson of Sept. 11 is that it's necessary to act decisively. But the lesson of Iraq is that unwise actions can make the terrorism problem worse. Which course is right? [***********]
The best answer I've heard comes from Henry Crumpton, a former CIA officer who was one of the heroes of the agency's campaign to destroy al-Qaeda's haven in Afghanistan in late 2001. After retiring from the CIA in 2005, he served as the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism. He resigned from State in February and is now a fellow at the EastWest Institute and a private consultant.
Crumpton argues that the United States must take preventive action but that it should do so carefully, through proxies wherever possible. The right model for a Waziristan campaign is the CIA-led operation in Afghanistan, [********] not the U.S. military invasion of Iraq. Teams of CIA officers and Special Forces soldiers are best suited to work with tribal leaders, providing them weapons and money to fight an al-Qaeda network that has implanted itself brutally in Waziristan through the assassination of more than 100 tribal leaders during the past six years. [******]It would be better to conduct such operations jointly with Pakistan, but if the government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf can't or won't cooperate, the United States should be prepared to go it alone, Crumpton argues. [I argued for this right after 9/11] [morally questionable but practicable] [
"The United States has an obligation to defend itself and its citizens," says Crumpton. "We either do it now, or we do it after the next attack." [******]
Crumpton proposed a detailed plan last year for rolling up these sanctuaries, which he called the Regional Strategic Initiative. It would combine economic assistance and paramilitary operations in a broad counterinsurgency campaign. In Waziristan, U.S. and Pakistani operatives would give tribal warlords guns and money, to be sure, but they would coordinate this covert action with economic aid to help tribal leaders operate their local stone quarries more efficiently, say, or install windmills and solar panels to generate electricity for their remote mountain villages. [*******]
Intervening in another Muslim country is risky, to put it mildly. That's why a successful counterinsurgency program would need Pakistani support and why its economic and social development components would be critical. The concept should be President John F. Kennedy's "Alliance for Progress" to counter radicalism in Latin America, rather than "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
The United States can begin to take action now against al-Qaeda's new haven. Or we can wait, and hope that we don't get hit again. The biggest danger in waiting is that if retaliation proves necessary later, it could be ill-planned and heavy-handed -- precisely what got us in trouble in Iraq. [*********]
The writer is co-host ofPostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

A War Best Served Cold

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/opinion/31thompson.html
July 31, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War Best Served Cold
By NICHOLAS THOMPSON [oped] [lessons from George Kennan’s containment] [applied to today’s –iraq] [********]
SIXTY years ago this month, writing under the byline of X, George Kennan supposedly laid out America’s cold war foreign policy. Kennan’s essay is often said to be the most influential article in the history of this country’s foreign policy, but neither Harry Truman, nor any president after him, actually followed X’s recommendations. “Containment,” the word the essay introduced, was applied in a bellicose way that Kennan didn’t intend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/opinion/31thompson.html
July 31, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War Best Served Cold
By NICHOLAS THOMPSON [oped] [lessons from George Kennan’s containment] [applied to today’s –iraq] [********]
SIXTY years ago this month, writing under the byline of X, George Kennan supposedly laid out America’s cold war foreign policy. Kennan’s essay is often said to be the most influential article in the history of this country’s foreign policy, but neither Harry Truman, nor any president after him, actually followed X’s recommendations. “Containment,” the word the essay introduced, was applied in a bellicose way that Kennan didn’t intend.
But while Truman dodged X’s advice, George W. Bush should follow it. Kennan was wrong about how we would win the cold war, but right about how to fight the war on terrorism. [*******]
In the July 1947 issue of Foreign Affairs, Kennan, who was then the State Department’s policy planning chief, gave American strategy a name, but not much else. He argued that we didn’t have to actively defeat the Soviet Union, only outlast it. Communism held inside itself “the seeds of its own decay.” The United States should refrain from provoking Moscow, whether through confrontation or histrionics. Patience would lead to success.
The article’s influence was grounded in a misunderstanding. Kennan didn’t make clear whether he intended containment to be primarily a political or military strategy. Despite the article’s ambiguity, everyone assumed the latter. [******] The most important columnist of the time, Walter Lippmann, wrote a series of consecutive critical essays about the X article — later collected in a book that coined a phrase with its title, “The Cold War” — declaring that containment was a military doctrine and a bad one at that.
But in a letter to Lippmann that Kennan never mailed (most likely because his boss, Secretary of State George Marshall, had chastened him for causing a ruckus), Kennan explained that he didn’t mean containment with guns. He didn’t want American armed forces to intervene in countries where the Soviets were mucking around but hadn’t gained control, like Greece, Iran and Turkey. [***********]
The Soviets are making “first and foremost a political attack,” Kennan wrote. “Their spearheads are the local communists. And the counter-weapon that can beat them is the vigor and soundness of political life in the victim countries.” [ideas] [*****]
American policy makers viewed containment in military terms. We soon built up our forces to defend Western Europe, created NATO and engaged in a huge arms race. Eventually containment would mean soldiers in Vietnam and thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at the Soviet Union.
Kennan opposed every one of these actions. Long called the man who defined our cold war policies, Kennan was probably containment’s most consistent, and persistent, critic. He spent decades denying paternity of the doctrine everyone credited him with creating.
Today we face vastly different challenges from those the nation confronted right after World War II. Our enemy is dispersed; there’s a constant threat of suicide attacks; nuclear weapons can be hidden in suitcases instead of dropped from airplanes. Still, when it comes to overarching strategy, Kennan’s desired but never executed policy from 60 years ago offers profound wisdom for today. [**********]
Kennan’s insight was that a long-term, complex struggle wasn’t best judged in terms of winning or losing. Communism wasn’t something we could immediately conquer. The same holds true for Al Qaeda, a movement that, like Soviet communism, offers its subjects oppression and poverty. [******]Time is on our side — particularly if we act in a way that doesn’t inflame our enemies’ pride and anger and win them new recruits.
Kennan’s insistence on a political strategy, rather than a military one, makes more sense now than it did when he published his essay. Applied today, that advice would entail spending more time and money building up our Muslim allies. The Center for Strategic and International Studies reports that only about $900 million of the $10 billion we’ve given Pakistan since 2002 has gone to health, education and democracy promotion. Most of the rest has gone to the military. [******] The Bush administration has recently taken steps to change this ratio. But Kennan, one of the authors of the Marshall Plan, would have wanted the numbers to be closer to the reverse.
A 21st-century rendering of X’s vision of containment would involve the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, an unambiguous renunciation of torture and an abandonment of the notion that our legal and moral norms don’t apply to the current struggle. Kennan believed we gave our opponents a propaganda victory [*****]each time we acted in a manner unfitting of our ideals.
“To avoid destruction,” Kennan concluded the X article, “the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.”
We can’t know for sure how his recommended, wholly political version of containment would have fared in the cold war. But we do know that a militant foreign policy didn’t lead to nuclear war and did, eventually, help bring about the collapse of Soviet communism. We also know that a strong offensive policy has yet to succeed against Al Qaeda.
Kennan died two years ago at the age of 101. One of his last public statements was a critique, in 2002, of the looming Iraq invasion. [******] War, he said, was too unpredictable, and this one wasn’t worth it. As he wrote to Lippmann six decades ago, “Let us find health and vigor and hope, and the diseased portion of the earth will fall behind of its own doing. For that we need no aggressive strategic plans, no provocation of military hostilities, no showdowns.”
Nicholas Thompson, a senior editor at Wired magazine, is writing a book about George Kennan.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Congo's Sexual Violence Goes 'Far Beyond Rape'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001849.html
Congo's Sexual Violence Goes 'Far Beyond Rape'
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A15
Congo's Sexual Violence Goes 'Far Beyond Rape'
[congo] [incredible reports of sexual slavery and UN complicity] [*******]
GENEVA -- Atrocities in Congo's volatile province of South Kivu extend "far beyond rape" and include sexual slavery, forced incest and cannibalism, a U.N. human rights expert said Monday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001849.html
Congo's Sexual Violence Goes 'Far Beyond Rape'
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A15
Congo's Sexual Violence Goes 'Far Beyond Rape'
[congo] [incredible reports of sexual slavery and UN complicity] [*******]
GENEVA -- Atrocities in Congo's volatile province of South Kivu extend "far beyond rape" and include sexual slavery, forced incest and cannibalism, a U.N. human rights expert said Monday.
Yakin Erturk called the situation the worst she has seen in four years as the special investigator for violence against women. Sexual violence in Congo is "rampant," she said, blaming rebel groups, the armed forces and national police. [********]
"These acts amount to war crimes and, in some cases, crimes against humanity," Erturk said.
Rebel groups that fled to Congo after taking part in the Rwandan genocide of the 1990s have committed many of the abuses, she said.
EUROPE
• MOSCOW -- Russian prosecutors have asked a Moscow court to issue an arrest warrant for businessman Boris Berezovsky in connection with a new criminal case, authorities said. The Kremlin has been stepping up efforts to discredit Berezovsky, an outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin who has been granted political asylum by Britain.
ASIA
• BEIJING -- North Korea has cooperated fully with U.N. nuclear experts who were monitoring the shutdown and sealing of the country's sole plutonium-producing reactor, [******] the team's leader said Tuesday.
• BEIJING -- Water levels were set to peak Tuesday at China's huge Three Gorges Dam as another 27 deaths were reported from flooding and landslides, New China News Agency said. Heavy rains also closed Beijing's airport, stranding almost 10,000 passengers Monday night,
• DHAKA, Bangladesh -- Bangladesh's High Court suspended former prime minister Sheikh Hasina's extortion trial and ordered her released on bail, her attorney said.
Hasina, who led the government from 1996 to 2001, was arrested July 16 on charges of extorting $441,000.
• BEIJING -- The Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding has come up with a dung-for-profit scheme that turns waste from pandas into odor-free souvenirs, including photo frames, bookmarks and Olympic-themed statues of the animals, state media said.
-- From News Services
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Israel to Let Some Palestinians From Iraq Live in West Bank

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31mideast.html
July 31, 2007
Israel to Let Some Palestinians From Iraq Live in West Bank
By ISABEL KERSHNER [Israel-Palestine] [former Palestine] [refugees from the –iraq war where a sizable population of Palestinians have gathered] [now through odd quirk of fate, Bush administration’s decision to invade –Iraq (March 2003), and events in former Palestine, Palestinians refugees returning] [***********]
JERUSALEM, July 30 — A number of Palestinians who have fled war-torn Iraq will be allowed to come to live in the West Bank, Israeli officials said Monday, presenting the decision as the latest in a series of gestures meant to bolster the moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. [****]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31mideast.html
July 31, 2007
Israel to Let Some Palestinians From Iraq Live in West Bank
By ISABEL KERSHNER [Israel-Palestine] [former Palestine] [refugees from the –iraq war where a sizable population of Palestinians have gathered] [now through odd quirk of fate, Bush administration’s decision to invade –Iraq (March 2003), and events in former Palestine, Palestinians refugees returning] [***********]
JERUSALEM, July 30 — A number of Palestinians who have fled war-torn Iraq will be allowed to come to live in the West Bank, Israeli officials said Monday, presenting the decision as the latest in a series of gestures meant to bolster the moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. [****]
At the same time, the officials emphasized that the terms of entry will be devised to avoid setting any precedent regarding other Palestinian refugees of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and their descendants and their longstanding claim of a right of return.
The Palestinians from Iraq would be allowed to enter under “certain conditions” and under the rubric of “family reunification,” [****]said Zehavit Ben Hillel, a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman.
The Palestinians fleeing Iraq are not registered as refugees with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the body that deals with a majority of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The returnees would not be listed as refugees once they are in the West Bank, but would be granted permanent residency in the Palestinian territory, Ms. Ben Hillel said.
Israeli officials are not saying exactly how many Palestinians from Iraq would be allowed into the West Bank; a report in the daily newspaper Haaretz put the number at 41. [******] [hardly significant] It is unclear how many are seeking to enter.
Mr. Abbas and his Western-backed caretaker government have been working to consolidate their power in the West Bank since the Islamic militant group Hamas took over the Gaza Strip six weeks ago. But Israel maintains overall security control in the West Bank and governs the border crossings from Jordan, which the Palestinians will have to pass through.
The request to allow Palestinians fleeing Iraq to enter Israel was made two and a half years ago by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It was rejected then on political and security grounds, according to the Haaretz report. The Israeli Foreign Ministry confirmed the details of the report.
The recent approval was timed to help shore up Mr. Abbas, Israeli officials said.
The Palestinian information minister, Riad Malki, welcomed the Israeli decision. “We demand the entry for all Palestinians from Iraq because of the dangers they live under,” he told The Associated Press, adding, “This is a great accomplishment, and symbolic.” [********]
A request for a number of Palestinians from Iraq to join relatives in Gaza was turned down by Israel “because a terror organization is in charge there,” Ms. Ben Hillel said, referring to Hamas.
Other Israeli gestures to Mr. Abbas have included the release by Israel of withheld tax money and the early release of 255 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. Although they represented only a fraction of the more than 10,000 Palestinian prisoners [*****]still being held, Mr. Abbas greeted them with great fanfare.
As part of the peace efforts in the mid-1990s, Israel agreed to an annual quota of Palestinians eligible to return to the Palestinian territories under a family reunification program. The number was set at 2,000 cases a year, or up to 6,000 individuals. But the program was suspended with the outbreak of the second intifada in 2000.
About 34,000 Palestinians lived in Iraq before the American-led invasion in 2003. According to Mr. Malki, about 18,000 have fled the violence there. [******] Many have been living in refugee camps on the Iraq-Syria border, and some have entered Jordan.
Also on Monday, Mr. Abbas began a visit to Russia to seek support for his administration. The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, told reporters that Russia considers Mr. Abbas “the lawful leader of the entire Palestinian people.”
But Mr. Lavrov also called for a dialogue between Mr. Abbas’s Fatah movement and its rival, Hamas. Russia has maintained its own contacts with the Islamic group: Reuters reported that Mr. Lavrov spoke by telephone last week with Khaled Meshal, the Damascus-based political chief of Hamas. Mr. Abbas was scheduled to meet with President Vladimir V. Putin on Tuesday.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

NATO Tries to Cut Afghan Civilian Deaths

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/asia/31nato.html
July 31, 2007
NATO Tries to Cut Afghan Civilian Deaths
By REUTERS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [the long-festering problem of NATO troops and collateral damage dones by tactics of airstrikes] [*******]
BRUSSELS, July 30 (Reuters) — NATO plans more restrained tactics in its war against Taliban guerrillas, including smaller bomb loads on aircraft, [****]in an effort to cut civilian casualties, the alliance’s head said in an interview published Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/asia/31nato.html
July 31, 2007
NATO Tries to Cut Afghan Civilian Deaths
By REUTERS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [the long-festering problem of NATO troops and collateral damage dones by tactics of airstrikes] [*******]
BRUSSELS, July 30 (Reuters) — NATO plans more restrained tactics in its war against Taliban guerrillas, including smaller bomb loads on aircraft, [****]in an effort to cut civilian casualties, the alliance’s head said in an interview published Monday.
The Financial Times said Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO’s secretary general, acknowledged that mounting Afghan civilian casualties had hurt support for NATO, and said that commanders had ordered troops to hold off on attacks in some situations where civilians were at risk.
“We realize that if we cannot neutralize our enemy today without harming civilians, our enemy will give us the opportunity tomorrow,” he said. “If that means going after the Taliban not on Wednesday but on Thursday, we will get him then.” [*****]
More than 330 civilians have been killed here in operations involving foreign troops this year, said Afghan officials and Western aid workers.
Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, has warned that the casualties could damage support for the foreign forces in his country.
The Financial Times also quoted NATO officials as saying that the alliance would increasingly leave house-to-house searches to the Afghan Army to avoid confrontations.
Violence has surged in Afghanistan in the past 18 months, the bloodiest period since American-led troops overthrew the Taliban government in 2001.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Afghan Police Find Body of 2nd South Korean

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/asia/31cnd-hostage.html
July 31, 2007
Afghan Police Find Body of 2nd South Korean
By CHOE SANG-HUN [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
SEOUL, July 31 — Shocked by the killing of a second South Korean hostage in Afghanistan and weary of the 13-day-old crisis, South Korea today urged the United States and Afghan governments to show ”flexibility” over Taliban demands to exchange the remaining 21 Christian aid workers from South Korea [*****] for imprisoned militants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/asia/31cnd-hostage.html
July 31, 2007
Afghan Police Find Body of 2nd South Korean
By CHOE SANG-HUN [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
SEOUL, July 31 — Shocked by the killing of a second South Korean hostage in Afghanistan and weary of the 13-day-old crisis, South Korea today urged the United States and Afghan governments to show ”flexibility” over Taliban demands to exchange the remaining 21 Christian aid workers from South Korea [*****] for imprisoned militants.
The government appeal — coupled with a growing frustration among South Koreans over what they perceive as a lack of cooperation from the United States in resolving the crisis — came hours after the Afghan police found the bullet-ridden body of a second South Korean hostage slain by the Taliban. [*******]
A purported Taliban spokesman said the man was killed on Monday because the Afghan government had not released the Taliban prisoners. The South Korean government identified the victim as Shim Sung Min, a 29-year-old former information technology worker.
”The government is well aware of how the international community deals with these kinds of abduction cases,” Cheon Ho Seon, a spokesman for President Roh Moo Hyun of South Korea, said in a statement today. “But it also believes that it would be worthwhile to use flexibility in the cause of saving the precious lives of those still in captivity, and is appealing to the international community to do so.” [*******]
Ever since the Taliban kidnapped the 23 South Korean aid workers on July 19, Mr. Roh’s government has been caught between two uncompromising forces. The Taliban has been insisting on a hostage-and-prisoner swap, while the American-backed Afghan government counters that bowing to the militants’ demands will only lead to more kidnappings. [***********]
“We shouldn’t encourage kidnapping by actually accepting their demands,” Humayun Hamidzada, a spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, told reporters today, according to Reuters.
Qari Yousef Ahmadi, who describes himself as a Taliban spokesman, said that the militants would kill more hostages if the Afghanistan government does not release prisoners by noon on Wednesday. [******]
“It might be a man or a woman,” he told The Associated Press. “It might be one. It might be two, four. It might be all of them.” He said the Taliban had killed the second South Korean hostage because “the Kabul and Korean governments are lying and cheating.” [*************]
“We cannot contain our anger at this merciless killing and strongly condemn this,” said Cho Hee Yong, a spokesman for the South Korean foreign ministry.
But the South Korean government also expressed frustration over the deadlock in negotiations. The Taliban “demand is not within the power of the Korean government because it doesn’t have any effective means to influence decisions of the Afghan government,” said Mr. Cheon, the presidential spokesman.
“The Korean government strongly condemns and urges an immediate end to these heinous acts of killing innocent people in order to press for demands that it can’t meet,” he said.
Grief, anger and a growing sense of helplessness gripped South Koreans today after the government confirmed that the body of the bespectacled man dumped on a clover field beside a road in southern Afghanistan was that of Mr. Shim, who had volunteered for a South Korean church group’s aid mission to the war-torn country.
The body of the group’s leader, Bae Hyung Kyu, who had also been shot to death, was found last Wednesday.
“We appeal for support from the people of the United States and around the world for resolving this crisis as early as possible,” [******]Kim Kyong Ja, the mother of one of the South Korean captives, said today, reading a statement from the family while grieving relatives standing behind her fought back tears.
“Especially, the families want the United States to disregard political interests and give more active support to save the 21 innocent lives,” she said. “We sustain ourselves through this ordeal anxiety with a belief that they can return home alive,” she said. “So please help us.”
Mr. Shim’s father, Shim Chin Pyo, told reporters of his son: “He had a good heart and did a lot of volunteer work. My son also wanted to help the poor and disabled.”
The Taliban kidnapped the 23 South Koreans, most of whom are women and in their 20s and 30s, while they were on a bus traveling from Kabul to the southern city of Kandahar on July 19. [**********]
They were the largest group of foreign hostages taken prisoner in Afghanistan since the American-led invasion in 2001.
The South Korean appeal for flexibility came ahead of a meeting scheduled for Sunday between Mr. Karzai and President Bush at Camp David.
Mr. Karzai was severely criticized by the United States and European governments after he approved a deal in March in which five Taliban fighters were freed in exchange for the release of an Italian journalist. He called the trade a one-time deal.
Paik Jin Hyun, an associate dean at the Graduate School of International Studies of Seoul National University, said that if the hostage crisis did not conclude satisfactorily, anti-American groups in South Korea might use it to promote anti-American sentiments in the country.
Today, the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, a major civic group based in Seoul, issued a statement accusing Washington of watching the hostage crisis “as if it were a fire across the river.”
“As everyone knows, the Taliban’s demand is something the U.S. government can help resolve, not the Afghan or South Korean government,” it said. “The South Korean government, citing its alliance with the United States, dispatched troops for the U.S. war against terrorism,” it added. “Now why can’t it use the spirit of the alliance to help persuade the U.S. administration and save its own people?” [********]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Oxfam Reports Growing Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31oxfam.html
July 31, 2007
Oxfam Reports Growing Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq
By DAMIEN CAVE [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [4 million refugees, 2 million internally displaced!] [basic human needs unmet while parliament vacations] [*****]
AMMAN, Jordan, July 30 — Poverty, hunger and public health continue to worsen in Iraq, according to a report released Monday by Oxfam International, which says that more aid is needed from abroad and calls on the Iraqi government to decentralize the distribution of food and medical supplies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31oxfam.html
July 31, 2007
Oxfam Reports Growing Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq
By DAMIEN CAVE [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [4 million refugees, 2 million internally displaced!] [basic human needs unmet while parliament vacations] [*****]
AMMAN, Jordan, July 30 — Poverty, hunger and public health continue to worsen in Iraq, according to a report released Monday by Oxfam International, which says that more aid is needed from abroad and calls on the Iraqi government to decentralize the distribution of food and medical supplies.
The report, based on a compendium of research from the United Nations, the Iraqi government and nonprofit organizations Oxfam works with or finances, offers little original data. But it provides one of the most comprehensive pictures to date of the human crisis within Iraq and what it describes as a slow-motion response from Iraq’s government, the United States, the United Nations and the European Union.
The report states that roughly four million Iraqis, many of them children, are in dire need of food aid; that 70 percent of the country lacks access to adequate water supplies, up from 50 percent in 2003; and that 90 percent of the country’s hospitals lack basic medical and surgical supplies. [************]
One survey cited in the report, completed in May by the Iraqi Ministry of Planning, found that 43 percent of Iraqis live in “absolute poverty,” earning less than $1 a day. [*****]
Unemployment and hunger are particularly acute among the estimated two million people displaced internally from their homes by violence, many of whom are jobless, homeless and largely left on their own.
“The government of Iraq, international donors and the United Nations system have been focused on reconstruction, development and building political institutions, and have overlooked the harsh daily struggle for survival now faced by many,” the report says.
The solutions proposed by Oxfam, an international aid organization that opposed the 2003 American invasion and helps groups in Iraq from an office in Amman, focus on both Iraqi policy and international financing. [********]
The report — which also includes contributions from the NGO Coordination Committee in Iraq, a network of Iraqi and international aid agencies — calls on Iraq to expand and decentralize its distribution of food rations and emergency cash payments to widows. NGO refers to nongovernmental organizations.
Medical and other aid supplies kept in seven Baghdad warehouses should be distributed to the provinces and managed by local authorities rather than the inefficient central government, the report said.
Citing the policies of aid organizations that will not accept money from countries involved in Iraq’s conflict, Oxfam also called on countries without troops in Iraq to send more money for aid. [******]According to the report, cuts in financing and the challenge of providing assistance in an insecure environment have limited what both the United Nations and its partners can do for Iraqis. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for example, used to work with 20 partners in Iraq; it now has only 11, [********]the report says.
Oxfam’s analysis offers no suggestions on how to root out the corruption that has hobbled the Iraqi government and international aid efforts in the past, nor does it address the links between criminal militias and Iraqi government agencies, like the Ministry of Health, which is run by the political party loyal to the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr.
It also presents its statistics as hard facts, without acknowledging the wide margin of error that typically accompanies social research in a war zone. Rather, the report focuses almost exclusively on the need for more money and better distributed aid. [*******]
Joost Hiltermann, deputy program director for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group, an organization of experts on conflicts, said that at this point in Iraq, the focus is justified. Corruption, he said, is beyond the purview of groups like Oxfam and the lack of organized aid needs to be immediately addressed.
“The priority,” he said, “is to get aid going regardless of such problems.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Despite Appeals, Iraqi Legislators Take Break

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31iraq.html
July 31, 2007
Despite Appeals, Iraqi Legislators Take Break
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [as threatened-promised, the parliament begins its month-long break a week before the US congress does same] [timing, given yesterday’s oped by Pollack and O’Hanlon, is bad] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 30 — Iraq’s Parliament headed into a monthlong summer recess on Monday, halting work despite calls from the United States and the prime minister for lawmakers to shorten their break to push through important legislation. [*****]
The decision to take off the month of August almost surely eliminates hopes that the 275-member Council of Representatives will pass laws sought by American officials as evidence that the country is making progress toward stability.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31iraq.html
July 31, 2007
Despite Appeals, Iraqi Legislators Take Break
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [as threatened-promised, the parliament begins its month-long break a week before the US congress does same] [timing, given yesterday’s oped by Pollack and O’Hanlon, is bad] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 30 — Iraq’s Parliament headed into a monthlong summer recess on Monday, halting work despite calls from the United States and the prime minister for lawmakers to shorten their break to push through important legislation. [*****]
The decision to take off the month of August almost surely eliminates hopes that the 275-member Council of Representatives will pass laws sought by American officials as evidence that the country is making progress toward stability.
The United States was hoping for movement on measures meant to reduce sectarian strife. One would divide revenue from Iraq’s vast oil wealth equitably among the country’s factions; another would promote reconciliation with Iraq’s once-ruling Sunni minority by allowing some former members of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein back into senior jobs.
President Bush has been among those who have pressed the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to ask lawmakers to take a shorter vacation, according to the president’s aides. [that’s rich coming from a president who takes more vacation than any in recent memory] [*****] And critics of the Iraqi government have noted that while Parliament is in recess, American and Iraqi troops will continue fighting and patrolling the streets despite the 120-degree summer temperatures.
However, Iraqi representatives defended the decision to take off until Sept. 4, saying they had already cut their scheduled two-month summer break in half and extended their work weeks from three to six days.
Their scheduled return is less than two weeks before Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of United States forces in Iraq, are to submit a report on benchmarks [*****]set by Congress to measure Iraq’s political progress. There is widespread pessimism that feuding politicians will thrash out such complex issues before the report to Congress, which is considered crucial to maintaining support for the war.
Some politicians have bridled at the pressure from Washington, while Ambassador Crocker cautioned that the American and Iraqi political systems have different expectations of progress, “and the Washington clock is running a lot faster than the Baghdad clock is.” [*********]
But political analysts said two of the most crucial pieces of legislation relevant to Congressional benchmarks — the proposed oil law and the one on former Baathists — have not even been sent to Parliament for debate, because of a deadlock within the ruling coalition’s main parties.
Shatha al-Mussawi, a lawmaker from the Shiite-led coalition, said there was no reason for Parliament to remain in session because it has nothing to vote on.
“All the work on the laws is up to the political blocs, and that means all the negotiations and debates take place in closed rooms, not in the Parliament,” she said.
“It doesn’t matter if we extend or do not extend the session,” she added. “We already did extend it one month, and what happened in that month? We never approved any law except one. The issue is not the time. The issue is that there has been no political compromise or agreement about these laws, especially about de-Baathification and oil revenues.”
Heated exchanges between Prime Minister Maliki’s office and members of the largest Sunni Arab bloc, Tawafiq, also threaten to render the whole timetable for voting academic.
Some fear that if the Sunnis carry out their threat to withdraw from the government later this week, any legislation would become meaningless without their consent.
An American Embassy spokesman in Baghdad pointed out that Parliament had passed 60 pieces of legislation on important subjects like oil refineries and military justice.
“We understand that the government and political leaders will remain actively engaged in trying to reach agreement on some sticking points, so that the legislation can be submitted to the Council of Representatives and passed when it reconvenes,” [****]he said.
Abdul Razzaq al-Saiedi and Qais Mizher contributed reporting.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Iran: Cleric’s Death Opens Way for Rafsanjani

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31briefs-Rafsanjani.html
July 31, 2007
World Briefing | Middle East
Iran: Cleric’s Death Opens Way for Rafsanjani
By NAZILA FATHI [Iran] [general] [domestic politics that will affect Iranian foreign policy in unforeseen ways] [Rafsanjani wealthy “moderate,” only relative to other mullahs, who’s been implicated in things as long ago as Iran-Contra] [a surviver] [probably leads at least one camp inside theocracy] [followup] [**********]
Ayatollah Ali Meshkini, [*****]the 86-year-old chairman of the powerful Assembly of Experts, [***]died of lung disease in a Tehran hospital, Iranian news media reported. His replacement is likely to be Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, left, the more moderate former president who lost the presidential race to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005. [*****]Mr. Rafsanjani is the assembly’s vice chairman, having been chosen in December elections in which Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters fared surprisingly poorly. [******] The powers of the directly elected, 86-member clerical board include choosing, monitoring and, if it deems necessary, removing the supreme leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. [******]The Mehr News Agency said the assembly would leave the vote to replace Ayatollah Meshkini, who led it for 25 years, until its regular meeting next month.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31briefs-Rafsanjani.html
July 31, 2007
World Briefing | Middle East
Iran: Cleric’s Death Opens Way for Rafsanjani
By NAZILA FATHI [Iran] [general] [domestic politics that will affect Iranian foreign policy in unforeseen ways] [Rafsanjani wealthy “moderate,” only relative to other mullahs, who’s been implicated in things as long ago as Iran-Contra] [a surviver] [probably leads at least one camp inside theocracy] [followup] [**********]
Ayatollah Ali Meshkini, [*****]the 86-year-old chairman of the powerful Assembly of Experts, [***]died of lung disease in a Tehran hospital, Iranian news media reported. His replacement is likely to be Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, left, the more moderate former president who lost the presidential race to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005. [*****]Mr. Rafsanjani is the assembly’s vice chairman, having been chosen in December elections in which Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters fared surprisingly poorly. [******] The powers of the directly elected, 86-member clerical board include choosing, monitoring and, if it deems necessary, removing the supreme leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. [******]The Mehr News Agency said the assembly would leave the vote to replace Ayatollah Meshkini, who led it for 25 years, until its regular meeting next month.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Pakistani Premier 'Disappointed' by U.S. Pressure

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001709.html
Pakistani Premier 'Disappointed' by U.S. Pressure
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A12 [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [US rather bold public statements about reserved rights to hot pursuit among others, starting to rankle and scare Musharraf policymakers] [see today’s societal where Ignasus argues for pre-emption] [********]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 30 -- Pakistan will do what it takes to eliminate extremists operating in the country for its own sake, not because of rising pressure [*****]from the United States, according to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001709.html
Pakistani Premier 'Disappointed' by U.S. Pressure
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A12 [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [US rather bold public statements about reserved rights to hot pursuit among others, starting to rankle and scare Musharraf policymakers] [see today’s societal where Ignasus argues for pre-emption] [********]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 30 -- Pakistan will do what it takes to eliminate extremists operating in the country for its own sake, not because of rising pressure [*****]from the United States, according to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.
Aziz said in an interview this week that efforts to force Pakistan to do more are unnecessary and that the government was "disappointed" by U.S. legislation that ties aid for Pakistan to its performance fighting terrorism. [*****] The legislation, which officials expect President Bush to sign, is part of a major bill passed last week aimed at implementing many recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission. [*********]
The possible new restrictions on aid come as there are growing doubts in Washington that Pakistan's government is willing to take painful steps to eliminate alleged havens for al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters [******]in the country's northwestern tribal areas.
American officials have said recently that the United States reserves the right to carry out unilateral military strikes in Pakistan, which has received more than $10 billion in U.S. aid since 2001. That contention has inflamed relations [****]between the two countries. Officials in Islamabad have criticized it as counterproductive because it reinforces a sense among Pakistanis that their government acts at U.S. behest.
Following a wave of extremist attacks in recent weeks that have killed nearly 200 people in Pakistan, Aziz said the government has its own reasons for tackling rising militancy.
"This is a country where both the president and prime minister have been victims of terrorist attacks," Aziz said. "We don't need to be told every day that we should do this. We are committed ourselves."
Aziz survived a suicide bomber's assassination attempt in the summer of 2004. The attack killed Aziz's driver and eight others. President Pervez Musharraf has survived several assassination attempts since he came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999. [*****]
Aziz, a former top-ranking Citibank executive with no track record in politics, became prime minister three years ago after first serving as Musharraf's finance minister. Since then, he has run the government's day-to-day affairs, though Musharraf, a general who also heads the military, remains the ultimate authority in Pakistan.
Aziz is widely credited with turning around the nation's economy, which had been moribund but now produces strong annual growth.
He could soon be out of a job, however.
Musharraf on Friday traveled to the United Arab Emirates to meet with his strongest rival, exiled former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, about the possibility of a power-sharing arrangement. Musharraf's standing has been battered this year by an increasingly violent insurgency, as well as a burgeoning pro-democracy movement. He needs allies before upcoming elections, and Bhutto could provide crucial support to allow him to continue in office. [******]
Bhutto, meanwhile, needs a guarantee that she can return to the country without facing criminal charges relating to alleged corruption. She has said she wants to serve a third term as prime minister.
Aziz said it would be "unfair" for anyone to determine who will lead Pakistan before a vote.
"The office of the president and the prime minister are a result of elections," Aziz said. "It is for the people of Pakistan to decide who their leadership ought to be."
Pakistan, a nuclear power of 160 million people, is scheduled to hold elections in coming months. [****]Musharraf has been criticized by democracy advocates over his plan to win election for another five years as president from the current parliament, which is at the end of its term.
Aziz said that he is "absolutely" sure Musharraf will win a new term and that it is unlikely parliamentary elections will be held before that happens.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

