|
|
|
| Iraq + war on terrorism + Middle East conflict + critical perspectives |
 When democracy looks like civil warBy Yassin Musharbash, Der Spiegel, March 10, 2006 The verdicts reached by the experts are harsh: "The political system that the United States has helped set up in Iraq ... is a house of cards," writes failed-states expert Marina Ottaway in her recent study "Back from the Brink: A Strategy for Iraq." "Time is running out," warns Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution in a February Atlantic Monthly article. "A six- to 12-month window of opportunity may be all that remains before the spiral toward possible chaos and civil war is beyond control." And that's unfortunately just the tip of the iceberg. Well-respected think tanks, big-name military experts and Middle East specialists are currently producing a flood of reports painting a frighteningly pessimistic picture of Iraq and its immediate future prospects. It's no secret, of course, that the country is currently on the very brink of a civil war. But the experts want to know why -- and the virtually unanimous conclusion they have arrived at may be surprising. It's not only the terrorists and the insurgents who are propelling the country toward chaos. More than anything else, policies followed by the US government and procedures of the American military can be blamed for the impending disaster. [complete article]  A government with no military and no territoryBy Michael Schwartz, TomDispatch, March 10, 2006 Iraqi government impotence flows from its lack of access to any systematic means of coercion. This may seem a strange assertion, given the increasing prominence of the Iraqi Army in various military campaigns since late last summer, and the slogan popularized by President Bush since about the same moment: "As the Iraqi military stands up, we will stand down." Nonetheless, even if the Iraqi army, Special Forces, and local police were to become the formidable military machine that American officials envision, they would not add up to an effective instrument of Iraqi national policy for a simple reason: These units are being developed as part of the occupation military, not as a force loyal to or commanded by the elected government. It is well known that the Americans are recruiting and training both the military and the police in Iraq. What is less well known is that, once their training is complete, the Bush administration does not relinquish control over these forces. [complete article] Kirkuk dispute bedevils Iraq's political crisisBy Steve Negus, Financial Times, March 11, 2006 Iraq's newly elected legislature is split almost down the middle between the United Iraqi Alliance, the Shia-led ruling coalition of which Mr Jaafari's Dawa party is a member, and an alliance comprising Kurds, Sunni Arabs, and allies of the secular-leaning Shia leader Iyad Allawi who say they cannot work with him. Each group has its reasons to oppose Mr Jaafari - the Sunnis say he has failed to protect them from Shia death squads - but the initiators of this particular push to unseat him are the Kurds, and their key grievance is Kirkuk. [complete article] Peace activist taken hostage in Iraq is found deadBy Martin Weil and Michael Alison Chandler, Washington Post, March 11, 2006 Tom Fox, the Virginia peace activist who was taken hostage last year in Iraq, has been found dead, a State Department spokesman said last night. The FBI verified that a body found in Baghdad on Thursday morning was that of Fox, according to the State Department. It was not immediately clear last night when he had been killed or how. Nothing was said immediately about the circumstances leading to the discovery of the body. [complete article] Symbol of Abu Ghraib seeks to spare others his nightmareBy Hassan M. Fattah, New York Times, March 11, 2006 Almost two years later, Ali Shalal Qaissi's wounds are still raw. There is the mangled hand, an old injury that became infected by the shackles chafing his skin. There is the slight limp, made worse by days tied in uncomfortable positions. And most of all, there are the nightmares of his nearly six-month ordeal at Abu Ghraib prison in 2003 and 2004. Mr. Qaissi, 43, was prisoner 151716 of Cellblock 1A. The picture of him standing hooded atop a cardboard box, attached to electrical wires with his arms stretched wide in an eerily prophetic pose, became the indelible symbol of the torture at Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad. [complete article] Sunni insurgents 'have al-Zarqawi running for cover'By Oliver Poole, The Telegraph, March 11, 2006 Insurgent groups in one of Iraq's most violent provinces claim that they have purged the region of three quarters of al-Qa'eda's supporters after forming an alliance to force out the foreign fighters. [complete article] Blasts flare in Iraq as curfews easeBy Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post, March 11, 2006 Under the guard of machine guns mounted in white police pickup trucks, sparse crowds returned to Baghdad's mosques Friday as curfews imposed to stem recent sectarian bloodletting eased. In Shiite and Sunni mosques, some clerics called for forgiveness, while others wept bitterly over losses in the conflict or warned of more to come. Bombings claimed at least 19 lives around Iraq, including that of a Sunni preacher killed when a car bomber drove up to a mosque in the city of Samarra, where Iraq's worst burst of sectarian violence since the U.S. invasion began Feb. 22 with the bombing of a Shiite shrine. Another three people -- two police officers and one gunman -- died Friday in a gun battle that raged in a southern Baghdad market. [complete article] U.S. pushes for broad coalition as Iraqi parliament prepares to openBy Kirk Semple, New York Times, March 11, 2006 The American ambassador to Iraq, seeking to break the stalemate over the formation of a new government, is urging the nation's political leaders to hold a conference somewhere in Iraq to broker a grand coalition, the embassy's spokeswoman said Friday. The ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, "is proposing this idea as a possibility to push forward the formation of a national unity government," said the spokeswoman, Elizabeth O. Colton. [complete article] U.S. tells moderates to stay out of Hamas cabinetBy Harvey Morris, Financial Times, March 11, 2006 US officials are exerting pressure on moderate Palestinian politicians not to serve in a Hamas-led government and have warned that Washington would sever existing contacts with them if they did. According to Palestinians familiar with Hamas's current efforts to put together a national unity government following its election victory in January, Washington has targeted a number of independents the Islamist movement was considering for cabinet posts. The Bush administration favours a situation in which Hamas would be forced to govern alone and would bear the full consequences of failures that could be exacerbated by a cut-off of western aid to the Palestinian Authority. [complete article]  Comment -- The irony of this is maddeningly absurd! In Iraq the U.S. is struggling to get into place a national unity government but when it comes to Palestine it dreads the very possibility! Border proposal roils preelection waters in IsraelBy Laura King, Los Angeles Times, March 11, 2006 With Israeli elections less than three weeks away, a furor erupted Friday over acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's declaration that in the next four years Israel would draw its own borders, roughly following the route of a barrier being built in the West Bank. Both right- and left-wing opponents expressed outrage over Olmert's plan, spelled out in interviews that appeared Friday in major Israeli newspapers. The fate of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, home to about 250,000 Israelis, is a major issue in the campaign leading up to the March 28 elections. [complete article] Comment -- So now Olmert comes straight out and says what has been obvious all along: the wall isn't simply an emergency measure for dealing with terrorism; it is a unilaterally defined Israeli border. Yet as recently as last month, the misinformation campaign was in full swing as was evident in this exchange on NPR's On The Media:DAVID SARANGA: When the fence became an important subject in the media, we noticed that everyone refers to it as a wall, when only five percent of it is a concrete wall and the rest is actually a fence. Olmert: Israel would not act alone against IranBy Shmuel Rosner, Haaretz, March 11, 2006 Israel remains part of an international coalition against a nuclear Iran, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in comments broadcast Saturday on Israel Radio, suggesting Israel would not act alone against Tehran. Olmert spoke after former Israel Defense Forces chief Moshe Ya'alon said Israel and the West have the ability to launch a military strike that could set back Iran's nuclear program for years. Ya'alon was widely criticized for the remarks, with some saying he was drawing unnecessary attention to Israel's capabilities. [complete article] Iran won't yield to threats or pressure, top leader saysBy John Daniszewski, Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2006 Iran's supreme leader vowed Thursday to "resist any pressure and threat" after an international panel stuck with its decision to put the issue of his nation's nuclear program before the U.N. Security Council. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said pressure over the nuclear issue was the latest chapter in the United States' 27-year history of hostility toward the Islamic Republic. In Washington, meanwhile, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told a congressional hearing that Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, a capacity that Iran says it does not seek. She said Iran already was a risk to Israel and other countries in the Middle East. [complete article] The twisted religion of Blair and BushBy Phillip Blond and Adrian Pabst, International Herald Tribune, March 10, 2006 Secular Britain was shocked last weekend when Prime Minister Tony Blair said that God would be his judge over the war in Iraq. Similarly, President George W. Bush has often used God to justify the war on terror as a religiously blessed and righteous campaign against "evil doers." Predictably, those who oppose the war view themselves as secular progressives untainted by religious fundamentalism and the madness it produces. Unfortunately for liberals, the origins of Bush's and Blair's religious convictions lie not within Christianity but rather within the history of Western modernization and, most important, within contemporary liberalism itself. Religious fundamentalism has often been used to justify extreme political ideologies. Currently both sides of the war on terror legitimate their actions by perverted theological reasoning. [complete article] Madrid bombings show no al-Qaida tiesBy Paul Haven, AP (via WP), March 9, 2006 A two-year probe into the Madrid train bombings concludes the Islamic terrorists who carried out the blasts were homegrown radicals acting on their own rather than at the behest of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network, two senior intelligence officials said. Spain still remains home to a web of radical Algerian, Moroccan and Syrian groups bent on carrying out attacks - and aiding the insurgency against U.S. troops in Iraq - a Spanish intelligence chief and a Western official intimately involved in counterterrorism measures in Spain told The Associated Press. The intelligence chief said there were no phone calls between the Madrid bombers and al-Qaida and no money transfers. The Western official said the plotters had links to other Islamic radicals in Western Europe, but the plan was hatched and organized in Spain. "This was not an al-Qaida operation," he said. "It was homegrown." [...] Paul Wilkinson, chairman of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland, said the model used in Madrid, and likely for the July 7 London transport bombings fits in well with al-Qaida's business plan. "Al-Qaida is not and never was a topdown organization that did everything in terms of attacks around the world. They have a key role in ideological terms ... but they rely on local cells and those that are inspired to carry out these attacks," he said. After the fact, bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri are happy to claim responsibility because they recognize the carnage as inspired by their movement. [complete article] Comment -- The vital link between the Madrid bombers and al Qaeda is the Global War on Terrorism itself. This has done more to help globalize the Qaeda ideology than anything Osama bin Laden could ever have initiated himself. Growing strength of Pakistani Taliban worries U.S. officialsBy Ken Moritsugu, Knight Ridder, March 9, 2006 A Pakistan-based movement inspired by the former Taliban rulers of Afghanistan is growing along Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, challenging U.S.-led efforts to stamp out insurgents in Afghanistan and hunt down Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders. Reports from the South Waziristan region, which is closed to foreign journalists, indicate that local leaders who also call themselves Taliban are setting up offices, recruiting followers and, in some places, acting as local judges. In Wana, the regional capital, about 20 miles from the Afghan border, these Pakistani Taliban are laying down a strict code of conduct: Men are forbidden to shave, for example, and barbers, fearing punishment, are said to no longer offer the service. [complete article] When America exports censorshipBy Xeni Jardin, New York Times (IHT), March 10, 2006 American technology companies are taking heat for helping China's government police the Internet. But this controversy extends well beyond China and the so- called Internet Gang of Four: Google, Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft. Just how many American companies are complicit hit home for me last month when readers of BoingBoing.net e-mailed us to say they had been suddenly denied access. The cause was SmartFilter, a product from a Silicon Valley company, Secure Computing. A recent update to the nannyware's list of no-no sites had started blocking our site as containing "nudity." This is absurd: A visit to BoingBoing might yield posts about iPod- shaped cakes and spaceship blueprints, but not pornography. SmartFilter later told us that even thumbnails of Michelangelo's "David" could land a site on the forbidden "nudity" list. Many locked-out readers were trying to view BoingBoing from libraries, schools and workplaces. That is regrettable but not tragic, as American viewers generally have other options. But after regular visitors from Qatar and Saudi Arabia complained, we discovered a more worrisome problem: Government-controlled Internet providers were using SmartFilter to effectively block access for entire countries. [complete article] Comment -- Last year I discovered to my surprise that my own site is inaccessible from my local library - in this case because of SonicWALL content filtering. A network administrator can use such a filtering application to block access to any type of content whatsoever. And if you happen to live in a rural county in some parts of America I suspect there's no limit to what a library or school system might deem "inappropriate content."While Boing Boing's Xeni Jardin is justified in drawing attention to the implications of web filtering being used overseas, she doesn't appear to have visited a public library recently. While web users in libraries make up quite a small section of the American online population, for many and perhaps most of these users, a library is the only place where it's possible to get on the Net. At this time, the two places I'm aware off where it's not possible to go to The War in Context are my local library (in North Carolina) and Iran! Port deal's political fallout not overBy Jonathan Weisman, Washington Post, March 11, 2006 Flush from what they see as a victory, members of Congress appear determined to insert themselves into matters of national security that they had previously left exclusively to the president. But their aggressive response has left administration officials -- and even some colleagues -- concerned that the longer the controversy drags out, the more likely it will alienate foreign allies, dampen investment in the United States and even slow the economy. On Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties pledged to revise the review process for business acquisitions by foreigners while moving swiftly on legislation to bolster port security. Critics of the congressional attack on the port deal said DP World's withdrawal will not make the