July 30, 2007

Bush and Counterfactual Confidence

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900973.html
Bush and Counterfactual Confidence
By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, July 30, 2007; A03 [president Bush] [how does he handle the pressures?] [he may actually be oblivious?] [similar questions raised in govt today about AG Gonzalez] [perhaps they are two peas from same pod and that’s why they get on so famously?] [**********]
In the face of mounting public and political opposition to the war in Iraq, recent reports from the White House suggest that President Bush remains serenely confident. [******]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900973.html
Bush and Counterfactual Confidence
By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, July 30, 2007; A03 [president Bush] [how does he handle the pressures?] [he may actually be oblivious?] [similar questions raised in govt today about AG Gonzalez] [perhaps they are two peas from same pod and that’s why they get on so famously?] [**********]
In the face of mounting public and political opposition to the war in Iraq, recent reports from the White House suggest that President Bush remains serenely confident. [******]
Bush's confidants report that the president believes he will be vindicated by history. He keeps Churchill and Lincoln close at hand. No matter how tough the situation in Iraq, Bush remains confident about his decision to go to war because he believes that things would have been much worse otherwise. [***********]
"Obviously, it was a difficult decision for me to make -- to send our brave troops, along with coalition troops, into Iraq," Bush said at a recent press briefing about the Iraq situation, where he faced a barrage of questions about flagging support for the war. "I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power."
Bush's argument is based on something known as a counterfactual. [*****] In his mind, the president has run an alternate view of history -- one that imagines Saddam Hussein still in power -- and has come to the conclusion that deposing the Iraqi leader was better. [counterfactuals are unseful analystic tools but can never be proved or anything close to it] [if one is using them with certitude to justify one’s particularly provocative choices in history, one is in trouble] [*************]
Bush is not alone in using counterfactual thinking. Coming up with what-if scenarios is how people make sense of the world. When we make a financial decision that turns out poorly, we imagine going back in time and not investing in that stock or buying that house. That scenario looks rosier -- it is an upward counterfactual. But let us say we make a good financial decision. When we imagine not buying that stock or that house, we contrast the money we have made with the money we might have lost had we not made the investment -- producing a downward counterfactual.
But what is dangerous about counterfactuals is that while they may seem reasonable, they easily become a way for us to confirm what we already feel. [*******]Bush might not conclude that the war was the right decision because he has reached for a downward counterfactual; he might have reached for a downward counterfactual because he feels the war in Iraq is right.
The basic problem with counterfactual reasoning is there is no way to test your theory. [*******] Bush can't actually go back in time and not invade Iraq and see whether things would actually be worse than they are now. Because the arrow of time runs in only one direction, counterfactuals cannot be disproved. (Indeed, this may be why they are so attractive in political reasoning.)
Philip Tetlock, a professor of organizational behavior and political science at the University of California, has found that the careless use of counterfactuals is one reason politicians and experts are often wrong in their predictions. [*************]
"History does not give us control groups," he said. With counterfactuals, "the control groups are all being run in the imaginations of the analysts."
Tetlock's large study found that politicians and pundits were rarely better than non-experts in predicting the course of historical events. But he found that experts who were more cautious about using counterfactuals -- who explicitly reminded themselves that they were coming up with scenarios that could not be verified -- were more accurate on average than those who used counterfactuals blithely.
In his book "Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?" Tetlock divided experts into groups that he called foxes and hedgehogs. [*****] Both groups used counterfactuals, but the foxes used them warily whereas the hedgehogs used them confidently. Not surprisingly, hedgehogs tended to be far more partisan than foxes.
"How much restraint do you exercise on your counterfactual imagination?" asked Tetlock. "If you allow your partisan imagination to dominate completely, that is a danger sign in how you think about the future. If you exercise restraint, you are willing to acknowledge dissonant possibilities."
Until recently, the Bush administration's Iraq plans have been mostly the work of hedgehogs. The pragmatic recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, however, are quite clearly the work of foxes. [*******]
Bush's heroes, Lincoln and Churchill, offer a study in contrasts. Lincoln leaned toward fox, Churchill toward hedgehog. Lincoln was open to dissent, even within his own Cabinet, and was alert to nuance. Churchill allowed few doubts. Each man was perfectly designed for his historical moment.
Churchill's single-mindedness helped Britain overcome the existential threat of Nazi Germany during the darkest days of the Battle of Britain. But his stubbornness also blinded him to his mistakes. If Churchill was far ahead of the curve in recognizing the menace of Hitler, he was far behind the curve in recognizing that Britain's colonial empire was headed for history's dustbin. [************]
Tetlock's study is not about proving that foxes were better than hedgehogs or the other way around. Rather, it is about the consequences of different styles of thinking. Tetlock did find, for example, that when they make the right calls, hedgehogs are far more likely than foxes to be spectacularly right.
Unfortunately, hedgehogs are also far more likely than foxes to be spectacularly wrong. [*********]
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Before Mideast Trip, Rice Outlines Arms Package

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/europe/30cnd-weapons.html
July 30, 2007
Before Mideast Trip, Rice Outlines Arms Package
By HELENE COOPER [bush white house] [nsc principals] [state department] [sec state condi rice heading to middle east] [among other stops, Saudi where the $20 billion arms package bound to be topic 1] [first reported 2 days ago] [appears payoff for Saudi acquiescence even though Saudis have not been playing well with the US of late] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 30 — The Bush administration said today that it will ask Congress to approve an arms sales package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that could eventually total $20 billion, at a time when the United States is leaning heavily on its Sunni Arab allies to play a more constructive role in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/europe/30cnd-weapons.html
July 30, 2007
Before Mideast Trip, Rice Outlines Arms Package
By HELENE COOPER [bush white house] [nsc principals] [state department] [sec state condi rice heading to middle east] [among other stops, Saudi where the $20 billion arms package bound to be topic 1] [first reported 2 days ago] [appears payoff for Saudi acquiescence even though Saudis have not been playing well with the US of late] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 30 — The Bush administration said today that it will ask Congress to approve an arms sales package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that could eventually total $20 billion, at a time when the United States is leaning heavily on its Sunni Arab allies to play a more constructive role in Iraq.
The package, announced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just before she headed to the Middle East to meet with officials from Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States, also includes a sweetener meant to block Israeli opposition to the deal.
“We will move soon to conclude a new ten-year military assistance agreement with Israel,” Ms. Rice said. “This agreement will provide a total of $30 billion to ensure Israel’s ability to defend itself.” [133% of the Saudi deal] [*****]
The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes improved satellite-guided bombs, upgrades for its fighter jets and new naval vessels, had made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Indeed, even before the administration had announced the package, two Congressmen, Anthony D. Weiner and Jerrold Nadler, both Democrats of New York, held a news conference outside the Saudi Consulate in Manhattan to announce a legislative proposal to block the planned arms sale.
Administration officials said they are also working on a new ten-year, $13 billion military assistance agreement for Egypt, another crucial Sunni Arab [*****]country under pressure from Washington to embrace Iraq’s Shiite-led government.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

The Cost of 'Enduring' in Iraq

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901219.html
The Cost of 'Enduring' in Iraq
By Walter Pincus
Monday, July 30, 2007; A13 [bush white house] [bush white house] [us congress] [110th congress, 1st session] [dems in control and puhsing the Iraq war exit] [the issue of permanent military bases in -iraq] [obviously a sensitive issue for US-iraqi relations as insurgents and jihadis say that’s the US design] [on other hand, forbidding makes salvaging even a little nearly impossible] [followup] [*******]
The House passed a bill on Wednesday barring the Defense Department from building any military installation or base that could serve as a permanent station for U.S. forces in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901219.html
The Cost of 'Enduring' in Iraq
By Walter Pincus
Monday, July 30, 2007; A13 [bush white house] [bush white house] [us congress] [110th congress, 1st session] [dems in control and puhsing the Iraq war exit] [the issue of permanent military bases in -iraq] [obviously a sensitive issue for US-iraqi relations as insurgents and jihadis say that’s the US design] [on other hand, forbidding makes salvaging even a little nearly impossible] [followup] [*******]
The House passed a bill on Wednesday barring the Defense Department from building any military installation or base that could serve as a permanent station for U.S. forces in Iraq.
Similar prohibitions are already on the books, and their practical effect has been to "limit the use of concrete structures and emphasize building of relocatable units" as a way to show that U.S. facilities in Iraq are not "permanent," according to a recent study by the Congressional Research Service.
So, what exactly is the Defense Department building in Iraq with the billions in military construction dollars it has received over the past five years? Congress approved $1.7 billion for military construction in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, according to CRS, but offered no breakdown of how the money was spent.
The House and Senate appropriations committees have finished work on the fiscal 2008 military construction bills and have put out their relevant reports. In congressional testimony in April, Keith E. Eastin, Army assistant secretary for installations and environment, said that the $738.8 million budget request was "for 33 critical construction projects for Iraq and Afghanistan," including airfield and operational support facilities, along with roads and fuel handling and storage units. [*******]
The House report says the Pentagon "intends to continue the buildup of infrastructure in Persian Gulf nations, while establishing 'enduring' locations for U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Djibouti" -- whatever "enduring" means.[******] But no Iraq construction is detailed. And a CRS report this month lists a total of $2 billion approved for Iraq and Afghanistan military construction in the fiscal 2004, 2005 and 2006 budgets -- but again no details.
Piecemeal hints on Iraq construction projects abound, [******]however.
Balad Air Base, [******]about 50 miles north of Baghdad, houses not just the major U.S. Air Force operations in Iraq but also the biggest logistical support center in the country. To carry out its functions, there are at least 25,000 U.S. troops stationed there. [*****] A recent Associated Press story from the base quoted an officer describing the facility as "the busiest aerial port" in the Defense Department. Almost 16 square miles in size and surrounded by another 12 square miles of security perimeter, it has two hardened cement runways over 11,000 feet in length. "The weaker of Balad's two 11,000-foot runways was reinforced -- for five to seven years' more hard use," [*******]the AP reported last week.
Camp Anaconda, [********]the residential part of the Balad complex, was described by The Washington Post's Thomas E. Ricks last year as "a small American town smack in the middle of the most hostile part of Iraq." It has neighborhoods for servicemen and others for thousands of civilian workers along with movie theaters, fast-food courts and an Olympic-size swimming pool.
Gen. John P. Abizaid, then commander of U.S. Central Command, told the House Armed Services Committee in March 2004 that "we are making Balad Airfield our primary hub in the region, and the idea of doing that is because we need to have the Baghdad International Airport revert to civilian control." [******]Balad Airfield is one of five operating U.S. air bases inside Iraq.
How much has been spent on Balad and Anaconda? Two years ago, CRS identified $200 million -- but more has gone in since, including a new air traffic control center.
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who closely follows the Arab press, noted last week that the pan-Arab newspaper al-Hayat carried a story reporting that Iraqis don't take seriously the legislation barring permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. "Members of [the Iraqi] parliament say that they see these enormous hardened bases being built," the newspaper reported, "which is practical proof to the contrary." [**************]
National security and intelligence reporter Walter Pincus pores over the speeches, reports, transcripts and other documents that flood Washington and every week uncovers the fine print that rarely makes headlines -- but should. If you have any items that fit the bill, please send them tofineprint@washpost.com.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Gonzales's Truthfulness Long Disputed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901327.html
Gonzales's Truthfulness Long Disputed
Claims of Misstatements to Shield Bush Stretch Back a Decade
By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 30, 2007; A01 [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Gonzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the late-night visit and its purpose] [yesterday we learned that the controversy may have been about data mining rather than warrant-less spying per se!] [though I double checked and data mining was already associated with the program following the USA Today and Barton Gellman pieces which WH never denied and even implicity addressed] [followup] [**]
When Alberto R. Gonzales was asked during his January 2005 confirmation hearing whether the Bush administration would ever allow wiretapping of U.S. citizens without warrants, he initially dismissed the query as a "hypothetical situation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901327.html
Gonzales's Truthfulness Long Disputed
Claims of Misstatements to Shield Bush Stretch Back a Decade
By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 30, 2007; A01 [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Gonzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the late-night visit and its purpose] [yesterday we learned that the controversy may have been about data mining rather than warrant-less spying per se!] [though I double checked and data mining was already associated with the program following the USA Today and Barton Gellman pieces which WH never denied and even implicity addressed] [followup] [**]
When Alberto R. Gonzales was asked during his January 2005 confirmation hearing whether the Bush administration would ever allow wiretapping of U.S. citizens without warrants, he initially dismissed the query as a "hypothetical situation."
But when Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) pressed him further, Gonzales declared: "It is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes." [********] [in fact it was]
By then, however, the government had been conducting a secret wiretapping program for more than three years without court oversight, possibly in conflict with federal intelligence laws. Gonzales had personally defended the effort in fierce internal debates. Feingold later called his testimony that day "misleading and deeply troubling." [*****]
The accusation that Gonzales has been deceptive in his public remarks has erupted this summer into a full-blown political crisis for the Bush administration, as the beleaguered attorney general struggles repeatedly to explain to Congress the removal of a batch of U.S. attorneys, the wiretapping program and other actions. [******]
In each case, Gonzales has appeared to lawmakers to be shielding uncomfortable facts about the Bush administration's conduct on sensitive matters. [*****]A series of misstatements and omissions has come to define his tenure at the helm of the Justice Department and is the central reason that lawmakers in both parties have been trying for months to push him out of his job.
Yet controversy over Gonzales's candor about George W. Bush's conduct or policies has actually dogged him for more than a decade, since he worked for Bush in Texas.
Whether Gonzales has deliberately told untruths or is merely hampered by his memory has been the subject of intense debate among members of Congress, legal scholars and others who have watched him over the years. Some regard his verbal difficulties as a strategic ploy on behalf of a president to whom he owes his career; others see a public official overwhelmed by the magnitude of his responsibilities. [********]
Administration officials say Gonzales's enemies are distorting his words for political gain. The Justice Department has portrayed the criticism as unavoidable and a matter of routine misunderstanding, provoked by the attorney general's presence at a "friction point between the executive branch and Congress when it comes to national security policy," as spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Friday.
Gonzales told senators earlier this year that allegations that he had been untruthful "have been personally very painful to me." But Gonzales's critics on and off Capitol Hill say he has had trouble with the truth for more than a decade, pointing to a controversy over Gonzales's account of why Bush was excused from jury duty in 1996 while serving as the governor of Texas. [********************]
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who joined other Democrats last week in calling for an inquiry into possible perjury by Gonzales, said Friday that "most public servants -- Democratic or Republican, conservative, moderate or liberal -- seem to want to try to tell the truth. . . . With Gonzales, whatever answer fits he will tell, whether it's true or not. It almost seems pathological." [*************]
Over the past 2 1/2 years, lawmakers have accused Gonzales of dissembling on many topics, including civil liberties abuses under the USA Patriot Act and his role in reviewing aggressive interrogation tactics. [******] After a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February 2006, Gonzales sent the panel a six-page, single-spaced letter to "clarify" six major points of testimony, including his erroneous claim that the Justice Department had never undertaken a legal analysis of domestic wiretapping.
But scrutiny of Gonzales increased dramatically this year as a result of Democrats' aggressive investigations into the Justice Department's firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. Gonzales has particularly come under fire for his shifting explanations of his role in the dismissals and for his statements that he could not recall a host of details about the firings.
At a Senate hearing in April, for example, Gonzales said more than 60 times that he could not recall events or facts related to the firings, including a final, high-level meeting in his office at which the dismissal plan was formally approved. [**********]
Democrats and some experts on the use of language say that Gonzales's gaffes are too numerous and consistent to be chalked up to misunderstandings. In most instances, his answers, or his refusals to answer, have served to obscure events that would be damaging to the administration, Gonzales or Bush.
One example involves the Terrorist Surveillance Program, [called TSPs] [****] which allowed the National Security Agency to monitor telephone calls between the United States and overseas in which one party had been tied to al-Qaeda. Gonzales has testified repeatedly that there was never "serious disagreement" among administration officials about the program and that an unusual visit by Gonzales to the hospital bed of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was focused on "other intelligence activities." [apparently technically suggesting that data mining using what the TSPs collect is distinct from the TSPs themselves] [but administration’s own words in favor of PATRIOT had bush saying everything requires warrants including taps and searches of properpty!] [data mining represents problems for unreasonable searches—it’s purely inductive] [*******]
But FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III testified last week that the NSA program was the subject of a fierce debate within the administration and was the issue under discussion during the hospital visit.
Gonzales and his aides say the differing accounts boil down to a dispute over terminology: Gonzales was referring only to the surveillance program in the precise form that was confirmed publicly by Bush. [**********]
A news account yesterday said that the legal wrangling was about an effort to mine databases for sensitive information, which was linked to the NSA program but not acknowledged by Bush. [*******]That suggests that Gonzales's description might have been technically accurate. [it was a huge story in 2006 when USA Tday broke it] [the administration complained about leaks and neglected to bat it down!] [********]
But others privy to details of the surveillance activities -- including several lawmakers and Mueller -- have suggested that they were all part of a single NSA program. Gonzales's critics say his distinction was a lawyerly one that stretched the bounds of the truth.
"He's a slippery fellow, and I think so intentionally," said Richard L. Schott, a professor at the University of Texas's Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. "He's trying to keep the president's secrets and to be a team player, even if it means prevaricating or forgetting convenient things."
"This almost subconscious bond of loyalty" between the attorney general and the president "may be driving a lot of this," said Schott, who has studied relations between the executive and legislative branches of government and the role of psychology in political behavior. "It's obvious that Gonzales owes Bush his career. Part of his behavior comes from this gratitude and extreme loyalty to Bush."
Bill Minutaglio, a University of Texas journalism professor and author of biographies of Gonzales and Bush, said Gonzales kept an "extremely, extremely low profile" in the three jobs Bush gave him in the Texas government -- general counsel, secretary of state and judge on the Supreme Court -- and had little practice before he came to Washington at responding publicly to stiff scrutiny. "The grilling he's enduring right now is beyond anything he had ever experienced in his life. He was ill prepared for it," [*******]Minutaglio said.
Gonzales has irritated congressional Democrats, and a few Republicans, by saying that he is responsible for decisions made within the Justice Department but distancing himself from the process that led to the prosecutor firings. At the April hearing, he said a dozen times that he accepted responsibility. But he also has told Congress that he did not know who placed the names of prosecutors on the firing list, [which is simply inconceivable unless he’s tacitly admitting that the WH routinely did such things] [******] and he has pinned much of the responsibility on his outgoing deputy, Paul J. McNulty, who has said he was only marginally involved.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) told Gonzales at the hearing that much of his testimony was "a stretch," and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said he was "taken aback" by Gonzales's memory lapses. Last week, Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the Judiciary Committee's senior Republican, warned Gonzales to review his remarks, saying: "I do not find your testimony credible, candidly."
Deborah Tannen, a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University who has written about the confrontational character of dialogue in public life, said Gonzales's responses to grilling by lawmakers are an extreme example of a rhetorical style that many politicians adopt when they get into trouble. Although accepting responsibility, she said, they "very explicitly stop short of, 'I made a mistake. I'm at fault.' " [***********]
Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at the New York University School of Law, said that Gonzales's strengths "may lie elsewhere, but they are not in management."
"The idea that nine U.S. attorneys could be fired and the head of the department is only casually in the loop -- it is preposterous that a manager would let that happen." Gillers also said he thinks that Gonzales has exacerbated his problems because "when the inconsistencies are pointed out, he refuses to back down," adding: "He is digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole."
Questions about Gonzales's willingness to shade the truth on Bush's behalf came to prominence in the 1996 episode in which Bush was excused from Texas jury duty in a drunken-driving case. [*****] Bush was then the state's governor, and Gonzales was his general counsel. If Bush had served, he probably would have had to disclose his own drunken-driving conviction in Maine two decades earlier. [***********]
The judge, prosecutor and defense attorney involved in the case have said that Gonzales met with the judge and argued that jury service would pose a potential conflict of interest for Bush, who could be asked to pardon the defendant. Gonzales has disputed that account. He made no mention of meeting with the judge in a written statement submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

British Prime Minister Holds Talks With Bush

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/europe/30brown.html
July 30, 2007
British Prime Minister Holds Talks With Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG and SARAH LYALL [bush administration nsc principals] [president bush] [meeting with pm Gordon brown of uk for first time since he became PM] [special meeting at camp david] [brown’s fairly deft oped today in the WP] [********]
WASHINGTON, July 29 — President Bush, whose relationship with Tony Blair when he was prime minister of Britain was unparalleled in closeness and reliability, on Sunday night began two days of meetings with Mr. Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/europe/30brown.html
July 30, 2007
British Prime Minister Holds Talks With Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG and SARAH LYALL [bush administration nsc principals] [president bush] [meeting with pm Gordon brown of uk for first time since he became PM] [special meeting at camp david] [brown’s fairly deft oped today in the WP] [********]
WASHINGTON, July 29 — President Bush, whose relationship with Tony Blair when he was prime minister of Britain was unparalleled in closeness and reliability, on Sunday night began two days of meetings with Mr. Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown.
The selection of Mr. Brown, who took office in late June, has injected a dose of unpredictability into Mr. Bush’s most important trans-Atlantic partnership. [*****]
The meetings, the first of Mr. Brown’s tenure as prime minister, hold challenges for both men.
Mr. Bush heads into the new relationship as a lame duck. Mr. Brown enters it at the very start of his term, facing demands at home that may redefine what many considered a supplicant relationship with the United States under Mr. Blair.
Headlines out of London have predicted a new era of distance from the United States, first and foremost in terms of Iraq policy — a forecast that has not gone unnoticed at the White House or among diplomats in Washington. [******]
They have also taken note of statements from some officials in Mr. Brown’s government — most notably by a Foreign Office minister, Mark Malloch-Brown, suggesting that the new prime minister will not be anywhere near as close to Mr. Bush as Mr. Blair was.
The former prime minister was mocked as Mr. Bush’s “poodle” by voters increasingly dismayed by the war and by what they regarded as American arrogance and heavy-handedness in foreign policy.[********]
But in interviews last week, American officials referred to the news out of Britain as “white noise,” saying that they had taken heart in Mr. Brown’s statements that he still considered the United States a prime partner.
“Look at what he said on BBC Radio,” said Gordon D. Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, referring to an interview this month in which Mr. Brown pointed to Mr. Bush’s relationship with Mr. Blair in positive terms. [********]
“I will continue to work, as Tony Blair did, very closely with the American administration,” Mr. Brown said in the interview. “We will not allow people to separate us from the United States in dealing with the common challenges that we face around the world.”
Mr. Johndroe said the start of British troop withdrawals from Basra, which has fed into the predictions of a shift in the relationship, had been expected for some time. [******]
Before leaving for the United States, Mr. Brown was unequivocal in his support for the alliance, saying it was Britain’s “single most important bilateral relationship.”
“Because of the values we share, the relationship with the United States is not only strong but can become stronger in the years ahead,” he said in a statement released by Downing Street. “We know that we cannot solve any of the world’s major problems without the active engagement of the U.S.” [*********]
United States officials say Mr. Bush and Mr. Brown, who met in person on various occasions before he became prime minister, had already begun to speak regularly by video conference.
Mr. Johndroe said that the men dined alone on Sunday night and that they had a one-on-one breakfast meeting scheduled for Monday.
The idea, Mr. Johndroe said, was that “the two leaders can just get down to direct discussions,” though their meeting Monday morning will be followed by a session with aides, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Mr. Johndroe said the two would lay out their positions on the major topics confronting their nations, what he termed an “exchange of views” on topics like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the crisis in Darfur and the status of Kosovo.
American officials seemed encouraged that Mr. Brown traveled to Camp David, a trip they had feared he would cancel after recent widespread flooding in parts of Britain. [*****]As of a few days ago, American officials were still uncertain he would come.
While Mr. Brown evidently deemed it politically safe to make the trip, the domestic ramifications of his relationship with Mr. Bush would seem likely to remain delicate for some time.
Mr. Blair’s unwillingness to criticize the United States and his unwavering commitment to the Iraq war proved the most unpopular aspect of his leadership. “Under Tony Blair, the relationship was so subordinate as to appear subservient,” the leader of the opposition Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell, said recently. “Britain needs to be America’s candid friend, not its client.” [**********]
In a newspaper interview this month, Mr. Malloch-Brown, who served until recently as deputy secretary general at the United Nations, said, “It is very unlikely that the Brown-Bush relationship is going to go through the baptism of fire and therefore be joined at the hip like the Blair-Bush relationship was.”
“You need to build coalitions that are lateral, which go beyond the bilateral blinkers of the normal partners,” he told the Daily Telegraph, speaking of reaching out to other leaders in Europe, India and China.
Jim Rutenberg reported from Washington, and Sarah Lyall from London.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Bush's Turkish Gamble

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900859.html
Bush's Turkish Gamble
By Robert D. Novak
Monday, July 30, 2007; A15 [oped] [forget Iran] [according to Novak Bush administration has plans ot help Turks on Turk-Iraq border with US special forces] [pretty wild and interesting] [***********]
The morass in Iraq and deepening difficulties in Afghanistan have not deterred the Bush administration from taking on a dangerous and questionable new secret operation. [*****] High-level U.S. officials are working with their Turkish counterparts on a joint military operation to suppress Kurdish guerrillas and capture their leaders. Through covert activity, their goal is to forestall Turkey from invading Iraq. [sounds plausible] [covert so US could plausibly deny to –Iraqi Kurds that they were part of it?] [however, when it leaks like this, obviously, plausible deniability is only a fiction] [******]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900859.html
Bush's Turkish Gamble
By Robert D. Novak
Monday, July 30, 2007; A15 [oped] [forget Iran] [according to Novak Bush administration has plans ot help Turks on Turk-Iraq border with US special forces] [pretty wild and interesting] [***********]
The morass in Iraq and deepening difficulties in Afghanistan have not deterred the Bush administration from taking on a dangerous and questionable new secret operation. [*****] High-level U.S. officials are working with their Turkish counterparts on a joint military operation to suppress Kurdish guerrillas and capture their leaders. Through covert activity, their goal is to forestall Turkey from invading Iraq. [sounds plausible] [covert so US could plausibly deny to –Iraqi Kurds that they were part of it?] [however, when it leaks like this, obviously, plausible deniability is only a fiction] [******]
While detailed operational plans are necessarily concealed, the broad outlines have been presented to select members of Congress as required by law. U.S. Special Forces are to work with the Turkish army to suppress the Kurds' guerrilla campaign. [******]The Bush administration is trying to prevent another front from opening in Iraq, which would have disastrous consequences. But this gamble risks major exposure and failure.
The Turkish initiative reflects the temperament and personality of George W. Bush. Even faithful congressional supporters of his Iraq policy have been stunned by the president's upbeat mood, which makes him appear oblivious to the loss of his political base. [*******] Despite the failing effort to impose a military solution in Iraq, he is willing to try imposing arms -- though clandestinely -- on Turkey's ancient problems with its Kurdish minority, who comprise one-fifth of the country's population. [**************]
The development of an autonomous Kurdish entity inside Iraq, resulting from the decline and fall of Saddam Hussein, has alarmed the Turkish government. That led to Ankara's refusal to allow U.S. combat troops to enter Iraq through Turkey, an eleventh-hour complication for the 2003 invasion. As the Kurds' political power grew inside Iraq, the Turkish government became steadily more uneasy about the centuries-old project of a Kurdistan spreading across international boundaries -- and chewing up big pieces of Turkey.
The dormant Turkish Kurd guerrilla fighters of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) came to life. By June, the Turkish government was demonstrating its concern by lobbing artillery shells across the border. Ankara began protesting, to both Washington and Baghdad, that the PKK was using northern Iraq as a base for guerrilla operations. On July 11, in Washington, Turkish Ambassador Nabi Sensoy became the first Turkish official to assert publicly that Iraqi Kurds have claims on Turkish territory. [*******]On July 20, just two days before his successful reelection, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened a military incursion into Iraq against the Kurds. [*******]Last Wednesday, Murat Karayilan, head of the PKK political council, predicted that "the Turkish Army will attack southern Kurdistan." [********]
Turkey has a well-trained, well-equipped army of 250,000 near the border, facing some 4,000 PKK fighters hiding in the mountains of northern Iraq. But significant cross-border operations surely would bring to the PKK's side the military forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government, the best U.S. ally in Iraq. What is Washington to do in the dilemma of two friends battling each other on an unwanted new front in Iraq?
The surprising answer was given in secret briefings on Capitol Hill last week by Eric S. Edelman, a former aide to Vice President Cheney who is now undersecretary of defense for policy. [isn’t this the guy who slapped down senator Clinton?] [*****] Edelman, a Foreign Service officer who once was U.S. ambassador to Turkey, revealed to lawmakers plans for a covert operation of U.S. Special Forces to help the Turks neutralize the PKK. They would behead the guerrilla organization by helping Turkey get rid of PKK leaders that they have targeted for years. [******************]
Edelman's listeners were stunned. Wasn't this risky? He responded that he was sure of success, adding that the U.S. role could be concealed and always would be denied. Even if all this is true, some of the briefed lawmakers left wondering whether this was a wise policy for handling the beleaguered Kurds, who had been betrayed so often by the U.S. government in years past. [*************]
The plan shows that hard experience has not dissuaded President Bush from attempting difficult ventures employing the use of force. On the contrary, two of the most intrepid supporters of the Iraq intervention -- John McCain and Lindsey Graham-- were surprised by Bush during a recent meeting with him. When they shared their impressions with colleagues, they commented on how unconcerned the president seemed. That may explain his willingness to embark on such a questionable venture against the Kurds. [********]
© 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Partnership for the Ages

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900862.html
Partnership for the Ages
By Gordon Brown
Monday, July 30, 2007; A15 [oped] [PM Gordon Brown] [on Anglo-American “special relationship”] [he arrive yesterday whereupon he met President Bush at Camp David] [************]
Within a few weeks of becoming prime minister of Great Britain, I have come to the United States to affirm the historic partnership of shared purpose that unites our two countries. [********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900862.html
Partnership for the Ages
By Gordon Brown
Monday, July 30, 2007; A15 [oped] [PM Gordon Brown] [on Anglo-American “special relationship”] [he arrive yesterday whereupon he met President Bush at Camp David] [************]
Within a few weeks of becoming prime minister of Great Britain, I have come to the United States to affirm the historic partnership of shared purpose that unites our two countries. [********]
Outside observers may think of even great alliances only in narrow, 19th-century terms: treaties of convenience driven forward by nothing more than mutual needs and current interests.
Yet I believe our Atlantic partnership is rooted in something far more fundamental and lasting than common interests or even common history: It is anchored in shared ideals that have for two centuries linked the destinies of our two countries. Winston Churchill spoke of what he called "the joint inheritance" of Britain and America. But he was thinking of more than just the dates, places and institutions of our shared historical experience. The joint inheritance he wrote of was a shared belief in what he called "the great principles of 'freedom and the rights of man.' " [********] Values that started with the British idea of liberty -- from our bill of rights to English common law -- found their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence. It led President Ronald Reagan to say that for someone going from Britain to America or from America to Britain it is like "a moment of kinship and homecoming."
It is because ours is a partnership of purpose founded on values that it has lasted.
And when today, at my meeting with President Bush, I speak of a joint inheritance not just of shared history but shared values founded on a shared destiny, I mean the idea that everyone is created equal, that all faiths should be free to express their beliefs, that arts and culture should celebrate diversity, that government should be open and accountable, that there should be opportunity for all men and all women. [********]
It is these ideas that bind us and give us strength to work together to face down every challenge ahead -- from the danger of nuclear proliferation, global poverty and climate change to, today, the biggest single and immediate challenge the world has to defeat: global terrorism that is hostile and hateful to all the values we share. [**********]
This partnership of purpose matters now more than ever. For if in the last century we fought together to save the very idea of freedom from the totalitarian threat, in this generation we defend together the ideal of freedom against the terrorist threat.
In this century, it has fallen to America to take center stage. And let me acknowledge the debt the world owes to the United States for its leadership in this struggle.
America has shown by the resilience and bravery of its people from Sept. 11, 2001, to this day that while buildings can be destroyed, values are indestructible; that while lives may be ended, the belief in liberty never dies; and that while hearts may be broken, the faith in a better future is unbreakable.
Since Sept. 11, al-Qaeda has killed thousands of people in 19 countries, irrespective of faith. In Britain there have been 15 attempts at terrorist outrages. Last week, I reported to Parliament that our security services are tracking around 30 potential plots, including potential suicide bombers, involving up to 2,000 people. [*******]
It is our shared task to expose terrorism for what it is -- not a cause but a crime. A crime against humanity. [*********]
All of us must be vigilant in our determination to prevent attacks and defeat the forces of terrorism. And it is the values we share that make us best placed to succeed. For to achieve this we must mobilize all methods of diplomacy, all means of intelligence, all tools of law and policing, and all the bravery of our security and military forces as we isolate terrorist extremists from the peaceful majority.
So today the struggles of the 21st century are the battles that engage military might which we have been fighting together in Iraq and Afghanistan and through NATO -- and they are also the battles of ideas.
We should remember that during the Cold War, the united front against Soviet communism involved deterrence through large arsenals of weapons and a cultural effort also on an unprecedented scale, deploying what Roosevelt called the "arsenal of democracy." [************]
Foundations, trusts, civil society and civic organizations -- links and exchanges between schools, universities, museums, institutes, churches, trade unions, sports clubs, societies -- were all engaged. Those in newspapers, journals, cultural institutions, the arts and literature sought to expose the difference between moderation and violent extremism.
So now, as then, the way ahead is to support all communities in developing a strong identity resistant to violent extremists trying to recruit vulnerable young people. We must undercut the terrorists' so-called "single narrative" and defeat their ideas. At home and abroad we must back mainstream and moderate voices and reformers, emphasizing the shared values that exist across faiths and communities. We must expose the contrast between great objectives to tackle global poverty and honor human dignity, and the evils of terrorists who would bomb and maim people irrespective of faith, indifferent to the very existence of human life.
And just as we are united in tackling global terrorism, so we are united in our belief that globalization should be seen as an opportunity and not simply a threat. [*****]This is why I know that by working together we can restart the Doha round of world trade talks to the benefit of the whole world economy. And our shared outrage at injustice means we cannot stand by and watch the humanitarian crisis in Darfur without taking action to speed up the deployment of U.N.-African Union troops, call for an immediate cease-fire and, following America's lead, impose sanctions if necessary.
Separated -- yes -- by an ocean, we are still united by the streams of history and the strengths of our ideals. Standing together on this foundation we will prevail in the greatest struggles of our times. [poeverty, terrorism, . . . ] [******]
The writer is prime minister of Britain.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

A War We Just Might Win

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html
July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Washington [oped] [insider pundits on –iraq] [O’Hanlon not usually a source of particularly novel thinking—here, however, he is taking an unpopular but seemingly wise tack] [hold on until spring 08] [*******]
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. [*********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html
July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Washington [oped] [insider pundits on –iraq] [O’Hanlon not usually a source of particularly novel thinking—here, however, he is taking an unpopular but seemingly wise tack] [hold on until spring 08] [*******]
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. [*********]
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. [************]
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. [*****]The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, [a la CORDs in Vietnam] [***] where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.
In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.
We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. [*****] Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.
But for now, things look much better than before. [***]American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. [******]The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).
In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.
The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, [****]with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave. [*********]
In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. [*******]
These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor. [*******]
Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. [******]Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.
In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.
Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.
In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines. [*****]
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.[****] [that’s certainly a safe date] [it’s the de facto date after which withdrawals will begin almost no matter what else happens] [***********]
Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Japan’s Leader Resists Calls to Resign

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30cnd-japan.html
July 30, 2007
Japan’s Leader Resists Calls to Resign
By NORIMITSU ONISHI [Japan] [NEAsia] [modernity and remilitarization] [PM Shinzo Abe and his Liberal Democratic Party took a beating][Japan ethos] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [************]
TOKYO, July 30 — Prime Minister Shinzo Abe resisted calls today to resign after a devastating defeat in Sunday’s election for the upper house of Parliament, insisting that Japanese voters still supported his policies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30cnd-japan.html
July 30, 2007
Japan’s Leader Resists Calls to Resign
By NORIMITSU ONISHI [Japan] [NEAsia] [modernity and remilitarization] [PM Shinzo Abe and his Liberal Democratic Party took a beating][Japan ethos] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [************]
TOKYO, July 30 — Prime Minister Shinzo Abe resisted calls today to resign after a devastating defeat in Sunday’s election for the upper house of Parliament, insisting that Japanese voters still supported his policies.
Mr. Abe rejected the urging of opposition politicians, newspaper editorials and even members of his own Liberal Democratic Party that he step down in keeping with a practice followed by past prime ministers. He attributed his party’s loss to public anger over scandals and a record-keeping problem related to national pensions, and not to a rejection of his administration’s overall policies. [*********]
“I can’t run away at this point,” Mr. Abe said. “The situation will become very severe, but even in this kind of situation, we can’t afford a political vacuum.”
But in an indication of how the loss may force him to shift his priorities to survive, Mr. Abe spent most of a 30-minute news conference talking about the kind of economic and everyday issues close to voters’ hearts. He avoided mentioning North Korea, Japan’s military, transforming Japan into “a beautiful country” and other leitmotivs of his nationalist agenda.
Tellingly, he never brought up the issue he has long upheld as the most important of his administration — the revision of the pacifist Constitution — until a reporter asked him about it toward the end of the news conference. He said he wanted to engage voters in a “wide and deep discussion” about the Constitution. [***********]
Benefiting from the anger against Mr. Abe’s party, the main opposition Democratic Party seized control of the upper house for the first time, [*******]and will be able to direct, delay and block legislation.
Yukio Hatoyama, the Democratic Party’s secretary general, said that voters had emphatically stated that they lack confidence in Mr. Abe’s administration.
“If the prime minister tries to stay despite the people’s judgment, the Democratic Party will have to take some kind of action,” Mr. Hatoyama said, indicating that the party would force a dissolution of the lower house and a general election. [******]
Three of Japan’s five national newspapers also wrote that Mr. Abe had lost the popular mandate. The Asahi urged Mr. Abe to step down, reporting that 56 percent of respondents in exit polls said they wanted him to do so. The Nikkei and Mainichi said he should dissolve the lower house and call a general election.
Several heavyweight lawmakers in Mr. Abe’s party were also quoted in newspapers saying that he should quit.
“Prime Minister Abe should resign,” Shigeru Ishiba, a former head of the defense ministry, said in an article in the Yomiuri Newspaper whose content was confirmed by his office. “Otherwise, the Liberal Democratic Party is finished.”
In 1998, then Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto resigned after winning only 44 out of 126 seats in an upper house election; in 1989, Prime Minister Sousuke Uno stepped down after winning only 36 seats out of 126, the lowest number ever recorded. On Sunday, Mr. Abe won only 37 out of 121 seats. [************]
In Monday’s news conference, Mr. Abe ruled out dissolving the lower house, which selects prime ministers. But he said that he would reshuffle his cabinet, though he did not give a date.
A factor working in Mr. Abe’s favor is that the Liberal Democrats have no obvious successor capable of leading the party to a general election, which has to be called by September 2009. [****]The candidate mentioned most often, Taro Aso, the foreign minister, has the habit of committing verbal gaffes, most recently when he made a joke at the expense of people with Alzheimer’s disease.
Masaki Taniguchi, an associate professor at the University of Tokyo’s Graduate School of Policy, said it was unlikely that Mr. Abe would be forced to resign immediately.
“If it becomes clear that the Liberal Democratic Party can’t compete in the next general election with Abe, a change of leader might become necessary,” Mr. Taniguchi said.
To avoid becoming a lame duck, Mr. Abe will have to change his agenda in parliament, Mr. Taniguchi said, adding, “If he insists on sticking to ideological issues, like revising the Constitution and education, the Parliament will degenerate into a stalemate, and there might be a move to get rid of Abe.”
But Mr. Abe still retained the support of many Liberal Democrats, including those in Shikoku, the smallest of Japan’s four main islands and once a party stronghold. In this election, Mr. Abe’s party lost all four seats up for grabs there.
Masuki Motoki, the secretary general of the party’s chapter in Kochi prefecture, acknowledged that many people may feel that Mr. Abe is disregarding popular will by refusing to resign.
“Even though 37 seats is a number that should lead to a resignation, and he understands that, he made his intention clear,” Mr. Motoki said. “The situation will become difficult, but I think he should do his utmost to move forward for the people and the country. And if he fails, then I think it’ll lead to dissolving the lower house.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Egypt Finding Fewer Gaza Smuggling Tunnels

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901089.html
Egypt Finding Fewer Gaza Smuggling Tunnels
Hamas Steps Up Border Patrols, Seeking to Assert Order in Palestinian Territory
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, July 30, 2007; A11 [former Palestine] [Gaza or Hamastan] [border crossings with Egypt that are integral to supplies] [Egypt and Israel closed them when Hamas attempted to slaughter Fatah] [Israeli have been attempting to get basic goods through one of theirs while Hamas has mortored it] [followup] [************]
RAFAH, Egypt, July 29 -- Egyptian border guards have found about 75 percent fewer tunnels from the Gaza Strip since Hamas took control there, an indication of the radical Islamic group's broad success in reducing the smuggling of weapons and other contraband, [******]a top Egyptian border official said Sunday. [it could be an indication that they have taken to smuggling basic goods rather than weapons] [******]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901089.html
Egypt Finding Fewer Gaza Smuggling Tunnels
Hamas Steps Up Border Patrols, Seeking to Assert Order in Palestinian Territory
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, July 30, 2007; A11 [former Palestine] [Gaza or Hamastan] [border crossings with Egypt that are integral to supplies] [Egypt and Israel closed them when Hamas attempted to slaughter Fatah] [Israeli have been attempting to get basic goods through one of theirs while Hamas has mortored it] [followup] [************]
RAFAH, Egypt, July 29 -- Egyptian border guards have found about 75 percent fewer tunnels from the Gaza Strip since Hamas took control there, an indication of the radical Islamic group's broad success in reducing the smuggling of weapons and other contraband, [******]a top Egyptian border official said Sunday. [it could be an indication that they have taken to smuggling basic goods rather than weapons] [******]
Hamas forces, which took over Gaza six weeks ago, now operate new outposts and watchtowers under the Palestinian flag along the nine-mile border between the Palestinian territory and Egypt's [******]Sinai Peninsula.
Palestinian border guards, identified by Egyptian and U.S. officials as Hamas fighters, have shed the ski masks that Hamas fighters usually wear. They have adopted military-style short haircuts and wear dark T-shirts, changes that symbolize the group's efforts to transform itself into a security force capable of bringing order to the rougher of the two Palestinian territories. [******]
"They want to show in front of the world that they are nice, that they are in control," [*****] Egyptian army Col. Amr Mamdouh said.
Hamas forces routed fighters of the rival Fatah faction from Gaza in the second week of June, shredding a Palestinian power-sharing government. The takeover left Fatah in charge only of Palestinian-administered portions of the West Bank.
Egypt, the United States and most other countries except Iran have pledged their support of Fatah's West Bank administration, calling it the sole legitimate Palestinian government. [******]Egyptian border officials say they have no contact or coordination with their Hamas counterparts.
Since the takeover, Egypt and Israel have closed entryways into Gaza for all but essential humanitarian goods. [*****]Israel has long complained that Gaza's border with Egypt is a prime transit point for weapons, drugs, other black-market goods and illegal immigrants. Much of the smuggling takes place through tunnels -- some longer than a half-mile -- between Gaza and Sinai.
In the first days after the fighting ended in Gaza, Palestinian forces deserted their side of the frontier, leaving Palestinian boys free to fly kites in the wasteland between the concrete walls of the Palestinian boundary and the barbed wire of Egypt's frontier. But on Sunday, Hamas forces had posts in the border zone with tents, portable toilets and jeeps.
About 40 Hamas fighters guard the Palestinian side of the border with Egypt, [*****]officials said.
A 2005 accord that guided Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza-Egypt border limits Egypt to a total of 750 army border guards along the frontier. Egyptian police also patrol the 129-mile Egypt-Israel border. [******]
Mamdouh on Sunday pointed out smuggling tunnels discovered by Egyptian forces in the past year, including one emerging from under the kitchen sink of a farmhouse in a closely guarded stretch of the border.
Ten days ago, Mamdouh said, Egyptian border guards found a branch of the same tunnel next door, its opening covered by metal and dirt in a corner of a chicken yard.
Before the Hamas takeover, Egyptian border guards found on average four tunnels a week from Gaza, Mamdouh said. They have found a total of six tunnels since then, he said, adding that smuggling from Gaza has decreased overall.
Israel complains that Egypt is not doing enough to seal its border with Gaza. The U.S. House of Representatives has proposed cutting $200 million in annual military aid to Egypt unless the country improves border security and meets other conditions.
Egyptian border guards insisted that they have been diligent in the nearly two years since Israel withdrew from the Gaza border zone. They say they have discovered 138 tunnels and confiscated weaponry including 161,066 rounds of ammunition, thousands of pounds of TNT and two suicide belts. [since summer 2005] [****]
"We've made a very big effort here in the border," Mamdouh said.
To do a better job, he said, Egypt needs more intelligence information, sophisticated surveillance systems and more border guards than currently allowed, he said.
Egypt and Israel on Sunday allowed about 100 Gaza residents, most of them women, to leave Sinai through an Israeli border crossing. Israeli and Egyptian officials said they intend to allow passage for about 500 more in coming days. [****]
More than 4,000 Palestinians have been stranded in Sinai since Egypt closed the Rafah crossing. They include dozens of Palestinian men, who on Sunday were washing their clothes and bathing on the grounds of the area's main airport. Asked about their conditions, one of the men said, "They're good." Egyptian security officials shepherded the men inside the closed airport terminal and refused to let them speak further.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Afghan President Calls Kidnappings 'Shameful'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901117.html
Afghan President Calls Kidnappings 'Shameful'
Monday, July 30, 2007; A12
Afghan President Calls Kidnappings 'Shameful'
[Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
KABUL -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Sunday called the kidnapping of 23 South Koreans by the Taliban "shameful," noting in his first statement on the incident that abducting women in particular is un-Islamic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901117.html
Afghan President Calls Kidnappings 'Shameful'
Monday, July 30, 2007; A12
Afghan President Calls Kidnappings 'Shameful'
[Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
KABUL -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Sunday called the kidnapping of 23 South Koreans by the Taliban "shameful," noting in his first statement on the incident that abducting women in particular is un-Islamic.
A purported Taliban spokesman shrugged off the remarks and set a new deadline, saying one or all of the 22 remaining captives could be killed if the government didn't release 23 militant prisoners by Monday. Several deadlines have passed without killings.
The church members were kidnapped July 19 while traveling by bus on the Kabul-Kandahar highway. The Taliban shot and killed a male hostage last week. The 22 others include 18 women.
Afghanistan's national council of clerics said the prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, taught that no one has the right to kill women.
ASIA
• BEIJING -- China has banned a conference in August that would have brought together 50 Chinese and foreign experts and activists to discuss how to press the legal rights of people with HIV/AIDS, an organizer said of the meeting planned by Asia Catalyst group, based in New York.
• BEIJING-- Fierce storms and hail have killed at least 17 people in China, pushing to nearly 700 the deaths this summer in floods, landslides and other natural disasters, according to state media.
AFRICA
• MOGADISHU, Somalia -- Gun battles and grenade attacks killed two soldiers and two civilians in Mogadishu, [***]witnesses said. The government is struggling to contain a violent insurgency in the capital.
THE AMERICAS
• MEXICO CITY -- Mexico City's prison system has begun allowing gay conjugal visits, agreeing to a recommendation by the country's National Human Rights Commission, the commission said.
Despite opposition from conservatives and religious groups, the city's leftist government has taken controversial stands in recent months on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and prostitution.
-- From News Services
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Citing Islam, Afghans Urge Taliban to Free 22 Captives

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30afghan.html
July 30, 2007
Citing Islam, Afghans Urge Taliban to Free 22 Captives
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
KABUL, Afghanistan, July 29 (AP) — Afghanistan’s top political and religious leaders invoked Afghan and Islamic traditions of chivalry and hospitality [****]on Sunday in an effort to shame the Taliban into releasing 18 South Korean women being held captive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30afghan.html
July 30, 2007
Citing Islam, Afghans Urge Taliban to Free 22 Captives
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
KABUL, Afghanistan, July 29 (AP) — Afghanistan’s top political and religious leaders invoked Afghan and Islamic traditions of chivalry and hospitality [****]on Sunday in an effort to shame the Taliban into releasing 18 South Korean women being held captive.
A Taliban spokesman who claimed to speak for the kidnappers shrugged off the demands and instead set a new deadline, saying the militants could kill one or all of the 22 captives if the government did not release 23 Taliban prisoners by Monday. [****]Several other deadlines have passed without the captives being killed, though a leader of the group was shot and killed Wednesday.
Afghan officials, meanwhile, reported no progress in talks with tribal elders to secure the hostages’ freedom. [*****]
In his first comments since the 23 Koreans were abducted on July 19, President Hamid Karzai criticized the Taliban’s kidnapping of “foreign guests,” especially women, as contrary to the tenets of Islam and national traditions. [*********]
“The perpetration of this heinous act on our soil is in total contempt of our Islamic and Afghan values,” Mr. Karzai [******]told a South Korean envoy during a meeting at the presidential palace, according to a statement from his office.
Echoing Mr. Karzai’s words, Afghanistan’s national council of clerics said the Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, taught that no one had the right to kill women.
“Even in the history of Afghanistan, in all its combat and fighting, Afghans respected women, children and elders,” the council said. “The killing of women is against Islam, against the Afghan culture, and they shouldn’t do it.”
A former Taliban commander and current lawmaker who had joined the negotiations, Abdul Salaam Rocketi, said the government’s policy was that the “women should be released first.”
But the Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, instead invoked the religious tenet of “an eye for an eye,” contending that Western forces were holding Afghan women at bases in Bagram and Kandahar and that the Taliban could do the same.[***] He said the Taliban could detain and kill “women, men or children.”
“It might be a man or a woman,” he said by telephone from an unknown location. “We may kill one, we may kill two, we may kill one of each, two of each, four of each.” He added, “Or we may kill all of them at once.”
Mr. Ahmadi said that the militant group had given government officials a list of 23 insurgent prisoners it wanted released and that if they were not freed by midday Monday, hostages would be killed.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Jubilant Iraqis Savor Their Soccer Triumph

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900269.html
Jubilant Iraqis Savor Their Soccer Triumph
1-0 Win Over Saudi Arabia for Long-Sought Championship 'Ended Our Suffering for a While'
By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 30, 2007; A10 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [yesterday’s announcement that –Iraq beat Saudi for Asia champ of soccer—a brief moment of national unity] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 29 -- It took a beautiful arching corner kick and a textbook-perfect header to bring unadulterated joy to millions of people across this war-ravaged country.
As the soccer ball sailed into the far corner of the net off the head of Younis Mahmoud, the Iraqi national team's 24-year-old captain, a collective shout rose from every corner of Baghdad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900269.html
Jubilant Iraqis Savor Their Soccer Triumph
1-0 Win Over Saudi Arabia for Long-Sought Championship 'Ended Our Suffering for a While'
By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 30, 2007; A10 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [yesterday’s announcement that –Iraq beat Saudi for Asia champ of soccer—a brief moment of national unity] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 29 -- It took a beautiful arching corner kick and a textbook-perfect header to bring unadulterated joy to millions of people across this war-ravaged country.
As the soccer ball sailed into the far corner of the net off the head of Younis Mahmoud, the Iraqi national team's 24-year-old captain, a collective shout rose from every corner of Baghdad.
When the final whistle blew 22 minutes later, signaling a 1-0 win over Saudi Arabia and Iraq's first-ever Asian Cup championship, the sound swelled again, even louder than before. It was a moment of joy, but also of release -- from 51 years of futility on the soccer field and more than four years of war at home. [********]
"This team brought glory to Iraq and ended our suffering for a while," said Omar Hassan, 29, who danced in the streets waving an Iraqi flag after the televised match, which was played in Jakarta, Indonesia. "Today we are proud to be Iraqis because they made Iraq a winner."
Echoing a common theme among the tens of thousands of revelers who poured into Baghdad's streets, Hassan said the soccer players should be role models for Iraqis because they surmounted the sectarian divisions that have plagued the rest of the country. Mahmoud, a Sunni Turkmen, scored the winning goal off an assist from Hawar Mohammed, a Kurd, while Shiite goalkeeper Noor Sabri Abbas earned his fourth straight shutout. [***********]
"The satisfaction is doubled when you can get this cup and you bring happiness for a country, not just a team," said Jorvan Vieira, the team's Brazilian coach. "It's more important than anything."
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki promised each member of the team $10,000 before the championship game kicked off, and President Jalal Talabani pledged another $10,000 to each player -- and $20,000 to Mahmoud -- after the win.
"You have given lessons with your manly performance on how to defeat and defy the impossible until you triumph," [yikes] [a little testosterone heavy] [***] Maliki told the team in a written statement.
After Iraq beat South Korea in a dramatic semifinal game Wednesday, the Iraqis faced a formidable opponent in Saudi Arabia -- the team with the most wins in Asian Cup history. Since the quadrennial tournament began in 1956, Saudi Arabia has won three times, most recently in 1996. Iraq's previous best finish, fourth place out of six teams, came in 1976.
Most people had little reason to believe that 2007 would bring Iraq's first championship. Entering the tournament, which was held a year early, the team's odds of winning were listed at 50-1. Three players learned during the two-week event that relatives had been killed by violence back home. Mahmoud, the captain and star striker, nearly missed the team's first game when he was detained for 12 hours in the Bangkok airport.
Yet from the start of the game, the underdog Iraqis were the dominant team. They outshot Saudi Arabia 12-4 and were usually one step quicker to the ball.
"This is not an achievement for the Iraqis, this is a miracle for the Iraqis," said a broadcaster on the Dubai Sports Channel. [*********]
Several fans agreed that the win was a miracle, but insisted they knew all along that Iraq would triumph. Baghdad resident Laila Abid said she was upset when her husband predicted that Saudi Arabia would tie the score.
"He said, 'They will get a goal now,' and I was really angry with him, so I hit him with my slipper," Abid said. "Iraq won by a gift from God."
After the game, Abid and her husband joined the celebration in the streets, passing out chocolate.
The post-game festivities in Baghdad lasted well into the night, with vendors handing out free ice cream and water and young men shooting weapons into the air and hugging strangers. Despite multiple warnings from the military and government not to engage in celebratory gunfire, shots rang out for more than an hour.
Several casualties were reported as a result of stray bullets, but an emergency security operation in Baghdad prevented a repeat of the violence after the semifinal game. Vehicles were prohibited on all city streets from game time until Monday morning to minimize the chance of car bomb attacks, which killed 50 people after the South Korea game.
The day of celebration was not completely devoid of politics. After the match, Mahmoud said he would not return to Iraq and called for a U.S. withdrawal. "I want America to go out," he said. "Today, tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, but out." [*******]
In Irbil, a city in a semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, Kurds mixed freely with Arabs displaced from other parts of the country despite the ongoing tensions between the groups. Though Kurds have often sought to disassociate themselves from the turmoil in the rest of Iraq, thousands chanted "Iraq! Glorious Baghdad!" in the streets after the game.
Many Irbil residents carried small Iraqi flags, which were confiscated by police because of a law against displaying anything but the Kurdistan flag. Instead, revelers waved white handkerchiefs.
"We are all one today, with one heart for Iraq and against terrorism," said Mahmoud Fadhil, a displaced Baghdad resident who now lives in Irbil. "Look, over here there are Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Christians, all of them with one heart today."
Fans across the country acknowledged that a soccer game could not solve the deep problems facing Iraq and that violence between Sunnis and Shiites would return all too soon. But none of that mattered.
For one night, at least, Iraq had something to celebrate.
Special correspondents Saad al-Izzi in Baghdad, Saad Sarhan in Najaf and other Washington Post staff in Iraq contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

With Terrorism Charges Dropped, Return of Doctor Is Celebrated

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30australia.html
July 30, 2007
With Terrorism Charges Dropped, Return of Doctor Is Celebrated
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [India] [doctor incarcerated in Australia for SIM card in London-Glasgow attacks] [held then released with an apology from Australia govt] [followup] [back in India, a hero] [apparently truly not involved] [***********]
BANGALORE, India, July 29 (AP) — Mobbed by television cameramen, journalists and supporters, a 27-year-old doctor flew home to a hero’s welcome Sunday in southern India after terrorism charges against him were dropped in Australia and he was freed. [******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30australia.html
July 30, 2007
With Terrorism Charges Dropped, Return of Doctor Is Celebrated
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [India] [doctor incarcerated in Australia for SIM card in London-Glasgow attacks] [held then released with an apology from Australia govt] [followup] [back in India, a hero] [apparently truly not involved] [***********]
BANGALORE, India, July 29 (AP) — Mobbed by television cameramen, journalists and supporters, a 27-year-old doctor flew home to a hero’s welcome Sunday in southern India after terrorism charges against him were dropped in Australia and he was freed. [******]
Looking relaxed and smiling, the doctor, Mohammed Haneef, was whisked from the airport to his family’s home, where a celebratory feast was being held, after flying from Brisbane, Australia, earlier in the day. Dr. Haneef’s jailing had aroused waves of sympathy in his native India. [****] [??]
“What can give a mother more happiness?” said Qurrath-Ul-Ain. “My child is free and he is coming home.” She spoke as she passed around sweets to cousins and neighbors at her home, which was decked out with strings of jasmine flowers, balloons and streamers.
In an emotional television interview earlier, Dr. Haneef said he had no knowledge of involvement by relatives of his who have been accused of playing a role in a failed terrorist attack in Britain last month. He said he would not have kept quiet if he had. [*****]
Dr. Haneef was arrested July 2 at an airport in Brisbane as he was about to fly to India to see his wife and newborn daughter — just days after his second cousins in Britain were arrested in a failed terrorist plot.
Dr. Haneef was released Friday after Australia’s chief prosecutor, Damian Bugg, said there was no evidence to support the charge that he provided reckless support to a terrorist organization. Dr. Haneef had given his cellphone SIM card to his cousin Sabeel Ahmed — who is now accused in one of the June bomb plots — when he left Britain for Australia a year ago.
In a paid interview broadcast Sunday on the Nine Network in Australia, Dr. Haneef said supporting a terrorist organization was against his nature. [*****]
Appearing close to tears, he said if he had suspected that his relatives — Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed — were planning bombings in Britain, he would not have kept it to himself.
“I would have let the parents know first, who are the main sufferers now,” Dr. Haneef said. “I really feel for them.” [************]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Report Finds Big Toll From Philippines Insurgency

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30cnd-phil.html
Report Finds Big Toll From Philippines Insurgency
By CARLOS H. CONDE
Published: July 30, 2007 [Philippines] [SEA] [ASEAN] [long-term insurgency by Islamists] [hydra in recent years] [Moro liberation, Jemaah Islamiya, Abu Sayyaf] [followup] [**************]
MANILA, July 31 — More than 1,700 civilians have been killed or injured in bombings and other attacks by Islamic extremists in the Philippines since 2000, [**] according to a new report by Human Rights Watch. The toll, including more than 400 dead, [****]is the highest of any Southeast Asian nation, the group estimated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30cnd-phil.html
Report Finds Big Toll From Philippines Insurgency
By CARLOS H. CONDE
Published: July 30, 2007 [Philippines] [SEA] [ASEAN] [long-term insurgency by Islamists] [hydra in recent years] [Moro liberation, Jemaah Islamiya, Abu Sayyaf] [followup] [**************]
MANILA, July 31 — More than 1,700 civilians have been killed or injured in bombings and other attacks by Islamic extremists in the Philippines since 2000, [**] according to a new report by Human Rights Watch. The toll, including more than 400 dead, [****]is the highest of any Southeast Asian nation, the group estimated.
The attacks, which include the bombing of a passenger ship off Manila Bay in February 2004 [****]in which 116 people were killed, underscored the need for Manila to do more to combat terrorism, said the group, which is based in New York. The attack on the ship was the second-deadliest single incident in the region, after the coordinated bombings in Bali in October 2002. [*******] [author should clarify that Bali is Indonesia not Philippines] [********] [and operationalize regions: SEA?]
“Extremist armed groups have spread terror among civilians in the Philippines,” said John Sifton, an expert on terrorism at Human Rights Watch, in a statement that accompanied the release of the report, entitled “Lives Destroyed: Attacks on Civilians in the Philippines.” The report may be viewed online at hrw.org/reports/2007/philippines0707/.
“They have bombed buses carrying workers, food markets where people were shopping, airports where relatives were waiting for loved ones, and ferry boats carrying families,” Mr. Sifton said in the statement, adding that extremist groups were also responsible for kidnappings and murders of civilians.
Human Rights Watch took special notice of the Abu Sayyaf group and the Rajah Solaiman Movement, [*(***]two extremist groups that have claimed responsibility for most of the attacks in the country.
Though more people have been killed or injured since 2000 in terrorist attacks in the Philippines than in Indonesia, Morocco, Spain, Turkey or Britain, the report said, “the scale of the violence, however, has not received widespread attention outside the region.” [***********]
Public buses and public places like markets and waiting sheds for commuters have been common targets, mainly in Mindanao, the largest island in the southern Philippines, which is also racked by Islamic separatism and a communist insurgency, [******]the report found.
Abu Sayyaf is notorious for kidnapping and beheading people. [****] The Rajah Solaiman Movement [****]is made up of Filipino Christians who converted to Islam and who, according to the Philippine authorities, have linked up with both Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah, [*******]a terrorist network with roots in Indonesia.
Human Rights Watch criticized the government in Manila for failing to prosecute suspects in these attacks. While many have been arrested since 2000, it said, only “very few have been successfully brought to trial, and prosecutions in some cases have been delayed for more than four years.”
The report contained interviews with several survivors of terror attacks, speaking about how their lives had been changed by terrorism.
“She wanted to be a lawyer or a journalist,” said Ritzelle Paculba, whose daughter Clynn died in the bombing of the passenger ship. “My husband is hurting now. He struggled a lot when she died.”
There was no immediate reaction from the government to the report. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has asserted in the past that her administration’s campaign against terrorism has met with success.
An earlier version of this article mistakenly said that more than 1,700 Filipino civilians had been killed; that figure is actually f0r people injured or killed. [*****]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30australia.html
July 30, 2007
With Terrorism Charges Dropped, Return of Doctor Is Celebrated
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [India] [doctor incarcerated in Australia for SIM card in London-Glasgow attacks] [held then released with an apology from Australia govt] [followup] [back in India, a hero] [apparently truly not involved] [***********]
BANGALORE, India, July 29 (AP) — Mobbed by television cameramen, journalists and supporters, a 27-year-old doctor flew home to a hero’s welcome Sunday in southern India after terrorism charges against him were dropped in Australia and he was freed. [******]
Looking relaxed and smiling, the doctor, Mohammed Haneef, was whisked from the airport to his family’s home, where a celebratory feast was being held, after flying from Brisbane, Australia, earlier in the day. Dr. Haneef’s jailing had aroused waves of sympathy in his native India. [****] [??]
“What can give a mother more happiness?” said Qurrath-Ul-Ain. “My child is free and he is coming home.” She spoke as she passed around sweets to cousins and neighbors at her home, which was decked out with strings of jasmine flowers, balloons and streamers.
In an emotional television interview earlier, Dr. Haneef said he had no knowledge of involvement by relatives of his who have been accused of playing a role in a failed terrorist attack in Britain last month. He said he would not have kept quiet if he had. [*****]
Dr. Haneef was arrested July 2 at an airport in Brisbane as he was about to fly to India to see his wife and newborn daughter — just days after his second cousins in Britain were arrested in a failed terrorist plot.
Dr. Haneef was released Friday after Australia’s chief prosecutor, Damian Bugg, said there was no evidence to support the charge that he provided reckless support to a terrorist organization. Dr. Haneef had given his cellphone SIM card to his cousin Sabeel Ahmed — who is now accused in one of the June bomb plots — when he left Britain for Australia a year ago.
In a paid interview broadcast Sunday on the Nine Network in Australia, Dr. Haneef said supporting a terrorist organization was against his nature. [*****]
Appearing close to tears, he said if he had suspected that his relatives — Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed — were planning bombings in Britain, he would not have kept it to himself.
“I would have let the parents know first, who are the main sufferers now,” Dr. Haneef said. “I really feel for them.” [************]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

July 29, 2007

Iraq Math: From One, Make Three

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/weekinreview/29cooper.html
July 29, 2007
Political Equations
Iraq Math: From One, Make Three
By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON [societal too as function of presidential-election cycle] [senator biden] [blowhard in senate who, despite his big mouth, actually is quite thoughtful on USFP] [he’s been arguing for a trifold division of –iraq for a year or more when he and Les Gelb first proposed it] [it’s sort of happening anyway, allaying some of the criticisms] [followup] [is he adutioning for sec state?] [********]
IS Joe Biden auditioning to be the next secretary of state?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/weekinreview/29cooper.html
July 29, 2007
Political Equations
Iraq Math: From One, Make Three
By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON [societal too as function of presidential-election cycle] [senator biden] [blowhard in senate who, despite his big mouth, actually is quite thoughtful on USFP] [he’s been arguing for a trifold division of –iraq for a year or more when he and Les Gelb first proposed it] [it’s sort of happening anyway, allaying some of the criticisms] [followup] [is he adutioning for sec state?] [********]
IS Joe Biden auditioning to be the next secretary of state?
For the record, he says no. Actually, he said, “Hell, no,” during an interview last week. But the thought isn’t as far-fetched as it might seem, even though his poll numbers remain in the cellar among the Democratic presidential hopefuls.
What he does have, that the other Democratic candidates don’t, is a coherent proposal for dealing with the debacle in Iraq that is increasingly picking up steam. Foreign policy analysts, Capitol Hill politicians and even officials in the Bush administration have started sounding positive notes.
“The truth is, we could end up close to the Biden-Gelb proposal,” a senior administration official said, referring to the partition plan that Mr. Biden, along with Leslie Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, presented more than a year ago in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times. [********]
“Are we there yet?” the official added. “No.”
But not “Hell, no.”
Mr. Biden’s so-called soft-partition plan — a variation of the blueprint dividing up Bosnia in 1995 — calls for dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions, held together by a central government. There would be a loose Kurdistan, a loose Shiastan and a loose Sunnistan, all under a big, if weak, Iraq umbrella. [************]
“The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group — Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab — room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests,” Mr. Biden and Mr. Gelb wrote in their Op-Ed on May 1, 2006. “We could drive this in place with irresistible sweeteners for the Sunnis to join in, a plan designed by the military for withdrawing and redeploying American forces, and a regional nonaggression pact.”
The proposal acknowledges forthrightly what a growing number of Middle East experts say is plain as day: Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis are not moving toward reconciliation; they still haven’t managed to get an oil law passed, and de facto ethnic cleansing is under way as Sunnis flee largely Shiite neighborhoods and towns, and vice versa. [********]
The plan was dumped on when it came out last year. “Partitioning Iraq: No Starter” was the headline on a column by George Hishmeh in Gulf News, a daily newspaper that specializes in the Middle East. Mr. Hishmeh, a former writer for the United States Information Agency, pointed out a common complaint about the partition idea, that the very word “partition” has a bad ring to Arab ears given that a United Nations partition plan paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel.
Foreign policy analysts also pointed out that breaking up Iraq could cause bloodletting (as if that isn’t happening now) in Iraq’s urban areas. While Sunnis predominate in the western part of the country, Kurds in the north, and Shiites in the south, Iraq’s cities are not as homogeneous. Baghdad, Kirkuk and Mosul don’t have clear geographical lines separating the main groups. [bigger concern is the same one some of America’s founders had if states were too autonomous: provide target-rich environment for meddling from Britian and others] [*****************]
Or at least they didn’t. The reality is, Iraq’s cities have become far more homogeneous recently as terrified residents have fled areas where their ethnic group doesn’t predominate. The neighborhoods around the edges of Baghdad have already experienced a lot of ethnic cleansing.
Officially, Bush administration officials maintain that they share President Bush’s hopes that increased American troop strength in Baghdad will tamp down the violence and create political space for Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to reach a political solution. But testimony and interviews this month about conditions in Iraq indicated that the administration is already making de facto moves towards partition.
The State Department, in particular, has stressed a proposal to build up provincial reconstruction teams out in the Iraqi provinces, with the goal of strengthening local tribal leaders. That, in itself, points toward greater decentralization in Iraq.
By way of caution, experts say a successful partition of Iraq would hardly be easy, involving careful consultation with Iraq’s neighbors, including the feuding regional behemoths Iran and Saudi Arabia, not to mention tiptoeing around Turkey’s nationalist sensibilities on the Kurdish question. Mr. Biden, who said he believed that one way or the other, the United States would find itself in the role of trying to mediate a soft partition, recently went up to the United Nations in New York to chat about his idea with officials from the permanent members of the Security Council, and to try to enlist the help of the United Nations. He said he got a good response.
“One said to me, ‘What took you guys so long?’ ”Mr. Biden said. “We’re going to get there either by our action or by our inaction; what we need to do is to manage this transition.” [**************]
Hmmm. Coming up with a proposal on American foreign policy? Going up to the United Nations to try to sell it? Trying to get America’s allies on board? If this president thing doesn’t work out, that wouldn’t be bad experience for someone who did want to become secretary of state.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