six U.S. ports any safer from terrorist attacks. But lawmakers say the controversy will spark action on measures to tighten security that have languished in Congress. Both the Senate and House homeland security committees said they will draft legislation in a matter of weeks. [complete article] U.S. more intent on blocking ChavezBy Paul Richter, Los Angeles Times, March 10, 2006 The Bush administration is stepping up efforts to counter leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez as he builds opposition to U.S. influence in Latin America. U.S. diplomats have sought in recent years to mute their conflicts with Chavez, fearing that a war of words with the flamboyant populist could raise his stature at home and abroad. But in recent months, as Chavez has sharpened his attacks -- and touched American nerves by increasing ties with Iran -- American officials have become more outspoken about their intention to isolate him. Signaling the shift, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Congress last month that the United States was actively organizing other countries to carry out an "inoculation strategy" against what it sees as meddling by Chavez. [complete article] In response, China attacks U.S. record on rightsBy Joseph Kahn, New York Times, March 10, 2006 China criticized the human rights record of the United States on Thursday, arguing that racial discrimination remained pervasive and that the American military abused prisoners held at detention centers abroad. In a sharply worded response to the annual State Department report on human rights conditions globally, which was released in Washington on Wednesday, China's cabinet said the American government should concentrate on improving its own rights record. "As in previous years, the State Department pointed the finger at human rights situations in more than 190 countries and regions, including China, but kept silent on the serious violations of human rights in the United States," the Chinese report said. [complete article] See also, The Human Rights Record of the United States in 2005 (Information Office of the State Council of the People's Republic of China). Ex-Justice lawyer rips case for spyingBy Dan Eggen and Walter Pincus, Washington Post, March 9, 2006 A former senior national security lawyer at the Justice Department is highly critical of some of the Bush administration's key legal justifications for warrantless spying, saying that many of the government's arguments are weak and unlikely to be endorsed by the courts, according to documents released yesterday. [complete article] Panel on eavesdropping is briefed by White HouseBy Walter Pincus, Washington Post, March 10, 2006 The new seven-senator intelligence subcommittee created to review the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program had its first White House briefing yesterday and is scheduled to visit the National Security Agency's headquarters Monday to gather additional information, according to congressional and administration officials. [complete article] Pentagon admits errors in spying on protestersNBC News, March 10, 2006 The Department of Defense admitted in a letter obtained by NBC News on Thursday that it had wrongly added peaceful demonstrators to a database of possible domestic terrorist threats. The letter followed an NBC report focusing on the Defense Department’s Threat and Local Observation Notice, or TALON, report. [complete article] Overseas firms entrenched in portsBy Paul Blustein, Washington Post, March 10, 2006 The decision by Dubai Ports World to abandon its effort to take over terminal operations at six U.S. seaports was a victory for the numerous politicians who have thundered in recent days that foreign companies have no business handling U.S. port operations. But foreign firms remain deeply embedded in nearly every major port in the country. And transferring ownership of those operations to U.S. companies could cause serious problems in an industry in which nearly all of the shipping is controlled by foreign interests. An immense amount of capital from those foreigners will be required to expand the nation's port system in coming years as global commerce continues to burgeon. For an example of the industry's international nature, consider Inchcape Shipping Services, a London-based company that provides ship agency services -- arranging the smooth arrival and departure of vessels -- at 200 ports around the world, including more than two dozen in the United States. Inchcape was purchased in January by a Dubai company whose chief executive, Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, also heads Dubai Ports World. [complete article] Comment -- By most accounts, dumping the US ports will be good for DPW's bottom line, but Congress has drawn its own line in the mud and sent Middle East capital a clear message: Don't bother investing in America - it's not worth the trouble. And that's not particularly good news for an economy that requires $3 billion of investment a day to stay afloat.Meanwhile, editorial writers are having a field day. The Los Angeles Times: Protectionists rejoice! The dastardly United Arab Emirates company that would have presumed to unload containers of underwear and toothpaste on U.S. soil has backed down, and it will now divest its U.S. port interests to an American entity. Rest assured, the nation is now safe from dangerous Middle Eastern accountants and port logistics specialists.And from the Washington Post: ...our brave new Congress has achieved more than the irrational spiking of one business deal. It has also sent a clear message to the Arab world: No matter how far you move along the path of modernization and cooperation, Americans may be unable to distinguish you from al-Qaeda.As for who will replace DPW, Democratic Senator Charles Schumer's earlier statement, "I'd take Halliburton over U.A.E. at this point, if I had to take a choice right now", is leading to speculation that this will in fact be the outcome. Personally, I suspect the rumors are coming from Republicans who know how easy it is to bait Bush's critics. Somehow, I don't think that either the White House or Halliburton would favor the deal. Elsewhere, the candidates being named are unknowns (at least, unknown to those of us outside the stevedoring world) such as SSA Marine and Maher Terminals. Israel's tragedy foretoldBy Gershom Gorenberg, New York Times, March 10, 2006 With Israel's national election approaching, each day's news emphasizes a clear political shift: the settlement enterprise has lost the support of the country's mainstream voters. Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the front-runner in the March 28 vote, plans to evacuate more West Bank settlements unilaterally, a top figure in his party said this week. Mr. Olmert himself announced he would stop decades of investment in infrastructure for settlements. Those promises reflect a change not only in Mr. Olmert, a lifelong rightist, but in the electorate. Polls show that a strong majority supports parties ready to part with settlements. The pattern is a familiar one from other countries. An endeavor once considered the epitome of patriotism leads to a quagmire. Sobriety and sadness replace euphoria. Arguments that once turned dissidents into pariahs now seem obvious: in this case, that to keep the West Bank will require Israel either to cease being democratic or to cease being a Jewish state. Not only settlers but national leaders have eroded the rule of law in pursuit of what they considered a patriotic goal. As an Israeli who has pored over the documentary record of the settlement project, I know there is one more painful, familiar element to this story: the warnings were there from the start and were ignored, kept secret or explained away. Leaders deceived not only the country's citizens, but themselves. So begin national tragedies. [complete article] What is fundamentalism?By Grahame Thompson, Open Democracy, March 9, 2006 Human beings are at the same time, and ambivalently, alike and different. What divides us are also the things that we share. What divides us, in other words, are not so much differences as similarities. But it can be more difficult to acknowledge sameness than to recognise difference, and fundamentalists work with this difficulty in a particular way: by disavowing difference in the name of sameness. They offer a retreat from, or a withdrawal from, difference by