House Members Say They Will Try to Block Arms Sales to Saudis

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801172.html
House Members Say They Will Try to Block Arms Sales to Saudis
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A06 [bush white house] [nsc principals on down] [dod and state] [arms sale to Saudis first reported yesterday] [pushback inevitable] [********]
The Bush administration's plan to sell $20 billion in advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and five other Persian Gulf countries is running into congressional opposition and criticism from human rights and arms control groups.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801172.html
House Members Say They Will Try to Block Arms Sales to Saudis
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A06 [bush white house] [nsc principals on down] [dod and state] [arms sale to Saudis first reported yesterday] [pushback inevitable] [********]
The Bush administration's plan to sell $20 billion in advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and five other Persian Gulf countries is running into congressional opposition and criticism from human rights and arms control groups.
Members of Congress vowed yesterday to oppose any deal to Saudi Arabia on grounds that the kingdom has been unhelpful in Iraq and unreliable at fighting terrorism. King Abdullah has called the U.S. military presence in Iraq an "illegitimate occupation," [******] and the Saudis have been either unable or unwilling to stop suicide bombers who have ended up in Iraq, congressional sources say.
Human rights groups warned that new U.S. arms meant to contain Iran's rising influence could backfire, allowing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to rally greater support for his hard-line faction in the run-up to parliamentary elections next spring.
And arms control groups said Bush's strategy would accelerate an already-dangerous trend that could increase tensions rather than generate a greater sense of security.
The administration plans to sell advanced satellite-guided bombs, fighter aircraft upgrades and new naval vessels to six Gulf Cooperation Council countries, including Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, U.S. officials say.
U.S. officials acknowledged that congressional reaction has been mixed but cautioned that details of a broader arms package -- including $30 billion in military aid to Israel and $13 billion to Egypt over the next 10 years -- have yet to be released. "As we move forward, we will work very closely with Congress, as well as our friends and allies in the region,"[*****] State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
But Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who was briefed on the deal Tuesday, said he had several reservations. "This is not a sale at Macy's that you go in and buy a bunch of stuff. There are a complex set of relationships behind it, and while it's very desirable to have the Saudis and others recognize that Iran is an existential threat, there is also a degree of responsibility that they have to show on broader U.S. foreign policy interests," he said in an interview.
In the context of the arms deals, Lantos said the oil-rich countries should use windfall profits from high oil prices to cover the expenses of Iraqi refugees who have flooded Jordan. Saudi Arabia should not try to re-broker reconciliation between Palestinian moderates and militants, he added, and Qatar should look at the television network al-Jazeera's role in the region.
Reps. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) and Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) said yesterday that they will introduce a joint resolution of disapproval to block the deals when Congress is formally notified. They have seven Democratic co-sponsors.
In an interview, Weiner said any arms proposal would find broad bipartisan opposition on the Hill. "The reputation of the Saudis has taken quite a beating since 9/11, and despite the fact that the administration has done everything to portray them as part of the moderate Arab world, members of Congress of both parties are increasingly skeptical."
Under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, Congress must approve major arms sales. In 1986, the threat of a joint resolution of disapproval played a role in persuading the Reagan administration to cut back an arms package to Saudi Arabia.
Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), a senior member of the House Foreign Relations committee who was also briefed last week, said a pivotal issue will be whether Israel maintains the "qualitative military edge" in the region.
Arms experts called for a serious debate on the quality and quantity of weapons going to the Gulf states. "This administration does not have an arms sales policy, except to sell, sell, sell," said Daryl G. Kimball of the Arms Control Association. "That approach in the Middle East can be like throwing gasoline on a brush fire."
Human Rights Watch said the arms deals would undermine long-term U.S. goals in the Middle East. "This will reduce pressure on Egypt and the Arab states to reform their politics. It's another case of trying to purchase stability at the expense of liberty," [******]said Washington director Tom Malinowski.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Data Mining Figured In Dispute Over NSA

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801401.html
Data Mining Figured In Dispute Over NSA
Report Links Program to Gonzales Uproar
By Dan Eggen and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A04 [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Gonzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the late-night visit and its purpose] [now we learn that the controversy may have been about data mining rather than warrant-less spying per se!] [may get AG Gonzales technically off hook?] [curiouser] [followup] [**] [use psci 355] [ditto]
A fierce dispute within the Bush administration in early 2004 over a National Security Agency warrantless surveillance program was related to concerns about the NSA's searches of huge computer databases, the New York Times reported today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801401.html
Data Mining Figured In Dispute Over NSA
Report Links Program to Gonzales Uproar
By Dan Eggen and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A04 [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Gonzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the late-night visit and its purpose] [now we learn that the controversy may have been about data mining rather than warrant-less spying per se!] [may get AG Gonzales technically off hook?] [curiouser] [followup] [**] [use psci 355] [ditto]
A fierce dispute within the Bush administration in early 2004 over a National Security Agency warrantless surveillance program was related to concerns about the NSA's searches of huge computer databases, the New York Times reported today.
The agency's data mining was also linked to a dramatic chain of events in March 2004, including threats of resignation from senior Justice Department officials and an unusual nighttime visit by White House aides to the hospital bedside of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, [*****]the Times reported, citing current and former officials briefed on the program.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, one of the aides who went to the hospital, was questioned closely about that episode during a contentious Senate hearing on Tuesday. Gonzales characterized the internal debate as centering on "other intelligence activities" than the NSA's warrantless surveillance program, whose existence President Bush confirmed in December 2005.
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III contradicted Gonzales, his boss, two days later, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee that the disagreement involved "an NSA program that has been much discussed."
Although the NSA's data mining efforts have been reported previously, neither Bush nor his aides have publicly confirmed that, in connection with the surveillance program, [I think Bush may have when he said if data mining it would require warrant] [**********] [check] the agency had combed through phone and e-mail records in search of suspicious activity. [In June Barton Gellman said as much as data mining] [it was out there from the USA story on and the White House danced around it even carefully playing on it. Bush said something like when you hear tapped, possessions searched, . . . requires a warrant] [possessions or property searched is dangerously close to what data mining does] [**************]
Nor have officials publicly discussed what prompted the legal dispute between the White House and the Justice Department.
The report of a data mining component to the dispute suggests that Gonzales's testimony could be correct. A group of Senate Democrats, including two who have been privy to classified briefings about the NSA program, called last week for a special prosecutor to consider perjury charges against Gonzales.
The report also provides further evidence that the NSA surveillance operation was far more extensive than has been acknowledged by the Bush administration, which has consistently sought to describe the program in narrow terms and to emphasize that the effort was legal.
The White House, the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment last night. Calls placed to the NSA, which collected and analyzed the data, were not returned.
The warrantless surveillance program, which was authorized by presidential order after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was first revealed publicly by the Times in December 2005. Bush confirmed aspects of the program at that time, defining it as monitoring communications between the United States and overseas in which one party was suspected of ties to al-Qaeda.
The Washington Post reported in February 2006 that the NSA targets were identified through data mining efforts and that thousands of Americans had been monitored. USA Today later reported that the government had the help of telecommunications companies in collecting millions of phone records. [********] [first reports]
The practice of sifting through mountains of privately collected data on phone calls and Internet communications raises legal issues. Although the contents of calls and e-mails are protected, courts have ruled that "metadata" -- basic records of calls and e-mails kept by phone companies -- are not.
Some privacy advocates contend that the Bush administration should disclose how it has used metadata and explain the legal justifications. [is metadata contained in one’s email one’s property?] [*************]
"The administration is creating unbelievable amounts of distrust and confusion by not coming forward and giving us its interpretation of the law," James Dempsey, policy director for the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology, said yesterday. "Instead, it is dribbling out bits of information and partial justification. It's a crazy way to run a war on terror."
Dempsey noted that Bush is pressing Congress for changes in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs clandestine spying in the United States. Bush voiced that call again yesterday in his weekly radio address.
"The administration is asking Congress to make changes in FISA law without first coming clean on what they've been doing for the last five years," Dempsey said.
One source familiar with the NSA program said yesterday that there were widespread concerns inside the intelligence community in 2003 and 2004 over how much Internet and telephone data mining could occur, as well as about the NSA's direct intercepts of communications without court approval. [**********]
In March 2004, James B. Comey, who was acting attorney general, warned the White House that the Justice Department could not certify the legality of the intelligence activities at issue. That prompted Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time, to accompany then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. to Ashcroft's bedside, seeking his approval of the program. Ashcroft rebuffed the two men. Comey testified about the episode to the Senate earlier this year.
Staff writer John Solomon contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Mining of Data Prompted Fight Over Spying

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/washington/29nsa.html
July 29, 2007
Mining of Data Prompted Fight Over Spying
By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID JOHNSTON [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Gonzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the late-night visit and its purpose] [now we learn that the controversy may have been about data mining rather than warrant-less spying per se!] [may get AG Gonzales technically off hook?] [curiouser] [followup] [**] [use psci 355]
WASHINGTON, July 28 — A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, [*****]according to current and former officials briefed on the program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/washington/29nsa.html
July 29, 2007
Mining of Data Prompted Fight Over Spying
By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID JOHNSTON [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Gonzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the late-night visit and its purpose] [now we learn that the controversy may have been about data mining rather than warrant-less spying per se!] [may get AG Gonzales technically off hook?] [curiouser] [followup] [**] [use psci 355]
WASHINGTON, July 28 — A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, [*****]according to current and former officials briefed on the program.
It is not known precisely why searching the databases, or data mining, raised such a furious legal debate. But such databases contain records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans, and their examination by the government would raise privacy issues.
The N.S.A.’s data mining has previously been reported. But the disclosure that concerns about it figured in the March 2004 debate helps to clarify the clash this week between Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senators who accused him of misleading Congress and called for a perjury investigation. [*********]
The confrontation in 2004 led to a showdown in the hospital room of then Attorney General John Ashcroft, where Mr. Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time, and Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff, tried to get the ailing Mr. Ashcroft to reauthorize the N.S.A. program. [are they saying the confrontation over data mining only???] [too vague] [trying to scoop others without all the details] [*******]
Mr. Gonzales insisted before the Senate this week that the 2004 dispute did not involve the Terrorist Surveillance Program “confirmed” by President Bush, who has acknowledged eavesdropping without warrants but has never acknowledged the data mining.
If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct. [***********]
But members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who have been briefed on the program, called the testimony deceptive.
“I’ve had the opportunity to review the classified matters at issue here, and I believe that his testimony was misleading at best,” said Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, joining three other Democrats in calling Thursday for a perjury investigation of Mr. Gonzales.
“This has gone on long enough,” Mr. Feingold said. “It is time for a special counsel to investigate whether criminal charges should be brought.”
The senators’ comments, along with those of other members of Congress briefed on the program, suggested that they considered the eavesdropping and data mining so closely tied that they were part of a single program. [****]Both activities, which ordinarily require warrants, were started without court approval as the Bush administration intensified counterterrorism efforts soon after the Sept. 11 attacks. [***********]
A half-dozen officials and former officials interviewed for this article would speak only on the condition of anonymity, in part because unauthorized disclosures about the classified program are already the subject of a criminal investigation. Some of the officials said the 2004 dispute involved other issues in addition to the data mining, but would not provide details. They would not say whether the differences were over how the databases were searched or how the resulting information was used. [********]
Nor would they explain what modifications to the surveillance program President Bush authorized to head off the threatened resignations by Justice Department officials.
An agency spokesman declined to comment on the data mining issue but referred a reporter to a statement issued earlier that Mr. Gonzales had testified truthfully.
The Justice Department announced in January that eavesdropping without warrants under the Terrorist Surveillance Program had been halted, and that a special intelligence court was again overseeing the wiretapping. [*******]The N.S.A., the nation’s largest intelligence agency, generally eavesdrops on communications in foreign countries. Since the 1978 passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, any eavesdropping to gather intelligence on American soil has required a warrant from the special court.
In addition, court approval is required for the N.S.A. to search the databases of telephone calls or e-mail records, usually compiled by American phone and Internet companies and including phone numbers or e-mail addresses, as well as dates, times and duration of calls and messages. Sometimes called metadata, such databases do not include the content of the calls and e-mail messages — the actual words spoken or written.
Government examination of the records, which allows intelligence analysts to trace relationships between callers and identify possible terrorist cells, is considered less intrusive than actual eavesdropping. But the N.S.A.’s eavesdropping targeted international calls and e-mail messages of people inside the United States, while the databases contain primarily domestic records. The conflict in 2004 appears to have turned on differing interpretations of the president’s power to bypass the FISA law and obtain access to the records. [**************]
President Bush has asserted that both his constitutional powers as commander in chief and the authorization for the use of military force passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks gave him legal justification for skirting the warrant requirement. Critics have called the surveillance illegal because it does not comply with the FISA law.
The first known assertion by administration officials that there had been no serious disagreement within the government about the legality of the N.S.A. program came in talks with New York Times editors in 2004. In an effort to persuade the editors not to disclose the eavesdropping program, senior officials repeatedly cited the lack of dissent as evidence of the program’s lawfulness. [********]
In December 2005, [******] [broke the story then WP and USA Today amplified] [latter noted world’s largest database] [****] The Times published articles describing the program, the data mining and the internal legal debate. The newspaper reported that the N.S.A. had combed large volumes of telephone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects.
Civil liberties groups, Congressional Democrats and some Republicans reacted to the disclosures with outrage, accusing the administration of operating an illegal surveillance program inside the United States. The uproar grew when USA Today reported in May 2006 more details of the N.S.A.’s acquisition from telephone companies of the phone call databases. In response to the articles, Mr. Bush confirmed the eavesdropping, saying it was limited to communications in and out of the United States involving people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda. He did not, however, confirm the data mining, nor has any other official done so publicly.
Mr. Gonzales defended the surveillance in an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, saying there had been no internal dispute about its legality. He told the senators: “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.” [**************]
By limiting his remarks to “the program the president has confirmed,” [*****]Mr. Gonzales skirted any acknowledgment of the heated arguments over the data mining. He said the Justice Department had issued a legal analysis justifying the eavesdropping program. [president never confirmed a debate over data mining] [though I do remember the president saying if data mining it would require a warrant!!!!!!!] [check]
Mr. Bush and other officials also have repeatedly cited Justice Department reviews as evidence of their care in overseeing the program, never mentioning the bitter conflict that unfolded behind the scenes.
Mr. Gonzales’s 2006 testimony went unchallenged publicly until May of this year, when James B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general, described the March 2004 confrontation to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Comey had refused to sign a reauthorization for the N.S.A. program when he was standing in for Mr. Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gall bladder surgery. [*****] [if accurate, the NSA program could be signed off as one thing so there’s no distinction between the data mining and spying parts] [******]
Mr. Comey described an intense fight that prompted the top leaders of the Justice Department to consider resigning in protest. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card visited the bedside of Mr. Ashcroft, who was in pain and under sedation, to seek his signature on the reauthorization.
Mr. Ashcroft refused to do so. Mr. Comey testified that he thought the White House officials were trying to take advantage of a sick man.
On Tuesday, to respond to Mr. Comey’s account, Mr. Gonzales testified in a Senate appearance that he went to the hospital only after meeting with Congressional leaders about the impending deadline for the reauthorization. He said the consensus was that the program should go on, so he felt he had no choice but to seek Mr. Ashcroft’s approval.
At the hearing, Mr. Gonzales faced harsh questioning about why he had not previously acknowledged the 2004 standoff. In response, he asserted once again that there had not been disagreements about the surveillance program, insisting that the dispute involved “other intelligence activities.”
After the hearing, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent Mr. Gonzales a transcript of his testimony with pointed instructions — to “correct, clarify or supplement your answers so that, consistent with your oath, they are the whole truth.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Answering to No One

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702126.html
Answering to No One
By Walter F. Mondale
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B07 [oped] [former veep Mondale] [on current veep Cheney] [unflattering] [big shock] [**********]
The Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing interest in its evolution from the backwater of American politics to the second most powerful position in our government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive -- until now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone seriously off track.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702126.html
Answering to No One
By Walter F. Mondale
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B07 [oped] [former veep Mondale] [on current veep Cheney] [unflattering] [big shock] [**********]
The Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing interest in its evolution from the backwater of American politics to the second most powerful position in our government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive -- until now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone seriously off track.
The Founders created the vice presidency as a constitutional afterthought, solely to provide a president-in-reserve should the need arise. The only duty they specified was that the vice president should preside over the Senate. [*****]The office languished in obscurity and irrelevance for more than 150 years until Richard Nixon saw it as a platform from which to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 1960. That worked, and the office has been an effective launching pad for aspiring candidates since.
But it wasn't until Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency that the vice presidency took on a substantive role. [****]Carter saw the office as an underused asset and set out to make the most of it. He gave me an office in the West Wing, unimpeded access to him and to the flow of information, and specific assignments at home and abroad. He asked me, as the only other nationally elected official, to be his adviser and partner on a range of issues.
Our relationship depended on trust, mutual respect and an acknowledgement that there was only one agenda to be served -- the president's. [*****]Every Monday the two of us met privately for lunch; we could, and did, talk candidly about virtually anything. By the end of four years we had completed the "executivization" of the vice presidency, ending two centuries of confusion, derision and irrelevance surrounding the office.
Subsequent administrations followed this pattern. George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle and Al Gore built their vice presidencies after this model, allowing for their different interests, experiences and capabilities as well as the needs of the presidents they served.
This all changed in 2001, and especially after Sept. 11, when Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president. His was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president. [*******]It is essential that a president know all the relevant facts and viable options before making decisions, yet Cheney has discarded the "honest broker" role he played as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff.
Through his vast government experience, through the friends he had been able to place in key positions and through his considerable political skills, he has been increasingly able to determine the answers to questions put to the president -- because he has been able to determine the questions. It was Cheney who persuaded President Bush to sign an order that denied access to any court by foreign terrorism suspects and Cheney who determined that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Rather than subject his views to an established (and rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the president. Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently bought into have proved offensive to the values of the Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts. [**********]
The corollary to Cheney's zealous embrace of secrecy is his near total aversion to the notion of accountability. [*******]I've never seen a former member of the House of Representatives demonstrate such contempt for Congress -- even when it was controlled by his own party. His insistence on invoking executive privilege to block virtually every congressional request for information has been stupefying -- it's almost as if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government. Nor does he exhibit much respect for public opinion, which amounts to indifference toward being held accountable by the people who elected him.
Whatever authority a vice president has is derived from the president under whom he serves. There are no powers inherent in the office; they must be delegated by the president. Somehow, not only has Cheney been given vast authority by President Bush -- including, apparently, the entire intelligence portfolio -- but he also pursues his own agenda. The real question is why the president allows this to happen. [********]
Three decades ago we lived through another painful example of a White House exceeding its authority, lying to the American people, breaking the law and shrouding everything it did in secrecy. Watergate wrenched the country, and our constitutional system, like nothing before. We spent years trying to identify and absorb the lessons of this great excess. But here we are again.
Since the Carter administration left office, we have been criticized for many things. Yet I remain enormously proud of what we did in those four years, especially that we told the truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace.
The writer was vice president of the United States from 1977 to 1981.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

It's How We Pull Back

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702121.html
It's How We Pull Back
By David Ignatius
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B07 [oped] [david I has resisted withdrawal as has T Friedman] [and they have each taken some heat] [the inevitable slide toward the inevitable withdrawal?] [**************]
Try to imagine what was running through the mind of Hassan Kazemi Qomi, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad, as he sat across the negotiating table from his American counterpart, Ryan Crocker, last week. While the U.S. diplomat delivered his stern warning against Iranian meddling in Iraq, Qomi must have wondered: Why should I listen to this guy? Congress is going to start pulling U.S. troops out soon, no matter what he says. [*************]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702121.html
It's How We Pull Back
By David Ignatius
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B07 [oped] [david I has resisted withdrawal as has T Friedman] [and they have each taken some heat] [the inevitable slide toward the inevitable withdrawal?] [**************]
Try to imagine what was running through the mind of Hassan Kazemi Qomi, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad, as he sat across the negotiating table from his American counterpart, Ryan Crocker, last week. While the U.S. diplomat delivered his stern warning against Iranian meddling in Iraq, Qomi must have wondered: Why should I listen to this guy? Congress is going to start pulling U.S. troops out soon, no matter what he says. [*************]
That's the difficulty for Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus as they try to manage a stable transition in Iraq while Congress chants ever more loudly: "Troops out! Troops out!" It's hard for anyone to take American power seriously when prominent members of Congress are declaring the war already lost. [true but this was inevitable when bush began saying just wait until the surge has had a chance] [he conceded that withdrawal was inevitable unless . . .] [*******]
This is a moment when America would be better served by a parliamentary system. The Bush administration would have lost a vote of "no confidence" after November's congressional elections, and the Democrats would now have responsibility for overseeing the tricky process of extracting American forces from Iraq without doing even more damage. Iraq would be the country's war again, rather than George Bush's.
But we go to war with the democracy we've got, with all its intrinsic impatience. That's a lesson retired Air Force Gen. Chuck Boyd tried to impart to a group of newly minted brigadier generals last week. America has never won a war that lasted more than four years, he reminded them, with the exception of the Revolutionary War, when we were the insurgents and it was Britain that tired of the faraway struggle. [***********]
Future military planners will have to recognize that American democracy, in which political mandates must be renewed in two-year increments, makes us uniquely unsuited to fight protracted counterinsurgency wars. [so presidents who take the US into such circumstances deserve lots of scrutiny] [******]Petraeus likes to observe that it takes, on average, at least nine years to prevail in such a war. If that measure is correct, Petraeus must know there is little chance that a frustrated and angry American public will grant him enough time for success. So the question is: How to extricate ourselves in a way that minimizes the damage to the United States, its allies and Iraq?
A good start would be for Washington partisans to take deep breaths and lower the volume, so that the process of talking and fighting that must accompany a gradual U.S. withdrawal can work. Some members of Congress argue that pressure for an American troop withdrawal will persuade the Iraqis to put aside their sectarian agendas, but the opposite is more likely to be true.
Try for a moment to put yourself in the place of the Iraqi Shiite warlord Moqtada al-Sadr. The American representatives in Baghdad, Crocker and Petraeus, keep calling on him to disarm his Mahdi Army militia and defuse Iraq's sectarian war. But Sadr can read the stories coming out of Washington. He sees the daily clamor for American troops to come home, and he knows that in the brutal reality of Iraq, this is the time to stockpile weapons for his militia, not disband it.
Even the good news that people have been touting in Iraq -- the new willingness of Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province to ally with the United States against al-Qaeda -- is in part a warm-up for the civil war that's coming. The Sunni leaders are working with the Americans so that they, too, can stockpile arms for the coming conflict. We are, in effect, arming both sides for this sectarian battle. And not for the first time, either -- recall U.S. military support to both Iraq and Iran during their brutal war in the 1980s.
Extricating the United States safely from Iraq will be difficult under the best of circumstances. But it will be impossible if the necessary bargaining takes place against a backdrop of continual congressional demands for a faster withdrawal. In that situation, the Qomis and Sadrs will take the admonitions from Crocker and Petraeus as just so much hot air -- and a bad situation will get even worse. Why should they listen to us today if we will be gone tomorrow?
The most sensible comment I heard on Iraq in the past week came from one of the Democratic presidential candidates -- indeed, from the one with the strongest antiwar credentials, Sen. Barack Obama: "I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." [***********]
Obama is right, and so, for that matter, is President Bush when he says much the same thing. The United States is on its way out of Iraq eventually, but it matters powerfully how we disengage -- most of all to Democrats, who at this point seem likely to inherit the responsibility for America's security 18 months from now. [*******]
The writer is co-host ofPostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Political Cover for Whom?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702123.html
Political Cover for Whom?
By Peter W. Rodman
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B07 [oped] [former Nixon aid] [on bush administration] [is it worse than Watergate as John Dean claims?] [*********]
President Bush is facing some painful choices on Iraq. As he weighs the high strategic stakes in the Middle East and the high political stakes at home, history may provide some relevant lessons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702123.html
Political Cover for Whom?
By Peter W. Rodman
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B07 [oped] [former Nixon aid] [on bush administration] [is it worse than Watergate as John Dean claims?] [*********]
President Bush is facing some painful choices on Iraq. As he weighs the high strategic stakes in the Middle East and the high political stakes at home, history may provide some relevant lessons.
Since the Iraq Study Group issued its report in December, Bush has been urged from many quarters to seek a bipartisan bargain with Congress. This, the theory goes, will give him political cover for the strategic as well as political risks that disengagement may entail. But Bush should be wary: The promised political cover may not materialize. If he begins a disengagement against his better judgment and that of his commanders, and the result accelerates the destabilization of Iraq and the Middle East, the names of James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will be relegated to footnotes. [******] History's bumper sticker will record that George W. Bush pulled the plug. It will be his legacy alone. [rightly so] [he blundered in] [if the US must blunder out doesn’t he derserve a good deal of blaim?] [what if the US continued te Bush blunder until 2010 the withdrew with bad results?] [wouldn’t bush still be recroded as the principal architect of the blunder?] [***]The president may prefer, instead, that the historical record be unambiguous about who forced an unwise decision.
Public opinion, of course, can change. In 1973, 1974 and 1975, Congress undoubtedly felt it was reflecting the country's disillusionment with the Vietnam War, and it forced a disengagement over the Nixon administration's strong objection. Yet military historians are coming to a consensus that by the end of 1972, there was a much-improved balance of forces in Vietnam, reflected in the 1973 Paris agreement, and that Congress subsequently pulled the props out from under that balance of forces [*****]-- dooming Indochina to a bloodbath. This is now a widely accepted narrative of the endgame in Vietnam, and it has haunted the Democrats for a generation. [not all of us] [first, the blood bath was over hyped] [it occurred in Cambodia but little in Viet nam] [not to downplay the thousands sent to reeducation camps!] [*****]
Today, Congress, too, faces a pivotal choice on Iraq. The moment that Congress enacts a law constricting the president's freedom of action in Iraq, it buys a considerable share of responsibility for the war's outcome. Will tomorrow's narrative be that the strategic military situation in Iraq was starting to improve in 2007 but Congress pulled the plug anyway -- emboldening Islamist extremists throughout the region and demoralizing all our friends? If so, perhaps it's not President Bush who needs political cover from his opponents but they who want political cover from him.
The huge strategic stakes in the Middle East argue for resisting calls for any U.S. withdrawal not warranted by conditions in Iraq. The irony is that whoever is elected president next year -- from whichever party -- will come to understand this better than anyone.
From this perspective, Bush owes it to his successor to achieve the maximum possible stabilization of Iraq so that his successor will have the maximum options. The successor can pull the plug immediately and blame it all on Bush; go all-out to win; or begin a controlled disengagement, as Richard Nixon decided to do when he inherited the Vietnam War in 1969. [*******]Conversely, if Bush himself begins a process of unraveling, his successor will inherit a range of choices far worse than what the country faces now. [incredibly cynical and the same problem that existed with Viet Nam—in leaving successors chances and shaped spaced, no mentione of how many more Americans die needlessly; how many more Iraqis are slaughtered, something the US is responsible for since it unleashed it; how many more billions spent?] [***]
Those running for president, especially, would be well advised, amid the excitement of the campaign, to reflect on what will be required of the winner. Potentially the most destabilizing new factor in the world in the coming period is the fear of American weakness. All the hyperventilation about American hubris and unilateralism is a tired cliche; it never had much validity anyway. The real problem is that the pressures pushing us to accept defeat in Iraq are already profoundly unnerving to allies in the Middle East, and elsewhere, who rely on the United States to help ensure their security in the face of continuing dangers. If we let ourselves be driven out of Iraq, what the world will seek most from the next president will not be some great demonstration of humility and self-abasement -- that is, to be the "un-Bush" -- but rather for reassurance that the United States is still strong, capable of acting decisively and committed to the security of its friends. Given our domestic debate, to provide this reassurance will be an uphill battle in the best of circumstances. It will be even more difficult if President Bush succumbs to all the pressures on him to do the wrong thing in Iraq.
The writer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, served most recently as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Bet on India

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800999.html
Bet on India
The Bush administration presses forward with a nuclear agreement -- and hopes for a strategic partnership.
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B06 [editorial] [bush admininstration’s initiative on India] [while some problems, I generally support it as it rewards India for being responsible nuclear power] [something it’s done since 1970s] [**********]
IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. [*****]Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800999.html
Bet on India
The Bush administration presses forward with a nuclear agreement -- and hopes for a strategic partnership.
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B06 [editorial] [bush admininstration’s initiative on India] [while some problems, I generally support it as it rewards India for being responsible nuclear power] [something it’s done since 1970s] [**********]
IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. [*****]Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.
Friday marked another step toward the end of that policy -- also with India. The Bush administration and New Delhi announced the principles by which the United States will resume sales of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, as promised by President Bush in July 2005.[***] The fine print of the agreement, which must still be approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and by Congress, has not yet been released. But the big picture is clear: The administration is betting that the benefits to the United States and the world of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of a giant exception to the old rules of the nonproliferation game. [***********]
There are good reasons to make the bet. India is a booming democracy of more than 1 billion people, clearly destined to play a growing role on the world stage. It can help the United States as a trading partner and as a strategic counterweight to China and Islamic extremists. If India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less greenhouse gas. Perhaps most important, India has developed its own nuclear arsenal without selling materials or know-how to other potentially dangerous states. [*********]This is more than can be said for Pakistan, home of the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear network.
You can call this a double standard, as some of the agreement's critics do: one set of rules for countries we like, another for those we don't. Or you can call it realism: The agreement provides for more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. [*****]For example, it allows India to reprocess atomic fuel but at a new facility under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, to protect against its diversion into weapons. The case for admitting India to the nuclear club is based on the plausible notion that the political character of a nuclear-armed state can be as important, or more important, than its signature on the NPT. [****] North Korea, a Stalinist dictatorship, went nuclear while a member of the NPT; the Islamic Republic of Iran appears headed down the same road. Yet India's democratic system and its manifest interest in joining the global free-market economy suggest that it will behave responsibly.
Or so it must be hoped. The few details of the agreement released Friday suggest that it is very favorable to India indeed, while skating close to the edge of U.S. law. [****]For example, the United States committed to helping India accumulate a nuclear fuel stockpile, thus insulating New Delhi against the threat, provided for by U.S. law, of a supply cutoff in the unlikely event that India resumes weapons testing. Congress is also asking appropriate questions about India's military-to-military contacts with Iran and about New Delhi's stubborn habit of attending meetings of "non-aligned" countries at which Cuba, Venezuela and others bash the United States. [******] [who cares?] [since when did Cuba or Venezuela become relevant in the post 9/11 world?] [****]As Congress considers this deal, India might well focus on what it can do to show that it, too, thinks of the new strategic partnership with Washington as a two-way street.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Saudis Going South on Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/opinion/29sun2.html
July 29, 2007
Editorial
Saudis Going South on Iraq
[editorial] [US-Saudi relations] [recent news that it’s on the rocks with the Saudis working at cross purposes] [yesterday’s report that Bush administration was seeking to buy their loyalty through a huge arms program] [********]
The Bush administration and Saudi Arabia’s ruling family have a lot in common, including oil, shared rivals like Iran and a penchant for denial that has allowed both to overlook the Saudis’ enabling role in the Sept. 11 attacks. But their recent wrangling over Iraq cannot be denied or papered over with proposals for a big new arms sale. And if these differences are not tackled, there is an increased likelihood that the war’s chaos will spread far beyond Iraq’s borders. [*******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/opinion/29sun2.html
July 29, 2007
Editorial
Saudis Going South on Iraq
[editorial] [US-Saudi relations] [recent news that it’s on the rocks with the Saudis working at cross purposes] [yesterday’s report that Bush administration was seeking to buy their loyalty through a huge arms program] [********]
The Bush administration and Saudi Arabia’s ruling family have a lot in common, including oil, shared rivals like Iran and a penchant for denial that has allowed both to overlook the Saudis’ enabling role in the Sept. 11 attacks. But their recent wrangling over Iraq cannot be denied or papered over with proposals for a big new arms sale. And if these differences are not tackled, there is an increased likelihood that the war’s chaos will spread far beyond Iraq’s borders. [*******]
While Washington hasn’t protested publicly, Riyadh is pouring money into Sunni opposition groups and letting Saudis cross the border to join Sunni insurgents fighting the American-backed, Shiite-led government. [******]Washington estimates that nearly half of the 60 to 80 foreign fighters entering Iraq each month come from Saudi Arabia. [monthly between 30 and 40 foreign fighters head for –Iraq from Saudi] [******]
So far, neither Washington nor Riyadh is spending any time thinking about containing the chaos that will follow the inevitable American withdrawal. The only good news is that President Bush is sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Saudi Arabia for what we hope will be a frank discussion.
A failed Iraqi state with Saudi Islamists holed up in Al Qaeda sanctuaries in its western deserts is clearly not in the interests of the Saudi monarchy.[***] But for Ms. Rice and Mr. Gates to have any chance of changing Saudi policies, they will have to go beyond the administration’s usual mix of bullying and denial and address legitimate Saudi concerns.
One such concern is Iran, which is bankrolling and training Shiite militias, building a power base in Shiite areas of Iraq and drawing the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, into its orbit. Iran’s expanding influence poses a major threat to Saudi Arabia. [****]
After years of mistaken American policy in Iraq, that threat cannot simply be conjured or blustered away. Whether the Saudis like it or not, and whether Mr. Bush likes it or not, Washington needs to face up to these issues, sit down with Tehran and work out mutually acceptable solutions to these issues that the Saudis can live with as well. [*******]
Another concern is the plight of Iraq’s Sunni minority under a sectarian Shiite government in league with vindictive Shiite militias. Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis have to get used to the idea of Shiite majority power. But the Saudis cannot be expected to sit still while the Iraqi Sunnis are driven from their homes, denied decent jobs and treated as second-class citizens by the Iraqi government. [*********]
If Washington wants Saudi backing for the Maliki government, Mr. Maliki must earn it by ending sectarianism in the security forces, reforming discriminatory anti-Baathist restrictions and pushing through an equitable oil revenue law.
It is past time for President Bush to acknowledge that the United States has no realistic chance of winning a military victory in Iraq, and that it needs to be urgently preparing to manage the consequences of an American withdrawal. That will require working cooperatively with all of Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria. [******]Compared with those, Saudi Arabia should be easy.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Coalition of Evangelicals Voices Support for Palestinian State