insisting that everything should be the same – the same as them (and many of them are prepared to die to achieve this). The command they issue is that all should conform to their way of life, worship their God (who is the only true God), share their beliefs, and their ideals. This is connected to what Sigmund Freud called "the narcissism of minor differences". We are narcissistically fascinated with minor differences because, at root, we all desire to be the same. Fundamentalism connects with this desire and offers an idealised version of its possible applicability in a real world of unimaginable diversity and plurality – of difference. This offer carries with it five consequences for the way fundamentalists think about and relate to the world: extremism, leader-fixation, sacrifice, aggression, and endurance. [complete article] Sane Britain disappearsBy Jonathan Cook, Al-Ahram Weekly, March 9, 2006 Until recently liberal Europeans were keen to distance themselves, at least officially, from the ideological excesses of the current American administration. They argued that the neo-conservative enthusiasm for the "war on terror" -- and its underpinning ideology of "a clash of civilisations" -- did not fit with Europe's painful recent experiences of world wars and the dismantling of its colonial outposts around the globe. But there is every sign that the public dissociation is coming to a very rapid end. The language and assumptions of the "clash scaremongers" is permeating European thought, including the reasoning of its liberal classes, just as surely as it once did about the Cold War. [complete article] U.S. sets plans to aid Iraq in civil warBy Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, March 10, 2006 The U.S. military will rely primarily on Iraq's security forces to put down a civil war in that country if one breaks out, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told lawmakers yesterday. Sectarian violence in Iraq has reached a level unprecedented since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 and is now eclipsing the insurgency as the chief security threat there, said Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, who appeared with Rumsfeld. "The plan is to prevent a civil war, and to the extent one were to occur, to have the ... Iraqi security forces deal with it to the extent they're able to," Rumsfeld told the Senate Appropriations Committee when pressed to explain how the United States intended to respond should Iraq descend wholesale into internecine strife. If civil war becomes reality, "it's very clear that the Iraqi forces will handle it, but they'll handle it with our help," Abizaid said later when asked to elaborate on Rumsfeld's remark. [complete article] Comment -- If the US post-war "plan" was written on the back of an envelope, its civil war "plan" would fit on the back of a postage stamp! Warner: Civil war would warrant Iraq pulloutBy Gordon Trowbridge, Army Times, March 9, 2006 The U.S. should pull its forces out of Iraq if that country descends into a sectarian civil war, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said March 7. Sen. John Warner, R-Va., a strong supporter of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, said he was speaking only for himself and not other Republicans, and that he doesn't believe the term "civil war" now applies to Iraq. But his statements raise the possibility that a worsening of the security situation could turn calls for a pullout into a bipartisan chorus. [complete article] Employer of 50 abductees faced inquiry about links to insurgents, Iraqi general saysBy Kirk Semple, New York Times, March 10, 2006 The Sunni-owned security company where about 50 employees were kidnapped on Wednesday was under investigation for allegedly collaborating with the antigovernment insurgency, an Interior Ministry official said Thursday. [complete article] U.S. contractor found guilty of $3 million fraud in IraqBy Erik Eckholm, New York Times, March 10, 2006 In the first corporate whistle-blower case to emerge from Iraq, a federal jury in Virginia yesterday found a contractor, Custer Battles L.L.C., guilty of defrauding the United States by filing grossly inflated invoices for work in the chaotic year after the Iraqi invasion. [complete article] U.S. to abandon Abu Ghraib and move prisoners to a new centerBy Robert F. Worth, New York Times, March 10, 2006 The American military said Thursday that within the next several months it planned to relocate all its detainees from Abu Ghraib prison, the sprawling penal compound west of Baghdad that became notorious throughout the world after photographs were made public of American soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners there. [complete article] Khalilzad: A pullout is still possibleBy Aparisim Ghosh, Time, March 9, 2006 Washington's point man in Iraq believes a significant pullout of U.S. troops this year remains a possibility, despite a recent upsurge in sectaran violence that has left the country teetering on the edge of a civil war. However, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad says a pullout is predicated on Iraq's leaders being able to set aside their bickering and get the long-stalled political process back on track. [complete article] The planet can't waitBy David Ignatius, Washington Post, March 8, 2006 The warnings are coming from frogs and beetles, from melting ice and changing ocean currents, and from scientists and responsible politicians around the world. And yet what is the U.S. government doing about global warming? Nothing. That should shock the conscience of Americans. Actually, the Bush administration's policy is worse than doing nothing. It has resisted efforts by other nations to discuss new actions that could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide before the global climate reaches a disastrous tipping point. And it muzzles administration scientists to keep them from warning about the seriousness of the issue. The administration's position is that more research is needed -- and then, as evidence grows that humans are adding to global warming, it calls for still more research. [complete article] Comment -- For a Republican administration to disregard the future of the planet seems true to form. What I don't understand is why the Democrats don't have the guts to champion this issue. After all, isn't global warming the greatest imaginable threat to national security? Or would they prefer to be able to say: I didn't do much to save the planet but I did fight to stop our ports being run by Dubai! The failure of Hugo-bashingBy Mark Weisbrot, Los Angeles Times, March 9, 2006 It was yet another public relations coup for Venezuela: Vila Isabel, the samba club sponsored mainly by the Venezuelan government, won the parade competition in Rio de Janeiro's Carnaval last week. A float with a giant likeness of Simon Bolivar, combined with thousands of ornately costumed participants parading down the avenue, trumpeted the winning theme: Latin American unity. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just last month called for "a united front" against Venezuela, continuing a long-term policy of trying to isolate the country. But Washington has been spitting into the wind. Venezuela's influence in the hemisphere has continued to rise while the U.S. has succeeded only in isolating itself more than at any time in at least half a century. It might be worth asking why. First, Venezuela is a democracy - despite the best efforts of the Bush team to use President Hugo Chavez's close relations with Cuba's Fidel Castro as evidence to the contrary. Its elections are transparent and have been certified by observers from the Organization of American States, the Carter Center and the European Union. Freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly and of association prevail, at least as compared with the rest of the hemisphere. In fact, most of the media remains controlled by the opposition, which attacks the government endlessly on all the major TV channels. It is the most vigorous and partisan opposition media in the hemisphere, one that has not been censored under Chavez. [complete article] Rumsfeld's free pass on IraqBy Fred Kaplan, Slate, March 9, 2006 Sen. Robert Byrd, the ranking Democrat, posed some pertinent questions [to Donald Rumsfeld when he appeared before the Senate appropriations committee this morning], or started to anyway. What