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/us/29evangelical.html
July 29, 2007
Coalition of Evangelicals Voices Support for Palestinian State
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN [SIGs] [religious] [evangeleicals for Palestine] [unusual as most evangelical groups tend to be for Israel per biblical injunctions] [********]
In recent years, conservative evangelicals who claim a Biblical mandate to protect Israel have built a bulwark of support for the Jewish nation — sending donations, denouncing its critics and urging it not to evacuate settlements or forfeit territory. [can you imagine if some religious group say Shinto sent money to the US and attempted to thwart certain domestic policies and foster others?] [********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/us/29evangelical.html
July 29, 2007
Coalition of Evangelicals Voices Support for Palestinian State
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN [SIGs] [religious] [evangeleicals for Palestine] [unusual as most evangelical groups tend to be for Israel per biblical injunctions] [********]
In recent years, conservative evangelicals who claim a Biblical mandate to protect Israel have built a bulwark of support for the Jewish nation — sending donations, denouncing its critics and urging it not to evacuate settlements or forfeit territory. [can you imagine if some religious group say Shinto sent money to the US and attempted to thwart certain domestic policies and foster others?] [********]
Now more than 30 evangelical leaders are stepping forward to say these efforts have given the wrong impression about the stance of many, if not most, American evangelicals.
On Friday, these leaders sent a letter to President Bush saying that both Israelis and Palestinians have “legitimate rights stretching back for millennia to the lands of Israel/Palestine,” and that they support the creation of a Palestinian state “that includes the vast majority of the West Bank.” [*******]
They say that being a friend to Jews and to Israel “does not mean withholding criticism when it is warranted.” The letter adds, “Both Israelis and Palestinians have committed violence and injustice against each other.” [**********]
The letter is signed by 34 evangelical leaders, many of whom lead denominations, Christian charities, ministry organizations, seminaries and universities.
They include Gary M. Benedict, president of The Christian and Missionary Alliance, a denomination of 2,000 churches; Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary; Gordon MacDonald, chairman of World Relief; Richard E. Stearns, president of World Vision; David Neff, editor of Christianity Today; and Berten A. Waggoner, national director and president of The Vineyard USA, an association of 630 churches in the United States.
“This group is in no way anti-Israel, and we make it very clear we’re committed to the security of Israel,” said Ronald J. Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action, which often takes liberal positions on issues. “But we want a solution that is viable. Obviously there would have to be compromises.”
They are clearly aiming their message not just at President Bush, but at the Muslim world and policy makers in the State Department. [********]
Mr. Sider said he and three other evangelical leaders got the idea for the letter in February at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, where they met Muslim and American diplomats who were shocked to discover the existence of American evangelicals who favored a Palestinian state. [*****]Mr. Sider says they will translate the letter into Arabic and distribute it in the Middle East and Europe.
“We think it’s crucial that the Muslim world realize that there are evangelical Christians in the U.S. in large numbers that want a fair solution,” [*****]Mr. Sider said.
In the last year and half, liberal and moderate evangelicals have initiated two other efforts that demonstrated fissures in the evangelical movement. Last year, they parted with the conservative flank by campaigning against climate change and global warming. This year, they denounced the use of torture in the fight against terrorism. Some of the participants in those campaigns also signed this letter.
The Rev. Joel C. Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church in Longwood, Fla., said, “There is a part of the evangelical family which is what I call Christian Zionists, who are just so staunchly pro-Israel that Israel and their side can do no wrong, and it’s almost anti-Biblical to criticize Israel for anything. But there are many more evangelicals who are really open and seek justice for both parties.”
The loudest and best-organized voices in the evangelical movement have been sending a very different message: that the Palestinians have no legitimate claim to the land. [*******]
The Rev. John Hagee, who founded Christians United for Israel, was informed of the letter and read most of it. He responded: “Bible-believing evangelicals will scoff at that message.
“Christians United for Israel is opposed to America pressuring Israel to give up more land to anyone for any reason. What has the policy of appeasement ever produced for Israel that was beneficial?” Mr. Hagee said.
“God gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob a covenant in the Book of Genesis for the land of Israel that is eternal and unbreakable, and that covenant is still intact,” he said. “The Palestinian people have never owned the land of Israel, never existed as an autonomous society. There is no Palestinian language. There is no Palestinian currency. And to say that Palestinians have a right to that land historically is an historical fraud.”
Christians United for Israel held a conference with 4,500 attendees in Washington this month, and Mr. Hagee sends e-mail action alerts on Israel every Monday to 55,000 pastors and leaders.
There is a crucial theological difference between Mr. Hagee’s views on Israel and those expressed by the letter writers, said Timothy P. Weber, a church historian, former seminary president and the author of “On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend.”
Mr. Hagee and others are dispensationalists, Mr. Weber said, who interpret the Bible as predicting that in order for Christ to return, the Jews must gather in Israel, the third temple must be built in Jerusalem and the Battle of Armageddon must be fought. [******]
Mr. Weber said, “The dispensationalists have parlayed what is a distinctly minority position theologically within evangelicalism into a major political voice.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

General Training Iraqis Cites Problem of Sectarian Loyalty

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html
July 29, 2007
General Training Iraqis Cites Problem of Sectarian Loyalty
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 28 — The new American general in charge of training and equipping Iraq’s security forces said the hardest challenge was finding good leaders free of sectarian loyalties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html
July 29, 2007
General Training Iraqis Cites Problem of Sectarian Loyalty
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 28 — The new American general in charge of training and equipping Iraq’s security forces said the hardest challenge was finding good leaders free of sectarian loyalties.
“You can’t grow a force this fast and have the right number of qualified leaders,” Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik told The Associated Press on Saturday. “You can’t do it. This is a problem now, and it will be a problem for a good number of years.”
General Dubik said nonsectarianism was “much harder” to instill than teaching soldiers how to fight.
The Iraqi police on Saturday more than doubled the estimated death toll of a truck bombing on Thursday in the central Baghdad district of Karrada, to around 60 from 25. Two days after the explosion, rescuers were still searching for human remains in the rubble of a dozen apartments and houses that were destroyed or badly damaged by the blast.
Nearby, relatives of missing people watched miserably as Iraqi security forces removed the debris. Funeral corteges passed, with mourners carrying coffins and chanting.
Insurgents dressed as women attacked an Iraqi Army checkpoint near the northern town of Kirkuk on Saturday, killing three soldiers and wounding one, said Col. Sadr al-Din Abdullah, an Iraqi Army commander. [***********]
The governor of Kirkuk announced a three-hour curfew before the Asia Cup soccer final on Sunday between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, as security forces across the country prepared to tighten security, fearing that insurgents would attack celebrating crowds.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

British Pullback in Iraq Presages Hurdles for U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/world/middleeast/29basra.html
July 29, 2007
British Pullback in Iraq Presages Hurdles for U.S.
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [eve of PM Gordon Brown’s first visit to US—Camp David no less—Brits signal changes?] [*****]
BASRA, Iraq — As American troop levels are peaking in Baghdad, British force levels are heading in the opposite direction as the troops prepare to withdraw completely from the city center of Basra, [*****]300 miles to the south.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/world/middleeast/29basra.html
July 29, 2007
British Pullback in Iraq Presages Hurdles for U.S.
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [eve of PM Gordon Brown’s first visit to US—Camp David no less—Brits signal changes?] [*****]
BASRA, Iraq — As American troop levels are peaking in Baghdad, British force levels are heading in the opposite direction as the troops prepare to withdraw completely from the city center of Basra, [*****]300 miles to the south.
The British intend to pull back to an airport headquarters miles out of town, a symbolic move widely taken by Iraqis as the beginning of the end of the British military presence in southern Iraq.
The scaling down by America’s largest coalition partner foreshadows many of the political and military challenges certain to face American commanders when their troops begin withdrawing. [******]
Skepticism is widespread in Basra, as in Baghdad, about whether Iraqi forces are ready to take over. The British and the Americans will have to assuage the fears of Iraqis that they are being abandoned to gunmen and religious extremists. [******]And each is likely to face intensified attacks from propaganda-conscious enemies trying to claim credit for driving out the Westerners. [********]
As the British prepare for the withdrawal from the city center — and the wider transition of handing over Basra Province to Iraqi security forces during the coming months — Brig. James Bashall, commander of the First Mechanized Brigade, concedes that his men will almost certainly “get a lot of indirect fire as we go backward.” [***********]
It is no coincidence that he is reading up on Britain’s withdrawal from its former crown colony Aden in what is now Yemen, and lessons from other theaters, with the American experience in Vietnam as the “obvious parallel.”
Rear Adm. Mark I. Fox, an American military spokesman in Baghdad, parried any suggestion that Basra was a model for the Americans.
“I think that our focus right now is on the operations that we are conducting,” he said. “Certainly that’s the thing that is in front of us right now, and I wouldn’t characterize us as necessarily peeking over the shoulders of somebody else to see how they are doing it.”
The British commanders studiously avoid talk of dates for the same reason American commanders are resisting such pressure in Congress — they fear it would embolden insurgents. [******]But it has escaped no one’s notice that Britain’s new prime minister, Gordon Brown, could score political points by withdrawing from an unpopular war.
The British pullback, and British commanders’ talk of moving toward “overwatch,” and intervening “in a limited sense” if requested by the Iraqis, is viewed with dismay by many Iraqis in the city.
Mustapha Wali, a 49-year-old teacher, was blunt. “If they withdraw, we will live in a jungle, like the early days,” he said. “The parties control the government, and the aim of officials is to fill their pockets with money, millions of dollars inside their pockets and nothing to the city.” [*******] [and if they don’t they live in the current jungle] [makes decisions difficult]
The educated and secular middle classes fear that the Iraqi security forces — particularly the police — are hopelessly infiltrated by the extremist Shiite militias and Iranian-backed Islamist parties competing, [*****]often murderously, for control of Basra’s huge oil wealth.
Basra, an overwhelmingly Shiite port city controlling Iraq’s gateway to the Persian Gulf, is much less affected by the Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence plaguing Baghdad. But, as a June 25 report by the International Crisis Group concluded, it is virtually controlled by Shiite militias.
Since the 2003 invasion, the British-led coalition forces have adopted a far less aggressive and interventionist stance than American troops have farther north. Some contend that this was the only realistic approach, with far fewer troops at their disposal and a more benign environment.
But critics accuse the British of simply allowing the Shiite militias free rein to carry out their intolerant Islamist agenda, which involved killing merchants who sell alcohol, driving out Christians and infiltrating state institutions and the security forces.
“The British are very patient — they didn’t know how to deal with the militias,” said a 50-year-old Assyrian Christian who would identify herself only as Mrs. Mansour. “Some people think it would be better if the Americans came instead of the British. They would be harder on the militias.”
The report by the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit organization that seeks to prevent or resolve deadly conflicts, concedes that a recent British-led crackdown was a “qualified success” in reducing criminality, political assassinations and sectarian killings, yet nevertheless concludes that Basra “is an example of what to avoid.” [*****]
It said the British had been driven into “increasingly secluded compounds,” a result, the report said, that was viewed by Basra’s residents and militia as an “ignominious defeat.”
British and Iraqi leaders point out that although there have been problems with intimidation and infiltration, particularly of the Iraqi police, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has appointed new police and army commanders in recent months to take charge of the city. And the officials say there are encouraging signs.
But certainly a city that was once relatively safe for British troops is no longer.
Where they once patrolled in soft hats and open-topped vehicles, soldiers now move in heavily armored vehicles and are regularly attacked with mortar shells, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs.
This year is already the most deadly since 2003 for British forces in Iraq, with 36 killed as of Saturday. [*****]Sixty-one rockets and mortar shells rained down on the palace in one day last week, a record high.
In such an environment, say British commanders, removing the troops from the city center takes away a “magnet” for attacks, and deprives the Mahdi Army, led by Moktada al-Sadr, and other Iranian-backed militias of a cause to justify their continued violence. Instead there will be a transition to control by Iraqis.
When the withdrawal from the palace is complete, there will be 5,000 British soldiers here, 500 fewer than before.
Although American commanders are sure to watch the British pullout closely, there are distinct differences between the military situations in the north and south.
“Basra is a totally different environment from what the Americans are facing,” said a British official in Basra. “The problem here is gangsterism, not violent sectarianism. And a foreign military is not the right tool for closing down a mafia.” [*******]
“A Baghdad-style surge would be 100 percent counterproductive,” he added.
Nevertheless, everyone expects attacks to intensify, and soldiers have cautionary tales for American generals looking ahead to an eventual drawing down of troop levels.
On May 25,[****] Basra’s small Permanent Joint Coordination Center — a joint British-Iraqi base in the city’s center — came under sustained attack by militias enraged by the killing of a senior Mahdi Army commander that day.
The lesson drawn by soldiers inside was that the militias had carefully watched the reduced British troop movements around the city, noticed where they were no longer patrolling and prepared accordingly.
Cpl. Daniel Jennings, 26, said the Mahdi Army appeared to have stockpiled rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns in advance.
“What they did was very well planned,” he said. “They knew they could pre-dump weapons and ammo. They knew that if they hid R.P.G.’s under a bridge or a gun under a tree it wasn’t going to be found.”
During one army patrol in a village overlooked by the palace’s watchtowers, built during the Saddam Hussein era, residents were confused to find themselves in the cross-fire between the Mahdi Army and the British.
Picking from his car shrapnel from what appeared to be an errant rocket fired at the palace, Mohammed, 20, said he was angry at the militias for using the villagers’ houses as cover to fire, but also at the British for firing back and damaging the homes.
“We are caught in the middle,” he said.” At the start the American and British forces came and the situation was much better, but now it is beginning to get worse.”
Another Iraqi youth, when asked what the Iraqi police were doing about roadside bombs intended for British troops, said, “The police are the ones who are doing it.”
In Basra itself one 26-year-old Mahdi Army fighter was unequivocal about what he wanted. “I hope to see them withdraw today, before tomorrow,” he said.
But for most, it is an issue heavily shaded in gray.
“Some people are asking, ‘Are we any longer part of the solution, or part of the problem?’ ” said Capt. Toby Skinner, 26, of the Fourth Battalion, the Rifles Regiment, in Basra. “An Iraqi told me: ‘You stay here for three years you will be our friend. You stay for four years, you will be our enemy.’ ”
Riyadh, a 22-year-old Iraqi and Basra native who is an interpreter for the British, expressed little confidence that the Iraqi Army was ready to take over from his paymasters, and none at all in the Iraqi police.
“Right now the militias are busy concentrating on getting the British Army out of Iraq,” he said. “After that is done they will turn on the people and try to control them in a very difficult way.” [*********]
“They will kill people who don’t do what they want,” he added. “There will be no punishment by courts; they kill people on the streets.”
But he acknowledged that if British troops stayed they would be sucked into further deadly confrontations with militias using civilians as cover, leading to inevitable innocent casualties and more hostility.
“If they leave, the militias will eventually fall apart,” he said. “There will be no reason to join them because they will not be fighting the British Army.”
This is what the British hope, but cannot guarantee, will happen.
At Basra Palace, the rocket attacks at all hours of the day and night have led soldiers to christen it, with characteristic dark humor, “probably the worst palace in the world.”
Despite the rocket-shredded roof and garden labyrinth of head-high sandbags, morale remains high. However, some soldiers question their continued presence in the city center.
“I don’t see the point,” shrugged Trooper Charles Culshaw, 21, an armored vehicle driver. “ We are training the Iraqi Army and doing a couple of bits and pieces that are useful, but I don’t think it’s worth it, to be honest with you.”
“All we are doing now is resupplying ourselves,” he said. “It’s going round in circles. People are getting killed for us to resupply ourselves, and if we weren’t resupplying ourselves, people wouldn’t be getting killed.”
Unsurprisingly, Lt. Col. Patrick Sanders, commander of the Fourth Battalion, the Rifles Regiment, has a different view.
“If that were true and that were all we were doing, then I would be saying the same thing, but it’s not,” he said, pointing to recent battles in which the British had killed at least 100 insurgents.
But while such raids will continue against wanted men, a speedy transition to a Basra run by Iraqis is the game in this town.
“I think that the route is one of reconciliation, and that means taking some risk,” Lieutenant Colonel Sanders said. “The other option is that we do what has been done in the past and what is being done elsewhere, which is to thrash around killing people by the dozen because they are attacking us. But I’m not sure that is constructive.” [********]
Mudhafer al-Husaini contributed reporting from Baghdad.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

New British Leader's Tightrope With Bush: Be Close Yet Apart

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801402.html
New British Leader's Tightrope With Bush: Be Close Yet Apart
By Michael Abramowitz and Mary Jordan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A04 [UK] [EU] [London] [PM Gordon Brown arrives for first meeting with President Bush since Brown became PM] [USFP] [US-Anglo relations] [special relationship] [US image in Britain has taken a beating since 2003—iraq war and mismanagement; Britain’s willingness to follow US down; US betrayal in terms of extraordinary renditions, black sites, enemy combatants and gitmo] [followup] [Britains generally preferred Clinton who was far less unilateral] [********]
Gordon Brown faces a quandary as he arrives at Camp David tonight for his first sit-down with President Bush as Britain's prime minister: How does he distance himself from a U.S. president who helped sink the popularity of Brown's predecessor but preserve a political relationship that is essential to Britain's future? [just so] [***]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801402.html
New British Leader's Tightrope With Bush: Be Close Yet Apart
By Michael Abramowitz and Mary Jordan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A04 [UK] [EU] [London] [PM Gordon Brown arrives for first meeting with President Bush since Brown became PM] [USFP] [US-Anglo relations] [special relationship] [US image in Britain has taken a beating since 2003—iraq war and mismanagement; Britain’s willingness to follow US down; US betrayal in terms of extraordinary renditions, black sites, enemy combatants and gitmo] [followup] [Britains generally preferred Clinton who was far less unilateral] [********]
Gordon Brown faces a quandary as he arrives at Camp David tonight for his first sit-down with President Bush as Britain's prime minister: How does he distance himself from a U.S. president who helped sink the popularity of Brown's predecessor but preserve a political relationship that is essential to Britain's future? [just so] [***]
The expectation on both sides of the Atlantic is that Brown will try to carve out an independent line on at least one of the big issues facing the two nations, [****]whether Iraq, Iran, global warming or terrorism.
Brown needs to "show he is his own man, that he is not the president's poodle," said Peter Kellner, a British political analyst. "George Bush is not popular in Britain."
The "poodle" epithet long followed Tony Blair, whom Brown succeeded a month ago. "The overwhelming reason Blair was unpopular at the end of his term was because he was considered too close to the United States, and he paid a big domestic price for that," [*****] said Philip H. Gordon, a former White House expert on Europe. "It would be unimaginable if his successor did not take some steps to turn the page."
Both the White House and Downing Street are stressing that little has been disturbed in the "special relationship" between the United States and Britain -- which has long magnified British global influence -- since the elevation of Brown, who as chancellor of the exchequer for the past decade focused on the economy while Blair managed foreign affairs. [*****]
Although friction may lie ahead on such issues as Iran's nuclear program or the environment, U.S. officials appear confident that there will be no sudden departures from Brown on the key issues -- especially on keeping Britain's remaining 5,500 troops in Iraq.
The prime minister has moved to tamp down speculation that he is ready to break with Bush. That was fueled by some of his early appointments, including that of Mark Malloch Brown, a former top U.N. official who has been critical of U.S. neoconservatives [*****] and recently remarked that Washington and London would no longer "be joined at the hip." Brown also held meetings with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, reviving talk that his foreign policy will tilt more to Europe than the United States.
But Brown has followed up with comments emphasizing that he will work very closely with the U.S. administration. "We will not allow people to separate us from the United States of America in dealing with the common challenges that we face around the world," the prime minister recently told BBC Radio.
Officials in both governments said that this week's summit meeting will focus on building a rapport between the two leaders, aided by the bucolic setting of the mountaintop retreat where Bush entertains his closest foreign allies. [*****]The two leaders will dine without staff members this evening, to be followed tomorrow by breakfast, lunch, meetings and a news conference. There's no word on whether Bush will mention Brown's toothpaste preference, as he famously did at the "Colgate Summit" at Camp David when the U.S. president first sat down with Blair in 2001.
"This will mainly be a reassurance thing," said British author and political analyst Peter Riddell. "They want to knock down any suggestion that there is distance between them. Yes, they are different people, but they are fundamentally on the same wavelength."
This is not to say that there could not be disagreements -- for instance, on Afghanistan, where the two sides have differed in recent months on the proper approach for cracking down on narcotics production, a big obstacle to stabilizing that country.
The two leaders will also share their thinking on Iraq. After contributing about 40,000 soldiers for the 2003 invasion, the British have reduced their presence to about 5,500 troops in the vicinity of Basra, [see below in today’s external] [****] in the south. The light British touch in Basra was originally seen as something of a success, but security has dramatically deteriorated in recent months, with increased fighting among Shiite militias, according to military analysts.
"The assessments that I have been seeing say they have essentially been defeated, have withdrawn from the streets and are pretty much isolated in a garrison near the airport," said Stephen D. Biddle, a military analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations who recently traveled to Iraq. "The British are not providing much in terms of population security in Basra."
But even if a British pullout would not be significant militarily, it would pack a symbolic punch. Many analysts and U.S. officials anticipate that Brown will hold off on any decision until Bush announces what the U.S. strategy will be after a September report from Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. [*****]
John O'Sullivan, a British political commentator at the conservative-leaning Hudson Institute, said he believes the British public is mostly angry about Blair and past mistakes on Iraq, and will cut the new prime minister some slack on the British presence there. "The argument over the war tends to focus around the past and not around current policy. I don't think this will be a major issue," he said.
And John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006, said it is too early to tell whether Brown will move Britain closer to continental Europe.
"Blair and [President Bill] Clinton had an outstanding personal relationship, and many people said Bush and Blair would not get along the same way, and yet they did," Bolton said. "I don't read a lot into remarks being made and confusion in Brown's new government. . . . What it really boils down to is actions, and that remains to be seen."
Jordan reported from London.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Libya Faults Bulgarian Pardon of Medical Workers

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/world/africa/29libya.html
July 29, 2007
Libya Faults Bulgarian Pardon of Medical Workers
By MATTHEW BRUNWASSER [Libya] [northern Africa; Maghreb; horn; broader middle east] [democratization] [odd case wherein health workers infected Libyans] [followup from July 24] [*************]
SOFIA, Bulgaria, July 28 — Calling the action a betrayal, Libya on Saturday denounced a decision by Bulgaria’s president to pardon six medical workers who had been given life sentences in Libya before they were released from the country this week. [****]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/world/africa/29libya.html
July 29, 2007
Libya Faults Bulgarian Pardon of Medical Workers
By MATTHEW BRUNWASSER [Libya] [northern Africa; Maghreb; horn; broader middle east] [democratization] [odd case wherein health workers infected Libyans] [followup from July 24] [*************]
SOFIA, Bulgaria, July 28 — Calling the action a betrayal, Libya on Saturday denounced a decision by Bulgaria’s president to pardon six medical workers who had been given life sentences in Libya before they were released from the country this week. [****]
Libya’s foreign minister, Abdelrahman Shalgham, said at a news conference in Tripoli that the workers should have been detained upon their arrival in Bulgaria on Tuesday and not freed in a “celebratory and illegal manner,” Agence France-Presse reported.
The medics, five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor, had been sentenced to death twice in Libya after being convicted of intentionally infecting more than 400 Libyan children with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS — a charge that AIDS experts have dismissed as baseless. They were held for eight and a half years before their sentence was commuted this month to life in prison after the families of the children each received $1 million.
The commutation paved the way for their transfer to Bulgaria because, under the terms of a 1984 agreement between Libya and Bulgaria, citizens of one country convicted of crimes in the other can serve sentences in their own nation. The Palestinian doctor was granted Bulgarian citizenship this year. [*******]
It was widely expected that Bulgaria would free the medical workers on their return, but Libyan leaders suggested Saturday that they had expected them to serve their time.
“We followed the procedure — it is Bulgaria that betrayed us,” Prime Minister Baghdadi Mahmudi said at the news conference, Agence France-Presse reported.
Libya has sent fellow Arab League members a memorandum calling for the group to adopt a common stand on the dispute, officials there said, the news agency said.
In Sofia, Bulgaria’s capital, Kamen Mihov, the prosecutor in charge of the International Legal Assistance Department, said that the pardon of the medics was “absolutely legal and proper” under Bulgarian law and the 1984 accord. Mr. Mihov said the agreement provides that after a prisoner is transferred home, the prisoner becomes subject to the laws of that country.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Pakistan's Musharraf, Rival Discuss Sharing Power

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800269.html
Pakistan's Musharraf, Rival Discuss Sharing Power
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A16 [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [Bhutto and Musharraf apparently have been negotiation in UAE] [********]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 28 -- Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto appeared to draw closer to an improbable alliance Saturday, with a top Musharraf adviser confirming that the two had met and pronouncing the exchange "very successful." [*********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800269.html
Pakistan's Musharraf, Rival Discuss Sharing Power
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A16 [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [Bhutto and Musharraf apparently have been negotiation in UAE] [********]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 28 -- Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto appeared to draw closer to an improbable alliance Saturday, with a top Musharraf adviser confirming that the two had met and pronouncing the exchange "very successful." [*********]
The Pakistani news media reported the meeting Friday, but the government denied it at the time. On Saturday, however, federal minister Sheikh Rashid said the usually bitter rivals had held discussions in the United Arab Emirates aimed at creating a power-sharing arrangement. [******]Representatives for Bhutto, who has been living in exile since 1999 and leads the country's largest opposition party, would not confirm the meeting for the record but also would not deny it.
Musharraf has been struggling in recent months with vigorous challenges to his eight-year rule. They have come both from Islamic extremists waging a violent insurgency as well as from moderate forces looking to oust the president and end military rule through upcoming elections.
With his popularity in decline, Musharraf badly needs allies. Bhutto needs a way back into the country without facing criminal charges relating to alleged corruption. She has said she wants to return for a third term as prime minister, even though that is now barred by the Pakistani constitution. [********]
While the two leaders have vastly different visions for Pakistan, both are regarded as moderates. An alliance would probably be welcomed by the United States and other Western powers that are hoping that moderate forces can unite to battle rising militancy in Pakistan. [*********]
"The country is in a serious crisis," Rashid said in an interview on Pakistan's Dawn News television station. "So we have to move fast, and we have to move to national consensus."
Negotiations have been reported for months, but a face-to-face meeting indicates they have reached an advanced stage.
The pace of the talks may have been hastened by a court ruling this month that reinstated Pakistan's chief justice, whom Musharraf had tried to oust. The court is expected to hear challenges to Musharraf's plans for staying in office, which had included getting elected to a new term by a parliament set to expire, and keeping his job as army chief. Bhutto has said she will not consider a deal unless Musharraf agrees to shed his uniform, and that is believed to be a sticking point in the negotiations.
The talks carry considerable risk for both leaders. Each heads a party whose members may revolt at the prospect of an agreement, and it is unclear how a Musharraf-Bhutto government would function given the bad blood between them. [******]
State Information Minister Tariq Azim Khan said Saturday that any arrangement would have to be approved by the ruling party, which Musharraf and his allies created after he took power in 1999. Many party leaders deeply mistrust Bhutto.
“Obviously, there’s a lot of resentment within the ruling party,” Khan said.
A spokesman for an anti-Musharraf party that had previously been aligned with Bhutto ridiculed her Saturday for giving Musharraf a potential way out of his predicament.
“She has betrayed the cause of democracy,” said Ahsan Iqbal, information secretary for the Pakistan Muslim League, whose leader, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, is also in exile. “Musharraf has lost all legitimacy, and he must resign.” [*****]
A Bhutto spokesman said negotiations between the two camps continue. "Both sides are still examining how to move forward," Wajid Shamsul Hasan said. "There is hope still, but time is running out."
Bhutto and Musharraf have together been the signature forces in Pakistani politics over the past two decades. They share an ill-disguised contempt for one another and seem to relish presenting themselves as everything the other is not. [*******]
Bhutto, who comes from a wealthy family and graduated from Radcliffe and Oxford, served two terms as prime minister in the late 1980s and '90s. As leader of the left-leaning Pakistan People's Party for more than a quarter-century, she has railed against the dangers of military rule. Her father, who was also prime minister, was executed by a military regime, and she frequently refers to Musharraf as a "military dictator."
Musharraf is a lifelong army man, who rose from a middle-class background to lead Pakistan's most influential institution. While he was commanding the army in 1999, the military staged a coup, and Musharraf took power. He has called Bhutto's tenure leading the country "sham democracy" and accused her of rampant corruption.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

July 28, 2007

Names of the Dead

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/us/28list.html
July 28, 2007
Names of the Dead
[3,636] [KIA] [*****]
The Department of Defense has identified 3,636 [KIA] [*****]American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American yesterday: . . . .
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/us/28list.html
July 28, 2007
Names of the Dead
[3,636] [KIA] [*****]
The Department of Defense has identified 3,636 [KIA] [*****]American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American yesterday: . . . .
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Antiterrorism Bill Passes House by Wide Margin

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28home.html
July 28, 2007
Antiterrorism Bill Passes House by Wide Margin
By DAVID STOUT [reassertive 110th Congress, 1st session] [bush white house] [Dems campaigned on promise to enact the 43 or so recommendations of the 9/11 Commission—the ones not already enacted] [for many reasons they have failed to act decisively] [now they finally strike some deals allowing most of it for a vote] [GOP concerns were compromised] [followup] [*****]
WASHINGTON, July 27 — The House overwhelmingly passed antiterrorism legislation on Friday, sending to President Bush a measure intended to tighten security on air and sea cargo and allocate federal money where the threat of attack is deemed greatest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28home.html
July 28, 2007
Antiterrorism Bill Passes House by Wide Margin
By DAVID STOUT [reassertive 110th Congress, 1st session] [bush white house] [Dems campaigned on promise to enact the 43 or so recommendations of the 9/11 Commission—the ones not already enacted] [for many reasons they have failed to act decisively] [now they finally strike some deals allowing most of it for a vote] [GOP concerns were compromised] [followup] [*****]
WASHINGTON, July 27 — The House overwhelmingly passed antiterrorism legislation on Friday, sending to President Bush a measure intended to tighten security on air and sea cargo and allocate federal money where the threat of attack is deemed greatest.
The 371-to-40 vote in the House came a day after the Senate approved the legislation 85 to 8. [*******]Mr. Bush will sign the bill now that his reservations about it have been addressed, said a White House spokesman, Scott Stanzel. [white house had indicated it might have some problems] [now apparently it will be signed forthwith] [perhaps next week] [*********]
The House passage enabled members of both parties to claim victory, in the name of national security and common sense. Democrats had been eager to gain passage before the August recess to avoid being tagged as a do-nothing Congress.
“The American people will be safer,” Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic majority leader, said before the vote.
A crucial provision in the bill will change the way antiterrorism grants from the Department of Homeland Security are distributed to the states. It will cut in half the guaranteed minimum grant to each state, which was $3.8 million this year, and allow department officials to distribute money in discretionary grants where the threat and consequences of a terrorist attack are judged to be highest. [just common sense but state and district pork-barrel politics involved] [******]
In past years, officials from populous states considered likely to be terrorist targets, like New York, complained that less populous states got grants that were too big. Now, Mr. Hoyer said, the government will ask, “Where are we most vulnerable?”
Intended to meet the recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, the bill also requires that within three years all cargo carried by passenger jets be checked. (The word “screened” is used instead of “inspected” because shippers who are specially certified will be allowed do their own pre-airport inspecting and sealing.)
The bill also sets a five-year goal of screening all cargo ships leaving foreign ports for the United States, to safeguard against smuggled nuclear or radiological weapons. But it allows the Department of Homeland Security to postpone the requirement in two-year increments for various reasons. [*******]
To gain Republican support, Democrats dropped some provisions that had drawn Mr. Bush’s veto threat, including one that would have required that airport security scanners be given collective-bargaining rights like most other federal workers.
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said Republicans were especially pleased that they had won inclusion of language to protect Americans who report potential terrorist activity from “frivolous lawsuits.”
That section was inspired by an episode last year in Minneapolis, where six Muslim men were removed from a Phoenix-bound US Airways flight after their praying and chanting in Arabic alarmed passengers. The Muslims, imams about to fly home after a conference of religious clerics in Minneapolis, later sued the airline and the passengers who complained. [flying mullah provision as some have called it derisively] [*****]
Mr. Boehner said the bill would preclude similar suits. “In this era of radical jihadist terror,” he said, “the bravery and vigilance of individual Americans is critical to our security.” [************]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

With Gonzales Under Fire, FBI Violation Gains Notice

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702370.html
With Gonzales Under Fire, FBI Violation Gains Notice
Senator Says '04 Case Adds to Concerns About Candor
By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A03 [bush white house] [reassertive 110th Congress, 1st session] [tussle over mostly domestic matter of firing US attorneys] [however, it has intersection with USFP] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the latre-night visit and its purpose] [meantime, FBI reported it one or more of its agents abused national security letters!!!!] [lost in the shouting] [*****]
Two weeks before President Bush won reelection in 2004, the FBI sent a rare report to its overseers: One of its agents had engaged in a willful and intentional violation of a law by improperly collecting financial records during a national security investigation. [*****]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702370.html
With Gonzales Under Fire, FBI Violation Gains Notice
Senator Says '04 Case Adds to Concerns About Candor
By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A03 [bush white house] [reassertive 110th Congress, 1st session] [tussle over mostly domestic matter of firing US attorneys] [however, it has intersection with USFP] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the latre-night visit and its purpose] [meantime, FBI reported it one or more of its agents abused national security letters!!!!] [lost in the shouting] [*****]
Two weeks before President Bush won reelection in 2004, the FBI sent a rare report to its overseers: One of its agents had engaged in a willful and intentional violation of a law by improperly collecting financial records during a national security investigation. [*****]
The FBI concluded that the actions of the rookie agent amounted to "intelligence activities that . . . may be unlawful or contrary to executive order or presidential directive," according to a declassified memo from Oct. 21, 2004.
The incident was deemed serious enough for the bureau to notify both the President's Intelligence Oversight Board and the Justice Department, and to consider punishing the agent. [*********] [former, if I recall correctly, is part of the PFIAB] [*********]
The violation was the only one after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI has specifically flagged as intentional. But it has attracted fresh attention because Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified six months later that no "verified case of civil liberties abuse" had occurred since the USA Patriot Act was enacted.
Gonzales told senators this week that his use of the word "abuse" was meant to narrowly refer only to intentional violations. "My view and the views of other leadership in the department is, in fact, when we're talking about abuses of the Patriot Act, we're talking about intentional, deliberate misuse of the Patriot Act," he testified Tuesday in explaining his 2005 remarks.
Gonzales was not the attorney general in October 2004, when Justice Department officials were informed about the FBI agent's intentional violation. But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said yesterday that the existence of the notification has added to concerns that Gonzales has not been fully candid in his testimony.
"Oversight by Congress to minimize abuse of government's power relies on full and honest answers from government officials," particularly with regard to Patriot Act matters, Leahy said in a statement. "Time and again this Attorney General has not met that obligation."
The issue of what Gonzales knew of FBI violations and when arose this month, when The Washington Post reported that the FBI had sent him at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations before he gave his 2005 testimony. [*********]
In total, the FBI has told the White House and the Justice Department about a few hundred instances since 2001 in which its agents violated procedures or laws designed to protect the civil liberties and privacy of Americans.[****] Most of the problems involved paperwork mistakes, the inadvertent collection of phone data for the wrong person or the collection of data past a legal deadline, officials have said.
Officials said the 2004 violation stands out because it is the sole occasion on which the FBI itself concluded that an agent intentionally violated safeguards on the use of national security letters, investigative tools that allow agents to gather phone, computer or bank records without court approval or a grand jury subpoena.
When the use of the letters was expanded by the Patriot Act, Congress decided that the tools could be used to gather the full credit reports of Americans in investigations related only to terrorism. In addition, agents seeking financial records are required to obtain the written approval of a senior supervisor with special authority for national security letters.
In the October 2004 case, the bureau concluded that a young agent acted on her own in gathering financial records without the approval of a high-ranking official, violating both bureau policy and the Right to Financial Privacy Act. [******]The act blocks bank records from being accessed by government agencies without proper legal authority.
"In this instance the conduct . . . was wilful and intentional even though she did not realize that she had acted in contravention of the RFPA and Bureau policy," the October 2004 report said. "It should also be noted that SA [name redacted] was at the time a probationary agent."
"This matter has been referred to the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility for such actions as may be appropriate," FBI Deputy Counsel Julie Thomas wrote to the presidential board charged with civilian oversight of the legality of U.S. intelligence activities. The bureau said yesterday that the agent was subsequently disciplined.
Details of what the investigation involved and which documents were gathered were redacted from the copy of the memo that the bureau released publicly.
"The fact that the FBI considers this intentional and willful behavior speaks volumes," said Marcia Hofmann, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which helped win the release this summer of FBI documents related to national security letters. "This is not a situation where a civil liberty group is putting that label on the conduct. It is the FBI itself, and I think the attorney general should have taken that very seriously." [*******]
The Justice Department said it stands by what Gonzales said in his initial testimony. "The Justice Department has routinely provided Congress with reports of intelligence collection mistakes and errors, and thus the Attorney General's testimony could not fairly be understood as a representation that such mistakes had not occurred since the passage of the Patriot Act," spokesman Dean Boyd said in a statement.
White House press secretary Tony Snow, responding to calls from some lawmakers for Gonzales to step down, reaffirmed yesterday that Bush still supports him. Although some lawmakers have said Gonzales misled them in testimony about another matter -- the administration's warrantless surveillance program -- Snow said Gonzales testified truthfully about that and "tried to be very accurate.
A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, accused Democrats of being on a "crusade" to destroy the attorney general.
Meanwhile, an internal Justice Department inquiry is looking into whether anyone involved in past abuses of national security letters or related tools called "exigent circumstances" letters should be held criminally or administratively liable. [*********]
Its Office of Professional Responsibility is reviewing whether lawyers in the FBI's national security law office -- who are responsible for ensuring that agents comply with the law -- failed to perform their job.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