are our plans, he asked, if all-out civil war erupts in Iraq? Will our troops hunker down, will they withdraw? If not, which side will they fight on? Do we have plans for such a contingency? Rumsfeld replied, "The plan is to prevent a civil war and, to the extent one were to occur, to have the Iraqi security forces deal with it, to the extent they are able to." That's not a plan, and Rumsfeld must know it. He even, wittingly or not, left an opening in his reply—Iraqi security forces will deal with it, "to the extent they are able to" -- that any high-school debater would have plowed through with gusto. "To what extent are they able to?" would have been one decent follow-up (especially since U.S. officials in the field have noted that many of these security forces have stronger allegiances to ethnic factions than to a central government). But nobody followed up. [complete article] Comment -- The very notion of Iraqi security forces "dealing" with a civil war presupposes that they would not already be partisans - a much more plausible scenario. And if that was the situation, where would that leave US forces? Fight against everyone, take sides, or leave. Hunkering down would not sound like an option. G.O.P. plan would allow spying without warrantsBy Scott Shane and David D. Kirkpatrick, New York Times, March 9, 2006 The plan by Senate Republicans to step up oversight of the National Security Agency's domestic surveillance program would also give legislative sanction for the first time to long-term eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant, legal experts said on Wednesday. Civil liberties advocates called the proposed oversight inadequate and the licensing of eavesdropping without warrants unnecessary and unwise. But the Republican senators who drafted the proposal said it represented a hard-wrung compromise with the White House, which strongly opposed any Congressional interference in the eavesdropping program. The Republican proposal appeared likely to win approval from the full Senate, despite Democratic opposition and some remaining questions from Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania and chairman of the Judiciary Committee. [complete article] Israel to draw West Bank borders by 2010By Mark Lavie, AP (via Yahoo), March 9, 2006 Israel will draw its final borders by 2010, acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published Thursday, for the first time setting a deadline for what is expected to be a unilateral large-scale West Bank pullback. Olmert, whose Kadima Party is the front-runner in March 28 elections, has been increasingly forthcoming about his agenda in recent days to stop a gradual slide in the polls. Olmert's agenda also includes a plan for an expanded Jerusalem that alarms Palestinians, connecting the West Bank's largest settlement to the disputed city with new Jewish housing — a plan the U.S. opposes. [complete article] See also, Olmert tells Haaretz he'll build in West Bank area near Jerusalem (Haaretz). Terrified villagers flee as bombers strike at TalebanBy Tim Albone, The Times, March 9, 2006 Those who fled came across the hills with tales of terror: bombed hospitals, beheaded government officials, helicopter gunships and indiscriminate bombings. The survivors escaped in pick-up trucks - their frightened women and children crying in the back - to make the 15-minute journey to the Afghan border and safety. When they arrived in Ghulam Khan yesterday, they described a ferocious five-day battle between Taleban insurgents and the Pakistan military for control of the town of Miran Shah in the tribal lands of Waziristan. [complete article] Negative perception of Islam increasingBy Claudia Deane and Darryl Fears, Washington Post, March 9, 2006 As the war in Iraq grinds into its fourth year, a growing proportion of Americans are expressing unfavorable views of Islam, and a majority now say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The poll found that nearly half of Americans -- 46 percent -- have a negative view of Islam, seven percentage points higher than in the tense months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, when Muslims were often targeted for violence. The survey comes at a time of increasing tension; the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq show little sign of ending, and members of Congress are seeking to block the Bush administration's attempt to hire an Arab company to manage operations at six of the nation's ports. Also, Americans are reading news of deadly protests by Muslims over Danish cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Conservative and liberal experts said Americans' attitudes about Islam are fueled in part by political statements and media reports that focus almost solely on the actions of Muslim extremists. According to the poll, the proportion of Americans who believe that Islam helps to stoke violence against non-Muslims has more than doubled since the attacks, from 14 percent in January 2002 to 33 percent today. The survey also found that one in three Americans have heard prejudiced comments about Muslims lately. In a separate question, slightly more (43 percent) reported having heard negative remarks about Arabs. One in four Americans admitted to harboring prejudice toward Muslims, the same proportion that expressed some personal bias against Arabs. [complete article] Comment -- In as much as the Bush administration's response to 9/11 was to retaliate against countries rather than exclusively against the individuals and organization responsible, the administration's response to the attacks was xenophobic.During the last four years, in increasing numbers, Americans of most political persuasions, Judeo-Christian and secularist, have regarded 9/11 as emblematic of an Arab/Muslim threat. Yet this fear wasn't born on that day. As James J. Zogby wrote recently in an op-ed on the Dubai port deal, "smearing all things Arab remains the last acceptable form of ethnic bigotry in America." During the same period that American xenophobia has been squarely targeted at Arabs and Muslims, tens of thousands of Americans - most of whom identify themselves as Christians - have been personally responsible for killing tens of thousands of Arabs, nearly all of whom had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. Should this be the basis on which Muslims judge Christianity? Israel will have to act on Iran if U.N. can'tBy Louis Charbonneau, Reuters, March 8, 2006 If the U.N. Security Council is incapable of taking action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself, Israel's defense minister said on Wednesday. Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz was asked whether Israel was ready to use military action if the Security Council proved unable to act against what Israel and the West believe is a covert Iranian nuclear weapons program. "My answer to this question is that the state of Israel has the right give all the security that is needed to the people in Israel. We have to defend ourselves," Mofaz told Reuters after a meeting with his German counterpart Franz Josef Jung. [complete article] Pro-Israel activists cheer CheneyBy E.J. Kessler, The Forward, March 10, 2006 Even as President Bush's popularity dropped to record lows, his administration was embraced warmly this week by the thousands of delegates at the most influential annual gathering of American Jewish activists. In recent weeks Bush has seen his approval ratings drop to around 35%, leading some analysts to the conclusion that his poll numbers were putting him perilously close to a "failed presidency" - one unable to effectuate its policies because of a lack of popular support. But this week, at the annual policy conference of the main pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, several of the most hard-line administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, drew a resounding response. The hard-line mood of the audience also extended to Israeli politics. Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who, like the two other candidates for prime minister in Israel's coming election, spoke on a video link from Jerusalem, was cheered enthusiastically when he called for building "an iron wall" around Hamas. Labor leader Amir Peretz and Kadima's candidate, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, were not as warmly received, as they talked about a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Olmert spoke about unilaterally redrawing Israel's border in the West Bank through further pullouts, and received polite applause. Former premier Netanyahu, however, was cheered enthusiastically when he spoke about the need to push the West Bank security fence eastward, deeper into the Palestinian territory, to create a broader buffer against Palestinian terrorism. The enthusiastic support for Netanyahu and Bush administration hawks underscores what appears to be a widening gap between pro-Israel activists in Washington on the one hand and the Israeli and American publics on the other. [complete article] Threats rattle at nuclear meeting on IranBy Elaine Sciolino, New York Times, March 9, 2006 Consideration of the Iran case by the agency on Wednesday was a diplomatic ritual. It came toward the end of the regularly scheduled quarterly session of the board, in which several nuclear issues were discussed. A number of board members, as well as Iran, delivered speeches on Iran's nuclear crisis, but no formal resolution was introduced. Iran's oil minister, Kazem Vaziri-Hamaneh, delivered a very different message in Tehran. He assured an edgy oil market that Iran would continue to export crude even if economic sanctions were imposed. His remarks underscored the fluid nature of Iran's policy making. Noting that sanctions "could affect" the oil market and raise prices, "it will not affect our decision to continue our supply," he told reporters on the fringes of a meeting of OPEC oil ministers. "Oil flow is continuing. The exports will not be stopped." But the Bush administration was quick to focus on Iran's threats. "Provocative statements and actions only further isolate Iran from the rest of the world," the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said in New Orleans. Iran's threats came a day after Vice President Dick Cheney declared, without any specifics, that the Security Council would "impose meaningful consequences" on Iran if it proceeded with uranium enrichment activities. He did not indicate how he was able to predict the outcome of Security Council deliberations before the body even met. [complete article] Iran defies U.N. nuclear pressureBBC News, March 9, 2006 Iran's president has warned against US-led efforts to pressure it over its nuclear programme - saying the West would suffer if action was taken. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the West could not force Iran to give up its right to nuclear power through "bullying and brutality". [complete article] Facing facts on IranEditorial, New York Times, March 9, 2006 If reality bent to tough talk, Iran would have been forced to stop its uranium enrichment program a long time ago. The Bush administration sounded very stern this week in swatting down a tentative Russian attempt to work out a compromise with Tehran. Unfortunately, the depressing truth is that the United States has very few other options when it comes to making Iran stop working on projects that could lead to nuclear weapons, and Iran knows it. [complete article] In Iran, even critics back nuclear stanceBy Nasser Karimi, AP (via Yahoo), March 8, 2006 Hasan Dahghani doesn't like his government. But when it comes to Iran's nuclear program, he backs the president and his fierce attacks on the West all the way. Like many Iranians interviewed Wednesday, Dahghani sees Tehran's confrontation with the United States and Europe as a matter of national pride. [complete article] Western sources: Iran has covert nuclear channelBy Ze'ev Schiff, Haaretz, March 9, 2006 In concurrence with growing diplomatic tension over Iran's nuclear program, on Thursday it emerged that intelligence services in the West are convinced that Iran is taking covert means to develop nuclear weapons, in addition to the nuclear program under the partial supervision of the IAEA. Russian intelligence is believed to agree with this assessment. [complete article] Iraqis fight talk of civil warBy Brian Conley and Isam Rashid, IPS (via Asia Times), March 10, 2006 Repeated cries in the mainstream media of an unfolding civil war fall on the deaf ears of many Iraqis who see the violence as a direct result of the US-led occupation. In the days after the bombing of the Shi'ite shrine at Samarra on February 22, the Association of Muslim Scholars and representatives of Shi'ite groups led by Muqtada al-Sadr and Sheikh al-Khalisi met at the Abu Hanifa Mosque in Adhamiya to negotiate a response. They constructed a 10-point plan for responding to the violence and building a future for Iraq. That plan is currently being implemented with varying amounts of success. A primary function of this plan is to "condemn the press organizations who tried to make this problem between Sunni and Shi'ite become larger and larger, and we have all the rights to try them in future". [complete article] Official says Shiite party suppressed body countBy Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post, March 9, 2006 Days after the bombing of a Shiite shrine unleashed a wave of retaliatory killings of Sunnis, the leading Shiite party in Iraq's governing coalition directed the Health Ministry to stop tabulating execution-style shootings, according to a ministry official familiar with the recording of deaths. The official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named because he feared for his safety, said a representative of the Shiite party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, ordered that government hospitals and morgues catalogue deaths caused by bombings or clashes with insurgents, but not by execution-style shootings. [complete article] Night-time knock on door heralds secret assassinsBy Oliver Poole, The Telegraph, March 9, 2006 The cars may be back on the streets of Baghdad, but the shuttered homes of Street Number 60 provide a grim reminder that the sectarian violence that flared after the destruction of the Golden Mosque continues under cover of darkness. Each house in this street in the southern neighbourhood of Dora once housed a family. Now most lie empty, their owners having fled after armed groups warned Shia in this predominately Sunni area to leave or die. [complete article] U.S. expands training to address Iraqi police woesBy Solomon Moore, Los Angeles Times, March 9, 2006 U.S. officials have revamped and expanded training programs for Iraqi police units amid mounting concern that their focus on fighting insurgents, and not protecting citizens, has created an unaccountable force plagued by corruption and rights abuses. The police units are under the Iraqi Interior Ministry, led by Bayan Jabr, a Shiite Muslim with ties to a sectarian militia. The predominantly Shiite force has become highly politicized and is accused of torture and death squad operations against Iraq's Sunni Arab minority. [complete article] Comment -- Better training will be of little consequence if the most basic issue stems from loyalties. As Matt Sherman noted in the NYT yesterday:Perhaps the most worrisome aspect of the militia culture is that many government ministers now have an unchecked power to install their own people throughout their fiefs. Over the past two months the interior minister, Bayan Jabr, a member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (the party that controls the Badr Brigades) has purged the ministry of officials from outside his militant group. He apparently intends to remain in control of the ministry even if he is forced, under the next government, to resign his post. When war becomes its own justificationBy Louis Hansen, The Virginia-Pilot, March 10, 2006 In late 2004, Cpl. Jason Watrous spent several weeks of his military hitch in a city west of Baghdad. The work was hard. The hours were long. And that was only the start of it. Watrous left the service in July to work in a mill in upstate New York. B y Christmas, though, the square-jawed 24-year-old had re-enlisted in the Marine Corps. "I like deployments," Watrous said he realized. He wanted to get back to what he discovered in that teeming city, Fallujah. For those the fight for Fallujah didn't kill, wound or drive from the service, it brought a purpose - keep waging the war. [complete article] Comment -- Although I imagine this is a story that's meant to relate the dedication of American soldiers, the chilling message is that for some soldiers, when a war has no other justification, warfighting itself provides a sense of purpose. Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney seem to hold out the promise of endless war, but what will happen for each of the soldiers described above when their own war ends. How will they bring the war home? If fighting in Falluja provided these men with a sense of reality that they craved, what kind of extremes may some of them later seek out in order to continue feeding that craving? Iraq through the prism of VietnamBy William E. Odom, Nieman Watchdog, March 8, 2006 The Vietnam War experience can't tell us anything about the war in Iraq - or so it is said. If you believe that, trying looking through this lens, and you may change your mind. The Vietnam War had three phases. The War in Iraq has already completed an analogous first phase, is approaching the end of the second phase, and shows signs of entering the third. [complete article] State Dept. report blames weak Iraq rule for abusesBy Guy Dinmore, Financial Times, March 8, 2006 The US State Department on Wednesday released a damning report on the state of human rights and the security situation in Iraq, describing a weak and corrupt government with little control over its own murderous security forces in the face of a powerful insurgency. Contained within the department's annual global human rights report, the 50-page section on Iraq represented the Bush administration's most detailed public assessment of the gravity of the crisis. The report appeared to be more in line with the view of the US ambassador to Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, who conceded this week that the US had "opened a Pandora's box in Iraq", than Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, who accused the US and other media on Tuesday of exaggeration. [complete article] The trouble with Iraq's prime ministerBy Tony Karon, Time.com, March 7, 2006 The inability of Iraq's elected leaders to agree on a new coalition government certainly exacerbates the danger of civil war. But the political deadlock also highlights the fact that Iraq is plagued by not one, but two explosive civil conflicts. Since last week, Jalal Talabani -- both the president of Iraq and a key Kurdish nationalist leader -- has been maneuvering to force the Shi'ite bloc that won the most seats in December's parliamentary election to withdraw its nomination of incumbent Ibrahim al-Jaafari as prime minister. The main Kurdish grievance with Jaafari appears to be his resistance to their attempts to incorporate the northern oil city of Kirkuk into their de facto autonomous mini-state; the last straw was a recent visit by Jaafari to Ankara to discuss Iraqi affairs with Turkey, which has made clear that it regards anything resembling Kurdish sovereignty on its border as intolerable. It has vowed to support Iraq's Turkmen minority, concentrated in Kirkuk, in resisting attempts to incorporate the city into Kurdistan. [complete article] Gaza closure is causing food shortagesBy Irahim Barzak, AP (via The State), March 7, 2006 Israel's security closure of Gaza's main cargo crossing has hit the coastal strip hard: milk and cheese have virtually disappeared, fruit is hard to find, and flour is running out. The shortages could get worse for the 1.3 million residents of Gaza once Hamas formally takes power, with Israel threatening to seal its borders with Gaza altogether once the Islamic militants form a government. "The world should look at this and find us a solution," said Mustafa Shurab of the Palestinian Mill Co. "Collective punishment is a small word to describe this war." Shurab said his company supplies about 60 percent of Gaza's flour. But with the Karni cargo crossing closed, his reserves are running out. He said the mill halted work three days ago, and if the crossing isn't reopened, Gaza will run out of bread this week. [complete article] Mid-East peace plan 'out of date'BBC News, March 8, 2006 The US-backed Middle East peace plan is "out of date" and needs to be revamped, a UN human rights envoy said. In his report to the UN Human Rights Commission, John Dugard said a new accord was needed that took into account "present political realities". The report also said Gaza was still effectively occupied despite Israel's pullout from settlements last summer. [complete article] Hamas leader accuses west of hypocrisy over threat to withhold cashBy Chris McGreal, The Guardian, March 8, 2006 The new Palestinian prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, has accused the US and Europe of hypocrisy in threatening to slash aid to the occupied territories unless Hamas meets western demands, while failing to hold Israel to a similar standard. Hamas leaders describe pressure to recognise Israel, respect accords and renounce violence as "cheap blackmail" aimed at corralling them into a "peace process" they describe as a trap. Mr Haniyeh said that Israel had been allowed to repudiate peace accords and to lay the ground to unilaterally redraw its borders, without sanction from foreign powers. [complete article] Bush is herding cats in the American Jewish communityBy William Fisher, Daily Star, March 8, 2006 On the heels of the surprise victory of Hamas in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, President George W. Bush is discovering just how difficult it is to try to herd a bunch of cats. Some members of his ordinarily supportive Jewish-American pro-Israel constituency are distinctly unhappy that Bush insisted on holding elections on time in the Palestinian territories, producing what they consider to be disastrous results. Others are suspicious that, despite the president's rhetorical assurances that his administration would not have anything to do with terrorists, he has left the door ajar and may be pressured by his European and Arab allies into somehow dealing with Hamas. Mirroring the sentiments of the Israeli right-wing, powerful groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee want that door slammed shut until Hamas recognizes Israel's right to exist and renounces violence. American Christian fundamentalist groups, meanwhile, which have been strong supporters of Israel of late, take much the same view as their more hawkish Jewish-American counterparts. Both these groups are vital constituencies for Bush, and have influence in the White House and in the House and Senate, particularly with congressional elections next November. Indeed, they could make the president's life almost as complicated as dealing with Hamas. A further complication is that the American Jewish community is far from homogenous. As in Israel, American Jewry has a smaller, less well-financed, but also increasingly vocal, left wing. Emblematic of this faction is the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace. This national organization of American Jews is headed by Marcia Freedman, a former member of Israel's Knesset. It is committed to a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The alliance says many American Jews share its perspective, but are reluctant to express themselves for fear they may bring harm to Israel and the Jewish people. [complete article] Comment -- A letter urging Bush to remain "constructively engaged" with the Palestinians, now has signatures from nearly 400 rabbis across America. Elite troops get expanded role on intelligenceBy Thom Shanker and Scott Shane, New York Times, March 8, 2006 The military is placing small teams of Special Operations troops in a growing number of American embassies to gather intelligence on terrorists in unstable parts of the world and to prepare for potential missions to disrupt, capture or kill them. Senior Pentagon officials and military officers say the effort is part of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's two-year drive to give the military a more active intelligence role in the campaign against terrorism. But it has drawn opposition from traditional intelligence agencies like the C.I.A., where some officials have viewed it as a provocative expansion into what has been their turf. Officials said small groups of Special Operations personnel, sometimes just one or two at a time, have been sent to more than a dozen embassies in Africa, Southeast Asia and South America. These are regions where terrorists are thought to be operating, planning attacks, raising money or seeking safe haven. [complete article] See also, SpecOps beset by command confusion (Marine Times). Comment -- This is just yet another indication that even though John Negroponte, as Director of National Intelligence, has nominal authority over all US intelligence agencies, it is the Pentagon that now wields the real power. As Congressional Quarterly reported last week:Washington's conventional wisdom these days is that ODNI is a joke. The main reason is that Negroponte's group has little power over the Pentagon's covert actions. It's not his fault. Congress set it up that way after Rumsfeld and company worked the rooms of the House and Senate office buildings. The noted intelligence historian Lock K. Johnson worries that Negroponte could end up like the National Drug Czar, "with no real power" over U.S. spy agencies. Iran threatens 'harm and pain' to U.S. if sanctions imposedBy William Branigin, Washington Post, March 8, 2006 Iran warned today that the United States could suffer "harm and pain" if the United Nations Security Council imposes sanctions over Iran's nuclear program. Iran delivered the warning at a meeting in Vienna of the International Atomic Energy Agency's governing board. The 35-member board convened to consider an IAEA report that concluded, after three years of inspections, that the existence of "undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran" could not be ruled out. [complete article] Cheney warns of 'consequences' for Iran on nuclear issueBy Steven R. Weisman, New York Times, March 8, 2006 Vice President Dick Cheney declared Tuesday that the United Nations Security Council would "impose meaningful consequences" on Iran if it proceeded with uranium enrichment activities, and the Bush administration put an end to talk of compromise with Iran as floated by Russia. But the administration's tough language pressing the Tehran government to return to a suspension of its enrichment program left unclear what the Security Council would do when it takes up Iran's case next week. The administration's goal is to win consent for a statement by the Security Council president calling on Iran to cooperate with the demand for a freeze on its nuclear activities. Despite Mr. Cheney's comments, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice ruled out an early push for sanctions. [complete article]  NSA probe or assimilation?By William M. Arkin, Washington Post, March , 2006 Last week, the House Intelligence Committee reached an internal compromise on how to deal with the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance program. The committee decided to become part of the program. Since December, when The New York Times revealed the warrantless searches by the NSA, Congress has struggled with how to respond to the possibly illegal program. Lawmakers have considered conducting a full investigation to determine the specifics of the program and its potential encroachment into the lives of innocent Americans and, alternately, they've looked at the option of becoming Big Boy, indoctrinated players in a super-secret world they'd like very much to be a part of. I, for one, don’t believe that the NSA program -- at least not this one -- hides some Nixonian-like abuse targeted on Americans. I particularly reject the 1960’s paradigm that the administration is using NSA to collect a new "enemies list." But at the same time I recognize that this is what many Americans believe. And that means Congress has both a moral and Constitutional responsibility to assuage American fears, while at the same time determining that the Executive Branch is not overstepping its bounds. [complete article] See also, GOP senators say accord is set on wiretapping (NYT). Libby defense request strongly resisted by CIABy R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, March 8, 2006 The CIA said in an affidavit released yesterday that meeting the demand of former White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby for copies of highly classified intelligence documents he saw before he was indicted would "impose an enormous burden" and divert its analysts from more important tasks. Attorneys for Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Cheney, responded that the CIA was exaggerating the difficulty of finding and turning over the documents. But they also scaled back their request for information in the hope of persuading a federal judge to order the agency to produce the documents. [complete article] Bombs rock India's foundationsBy Siddharth Srivastava, Asia Times, March 9, 2006 The attack at Varanasi follows a pattern. Last October witnessed the worst terrorist attack on the Indian capital, New Delhi, when similar serial bomb blasts, including one in a busy market, left 62 dead and over four times the number injured, with more than 30 in a critical condition. The attacks took place at the height of the festival season. In December, a shootout at the prestigious Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore (considered India's Silicon Valley) killed a well-known Delhi professor and injured several more. The attack hit at India's technological might and economic success. Again, last July, a fidayeen (suicide) attack on one of the holiest shrines of the Hindus at Ayodhya in the state of Uttar Pradesh was thwarted by the security forces. It could have been worse. Had the terrorists managed to damage the shrine at the Ram Janambhoomi (birthplace of Lord Ram, one of the most revered gods) there was the possibility of communal riots being unleashed across the country. [complete article] See also, High alert after India explosions (BBC). Violence rages as 50 abducted in IraqBy Steve Negus, Financial Times, March 8, 2006 Gunmen stormed the offices of an Iraqi-owned private security company in Baghdad on Wednesday, police reported, forcing some 50 employees into vehicles and driving them away. The raid on the al-Rawafid company headquarters, in the capital's eastern suburb of Zayouna, is one of the most brazen attacks on the dozens of companies, both foreign and Iraqi, that have that have been targeted in Baghdad since the 2003 US-led invasion. The news followed the discovery of 18 male bodies - bound and strangled - in a Sunni Arab district of Baghdad on Wednesday. This type of incident has become almost a daily occurrence since the destruction of a Shia shrine which ignited a brutal wave of sectarian violence two weeks ago. [complete article] See also, Sectarian strife drives Iraqi families from homes (Reuters). Comment -- Reuters reports:Some people have left the capital Baghdad, a religiously-mixed city of around seven million, and have moved back to their home provinces where their sect is dominant.And while reports such as these come out each day, Dick Cheney gets applauded at the AIPAC convention when he claims that, "Progress in Iraq has not come easily, but it has been steady." Steady progress!! I can't decide which is the more disturbing conclusion one could draw: that Cheney has no qualms about lying through his teeth, or, that he actually believes what he says? Bush administration sending a mixed message on IraqBy Ron Hutcheson, Knight Ridder, March 7, 2006 Vice President Dick Cheney said Tuesday that conditions in Iraq were improving steadily, but the American ambassador in Baghdad has said the U.S. invasion opened a "Pandora's box" of ethnic and religious violence that could inflame the entire Middle East. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told the Los Angeles Times in an interview published Tuesday that the "potential is there" for a full-scale civil war in Iraq. Khalilzad, a highly regarded diplomat, warned that a victory by Islamic extremists "would make the Taliban in Afghanistan look like child's play." The conflicting themes - Cheney emphasizing progress, Khalilzad stressing the difficulties and dangers - highlight the Bush administration's struggle over how to deal with bad news from Iraq. Striking the right balance between optimism and realism could be crucial as Republicans head into the November elections with their control of Congress on the line. [complete article] See also, Defense secretary suggests misreporting swaying public opinion Comment -- If the Cheney-Rumsfeld gang really believe what they're saying, how come this doesn't translate into actions? If the situation is really improving in Iraq, how come there's no word on when American troops are going to be pulled out? Pentagon seeks to fund new force of conventional-warhead missilesBy Ann Scott Tyson, Washington Post, March 8, 2006 The Pentagon, seeking a faster way to thwart t |