In Its Nuclear Deal With India, Washington Appears to Make More Concessions

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/asia/28india.html
July 28, 2007
News Analysis
In Its Nuclear Deal With India, Washington Appears to Make More Concessions
By SOMINI SENGUPTA [bush nsc principals] [improving US-India relations] [must always be viewed through prisim of US-Pakistani relations and what’s happening in Pakistan at a given time] [deal seeks to reward India for being a “responsible” nuclear power despite never signing NPT] [gives India waivers] [good reasons have been argued on either side] [it’s a tough call] [gala] [***********] [ditto]
NEW DELHI, July 27 — After a year of negotiations, India and the United States on Friday announced completion of a civilian nuclear accord, which Indian officials hailed as preserving India’s national security interests and as a testament to its emerging strategic importance to the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/asia/28india.html
July 28, 2007
News Analysis
In Its Nuclear Deal With India, Washington Appears to Make More Concessions
By SOMINI SENGUPTA [bush nsc principals] [improving US-India relations] [must always be viewed through prisim of US-Pakistani relations and what’s happening in Pakistan at a given time] [deal seeks to reward India for being a “responsible” nuclear power despite never signing NPT] [gives India waivers] [good reasons have been argued on either side] [it’s a tough call] [gala] [***********] [ditto]
NEW DELHI, July 27 — After a year of negotiations, India and the United States on Friday announced completion of a civilian nuclear accord, which Indian officials hailed as preserving India’s national security interests and as a testament to its emerging strategic importance to the United States.
The Indian national security adviser, M. K. Narayanan, called it “a touchstone of a transformed bilateral relationship between India and the United States.”
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the agreement a “historic milestone” that would enhance relations with India.
The agreement, which was forged during five rounds of negotiations, requires India to separate its civilian nuclear power reactors and open them to international inspections.
But in the end it was the United States that appeared to make more concessions. India stuck fast to its demand to be able to reprocess spent fuel from the reactors on the civilian side, which had raised concerns in Washington about opportunities to produce weapons-grade plutonium for India’s military arsenal.
The final agreement will allow India to carry out the reprocessing but requires it to develop a new facility dedicated to that purpose and subject to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.
It also allows India to develop “a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel” in case of a disruption of fuel supply, according to the Indian foreign ministry. Under American law, the United States would have to cut fuel supply in the event of another Indian nuclear test; the final agreement does not spell out what would happen in such an eventuality.
“We’ve got a very good deal, which we believe will meet the requirements of both countries,” Mr. Narayanan said at a news conference here Friday evening.
For their part, Bush administration officials largely sidestepped questions about why they decided to carve a large exception to President Bush’s declaration three years ago that no additional countries should be manufacturing nuclear fuel.
They argued that India — one of three countries that have refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, along with Israel and Pakistan — has never posed a proliferation risk, and would use its new fuel solely for peaceful purposes, at a safeguarded facility.
But in other cases, most notably that of Iran, the United States has rejected building such facilities, even if international inspectors are resident there. While India has committed to using American-produced fuel for only civilian reactors, outside experts have noted that a result will be to free up other sources of fuel for its weapons.
“At the very least, the Bush administration should not make it easier for New Delhi to resume nuclear testing and to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons,” said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Washington-based Henry L. Stimson Center.
Some critics of the deal, led by Representative Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, a Democrat, have vowed to try to defeat it. But it appears unlikely that they will muster the votes, especially in an election year when Indian-Americans are courted by both parties.
The accord allayed the two sticking points that Indian critics of the deal — including, most important, its scientific community — had held up as offending to national sovereignty.
Sitting beside Mr. Narayanan at the news conference was the last holdout on the deal, the Indian Atomic Energy Commission chairman, Anil Kakodkar, who went as far as to call it “a satisfactory thing.”
Mr. Narayanan said Mr. Kakodkar’s blessings would help to blunt political criticism of the deal. Neither the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party nor the government’s leftist allies, who have balked at India’s friendlier relations with the United States, commented Friday night.
The left has said it would make an assessment after reviewing the full text of the agreement, which has not been made public. Government negotiators took pains to point out that India’s fast-breeder reactor would remain outside the safeguards.
The agreement bears on far more than nuclear matters. It potentially smoothes over abiding Indian distrust of American intentions ever since New Delhi conducted its first nuclear test more than 30 years ago. India has been a nuclear renegade ever since. By refusing to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, India has been ineligible to buy nuclear technology, including fuel.
“The deal was always about the relationship,” said C. Raja Mohan, a professor of international relations at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and a proponent of both deal and relationship. “That was rooted in the idea that India is rising and cooperation with India would be good for the United States.”
Indian analysts argued that the agreement could speed broader strategic cooperation, unlocking the door on nuclear commerce and potentially other defense deals for American firms. In a news release, the U.S.-India Business Council said the expansion of India’s civilian nuclear energy program would generate $150 billion in commercial opportunities over the next 30 years.
“This opens up a huge gamut of possibilities for strategic cooperation, but more importantly, it positions the U.S.-India bilateral relationship on a very, very firm footing,” said Amitabh Mattoo, a former member of the Task Force on Global Strategic Development, which advised the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, on international issues, including India-U.S. relations.
“The United States has taken a view that a democratic, pluralistic, secular growing India is in its national interest and that most of the time there will be a convergence of interests,” he added. “Sometimes there won’t. It’s worth investing in India rather than alienating India.”
Convergence of interests is likely to be tested soon on what to do about Iran. India has pressed ahead on negotiations for a natural gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan to Iran. The United States has repeatedly hectored India against it.
In an editorial Thursday, The Hindustan Times credited the government for creating what it called an “audacious” accord. “India will be the only country that gets to retain and pursue its nuclear weapons programme while getting the benefits of nuclear collaboration on an equal footing with other countries,” the newspaper wrote.
India will next have to negotiate separate deals with the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the atomic energy agency. Mr. Narayanan told reporters here this evening that Indian negotiators would seek an “unconditional, clean” agreement from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The United States Congress would then have to render a final vote on the deal.
Indian officials have insisted that civilian nuclear cooperation would have no impact on the balance of power in the region, referring to Pakistan’s concerns about the potential growth of India’s nuclear arsenal.
“We are not using it as an excuse to enhance our strategic fuel capabilities,” Mr. Narayanan told reporters Friday evening.
David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

U.S. and India Finalize Controversial Nuclear Trade Pact

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702360.html
U.S. and India Finalize Controversial Nuclear Trade Pact
By Robin Wright and Emily Wax
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A14 [bush nsc principals] [improving US-India relations] [must always be viewed through prisim of US-Pakistani relations and what’s happening in Pakistan at a given time] [deal seeks to reward India for being a “responsible” nuclear power despite never signing NPT] [gives India waivers] [good reasons have been argued on either side] [it’s a tough call] [followup] [gala] [***********]
After two years of controversial negotiations, the United States and India yesterday announced a deal on peaceful nuclear cooperation that allows trade in nuclear reactors, technology and fuel, permits India to reprocess nuclear fuel and opens the way for the United States to become a "reliable" supplier for India's energy program. [******]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702360.html
U.S. and India Finalize Controversial Nuclear Trade Pact
By Robin Wright and Emily Wax
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A14 [bush nsc principals] [improving US-India relations] [must always be viewed through prisim of US-Pakistani relations and what’s happening in Pakistan at a given time] [deal seeks to reward India for being a “responsible” nuclear power despite never signing NPT] [gives India waivers] [good reasons have been argued on either side] [it’s a tough call] [followup] [gala] [***********]
After two years of controversial negotiations, the United States and India yesterday announced a deal on peaceful nuclear cooperation that allows trade in nuclear reactors, technology and fuel, permits India to reprocess nuclear fuel and opens the way for the United States to become a "reliable" supplier for India's energy program. [******]
"This is perhaps the single most important initiative that India and the United States have agreed to in the 60 years of our relationship," [*****] [no doubt] [it’s almost the only initiative] said R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, in announcing the deal. It is also a boost to an administration struggling with diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East, Africa, Russia and other parts of the world.
The deal could foster greater strategic cooperation between the two nations and open up markets for U.S. energy and defense industries. The so-called 123 agreement still faces significant hurdles, however, notably in Congress, which must approve the accord. Critics say the deal sets a bad example because India will win access to U.S. technology without complying with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows cooperation on nuclear energy only when countries pledge not to develop nuclear weapons.
"This deal is a complete capitulation on existing U.S. laws . . ." said Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation expert with the Center for American Progress. "It helps India reprocess fuel from a reactor to produce plutonium, which could be used in bombs, and it dilutes strict conditions that Congress had placed on aid should India test a nuclear weapon again. It's not exactly a green light for expanding India's nuclear weapons program, but it's at least a yellow." [**************]
The deal includes cooperation on civil nuclear research and development, allows India to reprocess nuclear fuel at a new national facility that will operate under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and approves India's right to create a strategic fuel reserve.
"Civil nuclear cooperation between the United States and India will offer enormous strategic and economic benefits to both countries, including enhanced energy security, a more environmentally friendly energy source, greater economic opportunities and more robust nonproliferation efforts," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Indian External Affairs Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee said in a statement.
President Bush said the deal reflects the deepening partnership with India and pledged to work with Congress on ratification.
Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, refuted U.S. claims that the deal will bring India into the nuclear mainstream. "We're giving India rights and privileges not afforded other nonnuclear states, and we're not holding India to the same standards expected of a nuclear weapons state," he said.
A senior administration official familiar with negotiations conceded that the United States cannot guarantee that India will refrain from testing a nuclear weapon but said that New Delhi would pay a very high price if it did. "The whole system is stacked against testing. The American president would have the right to ask for return of any technology. That's a huge penalty to pay. India would also have to think about the reaction from the Europeans and other suppliers of nuclear technology."
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) charged that the White House has abandoned its own long-standing position. "In the past, the president has said, correctly, that reprocessing and enrichment are not necessary for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. But now he has apparently reversed course and decided to allow India to reprocess all U.S.-origin fuel." Markey, co-chairman of the House's Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation, was one of 23 members of the House who wrote the White House Wednesday warning that any deal with India could not circumvent U.S. laws.
Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he and several lawmakers were "disturbed" by the deal. "We have said, 'You're not going to get anything if you resume nuclear testing.' But now we're making an agreement that India will get a fuel supply even if it resumes testing." [******]
In New Delhi, government officials have consistently said that they will not knuckle under to U.S. efforts to curtail India's nuclear arsenal. Nearly every week, newspapers run fiery editorials about the country's need to defend its national interests, often pointing toward neighboring Pakistan, also a nuclear power.
India's tough stance during negotiations reflects its growing confidence in world affairs, a contrast from the days it was among the world's poorest and most politically marginalized countries. [*******]"Let India keep its bombs," newspaper headlines have declared.
The nuclear deal was approved by India's cabinet Wednesday, but the country's biggest political parties have refused to endorse the agreement in parliament until they read the fine print, which so far has not been publicly disclosed.
"We assure everyone there is nothing to stop India from carrying out further nuclear tests," M.K. Narayanan, India's national security adviser, said on Indian television. "Our right to test did not come into this at all. And that's key."
The nuclear deal is being widely portrayed on the subcontinent as yet another step in warming relations between the United States and India, once a staunch ally of Russia during the last decades of the Cold War and an economic backwater. [******]Before the pact can come to a vote in Congress, however, India must reach agreement with the IAEA on inspections and safeguards and win approval from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group. [************]
Wax reported from New Delhi.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

U.S. Plans New Arms Sales to Gulf Allies

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702454.html
U.S. Plans New Arms Sales to Gulf Allies
$20 Billion Deal Includes Weapons For Saudi Arabia
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A01 [bush nsc principals] [the relationship between the GOP under Bushes and the Saudis] [in recent days newspaper stories on deteriorating US-Saudi relations] [Saudis acquiescing at scores of Saudis heading to –iraq monthly] [Saudis fostering a new unified front between Fatah and Hamas, constrary to the Quartet and others] [Saudis supporting Sunni Iraqis and think al-Maliki is a dead letter] [how to smooth over relations?] [send them large arms shipments] [***********]
The Bush administration will announce next week a series of arms deals worth at least $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and five other oil-rich Persian Gulf states as well as new 10-year military aid packages to Israel and Egypt, a move to shore up allies in the Middle East and counter Iran's rising influence, U.S. officials said yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702454.html
U.S. Plans New Arms Sales to Gulf Allies
$20 Billion Deal Includes Weapons For Saudi Arabia
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A01 [bush nsc principals] [the relationship between the GOP under Bushes and the Saudis] [in recent days newspaper stories on deteriorating US-Saudi relations] [Saudis acquiescing at scores of Saudis heading to –iraq monthly] [Saudis fostering a new unified front between Fatah and Hamas, constrary to the Quartet and others] [Saudis supporting Sunni Iraqis and think al-Maliki is a dead letter] [how to smooth over relations?] [send them large arms shipments] [***********]
The Bush administration will announce next week a series of arms deals worth at least $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and five other oil-rich Persian Gulf states as well as new 10-year military aid packages to Israel and Egypt, a move to shore up allies in the Middle East and counter Iran's rising influence, U.S. officials said yesterday.
The arms deals, which include the sales of a variety of sophisticated weaponry, would be the largest negotiated by this administration. The military assistance agreements would provide $30 billion in new U.S. aid to Israel and $13 billion to Egypt over 10 years, the officials said. Both figures represent significant increases in military support.
U.S. officials said the arms sales to Saudi Arabia are expected to include air-to-air missiles as well as Joint Direct Attack Munitions, which turn standard bombs into "smart" precision-guided bombs. Most, but not all, of the arms sales to the six Gulf Cooperation Council countries -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman -- will be defensive, the officials said.
U.S. officials said the common goal of the military aid packages and arms sales is to strengthen pro-Western countries against Iran at a time when the hard-line regime seeks to extend its power in the region.
"This is a big development, because it's part of a larger regional strategy and the maintenance of a strong U.S. presence in the region. We're paying attention to the needs of our allies and what everyone in the region believes is a flexing of muscles by a more aggressive Iran. One way to deal with that is to make our allies and friends strong," said a senior administration official involved in the negotiations.
The arms deals have quietly been under discussion for months despite U.S. disappointment over Saudi Arabia's failure to support the Iraqi government and to bring that country's Sunni Muslims into the reconciliation process. [hence the strategic leaks recently of Saudis mischief] [***********]
The administration's plans will be announced Monday in advance of trips next week to the Middle East by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, and are expected to be on their agenda in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The administration has a notional list of arms to sell to the Gulf states, but there are no final agreements on quantities and specific models, U.S. officials said.
State Department and Pentagon officials started briefing key members of Congress about their intentions over the past week, U.S. officials said. The initial reception has been positive, said officials involved in those briefings. They acknowledged, however, that some parts of the deal are supported more than others. Arms sales to Gulf countries have often been controversial.
The administration hopes to provide a full rundown this fall for congressional approval.
"We want to convince Congress to continue our tradition of military sales to all six" states, the senior administration official said. "We've been helping Gulf Arabs for years, and that needs to continue."
Sunni regimes in the Gulf region have felt particularly vulnerable since the election of a pro-Iranian Shiite government in neighboring Iraq last year. "There's a sense here and in the region of the need to build up defenses against Iranian encroachment," said a U.S. official familiar with the deals.
The aid packages to Israel and Egypt are further along. A U.S.-Israel agreement, to replace a 10-year arrangement that expires this year, has been under discussion since February, U.S. officials said. The new U.S. package will include strictly military aid and would expand the U.S. contribution 25 percent over the current $2.4 billion per year; economic assistance has been discontinued now that Israel is considered a developed economy, U.S. officials said.
President Bush said last month, after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, that he was strongly committed to a new 10-year agreement that would increase U.S. assistance "to meet the new threats and challenges [Israel] faces." Washington has long promised to help Israel sustain a so-called "qualitative military edge" over other major powers in the region.
Rice is expected to announce Monday that, after her Middle East trip, Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns will finalize the agreements with Israel and Egypt.
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html
July 28, 2007
U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia
By DAVID S. CLOUD [bush nsc principals] [the relationship between the GOP under Bushes and the Saudis] [in recent days newspaper stories on deteriorating US-Saudi relations] [Saudis acquiescing at scores of Saudis heading to –iraq monthly] [Saudis fostering a new unified front between Fatah and Hamas, constrary to the Quartet and others] [Saudis supporting Sunni Iraqis and think al-Maliki is a dead letter] [how to smooth over relations?] [send them large arms shipments] [***********]
WASHINGTON, July 27 — The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq. [now one can see why the leaks have led to recent revealations] [efforts to pre-empt this deal that must have been in pipeline for many months] [*********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html
July 28, 2007
U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia
By DAVID S. CLOUD [bush nsc principals] [the relationship between the GOP under Bushes and the Saudis] [in recent days newspaper stories on deteriorating US-Saudi relations] [Saudis acquiescing at scores of Saudis heading to –iraq monthly] [Saudis fostering a new unified front between Fatah and Hamas, constrary to the Quartet and others] [Saudis supporting Sunni Iraqis and think al-Maliki is a dead letter] [how to smooth over relations?] [send them large arms shipments] [***********]
WASHINGTON, July 27 — The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq. [now one can see why the leaks have led to recent revealations] [efforts to pre-empt this deal that must have been in pipeline for many months] [*********]
The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years. [*********]
But administration officials remained concerned that the size of the package and the advanced weaponry it contains, as well as broader concerns about Saudi Arabia’s role in Iraq, could prompt Saudi critics in Congress to oppose the package when Congress is formally notified about the deal this fall.
In talks about the package, the administration has not sought specific assurances from Saudi Arabia that it would be more supportive of the American effort in Iraq as a condition of receiving the arms package, the officials said.
The officials said the plan to bolster the militaries of Persian Gulf countries is part of an American strategy to contain the growing power of Iran in the region and to demonstrate that, no matter what happens in Iraq, Washington remains committed to its longtime Arab allies. [********]Officials from the State Department and the Pentagon agreed to outline the terms of the deal after some details emerged from closed briefings this week on Capitol Hill.
The officials said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who are to make a joint visit to Saudi Arabia next week, still intended to use the trip to press the Saudis to do more to help Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government. [******]
“The role of the Sunni Arab neighbors is to send a positive, affirmative message to moderates in Iraq in government that the neighbors are with you,” a senior State Department official told reporters in a conference call on Friday. More specifically, the official said, the United States wants the gulf states to make clear to Sunnis engaged in violence in Iraq that such actions are “killing your future.”
In addition to promising an increase in American military aid to Israel, the Pentagon is seeking to ease Israel’s concerns over the proposed weapons sales to Saudi Arabia by asking the Saudis to accept restrictions on the range, size and location of the satellite-guided bombs, including a commitment not to store the weapons at air bases close to Israeli territory, the officials said.
The package and the possible steps to allay Israel’s concerns were described to Congress this week, in an effort by the administration to test the reaction on Capitol Hill before entering into final negotiations on the package with Saudi officials. The Saudis had requested that Congress be told about the planned sale, the officials said, in an effort to avoid the kind of bruising fight on Capitol Hill that occurred in the 1980s over proposed arms sales to the kingdom. [*********]
In his visit with King Abdullah and other Saudi officials next week, Mr. Gates plans to describe “what the administration is willing to go forward with” in the arms package and “what we would recommend to the Hill and others,” according to a senior Pentagon official, who conducted a background briefing on the upcoming trip with reporters on Friday.
The official added that Mr. Gates would also reassure the Saudis that “regardless of what happens in the near term in Iraq that our commitment in the region remains firm, remains steadfast and that, in fact, we are looking to enhance and develop it.” [*******]
The $20 billion price tag on the package is more than double what officials originally estimated when details became public this spring. Even the higher figure is a rough estimate that could fluctuate depending on the final package, which would be carried out over a number of years, officials said.
Worried about the impression that the United States was starting an arms race in the region, State and Defense Department officials stressed that the arms deal was being proposed largely in response to improvements in Iran’s military capabilities and to counter the threat posed by its nuclear program, which the Bush administration contends is aimed at building nuclear weapons. [**********]
Along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are likely to receive equipment and weaponry [*****]from the arms sales under consideration, officials said. In general, the United States is interested in upgrading the countries’ air and missile defense systems, improving their navies and making modest improvements in their air forces, administration officials said, though not all the packages would be the same.
Ms. Rice is expected to announce Monday that the administration will open formal discussions with each country about the proposed packages, in hopes of reaching agreements by the fall.
Along with the announcement of formal talks with Persian Gulf allies on the arms package, Ms. Rice is planning to outline the new agreement to provide military aid to Israel, as well as a similar accord with Egypt.
The $30.4 billion being promised to Israel is $9.1 billion more than Israel has received over the past decade, an increase of nearly 43 percent.
A senior administration official said the sizable increase was a result of Israel’s need to replace equipment expended in its war against Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer, as well as to maintain its advantage in advanced weaponry as other countries in the region modernize their forces. [***********]
In defending the proposed sale to Saudi Arabia and other gulf states, the officials noted that the Saudis and several of the other countries were in talks with suppliers other than the United States. If the packages offered to them by the United States are blocked or come with too many conditions, the officials said, the Persian Gulf countries could turn elsewhere for similar equipment, reducing American influence in the region.
The United States has made few, if any, sales of satellite-guided munitions to Arab countries in the past, though Israel has received them since the mid-1990s as part of a United States policy of ensuring that Israel has a military edge over its regional rivals.
Israeli officials have made specific requests aimed at eliminating concerns that satellite-guided bombs sold to the Saudis could be used against its territory, administration officials said.
Their major concern is not a full-scale Saudi attack, but the possibility that a rogue pilot armed with one of the bombs could attack on his own or that the Saudi government could one day be overthrown and the weapons could fall into the hands of a more radical regime, [******]officials said.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Agency Seeks Greater Surveillance Power Overseas

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702221.html
Agency Seeks Greater Surveillance Power Overseas
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A04 [bush administration] [intelligence community] [ODNI-DNI] [director McConnel asking for broader power] [may be a indicator that he’s doing what Negroponte unwilling to take heat for doing] [namely, trying to take advantage of situation to build powerful bureaucracy at dod’s expense—at least largely at dod’s expense] [followup] [use nsc] [use psci 355; 455] [**]
Citing a "period of heightened threat" [*****]to the U.S. homeland, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell asked Congress to "act immediately" to make changes in current law to permit the interception of messages between terrorist targets overseas, which he said now requires burdensome court orders. [************]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702221.html
Agency Seeks Greater Surveillance Power Overseas
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A04 [bush administration] [intelligence community] [ODNI-DNI] [director McConnel asking for broader power] [may be a indicator that he’s doing what Negroponte unwilling to take heat for doing] [namely, trying to take advantage of situation to build powerful bureaucracy at dod’s expense—at least largely at dod’s expense] [followup] [use nsc] [use psci 355; 455] [**]
Citing a "period of heightened threat" [*****]to the U.S. homeland, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell asked Congress to "act immediately" to make changes in current law to permit the interception of messages between terrorist targets overseas, which he said now requires burdensome court orders. [************]
In a July 25 letter made public yesterday, McConnell told the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.), that he hopes Congress "will be able to act immediately . . . to provide the legislative changes needed to protect the nation in this period of heightened threat." [***********] [I take this quite seriously] [critics will say it’s the Bush administration attempting to gin up hysteria] [clearly, they take every opportunity] [however, mcconnel is a professional whose time does not conincide with Bush] [he’ll have to answer to the next president] [*********]
At issue is a package of changes that the Bush administration wants in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to facilitate the continuation of its terrorist surveillance program. Congress has delayed amending the program pending further study.
Stepping up the pressure on lawmakers after the recently released terrorist threat assessment, McConnell said that "clarifications are urgently needed" in the law to enable the use of "our capabilities to collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets overseas without requirements imposed by an out-of-date FISA statute." [and everyone more or less knows that he’s essentially correct] [debate about what needs to be changed but little debate that FISA is antiquated] [*******]
He added, "As the head of our nation's intelligence community, I am obligated to provide warning of threats of terrorist activity, and I have deep concern about the current threat situation." [wow] [this is serious] [**********]
The underlying question hinges on modern technology: When communications between one foreign-located source and another foreign-located source travel through a U.S.-located terminal or switch, can they be intercepted without a warrant?
The matter came up briefly Wednesday at a House hearing on the recent National Intelligence Estimate on the al-Qaeda threat to the United States. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the intelligence panel, referred to "information that we're trying to get when foreign terrorists are communicating in foreign locations."
Hoekstra said: "We have a known intelligence problem. We face a heightened terrorist risk. We have a simple fix to address one of the major FISA problems." He called on the Democrats to resolve the issue before the summer recess.
Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.), another committee member, responded that the intelligence panel had held open and closed hearings. He said he believes that the act "already allows for foreign-to-foreign communications to be intercepted" but that the administration "has chosen to say that it wants a warrant nonetheless."
At the hearing, Reyes said that "there are some options we are looking at" to give McConnell what he deems necessary. "We're working very quickly and very importantly in a structured way to get to that," [********]Reyes said.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Two Votes Over Tokyo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072601262.html
Two Votes Over Tokyo
By Christopher Griffin
Special to Washingtonpost.com
Saturday, July 28, 2007; 12:00 AM [oped] [japan] [upcoming events of significance] [still revising WW II history] [***********]
In the next few days, two votes on two continents could bring a wave of change to Japan. Tomorrow in Tokyo an upper-house election of the Japanese Diet will decide the fate of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe; too great a loss could topple his cabinet. And next week in Washington, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on Resolution 121, which calls for the Japanese government to accept full responsibility and apologize for the abuse of sex slaves during World War II.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072601262.html
Two Votes Over Tokyo
By Christopher Griffin
Special to Washingtonpost.com
Saturday, July 28, 2007; 12:00 AM [oped] [japan] [upcoming events of significance] [still revising WW II history] [***********]
In the next few days, two votes on two continents could bring a wave of change to Japan. Tomorrow in Tokyo an upper-house election of the Japanese Diet will decide the fate of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe; too great a loss could topple his cabinet. And next week in Washington, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on Resolution 121, which calls for the Japanese government to accept full responsibility and apologize for the abuse of sex slaves during World War II.
The outcome of Sunday's election is not much in doubt: Abe and his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) are set to take a thumping. Abe is widely viewed in Japan as uninterested in managing his government, focusing instead on Japan's aspirations to become a "beautiful country." [*****]But Abe's grandiose rhetoric only confuses the public, and a series of scandals culminating in the suicide of a cabinet minister have not helped his popularity.
Even a significant defeat on Sunday, however, may not lead to any major change -- because this election will not affect the balance in the all-important lower house. Upper-house elections provide the electorate with a convenient way to chastise the ruling party without overthrowing it. In such a case, the party would maintain control even if it changes its leadership.
The main question about Sunday's election is whether Abe will be forced to resign as prime minister. Such an outcome is plausible, if unlikely, and could stall recent efforts at bilateral cooperation with the United States on such issues as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abe has made these issues central to his agenda as prime minister, and no potential successor is as committed to so close a relationship with Washington.
A vote against the LDP, however, is not a vote against the U.S.-Japan alliance. While many within the opposition party leadership may be skeptical of Abe's ambitions, they have chosen to focus the their campaign on such social issues as pension reform. So a defeat for Abe does not necessarily mean a repudiation of his agenda of constitutional reform and a stronger defense. And while Abe has made a stronger alliance a priority, both parties seek a healthy relationship with the United States.
While Tokyo prepares for its election, Japanese leaders will also be watching the upcoming vote on H.R. 121, a "sense of Congress" resolution calling on Japan to apologize for its wartime system of sexual slavery. [*****]As a sentiment, the resolution is laudable -- Japan's wartime activities were in fact atrocious, and Japan's inability to address such historical legacies is a genuine liability for the alliance. As politics, however, the resolution is less than ideal; the timing of its passage has already raised concerns in Tokyo as to the long-term health of bilateral relations.
First introduced by Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), the resolution was the topic of hearings on Feb. 15, two days after a an agreement among negotiatiors on the North Korean issue pushed aside Japan's concerns about some two dozen Japanese who were abducted by North Korean agents in the 1970s and 1980s. Claiming that the agreement leaves the lives of Japanese citizens in peril, Tokyo has shown little patience for lectures on its own human rights record. Japan's ambassador in Washington has warned that passage of the resolution would have "lasting and harmful effects" on the relationship.
The resolution shows that history remains relevant to diplomacy. Getting history right will also be a necessary step if Japan is to play a productive role in Asia. From the Korean Peninsula to Southeast Asia, Japan faces obstacles incurred by its failure to resolve historical disputes, allowing countries such as China to use history as a tool for rallying regional opposition to Tokyo.
Washington and Tokyo face a full agenda. Such issues as the resolution and North Korea are increasingly characterized by contention rather than coordination, and these quarrels hamper progress on such vital issues as missile defense and regional economic cooperation. As the two sides look beyond the current contretemps, Congress can show that it takes the relationship with Japan seriously by working to strengthen the partnership between two of the world's most important democracies.
Christopher Griffin is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

What Use Were All The Wars?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701713.html
What Use Were All The Wars?
By Mona Eltahawy
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A19 [oped] [middle east and war in modern times] [since 1948] [********]
VELEN, Germany -- If turning 40 isn't challenging enough, try preparing for this milestone when you're as old as one of the worst defeats Arab armies ever suffered at Israeli hands. Wars mark time and generations in the Middle East, so it's difficult not to take the humiliation personally. [********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701713.html
What Use Were All The Wars?
By Mona Eltahawy
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A19 [oped] [middle east and war in modern times] [since 1948] [********]
VELEN, Germany -- If turning 40 isn't challenging enough, try preparing for this milestone when you're as old as one of the worst defeats Arab armies ever suffered at Israeli hands. Wars mark time and generations in the Middle East, so it's difficult not to take the humiliation personally. [********]
My birth at the end of July 1967 makes me a child of the naksa, or setback, [*****]as the Arab defeat during the June 1967 war is euphemistically known in Arabic. There was no Summer of Love for us in 1967. We Children of the Naksa were born not only on the cusp of loss but also of the kind of disillusionment that whets the appetite of religious zealots. [********]
My parents' generation grew up high on the Arab nationalism that Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser brandished in the 1950s. By 1967, humiliation was decisively stepping into pride's large, empty shoes.
As the region marks the 40th anniversary of the Arab-Israeli war, it's been a relief to be watching from another country, one where the stain of wars and defeat have marked several generations. But no relief or distance can silence this question: Is this what we fought all those wars with Israel for? [*********]
My country, Egypt, fought four wars against Israel between 1948, when the Jewish state was created, and 1979, when Egypt became the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Two of my uncles were rocket engineers during the 1973 war, the last conflict between the two countries.
Watching the Palestinians' whiplash descent into civil war in Gaza this summer, it is difficult not to question the past. Israel's occupation of Palestinian land has caused no end of misery, poverty and frustration for the Palestinians. It has even scarred the Israeli people's conscience. But occupation doesn't explain the reckless and often corrupt leadership that seems to be the curse of the Palestinians. [*************]
You might think society would have evolved differently in the two countries that have peace treaties with Israel -- Egypt and Jordan -- or that their treaties have rendered conflict out of the question. Think again.
Has Egypt or Jordan logged better records on human rights or political freedoms because of those treaties? Has development or progress taken the place of war? Ask the thousands of political prisoners and the silenced dissidents of both countries.
Egypt has been at peace with Israel for 28 years. For the past 25 years, we have had the same president, who has never visited Israel -- just the tip of the iceberg known as the "cold peace" between the two countries, which Egyptian officials usually blame on negative public opinion of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. [*******]
We have subsumed so much into the Palestinian cause, channeling efforts that should have gone into development into a near obsession with Palestine, for little apparent good. Egypt boasts that it can talk to both the Israelis and the Palestinians, but even that has done little for its influence in halting intra-Palestinian fighting in Gaza. [******]
I visited Israel for the first time in September 1997. Soon after, I moved to Jerusalem as a correspondent for Reuters. I wanted to see things for myself and not have to rely on the "official" narrative given by our media. [********]
To this day I remain under the suspicion of my country's security services. When I returned to Egypt after my year in Israel, a state security officer -- whose nom de guerre was Omar Sharif -- held up a thick file that he said was full of orders to have me followed and my phone tapped.
My generation, sadly, might be lost to defeat and humiliation. If so, the best gift we can offer those coming behind us is clear advice: Don't walk in our footsteps, and know that the best way you can help Palestinians is to help your own countries. [****]
The Arab leaders of the 1967 era are gone, replaced in Jordan and Syria by their sons; preparations for a similar handover are underway in Egypt. The Palestinians are led by the dangerously impotent combination of a weak president and a prime minister who is a religious zealot. [*************]
And still there is no Palestine.
Why has time stood still for the Arab world? The Syrian town of Quneitra is exactly as it was when it was destroyed after the 1967 war with Israel, untouched so that we never forget. Yet how many German cities, almost leveled during World War II, have been rebuilt and are thriving again? [*************]
The 1967 war was one of the many conflicts with Israel that bookend our ages. Looking around the Arab world today, we must ask: What were they all for? It's time to move on. [*********]
Mona Eltahawyis an Egyptian commentator. Her e-mail address isinfo@monaeltahawy.com.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Kosovo Redux

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701947.html
Kosovo Redux
Independence for the Serbian province is inevitable, but Russia hopes to make it a crisis for the West.
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A18 [editorial] [kosovo’s independence] [stalled in UN where Russians are resisiting—protecting their serb brethren who comprise 15% or fewer of Kosovars] [*******]
A YEAR AGO this week we published an editorial noting that most people inside and outside of Serbia expected the province of Kosovo -- where the United States led a military intervention eight years ago -- to become an independent state, possibly by the end of 2006. Instead, this week, the United States, four of its NATO allies and Russia met in Vienna to launch a new round of negotiations to determine Kosovo's future -- that is, the same question whose answer was generally acknowledged a year ago. Why the potentially dangerous paralysis over the most volatile piece of Europe? The cause is partly the familiar intransigence of Serbian politicians, who decline to publicly accept a partition that they -- and most of their voters -- know is inevitable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701947.html
Kosovo Redux
Independence for the Serbian province is inevitable, but Russia hopes to make it a crisis for the West.
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A18 [editorial] [kosovo’s independence] [stalled in UN where Russians are resisiting—protecting their serb brethren who comprise 15% or fewer of Kosovars] [*******]
A YEAR AGO this week we published an editorial noting that most people inside and outside of Serbia expected the province of Kosovo -- where the United States led a military intervention eight years ago -- to become an independent state, possibly by the end of 2006. Instead, this week, the United States, four of its NATO allies and Russia met in Vienna to launch a new round of negotiations to determine Kosovo's future -- that is, the same question whose answer was generally acknowledged a year ago. Why the potentially dangerous paralysis over the most volatile piece of Europe? The cause is partly the familiar intransigence of Serbian politicians, who decline to publicly accept a partition that they -- and most of their voters -- know is inevitable.
The main cause of the delay, however, is Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has made Kosovo part of his aggressive campaign to reassert Russia's clout in Europe and portray his regime as a counter to the United States. [*****]Mr. Putin's ambassador at the United Nations last week made clear that he would veto a resolution that would have implemented a U.N. mediator's plan to put Kosovo on a path to independence, with oversight by the European Union and with elaborate guarantees for the 10 percent of its population that is Serb. [only 10%] [******]
Russia's public position is that it will oppose any solution for Kosovo that is not accepted by Serbia. This cynical stance has the aim of locking Serbia's leaders into their intransigence, isolating the Balkan country from the European Union -- which has offered it the prospect of membership -- and making the former heart of Communist Yugoslavia dependent on Moscow. Mr. Putin also hopes to split the European Union, which is divided about what to do about Kosovo in the absence of a U.N. resolution, and to prove that he can thwart the United States, which has been the principal defender of Kosovo's Muslim and ethnic Albanian majority.
To its credit, the Bush administration has refused to be cowed by the Russian tactics. Instead, officials have made clear that the new negotiations will be limited to 120 days and that regardless of their result the United States will seek recognition of an independent Kosovo. This will require not suasion over Mr. Putin but careful diplomacy with European governments, which must be persuaded to recognize Kosovo without a U.N. resolution. Britain, France and probably Germany can be counted on; the harder work lies with such nations as Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Romania and Slovakia, some of which worry about possible separatist claims in their own countries.
The consequences of a Western failure to recognize an independent Kosovo this year could be severe. Violence could easily erupt in the tense province, as it has several times since 1999. And Mr. Putin could conclude that belligerent obstructionism is a winning strategy for Russia, [******]in Europe and elsewhere. Though besieged with other foreign policy problems, the Bush administration needs to invest in the tough diplomacy needed to ensure that those outcomes are avoided.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Russia: Blast on Nuclear Sub; No Leak

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/europe/28briefs-sub.html
July 28, 2007
World Briefing | Europe
Russia: Blast on Nuclear Sub; No Leak
By ANDREW E. KRAMER [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [smarting over the history of the Cold War’s conclusion] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
A Russian nuclear submarine was damaged from an explosion caused by pressurized air while undergoing repairs at the Severodvinsk shipyard on the White Sea, [*****]the Russian news media reported. The authorities termed the accident minor and said no radiation had leaked. Russia has a history of accidents involving its nuclear submarine fleet, including an explosion onboard the Kursk in 2000 [*****]that sank the ship and killed 118 sailors. [expect horrors to trickle out over next weeks and months] [*****]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/europe/28briefs-sub.html
July 28, 2007
World Briefing | Europe
Russia: Blast on Nuclear Sub; No Leak
By ANDREW E. KRAMER [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [smarting over the history of the Cold War’s conclusion] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
A Russian nuclear submarine was damaged from an explosion caused by pressurized air while undergoing repairs at the Severodvinsk shipyard on the White Sea, [*****]the Russian news media reported. The authorities termed the accident minor and said no radiation had leaked. Russia has a history of accidents involving its nuclear submarine fleet, including an explosion onboard the Kursk in 2000 [*****]that sank the ship and killed 118 sailors. [expect horrors to trickle out over next weeks and months] [*****]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Gorbachev Says U.S. to Blame For World's Biggest Problems

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702405.html
WORLD IN BRIEF
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A20
Gorbachev Says U.S. to Blame For World's Biggest Problems
[Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [smarting over the history of the Cold War’s conclusion] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
MOSCOW -- Former president Mikhail Gorbachev said Friday that the fall of the Soviet Union, which he helped bring about, ushered in an era of U.S. imperialism responsible for many of the world's gravest problems.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702405.html
WORLD IN BRIEF
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A20
Gorbachev Says U.S. to Blame For World's Biggest Problems
[Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [smarting over the history of the Cold War’s conclusion] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
MOSCOW -- Former president Mikhail Gorbachev said Friday that the fall of the Soviet Union, which he helped bring about, ushered in an era of U.S. imperialism responsible for many of the world's gravest problems.
Gorbachev is lauded in the West for introducing democratic reforms but is widely despised in Russia for paving the way to the economic free-for-all of the 1990s, which brought fabulous wealth for a well-connected few while plunging much of the country into poverty.
He has since became a supporter of President Vladimir Putin's assertive foreign policy and resistance to American power, but his criticism of the United States on Friday was especially harsh.
"The Americans want so much to be the winners. The fact that they are sick with this illness, this winner's complex, is the main reason why everything in the world is so confused and so complicated," he said at a packed news conference.
EUROPE
• SARAJEVO, Bosnia-- Forensic experts exhumed 131 bodies of victims of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre found in a mass grave in eastern Bosnia, officials said.
Murat Hurtic, who led the forensic team, said the victims were Muslims killed after Bosnian Serb troops overran the eastern town of Srebrenica in 1995. The systematic execution of as many as 8,000 men was the worst massacre in Europe since World War II.
• VIENNA -- Kazakhstan and Georgia are among countries imposing excessive restrictions on how people use the Internet, according to a report from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which warns that such regulations are chilling freedom of expression.
THE MIDDLE EAST
• RAMALLAH, West Bank -- The government of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has dropped the phrase "armed resistance" from its platform, a minister said, in a further break from Hamas Islamic extremists in control of Gaza.
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
• BRISBANE, Australia -- An Indian doctor was freed after Australia's chief prosecutor said a charge linking him to failed bombings in Britain was a mistake.
Mohammed Haneef, 27, was released from prison in Brisbane more than three weeks after he was arrested at an airport as he was about to fly to India. He had been charged with recklessly supporting terrorism by providing a relative in Britain with his cellphone SIM card.
• GAUHATI, India -- Bhutan's prime minister and six members of his cabinet have resigned to make way for next year's first parliamentary elections in the Buddhist kingdom and its transition to democracy, the official news media said.
AFRICA
• MOGADISHU, Somalia -- Two separate explosions killed at least five civilians in the Somali capital, witnesses said, where the government is struggling to contain a lethal insurgency. Mogadishu has seen little peace since the Council of Islamic Courts was driven out in December by Ethiopian troops supporting the country's fragile government.
-- From News Services
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Russia: Gorbachev Faults U.S. ‘Winner Complex’

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/europe/28briefs-gorbachev.html
July 28, 2007
World Briefing | Europe
Russia: Gorbachev Faults U.S. ‘Winner Complex’
By ANDREW E. KRAMER [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [smarting over the history of the Cold War’s conclusion] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, accused the United States of having a “winner complex” after the end of the cold war, which, he said, led to recklessness in international relations, the Interfax news agency reported. “The U.S. is always anxious to win,” Mr. Gorbachev told a news conference in Moscow. “The fact that they suffer this disorder, the winner complex, is the main reason why things are so complicated in the world.” He criticized the “current U.S. administration” for trying to build a new empire in the world and said other countries would not accept that arrangement. He said that claims of victory after the cold war led the United States to feel its hands were untied in world affairs. [****]“We all lost the cold war,” he said, “and we all benefited from its end.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/europe/28briefs-gorbachev.html
July 28, 2007
World Briefing | Europe
Russia: Gorbachev Faults U.S. ‘Winner Complex’
By ANDREW E. KRAMER [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [smarting over the history of the Cold War’s conclusion] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, accused the United States of having a “winner complex” after the end of the cold war, which, he said, led to recklessness in international relations, the Interfax news agency reported. “The U.S. is always anxious to win,” Mr. Gorbachev told a news conference in Moscow. “The fact that they suffer this disorder, the winner complex, is the main reason why things are so complicated in the world.” He criticized the “current U.S. administration” for trying to build a new empire in the world and said other countries would not accept that arrangement. He said that claims of victory after the cold war led the United States to feel its hands were untied in world affairs. [****]“We all lost the cold war,” he said, “and we all benefited from its end.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Stranded Palestinians May Begin Leaving Egypt

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28cnd-mideast.html
July 28, 2007
Stranded Palestinians May Begin Leaving Egypt
By STEVEN ERLANGER [former Palestine] [hamastan] [former Gaza] [Egypt] [Palestinians caught in the middle of nowhere] [followup] [********]
JERUSALEM, July 28 — For seven weeks now, up to 6,000 Palestinians trying to return to their homes in the Gaza Strip have been stranded in Egypt, objects of a political struggle between the Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah involving both Israel and Egypt. [***********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28cnd-mideast.html
July 28, 2007
Stranded Palestinians May Begin Leaving Egypt
By STEVEN ERLANGER [former Palestine] [hamastan] [former Gaza] [Egypt] [Palestinians caught in the middle of nowhere] [followup] [********]
JERUSALEM, July 28 — For seven weeks now, up to 6,000 Palestinians trying to return to their homes in the Gaza Strip have been stranded in Egypt, objects of a political struggle between the Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah involving both Israel and Egypt. [***********]
But there finally appears to be a deal, opposed by Hamas, to let them return, beginning with about 100 on Sunday, with more to follow during the week, Palestinian, Egyptian and Israeli officials said today.
The Palestinians, some of whom had gone to Egypt or elsewhere for medical care or schooling, have been stuck in the Egyptian border town of Rafah or nearby El-Arish because the border crossing between Egypt and Gaza has been shut [******]since June 9. Several hundred, with little money, have been living in harsher conditions in the desert, cared for by various international aid agencies.
The Rafah border crossing, like the separate Karni crossing for goods between Israel and Gaza, was shut because of the fierce fighting in June between Fatah and Hamas. After the Hamas rout of Fatah and takeover of Gaza, these main crossings for people, in Rafah’s case, and goods, in Karni’s, have been kept shut by Egypt and Israel in order to isolate Hamas.
The closure has had the quiet support of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, who fired the Hamas government and installed a new one in the West Bank led by an independent economist, Salam Fayyad, whose authority Hamas refuses to recognize.
Hamas has insisted that Egypt and Israel abide by a crossings agreement negotiated by the Bush administration and reopen both Rafah and Karni. Hamas has said that it will not allow Kerem Shalom, a border crossing into Gaza on Israeli territory but where Gaza, Egypt and Israel meet, to be used for people, because Israel will control who may enter or exit from Gaza. [***********]
But that’s exactly how Israel wants it, because Hamas and its officials have been able to bring in millions of dollars with them unchecked through the Rafah crossing, even though it was monitored by European Union officials and by Israelis watching on a video link.
The plight of the stranded Palestinians may now finally be resolved, but not the larger issue. According to Riad Maliki, speaking today for the Fayyad government in Ramallah, Israel will approve the names of those entering Gaza on lists prepared by the Palestinians. Those stranded will cross from Egypt into Israel at the Al Oja cargo crossing south of Rafah, Egyptian officials said today, then be bused to Israel’s Erez crossing with Gaza.
About 100 on a list of 627 people approved by Israel will cross on Sunday and the rest of the list on Monday, the Egyptians said, with more to follow.
Ashraf al-Ajrami, minister for prisoners affairs in Ramallah, said today: “Due to the absence of Palestinian security forces at Rafah crossing, and amid Egyptian, Israeli and European refusals to reopen the crossing, we agreed with the Israelis to let the people cross at an Israeli crossing.”
Hamas denounced the deal, since it bypasses Rafah. A Hamas spokesman in Gaza, Sami Abu Zuhri, said: “There is only the Rafah border crossing. The use of any other border crossing increases Israeli control over the Gaza Strip.”
Hamas has fired mortars on Kerem Shalom to try to prevent its use, and may try to do the same toward Erez. [*******]
In an indication of Fatah’s lack of interest in opening Gaza for ordinary passage of goods and people, thereby easing pressure on Hamas, Palestinian Authority representatives at the United Nations have been working to block a Security Council presidential statement criticizing the “humanitarian situation” in Gaza and calling for the Gaza crossings to be opened immediately, according to the Haaretz newspaper. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the head of the United Nations agency dealing with Palestinian refugees, Karen AbuZayd, have both publicly called for Karni to be opened. [*******] [unreal]
Qatar, which is considered close to Hamas, drafted the statement, which is non-binding but requires consensus among the council’s members.
Gazans have been unable to export a single item since Karni was shut on July 12, though Israel has allowed vital imports. Israeli officials insist that they have only security concerns about Karni, but also say they will not deal with Hamas. A Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, said that Israel is open to “creative solutions,” including the use of a private Turkish company to operate the Gazan side of Karni, as Palestinian businessmen have suggested. But both Israel and Mr. Abbas insist that Hamas must have no control over the crossing at all, which Hamas rejects.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

In Gesture to Fatah, Israeli Official Pushes West Bank Pullback

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html
July 28, 2007
In Gesture to Fatah, Israeli Official Pushes West Bank Pullback
By STEVEN ERLANGER [Israel] [Israeli-Palestinian relations] [Israel and the Qaurtet have cast their lots with Fatah and Abbas] [probably a bad idea but it’s now done] [here Israel throws another lifeline to President Abbas] [perhaps just enough rope with which to hang himself] [followup] [***********]
JERUSALEM, July 27 — Israel’s cautious dance with the non-Hamas Palestinian government in the West Bank continued Friday, with a senior member of the Israeli government advocating partial withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from the West Bank and the prospect this weekend, officials said, of an initial pullback of Israeli forces from the quiet town of Jericho. [*****]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html
July 28, 2007
In Gesture to Fatah, Israeli Official Pushes West Bank Pullback
By STEVEN ERLANGER [Israel] [Israeli-Palestinian relations] [Israel and the Qaurtet have cast their lots with Fatah and Abbas] [probably a bad idea but it’s now done] [here Israel throws another lifeline to President Abbas] [perhaps just enough rope with which to hang himself] [followup] [***********]
JERUSALEM, July 27 — Israel’s cautious dance with the non-Hamas Palestinian government in the West Bank continued Friday, with a senior member of the Israeli government advocating partial withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from the West Bank and the prospect this weekend, officials said, of an initial pullback of Israeli forces from the quiet town of Jericho. [*****]
Haim Ramon, a deputy prime minister close to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, told Israel Radio that Israel should move quickly to negotiate the principles of a peace deal and to withdraw from “most” of the occupied West Bank. He told foreign diplomats this week that he favored a withdrawal from 70 percent of the West Bank.
Mr. Olmert was elected on a platform of unilateral Israeli withdrawal from about 90 percent of the West Bank, roughly to the security barrier Israel has built, but not including the three large Israeli settlement blocs inside the barrier. [******]
Mr. Ramon’s proposal is short of that, but represents a renewal of the idea of an Israeli withdrawal that had seemed to be off the table. Still, in opinion polls, nearly 60 percent of Israelis responding now say that the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza was a mistake, compared with the more than two-thirds who supported it at the time.
“I believe right now we have a partner” in the non-Hamas Palestinian leadership, Mr. Ramon said. “I don’t know for how long, so we must move quickly.”
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Fatah movement seem badly shaken by their defeat in Gaza by Hamas. The loss has concentrated minds on both sides, with Israel and Fatah both wanting to prevent a similar outcome in the West Bank. [*****]
To isolate the radical Hamas in Gaza and support Fatah, Israel, the United States and the European Union have thrown their support — and money — toward a new Palestinian government led by a Western-educated, independent economist, Salam Fayyad. Like Mr. Abbas, Mr. Fayyad favors nonviolence and negotiation to achieve a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Mr. Abbas says he hopes to do so within a year. [*******]
The Palestinian world is divided, however. And there are pressures from Saudi Arabia in particular for Fatah and Hamas to come together again in another unity government. [***] [Saudi and US at odds] [see today’s govt for how the administration finesses it] [******] Mr. Ramon’s doubts and his sense of urgency reflect a general Israeli uncertainty over the future of Fatah and Mr. Abbas.
Part of the effort to support him is in security. Israel, its troops and its counterterrorism agency have renewed security cooperation with Palestinian Authority forces in the West Bank, now that Hamas is no longer in charge of the government.
Now Israel is going to try again to reduce its footprint in the West Bank by handing over quiet areas and big cities to Palestinian Authority forces, to which Israel has agreed to give 1,000 automatic rifles. In 2000, before the second intifada, Palestinian forces had controlled large areas of the West Bank. Israel recaptured the area in 2002 in an effort to stop suicide bombings.
Israel then built the separation barrier for the same reason, although Palestinians and some Israelis contend that the route of the barrier has political as well as security considerations, and the International Court of Justice has ruled in a nonbinding opinion that the route is illegal where it enters the West Bank.
Israel has previously pulled back from cities recaptured in 2002, after former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met with Mr. Abbas in February 2005. Israel handed back Jericho and Tulkarm to Palestinian forces but soon took them back again, charging that Mr. Abbas’s men were not suppressing terrorism. An agreement to hand back Ramallah, Bethlehem and Qalqilya never materialized. [*******]
Mr. Abbas is said to want Qalqilya back now, but Israeli officials say no, because the town borders Israel and Hamas is strong there.
In an interview on Thursday with Reuters, Mr. Abbas said that he would not run for a second term and that he would decree a change in legislative elections to remove voting for candidates from constituencies. Such a move, which should be made by the legislature, would favor Fatah and damage Hamas, which handily won the constituency part of the January 2006 election but beat Fatah by only 2.5 percentage points in the party vote. [****]Nearly a third of legislators are in Israeli jails on charges of belonging to Hamas. Hamas boycotts the sessions to prevent a quorum so that it is not outvoted by Fatah.
Mr. Abbas said he would order early elections soon but he would not name a date; Hamas says it will not allow early elections. Legislative elections are scheduled for January 2010.
On Friday, Mr. Abbas said that based on the findings of an inquiry, about 60 Fatah officers and leaders would be punished for their responsibility in the loss of Gaza. Some have already resigned.
Also on Friday, the Israeli Army suspended a six-member platoon for shooting a Palestinian without justification on a patrol near Hebron. [*****]The soldiers did not give him first aid or report the shooting, which occurred when they commandeered a Palestinian taxi and tied up the driver. When a Palestinian approached the car, he was shot in the neck. The soldiers then lied about what happened, the army said.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Health Problems Among Korean Hostages as Negotiations Continue

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/asia/28afghan.html
July 28, 2007
Health Problems Among Korean Hostages as Negotiations Continue
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
KABUL, Afghanistan, July 27 (AP) — A man claiming to speak for the Taliban warned Friday that some of the 22 South Koreans being held hostage in Afghanistan were in bad health, hours after the kidnappers’ latest deadline passed. [*****]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/asia/28afghan.html
July 28, 2007
Health Problems Among Korean Hostages as Negotiations Continue
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
KABUL, Afghanistan, July 27 (AP) — A man claiming to speak for the Taliban warned Friday that some of the 22 South Koreans being held hostage in Afghanistan were in bad health, hours after the kidnappers’ latest deadline passed. [*****]
Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, who said he spoke for the kidnappers, told The Associated Press by telephone that the group still insisted on exchanging Taliban prisoners for the captives, who could be killed if the demand was not met. Mr. Ahmadi spoke several hours after the most recent deadline set by the Taliban, but said the militia had not set a new one.
Some of the South Koreans were “not in good condition,” Mr. Ahmadi said. “I don’t know if the weather is not good for them, or our food. The women hostages are crying. The men and women are worried about their future.” [*******]
One hostage, Bae Hyung-kyu, 42, was found dead of multiple gunshot wounds on Wednesday in the Qarabagh district of Ghazni Province, where the hostages were being held.
Local tribal elders and clerics continued telephone negotiations and were struggling with conflicting demands from the captors, who said alternately that they wanted ransom and the release of Taliban prisoners.
“There are still a lot of problems among them,” said Khwaja Mohammad Sidiqi, the Qarabagh police chief. “One says, ‘Let’s exchange them for my relative,’ the others say, ‘Let’s release the women,’ and yet another wants a deal for money.”
Mr. Ahmadi disputed that characterization. “The Taliban are not asking for money,” he said. “We just want to exchange our prisoners for Korean hostages. When they release the Taliban, we will release the hostages.”
It remained unclear how many or which militants the Taliban wanted freed.
Meanwhile, a South Korean presidential envoy arrived for talks with President Hamid Karzai and other top officials, and Afghan officials said they remained upbeat about the chances of freeing the hostages without further bloodshed.
“We hope we will have a good result, but I don’t know if they will be released today,” said Shirin Mangal, a spokesman for the governor of Ghazni Province. “I don’t think they will be.”
In Seoul, a Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity, said that the captives were still believed to be safe and that officials were trying to get medicine and other items delivered to them. [******]
Mr. Ahmadi said the hostages were being held in small groups in various locations and were being fed bread, yogurt and rice.
“What should happen is that these people should be released, unconditionally, immediately and unharmed, back to South Korean authorities, so they can return back to their families,” said Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman.
The South Koreans, including 18 women, were kidnapped while traveling by bus on the Kabul-Kandahar highway, Afghanistan’s main thoroughfare.
Their church said that the captives were not involved in any missionary work in Afghanistan and that they had provided only medical and other volunteer aid. It said it would suspend some of its work there.
In southern Helmand Province, meanwhile, as many as 50 suspected militants and 28 civilians were killed when international and Afghan troops clashed with Taliban insurgents and called in airstrikes, [****]said Abdul Manaf Khan, the Gereshk district chief.
Mr. Khan identified the foreign troops as NATO forces, but NATO’s International Security Assistance Force said it did not have any information about the fighting.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Strife and Ice, Staples of Life, Overlap in Iraq

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28ice.html
July 28, 2007
Strife and Ice, Staples of Life, Overlap in Iraq
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 27 — Each day before the midsummer sun rises high enough to bake blood on concrete, Baghdad’s underclass lines up outside Dickensian ice factories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28ice.html
July 28, 2007
Strife and Ice, Staples of Life, Overlap in Iraq
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 27 — Each day before the midsummer sun rises high enough to bake blood on concrete, Baghdad’s underclass lines up outside Dickensian ice factories.
With electricity reaching most homes for just a couple of hours each day, the poor hand over soiled brown dinars for what has become a symbol of Iraq’s steady descent into a more primitive era and its broken covenant with leaders, domestic and foreign.
In a capital that was once the seat of the Islamic Caliphate and a center of Arab worldliness, ice is now a currency of last resort for the poor, subject to sectarian horrors and gangland rules. [******]
In Shiite-majority Topchi, ice makers say that Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army issued a diktat on the first day of summer ordering vendors to set a price ceiling of 4,000 dinars ($3) per 55-pound block of ice, 30 percent less than they charge in areas outside Mahdi Army control.
Everyone complied, delivering an instant subsidy to the veiled women and poor laborers who are the radical Shiite cleric’s natural constituency. The same price is enforced in his other power bases, like Sadr City.
Some suppliers are horrified. “They are trying to improve their image, and gain favor,” a merchant grumbled, as a sickle-wielding colleague chopped the hollow crystalline blocks in half for black-robed women to cram into shopping bags. “But it won’t do much good, we all know what the Mahdi Army are.”
Wearied by four years of chaos, others support the move to reimpose order, any order.
“There is nothing better than law and order,” said Omar Suleiman, another factory manager. “In the days of Saddam Hussein, the government used to control the price of ice. Now there is no control, except where the militias are doing it.”
Shiites are not alone in manipulating supply to suit their own sectarian agendas.
At one plant, situated under a highway overpass in Topchi, all four delivery drivers quit last year after warnings that sectarian gangs would kill them if they continued to drive across the invisible but all-too-real lines dividing Baghdad’s Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods.
Customers in one suburb cautioned them that takfiris — fanatical Sunni extremists — had decreed their frozen product un-Islamic.
“In Ghazaliya, it is forbidden to sell ice because the takfiris said, ‘The Prophet Muhammad had no ice in his time,’ ” said Khatan Kareem, a manager at the factory where the drivers worked, shaking his head at the absurdity. [takfiris are those who accuse; a premise of contemporary jihadis who have no particular religious justification for their actions] [************]
Many of Baghdad’s ice plants are museum pieces. In one, the industrial compressor was manufactured in India in 1960. Another’s was built by L. Sterne & Co. in Glasgow more than half a century ago.
Hussam Muhammad, whose family owns the equipment in the business where Mr. Kareem works, never imagined that the dilapidated factory, built in 1952 when Iraq was still a monarchy, would survive into the post-Saddam Hussein era.
“In 2003, I thought the ice business would be finished because everyone would have electricity and refrigerators once the Americans arrived,” Mr. Muhammad said as he scuttled from fan belt to ice-blistered piping trying to keep the plant limping along. “The fish sellers and meat stores who used to buy from us are gone, closed because of the security situation. Now it is the poor people who come because they don’t have money to pay for generators to keep their food and drinks cold.”
Baghdad’s sectarian compartmentalization of ice is as rigid for customers as for deliverymen.
Such is the fear of the gunmen that at the factory under the overpass, only the immediate neighbors can safely reach its grimy doors.
“People used to come here from Sunni areas, Taji, Amiriya and Jamiya to buy ice because they had no ice factories in their areas,” Mr. Kareem said. “But the Sunnis cannot reach this area now, and I am the same. I am Shia, and I cannot go to Yarmouk.”
The thought is particularly rankling to Mr. Kareem because until three months ago he lived in Yarmouk, a Sunni neighborhood, and enjoyed a secure government job, until an Iraqi Army raid uncovered a Shiite icon on his wall.
“They beat me up, burnt my house and forced me out of the area,” he said, squatting amid the nauseating smell of ammonium that permeates all ice factories. “I now live in my relatives’ kitchen. And I work here.”
His depression reflects the frustration of the Iraqi middle class, which prided itself on being one of the most educated in the Arab world, but now sees itself falling further behind its regional rivals and back onto the technology of its grandfathers. [*****]
In wealthier districts consumer goods are stacked high on shelves, for the “haves” who can afford to buy black-market electricity from private generator owners.
But millions of “have-nots” cannot afford this luxury, and many of those generator owners have now been killed or driven away by militias intent on securing their lucrative assets.
Ice, ostensibly the least political of commodities, requires only water, electricity and a few chemicals.
But in Baghdad’s current state of polarized violence, no business is an island. Raw materials must pass the checkpoints and gunmen, with their arbitrary rules and instant punishments, as must customers, suppliers, staff and the finished product.
The ice factories — cash cows in the peak summer season — have not escaped the gunmen’s notice.
In the Sunni enclave of Adhamiya, newly walled off from its Shiite neighbors to halt cross-community slaughter, Taha Khaleel complained that his drivers and mechanics were at the mercy of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi Army checkpoint that controls the gate.
“It depends on their mood,” he said. “This causes problems for us in the continuity of fuel supplies. The drivers are more reluctant to come to us now because of that, and because of the insults they face.”
A kidnapped factory owner in Taji was released only after he surrendered his car. At the Qutub Ice Factory in Baghdad, the owner has already fled Iraq after receiving a death threat, and employees say most of its middle-class customers have also gone.
Not so fortunate are the poor buyers in a street market the Salaam neighborhood, where wooden ice shacks have sprung up in recent months, despite the adjacent sewage and piles of rotting garbage.
Alarmed by tales of disease, many buyers now drop sterilization pills into the frozen blocks. If they are lucky, the stores will have ice from Sulaimaniya or Erbil, Kurdish cities where it is made from clean mountain water. If unlucky, the impure Baghdad product, with its distinctive yellow sheen.
“I never used to buy ice in Saddam’s regime, because I could use my refrigerator. But nowadays I have to because there is no electricity, and we need cold water,” said Muhammad Abbadi, 52, the owner of a clothing store. “Ice is the only source, even if it is dirty. Both my girls fell sick with typhoid two weeks ago.”
Reporting was contributed by Khalid W. Hassan, Ahmad Fadam, Wisam A. Habeeb, Karim Hilmi and Mudhafer Al-Husaini. Mr. Hassan was killed July 13.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

As U.S. Rebuilds, Iraq Won’t Act on Finished Work

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28reconstruct.html
July 28, 2007
As U.S. Rebuilds, Iraq Won’t Act on Finished Work
By JAMES GLANZ [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****]
Iraq’s national government is refusing to take possession of thousands of American-financed reconstruction projects, forcing the United States either to hand them over to local Iraqis, who often lack the proper training and resources to keep the projects running, or commit new money to an effort that has already consumed billions of taxpayer dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28reconstruct.html
July 28, 2007
As U.S. Rebuilds, Iraq Won’t Act on Finished Work
By JAMES GLANZ [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****]
Iraq’s national government is refusing to take possession of thousands of American-financed reconstruction projects, forcing the United States either to hand them over to local Iraqis, who often lack the proper training and resources to keep the projects running, or commit new money to an effort that has already consumed billions of taxpayer dollars.
The conclusions, detailed in a report released Friday by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, a federal oversight agency, include the finding that of 2,797 completed projects costing $5.8 billion, Iraq’s national government had, by the spring of this year, accepted only 435 projects valued at $501 million. Few transfers to Iraqi national government control have taken place since the current Iraqi government, which is frequently criticized for inaction on matters relating to the American intervention, took office in 2006.
The United States often promotes the number of rebuilding projects, like power plants and hospitals, that have been completed in Iraq, citing them as signs of progress in a nation otherwise fraught with violence and political stalemate. But closer examination by the inspector general’s office, headed by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., has found that a number of individual projects are crumbling, abandoned or otherwise inoperative only months after the United States declared that they had been successfully completed. The United States always intended to hand over projects to the Iraqi government when they were completed.
Although Mr. Bowen’s latest report is primarily a financial overview, he said in an interview that it raised serious questions on whether the problems his inspectors had found were much more widespread in the reconstruction program. [****]
The process of transferring projects to Iraq “worked for a while,” Mr. Bowen said. But then the new government took over and installed its finance minister, Bayan Jabr, who has been a continuing center of controversy in his various government posts and is formally in charge of the transfers.
“After Mr. Jabr took over, that process ceased to function,” [*****]Mr. Bowen said.
In fact, in the first two quarters of 2007, Mr. Bowen said, his inspectors found significant problems in all but 2 of the 12 projects they examined after the United States declared those projects completed.
In one of the most recent cases, a $90 million project to overhaul two giant turbines at the Dora power plant in Baghdad failed after completion because employees at the plant did not know how to operate the turbines properly and the wrong fuel was used. The additional power is critically needed in Baghdad, where residents often have only a few hours of electricity a day.
Because the Iraqi government will not formally accept projects like the refurbished turbines, the United States is “finding someone at the local level to handle the project, handing them the keys and saying, ‘Operate and maintain it,’ ” another official in the inspector general’s office said.
If the pace of the American rebuilding program is a guide, those problems could quickly accelerate: So far, the United States has declared that $5.8 billion in American taxpayer-financed projects have been completed, but most of the rest of the projects within a $21 billion rebuilding program that Mr. Bowen examined in the report are expected to be finished by the end of this year. Some of that money is also being used to train and equip Iraqi security forces rather than finance construction projects.
The report was released too late in the day to contact Mr. Jabr, who is part of a Shiite alliance in charge of the government. In his previous position as interior minister, he was accused of running Shiite death squads out of the ministry. In his current position he has developed a reputation as being slow to release budget money to Iraqi government entities, which would have to run the new projects at substantial expense. [*******]
He is sometimes suspected of seeking to use his position to undermine the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who is also a Shiite but answers to a different faction within the alliance. In interviews, Mr. Jabr has rejected those accusations and says he strongly supports the government.
American researchers who have followed the reconstruction said Mr. Bowen’s report raised serious new doubts about the program. Rick Barton, co-director of the postconflict reconstruction project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research institute in Washington, said the lack of interest on the part of the Iraqis was the latest demonstration that they were not involved enough in its planning stages. “It sort of confirms that you really need pre-agreement on the projects you are attempting,” Mr. Barton said, “or you end up with these kinds of problems at the tail end, where people don’t know much about the program and they haven’t bought into it.”
Mr. Barton said that the episode was probably inevitable given that the elected Iraqi government operated mainly within the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad and had little capability of managing thousands of new projects around the country. He said that this was the most likely explanation — rather than any ill will on Mr. Jabr’s part. But Mr. Barton said the findings indicated that the United States should put some of the remaining money in the program into “sustainment,” the term for running the projects, rather than continuing to build when there might be no one to run the projects.
“To build something and not have these issues resolved from top to bottom is unfathomable,” said William L. Nash, a retired general who is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an expert on Middle East reconstruction. “The management of the reconstruction program for Iraq has been a near-total disaster from the beginning.” [********]
The report says that of the 2,797 projects declared completed, besides the 435 projects formally accepted by Iraq’s central government, 1,141 have been transferred to local Iraqi authorities. American government entities in charge of those projects include the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the American-led multinational forces in Iraq, the United States Embassy and the United States Agency for International Development. In letters attached to Mr. Bowen’s report, several of those entities largely concurred with many of Mr. Bowen’s findings and said that new agreements were being hammered out with the Iraqi government to smooth the transfers.
A spokesman for the development agency, David Snider, said in a statement that work now being undertaken by the agency “helps address the concerns” raised in the report. Mr. Snider said that the agency was seeking to formalize an agreement with the Iraqi government that would protect the American investment there.
The agency “usually secures these commitments from recipient governments before the initiation of a project,” Mr. Snider said. But in the case of Iraq, he said, the American rebuilding effort “began before the current Iraqi government was established.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

U.S. Widens Push to Use Armed Iraqi Residents

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702566.html
U.S. Widens Push to Use Armed Iraqi Residents
Irregulars to Patrol Own Neighborhoods
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A01 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [more on US commanders on the groung making decisions based on short-term expediency] [the consequences could be significant] [US must determine what it wants: Shiite democracy or Sunni protection] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 27 -- The U.S. military in Iraq is expanding its efforts to recruit and fund armed Sunni residents as local protection forces in order to improve security and promote reconciliation at the neighborhood level, according to senior U.S. commanders.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702566.html
U.S. Widens Push to Use Armed Iraqi Residents
Irregulars to Patrol Own Neighborhoods
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A01 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [more on US commanders on the groung making decisions based on short-term expediency] [the consequences could be significant] [US must determine what it wants: Shiite democracy or Sunni protection] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 27 -- The U.S. military in Iraq is expanding its efforts to recruit and fund armed Sunni residents as local protection forces in order to improve security and promote reconciliation at the neighborhood level, according to senior U.S. commanders.
Within the past month, the U.S. military command in charge of day-to-day operations in Iraq ordered subordinate units to step up creation of the local forces, authorizing commanders to pay the fighters with U.S. emergency funds, reward payments and other monies. [*******]
The initiative, which extends to all Iraqis, represents at least a temporary departure from the established U.S. policy of building formally trained security forces under the control of the Iraqi government. It also provokes fears within the Shiite-led government that the new Sunni groups will use their arms against it, [*******]commanders said. [no matter how benign the reasoning may be, it amounts to little more than divide and conquer of colonial powers historically] [********]
The goal is to put the new, irregular forces in place quickly -- hiring them on contracts and providing them with uniforms without waiting for access to lengthy police and army training programs.
In the long term, commanders say, the goal is to incorporate the units into the Iraqi security forces. The initiative arises out of efforts underway by some U.S. military units to enlist forces from local tribes as well as insurgent groups in different neighborhoods, most of which have been predominantly Sunni.
The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, called the development of the grass-roots forces the most significant trend in Iraq "of the last four months or so" and one that could help propel slow-moving efforts at national reconciliation among Iraq's main religious sects and ethnic groups. [******]
"This is a very, very important component of reconciliation because it's happening from the bottom up," he said in an interview Friday. "The bottom-up piece is much farther along than any of us would have anticipated a few months back. It's become the focus of a great deal of effort, as there is a sense that this can bear a lot of fruit."
U.S. commanders acknowledge that there is a risk that the Iraqi government will refuse to hire some or all of the local force members and will instead use the names of the Sunni recruits as target lists.
"What the government is afraid of, and we understand that, is they don't want another armed militia of some sort. So what we're looking for is sort of an interim measure . . . to take advantage of these groups," said Brig. Gen. James Campbell, deputy U.S. commander for Baghdad, where he said 18,000 more police officers and 30 police stations are needed.
And while local residents are often the best choice for securing their own streets, the risk exists that they will overstep their bounds in Baghdad's densely populated, mixed sectarian districts, Petraeus said. "You have to make sure that the neighborhood watch doesn't end up watching someone else's neighborhood."
Over a luncheon of chicken and rice in Baghdad's Rasheed district this week, Col. Ricky D. Gibbs, the U.S. commander in the area, met with half a dozen influential Sunni leaders to discuss forming neighborhood protection groups, as well as to share intelligence.
A local Sunni leader, a bespectacled man in a red striped shirt, leaned across the table and handed Gibbs a list of 250 names of Sunni residents willing to serve in a local force.
"They will clear the neighborhood of anyone who belongs to al-Qaeda or JAM [a Shiite militia] or even carries a bullet," the man said. "We want you, sir, to give us the green light. They are ready."
"You have the green light," Gibbs answered. "But they have to follow the rules. You can't just shoot anybody. No vengeance . . . But the bad guys -- I don't care. Go get them." [********] [********] [good god!]
Gibbs, commander of the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, estimates that he needs up to 6,000 new police officers and 18 more police stations in Rasheed. "I am looking for a group of loyal Iraqis who will carry weapons and go after the same people we want," he said in an interview. "We will teach them U.S. rules of engagement and tell them to capture them, not kill them," he said. He said some of the men coming forward may have worked with insurgents in the past in order to survive.
The U.S. military will use its funds to "jump-start" the local forces in stages, U.S. officers said. Initially, the military will pay local residents who call in successful tips that turn up roadside bombs or weapons, or lead to the capture of insurgents. Next, it will identify residents for the security forces, vet their names and take their fingerprints, and require them to take an oath of loyalty to the government. Finally, it will train them in weapons usage and American "rules of engagement" and "put them on a key location" to provide security, Gibbs said.
Yet in districts such as Rasheed, where tensions run high between Shiite-dominated National Police forces, Shiite militias and residents of Sunni enclaves, some U.S. commanders say extreme caution will be required in introducing the armed neighborhood protection groups.
A chief concern for U.S. troops will be how to prevent intentional or accidental conflicts between the groups, said Lt. Col. George A. Glaze, commander of 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, who oversees the Sadiyah neighborhood where the 250 Sunnis volunteered. "I see the firefight on the street corner" between Iraqi police and local forces, he said, "and I have to pick a side?" [*********]
More than one influential Sunni in Rasheed indicated they had ambitions beyond securing their immediate neighborhood. "Our first priority is to go after al-Qaeda. Then we can support the Americans in fighting Jaish al-Mahdi," said one Sunni leader, referring to the Shiite militia that operates in the district. The Sunni leaders at the meeting requested anonymity for fear they would be targeted. [*****]
Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander overseeing the five-month-old U.S.-Iraqi security plan, has given only verbal approval for Iraqi security forces to allow the new armed groups to operate unhindered in specific areas that he has visited, such as Abu Ghraib and Mansour, said Campbell, who escorted the Iraqi general to the areas.
A major obstacle is the lack of written orders recognizing the groups from the Interior and Defense ministries and the prime minister's office, he said.
Moreover, despite U.S. urging, the Interior Ministry has failed to approve the hiring of the neighborhood forces as full-fledged police officers, including more than 2,000 recently recruited from Abu Ghraib.
"The government of Iraq has to make some tough decisions. If they don't do this, we will lose out on a huge opportunity," Campbell said.
Two months ago, Petraeus created a "strategic engagement" committee, headed by a two-star British general, that oversees the outreach to grass-roots security groups and works with Iraqi government ministries to advance the process.
Some U.S. officers were not optimistic that the Iraqi government would ever put the local Sunni forces on the payroll. "Wild success is these guys being integrated into honest-to-God, badge-holding cops. That would be a magnificent sign," [*****]said one U.S. military officer in Baghdad. More likely, he said, the American military will "contract them as little Iraqi Blackwaters to guard their neighborhoods," he said, referring to a private U.S. security contractor. The worst outcome is that the forces will be actively targeted by the Iraqi government, he said.
Targeting the Sunni recruits would be easy for the government after their names are provided for vetting, Campbell said. "What we have to make sure is they don't take those names and turn around and say, 'Hey, this is our targeting list.' We're very cognizant of that."
In the Sunni enclave of Doura in east Rasheed, where sewage water floods the streets and electricity wires hang in disrepair, residents asked about their security problems offered that they believed a local force would best serve the neighborhood, long one of the most contested insurgent strongholds in Baghdad but now relatively calm after recent U.S. military operations.
"The best solution is the people who live here, who know the neighborhood, who know the bad people, they protect it," Ahmed Ali Hussein, a traffic police officer, said as he sat sweating in stifling 120-degree heat in his Doura home. But, he added, "we need some support from American forces like weapons, money, salary."
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Americans Call In Airstrike in Clash With Shiite Militia

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html
July 28, 2007
Americans Call In Airstrike in Clash With Shiite Militia
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [US troops tangling with Mahdi militia] [*****]
BAGHDAD, Saturday, July 28 — American Special Forces battled Mahdi Army militiamen in Karbala on Friday, calling in a deadly helicopter airstrike during a rare operation in one of the country’s holiest Shiite cities. [karbala] [isn’t sistani there?] [*****]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html
July 28, 2007
Americans Call In Airstrike in Clash With Shiite Militia
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [US troops tangling with Mahdi militia] [*****]
BAGHDAD, Saturday, July 28 — American Special Forces battled Mahdi Army militiamen in Karbala on Friday, calling in a deadly helicopter airstrike during a rare operation in one of the country’s holiest Shiite cities. [karbala] [isn’t sistani there?] [*****]
The United States military said the predawn raid in Karbala captured what the Americans described as a high-level “rogue” member of the Mahdi Army, the militia of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, and killed 17 other militants.
Iraqi hospital officials, however, accused the Americans of killing nine civilians and wounding 26 others in the operation, which occurred in Al Askari district in western Karbala, 50 miles south of Baghdad.
Mahdi Army officials said that American and Iraqi forces arrived by air and that the battle lasted from 1:30 a.m. until 4 a.m. Karbala’s governor and city council members immediately denounced the strike, saying it was carried out without advance consultation; they allege that the Americans have previously agreed to notify them before raids on the sacred city.
The American military said the raiding party killed five insurgents, then was forced to call in the air attack after coming under heavy fire from small-caliber weapons, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades as it tried to leave the city.
The military also said Mahdi Army fighters had “fired on a helicopter assisting the team in the operation” into the poor neighborhood, which is a Sadrist stronghold.
An American military statement said the airstrikes killed about a dozen insurgents. The statement disputed the allegation that civilians had been killed, saying, “No Iraqi civilians were present in the area while the strike was performed,” [*****]without disclosing how the military confirmed that.
The American military said the Special Forces involved in the raid had been sent in as “advisers” to the Iraqi troops they accompanied. [*******]
Iraqis in Karbala later identified the detained men as a local Mahdi Army leader and two of his assistants.
The military said the leader they captured had commanded a rogue Mahdi Army “assassination cell” of more than 100 members and had “allegedly commanded attacks against coalition forces using improvised explosive devices, explosively formed penetrators and mortars.” Explosively formed penetrators are a type of bomb that can pierce thick armor.
The military also accused the captured leader of having assassinated Iraqi civilians and two Iraqi government officials. The United States military usually uses the term “rogue” to denote splinter elements of the Mahdi Army they believe are motivated more by criminal activities or Iranian influence than loyalty to Mr. Sadr.
Iraqi officials said clashes broke out later at nearby Al Hussein General Hospital between Mahdi Army fighters and a joint Iraqi Army and police patrol. Witnesses said the fighting at the hospital began around 7 a.m. when Mahdi Army gunmen tried to recover people wounded in the earlier fighting to stop them being arrested by American forces. They fought with Iraqi security forces at the police post inside the hospital, [******]witnesses said.
Hours later at Friday Prayer in Karbala, Sheik Abdul Hadi al-Muhammadawi, head of the Sadr office in the city, condemned the American-led raid, as did a Sadrist preacher in nearby Kufa, who demanded the release of all Sadrist “prisoners and detainees arrested by the American forces.” However, Sheik Abdul cautioned his audience not to fight Iraqi soldiers and policemen. “They are our brothers,” he told the congregation. “First and last, the Americans are our enemy.” [*******]
Farther north, allied troops said they captured four members of an arms-smuggling cell, which they said was backed by Iran, in the village of Qasarin in troubled Diyala Province.
“The captured terrorists are suspected of facilitating the transport of weapons and personnel from Iran into Iraq,” said a statement from the American military. It said the “captured terrorists are also believed to have facilitated the flow of deadly” explosively formed penetrators into Iraq from Iran, and said the weapons were to be used against coalition forces.
Iraqi police found seven unidentified bodies in Baghdad Friday. [***]
Early on Saturday, the United States military reported that a baby girl was recently found in a Baghdad garbage bin. Insurgents had killed her mother and uncle, the military said.
Americans said the Iraqi National Police found the girl on July 25 in Saidiya, a lawless area in southwest Baghdad where many bodies have been found in recent weeks.
She was evacuated to a military combat support hospital for treatment, and two of her siblings were found and placed with an uncle.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

British Report Criticizes U.S. Treatment of Terror Suspects

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/europe/28rendition.html
July 28, 2007
British Report Criticizes U.S. Treatment of Terror Suspects
By RAYMOND BONNER and JANE PERLEZ [UK] [London] [EU] [US-Anglo relations] [“extraordinary renditions”] [recurrent theme: US treatement of POWs or what US calls “enemy combatants”] [America’s closest ally criticizing US for improper behavior] [ironic as UK has no written constitution laws that allow relatively long incarceration without charges—I think 28 days] [US has no such allowanced but has acted as if it does] [effective suspension of habeus] [followup] [*********]
LONDON, July 27 — On the eve of the first visit to Washington by the new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, a report by a high-level parliamentary committee sharply criticized the Bush administration’s practice of seizing terrorism suspects for interrogation in other countries, and found that in one case the Americans showed a lack of concern for the position of the British, their closest ally. [famous bush administration unilaterialism] [******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/europe/28rendition.html
July 28, 2007
British Report Criticizes U.S. Treatment of Terror Suspects
By RAYMOND BONNER and JANE PERLEZ [UK] [London] [EU] [US-Anglo relations] [“extraordinary renditions”] [recurrent theme: US treatement of POWs or what US calls “enemy combatants”] [America’s closest ally criticizing US for improper behavior] [ironic as UK has no written constitution laws that allow relatively long incarceration without charges—I think 28 days] [US has no such allowanced but has acted as if it does] [effective suspension of habeus] [followup] [*********]
LONDON, July 27 — On the eve of the first visit to Washington by the new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, a report by a high-level parliamentary committee sharply criticized the Bush administration’s practice of seizing terrorism suspects for interrogation in other countries, and found that in one case the Americans showed a lack of concern for the position of the British, their closest ally. [famous bush administration unilaterialism] [******]
The practice, known as rendition, [*****]presented “some ethical dilemmas” for the British and led them to conclude that they had different approaches from the Americans, the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee said.
One British official told the panel that he had not believed the early reports of American torture against terrorism suspects in mid-2003. But after the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison emerged, the British government was “fully aware of the risk of mistreatment associated with any operations that may result in U.S. custody of detainees,” [******]the report found.
“When you are talking about sharing secret intelligence, we still trust them, but we have a better recognition that their standards, their approaches, are different, and therefore we still have to work with them, but we work with them in a rather different fashion,” [*****]an official of one of the security services told the committee in March, the report said. The report did not identify the official, nor did it mention what that “different fashion” of collaboration was.
The report became public as Mr. Brown is to meet President Bush at Camp David on Sunday. [*****]At a news conference this week, Mr. Brown said he wanted to be a steward of the close American-British alliance. But he has also indicated he wants to set a different tone from that of his predecessor, Tony Blair, who maintained a personal bond with the American president. By scheduling a visit to the United Nations on Monday immediately after Camp David, Mr. Brown was already showing a little distance, an official in London said.
An American official said the meeting at Camp David would be “soup to nuts.” Iraq and Afghanistan will be high on the agenda, he said.
On the positive side, the parliamentary report found that some of the information the Americans obtained during interrogations of suspected members of Al Qaeda and passed to the British helped thwart some terrorist attacks in Britain.
Britain pulled out of some planned covert operations with the Central Intelligence Agency, including a major one in 2005, when it was unable to obtain assurances that the actions would not result in rendition and inhumane treatment, [***]the report said. Parts of the report dealing with these operations were redacted. When asked about the report, David Johnson, the deputy chief of mission at the American Embassy in London, said, “We have in all cases with respect to those issues operated with full respect of the sovereignty of our partners and allies.”
The Intelligence and Security Committee Report on Rendition was completed and sent to Mr. Brown during his first days in office in late June. On Wednesday, he sent it to Parliament and it became a public document. (The report is available at www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/intelligence.)
The report looks at America’s rendition policy and the degree to which the British and intelligence agencies cooperated with it.[***] It examines in more depth the case of Jamil el-Banna and Bisher al-Rawi. The two were arrested by the C.I.A. in Gambia, in 2002, on the basis of information provided by the British intelligence service, even though the British said clearly that they should not be arrested. [****] “The case shows a lack of regard, on the part of the U.S., for U.K. concerns,” the committee said.
After the two men were taken to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the British government did not push for their release. Both men were longtime British residents, but they were not British citizens, and therefore, the government said, it had no obligation to help them. [****]
Mr. Rawi was released this year. Mr. Banna has been cleared for release by the Pentagon but remains at Guantánamo because the British will not allow him to return to Britain. The government says he should be sent to his native Jordan.
The report criticizes the British intelligence agencies for not having obtained assurances from the United States that detainees would be treated humanely, and for being slow to recognize that the rendition policy had changed since the Clinton administration. [****]At that time, criminal suspects seized abroad were either brought to the United States for trial, or taken to a country where they were wanted on criminal charges. Under Mr. Bush, suspects seized abroad have been taken to third countries, not for trial, but for interrogation, raising the possibility of torture.
British intelligence agencies began having concerns about the rendition program and the use of C.I.A. prisons in mid-2003, following the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. He had been seized in Pakistan, and was being held by the C.I.A. at an unknown location. There were news reports that he was being subjected to “waterboarding,” which involves putting a person under water, blindfolded, and making him think he is going to drown.
At first, the British did not believe that torture was being employed. “It never crossed my mind,” a senior British intelligence official, who is not identified in the report, told the committee. “We are talking about the Americans, our closest ally. This now, with hindsight, may look naïve, but all I can say is that is what we thought at the time.”
The concerns of the British intelligence agencies grew in early 2004, the report said, after the reports of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. The British intelligence agencies then began to seek “assurances on humane treatment” [****]for any operation that might result in rendition.
The committee said it had “strong concerns” about a planned operation in early 2005. The operation had been approved by the British cabinet, but “subject to assurances on humane treatment and a time limit on detention,” [*****]according to the report.
When these were not forthcoming, the operation was dropped, the report said. It is not clear whether the operation was dropped completely, or only the British participation. [***]
Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting from Washington.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Riot Erupts at Pakistan Mosque; Blast Kills 13 Nearby

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700675.html
Riot Erupts at Pakistan Mosque; Blast Kills 13 Nearby
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A12 [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [little doubt the Taliban have refuge in Pakistan and at best are tolerated by military-intelligence] [possibly new round of violence at red mosque] [********] [ditto]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 27 -- Radical students on Friday again commandeered Islamabad's Red Mosque, [****]a site that has become a symbol for the instability surging through this country. Hours later, a suicide bomber killed 13 people in a market down the street from the mosque. [*****]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700675.html
Riot Erupts at Pakistan Mosque; Blast Kills 13 Nearby
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A12 [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [little doubt the Taliban have refuge in Pakistan and at best are tolerated by military-intelligence] [possibly new round of violence at red mosque] [********] [ditto]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 27 -- Radical students on Friday again commandeered Islamabad's Red Mosque, [****]a site that has become a symbol for the instability surging through this country. Hours later, a suicide bomber killed 13 people in a market down the street from the mosque. [*****]
The events underscored the broad forces challenging Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a crucial U.S. ally on counterterrorism. While he is trying to quell a growing insurgency from Islamic extremists, he is also attempting to fend off a vigorous campaign from moderates to end his eight-year rule in upcoming elections.
Seeking a political solution, Musharraf reportedly met abroad on Friday with his most influential rival, exiled former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. [****]
At the mosque, security forces retook control late Friday afternoon, but scenes of police firing tear gas and protesters calling for jihad opened fresh wounds in a city still reeling from the nine-day siege that claimed more than 100 lives this month. The bombing, meanwhile, added to a series of attacks that have terrorized the country in recent weeks.
"The security situation here is getting worse every day," said 22-year-old student Bilal Hassan as he surveyed the damage at the market. "You expect this in the remote areas, but not in our capital."
Reports of a meeting in the United Arab Emirates between Musharraf and Bhutto were officially rejected as false, [****]though political sources said privately that negotiations on a power-sharing agreement were advancing. While there is mutual contempt between Musharraf and Bhutto, Musharraf badly needs allies, and Bhutto has stated her intent to return to Pakistan for a third term as prime minister. Since both are regarded as moderates, they could conceivably form a pact to battle rising militancy.
The Red Mosque has embodied Musharraf's problems with extremism. For much of the year, its pro-Taliban clerics waged a vigilante anti-vice campaign and promised an Islamic revolution in Pakistan. On July 10, commandos raided the compound, leaving a deputy cleric and dozens of armed followers dead.
The mosque was then closed while the government made extensive repairs and demolished an adjacent madrassa, or religious school. The government also repainted the building a soft yellow in a bid to erase memories of its bloody past.
The mosque is Islamabad's oldest. Just blocks from the president's house, it is a fixture in the heart of the normally sleepy capital. Its reopening Friday was supposed to signal a new era of calm, but instead sowed more chaos. [****]
A government-appointed cleric was preparing to give his Friday sermon when a group of radical students blocked him and forced his exit. They then demanded the return of the mosque's former cleric, Maulana Abdul Aziz, who was arrested July 4 while trying to flee the compound while wearing a burqa.
Hundreds soon gathered on the streets to cheer as young men climbed onto the mosque's roof, chanting extremist slogans. Armed with cans of paint, the men soon began to turn the building red and spray graffiti on its walls. "Revolution will come through the blood of the martyrs," read one crimson inscription. The men also hung the Red Mosque's old signature black flags from the building's minarets.
The protesters received support from at least one top political leader. "Maulana Abdul Aziz is still the prayer leader of the mosque," said Liaqat Baloch, deputy chief of a coalition of hard-line religious parties. "Musharraf is a killer of the constitution. He's a killer of male and female students. The entire world will see him hang."
Security forces eventually moved in with armored personnel carriers and fired tear-gas canisters to disperse the crowd. As riot police surged toward the mosque, the crowd responded by swinging sticks and throwing rocks.
During a lull in the fighting, protesters began searching through the debris of the madrassa. Many emerged crying, holding scraps of letters written by students or bits of clothing. While the government has said civilian casualties during the commando raid were minimal, rumors persist that hundreds of women and children were killed.
"What happened to these people was bad," said one man, who clutched a bit of blood-tinged concrete. "It was an act of cruelty."
As he spoke, a man in plain clothes -- apparently a security official -- grabbed him by the waist and hustled him away.
At the same moment, around 5:15 p.m., a blast reverberated through the area as the suicide bomber detonated his charge at Aabpara Market, several hundred yards from the mosque. The bomber appeared to target police officers who were gathered outside the market as part of a security buildup. [****]
Helmets blasted with holes and bloody khaki uniforms littered the ground around several shops destroyed in the explosion. Most of the dead were police; officers were also among the 61 wounded.
The explosion instantly gutted an entire row of shops and sent body parts flying into a parking lot across the street.
"It shook everything," said Abdul Jabar, 22, who was sleeping nearby at the time.
Ikram Khan, 27, had just purchased a bottle of shampoo from one of the shops. As he walked away, he heard and felt an explosion behind him. "A big flame shot out," he said. "Then I started running."
Security officials had already been on high alert when the bomber struck, and police later said they had had information that a bomber might strike in the market area. Officials said they would investigate whether the bomber had collaborated with the protesters at the mosque.
"It could have been a plan to create unrest at the mosque, and then cause maximum casualties among security officers," said the state information minister, Tariq Azim Khan.
Analysts said the fact that the bomber was able to get so close to a large group of police officers under supposedly tight security conditions indicated a major lapse.
"I'm really very concerned," said retired Lt. Gen. Talat Masood, a security analyst. "If the law and order agencies aren't better able to control the situation, it could mean we're drifting toward anarchy." [******]
Special correspondent Shahzad Khurram contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Suicide Attack and Protests Over Red Mosque Reopening

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/asia/28pakistan.html
July 28, 2007
Suicide Attack and Protests Over Red Mosque Reopening
By SALMAN MASOOD and DAVID ROHDE [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [little doubt the Taliban have refuge in Pakistan and at best are tolerated by military-intelligence] [possibly new round of violence at red mosque] [********]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 27 — A suicide bomber killed at least 13 people here in the capital on Friday as hundreds of angry protesters clashed with the police when the government tried to reopen for prayers [****]a militant mosque that was the scene of a violent siege this month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/asia/28pakistan.html
July 28, 2007
Suicide Attack and Protests Over Red Mosque Reopening
By SALMAN MASOOD and DAVID ROHDE [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [little doubt the Taliban have refuge in Pakistan and at best are tolerated by military-intelligence] [possibly new round of violence at red mosque] [********]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 27 — A suicide bomber killed at least 13 people here in the capital on Friday as hundreds of angry protesters clashed with the police when the government tried to reopen for prayers [****]a militant mosque that was the scene of a violent siege this month.
The suicide attack took place in a crowded marketplace as protesters, many of them former students of the Red Mosque’s religious schools, held up blood-stained rubble and shawls shredded with bullet holes from the eight-day siege. They demanded that Maulana Abdul Aziz, one of the clerics who led the standoff and was arrested trying to flee in a burqa, be brought back to lead Friday Prayer.
After students tried to reoccupy the mosque on Friday, the police detained dozens and fired tear gas. By evening, officials announced that the mosque would be closed indefinitely.
The clashes came amid reports that Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, had met secretly on Friday with the nation’s main opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, in the United Arab Emirates. [*******]
A presidential spokesman, Maj. Gen. Rashi Qureshi, denied the reports on Pakistani television, calling them “completely baseless,” according to Agence France-Presse. But a former official close to Ms. Bhutto, who did not want to be identified, confirmed the meeting, saying it took place in Abu Dhabi.
The former official described the encounter as “cordial” and said both leaders had agreed on the need to work together as moderates to counter rising attacks by hard-line Islamists in Pakistan.
General Musharraf offered to allow Ms. Bhutto, who lives in self-imposed exile in London and Dubai, to return to Pakistan and contest elections for prime minister, the former official said. But General Musharraf said he would continue to serve as both Pakistan’s president and chief of the army. [******]
Ms. Bhutto objected to his holding both positions, according to the former official, but more meetings between their aides are expected. “The uniform is the problem,” the former official said, adding: “From his point of view, staying in uniform is the key to him staying in control of the levers of power. The civilians know that and are not going to accept that.”
The meeting added to speculation that Ms. Bhutto could return to politics in Pakistan as early as September. It was also an indicator of the relief General Musharraf is seeking from the pressures increasingly besieging him, from prodemocracy demonstrators to radical Islamists, who have carried out a rising number of attacks and were further antagonized by the Red Mosque siege.
There were no immediate claims of responsibility for the suicide attack on Friday, though there was speculation that it was another in a series of retaliatory strikes that have killed more than 100 people. [*******]
Javed Iqbal Cheema, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said the suicide bomber on Friday had apparently sought to kill the security forces. Seven police officers were killed and 14 wounded, he said, according to the state-run news agency. Six civilians were killed and 47 wounded, he said.
The explosion shook nearby buildings and was heard miles away.
“Everything seemed to tumble down after a deafening blast,” said Muhammad Daud, who owns a pharmacy. “I crawled out of the debris and saw pieces of flesh all around.”
The trouble began around 12:30 p.m. when angry protesters chanting slogans in support of Abdur Rashid Ghazi, [******]a religious leader killed during the mosque assault, barred a government-appointed cleric from leading the prayers.
The government cleric, Maulana Ashfaq, was forced out of the mosque and said that he would never return.
The seminary students then occupied the mosque as police officers retreated and fired tear gas. Dozens of protesters climbed to the rooftop and chanted jihadist slogans. Hundreds of people rummaged through the rubble left from the siege at the mosque compound and an adjacent public library.
Asma Mazhar, 15, dressed head to toe in a black burqa, stood barefoot amid the rubble. It is a sign of respect, she said. “This is sacred land,” she said. Ms. Mazhar said she had been studying at the seminary for five years. On July 10, the last day of the siege, she surrendered with 28 other women.
One bearded young man, who did not want to be identified, held pieces of rubble from the siege. “These are fragrant with the blood of the martyrs,” [****]he said. More than 100 people were killed in the Red Mosque siege, the government says.
By 6 p.m., the security forces had regained control of the mosque. Chaudhry Mohammad Ali, the deputy commissioner of Islamabad, said dozens of seminary students were arrested. “There is no occupation,” he said with relief.
Salman Masood reported from Islamabad, and David Rohde from New York.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

July 27, 2007

U.S. Announces Nuclear Exception for India

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/asia/27cnd-india.html
July 27, 2007
U.S. Announces Nuclear Exception for India
By DAVID E. SANGER [bush white house] [nsc principals, deputies, and lower] [bureaucracy involved] [the USFP deal under the administration with India] [I can see merits in the decision although it’s been the source of controversy and doubtless complicated USFP vis-à-vis others, especially Pakistan] [followp] [***********]
WASHINGTON, July 27 — Three years after President Bush urged global rules to stop additional nations from making nuclear fuel, the State Department today announced that the administration is carving out an exception for India, [******]in a last-ditch effort to seal a civilian nuclear deal between the countries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/asia/27cnd-india.html
July 27, 2007
U.S. Announces Nuclear Exception for India
By DAVID E. SANGER [bush white house] [nsc principals, deputies, and lower] [bureaucracy involved] [the USFP deal under the administration with India] [I can see merits in the decision although it’s been the source of controversy and doubtless complicated USFP vis-à-vis others, especially Pakistan] [followp] [***********]
WASHINGTON, July 27 — Three years after President Bush urged global rules to stop additional nations from making nuclear fuel, the State Department today announced that the administration is carving out an exception for India, [******]in a last-ditch effort to seal a civilian nuclear deal between the countries.
“The United States and India have reached a historic milestone in their strategic partnership by completing negotiations on the bilateral agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation,” the department said in a statement.
The announcement follows more than a year of negotiations intended to keep an unusual arrangement between the countries from being defeated in New Delhi.
Until the overall deal was approved by Congress last year, the United States was prohibited by federal law from selling civilian nuclear technology to India because it has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The legislation passed by Congress allows the United States to sell both commercial nuclear technology and fuel to India, but would require a cutoff in nuclear assistance if India again tests a nuclear weapon. Indias Parliament balked at the deal, with many politicians there complaining that the requirements infringed on Indias sovereignty.
Under the deal, which was described on Thursday by senior American officials, Mr. Bush has agreed to go beyond the terms of the deal that Congress approved, promising to help India build a nuclear fuel repository and find alternative sources of nuclear fuel in the event of an American cutoff, skirting some of the provisions of the law. [*******]
In February 2004, [*****]President Bush, in a major speech outlining new nuclear policies to prevent proliferation, declared that “enrichment and reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” He won the cooperation of allies for a temporary suspension of new facilities to make fuel, but allies that include Canada and Australia have also expressed interest in uranium enrichment.
The problem is a delicate one for the administration, because this month American officials are working at the United Nations Security Council to win approval of harsher economic sanctions against Iran for trying to enrich uranium. India is already a nuclear weapons state and has refused to sign the treaty; Iran, a signer of the treaty, does not yet have nuclear weapons.
But in an interview Thursday, R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, who negotiated the deal, said, “Iran in no way, shape or form would merit similar treatment because Iran is a nuclear outlaw state.”
He noted that Iran hid its nuclear activities for many years from international inspectors, and that it still had not answered most of their questions about evidence that could suggest it was seeking weapons.
Because India never signed the treaty, it too was considered a nuclear outlaw for decades. But Mr. Bush, eager to place relations with India on a new footing, waived many of the restrictions in order to sign the initial deal. It was heavily supported by Indian-Americans and American nuclear equipment companies, which see a huge potential market for their reactors and expertise. [and with good reasons] [******]
Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who opposed the initial deal and said he would try to defeat the new arrangement, said Thursday, “If you make an exception for India, we will be preaching from a barstool to the rest of the world.”
Though India would be prohibited from using the fuel it purchases from the United States for nuclear weapons, the ability to reprocess the fuel means Indias other supplies would be freed up to expand its arsenal.
“It creates a double standard,” Mr. Markey said. “One set of rules for countries we like, another for countries we don’t.” [yes it does] [though that’s hardly stopped USFP previously] [******]
Robert J. Einhorn, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that in “the first phase of negotiations with India, the administration made concessions that put the country on par with countries that have signed” the Nonproliferation Treaty. (Israel and Pakistan are the only other countries that have refused to sign it, and North Korea quit the treaty four years ago.)
“Now we’ve gone beyond that, and given India something that we don’t give to Russia and China.”
In general, advocates of a far-stronger relationship between India and the United States have favored the nuclear cooperation deal, and it passed through Congress fairly easily. But those arguing that the administration has not made good on its promises to clamp down on the trade in nuclear fuel argue that Mr. Bush could be setting a precedent that will undercut his nonproliferation initiative.
Mr. Burns said he disagreed because “this agreement is so very much in our national interest.”
“It will further our nonproliferation efforts globally” by gradually bringing India into the nuclear fold, he said.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

FBI Chief Disputes Gonzales On Spying

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700005.html
FBI Chief Disputes Gonzales On Spying
Mueller Describes Internal Debate
By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer and Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Friday, July 27, 2007; A01 [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Ganzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the latre-night visit and its purpose] [followup] [**]
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III yesterday contradicted the sworn testimony of his boss, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, by telling Congress that a prominent warrantless surveillance program was the subject of a dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700005.html
FBI Chief Disputes Gonzales On Spying
Mueller Describes Internal Debate
By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer and Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Friday, July 27, 2007; A01 [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Ganzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the latre-night visit and its purpose] [followup] [**]
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III yesterday contradicted the sworn testimony of his boss, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, by telling Congress that a prominent warrantless surveillance program was the subject of a dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration.
Mueller's testimony appears to mark the first public confirmation from a Bush administration official that the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program was at issue in an unusual nighttime visit by Gonzales to the hospital bedside of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who was under sedation and recovering from surgery. [****]
Mueller's remarks to the House Judiciary Committee differed from testimony earlier in the week from Gonzales, who told a Senate panel that a legal disagreement aired at the hospital did not concern the NSA program. [*****]Details of the program, kept secret for four years, were confirmed by President Bush in December 2005, provoking wide controversy on Capitol Hill.
"The discussion was on a national -- an NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller said in response to a question from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.). Mueller told another lawmaker that he had serious reservations about the warrantless wiretapping program.
His testimony presents a new problem for the beleaguered attorney general, whose credibility has come under attack from Democrats and some Republicans. They say Gonzales deceived them on a number of issues, including the NSA program and events surrounding the firing last year of nine U.S. attorneys.
"He tells the half-truth, the partial truth and anything but the truth," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), as he and three other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee asked the Justice Department yesterday to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Gonzales lied to Congress about the NSA program.
Complicating the administration's predicament, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) yesterday issued subpoenas to White House adviser Karl Rove and a deputy, demanding their testimony by Thursday as part of the panel's long-running investigation into the prosecutor firings and the alleged politicization of Justice Department career personnel jobs. The White House has refused such requests, prompting House lawmakers to move toward criminal contempt citations against a former Bush legal counsel and his current chief of staff.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said in a statement that Gonzales's testimony and statements about the NSA program have been accurate, but that "confusion is inevitable when complicated classified activities are discussed in a public forum."
Gonzales is under fire in particular for his testimony in February 2006 that there had been no "serious disagreement" about the NSA wiretapping program. Gonzales and his aides have since said that he was referring to the monitoring of international communications confirmed by Bush and not to other, undisclosed "intelligence activities" [pretty hard to believe] [******]that attracted controversy within the administration.
"The disagreement that occurred in March 2004 [******]concerned the legal basis for intelligence activities that have not been publicly disclosed and that remain highly classified," Roehrkasse said.
Other officials, including Mueller and several Democratic lawmakers who were briefed on the NSA's activities, have said that the surveillance, or some part of it, was at the heart of the dispute.
Mueller declined at the hearing to discuss Gonzales's statements on the topic. "I really can't comment on what Judge Gonzales was thinking or saying," he said. "I can tell you what I understood at the time."
Mueller's testimony is particularly striking in light of his opposition to Gonzales's view of the matter at issue during the 2004 legal dispute. Then-Acting Attorney General James B. Comey sought Mueller's help in ensuring that an FBI security detail did not evict Comey from Ashcroft's hospital room during the visit by Gonzales, then White House counsel, and Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff. [***************]
Mueller was not present during the hospital visit but testified yesterday that Ashcroft briefed him on the conversation. He repeatedly said he agreed with Comey's version of events, which included testimony that Mueller, Ashcroft, Comey and others were prepared to quit if the program went ahead without changes to render it legal.
Bush agreed to make the changes after he met with Mueller and discussed the objections Mueller shared with Comey, according to Comey's account. Mueller conveyed that promise to Comey. [************]
Signaling that Democrats intend to keep pursuing the issue, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich