Dragons Teeth

Early Period Rugs and Home Decor

2011-11-21T12:23:00.001-08:00

Early Period Rugs and Home Decor

One of the great divides in the rug world is the distinction between newer rugs and those that can be termed antique. This is a distinction that operates on various levels involving artistic and technical quality, rarity, and, of course, price. New rugs are not simply those that arrive in the market direct from a manufacturer without ever having been used, but also those with an age of thirty years or less. Antique rugs are those at least eighty years old, while older and semi-antique rugs fill the gap between the new and antique. But these other categories are of little import; it is the fully antique label that really matters. Antique rugs have hand-spun wool, their colors are made with all or primarily vegetable-derived dyes, and they are produced with designs rooted authentically in traditions hundreds of years old. Unlike new rugs, there is a finite number of rugs made before 1920. This number may shrink, but it can never increase. Antique rugs not only have quality, but rarity as well, and this tends to increase their value with the passing of time.
But there is another divide of this sort, although it is not as well known. This is the divide between rugs designated as antique and those known as Early rugs and textiles, those made before 1800. Given the essential fragility of woven art, rugs of this age in anything approaching good condition are far rarer than antique rugs of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This makes them even more expensive than nineteenth century pieces, but their rarity has also made Early Period pieces somewhat unfamiliar to the larger rug-buying public. Instead, early rugs or carpets and textiles of this kind have so far been primarily of interest to specialist collectors. This is unfortunate, since many early pieces are carpets of a substantial size, which, if in sufficiently good condition, make excellent decorative rugs. For those who can appreciate the particular beauty and superior artistry of Early Period rugs, they remain a largely untapped resource for high quality interior décor. A few examples from the Nazmiyal Collection will suffice to illustrate this point.
17th Century Esfahan, seen above, is a classical Safavid Persian carpet of a type generally attributed to Isfahan, although this has never been proven conclusively. But wherever in Persia this exquisite piece was made some time around 1650, it is an outstanding example of Persian rug weaving at its peak. The field design consists of flame-like, elaborately stylized flowers or palmettes connected by a trellis of fine vines and sinuous cloudbands. Somewhat different palmettes connected by interlacing strapwork vines make up the main border. Those familiar with later antique Persian carpets of the nineteenth century will recognize in this piece the ancestor of many of the great Kermans, Kashans, and Tabriz produced in the decades just before 1900 as part of a widespread revival of Persian rug weaving.
But the classical forerunners lor originals like 17th Century Isfahan Rug have a special quality that sets them apart. Their drawing is meticulous and full of life because their designs were at that time new, cutting-edge artistic creations emanating for the court of the Safavid Persian Shahs. The palette of these classical pieces is also different with its emphasis on soft golds, greens, blues, and terracottas. The colors are saturated and full of depth, but not strong or harsh. The proportions of the rug are a bit narrow for the length, 6 x 12, but still very usable as a room-size carpet. The pile is very low, lower indeed than many antique nineteenth century pieces, as one would expect for a rug over three hundred years old. But the artistic quality and presence of the piece more than compensate for this.
16th Century Alcaraz is a Spanish carpet probably woven in the town of Alcaraz in the mid sixteenth century. Early Spanish carpets of this type grew out of the production begun earlier in Spain under the rule of the Moors. But immediately following the Reconquista and the expulsion of the Moors by Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492, Spanish carpets abandoned the Islamic patterns of earlier times in favor of more European designs of Renaissance and Greco-Roman derivation like this splendid piece. Elaborate acanthus vinescrolls sprouting delicate palmettes in deep aubergine sprawl as a network across the warm terracotta ground, while a border of dragon-like s-shaped vines encloses the whole composition. This is a carpet that has the richness of a fine textile like a Renaissance silk brocade or velvet. At approximately 5 x 10 it too would make an excellent room-size rug even though it is also a first rate museum piece.
From the other side of the world comes 17th century Ningsia, a magnificent Ningshia carpet made in an imperial workshop in seventeenth century China. At first glance the field looks fairly open with a scatter or small rosette-like Chinese cloud motifs in shades of blue. In actuality the field contains a lush allover vinescroll, but it barely shows up given its subtle tone-on-tone coloration is shades of golden tan. The two narrow borders of half-rosettes and fretwork provide a reserved, understated frame for the subtlety of the field. More than three hundred years have not been able to compromise in the least the sumptuous decorative effect of this wonderful carpet.
18th Century Yankand is a saph or multiple niche communal prayer rug of the eighteenth century from East Turkestan to the West of Tibet. Each of the panels is a mihrab, an arch-shaped door or window onto paradise. Although the piece was made for communal worship the ornamental treatment of the details has considerable decorative effect as a runner some nine feet long. The dyes on this piece, especially the green, are simply superb, endowing it with a jewel-like mosaic quality. In view of its delicate condition it would now serve more appropriately as a wall hanging that could provide the illusion of a row of windows.
Early rugs and textiles are certainly not the esoteric “collector items” that they are so often taken to be. They were originally produced as decorative interior furnishings at an elite level of patronage. There is no reason, therefore, that should not function in this way today, so long as they are sufficiently well preserved and treated with care. They offer a superior degree of elegance and artistry that is a notch or two above most nineteenth century rugs. For those discerning enough to tell the difference and willing to pay for it, Early Period rugs are a gateway to a lost era of grace and luxury.

Beck's backing bumps Skousen book to top

2009-03-21T09:19:00.000-07:00

Beck's backing bumps Skousen book to top

By Sharon Haddock

Mormon Times

Published: March 21, 2009

Move over, Oprah. Apparently, a book recommendation from Fox News Channel talk show host Glenn Beck carries a lot of punch, too.

Beck, who will speak at the Stadium of Fire during America's Freedom Festival at Provo on July 4, has told viewers and listeners of his TV and radio shows to buy a book published nearly 30 years ago by late Utah and Mormon author W. Cleon Skousen.

On Friday, after several days in the top 10, "The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World, Principles of Freedom 101" leaped to No. 1 on Amazon.com's list of Bestsellers in Books.

"Everyone should read this book," the conservative talk show host said as he passed out copies during a recent broadcast. On his radio program Friday evening, Beck touted the book's climb to No. 1.

Skousen published "The 5000 Year Leap" in 1981, nearly 25 years after he published "The Naked Communist," a national bestseller that has sold more than 1 million copies.

"The 5000 Year Leap" is now in its seventh edition. In it, Skousen lists 28 fundamental beliefs he declared were held by America's Founding Fathers. He suggested those core beliefs made possible more world progress in the first 200 years of the American experiment than was made in the previous 5,000.

Beck added an introduction to the copies he handed out on his show. "(Skousen) was years ahead of his time," Beck wrote. "And our founders were thousands of years ahead of their time. My hope is that all Americans young and old will spend time with this book to understand why we are who we are. The words of our Founding Fathers have a way of reaching across any political divide."

Beck, as Skousen was, is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

"They are words of wisdom that I can only describe as divinely inspired," Beck continued in his introduction. "They are here for us to help solve the unsolvable — and they are the reason why we have for so long been the greatest nation on earth. But most importantly, in these pages, you will find hope."

Beck, who regularly criticizes the Obama administration and decries the nation's financial future on his shows, is the third most-watched individual on cable television. His 5 p.m. program averaged nearly 2.2 million viewers last month.

He has been featured during the Stadium of Fire in Provo for the past two years.

Skousen died in 2006 at the age of 92. A sometimes controversial figure inside and outside the church, where he was close to late church President David O. McKay, he caused a huge flap in 1960 when as Salt Lake City's police chief he raided a private club where new Mayor J. Bracken Lee was playing cards. Lee fired Skousen.

Skousen spent 15 years as a professor at Brigham Young University in two stints. An FBI agent who worked with J. Edgar Hoover, he ran for governor of Utah and organized the Freemen Institute, later known as the National Center for Constitutional Studies, which published "The 5000 Year Leap."

Skousen never joined the ultra-conservative John Birch Society but was a supporter. NewMajority.com writer David Frum has called Skousen a Mormon Bircher and characterizes him as one of the "legendary cranks of the conservative world, a John Bircher, a grand fantasist of theories about secret conspiracies between capitalists and communists to impose a one-world government."

Dozens of Amazon.com book reviewers have praised "The 5000 Year Leap." One, S. Peek, wrote that "The premise of the book is that because of the free market system that took root after our Constitution was enacted, the United States literally made a 5,000-year leap of progress in the time since then."

The book outlines sources of thought used by the Founders as they developed the Constitution, including Cicero, Locke, Montesquieu and Adam Smith.

"One great thing about this book is that the author discusses some of the problems that we have faced in recent years arising from failure to follow the Constitution and the principles of the Founders," Peek wrote at Amazon.com. "Some of these are issues like the mounting national debt, excessive taxation and judicial activism."

E-MAIL: haddoc@desnews.com

Morton Sobell in Rosenberg Case Admits to Soviet Spying

2008-09-12T13:08:00.000-07:00

Figure in Rosenberg Case Admits to Soviet Spying

By SAM ROBERTS
Published: September 11, 2008
In 1951, Morton Sobell was tried and convicted with Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on espionage charges. He served more than 18 years in Alcatraz and other federal prisons, traveled to Cuba and Vietnam after his release in 1969 and became an advocate for progressive causes.
Librado Romero/The New York Times
Morton Sobell, 91, at his home in the Riverdale section of the Bronx.
Related
Times Topics: Ethel Rosenberg
Times Topics: Julius Rosenberg
Web Link
Records of the Rosenberg Grand Jury Transcripts
National Security Archive

A U.S. Marshal escorted Morton Sobell, left, to Federal Court in New York in March of 1951.
Readers' Comments
What do you think of Morton Sobell's confession that he was a Soviet spy?
Through it all, he maintained his innocence.
But on Thursday, Mr. Sobell, 91, dramatically reversed himself, shedding new light on a case that still fans smoldering political passions. In an interview, he admitted for the first time that he had been a Soviet spy.
And he implicated his fellow defendant Julius Rosenberg, in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb.
In the interview with The New York Times, Mr. Sobell, who lives in the Riverdale neighborhood of the Bronx, was asked whether, as an electrical engineer, he turned over military secrets to the Soviets during World War II when they were considered allies of the United States and were bearing the brunt of Nazi brutality. Was he, in fact, a spy?
“Yeah, yeah, yeah, call it that,” he replied. “I never thought of it as that in those terms.”

University of Denver Renames International Studies School in Honor of Founder Josef Korbel

2008-05-28T10:17:00.000-07:00

University of Denver Renames International Studies School in Honor of Founder Josef Korbel

Renaming captures the influential teachings of Korbel-- father of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright--and signals the Josef Korbel School of International Studies' continuing commitment to shape global leaders.

Denver, CO (PRWEB) May 28, 2008 -- The greatest tributes to a teacher are the accomplishments of those inspired by his ideas and visions. The legacy of Josef Korbel is unique--he educated two Secretaries of State, his daughter Madeleine K. Albright and Condoleezza Rice--as well as scores of others who are carrying on his tradition, and that of the school now named in his honor.

The culmination of Korbel's lifelong journey was marked May 28, 2008, as the University of Denver Graduate School of International Studies, founded by the former Czechloslovak diplomat in 1964, was renamed the Josef Korbel School of International Studies. The school's mission continues to be dedicated to preparing talented and idealistic students for careers of distinction in the public, private and non-profit sectors.

just as he was grateful and proud to be a member of the University of Denver community.

"My father was a diplomat, a scholar and an educator. His lifelong dedication to democracy and the quest for knowledge lives on in the school of international studies that will now bear his name. I am sure he would be both grateful and proud of this recognition," said Albright, "just as he was grateful and proud to be a member of the University of Denver community."

The Josef Korbel School's professional master's degree program is one of the 10 best in the United States according to a survey released by Foreign Policy magazine. It is among the elite in the world for the study of international human rights, development, health and humanitarian assistance, international and homeland security, and the political economy of investment and trade. The program ranked ninth ahead of Yale, the University of Chicago, the University of Southern California and the University of California at San Diego. The biennial survey was conducted by researchers at the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA, who reviewed international relations programs at 1,199 four-year colleges in the U.S.

The school's rich legacy includes a long list of prominent graduates. In addition to Secretary Rice, the list includes: Heraldo Munoz, the current Ambassador to the United Nations for Chile; Gen. George Casey, Jr., chief of staff of the United States Army; Ambassador Mohammad Javad Zarif, the former Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the United Nations; Susan Waltz, the former chair of Amnesty International's International Executive Committee; Pierre-Michel Fontaine, the former director of the Office the High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Democratic Republic of Congo; Jami Miscik, Global Head of Sovereign Risk, Lehman Brothers and former Deputy Director for Intelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency; Thomas Stauffer, president, CEO and professor of Management at American University in Afghanistan; and Masoumah Al-Mubarak, minister of Health for Kuwait and the first woman to hold a cabinet position.

"The Josef Korbel School of International Studies is a global leader in producing practical idealists equipped with the broad perspectives, critical minds, and technical skills required for careers of distinction in the public, private and non-profit sectors of today's integrated world," said Tom Farer, dean of the Josef Korbel School. "In their commitment to the public good, no less than their personal success, the school's graduates personify the legacy of Josef Korbel."

Josef Korbel was born in Czechoslovakia in 1909. His political activities and his Jewish heritage forced him to flee to London after the Nazi invasion in 1939. While in London, he served as an advisor to the exiled Czechoslovak president. After the war, Korbel returned to his homeland where he was appointed the Czechoslovak ambassador to Yugoslavia. In 1948, Korbel and his family took refuge in the United States following the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia. In 1949, he began teaching international affairs at the University of Denver and in 1964 he founded the Graduate School of International Studies and became its first dean. He died in 1977, but his memory and his ideals endure.

The University of Denver (www.du.edu), the oldest private university in the Rocky Mountain region, enrolls approximately 11,117 students in its undergraduate and graduate programs. The Carnegie Foundation classifies the University of Denver as a Research University with high research activity.

New Details on US Terror Network

2008-05-23T10:18:00.001-07:00

New Details on US Terror Network

The Information Ministry on Saturday issued a communiquŽ releasing new details about discovering and busting a terrorist group affiliated to the US.
According to IRNA, the statement noted that intelligence officials foiled the terrorist group and gained valuable information about its organization in America.
“The Information Ministry discovered reliable documents pertaining to special centers in the US and Israel, and their cooperation with anti-Iran terrorist networks. Complementary investigation about the group, which officially has an anti-religious stance, is continuing. Results will be made available to the people of Iran in a few days,“ the statement noted
It also said that in tandem with the interrogations, international legal and diplomatic measures will be taken against the US and UK by “competent centers“.
The statement underlined that evidence showed that the US had equipped the group with chemicals, explosives and cyanide.
“The group is responsible for the recent explosion in Shiraz mosque. In this merciless crime, several innocent children of Iran were injured or martyred,“ it said.
The communiquŽ also recalled that the terrorist group intended to plant bombs in the Tehran International Book Fair and a few scientific, educational and religious centers, and also create insecurity in the densely-populated cities of the country.
It also said the members of the terrorist network were identified and arrested in Fars, Khuzestan, Gilan, West Azarbaijan and Tehran provinces on May 7.
“One member of the group was killed during the operations and other members are under custody,“ it said.
The announcement emphasized that the main goal of the group was to create fear and intimidation.
“Terrorist acts against the Russian Consulate in Gilan and explosion of oil pipelines in southern Iran were also among their targets. That’s why American centers had planned scuba diving training for the group to target undersea oil pipelines in the Persian Gulf,“ it said.

International Anti-Terrorism Drive Needed

2008-05-23T09:43:00.000-07:00

Int’l Anti-Terrorism Drive Needed

Alaeddin Boroujerdi

Lawmaker Alaeddin Boroujerdi called for international cooperation for restricting terrorism worldwide.
Boroujerdi made the remark in the inaugural ceremony of the International Conference of Kalkan in Tehran on Tuesday, which is Interpol’s anti-terrorism initiative in Central Asia, IRNA reported.
Noting that unilateral or bilateral efforts by particular countries are not sufficient in this respect, the lawmaker said, “If the phenomenon of terrorism is considered an international challenge, political and governmental means needed for dealing with it.“
Kalkan is the name of a plan for fighting international terrorism and 20 to 22 countries from North Africa, Middle East and Central Asia participate in it. “Although there are efforts to fight international terrorism by governments and global organizations, the responses to the ominous phenomenon are insufficient,“ he said.
Pointing to the establishment of conventions for fighting terrorism, he mentioned that more efforts and planning are needed to confront the phenomenon in line with the growth of international terrorism and its role in the world.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran has been a victim of terrorist acts, but the terrorist groups have been given safe haven in western countries,“ he said.
Boroujerdi further said current developments in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan are obvious examples of terrorism and organized crimes, and that Israeli state terrorism targeted the Palestinian activists as well. “Terrorism is not limited to national and trans-national borders, because it has increased alongside globalization,“ he said, adding that no government or region is immune from the threat of sabotages and terrorist acts.

Study: False statements preceded war

2008-01-23T07:13:00.000-08:00

Study: False statements preceded war

By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL, Associated Press Writer Wed Jan 23, 6:43 AM ET

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration's position that the world community viewed Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

"The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world," Stanzel said.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

"The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war," the study concluded.

"Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, 'independent' validation of the Bush administration's false statements about Iraq," it said.

The Dream Is Dead - the dumbest [expletive] speech on the planet

2007-12-12T09:42:00.000-08:00

The Dream Is Dead

By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: December 12, 2007

WASHINGTON

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Maureen Dowd

The man crowned by Tommy Franks as “the dumbest [expletive] guy on the planet” just made the dumbest [expletive] speech on the planet.

Doug Feith, the former Rummy gofer who drove the neocon plan to get us into Iraq, and then dawdled without a plan as Iraq crashed into chaos, was the headliner at a reunion meeting of the wooly-headed hawks Monday night at the American Enterprise Institute.

The room was packed as the former No. 3 at the Pentagon, previewing his upcoming book, “War and Decision,” conceded that the case could be made that “mistakes were made.” His former boss, Paul Wolfowitz, and the former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle sat supportively in the front row.

But he wasn’t self-flagellating. He was simply trying to put an egghead gloss on his Humpty Dumpty mishegoss.

“At the end of the day, here we are, and as of now there’s a reasonable chance that the country is going to remain united,” he said. Not quite the original boast of democracy cascading through the Middle East.

Feith also inanely noted that his personal view was that his de-Baathification policy — which created a huge, angry pool of unemployed men that fueled the insurgency — “was not basically a big error. It’s been criticized very severely. I think there actually was a lot of good thought that went into the de-Baathification policy.” It just spiralled out of hand, he said. Mistakes were made.

He thinks everything would have been fine if America had not lingered so long in Iraq. If only Paul Bremer and the generals had just turned Iraq over to the slippery con man Feith wanted to put in charge, Ahmad Chalabi.

Asked about getting tough with Iran and Syria, Feith offered this incandescent insight: “As we all know, the president said he’s The Decider. That actually is quite a profound point. The president is The Decider and the main thing he decides about is risk.”

He noted that in battles through American history, “the military fights better over time.” This from a guy who sent our military into Iraq without the right armor, the right force numbers or the right counterinsurgency training.

“A strategic alliance of the ousted Baathists and foreign jihadists was something that our intelligence community did not anticipate,” he said, continuing to spread the blame.

But the intelligence community didn’t miss it. The neocons tried to scrub out that sort of analysis, knowing it would make the war harder to sell.

Classified reports prepared for President Bush in January 2003 by the National Intelligence Council warned that rogue elements of Saddam’s government could hook up with existing terrorist groups to wage guerrilla warfare.

In “Fiasco,” Tom Ricks wrote that Feith’s Pentagon office was dubbed the “black hole” of policy by generals watching him drop the ball.

“People working for Feith complained that he would spend hours tweaking their memos, carefully mulling minor points of grammar,” Ricks wrote. “A Joint Staff officer recalled angrily that at one point troops sat on a runway for hours, waiting to leave the United States on a mission, while he quibbled about commas in the deployment order.”

Jay Garner, America’s first viceroy in Iraq, deemed him “incredibly dangerous” and said his “electrons aren’t connected.”

Feith’s disdain for diplomacy and his credo that weakness invites aggression were shaped, Ricks reported, by personal history: “Like Wolfowitz, Feith came from a family devastated by the Holocaust. His father lost both parents, three brothers, and four sisters to the Nazis.”

Feith told Jeffrey Goldberg in The New Yorker that “My family got wiped out by Hitler, and ... all this stuff about working things out — well, talking to Hitler to resolve the problem didn’t make any sense to me. The kind of people who put bumper stickers on their car that declare that ‘War is not the answer,’ are they making a serious comment? What’s the answer to Pearl Harbor? What’s the answer to the Holocaust?”

What’s the answer to bin Laden? According to Feith, it was an attack on an unrelated dictator. He oversaw the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group, whose mission was to amp up links between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

It defies reason, but there are still some who think the chuckleheads who orchestrated the Iraq misadventure have wisdom to impart.

The Pentagon neocons dumped Condi Rice out of the loop. Yet, according to Newsweek’s Mike Isikoff, Condi has now offered Wolfie a job. It wasn’t enough that he trashed Iraq and the World Bank. (He’s still larking around town with Shaha, the sweetheart he gave the sweetheart deal to.)

Condi wants Wolfie to advise her on nuclear proliferation and W.M.D. as part of a State Department panel that has access to highly classified intelligence.

Once you’ve helped distort W.M.D. intelligence to trick the country into war, shouldn’t you be banned for life from ever having another top-level government post concerning W.M.D.?

Protesters abused for heckling Raymond Tanter Terrorist Financier

2007-12-11T19:27:00.000-08:00

Doctor 'not guilty' for protecting anti-war protester
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
By: Dylan Wilkerson

Jury finds providing health care is not a crime

On Dec. 3, an Arbor Michigan jury found Dr. Catherine Wilkerson not guilty on both criminal counts she was facing. Dr. Wilkerson was charged with two counts of attempted obstruction/interference/assault of a police officer and a paramedic for assisting a victim of police brutality at a demonstration. It is a victory for protesters and their right to necessary medical assistance in the face of police violence.

The phony charges stemmed from an incident on Nov. 30, 2006 at the Michigan League in Ann Arbor where several

protesters where arrested for heckling Raymond Tanter. Tanter is a former national security advisor for Ronald Reagan and current Georgetown University faculty member who was speaking at the University of Michigan campus at an event organized by the American Movement for Israel, a right-wing Zionist organization.

Tanter was there to discuss "regime change" in Iran. He not only advocates taking military action, but also using tactical nuclear weapons and depleted uranium against Iran.

Several protesters were dragged from the event and arrested for heckling Tanter. One protester, Blane Coleman, was taken down forcefully by University of Michigan Department of Public Safety officers Mark West and Janet Conners. They pinned Mr. Coleman face down and held him to the floor, while handcuffing him behind his back. Coleman complained that he could not breathe and then he collapsed unconscious.

Dr. Wilkerson identified herself as a physician and asked permission to examine Coleman. She was allowed to examine him as the group waited for Huron Valley Ambulance medics to arrive. Dr. Wilkerson was concerned that Coleman was at risk for a condition called positional asphyxia. Positional asphyxia occurs when people are handcuffed with their hands behind their back as weight is pressed on them, causing them to be unable to draw a full breath. Positional asphyxia has caused several recorded deaths.

Upon HVA arrival, Dr. Wilkerson relinquished Coleman’s care to HVA medics, but was forced to intervene a second time when one of the medics, Dean Lloyd, began using a series of ammonia inhalants on Coleman. Lloyd cupped his hands over Coleman's mouth and asked "You don't like that do you?" as Coleman retched and spit from the noxious fumes.

At Dr. Wilkerson’s trial, both officer Conners and Lloyd testified that they believed that Coleman was faking his medical emergency.

Dr. Wilkerson denounced the behavior of the medics when the incident occurred: "Ammonia inhalants have no medical efficacy," she said. An Ann Arbor Police officer on the scene, Kevin Warner, removed Dr. Wilkerson forcefully, using a painful restraint technique on her arm and throwing her face-first into a wall. She was held for some time and then released.

Dr. Wilkerson was never arrested at the scene. She was not charged with a crime until nearly two months later, one week after she filed a citizen complaint against Warner with the Ann Arbor Police.

The trial was an obvious attempt to silence public criticism of police and paramedic behavior at the protest. Another woman, Dr. Kathryn Babayan, a University of Michigan history professor, testified that she was also charged with similar crimes after she filed a complaint against police due to the incident.

The prosecutor in the case, Margaret Connors—who is making a bid to become a judge—attempted to prejudice the jury against Dr. Wilkerson throughout the proceedings by referencing her political views as evidence of her guilt. During her cross-examination of Dr. Wilkerson, Connors asked questions like, "Is it true that you list Ho Chi Min as one of your 'heroes' on your myspace page?" and "Did you say that you needed 'international solidarity' during your interview on KUCI radio?"

These attempts appeared petty and irrelevant to court room observers. They did not have the intended affect on the jury.

Despite a parade of police and paramedic witnesses called by the prosecution, Connors was unable to demonstrate any evidence that Dr. Wilkerson ever did anything during the incident other than verbally criticize police and paramedics for their treatment of Coleman.

When asked pointedly during cross-examination, officer West testified that "verbally interfering with an arrest and criticizing police is not a crime." Another prosecution witness, Jeff Green, a University of Michigan student and building manager of the Michigan League who witnessed the event, testified that Coleman's treatment by DPS officers seemed "overly harsh."

Several HVA medics testified that ammonia inhalants are no longer carried on HVA ambulances or used by HVA medics as a result of the incident.

The defense presented several eye witnesses who testified on Dr. Wilkerson’s behalf. Despite Connors attempts to discredit them as political fanatics, their testimony lent further credence to Dr. Wilkerson's account of the incident.

The defense also called Dr. Bledsoe to the stand, one of the nation's leading experts on emergency medicine and paramedic training. Dr. Bledsoe testified that ammonia inhalants are potentially dangerous and have no real medical application.

Additionally, Dr. William Wilkerson, the defendant's husband and a court recognized emergency medicine and paramedic expert, testified that ammonia inhalants are just plain bad medicine. He said that HVA did not follow their on-scene patient-doctor protocols with Dr. Wilkerson.

There also was considerable political support for Dr. Wilkerson’s case. More than 4,000 people signed an ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) national petition demanding that all charges be dropped.

The trial was more than a victory for Dr. Wilkerson; it was a victory for free-speech and the rights of protesters. If Dr. Wilkerson had been convicted, it would have established a precedent criminalizing protesters who complain or criticize police behavior during unlawful arrests.

Reprinted with credit to the Party for Socialism and Liberation

The Wrong Choice for a National Hero’s Museum

2007-11-05T16:27:00.000-08:00

The Wrong Choice for a National Hero’s Museum
[November 05, 2007]

Monte Melkonian would have turned 50 On November 25th. The Government of Armenia has decided to mark the National Hero’s jubilee with a formal celebration. The commission established for the occasion and headed by the minister of defense has planned a number of activities, among which is the establishment of the Monte Melkonian Museum.

The commission intends to lay a wreath on Monte’s grave in the morning of November 25th and then to visit School # 11 in the Southwestern district of Yerevan to officially rename it after Monte Melkonian, to unveil a bust of Monte in the Alley of Glory leading to the Military Museum in Victory Park, and to hold a commemorative evening at the National Opera House. The establishment of the Monte Melkonian Museum is among these very appropriate measures, but no one knows who decided to establish the museum at School # 11.

It is one thing to have a corner illustrating the life and achievements of the person the school is named after (which, by the way, does not require a special decision by a state institution and can be done by the school administration itself) and another thing to pass a decision to create a museum dedicated to a national hero and to set it in an inaccessible outlying district. One can only congratulate the students, the administration and the staff of School # 11, along with the people who live in the neighborhood.

Alec Yenigomshian, Chairman, Monte Melkonian NGO

US Supported Terrorist Group Guilty of War Crimes

2007-08-03T15:50:00.000-07:00

MKO Accused
Of Anti-Iraq Crimes

BAGHDAD, Iraq, March 11--Iraq’s High Court accused terrorist group Mujahideen Khalq Organization of committing crimes against the Iraqi nation.
Head of the High Court for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, Jafar Al-Mousavi, told reporters on Sunday that the court’s prosecutors have collected concrete proof for putting MKO agents on trial, IRNA reported.
“Written, audio and video evidence pertaining to MKO has been found based on which MKO members are accused of murdering and displacing thousands of Iraqi citizens in the north and south of Iraq,“ he said.
Al-Mousavi said the team of prosecutors is seeking to file two complaints against MKO in this regard. He did not disclose the time of the trial and the names of suspects.
There are close to 4,000 MKO agents held by US forces in Camp Ashraf, Diyala province.

Saudi Princes Funding Terrorits Groups MKO and Al-Qaeda

2007-08-03T15:41:00.000-07:00

Saudi Princes Funding MKO

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 1--A senior Iraqi official has disclosed that Saudi Arabian princes are providing financial support to an anti-Iran terrorist group in Iraq.
In an interview with Al-Alam TV channel on Tuesday, Iraq’s National Security Counselor Fazel Al-Shavili said the Iraqi government has found documents showing that Saudi princes are paying $30 million monthly to the armed terrorist group Mujahideen Khalq Organization (MKO), whose agents are largely based in Iraq’s Camp Ashraf.
The MKO agents were allied to executed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in suppressing the Iraqi people and carrying out terrorist attacks against Iranian civilians and officials for almost three decades.
Following the ouster of Saddam, the terrorist MKO has made efforts to attract the attention of war-mongering American officials who are currently protecting the terrorist group as a tool against Iran.
The Iraqi official noted that apart from making regular financial donations to MKO, Saudi princes are also funding Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq as well.
Shavili pointed out that half of the foreign insurgents and bombers entering Iraq through the western borders are Saudi citizens.
The Iraqi western borders are controlled by US occupation forces.

Wolfowitz's Indonesia record the trail of SLIME

2007-05-04T12:21:00.000-07:00

Wolfowitz's Indonesia record eyed By ROBIN McDOWELL, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 4, 3:24 AM ET

JAKARTA, Indonesia — The controversy surrounding World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz spotlights a lack of ethics that was apparent two decades ago when he was U.S. ambassador to Indonesia, say critics who recall how he failed to speak out against corruption and rights abuses.

Today, as head of the bank, Wolfowitz has been arguing that corruption is crippling the world's poorest nations. But that was "the very thing he closed his eyes to" when he served as ambassador from 1986 to 1989 during the regime of the dictator Suharto, said pro-democracy activist Binny Buchori.

"He's a hypocrite," she said. "He should quit."

Wolfowitz is fighting for his job after disclosing that he helped arrange a promotion and raises for his girlfriend Shaha Riza soon after taking over the bank's helm in 2005. Wolfowitz says he is the victim of a smear campaign and has refused to resign.

But Jeffrey Winters, a professor of political economy at Northwestern University, said that Wolfowitz's past career already showed he was ill fit to run the World Bank.

"From the very beginning, I felt this was the wrong person for the job," said Winters.

He pointed to the radical deregulation of Indonesia's banking sector in 1988, promoted by Wolfowitz's economic team and international lenders. It "opened the floodgates for local crony conglomerates to set up private banks and take in deposits from a trusting public."

With no rule of law, there was no oversight and no supervision, he said.

"The foxes were running wild in the financial chicken coop and no one, including Wolfowitz, pressured the Indonesians to design safeguards to protect the public's deposits," he said. One result was the 1997-98 financial crisis "that plunged tens of millions into abject poverty."

Suharto, who ruled for 32 years, was toppled in 1998 by pro-democracy demonstrations.

The former dictator's family has been accused of embezzling an estimated $35 billion in state funds during his regime, according to corruption watchdog Transparency International. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed under the dictator's brutal reign.

Supporters say Wolfowitz pushed quietly for economic and political reforms. One example: a call for greater openness at his farewell speech at Jakarta's American Cultural Club in 1988.

"I wouldn't say it was brave, after all he was moving on," said James Castle, a former head of the American Chamber of Commerce, adding that the comments would also have need Washington's approval. "But he was the first ambassador to challenge the Suharto government, and that speech became quite famous."

Others say he helped fight the Suharto regime in subtle ways.

"It seemed like he was hugging a dictator, but he was actually supporting us," said Bambang Harymurti, editor of the hard-hitting magazine, Tempo, noting that "persons non grata with the government" were often invited to embassy receptions.

"Sometimes it would be a small gathering, and Paul would have someone like me sitting next to a military general," Harymurti said with a chuckle. "In this way he sort of empowered the pro-democracy activists."

But critics said Woflowitz's actions were too little, too late.

"Wolfowitz never criticized human rights issues, let along corruption," said Asmara Nababan, executive director of the pro-democracy research institute, Demos. By staying silent, he "was saying 'don't worry about your domestic problems, America is here to back you.'"

___

Associated Press reporters Zakki Hakim and Irwan Firdaus contributed to this report from Jakarta.

Chris Carney alarming and unfounded prewar claims about Iraq

2007-05-04T07:17:00.000-07:00

Elected as a war critic, he was part of prewar errors
Chris Carney, who worked at the Pentagon, still believes there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.
By Greg Miller, Times Staff Writer
November 22, 2006

WASHINGTON — Of all the Democrats who rode a wave of public anger over Iraq to election victories this month, Chris Carney had the most unlikely credentials as a war critic.

Before winning the race for Pennsylvania's 10th Congressional District, Carney was part of a controversial intelligence unit at the Pentagon that was responsible for some of the most alarming — and, it turned out, unfounded — prewar claims about Iraq.

Assigned to search for links between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the unit reached a series of conclusions, including that a Sept. 11 hijacker had met with an Iraqi agent in Prague, Czech Republic, that have since been widely discredited. The Pentagon unit was created and run by one of the Iraq war's principal architects, then-Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith.

Carney took part in briefings at the White House and the Pentagon that disparaged the CIA for underestimating the relationship between Baghdad and the terrorist network. Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials frequently touted the findings to bolster the case for war.

Despite his background, Carney campaigned as an antiwar Democrat and said he got a "very warm reception" when he arrived at Capitol Hill this week to take part in orientation activities for incoming members. Carney is a lifelong Democrat, according to his press secretary.

"They are intrigued," Carney said of his fellow freshmen. "But I'm not sure all of them know about this."

Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Atherton) said she was disturbed by the work that came out of Feith's office, but doubted that members would hold that against Carney.

"I think that in retrospect that what happened there is deeply troubling and we're paying a price for it," Eshoo said. "But I don't want to cast judgment on him."

Carney, 47, is not apologetic about his work at the Pentagon.

"I certainly stand by the fact that I believe there was some sort of relationship," he said in an interview. "On a scale from zero to 10, with zero being no relationship and 10 perfect operational coordination," Carney said, the Iraq-Al Qaeda link was "somewhere in the 2.5 range."

That appears to be a more qualified assessment than the so-called Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group presented to policymakers during a series of briefings in 2002. In one briefing slide, the group asserted that there were "more than a decade of numerous contacts" between Iraq and Al Qaeda and that there were "multiple areas of cooperation," possibly including the Sept. 11 attacks.

Carney, a reserve officer in the Navy and political science professor at Penn State University, wasn't expected to win his conservative-leaning district in eastern Pennsylvania. But his chances improved when the Republican incumbent, Don Sherwood, admitted he'd had a five-year extramarital affair and was forced to deny accusations that he had choked his mistress.

Carney said he initially was a supporter of the invasion of Iraq but has been dismayed by the handling of the postwar insurgency. His stance hardened, he said, when one of his college students returned from Iraq and complained of how ill-equipped U.S. fighting units were.

"They had to scrounge Iraqi scrap yards for junk metal to weld onto their trucks," Carney said.

Carney ended up working for Feith after being called up for duty as an analyst at the Defense Intelligence Agency in the aftermath of Sept. 11. Carney was detailed to Feith's office in 2002 after the noted neoconservative asked the DIA to provide two analysts for a special project.

Carney and another DIA analyst, Christina Shelton, spent months poring over thousands of raw intelligence reports. They quickly concluded that the CIA, which had been skeptical of any serious relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, was getting it wrong.

"I found it kind of curious the way they were so equivocal in the analysis," Carney said of the CIA reports. "It was frustrating to me and others with all the caveating that was going on."

So the Feith team assembled a competing report called "Assessing the Relationship Between Iraq and Al Qaeda." The document cited "fundamental problems" with the CIA's analysis and offered conclusions without caveats. It said Baghdad was providing training to "non-Iraqi terrorists" and had "provided safe haven" for terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi. Under the heading "Known Iraq-Al Qaeda Contacts," the document listed the alleged 2001 meeting of Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta with an Iraqi agent in Prague as if there were no doubt the meeting had occurred.

When the group's findings were leaked to a conservative publication, Cheney described the report as the "best source" for understanding ties between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Like much of the prewar intelligence on Iraq, the allegations of ties between Baghdad and Al Qaeda have crumbled under postwar scrutiny. A recent investigation by the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that Atta never met with an Iraqi agent in Prague, that Baghdad did not give safe haven to Zarqawi, and that Hussein was so wary of Al Qaeda he had issued an edict barring anyone in his government from having any dealings with the terrorist network.

Carney defends his work by saying that many of the postwar conclusions are based on information that wasn't available to analysts in 2002.

Polls show a significant minority of Americans still believe Iraq was somehow involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but Carney disputes that his work contributed to that misperception or pushed the U.S. into war.

"I was one voice among hundreds talking about this," Carney said. "Ultimately, the decision to go to war rests with the president, and I am certain that the president had lots of information other than what I had."

Carney said that much of his focus in Congress would be on domestic issues, including healthcare and job security. Still, he said that he believed U.S. intelligence agencies suffered from a lack of creative thinking, and that he had ideas about how to fix some of the community's problems.

"There are a number of things I'm looking at as committee assignments, and the intelligence committee is certainly one of them," he said. If selected, he added, "I think I would apply the same kind of rigor to those issues that we did in the Pentagon."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
greg.miller@latimes.com

Roozbeh Pournader of Tehran Enemy of Iran - Dangerous Revolutionary

2007-05-01T19:16:00.000-07:00

Roozbeh Pournader of Tehran, Iran is a prominent Anti-Islamic revolutionary. He has been deeply involved in turning Wikipedia into a propaganda tool to attack the Islamic republic of Iran. Roozbeh Pournader has posted a huge amount of slander against IRI leaders including Imam Khomeini and Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

On his web page Roozbeh Pournader of Tehran describes himself as:
I work as the CTO of Sharif FarsiWeb, Inc., a company doing software localization, internationalization, standardization, and free software and Open Source customization, consulting, and development. We have our own GNU/Linux distribution, its users including Royal Dutch Shell branch in Iran.

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjan

2007-05-01T18:55:00.000-07:00

Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is a hard man to pin a label on. He is regularly castigated in the American press as a hard-liner. However he played a crucial role in freeing Western hostages held in Lebanon. He is called a Conservative and President Khatami is called a moderate but Rafsanjani's Brother-in-law is Khatami's new Vice President. (see Notes on Vice President Seyed Hossein Mar'ashi), Clearly Rafsanjani is a pragmatist who will do what is best for Iran even if it means coming to terms with the US. Unfortunately the US has rebuffed every peace initiative and treated him shamefully.

State versus the Anti-State, Post Modern War - A look at President Bush's response to 911

2007-04-13T05:56:00.000-07:00

State versus the Anti-State, Post Modern War
A look at President Bush's response to 911
In regards to Churchill's "melancholy paradox" Wohlstetter wrote,
"If peace were founded firmly on mutual terror and mutual terror on symmetrical nuclear powers, this would be, as Churchill has said, "a melancholy paradox;" nonetheless a most comforting one." That simple thought caused me to dash off the following thoughts:
In the late 1950s America charted a defense strategy that Churchill termed "a melancholy paradox". Peace was founded firmly on mutual terror and mutual terror on symmetrical nuclear powers. This we now know as MAD, mutually assured destruction. America and the Soviet Union lived in fear of a "First Strike" and both lived in grim realization of the other's ability to launch a massive "Second Strike". This spawned 30 years of Cold War maneuvering. MAD worked because we knew where the Soviets were and they knew where we were. I remeber the Rand Surveys where they would rank American cities as to their likelihood as targets in nuclear war. As a child I grew up in Scranton which was about 50 on the list as I remember it. We could target them and even if we missed their leadership we could cripple their system.
As long as the mutual terror was state terror the state was always vulnerable. On September 11, 2001 a new terrible enemy arose and launched a "First Strike" terror attack. The enemy which we call al-Qaeda is not a state, it is a loose knit group based in Wahhabi Islam. The strategy that protected us through the Cold War was now applied to a non-state "First Strike" Scenario.
A massive "First Strike" called for an immediate "Second Strike". George Bush looked immediately to his key advisors for a military solution. Obviously someone had to pay and the United States must respond. But respond to who, attack what. al-Qaeda was not a state, it lacked clearly identifiable targets. What states sponsored the terror attack? Obviously Saudi Arabia was deeply involved. The money and the majority of the participants were Saudi. Close behind was Pakistan whose ISI worked closely with al-Qaeda.
How then did the Bush advisors react? Paul Wolfowitz proposed attacking Iraq. This completely ignored a host of obvious facts such as that Iraq was not involved in the terror attack on the United States. However attacking Iraq was not without merit. Iraq was the great blemish on the Bush family honor. For the elder President Bush Iraq was a major strategy blunder. While we can debate most of the first Bush presidency Bush failed miserably in Iraq. Our military did everything asked of them but Bush snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. This was a burr under the saddle as they say in Texas of the Younger President Bush. Iraq was far easier to attack then isolated Afghanistan and most importantly at least to Wolfowitz Iraq was an enemy of Israel. I do not suggest that Wolfowitz has dual loyalties but Wolfowitz sees the world through Likud tinted glasses. Bush disregarded Iraq for the time being and went with Afghanistan as a target. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were key allies in our old cold war strategy so the Bush crew took them off the list. Afghanistan was a good possibility because as a country it had few friends.
Attacking Afghanistan is an interesting choice. Imagine that a man came home to find a man raping his wife. That man then goes out and picks out a weaker friend of the rapist to thrash as revenge for the rape.
Afghanistan is surrounded by Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. Iran was viewed as an enemy by the Bush team so there was no loss to the US no matter how Iran reacted to an Invasion. (N.B. Perhaps Bush's greatest weakness is that he sometimes rashly categorizes opponents as enemies when he does not need to do so.) Turkmenistan was pursuing a non-aligned course. Uzbekistan was a secret ally with the United States against al-Qaeda so we could count on their support. During the Clinton Presidency US Green Berets were put into Uzbekistan and even conducted covert missions in Afghanistan. Tajikistan had a close affinity with the Northern Alliance so they were on-board for an invasion if the NA was a part of it. Pakistan was the skunk in the woodpile so to speak.
Most of Afghanistan was in the hands of Taliban. The Taliban was a creation of Pakistan's CIA, the ISI, with the help and financing of Saudi Arabian Intelligence. Part of the price of Saudi Arabian support was al-Qaeda. Pakistan was between the rock and the hard place. As a state Pakistan was targetable so being a prudent man General Musharraf deemed it better to give up Afghanistan then to face American wrath.
The United States then rolled through Afghanistan in a brilliant fashion. The combination of massive air power, the Northern Alliance, Special Forces, and CIA commando teams were ideally suited to attacking and destroying Taliban. It was Air-Mobil warfare in a way Robert McNamara never imagined . There was however a small problem in that Taliban was not the one who attacked us, al-Qaeda did. The Afghan invasion was costly to al-Qaeda but not destructive. They delivered a "First Strike" and our response was annoying, irritating, but not destruction in the way necessary to make a MAD like strategy successful.
To make matters even worse in November2001 the United States allowed thousands of Taliban, ISI operatives and al-Qaeda men to leave Kunduz Afghanistan by plane. We do not know who got on those planes. It is very possible even probable that top terrorist leaders including Osama Bin-Laden merely got on a plane and slipped away to freedom. What we do know is that Mullah Omar, Osama Bin-laden, al-Zawahiri and many others slipped through our fingers. Our Second Strike was unable to find much less touch our enemies.
What did we really accomplish against al-Qaeda and their supporters. Today Osama Bin-Laden is a free man living a life not terribly different than how he lived before 9/11. The same goes for Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. al-Qaeda has paid a price but it is a price they are willing to pay. Their supporters primarily Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have escaped very lightly. In Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Abdullah who was very close to al-Qaeda was preempted by the return of Fahd to day to day oversight of the monarchy. Losing the Regency was a small price to pay for his active role in the attack upon America. In Pakistan Musharraf became a defacto vassal state of the US to avoid the retribution that was so richly deserved. al-Qaeda is larger and in many ways more deadly than ever. The states that supported al-Qaeda flourish.
Has the US response been so terrible as to discourage any future terrorist attack on the US? No, our second strike capability is so flawed as to future action against the US is virtually assure future action against the US.
In the Post Cold War Era we have replaced MAD with MAR (modestly accomplished retaliation). When it came time to sow salt in their fields all we could do is sow their fields with the blood of our children. When it came time to fight we allowed the fight to be subverted to the foreign policy goals of a third power. After Afghanistan we allowed a Likudnik cabal to trick us into war with Iraq.
How do we fight non-state terrorism?
First of all true believers who are willing to die for a cause are almost impossible to stop. Still we must adopt a strategy that makes a significant portion of the less than true believers think of the cost.
First of all a terrorist is one who plans, prepares, or implements an act of terror but we must also consider those who aid and shelter them to be terrorists as well. If a mosque or a club is used by the terrorists then it should be destroyed. If a company helps terrorists it should be dealt with severely. If a country supports terrorists then it should pay a severe price.
False dichotomies of good terrorist and bad terrorist are extremely destructive. All terrorism must be seen in the same light. The Bush policy of sheltering the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq sends the wrong message to nations considering aid or comfort to Terrorists. No terrorist should be tolerated.
Our strategy must be morally comprehensible. If torture is wrong then it is always wrong. The Bush policy of stripping "enemies" of their human rights or protection under the Geneva Convention is morally wrong. What President Bush allowed at Abu Ghraib prison was barbaric, immoral, and evil. Even our friends in the Moslem world look at this abomination and ask how can we claim "One Nation Under God" and then do the evil we do. It validates everything that the extremists suggest when the call us "The Great Satan". The essence of fighting terrorism is massive response in a matter befitting One Nation Under God.

JCPenney: "Today's the Day" Commercial - a happy song

2007-03-24T07:13:00.000-07:00

There is a lot to be said for a happy song. You know what I mean, one of those songs that just makes you smile. Recently I heard the JCPenney: "Today's the Day" Commercial. The next time I heard it I listened more closely. The third time I told my children that they had to be quiet for the ad. They thought I was really strange. So I looked it up and found out it is "How can It Be" by Forever Thursday.
I hate iTunes and refuse to use their stupid site. but being a pragmatic man I had my wife Jodi download it for me. I insist on paying for all my music so I buy CDs and put them on my computer. When CDs are not an option I pester Jodi... oh well.

"how can it be" lyrics

i say, and so say i
my morning thought
it knew itself just fine
until across the room
it caught its first glimpse of my afternoon
how can it be
that these things live in me?

i say, and so say i
my mornings day seems nothing like its night
my night so self assured
was all at sea when faced with dawns strange world
how can it be
that these things live in me?
http://www.myspace.com/foreverthursdaymusic
Thank you,
Barry O'Connell

IAEA protests "erroneous" U.S. report on Iran - Yahoo! News

2006-09-14T04:48:00.000-07:00

IAEA protests "erroneous" U.S. report on Iran - Yahoo! News: "IAEA protests "erroneous" U.S. report on Iran By Mark Heinrich
1 hour, 48 minutes ago

VIENNA (Reuters) - U.N. inspectors have protested to the U.S. government and a Congressional committee about a report on Iran's nuclear work, calling parts of it "outrageous and dishonest," according to a letter obtained by Reuters.

ADVERTISEMENT

The letter recalled clashes between the IAEA and the Bush administration before the 2003 Iraq war over findings cited by Washington about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction that proved false, and underlined continued tensions over Iran's dossier.

Sent to the head of the House of Representatives' Select Committee on Intelligence by a senior aide to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, the letter said an August 23 committee report contained serious distortions of IAEA findings on Iran's activity.

The letter said the errors suggested Iran's nuclear fuel program was much more advanced than a series of IAEA reports and Washington's own intelligence assessments have determined.

It said the report falsely described Iran to have enriched uranium at its pilot centrifuge plant to weapons-grade level in April, whereas IAEA inspectors had made clear Iran had enriched only to a low level usable for nuclear power reactor fuel.

"Furthermore, the IAEA Secretariat takes strong exception to the incorrect and misleading assertion" that the IAEA opted to remove a senior safeguards inspector for supposedly concluding the purpose of Iran's program was to build weapons, it said.

The letter said the congressional report contained "an outrageous and dishonest suggestion" that the inspector was dumped for having not adhered to an alleged IAEA policy barring its "officials from telling the whole truth" about Iran.

Diplomats say the inspector remains IAEA Iran section head.

The IAEA has been inspecting Iran's nuclear program since 2003. Although it has found no hard evidence that Iran is working on atomic weapons, it has uncovered many previously concealed activities linked to uranium enrichment, a process of purifying fuel for nuclear power plants or weapons.

IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said: "We felt obliged to put the record straight with regard to the facts on what we have reported on Iran. It's a matter of the integrity of the IAEA."

Diplomats say Washington, spearheading efforts to isolate Iran with sanctions over its nuclear work, has long perceived ElBaradei to be "soft" on Tehran.

"This (committee report) is deja vu of the pre-Iraq war period where the facts are being maligned and attempts are being made to ruin the integrity of IAEA inspectors," said a Western diplomat familiar with the agency and IAEA-U.S. relations. "

Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties - Yahoo! News

2006-09-08T13:05:00.000-07:00

Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties - Yahoo! News: "Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had ties with al-Qaida, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence that Democrats say undercuts President Bush's justification for invading Iraq.

ADVERTISEMENT

Bush administration officials have insisted on a link between the Iraqi regime and terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Intelligence agencies, however, concluded there was none.

Republicans countered that there was little new in the report and Democrats were trying to score election-year points with it.

The declassified document released Friday by the intelligence committee also explores the role that inaccurate information supplied by the anti-Saddam exile group the Iraqi National Congress had in the march to war.

It concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

The 400-page report comes at a time when Bush is emphasizing the need to prevail in Iraq to win the war on terrorism while Democrats are seeking to make that policy an issue in the midterm elections.

It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."

Bush and other administration officials have said that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a connection between Saddam's government and al-Qaida. Zarqawi was killed by a U.S. airstrike in June this year.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the report was "nothing new."

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," Snow said. That was "one of the reasons you had overwhelming majorities in the United States Senate and the House for taking action against Saddam Hussein," he said.

Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., a member of the committee, said the long-awaited report was "a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration's unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts" to link Saddam to al-Qaida.

The administration, said Sen. John D. Rockefeller (news, bio, voting record), D-W.Va., top Democrat on the committee, "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks."

The chairman of the committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., said it has long been known that prewar assessments of Iraq "were a tragic intelligence failure."

But he said the Democratic interpretations expressed in the report "are little more than a vehicle to advance election-year political charges." He said Democrats "continue to use the committee to try and rewrite history, insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

The panel report is Phase II of an analysis of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The first phase, issued in July 2004, focused on the CIA's failings in its estimates of Iraq's weapons program.

The second phase has been delayed as Republicans and Democrats fought over what information should be declassified and how much the committee should delve into the question of how policymakers may have manipulated intelligence to make the case for war.

The committee is still considering three other issues as part of its Phase II analysis, including statements of policymakers in the run up to the war."

Armitage Betrays Country in CIA leak - Yahoo! News

2006-09-08T05:35:00.000-07:00

Armitage says he was source in CIA leak - Yahoo! News: " Armitage says he was source in CIA leak By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 3 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The former No. 2 State Department official said Thursday he inadvertently disclosed the identity of CIA employee Valerie Plame in conversations with two reporters in 2003.

Confirming that he was the source of a leak that triggered a federal investigation, former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said he never intended to reveal Plame's identity. He apologized for his conversations with syndicated columnist Robert Novak and Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward.

For almost three years, an investigation led by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has tried to determine whether Bush administration officials intentionally revealed Plame's identity as covert operative as a way to punish her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, for criticizing the Bush administration's march to war with Iraq.

"I made a terrible mistake, not maliciously, but I made a terrible mistake," Armitage said in a telephone interview from his home Thursday night.

He said he did not realize Plame's job was covert.

Armitage's admission suggested that the leak did not originate at the White House as retribution for Wilson's comments about the Iraq war. Wilson, a former ambassador, discounted reports that then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger to make a nuclear weapon — claims that wound up in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address.

Armitage said he was not a part of a conspiracy to reveal Plame's identity and did not know whether one existed.

He described his June 2003 conversation with Woodward as an afterthought at the end of a lengthy interview.

"He said, 'Hey, what's the deal with Wilson?' and I said, 'I think his wife works out there,'" Armitage recalled.

He described a more direct conversation with Novak, who was the first to report on the issue: "He said to me, 'Why did the CIA send Ambassador Wilson to Niger?' I said, as I remember, 'I don't know, but his wife works out there.'"

Armitage, whose admission was first reported by CBS News Thursday, said he cooperated fully with Fitzgerald's investigation. He was never a target of the investigation and did not hire a lawyer. He agreed to speak to reporters after Fitzgerald released him from a promise of confidentiality.

Armitage said he considered coming forward late last month when a flurry of news reports identified him as the leak. But he said he did not want to be accused of trying to get the story out during the summer's slow news cycle.

"I did what I did," Armitage said. "I embarrassed my president, my secretary, my department, my family and I embarrassed the Wilsons. And for that I'm very sorry."

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, is the only administration official charged in the CIA leak case. He faces trial in January on charges he lied to authorities about conversations he had with reporters about Plame.

Armitage said he assumed Plame's job was not a secret because it was included in a State Department memo."

Will a British divorcee cost 'Wolfie' his job? | the Daily Mail

2006-08-30T10:39:00.000-07:00

Will a British divorcee cost 'Wolfie' his job? | the Daily Mail: "Will a British divorcee cost 'Wolfie' his job?
From SHARON CHURCHER and ANNETTE WITHERIDGE, Mail on Sunday

Last updated at 18:05pm on 20th March 2005

Nomination: Paul Wolfowitz was a controversial choice for the World Bank
Look here too...Skip gossip links to more articles
Story: Bush backs Wolfowitz for World Bank post
Vote: Do you think Wolfowitz should get the job?
News: Briton killed in Qatar theatre bomb
News: Queen may bar Camilla from Trooping the Colour
Showbiz: Kylie's Showgirl tour hits the road
Sport: Alonso triumphs in Malaysia
HeadlinesBalcony plunge dad's tearful court appearance
Captor's colleague says sex slave girl 'looked happy'
Tesco launches revolutionary non-food home shopping service
Air passengers cleared to use mobiles on Ryanair
NHS should deny obese women IVF, say doctors
Hospital told mother 'to take body of daughter home in her car'
Web hunt for 'immoral' British man seducing China's women
Government misses targets to reduce drug deaths
Madonna and Guy row over schooling
Woman fined £5,000 for over-use of family pool
Man jailed for driving motorbike over policewoman
Smellies and Bottoms among surnames list of shame
Chinese court freezes assets of iPod expose journalists
Nun study reveals God's flickering effect on the brain
NEWS HOMEPAGE
Pictures & videoVideo: New website shows you how to...do everything!
Gallery: Our readers' stunning wildlife photography
Gallery: Our eye-catching pictures of the day
Amazing pictures: Candid snaps show a softer side to wild child Pete Doherty
Video: The moment a mountain lion paid a house call
Video: Joyrider caught leaving pedestrian for dead
MORE PHOTOS & VIDEO
The appointment of George Bush's leading hawk as head of the World Bank was heading for a crisis over his relationship with a senior British employee.

Influential members of staff at the international organisation have complained to its board that Paul Wolfowitz, a married father of three, is so besotted with Oxford-educated Shaha Riza he cannot be impartial.

Extraordinarily, they claim she played a key role in pushing the 61-year-old Pentagon official into the Iraq War. And the row comes amid claims that Wolfowitz's wife Clare once warned George Bush of the threat to national security any infidelity by her husband could cause.

A British citizen - at 51, eight years younger than Wolfowitz's wife - Ms Riza grew up in Saudi Arabia and was passionately committed to democratising the Middle East when she allegedly began to date Wolfowitz.

She studied at the London School of Economics in the Seventies before taking a master's degree at St Anthony's College, Oxford, where she met her future husband, Turkish Cypriot Bulent Ali Riza, from whom she is now divorced.

After they moved to America, Shaha worked for the Iraq Foundation, set up by expatriates to overthrow Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War. She subsequently joined the National Endowment for Democracy, created by President Ronald Reagan to promote American ideals.

Bulent Riza said Shaha started to "talk to Paul" about reforming the Middle East. And New Yorker magazine's respected commentator Paul Boyer observed that a senior World Bank official "named Shaha Ali Riza" was an "influence".

Downing Street 'furious' at nomination

Wolfowitz became known around the world as one of the fiercest proponents of invasion of Iraq. The Mail on Sunday has learned that Downing Street is "furious" about his nomination, fearing his hardline attitude could alienate large sections of the international community.

But it is his tangled private life that could stop him taking up the World Bank post.

Critics say it would be impossible for Wolfie - as he is nicknamed by Bush - to make independent decisions when his lover, who works on Middle Eastern and North African issues, is so committed to overthrowing Middle Eastern regimes.

"His womanising has come home to roost," a Washington insider said. "Paul was a foreign policy hawk long before he met Shaha but it doesn't look good to be accused of being under the thumb of your mistress."

One of his opponents at the bank said: "Unless Riza gives up her job, this will be an impossible conflict of interest."

National security risk

Wolfowitz married Clare Selgin in 1968. But they have lived separately since 2001, after allegations of an affair with an employee at the School of Advanced International Studies where he was dean for seven years.

According to one Republican Administration insider, Clare was so upset by rumours about the affair that she wrote to then President Elect Bush, saying if the story were true it could pose a national security risk.

Yesterday, she refused to comment on whether her husband had been unfaithful before their separation, saying: "I really do not want to share this with you."

She also refused to confirm her marital status - reports of his appointment repeatedly describe Wolfowitz as divorced but The Mail on Sunday has been unable to find any records. Asked if she is separated or divorced, Clare replied: "That's my business."

On the claim that she wrote a letter to Bush, she said: "That's very interesting but not something I can tell you about."

A friend of Wolfowitz insisted last night that he had not been unfaithful: "Paul and Clare have been separated since 2001. It is my understanding they are now legally separated."

By tradition, the United States picks the bank's president, but the decision must be approved by its board. The US has a 16 per cent vote, but Europe collectively has about 30 per cent.

The bank's staff association has told executives it has been swamped with complaints from employees about Wolfowitz.

However, Wolfowitz's only comment on the complaints has been a terse statement issued through a Pentagon spokesman. He said: "If a personal relationship presents a potential conflict of interest, I will comply with bank policies to resolve the issue.""

Pasadena - Samuel Zeligian Mardian

2006-05-10T07:19:00.000-07:00

Samuel Zeligian Mardian and wife Acabi, with their four children, Aram,
Sam, Agnes, and Florence. A baby, Robert, was born the second week of my arrival in
Pasadena. (Samuel Mardian was the sponsor of the Malian family and their gang. He
became in later years a widely-known building contractor. At present, 1978, Aram, Sam
and Bob have a multi-million-dollar construction company in Phoenix, Arizona, with
Aram as president. Sam was the mayor of Phoenix for two terms. Robert Mardian was
Assistant Attorney General under John Mitchell in President Nixon's cabinet.)

Armenian Assembly of America - Press Center - Jim Renjilian

2006-05-07T18:12:00.000-07:00

Armenian Assembly of America - Press Center - NR# 1997-57: "Armenian Assembly Press Release
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mission '97 Has a Dramatic Impact on Diaspora Armenian
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 14, 1997
Web: www.aaainc.org CONTACT: Hrant Jamgochian
Phone: (202) 393-3434
E-mail: info@aaainc.org

The dramatic changes Jim Renjilian saw on his first visit to his historic homeland Armenia left him astonished and a "changed man." "I knew Armenia has numerous economic problems, yet everyone I met was a strong testament to the Armenian spirit and the will to survive. After being there and seeing the country first-hand, I cannot help but be optimistic about Armenia's future" said Renjilian, a long-time board member and former government affairs chairman of the Armenian Assembly of America. Renjilian is a Maryland native, who was a member of the Assembly's Mission '97. Over 100 participants made the 10-day visit, the largest by the Assembly to date.
The most striking contradiction in Renjilian's mind was the visit to a small school in Gumri. The school was built from metal shipping containers, heating and electricity are sporadic. "The children were so bright, beautiful and articulate. They sang songs for us and recited poetry in Armenian. But, one couldn't help but be horrified by the school's primitive conditions," stated Renjilian.

Renjilian was also deeply touched by his visit to the Genocide Monument and Museum. "The pain of remembering the tragedy of 1915 was great. The visit to the museum was even more emotional as I saw the horrific pictures of what the Turkish government attempted to do to my people," said Renjilian. "Yet, I was so inspired by what the monument symbolized, the triumph of the Armenian spirit and people."

Another of Renjilian's lasting memories was the sight of hundreds of construction cranes scattered throughout Armenia-most of them at a standstill. "No matter where we went, these cranes appeared to be in abundance. Yet, none of them were ever in operation," said Renjilian. He was disheartened by the number of buildings that stood unfinished and at the same time the thousands of people who are unemployed.

The highlight of the trip for Renjilian, and for many mission participants, was the visit to Etchmiadzin, the birthplace of the Armenian Church. "Even as a Protestant, I couldn't help but be moved by the 1,700 years of history speaking to me from the stones of Etchmiadzin," said Renjilian. Vehapar Karekin I Catholicos of all Armenians held a special luncheon for the group during their visit. The Vehapar thanked the Armenian Assembly for organizing such a pilgrimage to the homeland. The Archbishop of Shushi Barkev Martirosian also addressed the group and expressed his excitement at their presence during Armenia's "second baptism," as Communist suppression of religion is no longer an obstacle which was even more evident in Nagorno Karabagh under Azeri rule.

The Armenia '97 mission also took part in the Yerevan ceremonies commemorating the sixth anniversary of Armenia's independence. Mission members attended the President's reception for government officials and foreign dignitaries and later viewed a musical extravaganza and fireworks display in Yerevan's Republic Square. The group also met with several government officials including outgoing Senior Presidential Advisor Jirair Libaridian, President Levon Ter-Petrossian and Prime Minister Robert Kocharian.

The Armenian Assembly of America is a nationwide nonprofit organization which promotes public understanding and awareness of Armenian issues."

James Renjilian Obituary

2006-05-07T17:11:00.000-07:00

http://www.amaa.org/AMAA%20News%20-%20Aug-Sept-Oct%202002%20-%20Vol.%20XXXVI,%20No.%204.pdf

AMAA NEWS, AUG/SEPT/OCT 2002 23
O B I T U A R I E S
James Renjilian
James Renjilian,
long an active and
vibrant member of
the Armenian community,
died on
May 21, 2002 in
G e r m a n t o w n ,
Maryland of complications
from a
stroke. He was 64.
Born a refugee in Athens, Greece on December
17, 1937, Jim emigrated to the United
States with his mother, Verjin Giragossian
Renjilian, in 1939. His father, the Rev. Mihran
Renjilian, had come to the U.S. some months
earlier with Jim’s older siblings Armen and
Anne.
Reunited in the U.S., the Renjilians lived
first in Washington, D.C. but eventually settled
in Troy, N.Y. where Rev. Renjilian led the
United Armenian Calvary Church. There, Jim
attended Troy High School and Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute.
After serving as an intelligence officer in
the Army, Jim attended George Washington
University law school. Following a brief stint
with General Electric in the Boston area, Jim
worked as an attorney at the United States
Patent Office in Washington, D.C. He remained
with the Federal government throughout
his career, serving at the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Federal Home
Loan Bank Board, and the Department of Energy.
Jim’s life is warmly remembered by family
and friends for four overarching themes: his
devotion to family; his commitment to community;
his pride in his Armenian heritage; and
his dedication to his Christian faith. He was
also known to many as a particularly avid collector
of toy soldiers, having amassed hundreds
of figures that he displayed prominently in his
home. Finally, he enjoyed a reputation as a
keen and passionate observer of political affairs.
Jim’s many community and civic interests
included serving as an elder of Southminster
Presbyterian Church and, later, Rockville
(Md.) Presbyterian Church. He was also an
active adult troop leader in the Boy Scouts of
America. In addition, Jim played a prominent
role in the Armenian Assembly, where he was
especially focused on achieving official recognition
from the United States government
of the Armenian Genocide.
Funeral services were held at Rockville Presbyterian
Church, Rockwville, MD on Friday,
May 24, 2002 followed by the interment at
Rock Creek Cemetery in Washington D.C.
Memorial contributions were made to the
AMAA.
Jim is survived by his sister, Anne Kalfayan,
of Marco Island, FL; his brother Armen
Renjilian of Albany, N.Y.; his son Christopher
Renjilian of Potomac, MD; his daughter Julia
Luther of North Bethesda, MD; and his son
Timothy Renjilian of Atlanta, GA. He also
leaves behind three granddaughters whom he
dearly adored.
Additional information about James
Renjilian can be found on the Internet at
www.lifefiles.com.

Allen F. Ertel Election Observer in the Ukraine

2006-04-04T11:01:00.000-07:00

Williamsport Sun-Gazette: "City attorney has opportunity to watch democracy in action

By LAUREN McLANE lmclane@sungazette.com

They have a history of parties stealing elections,” Allen F. Ertel, a local attorney, said.

He is referring to the Ukraine, the former Soviet bloc country now struggling to embrace democracy. Ertel recently returned from observing the Ukraine’s March 26 parliamentary elections.

As a former member of Congress, Ertel is among those who can be tapped to serve the international community in such a way.

“The former (Congressional) members group sent around an e-mail requesting volunteers, and I signed up,” he said. “I’d been to the Ukraine in 1994-95, just after the fall (of the Berlin Wall).

“Then, we’d been arranged to discuss legislating with the Rada (the Ukrainian parliament). It was amazing how unknowing they were about the legislative process,” he added.

As a Soviet satellite, the Ukraine was more or less controlled by the Kremlin. When the Soviet empire split up, it and several other newly-independent countries became self-governing for the first time in a generations.

Nevertheless, Russia still wields influence in the region. It was a Russian-instigated energy crisis — a disruption in gas supplies — that led to a vote of “no confidence” in President Viktor Yushchenko’s government and made the March 26 election necessary.

Yushchenko was swept into power in the “Orange Revolution” in 2004 after a fraudulent election, during which he was poisoned. Because of that episode and other irregularities, outside observers were invited to monitor this time.

Five major parties and 40 minor ones took part. The five majors were the Party of the Regions, led by Viktor Yanukovich; Yushchenko’s Orange Party; the Timoshenko Party, led by Yulia Timoshenko, Yushchenko’s recently-sacked prime minister; the Communist Party; and the Socialist Party.

Jealously guarding its newfound rights, the Ukraine has built in so many election safeguards it became cumbersome, Ertel said.

There were clear plastic ballot boxes, covered with seals to prevent tampering. There was an election commission of 14 observers, picked from among all 45 political parties, at each polling station.

Each polling station was open from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. and all 14 observers had to be present for the entire time. Each party was allowed to have an observer of its choosing present also. Once the polls closed, the 14 commissioners were locked in the room while the ballots were counted, he said.

The ballots were paper ballots, and some of them had as many as five elections on them — mayoral, district and two regional elections, as well as the parliament.

Each district had to account for the number of registered voters, the number of ballots cast, the number cast in absentia, and so on, Ertel said.

“The whole commission must wait until the ballots are confirmed,” which can take hours, he added.

“Our role was to see if there was a way the system could be hijacked. The interplay between the parties (at the polling station) prevented people from committing fraud. If there was fraud, we didn’t detect it,” he said.

In the Ukraine, as in many European countries, parties rarely win an absolute majority of the seats in the legislature. Instead, the party with the largest percentage of votes forms a coalition government. A vote of no confidence in the legislature leads to parliamentary elections, to re-align the balance of power.

One way in which the Ukraine differs from America is in allowing prisoners to vote, Ertel said. There are polling stations set up in the prisons themselves, and prisoners are taken from their cells, shepherded to the polling area, given ballots and allowed to vote.

He said he observed the elections in a prison, and his role was to ask the prisoners if any undue influence had been exerted over them to cause them to vote a certain way. No one said he had been coerced, he said.

Another difference is that two days before the election, all campaign materials must be taken down. The day before and the day of the election, which was a Sunday, no campaigning is allowed, he said.

By and large the parties complied with the rules, he said. The five largest parties got all of their materials down; some of the smaller parties didn’t manage to remove all their fliers.

When the election results came out, “Timoshenko blew away Yushchenko,” he added.

It was widely expected by international observers and the American ambassador to the Ukraine, that Yanukovich would win the majority of the vote, Yushchenko would take the second-largest percentage, and Timoshenko would be a close third.

Although Yushchenko’s party lost seats in the Rada with the election, the president is directly elected and will not lose his office. However, Yushchenko must now form a coalition government with the party and the man he defeated in 2004 and the party of the woman he fired.

One of the things that impressed Ertel the most was “the patience.”

“People stood in line two, two-and-a-half hours to vote. It’s such a cumbersome system — 15, 20, 30 minutes to vote because there are so many choices,” he said.

Overall, “it was an interesting and worthwhile enterprise. The media made it known that we were there. I believe we had a prophylactic effect on anyone who wanted to commit fraud.”"

No Subpoena Yet For Zinni in AIPAC Spy Case

2006-03-23T03:39:00.000-08:00

National News: "Suppression of Witness Names Underlines Battle in AIPAC Case

Ron Kampeas and Matthew E. Berger
JTA Wire Service

MARCH 23, 2006
Washington

Condoleezza Rice, Stephen Hadley, Anthony Zinni: For a few hours, the list of subpoenaed witnesses on the docket in the classified information case against two former staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee read like a Who's Who of U.S. foreign policy.

And that probably was precisely the point for defendants eager to prove that trading inside information with the most senior government officials was par for the lobbyists' course.

Similarly, the suppression of the witnesses' names within hours last Friday was consistent with a prosecution -- and a court -- that is keeping as much of the case under wraps as possible.

Lawyers for Steve Rosen, AIPAC's former foreign policy director, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, subpoenaed 10 current and former administration officials ranging from Rice, the current U.S. secretary of state, and Hadley, the national security adviser to the White House, through Lawrence Franklin, the former mid-level Pentagon analyst whose guilty plea is the crux of the government's case against Rosen and Weissman. JTA obtained an original copy of the docket with the names intact.

The court, the defense and the government would not comment about the subpoenas or their subsequent suppression on the docket, but the roll call reflects what sources close to the defense have said will be their case -- that interactions of the kind described in the indictment last August were routine and above board."I presume it's an attempt to provide some context for the information that was disclosed," said Steven Aftergood, who directs the Secrecy Project at the Federation of American Scientists and who has been following the case closely. "If such information was already in public circulation or widely disseminated, that could arguably mitigate anything the defendants did wrong by communicating it."

The crux of the indictment is that Franklin leaked information on Iran to Rosen and Weissman on several occasions in 2003 and 2004.

In July 2004, Franklin joined the FBI in a sting against the two, telling Weissman that Iranian agents planned to kill Israeli and American agents in northern Iraq. Rosen and Weissman relayed the information -- which, according to the indictment, Franklin made clear to Weissman was classified -- to an Israeli diplomat, a Washington Post journalist and the executive director of AIPAC, Howard Kohr.

Rosen and Weissman have been charged under a never-used 1917 statute that criminalizes the receipt and dissemination of classified information.

AIPAC fired the two men a year ago, saying their actions did not comport with AIPAC practices, but stopping short of accusing the men of anything illegal.

Glenn Kessler, The Washington Post journalist, said he had not been subpoenaed. AIPAC would not comment on whether Kohr or anyone else had been subpoenaed.

Israeli officials have confirmed in the past that they are negotiating the terms of testimony for Naor Gilon, the diplomat who received the information from Weissman and Rosen. Gilon returned to Israel last summer after completing a three-year term as a political officer.

In addition to Rice, Hadley and Franklin, the defense subpoenaed David Satterfield, the current U.S. deputy ambassador to Iraq; William Burns, the current U.S. ambassador to Moscow; Ken Pollack, research director at the Saban Center, a Middle East think tank; Michael Makovsky, another mid-level Pentagon analyst; Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser; Zinni, formerly the top peace envoy to the Middle East; and Richard Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state. Prosecutors and the witnesses themselves may challenge the subpoenas.

Satterfield and Pollack are significant, because -- like Franklin -- they appear in the indictment as alleged leakers to Rosen, but neither has been charged.

Pollack discussed Iraq policy with Rosen and Weissman over lunch in 2000, when he was on the Clinton administration's National Security Council.

Pollack told JTA last year that he could not imagine having relayed classified information to them. He told JTA this week that he had yet to receive a subpoena, but would not be surprised if he did.

Satterfield was an assistant secretary of state in 2002 when, according to the indictment, he leaked classified information on Al-Qaida to Rosen.

No one on the list, aside from Pollack and Zinni, returned calls from JTA asking for comment.

Zinni, who said he also had yet to receive the subpoena, said he had met Rosen just once."I met Mr. Rosen once at a dinner while I was the envoy," the retired Marines general and former head of U.S. Central Command wrote in an e-mail to JTA. "It was a casual event and we discussed the process I was then involved in. The dinner was with four others."

Zinni, who now is a consultant in the private sector, served as an envoy to Israeli-Palestinian talks in 2001-2002.

The court and the government would not comment on the subpoenas, but Aftergood says it's consistent with the secrecy that has enveloped the case. Judge T.S. Ellis III allowed the government to keep from the public and from the defense what apparently is the bulk of the transcripts of years of taps on Rosen and Weissman, although the recordings are principally of the defendants.

Ellis also has sealed pre-trial motions that principally argue established case law and do not reveal details of the case aside from those appearing in the already published indictment. The documents were eventually unsealed.

In contrast to Aftergood and a number of free speech groups that have weighed in on the case, Ellis made clear that he does not believe First Amendment issues have much bearing."Persons who have unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law," Ellis said Jan. 20 when he sentenced Franklin to more than 12 years for his role. "That applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever."

Ellis turned down a friend-of-the-court brief from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, saying it was inappropriate."Secrecy seems to be the default here," Aftergood said. "It appears the judge wants to discourage media coverage."

Laurie Levenson, a legal expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said the prosecution may move to quash the subpoenas, and could have requested the seal to keep the putative witnesses' names out of the spotlight until the judge rules on the motion.

"This leaves the spotlight off the witnesses and leaves it on the defendants," she said. "They'd rather keep the focus on the named defendants."

This story reprinted courtesy of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency."

Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections - Pipeline or pipe dream? The Kirkuk-Haifa scheme

2006-03-19T12:02:00.000-08:00

Alexander's Gas & Oil Connections - Pipeline or pipe dream? The Kirkuk-Haifa scheme: "
volume 9, issue #6 - Thursday, March 25, 2004

Pipeline or pipe dream? The Kirkuk-Haifa scheme
By Thomas R. Stauffer

02-03-04 Bad pennies do recirculate. The latest to re-emerge is a resurrection of the scheme to build an oil pipeline from Kirkuk in northern Iraq to the Israeli port of Haifa. While on its merits it is difficult to take the proposal seriously -- such a pipeline makes no commercial sense whatsoever, and its political logic defies reasoned analysis-two counts of infeasibility may be no obstacle.
Given the level of ignorance in the White House, and the scope for graft in a project of that type, it could actually be realized, all financial and political argument notwithstanding. When not actually phanstasmagorical, the rationales offered for the pipeline are specious.

Israel-first proponents gush about the vast oil resources of Iraq: "Northern Iraq's oil fields are among the richest in the world." Somehow, one is told, direct access to those fields-through the new pipeline-would reduce Israel's energy costs and, miraculously, increase the diversity of supply to the United States.
Several sobering considerations present themselves, however. First, there is no shortage of outlets for exporting oil from Iraq, making construction of a new line quite superfluous. The existing pipeline from Kirkuk and Mosul to Turkey's Mediterranean terminal at Ceyhan, after building additional parallel lines and pumping stations, now has a nameplate capacity -- if repaired-of 1.65 mm bpd.
Moreover, both the line itself and the terminal at Ceyhan can readily be expanded at incremental costs well below those of any freshly built pipeline. Space is no constraint. There is adequate room in the port, and potential additional capacity to accommodate any likely volumes of oil from Iraq, as well as expected flows from Baku in Azerbaijan, can readily be constructed.

Further, Iraq has two additional oil export terminals on the Gulf. Although badly damaged by US bombs, both can be rehabilitated at modest cost-if not blocked by Israel or Washington. Together, Khor al-Amaya and Mina al-Bakr could export almost 3 mm bpd of oil into supertankers serving the world market. These ports, too, can be expanded by extending the quays or adding single-buoy moorings (SBMs)-although, over the longer run, congestion in the Upper Gulf poses constraints for all the export terminals in that area.
Finally, there are two more existing export pipelines, which, politics permitting, add to Iraq's export capacity and flexibility. There still exists a pipeline from Kirkuk to Banias on the Syrian coast-a leftover from the colonialist era of the Iraq Petroleum Company. The line is partly used by Syria to move its own oil, but some 200,000 bpd of capacity reportedly is unused, and that line-again, politics permitting-could easily be looped and more than doubled.

An even larger option might be reinstated, however. Southern Iraqi oil fields are also connected directly to the Red Sea by the two stages of the IPSA pipeline across Saudi Arabia. This large pipeline, built during the Iran-Iraq war to circumvent attacks by Iranon Iraqi tankers in the Gulf, later serving both Iraq and Saudi Arabia, has been closed by the Saudis since Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. While its realistic capacity is less than the theoretical figure of 1.6 mm bpd, nonetheless -- once more, politics permitting-it offers an outlet for perhaps another 1 mm bpd of Iraqi oil.
Nor are Iraqi oil exports in any sense constrained by lack of pipeline capacity. Existing lines could carry six-plus mm bpd -- twice the historic level -- and, with modest investment, could carry any like level of exports over the near- and middle term.

There is a further deception embedded in the proposed Kirkuk-Haifa project, however. Pro-Israel propagandists speak of "reopening" the line. The term "reopening" is a blatant lie. That line was built in the 1930s, when the oil market was radically different and when the refinery at Haifa, controlled by Shell, was of significance. But the facilities have either rusted away or were dismantled, so "it ain't there no more."
Israeli officials claim that the Haifa pipeline would save Israel 20 % of its energy costs-especially in reducing costly oil imports from Russia. Given the near-perfect price arbitrage in oil markets, this is quite implausible. Only two interpretations suggest themselves.

First, the Russian Jewish oil mafia has succeeded in bilking the Israelis -- a formidable task. Or, second, the Israelis and their allies in the Bush administration presume that they can force Iraq to sell oil into the line at a steep discount-part of the known plan to discredit and weaken any Iraqi government by demanding recognition of and oil sales to Israel, as bruited by Ahmad Chalabi.
Why the specious arguments? Why tout the scheme? History may provide the clue. A similar project was pushed in the mid-1980s-except that the terminus was Aqaba, not Haifa. The project was a multi-tiered scam, providing graft, kickbacks and influence-peddling to a spectrum of figures, from a bagman for the Mossad, Shimon Peres and the Labour Party, to a fewhighly-placed officials from the Reagan administration-including, reportedly, Ed Meese, William Clark and Donald Rumsfeld. The details trickled into the public domain during the special prosecutor's investigation of Reagan Attorney General Meese.

Key to the scheme was "influence" in Washington to obtain 100 % US government financing and guarantees for the commercially unviable project, out of which the payoffs were to be distributed. Influence was necessary since the US-export content of the pipeline was minimal, violating the criteria for Export-Import Bank or OPIC support. The scheme unravelled as an investigation into the dubious dealings of Meese unfolded, leaking many of the sordid details into the public record.
In its "born-again" version, the Kirkuk-Haifa smells and looks all too familiar. The bad penny has resurfaced, with specious rationalizations serving to divert attention from the real rationale. Because one must never underestimate the venality and gullibility of American political leadership, however, it is perfectly possible that this piece of political pork might be approved.

Thomas R. Stauffer is a Washington, DC-based engineer and economist who has taught the economics of energy and the Middle East at Harvard University and Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service.

Source: Enatres discussion list "

Iran frees Anti Islamic Revolutionary Journalist -DAWN - Top Stories; March 19, 2006

2006-03-19T04:49:00.000-08:00

Iran frees dissident journalist -DAWN - Top Stories; March 19, 2006:

Akbar Ganji a leader in the Anti Islamic Revolutionary Movement was reunited with his wife Massoumeh Shafie. It is anticipated that Ganji will soon travel to Washington DC to meet with AEI and AIPAC.

"Iran frees dissident journalist

TEHRAN, March 18: Iran’s most prominent political prisoner, dissident Akbar Ganji, was released late on Friday night after six years in prison. Visibly thinner and sporting a bushy beard, Mr Ganji smiled and greeted family and friends on Saturday but refused to make any comments.

“He was released at the end of his term,” Mr Ganji’s lawyer Yusef Molai said.

“To my surprise, prison officials brought him home at 10 last night. I did not expect it as the papers said he would not be released before March 30. I am extremely happy,” his wife Massoumeh Shafie said.

“I have asked him not to talk because I am very worried and do not want the same thing to happen again,” she added.

She denied there was any gag order on the fiery journalist and worried about his health after his gruelling stay behind bars.

“He has decided not to talk due to his physical conditions. He should not get tired,” Molai explained.

Mr Ganji, 46, was sentenced to six years in prison in 2001 after he wrote articles implicating several regime officials in a string of gruesome murders of opposition intellectuals and writers in 1998 — crimes that shocked Iran.

He did not give names, and instead kept readers guessing over the identity of the “Master Key” and the “Grey Eminence” — but the nicknames were widely interpreted as referring to former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and former intelligence minister Ali Fallahian.

In 2005, Mr Ganji, who for many symbolised the fighting spirit of Iran’s reform movement, denied having made any reference to Rafsanjani in his articles.

The uproar over the serial murders prompted official action, with the killings blamed on “rogue” intelligence agents. The alleged ringleader eventually committed suicide in jail by drinking hair remover.

Reformists rejoiced at the news of Ganji’s freedom even as the dissident returned to an Iran that was far more conservative than the one he left when he started his prison sentence.

“One of my best friends has been released,” said dissident cleric Mohsen Kadivar, who had come to welcome Mr Ganji at his modest Tehran apartment, two days before the Iranian New Year Nohrouz.

Mr Ganji, who was first jailed in 1997 after giving a lecture on “the theoretical foundations of fascism”, was arrested a final time in April 2000 following his participation in an academic and cultural conference at the Heinrich Boell Institute in Berlin. He was sentenced in 2001 to 10 years in prison, but the sentence was later commuted to six.—AFP"

Iran Foolishly Allows Akbar Ganji Freedom

2006-03-18T19:42:00.000-08:00

Independent Online Edition > Middle East: "18 March 2006 22:39 Home > News > World > Middle East
Iranian dissident returns home after six years in jail
By Saeed Komeijani
Published: 19 March 2006
Iran's most prominent political dissident, Akbar Ganji, has been released from prison after six years behind bars for criticising some of the most powerful figures in the Islamic Republic.

Mr Ganji, a journalist, was jailed in 2000 after writing articles linking senior officials to the serial killings of political dissidents in 1998. His articles targeted the powerful cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's President from 1989 to 1997.

A cheerful but thin and heavily bearded Mr Ganji yesterday welcomed reporters into his Tehran apartment. He stuck to pleasantries and avoided politics. "Thanks for coming," he said, grinning. "I am so sorry it is such a small place."

Lawyer Youssef Mowlaie said Mr Ganji had been released late on Friday evening. But he predicted a legal wrangle over whether he would have to return to Tehran's feared Evin prison for a few more days. Mr Mowlaie said he reckoned his client's jail term ended on 17 March, but the judiciary disagreed.

Mr Ganji spent stints in solitary confinement and fell gravely ill in July, weakened by a hunger strike aimed at persuading the authorities to release him. The reporter's case sparked outrage in the US and Europe.

Iran's most prominent political dissident, Akbar Ganji, has been released from prison after six years behind bars for criticising some of the most powerful figures in the Islamic Republic.

Mr Ganji, a journalist, was jailed in 2000 after writing articles linking senior officials to the serial killings of political dissidents in 1998. His articles targeted the powerful cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran's President from 1989 to 1997.

A cheerful but thin and heavily bearded Mr Ganji yesterday welcomed reporters into his Tehran apartment. He stuck to pleasantries and avoided politics. "Thanks for coming," he said, grinning. "I am so sorry it is such a small place."
Lawyer Youssef Mowlaie said Mr Ganji had been released late on Friday evening. But he predicted a legal wrangle over whether he would have to return to Tehran's feared Evin prison for a few more days. Mr Mowlaie said he reckoned his client's jail term ended on 17 March, but the judiciary disagreed.

Mr Ganji spent stints in solitary confinement and fell gravely ill in July, weakened by a hunger strike aimed at persuading the authorities to release him. The reporter's case sparked outrage in the US and Europe."

JTA - AIPAC Spies Supeona Rice and Hadley

2006-03-14T05:54:00.000-08:00

JTA - Breaking News: "

Ex-AIPAC staffers subpoena Rice, Hadley

Two former American Israel Public Affairs Committee staffers subpoenaed top Bush administration officials to testify at their trial.
Steve Rosen, AIPAC’s former foreign policy director, and Keith Weissman, its former Iran analyst, filed subpoenas last Friday for Condoleezza Rice, the U.S. secretary of state; Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser; Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser; William Burns, William Burns, the State Department’s former top envoy to the Middle East; David Satterfield, Burns’ former deputy and the current deputy ambassador to Iraq; and a number of former officials.

The court later suppressed the names on the subpoenas, but JTA viewed a copy of the original docket with all the names.

At least one of the targeted witnesses said he has yet to receive a subpoena.

Rosen and Weissman are charged under a never-used statute in the espionage act that criminalizes the receipt and dissemination of classified information.

They plan to argue that the conversations at the center of the indictment were routine for AIPAC lobbyists and others. AIPAC fired the two men a year ago, saying their actions did not comport with AIPAC’s standards."

Mubarak Warns Cheney Not to Attack Iran - Yahoo! News

2006-03-01T08:04:00.000-08:00

Mubarak Warns U.S. Not to Attack Iran - Yahoo! News: "Mubarak Warns U.S. Not to Attack Iran 1 hour, 14 minutes ago

CAIRO, Egypt - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak strongly advised the United States not to attack Iran, warning that military action would create more terrorists in neighboring Iraq, according to comments published Wednesday.

ADVERTISEMENT

Mubarak also told Egyptian newspaper editors he warned Vice President Dick Cheney that ground troops "will have a hard time" in such a conflict.

"If an airstrike (against Iran) takes place, then Iraq will be turned to terror groups," Mubarak was quoted as saying by the daily Al-Gomhouria.

He said Shiite Muslims in the Gulf region also could turn against the United States because "Iran generously provides for Shiites in every country and these people are ready to do anything if Iran is attacked."

"Listen to my advice for once," he recalled telling Cheney in English. "You have vital interests in the Gulf region, especially oil."

The United States and other Western governments suspect that Iran's nuclear research program is a cover for weapons development and fear that Tehran is seeking to build an atomic bomb.

Tehran insists it only wants to generate electricity.

International negotiations over the crisis are under way. Mubarak said he hoped the issue would be resolved peacefully.

When asked, he said it was unlikely Israel would launch a nuclear attack against Iran "because Iran owns ballistic missiles that it will launch against Israel and there will be huge destruction."

Mubarak added that such an attack also would spark revenge from Iraqi groups, extremists religious parties and organizations such as the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Mubarak spoke to the editors on his way back from a tour of Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia."

The Franklin case and the Five - "Don't forget to tip!”

2006-02-28T04:33:00.000-08:00

Deformed before it is born?: "The Franklin case and the Five
"Don't forget to tip!”
By Jean-Guy Allard / 27-02-2006
The most dangerous spy in recent U.S. history, Lawrence "Larry" Franklin, 59, is currently working as a parking attendant at an exclusive Casino and Racetrack in West Virginia while waiting to testify in the trial of his two accomplices.

According to a recent Wall Street Journal publication Franklin, an expert Pentagon analyst who personally advised Donald Rumsfeld, is working as a "valet" in the parking lot at the Charles Town Races & Slots, located in Charles Town, West Virginia between Baltimore and Washington D.C.

Charles Town Races & Slots is a private racetrack and casino specializing in video lottery, where 3, 800 slot machines—according to its advertisements— attract a wealthy clientele from the U.S. federal capital area.

While the Cuban Five, who were arrested by the Miami FBI, accused of espionage for infiltrating that city’s terrorist groups and given sentences including life imprisonment, wait in prison for a court decision, Franklin, a real spy, is collecting tips from gambling clients.

This situation is so absurd that a Washington Post reporter used this title in a brief commentary on the subject: "Don't Forget to Tip!”
Franklin has already enjoyed an incredible sentence reduction despite his treason. After negotiations between the spy’s lawyers and the Attorney General, Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III, of the Alexandria district of Virginia, gave him a 12-year sentence… and then freed him on bail pending the trial of two Israeli agents, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, with whom he actively collaborated.

Franklin handed over an enormous volume of information from the Pentagon on Iran, to those two individuals and another Israeli spy, Naor Gilon, then political advisor at the Israeli embassy in Washington, an action evidently behind Israel’s escalating threats of war on Iran.

But the news of Franklin’s well-paying job in the parking lot of Charles Town Races did not appear on its own.

"THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SUCCESSFUL CASE…"

It is accompanied by the rhetoric of Rosen and Weissman’s astute lawyers, who are claiming that by accusing their client of espionage, the Attorney General violated the First Amendment of the Constitution and that to sentence them would oblige the state to also bring charges against a large number of activists and journalists.

The legislation banning the unauthorized distribution of classified material has never been applied to simple citizens, stated the learned John Nassikas III, spokesman of the defense team, to the New York daily, The Sun.

"There has never been a successful case regarding the unauthorized circulation of material by individuals not under legal or contractual obligation to keep the information classified," said Nassikas.

Rosen and Weissman were lobbyists for the American Israel Political Committee (AIPAC), the most important Israeli lobby group in Washington.

Their espionage activities took place between April 1999 and August 27, 2004, during which time the FBI observed numerous meetings held with the precautions that characterized the group’s activities.

Franklin’s two accomplices are to appear before the Alexandria Federal Court on April 25.

The charges against them are that they received classified information from Franklin and distributed this information to "members of the press and foreign government agents."

The prosecution has not given a public description of the information that they allegedly distributed nor have they named the reporters or foreign agents implicated, according to The Sun.

A document summarizing the defense of the two accused was co-authored by Viet Dinh, a professor at the Georgetown University Faculty of Law, who also used to hold an important position in the Justice Department. Dinh, a constitutional expert, is famous for being one of the “architects” of the Patriot Act.

Dinh’s argument has caused controversy. "Does the First Amendment grant the right to steal and distribute vital U.S. secrets to a foreign power?" writes Justin Raimundo of Antiwar.com. The journalist ends his piece by asking if there is a double standard regarding espionage. "What would happen if Rosen and Weissman were named Abdullah and Mohammed? Or if they worked for the Muslim American Political Action Committee (MAPAC)?"

"ONE HAS TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS"

According to The Sun, the lawyers’ text also cites an eminent federal attorney, Patrick Fitzgerald, "regarding the risks in bringing charges related to the diffusion of classified information."

"One must be very cautious about applying this law because numerous interests can be implicated", said the expert during a press conference last year, upon explaining why this charge was not brought against I. Lewis Libby, the White House staffer who revealed the identity of a CIA agent.

The defense document was published by Secrecy News and circulated around the internet by the Federation of American Scientists.

Nassikas announced that Weissman is proposing to launch a defense fund to cover his court costs.

It is worth remembering how, in violation of all prison regulations and international conventions against torture and cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, Héctor Pesquera, chief of the Miami FBI, and his accomplices in the Federal Attorney’s Office, kept the Cuban Five in solitary confinement for 17 consecutive months after their arrest. Since their rigged trial, René González, Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero, Ramón Labañino and Fernando González have been held in five separate prisons scattered across the immense U.S. territory, with only extremely limited contact with their families.

Franklin is out on bail until the end of court proceedings that could drag on for years. It is unknown how the outcome of that trial will affect the subsequent review of his sentence.

In the mean time he will continue collecting money in the Charles Town parking lot."

Iran's top mullah may be on our side - Los Angeles Times

2006-02-23T05:27:00.000-08:00

Iran's top mullah may be on our side - Los Angeles Times: "Iran's top mullah may be on our side
By Dariush Zahedi and Ali Ezzatyar

Dariush Zahedi teaches international political economy and political science at UC Berkeley. In 2003, he was imprisoned in Iran on charges of espionage and later acquitted. Ali Ezzatyar is a doctoral candidate at Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law.

THE UNITED STATES has a surprising ally in its impatience with the new Iranian president. Since his inauguration, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's pugnacious demeanor has not only roiled the international community but also a significant portion of Iran's ruling elite. A coalition of traditional conservatives, pragmatists and reformists is emerging within the government to oppose Ahmadinejad's brand of governance. With Iran saying it will resume nuclear fuel research, the U.S. should do all in its power to boost the bargaining power of these more moderate Iranian leaders.

ADVERTISEMENT
The rise of the anti-Ahmadinejad faction defies the expectations of Iran analysts, who believed that the post-Khatami era would produce a monolithic conservative bloc in control of most major levers of power. Instead, the coalition is strengthening and attracting many of the regime's powerful personalities, perhaps even the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Evidence of the latter is Khamenei's recent decree giving the Expediency Council, a non-elected body headed by former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, oversight of the presidency.

Ahmadinejad's primary supporters have always been the rank and file of the country's paramilitary forces. Renowned for their fearlessness and passionate commitment to the populist ideals of the Islamic revolution, they had not dominated government before or since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's death in 1989.

The political struggle of Iran's security establishment has come full circle with Ahmadinejad's rise, which makes dealing with Tehran more difficult. The paramilitaries are the ultimate guarantors of the regime's survival. Their leaders wield enormous influence in the Islamic Republic's coercive security establishment, particularly those associated with the Revolutionary Guards. The militants also dominate the volunteer, or Basiji, militia force, believed to have more than 1 million members.

The paramilitaries are not fully tied to any one of the groups vying for power in Iran. Rather, they seek to influence domestic and foreign policy through their numbers and martial strength. They know international tensions that heighten security threats to Iran enhance their status in the power struggle. Although Ahmadinejad owes his presidency to allies in the guards and the Basiji forces, they are not totally beholden to him.

The unlikely counterbalance to Ahmadinejad could be Khamenei. He has frequently cultivated the paramilitaries since his elevation and relied on them to consolidate his power. But should the radicals attempt to direct policy without his explicit consent, Khamenei could move toward pragmatists allied with Rafsanjani and reformist supporters of former President Mohammad Khatami. The two former presidents don't want one of their few achievements in the last 16 years — Iran's moderately improved relations with the outside world — to disappear.

Contrary to popular belief, the traditional conservative clerical establishment is apprehensive about the possibility of violence inside and outside Iran. It generally opposes an aggressive foreign policy and, having some intimate ties with Iran's dependent capitalist class, is appalled at the rapid slide of the economy since Ahmadinejad's inauguration. The value of Tehran's stock market has plunged $10 billion, the nation's vibrant real estate market has withered and capital outflows are increasing.

Khamenei has intimated his readiness to distance himself from the radicals. Apart from authorizing nonpresidential bodies to supervise the three branches of government, he has instructed the Supreme Council for National Security to more fully cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency in the development of Iran's nuclear program. These moves have strengthened his institutional power and helped prevent Ahmadinejad's administration from undermining the regime's credibility.

Here is where the United States comes in. The history of U.S.-Iran relations shows that the more Washington chastises Tehran for its nuclear ambitions, the more it plays into the hands of the radicals by riling up fear and nationalist sentiment. Instead, the U.S. needs to offer Iran an acceptable face-saving mechanism to allow it to master, under appropriate international supervision, the nuclear fuel cycle. A seed planted now could even grow into the long-awaited detente between the two countries and help the U.S. extricate itself from Iraq."

Jerusalem Post | 'Allies no excuse for breaking law' By NATHAN GUTTMAN

2006-02-22T03:59:00.000-08:00

Jerusalem Post: "Feb. 22, 2006 4:02 | Updated Feb. 22, 2006 6:03
'Allies no excuse for breaking law'
By NATHAN GUTTMAN
WASHINGTON

The prosecution in the case against two former AIPAC employees stated, in a document submitted to the court, that the fact that Israel is a US ally has no bearing on the case and cannot be seen as a relevant consideration in dealing with the actions of defendants Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman.

The response to defense motions, which was filed with the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia, refers to the defense's request to obtain depositions from Israeli diplomats to prove that "any actions that happened to inure to the benefit of Israel were always seen by Israel to benefit the United States."

The prosecution responded that the law "makes no distinctions between allies or enemies, friends or foes." Referring to Israel, the prosecutors added that "it is not for any foreign nation to opine on whether the threat posed by an unauthorized disclosure of United States national defense information jeopardizes the national security of the United States or is a violation of United States law."

The statement makes it clear that the US government does not accept the notion that passing on classified information to a friendly country does not cause any harm to the US.

The government is requesting the court deny the defense motion for submission of depositions from three Israeli diplomats who were mentioned in the indictment as being in contact with the AIPAC staffers and with Larry Franklin, the former Pentagon analyst. Franklin has already been sentenced to 12 years in prison for leaking classified information to AIPAC and the Israelis.

Two of the Israeli diplomats were identified as Naor Gilon, the former political officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington and Rafi Barak, the former deputy chief of Mission.

Israel has denied the defense request to take depositions from the diplomats or to allow them to appear in court. The prosecution also asked to interview the Israeli diplomats. Though Israel did not refuse, the modalities of such an interview had not been worked out yet, according to Israeli sources.

The defense would like the Israelis to help prove their claim that Rosen and Weissman were not Israeli agents, that they had not received payment from Israel for their work, and that there were "unique circumstances" that justify the fact that Rosen did pass on information to Gilon concerning a threat that Iranian terrorists might abduct and murder Israelis working in the Kurdish region in Iraq. It was only revealed later that information about the threat was given to Rosen and Weissman by Franklin as part of a sting operation, while Franklin was cooperating with the FBI.

Judge T.S. Ellis will hear the pre-trial motions of both sides next month. Lawyers for Rosen and Weissman will ask that the case be dismissed, claiming that prosecuting the former AIPAC employees under the Espionage Act would infringe on freedom of speech and the First Amendment, as it would be the first time in which civilians who are on the receiving end of a classified leak were put on trial.

In its response to the dismissal motion, the prosecution states that the law does not distinguish between government employees and others, and claims that "an ordinary person would know that foreign officials, journalists and other persons with no current affiliation to the US government would not be entitled to receive information related to our national defense."

If the motion to dismiss the case is rejected, the jury trial will begin on April 25. "

McDonald's sued for having milk, wheat in fries-WSJ - Yahoo! News

2006-02-20T14:15:00.000-08:00

McDonald's sued for having milk, wheat in fries-WSJ - Yahoo! News: "McDonald's sued for having milk, wheat in fries-WSJ Sun Feb 19, 5:49 PM ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - McDonald's Corp. (NYSE:MCD - news) faces at least three lawsuits claiming the fast-food giant misled the public after it acknowledged earlier this week its French fries contain milk and wheat ingredients, the Wall Street Journal Online reported on Sunday.

The suits were filed by people with celiac disease, who have an intolerance to a protein found in wheat, the Journal said.

McDonald's, based in Oak Brook, Illinois, had previously described the flavoring as safe for people with food allergies and other dietary sensitivities, the Journal said."

deseretnews.com | Skousen evoked strong feelings

2006-02-19T21:19:00.000-08:00

deseretnews.com | Skousen evoked strong feelings: "Skousen evoked strong feelings

By Carrie A. Moore
Deseret Morning News
His friends and admirers saw W. Cleon Skousen as a deeply religious man who wasn't afraid to publicly marry his faith with his interpretation of constitutional principles and his disdain for communism.
W. Cleon Skousen Those who were leery of his many writings and speeches saw him as an ultra-conservative alarmist with a penchant for fueling political conspiracy theories.
So as family and friends prepare to bid him farewell at local funeral services scheduled for Saturday, Skousen's life and teachings are being remembered in a variety of ways. The former FBI special agent, Salt Lake City police chief, Brigham Young University religion teacher and founder of the Center for Constitutional Studies died on Monday at age 92.
Though they may view him in different spheres, both friends and foes knew he was passionate about his beliefs.
His son, Paul, said the modest family home in Salt Lake City has been deluged with condolences from "a lot of people from across the nation and overseas calling in once word started to get out. They're asking what was he working on, wondering whether they can get a plane in on time" for the funeral.
"He made a lot of friends in Israel, in Central and Latin America — just about everywhere. They had a great love for him. He counseled with them on politics, and on the drafting of a constitution he helped with in Canada and Latin America. Many of them admired his wisdom and understanding, and as a result want to come and offer due respect and honor for a man that helped them understand constitutional principles."
Author of 46 books, including Cold War-era tomes on communism and religious works directed at fellow members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Skousen was most widely known for his devotion to America's Founding Fathers and his interpretation of their writings. The National Center for Constitutional Studies was an outgrowth of his original Freemen Institute, both conservative think tanks that published his articles, speeches and audio tapes. Paul Skousen said his father often made hundreds of speeches a year in a wide variety of venues.
Glenn Kimber, Cleon Skousen's son-in-law, said he had the chance to travel with Skousen for 20 years, working by his side and lecturing with him in all 50 states.
"I was absolutely thrilled watching his great desire for documentation. He covered the spectrum," leaving behind a library with some 7,000 volumes, he said.
While most are books he devoured on the Founding Fathers, politics and the LDS Church, many were penned by Skousen, including scores of personal journals and "scrapbook-type" histories he kept, Kimber said.
A few years ago, Skousen had planned to establish a private library to house his holdings, but plans fell through, Kimber said. Days before he died, Kimber said Skousen told his children about his desires for the library. A deal with what Kimber described as a Provo-based "educational organization" known as FranklinSquires is in the works, and he said the library will eventually be open to the public. Copies of Skousen's writings will also be donated to Brigham Young University's Special Collections library, he said.
"People would come up and say how much they appreciated his work. Different people found him to be their friend in so many different disciplines," Kimber said.
That included friendships with people from a variety of faiths.
One of those is the Rev. Donald Sills, a Baptist minister, fellow conservative and past president of the American Freedom Coalition. He said he first met Skousen as a young pastor in Spokane, Wash., back in 1964, when he put together a meeting called the "God Bless America Rally."
"I thought the only person to do it was Cleon Skousen, and I took a lot of flak for that," as church members asked why a Mormon would be invited to address them. But the two "developed a very close relationship. We traveled throughout different parts of the world teaching the basics of free enterprise system. He was the voice of real constitutionalism. I know he had read over 200 volumes of writings of the Founding Fathers." The Rev. Sills said he found Mr. Skousen in Washington, D.C., once, sitting on the steps of the Jefferson Memorial. When he asked what Mr. Skousen was doing, the reply came, " 'I'm talking to Tom Jefferson.' That's the kind of man he was," he said. Another personal experience further endeared him to Mr. Skousen when he was invited to stay at his home in Salt Lake City. "I got up the next morning, and there was Dr. Skousen and his wife in the kitchen. He asked me if I wanted to join them in morning prayer. There they were, getting down on their knees by the table. It was absolutely marvelous."
Both were friends with former LDS Church President Ezra Taft Benson and other conservative politicos. When Mr. Skousen and the Rev. Sills organized a three-day "Making of America" conference in Salt Lake City years ago, the Rev. Sills said President Benson quipped, "If they'll take a Mormon elder with a Baptist preacher on the platform for three days, we've got a winner."He dubbed Mr. Skousen "probably the greatest constitutionalist I know. I've been in ministry for 47 years, and I admired the man, I loved him." He told Mr. Skousen's family years ago that when their father died, he wanted to be at the funeral, and "by God's grace I hope to be there."
Another admirer is Joseph Ginat, former adviser to the prime minister of Israel and now director of the Center for Peace Studies at the University of Oklahoma.
"He was in Israel over 20 times, and I went with him to meet top politicians and government ministers," Ginat said. "He always had good questions and analyzed the situation in the Middle East. He had a great love for Israel, no question about it. I think that he followed the approach of President Ezra Taft Benson, who also loved Israel very much." The two talked biblical studies and the history of the Old Testament. "He was so articulate. He explained things so every person could understand . . . and he had an excellent sense of humor that came out in his lectures."
Skousen also had plenty of critics and clashed with former University of Utah professors J.D. Williams and Obert C. Tanner, according to U. law professor Ed Firmage, who remembers working with Skousen as a young employee in his father's store in Provo. "I had talks with him when he came in and we sold him a suit or tie or shirt." While he He appreciated Mr. Skousen as a person, and even invited him to speak once to his First Amendment class at the U. But "on the issues that mattered, he and I were on opposite sides of the fence. He was way to the right — a John Birchy kind of person who really appealed to a particular brand of right-wing Mormonism at a particular time. I don't view him as a significant constitutional scholar. He had a rightward song that was ideologically driven."
Firmage said he didn't read much of Skousen's work, so "I wouldn't be much of a commentator on his writing. I know he had definite views on Israel as the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, as most rightward Christian denominations do. But I think his defense of right-wing ideas was subversive of Mormonism and notions of the Constitution." Firmage spent his early career working with Martin Luther King and Hubert Humphrey during the Cold War. "He saw Russia as bigger than it was and saw various plots and plans and schemes against the country that I think didn't exist. It was the height of the McCarthy era and he was one of the chief spokespersons."
Wrapping religion and constitutional views together as Mr. Skousen did makes political views "a religious principle for some people. That makes it impossible to see the real defenders of the Constitution when you're looking for a bogeyman all the time. It was a somewhat paranoid period in American history that we're now somewhat free of. I think we are in a better and healthier period now."

E-mail: carrie@desnews.com"

American Lap Dog Hamid Karzai Admits He was Wrong to Flee Afghanistan During The War - Yahoo! News

2006-02-18T19:40:00.000-08:00

Afghan President Warns Against Meddling - Yahoo! News: "Afghan President Warns Against Meddling By KATHY GANNON, Associated Press Writer
Sat Feb 18, 1:23 PM ET

KABUL, Afghanistan - President Hamid Karzai has a pointed warning for neighboring nations: Stop meddling in Afghan affairs, or risk seeing chaos spread from a destabilized Afghanistan across the region.

Speaking sharply during an interview with The Associated Press, Karzai said Afghans have had enough of conflict and foreign interference — the war against occupying Soviet troops in the 1980s, a civil war in the '90s, the insurgency following the U.S.-led campaign that toppled the Taliban and chased out al-Qaida training camps after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

He promised that further interference in his homeland will not go unchallenged and warned that Iran, Pakistan and others are not fooling anyone.

"We know (interference) is going on. We know that money is being brought into Afghanistan. It will not have the impact that they want it to have — not for Afghanistan and not for themselves — so they had better stop," Karzai said.

"If they don't stop, the consequences will be exactly what I said earlier. The consequences will be that this region will suffer with us, equally, as we suffer. In the past we suffered alone. This time everybody will suffer with us."

Karzai said he felt a sense of contentment with the progress his country has made since the collapse of the Taliban regime at the end of 2001. But he spoke with concern about outside attempts to manipulate Afghanistan's ethnic and religious groups and the dangers of encouraging discord in tumultuous south-central Asia.

"Any effort to divide Afghanistan ethnically or weaken it will create exactly the same things in the neighboring countries. All the countries in this neighborhood have the same ethnic groups that we have, so they should know that it is a different ball game this time," he said.

"We are bloody determined. It is not going to be Pakistan playing the Pashtun, non-Pashtun game in Afghanistan. It is not going to be Iran playing this or that game or any other country. We can play the same game with a lot more historical power, with a lot more power in our history than others can. They should know that very well."

Reflecting on Afghanistan's recent violence, and the manipulations of its neighbors, the president said his people are stronger now and know better how to face up to foreign interference.

"It won't work this time. Afghanistan has an ownership. I told you we will not be refugees again. We own this country. Afghanistan has a voice now," Karzai said.

"The past is gone. We were unaware: The Soviets came, invaded us and we went out of Afghanistan to defend our country. We defended our country and that was right, but we made a mistake by leaving our country. It was one of the biggest mistakes we made, leaving the country."

Talking without aides at his side, sitting alone at a long, heavy table in a cavernous room at the presidential palace, Karzai was passionate about Afghanistan's future and his determination to protect his country.

"The United States, Pakistan, Iran and everybody should know that this time Afghans will not become refugees. I would be one of those Afghans who would not become a refugee again," he said.

"It has to be very, very clear. That is why I am talking so clear. This is my conscience speaking, the conscience of an Afghan person.""

Iraq, Iran unintended results By Arnaud De Borchgrave

2006-02-17T14:19:00.000-08:00

Iraq, Iran unintended results: "US Features
Iraq, Iran unintended results
By Arnaud De Borchgrave
Feb 17, 2006, 19:00 GMT

WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- When Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act into law Oct. 31, 1998, it paved the way for the March 2003 shock and awe invasion of Iraq. Some $300 billion later, including $10 billion in military hardware chewed up, the meter is still running.

The law of unintended consequences has sprung yet another unpleasant surprise. The kingmaker of Baghdad is now a sworn enemy of the United States who has pledged his support to Iran should the U.S. attempt regime change there, too

Radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, who led his Mehdi army militia not once but twice against U.S. forces in 2004, has emerged from the last round of elections with a crucial swing vote of 32 seats. His latest gambit was to threaten civil war unless his choice for prime minister was accepted. It was. By one vote.

That was how Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the interim prime minister, became Iraq`s next leader. The principal architect of the Iraq Liberation Act, Ahmad Chalabi, didn`t win a single seat in parliament; he got less than half of one percent of the vote. But the \'gray eminence\' of what went wrong may yet get a cabinet job. A mathematics PhD from the University of Chicago, his specialty is finance.

This was the same Jaafari, then the interim prime minister, who took ten of his cabinet ministers last spring to Tehran (where he had lived in exile during the Saddam Hussein regime) to apologize for the eight-year Iran-Iraq war under Saddam Hussein. He returned to Baghdad with a $1 billion gift from the Iranian ayatollahs for new schools and hospitals.

When president Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the last thing he anticipated was an Islamist radical calling the shots in a democratic Iraq. A glutton for geopolitical punishment -- which our enemies must see as congenital masochism -- the administration and Congress are crab-walking into an \'Iran Liberation Act.\' The first tranche requested by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is for $75 million \'to weaken Iran from within.\'

This time it wasn`t an Iranian Chalabi type with dubious credentials, but several little Chalabis in the form of influential Christian lobby groups -- and some of our born-again neocons determined to recover their Iraqi losses. Mercifully, Congress is looking askance at the project and after testy exchanges with Dr. Rice, the administration got what it wanted -- plus $10 million already budgeted.

So far the administration`s magic potion for democracy in the Middle East has produced a majority for Hamas and its Islamist leadership, a sworn enemy of Israel and ally of Iran, in the Palestinian territories, and an alarming election sally by the long banned Muslim Brotherhood, another sworn enemy of Israel and friend of Iran, in Egypt. Hezbollah, an adjunct of Iran in Lebanon, is also comfortably installed in the parliament in Beirut.

Iran today has a dangerous, West-hating religious fanatic as president. But two recent unofficial Iranian emissaries were in Washington to advise Republicans and Democrats to be patient and to stay in lockstep with the European Union, Russia and China. If the U.S. breaks from a united international front, and goes the \'Iraq Liberation Act\' route in Iran, this will only assist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in widening a fairly narrow base of popular support. He can pose as Saladin against the heathen Americans and Zionist Jews, but he cannot take on the whole world -- without antagonizing his clerical superiors. At least, that was the argument of the two low-key emissaries.

United international pressure against Iran`s nuclear program -- and full support for the Russian compromise proposal whereby Moscow undertakes to enrich Iran`s nuclear fuel and return it short of weapons-grade uranium -- will lead the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to unload the president. So argued the two Iranians who said, \'If we weaponize nukes, others in the region will follow suit. So the non-weaponizers are now dominant but they also say they should have the capability of a full fuel enrichment cycle, just in case.\'

Khamenei, known as rahbar, or leader, is elected for life by the 86-member \'Assembly of Experts\' who themselves are elected by their provinces and have a guardian watchdog role. More important, the president has sharply limited executive powers. He doesn`t control the High Council of the Nation`s Security, the armed forces, the revolutionary guards, the intelligence services, the judiciary and broadcasting. All the important levers of power belong to rahbar.

Nor does the president have the power to dismiss parliament and call new elections. He is making \'all sorts of wild promises,\' said the two Iranians told their American interlocutors, \'and parliament is already asking him `who`s going to pay?`\'

The president who wants to wipe Israel off the map and scoffs at the Holocaust as fiction invented by the Jews draws his principal support from the very poor -- five million votes -- and Iran-Iraq war (1980-88) veterans who feel the supreme leader has deviated from the path set by his predecessor, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1979-89).

The veterans, according to the emissaries, share a deep distrust of any cooperation with the West because of the assistance given Saddam Hussein during the war. The U.S. supplied satellite intelligence of Iranian troop locations and the French sold military equipment, including 10,000 battlefield flares per day.

Ahmadinejad the verbal bomb thrower has already incurred the wrath of some senior ayatollahs by denouncing corruption. Everybody knows former president Ayatollah Rafsanjani became one of Iran`s wealthiest men while in office. Ahmadinejad defeated Rafsanjani to become the first non-clerical president since the revolution. But what he lacks in clerical credentials, he makes up in religious fanaticism.

While in Washington, the two Iranian emissaries also made clear that U.S. and/or Israeli attacks against Iran`s nuclear facilities would set the whole region ablaze against the United States. \'They have clandestine assets throughout the oil producing countries of the Gulf,\' said one of them in a barely audible voice, \'and they also remember how you were forced to leave Vietnam in 1975.\' Iran`s Shiite friends in Iraq, led by fee-faw-fum scarecrow al-Sadr, will be asked to harass U.S. troops \'as you prepare to end the occupation with honor.\'

Yuval Diskin, the head of Shin Bet, Israel`s internal security agency, said recently his country might come to regret its decision to support the U.S. invasion of Iraq. \'I`m not sure we won`t come to miss Saddam,\' he told a group of students broadcast on Israeli TV. Last throes anyone?

Copyright 2006 by United Press International"

Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/16/2006 | Swann sat out on most election days

2006-02-17T10:35:00.000-08:00

Philadelphia Inquirer | 02/16/2006 | Swann sat out on most election days: "Posted on Thu, Feb. 16, 2006
Swann sat out on most election daysBy Mario F. CattabianiInquirer Staff WriterWhen Lynn Swann votes for himself in the May Republican primary, it will be a rare springtime trip to the polls.
Despite once saying that the right to vote should never be taken for granted, Swann missed 20 of the state's 36 elections in the last 18 years - including 13 of his party's primaries, records show.
In that period, Swann missed elections for governor, U.S. senator and president, while also skipping a chance to vote on a dozen statewide referendums, including a 1989 question on property-tax reform - now a centerpiece of his campaign.
Swann, who was unanimously endorsed by the state GOP last weekend, was not available for comment yesterday. But his campaign spokeswoman, Melissa Walters, said: "He regrets not voting, and he should have voted. He encourages all Pennsylvanians to vote, and he feels that it is an important duty."
Asked why Swann missed so many votes, Walters said it was probably because he was traveling. Records from Allegheny County, where he has lived since 1983, show that Swann was aware of absentee-voting rules, because he voted by absentee ballot three times.
Swann's campaign manager, Ray Zaborney, later added: "Like many Pennsylvanians, he did not vote in every election. It was a mistake, but unlike career politicians, Lynn has not been focused on his next campaign."
By comparison, Gov. Rendell, who will face Swann in the fall, has not missed a trip to the voting booth dating back at least to 1980, records show.
"It's not for us to explain Mr. Swann's voting record," said Rendell's campaign manager, Tricia Enright. "That's between him and the voters."
In October 2004, in an interview with the Sun-Sentinel newspaper in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Swann said: "I have always been someone to believe that when you have certain freedoms, you should exercise them and not take it for granted. If you don't take part in the process and you don't vote, then I am not willing to listen to your complaints."
Swann voted by absentee ballot in the general election the month after making those comments. But earlier that year, he missed the pivotal GOP primary election in which U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter narrowly defeated challenger U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey, and Swann didn't cast votes at all in 2003.
In 1988, Swann missed the general election for George H.W. Bush, and also the reelection bid of U.S. Sen. John Heinz (R., Pa.), whom he has called his political idol.
Three years later, he did not vote in the race to fill Heinz's seat after the senator was killed in a plane crash.
In 1990, when Gov. Robert Casey was seeking reelection against Republican Barbara Hafer, Swann didn't vote. Nor did he vote the last time his party had a contested gubernatorial primary - 1994, when Tom Ridge claimed the nomination.
Since 1988, Swann has missed voting on 12 of 20 statewide ballot referendums, including several that asked whether voters supported borrowing billions of dollars for a variety of programs, from environmental initiatives to funding for volunteer fire companies.
Swann, a Hall of Fame wide receiver for the Pittsburgh Steelers, will be alone on the GOP gubernatorial ballot May 16. Last week, his major party rival, former Lt. Gov. Bill Scranton, bowed out of the race. On Tuesday, former business advocate Jim Panyard did the same.
With the field clear, Swann - a former football analyst with ABC Sports - is focusing on unseating Rendell, a veteran campaigner, in November.
And the reality of a spotty voting record doesn't help in that uphill climb, analysts said yesterday.
Still, poor voting records didn't affect fellow celebrity gubernatorial hopefuls in other states. In 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger withstood bitter campaign ads that trumpeted the fact that he missed 13 of the previous 21 elections in California.
And five years earlier, Jesse Ventura - in a campaign in Minnesota that succeeded by getting disaffected voters to the polls - had a history of his own of not bothering to vote. Of the 14 elections before his own, Ventura cast ballots in just four.
Like Schwarzenegger and Ventura, Swann is a novice politician, in his first bid for office, who is already facing pointed questions about his readiness to serve as the state's chief executive.
Swann's voting record "underscores the emerging theme of a lot of recent news coverage: that he's not prepared to run for governor," said Michael Young, a former longtime Penn State politics professor.
G. Terry Madonna, a pollster at Franklin and Marshall College, said the news was damaging to a young campaign that appeared to be building momentum. It puts the campaign on the defensive, he added.
"We have all been sort of captivated by his candidacy," Madonna said. "This is the beginning of what will become extensive scrutiny into every aspect of Swann's life. Now, the honeymoon is over."

Contact staff writer Mario F. Cattabiani at 717-787-5990 or mcattabiani@phillynews.com."

Jerusalem Post | Israeli Lobby Claims Spying Is Constitutionally Protected Free Speech

2006-02-17T08:56:00.000-08:00

Jerusalem Post | Breaking News from Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish World "Washington: Lobbying for freedom of speech

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATHAN GUTTMAN, THE JERUSALEM POST Feb. 16, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A legal document posted on the Web site of the Federation of American Scientists this week became an instant best-seller, with almost 4,000 downloads in a single day. This is remarkable, considering the fact that the document is a lengthy legal opinion under the not-so-appealing headline: "Memorandum of Law in support of Motion to Dismiss the Superseding indictments."

Yet its 63 pages tell an interesting story - a new take on what has come to be known as the "AIPAC case."

The memorandum marks a new phase in the defense efforts of former AIPAC staffers Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, charged with receiving classified information from former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin and passing it on to diplomats in the Israeli Embassy and to members of the press. Franklin was sentenced last month, as part of a plea bargain, to 12 years in prison - a sentence that is expected to be reduced significantly after he testifies against Rosen and Weissman, whose trial is scheduled for April 25 in Virginia.

This new phase is one in which the focus of the case is shifting from the question of espionage (or illegal handling of documents) to the much more fundamental issue of freedom of speech.

The person responsible for the memorandum and for turning the Rosen-Weissman criminal case into a First Amendment issue is Viet Dinh, a former senior official in the Justice Department and a well-known law professor. Why this is so significant is that, in his former capacity in the Justice Department, Dinh was one of the chief architects of the USA Patriot Act, which gave government agencies much more freedom to conduct surveillance for the purpose of gathering and sharing information about citizens for the cause of fighting terror. In other words, no one can accuse him of being soft on issues of national security or of preferring civil rights to fighting crime or terror.

These credentials make Dinh's memorandum - a request to dismiss all charges against Rosen and Weissman before the trial begins - even more valuable for the defense.

The memorandum claims that there is no base to charge Rosen and Weissman under the 90-year-old section 793 of the Espionage Act, which makes it a crime not only to disclose classified information but also to receive it. According to Dinh, invoking the Espionage Act in the Rosen-Weissman case is simply going too far.

Indeed, for the first time since the case broke in the summer of 2004, the American media has begun to deal with this very issue: If it was illegal for Rosen and Weissman to have received classified information, who will be next in line for prosecution?

In a city like Washington, which thrives on information-trading - and in which those who know more have more power - the AIPAC case is suddenly seen as a real threat.

"This is what members of the media, members of the Washington policy community, lobbyists and members of congressional staffs do perhaps hundreds of times a day," the memorandum states. "Never has a lobbyist, reporter, or any other non-government employee been charged for receiving oral information the government alleges to be national defense material as part of that person's normal First Amendment protected activities."

THE DEFENSE hopes that turning the case into a freedom-of-speech issue will not only raise public interest in the matter, but also convince the jury - in the event that the dismissal motion is rejected - that what Rosen and Weissman did is simply common practice in the Washington information business. Furthermore, if anyone - namely the court - tries to tamper with this practice, it would deal a severe blow to the cornerstone of the Constitution by silencing the media, whistle-blowers and political activists.

Indeed, redefining the meaning of "common practice" in the American capital may be precisely what the AIPAC case is really about.

If so, it is not all that different from another recent case, in which a federal investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame led to the imprisonment of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and to a grand jury investigation of other journalists.

The message in both cases is similar: Leaking is no longer acceptable to this administration and anyone who is involved in it, no matter on which end of the leak, will be dealt with harshly.

Both cases are now on their way to court - Rosen and Weissman in the near future, and the Plame case at a later date, as part of the Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial. At the end of the day, what emerges from these two trials can define the way business is done in Washington for years to come.

If receiving classified information turns out to be a punishable crime, then the whole practice of journalism and political advocacy will have to undergo major adjustments. One opinion writer has already suggested that if Rosen and Weissman are found guilty, not only reporters, but even readers, could be accused under the same Espionage Act.

The prosecution in the AIPAC case would rather steer clear of the First Amendment issue. It is building its case on a simple reading of the law, claiming, in essence, that the accused knew they were receiving classified information which they were not supposed to receive.

Judge T.S. Ellis, who will hear the case, has already given an indication of his views on the matter, saying he did not see any difference between a government employee, such as Franklin, and "academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever" where dealing with classified information is concerned.

But the Virginia jury will really be deciding on a greater principle. The prosecution would like the case to be seen as an isolated case of two lobbyists who simply broke the rules and should pay the price for their actions. The defense will try to claim that it is actually freedom of speech in the United States that is on the stand, not two mere individuals."

Vice President Cheney Interviewed by Fox News - 1 Day to get the Alcohol out of his system.

2006-02-16T08:14:00.000-08:00

Vice President Cheney Interviewed�by Fox News: "Transcript
Vice President Cheney Interviewed by Fox News
Source: Office of the Vice President
Wednesday, February 15, 2006; 6:03 PM

INTERVIEW OF THE VICE PRESIDENT BY BRIT HUME, FOX NEWS

Vice President's Ceremonial Office

This photo provided by the White House shows Vice President Dick Cheney, left, talking with Brit Hume of Fox News in his office in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006. The vice president talked about the accidental shooting of friend and fellow hunter Harry Whittington on the Armstrong Ranch in Armstrong, Texas. (AP Photo/David Bohrer, White House) (David Bohrer - AP)

Eisenhower Executive Office Building 2:01 P.M. EST

Q Mr. Vice President, how is Mr. Whittington?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, the good news is he's doing very well today. I talked to him yesterday after they discovered the heart problem, but it appears now to have been pretty well resolved and the reporting today is very good.

Q How did you feel when you heard about that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it's a great relief. But I won't be, obviously, totally at ease until he's home. He's going to be in the hospital, apparently, for a few more days, and the problem, obviously, is that there's always the possibility of complications in somebody who is 78-79 years old. But he's a great man, he's in great shape, good friend, and our thoughts and prayers go out to he and his family.

Q How long have you known him?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I first met him in Vail, Colorado, when I worked for Gerry Ford about 30 years ago, and it was the first time I'd ever hunted with him.

Q Would you describe him as a close friend, friendly acquaintance, what --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, an acquaintance.

Q Tell me what happened?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, basically, we were hunting quail late in the day --

Q Describe the setting.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's in south Texas, wide-open spaces, a lot of brush cover, fairly shallow. But it's wild quail. It's some of the best quail hunting anyplace in the country. I've gone there, to the Armstrong ranch, for years. The Armstrongs have been friends for over 30 years. And a group of us had hunted all day on Saturday --

Q How many?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, probably 10 people. We weren't all together, but about 10 guests at the ranch. There were three of us who had gotten out of the vehicle and walked up on a covey of quail that had been pointed by the dogs. Covey is flushed, we've shot, and each of us got a bird. Harry couldn't find his, it had gone down in some deep cover, and so he went off to look for it. The other hunter and I then turned and walked about a hundred yards in another direction --

Q Away from him?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Away from him -- where another covey had been spotted by an outrider. I was on the far right --

Q There was just two of you then?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Just two of us at that point. The guide or outrider between us, and of course, there's this entourage behind us, all the cars and so forth that follow me around when I'm out there -- but bird flushed and went to my right, off to the west. I turned and shot at the bird, and at that second, saw Harry standing there. Didn't know he was there --

Q You had pulled the trigger and you saw him?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I saw him fall, basically. It had happened so fast.

Q What was he wearing?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: He was dressed in orange, he was dressed properly, but he was also -- there was a little bit of a gully there, so he was down a little ways before land level, although I could see the upper part of his body when -- I didn't see it at the time I shot, until after I'd fired. And the sun was directly behind him -- that affected the vision, too, I'm sure.

But the image of him falling is something I'll never be able to get out of my mind. I fired, and there's Harry falling. And it was, I'd have to say, one of the worst days of my life, at that moment.

Q Then what?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we went over to him, obviously, right away --

Q How far away from you was he?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I'm guessing about 30 yards, which was a good thing. If he'd been closer, obviously, the damage from the shot would have been greater.

Q Now, is it clear that -- he had caught part of the shot, is that right?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: -- part of the shot. He was struck in the right side of his face, his neck and his upper torso on the right side of his body.

Q And you -- and I take it, you missed the bird.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I have no idea. I mean, you focused on the bird, but as soon as I fired and saw Harry there, everything else went out of my mind. I don't know whether the bird went down, or didn't.

Q So did you run over to him or --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Ran over to him and --

Q And what did you see? He's lying there --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: He was laying there on his back, obviously bleeding. You could see where the shot had struck him. And one of the fortunate things was that I've always got a medical team, in effect, covering me wherever I go. I had a physician's assistant with me that day. Within a minute or two he was on the scene administering first-aid. And --

Q And Mr. Whittington was conscious, unconscious, what?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: He was conscious --

Q What did you say?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I said, "Harry, I had no idea you were there." And --

Q What did he say?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: He didn't respond. He was -- he was breathing, conscious at that point, but he didn't -- he was, I'm sure, stunned, obviously, still trying to figure out what had happened to him. The doc was fantastic --

Q What did you think when you saw the injuries? How serious did they appear to you to be?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I had no idea how serious it was going to be. I mean, it could have been extraordinarily serious. You just don't know at that moment. You know he's been struck, that there's a lot of shot that had hit him. But you don't know -- you think about his eyes. Fortunately, he was wearing hunting glasses, and that protected his eyes. You -- you just don't know. And the key thing, as I say, initially, was that the physician's assistant was right there. We also had an ambulance at the ranch, because one always follows me around wherever I go. And they were able to get the ambulance there, and within about 30 minutes we had him on his way to the hospital.

Q And what did you do then? Did you get up and did you go with him, or did you go to the hospital?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, I had -- I told my physician's assistant to go with him, but the ambulance is crowded and they didn't need another body in there. And so we loaded up and went back to ranch headquarters, basically. By then, it's about 7:00 p.m. at night. And Harry --

Q Did you have a sense then of how he was doing?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, we're getting reports, but they were confusing. Early reports are always wrong. The initial reports that came back from the ambulance were that he was doing well, his eyes were open. They got him into the emergency room at Kingsville --

Q His eyes were open when you found him, then, right?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. One eye was open. But they got him in the emergency room in the small hospital at Kingsville, checked him out further there, then lifted him by helicopter from there into Corpus Christi, which has a big city hospital and all of the equipment.

Q So by now what time is it?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't have an exact time line, although he got there sometime that evening, 8:00 p.m., 9:00 p.m.

Q So this is several hours after the incident?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I would say he was in Kingsville in the emergency room probably within, oh, less than an hour after they left the ranch.

Q Now, you're a seasoned hunter --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I am, well, for the last 12, 15 years.

Q Right, and so you know all the procedures and how to maintain the proper line and distance between you and other hunters, and all that. So how, in your judgment, did this happen? Who -- what caused this? What was the responsibility here?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, ultimately, I'm the guy who pulled the trigger that fired the round that hit Harry. And you can talk about all of the other conditions that existed at the time, but that's the bottom line. And there's no -- it was not Harry's fault. You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend. And I say that is something I'll never forget.

Q Now, what about this -- it was said you were hunting out of vehicles. Was that because you have to have the vehicles, or was that because that's your -- the way you chose to hunt that day?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, the way -- this is a big ranch, about 50,000 acres. You cover a lot of territory on a quail hunt. Birds are oftentimes -- you're looking for coveys. And these are wild quail, they're not pen-raised. And you hunt them -- basically, you have people out on horseback, what we call outriders, who are looking for the quail. And when they spot them, they've got radios, you'll go over, and say, get down and flush the quail. So you need --

Q So you could be a distance of a miles from where you spot quail until the next place you may find them?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, usually you'll be, you know, maybe a few hundred yards. Might be farther than that; could be a quarter of a mile.

Q Does that kind of hunting only go forward on foot, or is it mostly --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, you always -- in that part of the country, you always are on vehicles, until you get up to where the covey is. Then you get off -- there will be dogs down, put down; the dogs will point to covey. And then you walk up on the covey. And as the covey flushes, that's when you shoot.

Q Was anybody drinking in this party?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No. You don't hunt with people who drink. That's not a good idea. We had --

Q So he wasn't, and you weren't?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct. We'd taken a break at lunch -- go down under an old -- ancient oak tree there on the place, and have a barbecue. I had a beer at lunch. After lunch we take a break, go back to ranch headquarters. Then we took about an hour-long tour of ranch, with a ranch hand driving the vehicle, looking at game. We didn't go back into the field to hunt quail until about, oh, sometime after 3:00 p.m.

The five of us who were in that party were together all afternoon. Nobody was drinking, nobody was under the influence.

Q Now, what thought did you give, then, to how -- you must have known that this was -- whether it was a matter of state, or not, was news. What thought did you give that evening to how this news should be transmitted?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, my first reaction, Brit, was not to think: I need to call the press. My first reaction is: My friend, Harry, has been shot and we've got to take care of him. That evening there were other considerations. We wanted to make sure his family was taken care of. His wife was on the ranch. She wasn't with us when it happened, but we got her hooked up with the ambulance on the way to the hospital with Harry. He has grown children; we wanted to make sure they were notified, so they didn't hear on television that their father had been shot. And that was important, too.

But we also didn't know what the outcome here was going to be. We didn't know for sure what kind of shape Harry was in. We had preliminary reports, but they wanted to do a CAT scan, for example, to see how -- whether or not there was any internal damage, whether or not any vital organ had been penetrated by any of the shot. We did not know until Sunday morning that we could be confident that everything was probably going to be okay.

Q When did the family -- when had the family been informed? About what time?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, his wife -- his wife knew as he was leaving the ranch --

Q Right, what about his children?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I didn't make the calls to his children, so I don't know exactly when those contacts were made. One of his daughters had made it to the hospital by the next day when I visited. But one of the things I'd learned over the years was first reports are often wrong and you need to really wait and nail it down. And there was enough variation in the reports we were getting from the hospital, and so forth -- a couple of people who had been guests at the ranch went up to the hospital that evening; one of them was a doctor, so he obviously had some professional capabilities in terms of being able to relay messages. But we really didn't know until Sunday morning that Harry was probably going to be okay, that it looked like there hadn't been any serious damage to any vital organ. And that's when we began the process of notifying the press.

Q Well, what -- you must have recognized, though, with all your experience in Washington, that this was going to be a big story.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, true, it was unprecedented. I've been in the business for a long time and never seen a situation quite like this. We've had experiences where the President has been shot; we've never had a situation where the Vice President shot somebody.

Q Not since Aaron Burr.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Not since Aaron Burr --

Q Different circumstances.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Different circumstances.

Q Well, did it occur to you that sooner was -- I mean, the one thing that we've all kind of learned over the last several decades is that if something like this happens, as a rule sooner is better.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, if it's accurate. If it's accurate. And this is a complicated story.

Q But there were some things you knew. I mean, you knew the man had been shot, you knew he was injured, you knew he was in the hospital, and you knew you'd shot him.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Correct.

Q And you knew certainly by sometime that evening that the relevant members of his family had been called. I realize you didn't know the outcome, and you could argue that you don't know the outcome today, really, finally.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: As we saw, if we'd put out a report Saturday night on what we heard then -- one report came in that said, superficial injuries. If we'd gone with a statement at that point, we'd have been wrong. And it was also important, I thought, to get the story out as accurately as possible, and this is a complicated story that, frankly, most reporters would never have dealt with before, so --

Q Had you discussed this with colleagues in the White House, with the President, and so on?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I did not. The White House was notified, but I did not discuss it directly, myself. I talked to Andy Card, I guess it was Sunday morning.

Q Not until Sunday morning? Was that the first conversation you'd had with anybody in the -- at the White House?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q And did you discuss this with Karl Rove at any time, as has been reported?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: No, Karl talks to -- I don't recall talking to Karl. Karl did talk with Katherine Armstrong, who is a good mutual friend to both of us. Karl hunts at the Armstrong, as well --

Q Say that again?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I said Karl has hunted at the Armstrong, as well, and we're both good friends of the Armstrongs and of Katherine Armstrong. And Katherine suggested, and I agreed, that she would go make the announcement, that is that she'd put the story out. And I thought that made good sense for several reasons. First of all, she was an eye-witness. She'd seen the whole thing. Secondly, she'd grown up on the ranch, she'd hunted there all of her life. Third, she was the immediate past head of the Texas Wildlife and Parks Department, the game control commission in the state of Texas, an acknowledged expert in all of this.

And she wanted to go to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, which is the local newspaper, covers that area, to reporters she knew. And I thought that made good sense because you can get as accurate a story as possible from somebody who knew and understood hunting. And then it would immediately go up to the wires and be posted on the website, which is the way it went out. And I thought that was the right call.

Q What do you think now?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I still do. I still think that the accuracy was enormously important. I had no press person with me, I didn't have any press people with me. I was there on a private weekend with friends on a private ranch. In terms of who I would contact to have somebody who would understand what we're even talking about, the first person that we talked with at one point, when Katherine first called the desk to get hold of a reporter didn't know the difference between a bullet and a shotgun -- a rifle bullet and a shotgun. And there are a lot of basic important parts of the story that required some degree of understanding. And so we were confident that Katherine was the right one, especially because she was an eye-witness and she could speak authoritatively on it. She probably knew better than I did what had happened since I'd only seen one piece of it.

Q By the next morning, had you spoken again to Mr. Whittington?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: The next morning I talked to his wife. And then I went to the hospital in Corpus Christi and visited with him.

Q When was that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, it was shortly after noon on Sunday.

Q Now, by that time had the word gone out to the newspaper?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I believe it had. I can't remember what time Katherine actually talked to the reporter. She had trouble that morning actually finding a reporter. But they finally got connected with the reporter, and that's when the story then went out.

Q Now, it strikes me that you must have known that this was going to be a national story --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Oh, sure.

Q -- and it does raise the question of whether you couldn't have headed off this beltway firestorm if you had put out the word to the national media, as well as to the local newspaper so that it could post it on its website. I mean, in retrospect, wouldn't that have been the wise course --

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, who is going to do that? Are they going to take my word for what happened? There is obviously --

Q Well, obviously, you could have put the statement out in the name of whoever you wanted. You could put it out in the name of Mrs. Armstrong, if you wanted to. Obviously, that's -- she's the one who made the statement.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Exactly. That's what we did. We went with Mrs. Armstrong. We had -- she's the one who put out the statement. And she was the most credible one to do it because she was a witness. It wasn't me in terms of saying, here's what happened, it was --

Q Right, understood. Now, the suspicion grows in some quarters that you -- that this was an attempt to minimize it, by having it first appear in a little paper and appear like a little hunting incident down in a remote corner of Texas.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: There wasn't any way this was going to be minimized, Brit; but it was important that it be accurate. I do think what I've experienced over the years here in Washington is as the media outlets have proliferated, speed has become sort of a driving force, lots of time at the expense of accuracy. And I wanted to make sure we got it as accurate as possible, and I think Katherine was an excellent choice. I don't know who you could get better as the basic source for the story than the witness who saw the whole thing.

Q When did you first speak to -- if you spoke to Andy Card at, what, mid-day, you said, on Sunday?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Sometime Sunday morning.

Q And what about -- when did you first -- when, if ever, have you discussed it with the President?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I talked to him about it yesterday, or Monday -- first on Monday, and then on Tuesday, too.

Q There is reporting to the effect that some in the White House feel you kind of -- well, look at what Scott McClellan went through the last couple days. There's some sense -- and perhaps not unfairly so -- that you kind of hung him out to dry. How do you feel about that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, Scott does a great job and it's a tough job. It's especially a tough job under these conditions and circumstances. I had a bit of the feeling that the press corps was upset because, to some extent, it was about them -- they didn't like the idea that we called the Corpus Christi Caller-Times instead of The New York Times. But it strikes me that the Corpus Christi Caller-Times is just as valid a news outlet as The New York Times is, especially for covering a major story in south Texas.

Q Well, perhaps so, but isn't there an institution here present at the White House that has long-established itself as the vehicle through which White House news gets out, and that's the pool?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I had no press person with me, no coverage with me, no White House reporters with me. I'm comfortable with the way we did it, obviously. You can disagree with that, and some of the White House press corps clearly do. But, no, I've got nothing but good things to say about Scott McClellan and Dan Bartlett. They've got a tough job to do and they do it well. They urged us to get the story out. The decision about how it got out, basically, was my responsibility.

Q That was your call.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That was my call.

Q All the way.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: All the way. It was recommended to me -- Katherine Armstrong wanted to do it, as she said, and I concurred in that; I thought it made good sense.

Q Now, you're talking to me today -- this is, what, Wednesday?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Wednesday.

Q What about just coming out yourself Monday/Tuesday -- how come?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, part of it obviously has to do with the status of Harry Whittington. And it's a difficult subject to talk about, frankly, Brit. But most especially I've been very concerned about him and focused on him and feel more comfortable coming out today because of the fact that his circumstances have improved, he's gotten by what was a potential crisis yesterday, with respect to the developments concerning his heart. I think this decision we made, that this was the right way to do it.

Q Describe if you can your conversations with him, what you've said to him and the attitude he's shown toward you in the aftermath of this.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: He's been fantastic. He's a gentleman in every respect. He oftentimes expressed more concern about me than about himself. He's been in good spirits, unfailingly cheerful --

Q What did he say about that? You said, "expressed concern" about you -- what did he say?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, when I first saw him in the hospital, for example, he said, look, he said, I don't want this to create problems for you. He literally was more concerned about me and the impact on me than he was on the fact that he'd been shot. He's a -- I guess I'd describe him as a true Texas gentleman, a very successful attorney, successful businessman in Austin; a gentleman in every respect of the word. And he's been superb.

Q For you, personally, how would you -- you said this was one of the worst days of your life. How so?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: What happened to my friend as a result of my actions, it's part of this sudden, you know, in less than a second, less time than it takes to tell, going from what is a very happy, pleasant day with great friends in a beautiful part of the country, doing something I love -- to, my gosh, I've shot my friend. I've never experienced anything quite like that before.

Q Will it affect your attitude toward this pastime you so love in the future?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I can't say that. You know, we canceled the Sunday hunt. I said, look I'm not -- we were scheduled to go out again on Sunday and I said I'm not going to go on Sunday, I want to focus on Harry. I'll have to think about it.

Q Some organizations have said they hoped you would find a less violent pastime.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it's brought me great pleasure over the years. I love the people that I've hunted with and do hunt with; love the outdoors, it's part of my heritage, growing up in Wyoming. It's part of who I am. But as I say, the season is ending, I'm going to let some time pass over it and think about the future.

Q On another subject, court filings have indicated that Scooter Libby has suggested that his superiors -- unidentified -- authorized the release of some classified information. What do you know about that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: It's nothing I can talk about, Brit. This is an issue that's been under investigation for a couple of years. I've cooperated fully, including being interviewed, as well, by a special prosecutor. All of it is now going to trial. Scooter is entitled to the presumption of innocence. He's a great guy. I've worked with him for a long time, have enormous regard for him. I may well be called as a witness at some point in the case and it's, therefore, inappropriate for me to comment on any facet of the case.

Q Let me ask you another question. Is it your view that a Vice President has the authority to declassify information?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: There is an executive order to that effect.

Q There is.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Have you done it?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, I've certainly advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions. The executive order --

Q You ever done it unilaterally?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't want to get into that. There is an executive order that specifies who has classification authority, and obviously focuses first and foremost on the President, but also includes the Vice President.

Q There have been two leaks, one that pertained to possible facilities in Europe; and another that pertained to this NSA matter. There are officials who have had various characterizations of the degree of damage done by those. How would you characterize the damage done by those two reports?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: There clearly has been damage done.

Q Which has been the more harmful, in your view?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I don't want to get into just sort of ranking them, then you get into why is one more damaging than the other. One of the problems we have as a government is our inability to keep secrets. And it costs us, in terms of our relationship with other governments, in terms of the willingness of other intelligence services to work with us, in terms of revealing sources and methods. And all of those elements enter into some of these leaks.

Q Mr. Vice President, thank you very much for doing this.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Brit.

END 2:28 P.M. EST"

Gary Wasserman Argues That Israeli Sying Is A Good Thing - in the Washington Post

2006-02-16T04:33:00.000-08:00

Plugging Leaks, Chilling Debate: "Plugging Leaks, Chilling Debate

By Gary Wasserman
Thursday, February 16, 2006; Page A27

"Persons who have unauthorized possession, who come into unauthorized possession of classified information, must abide by the law. That applies to academics, lawyers, journalists, professors, whatever."

-- Judge T.S. Ellis III

The judge was speaking last month after sentencing a former Pentagon desk officer for Iran to prison for sharing classified information too widely. It didn't seem to matter that Lawrence Franklin was a conservative former Air Force colonel who was using contacts outside of government to lobby for a harder line on Iran. In a week when an American soldier was given no more than a reprimand for smothering an Iraqi general to death, Franklin's 12 1/2 -year sentence was a reminder that this is an administration more horrified by leaks than torture.

The judge's comments were directed to a related trial that he will oversee on April 25 of two former staffers for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC): Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman. They face the possibility of 10 years in prison for allegedly having classified information verbally leaked by Franklin and others and passing it along to reporters and diplomats.

Not content with jailing an employee for mishandling classified material, the government is applying to private citizens a never-used part of the 1917 Espionage Act. Its expanding secrecy powers threaten to paralyze public participation in making foreign policy. The experts, lobbyists and journalists who, in the normal routines of their jobs, discuss confidential information could now become criminals.

No one disputes that verbal leaks occurred; two years of FBI wiretaps on AIPAC recorded them. But despite all this wiretap evidence, the government felt it necessary to add a "sting" operation, which was engineered with Franklin's help in the summer of 2004. Having "flipped" Franklin after finding confidential documents that he had carelessly brought home to work on, the government had him call the AIPAC lobbyists -- whom he hadn't spoken to in a year -- on a supposedly life-or-death matter. He claimed that Iran was planning to kidnap and kill Americans and Israelis working in Iraq. Franklin said he wanted to warn the White House, something that he, as a mid-level analyst, didn't have the clout to do himself.

The lobbyists fell for the appeal to save lives. They contacted a Post reporter and an Israeli diplomat and tried, unsuccessfully, to reach the National Security Council. Months afterward, under what former staffers say was considerable pressure from the government, AIPAC fired them. A year after the sting they were indicted. U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty announced the indictments last August, declaring that "when it comes to classified information, there is a clear line in the law." Alas, nothing could be less clear.

Information is the lifeblood of policymaking. Expanding restrictions on information adds greatly to the power of the executive; criminalizing citizens' contact with that information adds even greater uncertainty. Any Washington power lunch touching on national security issues -- between Reporter A or Lobbyist B and Official C -- inevitably contains something that someone has classified. Who's to know what's legal? Are "classified" White House discussions about Hurricane Katrina to be treated the same as troop movements? Even if the information is classified, is the official authorized to disclose it? In a long conversation, where is the "clear line"? For some leaks Bob Woodward gets a bestseller; Steve Rosen may get jail.

Officials have their own uses for leaks. In the past AIPAC has provided an informal back channel to the Israeli government. Giving a lobbyist details about illegal Israeli settlements is a diplomatic warning to Jerusalem, but only if he passes them on. How is he to know the difference between an authorized official and an FBI sting?

For better or worse, the rules of this game have traditionally been enforced by the players. Reporters receiving national security leaks have shown them to officials for confirmation and comment. Advocates and experts who spread information meant only for their ears were cut off from further briefings. This rough-and-ready marketplace lasted throughout the Cold War. Now a more fearful leadership finds such practices intolerable.

One argument for why autocratic regimes such as pre-World War II Germany and Japan have engaged in risky foreign adventures is that these narrow elites are not subject to the kind of outside review by knowledgeable people that exists in democracies. The run-up to the Iraq war has raised questions about whether America's marketplace of ideas in foreign policy is still viable. Did the Bush administration's success in gaining public approval for its invasion of Iraq have something to do with its ability to control secret information in a way that muted doubts about inflated claims of Iraqi threats?

Judge Ellis has it backward. A democratic government does not, in general, "authorize" the information citizens are allowed. Given enough information, citizens authorize and control their government. Or at least we used to.

The writer teaches lobbying at Georgetown University, where he is an adjunct professor of government."

Cheney Says He Has OK to Declassify Info - Yahoo! News

2006-02-15T19:11:00.000-08:00

Cheney Says He Has OK to Declassify Info - Yahoo! News: "Cheney Says He Has OK to Declassify Info By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney disclosed Wednesday that he has the power to declassify sensitive government information, authority that could set up a criminal defense for his former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

Cheney's disclosure comes a week after reports that Libby testified under oath he was authorized by superiors in 2003 to disclose highly sensitive prewar information to reporters. The information, about Iraq and alleged weapons of mass destruction, was used by the Bush administration to bolster its case for invading Iraq.

At the time of Libby's contacts with reporters in June and July 2003, the administration including Cheney, who was among the war's most ardent proponents, faced growing criticism. No weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq, and Bush supporters were anxious to show that the White House had relied on prewar intelligence projecting a strong threat from such weapons.

When Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald revealed Libby's assertions to a grand jury that he had been authorized by his superiors to spread sensitive information, the prosecutor did not specify which superiors.

But in an interview on Fox News Channel, Cheney said there is an executive order that gives the vice president, along with the president, the authority to declassify information.

"I have certainly advocated declassification. I have participated in declassification decisions," Cheney said, while refusing to elaborate.

A legal expert said Cheney's TV appearance could foreshadow a Libby defense.

Former Whitewater independent counsel Robert Ray said Cheney's ex-chief of staff could point to authorization from his superiors as part of his strategy at trial.

"If it turns out that Cheney was actively involved in decisions related to the disclosure of a CIA officer's identity and if the truth of it is that he was orchestrating the disclosure of information to the media, it seems to me that's a fundamentally different case than one centered around the activities of Libby," said Ray.

On Oct. 28 of last year, Libby was indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about how he learned of the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame and what he told reporters about it.

In July 2003, Plame's CIA identity was published by columnist Robert Novak eight days after Plame's husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. Wilson concluded that it was highly doubtful that a purported sale of uranium yellowcake by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990s had ever taken place.

A defense that Libby was authorized by superiors to leak sensitive data about Iraq would not appear to provide any help to the former Cheney aide for making false statements.

But some lawyers point out that setting up defenses before a jury involves more than simply constructing legal arguments.

"You're trying to present a persuasive case that your client should not be found guilty," said Ray, the former Whitewater prosecutor. "You're saying that even if my client did it, this is not a case that warrants conviction."

An authorization defense in the CIA leak case would mean that "much of what Libby was trying to do was aid and protect his boss Cheney," Ray suggested. The downside to employing such a approach is that it "almost comes with a defense that I did it.""

Why U.S. Intelligence Failed, Redux By Robert Parry

2006-02-15T05:02:00.000-08:00

Consortiumnews.com: "Why U.S. Intelligence Failed, Redux
By Robert Parry
February 13, 2006

Paul Pillar, the CIA's senior intelligence analyst for the Middle East from 2000 to 2005, has written a critique of the Bush administration's handling of pre-war intelligence on Iraq that, in effect, corroborates the British “Downing Street Memo” in accusing the Bush administration of rigging the evidence to justify the invasion.

The British memo recounted a July 23, 2002, meeting in which Richard Dearlove, chief of the British intelligence agency MI6, told Prime Minister Tony Blair about discussions in Washington with George W. Bush's top national security officials. “Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy,” Dearlove said, according to the minutes.

After the “Downing Street Memo” was revealed in Great Britain in 2005, Bush's spokesmen heatedly denied its claims and major U.S. news outlets dismissed its significance. But in the upcoming issue of Foreign Affairs magazine, Pillar offers a matching account. He wrote that the administration didn't just play games with the traditional notion that objective analysis should inform responsible policy, but “turned the entire model upside down.”

“The administration used intelligence not to inform decision-making, but to justify a decision already made,” Pillar wrote. “The Bush administration deviated from the professional standard not only in using policy to drive intelligence, but also in aggressively using intelligence to win public support for its decision to go to war. This meant selectively adducing data -- 'cherry-picking' -- rather than using the intelligence community's own analytic judgments.”

These two accounts -- which are further bolstered by first-hand statements from former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and Colin Powell's former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson -- reveal an administration long determined to invade Iraq and assembling reasons that would scare the American people into supporting an unprovoked war.

Yet, while the American public has a right to be furious about getting tricked into a war that has killed nearly 2,300 U.S. soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqis, there are other concerns about why the U.S. intelligence community let itself be so manipulated, staying silent when a strong protest to Congress might have derailed Bush's scheme.

On Oct. 23, 2003, Consortiumnews.com addressed this longer-range question of why U.S. intelligence failed. That story, which is reprinted in an updated form below, shows that the politicization of intelligence has been a goal of neoconservative operatives for three decades. They have long understood the value of turning the principle of objective analysis on its head:

In Tom Clancy’s political thriller “Sum of All Fears,” the United States and Russia are being pushed to the brink of nuclear war by neo-Nazi terrorists who have detonated a nuclear explosion in Baltimore and want the Americans to blame the Russians.

CIA analysts have pieced together the real story but can’t get it to the president. “The president is basing his decisions on some really bad information,” analyst Jack Ryan (Ben Affleck) pleads to a U.S. general. “My orders are to get the right information to the people who make the decisions.”

Though a bit corny, Ryan’s dialogue captures the credo of professional intelligence analysts. Solid information, they believe, must be the foundation for sound decisions, especially when lives and the national security are at stake. The battle over that principle is the real back story to the dispute over Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction. It is a story of how the CIA’s vaunted analytical division has been corrupted – or “politicized” – by right-wing ideologues over the past quarter century.

Some key officials in George W. Bush’s administration – from former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to Vice President Dick Cheney – have long been part of this trend toward seeing intelligence as an ideological weapon, rather than a way to inform a full debate. Other figures in Bush’s circle of advisers, including his father, the former president and CIA director, have played perhaps even more central roles in this transformation. [More on this below. Also see Robert Parry's Secrecy & Privilege.]

For his part, the younger George Bush has shown little but disdain for any information that puts his policies or “gut” judgments in a negative light. In that sense, Bush’s thin skin toward contradiction can’t be separated from the White House campaign, beginning in July 2003, to discredit retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson for publicly debunking the Bush administration’s claim that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger. That retaliation included the exposure of Wilson’s wife as an undercover CIA officer.

Dating Back to Watergate

Though one cost of corrupting U.S. intelligence can now be counted in the growing U.S. death toll in Iraq, the origins of the current problem can be traced back to the mid-1970s, when conservatives were engaged in fierce rear-guard defenses after the twin debacles of the Vietnam War and Watergate. In 1974, after Republican President Richard Nixon was driven from office over the Watergate political-spying scandal, the Republicans suffered heavy losses in congressional races. The next year, the U.S. –backed government in South Vietnam fell.

At this crucial juncture, a group of influential conservatives coalesced around a strategy of accusing the CIA’s analytical division of growing soft on communism. These conservatives – led by the likes of Richard Pipes, Paul Nitze, William Van Cleave, Max Kampelman, Eugene Rostow, Elmo Zumwalt and Richard Allen – claimed that the CIA’s Soviet analysts were ignoring Moscow’s aggressive strategy for world domination. This political assault put in play one of the CIA’s founding principles – objective analysis.

Since its creation in 1947, the CIA had taken pride in maintaining an analytical division that stayed above the political fray. The CIA analysts – confident if not arrogant about their intellectual skills – prided themselves in bringing unwanted news to the president’s door. Those reports included an analysis of Soviet missile strength that contradicted John F. Kennedy’s “missile gap” rhetoric or the debunking of Lyndon Johnson’s assumptions about the effectiveness of bombing in Vietnam. While the CIA’s operational division got itself into trouble with risky schemes, the analytical division maintained a fairly good record of scholarship and objectivity.

But that tradition came under attack in 1976 when conservative outsiders demanded and were granted access to the CIA’s strategic intelligence on the Soviet Union. Their goal was to contest the analytical division’s assessments of Soviet capabilities and intentions. The conservatives saw the CIA’s tempered analysis of Soviet behavior as the underpinning of then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s strategy of détente, the gradual normalizing of relations with the Soviet Union. Détente was, in effect, a plan to negotiate an end to the Cold War or at least its most dangerous elements.

This CIA view of a tamer Soviet Union had enemies inside Gerald Ford’s administration. Hard-liners, such as William J. Casey, John Connally, Clare Booth Luce and Edward Teller, sat on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. Another young hard-liner, Dick Cheney, was Ford’s chief of staff. Donald Rumsfeld was then – as he is today – the secretary of defense.

Team B

The concept of a conservative counter-analysis, which became known as “Team B,” had been opposed by the previous CIA director, William Colby, as in inappropriate intrusion into the integrity of the CIA’s analytical product. But the new CIA director, a politically ambitious George H.W. Bush, was ready to acquiesce to the right-wing pressure.

“Although his top analysts argued against such an undertaking, Bush checked with the White House, obtained an O.K., and by May 26 [1976] signed off on the experiment with the notation, ‘Let her fly!!,” wrote Anne Hessing Cahn after reviewing “Team B” documents that were released more than a decade ago. [See “Team B: The Trillion Dollar Experiment,” The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.]

The senior George Bush offered the rationale that Team B would simply be an intellectual challenge to the CIA’s official assessments. The elder Bush’s rationale, however, assumed that Team B didn’t have a pre-set agenda to fashion a worst-case scenario for launching a new and intensified Cold War. What was sometimes called Cold War II would demand hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayers’ money for military projects, including big-ticket items like a missile-defense system. [One member of Team B, retired Lt. Gen. Daniel Graham, would become the father of Ronald Reagan “Star Wars” missile defense system.]

Not surprisingly, Team B did produce a worst-case scenario of Soviet power and intentions. Gaining credibility from its access to secret CIA data, Team B challenged the assessment of the CIA’s professional analysts who held a less alarmist view of Moscow’s capabilities and intentions. “The principal threat to our nation, to world peace and to the cause of human freedom is the Soviet drive for dominance based upon an unparalleled military buildup,” wrote three Team B members Pipes, Nitze and Van Cleave.

Team B also brought to prominence another young neo-conservative, Paul Wolfowitz. A quarter century later, Wolfowitz would pioneer the post-Cold War strategy of U.S. preemptive wars against countries deemed potential threats by using the same technique of filtering the available intelligence to build a worst-case scenario. In 2001, George W. Bush made Wolfowitz deputy secretary of defense under Rumsfeld.

Though Team B’s analysis of the Soviet Union as a rising power on the verge of overwhelming the United States is now recognized by intelligence professionals and many historians as a ludicrous fantasy, it helped shape the national security debate in the late 1970s. American conservatives and neo-conservatives wielded the analysis like a club to bludgeon more moderate Republicans and Democrats, who saw a declining Soviet Union desperate for arms control and other negotiations.

Reagan's Rise

Scary assessments of Soviet power and U.S. weakness also fueled Ronald Reagan’s campaign in 1980, and after his election, the Team B hard-liners had the keys to power. As Reagan and his vice presidential running mate, George H.W. Bush, prepared to take office, the hard-liners wrote Reagan’s transition team report, which suggested that the CIA analytical division was not simply obtuse in its supposed failure to perceive Soviet ascendancy, but treasonous.

“These failures are of such enormity,” the transition team report said, “that they cannot help but suggest to any objective observer that the agency itself is compromised to an unprecedented extent and that its paralysis is attributable to causes more sinister than incompetence.” [For details, see Mark Perry’s Eclipse.]

With Reagan in power, the Team B analysis of Soviet capabilities and intentions became the basis for a massive U.S. military buildup. It also was the justification for U.S. support of brutal right-wing governments in Central America and elsewhere.

Since Soviet power was supposedly on the rise and rapidly eclipsing the United States, it followed that even peasant uprisings against “death squad” regimes in El Salvador or Guatemala must be part of a larger Soviet strategy of world conquest, an assault on the “soft underbelly” of the U.S. southern border. Any analysis of these civil wars as primarily local conflicts arising from long-standing social grievances was dismissed as fuzzy thinking or worse.

In the first few months of the Reagan administration, the hard-liners’ animosity toward the CIA’s analytical division intensified as it resisted a series of accusations against the Soviet Union. The CIA analysts were obstacles to the administration’s campaign to depict Moscow as responsible for virtually all acts of international terrorism, including the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II in Rome in 1981.

With William Casey installed as CIA director and also serving in Reagan’s Cabinet, the assault on the analytical division moved into high gear. Casey put the analytical division under the control of his protégé, Robert Gates, who had made his name as an anti-Soviet hard-liner. Gates then installed a new bureaucracy within the DI, or Directorate of Intelligence, with his loyalists in key positions.

“The CIA’s objectivity on the Soviet Union ended abruptly in 1981, when Casey became the DCI [director of central intelligence] – and the first one to be a member of the president’s Cabinet. Gates became Casey’s deputy director for intelligence in 1982 and chaired the National Intelligence Council,” wrote former CIA senior analyst Melvyn Goodman. [See Foreign Policy magazine, summer 1997.]

Analysts Under Fire

Under Gates, CIA intelligence analysts found themselves the victims of bureaucratic pummeling. According to several former CIA analysts whom I interviewed, analysts faced job threats; some were berated or even had their analytical papers thrown in their faces; some were subjected to allegations of psychiatric unfitness.

The Gates leadership team proved itself responsive to White House demands, giving serious attention to right-wing press reports from around the world. The Reagan administration, for instance, wanted evidence to support right-wing media claims that pinned European terrorism on the Soviets. The CIA analysts, however, knew the charges were bogus partly because they were based on “black” or false propaganda that the CIA's operations division had been planting in the European media.

The attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II in 1981 was viewed as another opportunity to make propaganda points against what Reagan called the “evil empire.” Though the attack had been carried out by a neo-fascist extremist from Turkey, conservative U.S. writers and journalists began to promote allegations of a secret KGB role. In this case, CIA analysts knew the charges were false because of the CIA’s penetration of East Bloc intelligence services.

But responding to White House pressure in 1985, Gates closeted a special team to push through an administration-desired paper linking the KGB to the attack. Though the analysts opposed what they believed to be a dishonest intelligence report, they couldn’t stop the paper from leaving CIA and being circulated around Washington.

As the CIA’s traditions of analytical objectivity continued to erode in the 1980s, analysts who raised unwelcome questions in politically sensitive areas found their jobs on the line.

For instance, analysts were pressured to back off an assessment that Pakistan was violating nuclear proliferation safeguards with the goal of building an atomic bomb. At the time, Pakistan was assisting the Reagan administration’s covert operation in Afghanistan, which was considered a higher priority than stopping the spread of nuclear weapons. In Afghanistan, the CIA’s operations division and the Pakistani intelligence service were helping Islamic fundamentalists, including Osama bin Laden, battle Soviet troops.

One analyst involved in the Pakistan nuclear-bomb assessment told me that the CIA higher-ups applied almost the opposite standards that were used two decades later in alleging an Iraqi nuclear program. In the Pakistani case, the Reagan administration blocked warnings about a Pakistani bomb “until the last bolt was turned” while more recently on Iraq, speculative worst-case scenarios were applied, the analyst said.

One consequence of giving Pakistan a pass on proliferation was that Pakistan did succeed in developing nuclear weapons, which have contributed to an escalating arms race with India in South Asia. It also has created the potential for Islamic extremists to gain control of the Bomb by taking power in Pakistan.

Missing the Fall

The politicization of intelligence in the 1980s had other effects. Under pressure always to exaggerate the Soviet threat, analysts had no incentive to point out the truth, which was that the Soviet Union was a decaying, corrupt and inefficient regime tottering on the brink of collapse. To justify soaring military budgets and interventions in Third World conflicts, the Reagan administration wanted the Soviets always to be depicted as 10 feet tall.

Ironically, this systematic distortion of the CIA’s Soviet intelligence assessments turned out to be a political win-win for Reagan and his supporters.

Not only did Congress appropriate hundreds of billions of dollars for military projects favored by the conservatives, the U.S. news media largely gave Reagan the credit when the Soviet Union “suddenly” collapsed in 1991. The CIA did take some lumps for “missing” one of the most significant political events of the century, but Reagan’s success in “winning the Cold War” is now enshrined as conventional wisdom.

The accepted version of events goes this way: the Soviets were on the ascendance before Reagan took office, but thanks to Reagan’s strategic missile defense program and his support for right-wing insurgencies, such as arming contra rebels in Nicaragua and Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan, the Soviet Union fell apart.

A more realistic assessment would point out that the Soviets had been in decline for decades, largely from the devastation caused by World War II and the effective containment strategies followed by presidents from Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower to Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. The rapid development of technology in the West and the lure of Western consumer goods accelerated this Soviet collapse.

But the U.S. news media never mounted a serious assessment of how the Cold War really was won. The conservative press corps naturally pressed its favored theme of Reagan turning the tide, while a complacent mainstream press offered little additional context.

'Politicization'

The plight of the CIA analysts in the 1980s also received little attention in Washington amid the triumphalism of the early 1990s. The story did surface briefly in 1991 during Gates’s confirmation hearings to become President George H.W. Bush’s CIA director. Then, a group of CIA analysts braved the administration’s wrath by protesting the “politicization of intelligence.”

Led by Soviet specialist Mel Goodman, the dissidents fingered Gates as the key “politicization” culprit. Their testimony added to doubts about Gates, who was under a cloud for his dubious testimony on the Iran-Contra scandal and allegations that he had played a role in another covert scheme to assist Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. But the elder George Bush lined up solid Republican backing and enough accommodating Democrats – particularly Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman David Boren – to push Gates through.

Boren’s key staff aide who limited the investigation of Gates was George Tenet, whose behind-the-scenes maneuvering on Gates’s behalf won the personal appreciation of the senior George Bush. Those political chits would serve Tenet well a decade later when the younger George Bush protected Tenet as his own CIA director, even after the intelligence failure of Sept. 11, 2001, and embarrassing revelations about faulty intelligence on Iraq’s WMD.

In the early 1990s. with the Cold War over, the need for objective intelligence also seemed less pressing. Political leaders apparently didn’t grasp the potential danger of allowing a corrupted U.S. intelligence process to remain in place. There was a brief window for action with Bill Clinton’s election in 1992, but the incoming Democrats lacked the political will to demand serious reform.

The “politicization” issue was put squarely before Clinton’s incoming national security team by former CIA analyst Peter Dickson, who wrote a two-page memo on Dec. 10, 1992, to Samuel “Sandy” Berger, a top Clinton national security aide. Dickson was an analyst who suffered retaliation after refusing to rewrite a 1983 assessment that noted Soviet restraint on nuclear proliferation. His CIA superiors didn’t want to give the Soviets any credit for demonstrating caution on the nuclear technology front. When Dickson stood by his evidence, he soon found himself facing accusations about his psychological fitness.

Dickson urged Clinton to appoint a new CIA director who understood “the deeper internal problems relating to the politicization of intelligence and the festering morale problem within the CIA.” In urging a housecleaning, Dickson wrote, “This problem of intellectual corruption will not disappear overnight, even with vigorous remedial action. However, the new CIA director will be wise if he realizes from the start the dangers in relying on advice of senior CIA office managers who during the past 12 years advanced and prospered in their careers precisely because they had no qualms about suppressing intelligence or slanting analysis to suit the interest of Casey and Gates.”

The appeals from Dickson and other CIA veterans were largely ignored by Clinton and his top aides, who were more interested in turning around the U.S. economy and enacting some modest social programs. Although Gates was removed as CIA director, Clinton appointed James Woolsey, a neo-conservative Democrat who had worked closely with the Reagan-Bush administrations. Under Woolsey and Clinton’s subsequent CIA directors, the Gates team sans Gates consolidated its bureaucratic power.

The old ideal of intelligence analysis free from political taint was never restored. Clinton’s final CIA director was George Tenet, who was kept on by George W. Bush in 2001. In violation of the CIA’s long-standing tradition of avoiding even the appearance of partisanship, Tenet happily presided over the ceremony that renamed the CIA’s Langley, Va., headquarters the George Bush Center for Intelligence, after George Bush senior.

The Iraq Debacle

Tenet also has proved himself a loyal bureaucrat to the second Bush administration. For instance, in February 2003 when Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the United Nations Security Council about Iraq’s alleged WMD program, Tenet was prominently seated behind Powell, giving the CIA’s imprimatur to Powell’s assertions that turned out to be a mixture of unproved assertions, exaggerations and outright lies. At one point in his speech, Powell even altered the text of intercepted conversations between Iraqi officials to make their comments appear incriminating. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s "Bush's Alderaan."]

“If one goes back to that very long presentation [by Powell], point by point, one finds that this was not a very honest explanation,” said Greg Thielmann, a former senior official in the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research, in an interview with PBS Frontline. “I have to conclude Secretary Powell was being a loyal secretary of state, a ‘good soldier’ as it were, building the administration’s case before the international community.” [For details, see Frontline’s “Truth, War and Consequences.”]

In the Foreign Affairs article, Pillar noted that Powell's U.N. speech also compromised the objectivity of the CIA on Iraq because “the intelligence community was pulled over the line into policy advocacy -- not so much by what it said as by its conspicuous role in the administration's public case for war. This was especially true when the intelligence community was made highly visible (with the director of central intelligence literally in the camera frame) in [Powell's] intelligence-laden presentation.”

Pillar added that the CIA also was compromised “in the fall of 2002, when, at the administration's behest, the intelligence community published a white paper on Iraq's WMD programs -- but without including any of the community's judgments about the likelihood of those weapons' being used.”

Though Tenet’s primary responsibility should have been to the integrity of the intelligence product, he was helping Powell and the White House present a largely bogus case before the U.N.

After the March 2003 invasion, as the case for Iraq’s possession of trigger-ready WMD fell apart, the Washington debate turned to who was at fault for the shoddy intelligence.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on June 25, 2003, Army Lt. Gen. John Abizaid offered a clue when he compared the accuracy of tactical intelligence in the Iraq war versus the faulty strategic intelligence.

“Intelligence was the most accurate that I have ever seen on the tactical level, probably the best I’ve ever seen on the operational level, and perplexingly incomplete on the strategic level with regard to weapons of mass destruction,” said Abizaid, who heads the U.S. Central Command, which is responsible for Iraq.

In other words, the intelligence handled by low-level personnel was excellent. It was the intelligence that went through senior levels of the Bush administration that failed.

The WMD issue really came down to two questions: Was the CIA’s intelligence analysis that bad or did the White House cherry-pick the intelligence that it wanted to march the country off to war? The answer appears to be that both points were true. A thoroughly politicized CIA slanted the intelligence in the direction that Bush wanted and the White House then trimmed off any caveats the CIA may have included.

The CIA’s internal complaint that it was just the victim of administration ideologues was undercut by its own analytical products, including a post-invasion report claiming that two captured Iraqi trailers were labs to produce chemical or biological weapons. That claim later collapsed as evidence emerged to show that the labs were for making hydrogen for artillery weather balloons. [For an early critique of this CIA report, see Consortiumnews.com’s "America's Matrix."]

Plus, while Tenet and other CIA officials noted that they objected to other bogus administration claims, such as the assertion that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium from Niger, those protests were mostly half-hearted and made behind closed doors. Bush was only forced to back off the yellowcake claim, which he cited in his 2003 State of the Union Address, after former Ambassador Wilson went public with evidence that the allegation was a fraud.

'Stovepipe'

Yet it's also true that the Bush administration didn't want to chance having its Iraqi WMD allegations vetted by any serious intelligence professionals. So, at the State Department, Pentagon and White House, senior political officials created their own channels for accessing raw or untested intelligence that was then used to buttress the charges.

In a New Yorker article about CIA analysts on the defensive, journalist Seymour Hersh described this “stovepiping” process of sending raw intelligence to the top. Intelligence agencies have historically objected to this technique because policy makers will tend to select unvetted information that serves their purposes and use it to discredit the more measured assessments of intelligence professionals.

“The analysts at the CIA were beaten down defending their assessments,” a former CIA official told Hersh. “And they blame Tenet for not protecting them. I’ve never seen a government like this.” [See Hersh’s “The Stovepipe,” The New Yorker, Oct. 27, 2003]

Pillar wrote that the battle between the intelligence analysts and the policymakers came to a head over the White House desire to assert that Saddam Hussein was connected to al-Qaeda, a claim that the intelligence analysts had rejected despite repetitious demands from Vice President Cheney's office that the CIA corroborate the supposed link.

“The administration's rejection of the intelligence community's judgments became especially clear with the formation of a special Pentagon unit, the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group,” Pillar wrote. “The unit, which reported to Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, was dedicated to finding every possible link between Saddam and al-Qaeda, and its briefing accused the intelligence community of faulty analysis for failing to see the supposed alliance.”

But the intelligence analysts weren’t the only ones coming under attack for pointing out evidence that didn’t conform to the Bush administration’s propaganda. From the start of its drive to invade Iraq, the administration treated going to war like a giant public relations game, with the goal of manufacturing consent or at least silencing any meaningful opposition.

Evidence that undermined Bush’s conclusions was minimized or discarded. People who revealed unwanted evidence were personally discredited or intimidated. When former Ambassador Wilson reported that he had been assigned by the CIA to investigate the Niger yellowcake claims and found them bogus, administration officials leaked the fact that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, was an undercover CIA officer. The leak destroyed Plame's career and may have put at risk agents who worked with her.

'Slime and Defend'

Though Bush publicly denounced the leak, an unnamed Republican aide on Capitol Hill told the New York Times that the underlying White House strategy was to “slime and defend,” that is to “slime” Wilson and “defend” Bush. [NYT, Oct. 2, 2003]

The “slime and defend” strategy has been carried forward by conservative news outlets with the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Washington Times attacking Wilson's motives, even as Wilson’s debunking of the Niger allegations has been borne out by other investigations.

“Joseph C. Wilson IV, the man accusing the White House of a vendetta against his wife, is an ex-diplomat turned Democratic partisan,” declared a front-page article in the Washington Times. “Mr. Wilson told the Washington Post he and his wife are already discussing who will play them in the movie.” [Washington Times, Oct. 2, 2003]

The Washington Times returned to its anti-Wilson campaign several days later. “As for Mr. Wilson himself, his hatred of Mr. Bush’s policies borders on the pathological,” wrote Washington Times columnist Donald Lambro on Oct. 6, 2003. “This is a far-left Democrat who has been relentlessly bashing the president’s Iraq war policies. … The mystery behind this dubious investigation is why this Bush-hater was chosen for so sensitive a mission.”

The Wall Street Journal also raised questions about Wilson’s motives. “Joe Wilson (Ms. Plame’s husband) has made no secret of his broad disagreement with Bush policy since outing himself with an op-ed,” the Journal wrote in a lead editorial on Oct. 3, 2003.

Strangely, these attacks on Wilson’s alleged bias (which he denies) continued even as Bush’s hand-picked Iraqi weapons inspector David Kay was confirming Wilson’s findings. In his report to the CIA and Congress, Kay acknowledged that no evidence has been found to support the stories about Iraq seeking African uranium.

“To date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material,” Kay said.

The disconnect between fact and spin apparently has grown so complete among Bush’s allies that they can’t stop attacking Wilson’s findings as biased even when the facts he uncovered are being confirmed by one of Bush’s own investigators.

The clumsy attempt to discredit or punish Wilson eventually led to disclosures that Bush's chief political adviser Karl Rove and Cheney's chief of staff Lewis Libby took part in revealing Plame's identity to reporters. In 2005, Libby was indicted on charges of obstructing justice and lying to investigators about the leak. Rove apparently remains under investigation.

'Freedom Fries'

But the attacks on Wilson do not stand alone. In the drive to limit debate about Bush’s case for war, his allies ostracized virtually all major critics of the administration’s WMD claims, including the U.N.’s chief weapons inspector Hans Blix and former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter.

Blacklisting campaigns also were mounted against celebrities, such as actor Sean Penn and the music group Dixie Chicks, for criticizing Bush’s rush to war. When France urged more time for U.N. weapons inspections, Bush’s supporters organized boycotts of French products, poured French wine in gutters and renamed “French fries” as “Freedom Fries.”

As with the Wilson case, Bush and his supporters didn't let the failure to find the alleged trigger-ready WMD stop their efforts to discredit these critics. Instead of apologies, for instance, Ritter continued to suffer from conservative smears about his patriotism.

In one particularly smarmy performance on June 12, 2003, Fox News anchor Bill O’Reilly teamed up with Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., to air suspicions that Ritter had been bribed by the Iraqis to help them cover up their illegal weapons. Neither O’Reilly nor Pence had any evidence that Ritter accepted a bribe, so they framed the segment as a demand that the FBI investigate Ritter with the purported goal of clearing him of any suspicion of treason.

The segment noted that a London newspaper reporter had found Iraqi documents showing that Ritter had been offered some gold as gifts for his family. “I turned down the gifts and reported it to the FBI when I came back,” Ritter said in an interview with Fox News.

Though Ritter’s statement stood uncontradicted, O’Reilly and Pence demanded that the FBI disclose what it knew about Ritter’s denial. “Now, we want to know whether that was true,” said O’Reilly about whether Ritter had reported the alleged bribe. “The FBI wouldn’t tell us.” O’Reilly then asked Pence what he had done to get the FBI to investigate Ritter.

“After that report in the British newspaper, many of us on Capitol Hill were very concerned,” Pence said. “Candidly, Bill, there’s no one who’s done more damage to the argument of the United States that Iraq was in possession of large stores of weapons of mass destruction leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom other than Scott Ritter, and so the very suggestion that … there’s evidence of treasonous activity or even bribery, I believe, merits an investigation. I contacted the attorney general about that directly.”

Pence’s point was clear – that Ritter’s role as a skeptic about Bush’s WMD claims made him an appropriate target for a treason investigation. [Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor,” June 12, 2003]

Backward Filter

Time and again, Bush and his administration have replaced the principle that good intelligence makes for good policy with the near-opposite approach: you start with a conclusion and then distort all available information to sell the pre-ordained policy to a gullible, ill-informed or frightened public.

The WMD intelligence was pushed through a kind of backward filter. Instead of removing the imprecision that comes with raw intelligence, the Bush administration’s intelligence process shoved through the dross as long as it fit with Bush’s goal of bolstering political support for the war and removed the refined intelligence that undercut his desired actions.

Unlike the fictional president in Tom Clancy's “Sum of All Fears” – who was tricked into that “really bad information” – Bush and his team have actively sought out the bad information and assembled it as justification for going to war. This administration, which can sometimes act in a manner stranger-than-fiction, didn't just peer into the fog of war. It set up the fog machine.

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'"

White House misused Iraq intelligence: ex-official - Yahoo! News

2006-02-10T11:00:00.000-08:00

White House misused Iraq intelligence: ex-official - Yahoo! News: "White House misused Iraq intelligence: ex-official By David Morgan
1 hour, 2 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East during the Iraq invasion accused the White House of misusing prewar intelligence to justify its case for war.

Paul Pillar, who was national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, also said the Senate intelligence committee and a presidential commission overlooked evidence that the Bush administration politicized the intelligence process to support White House policymakers.

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar said in an article written for the March/April issue of Foreign Affairs and posted on the magazine's Web site on Friday.

"If the entire body of official intelligence analysis on Iraq had a policy implication, it was to avoid war -- or, if war was going to be launched, to prepare for a messy aftermath," he said.

Pillar was not immediately available for comment. A CIA spokesman said Pillar was expressing his own personal point of view and not the official views of the spy agency.

The CIA and other agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community have been widely criticized for prewar Iraq intelligence including the claim that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, which was a main justification for the war. No such weapons have been found.

'CHERRY-PICKING' INTELLIGENCE

But Pillar, a widely respected intelligence analyst who spent 28 years at the CIA, said it has become clear since the 2003 invasion that the White House did not use official intelligence analysis in making even the most significant national security decisions.

Policymakers instead employed a "cherry-picking" approach that selected pieces of raw intelligence that seemed most favorable to its WMD claims and the charge of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.

The White House ignored intelligence reports that said Iraq was not fertile ground for democracy and warned of a long, difficult turbulent post-invasion period that would require a Marshall Plan-type effort to restore the country's economy despite its abundant oil reserves.

Reports also predicted an occupying force would be a target of resentment and attacks including guerrilla warfare.

Pillar said the Bush administration politicized Iraq intelligence by repeatedly calling for more material that would contribute to its case for war, a tactic that he said skewed intelligence resources toward topics favoring the White House.

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the WMD commission have both concluded in official reports that there was no evidence of White House political pressure.

"But the method of investigation used by the panels -- essentially, asking analysts whether their arms had been twisted -- would have caught only the crudest attempts at politicization," Pillar wrote."

Libby: White House 'Superiors' OK'd Leaks - Yahoo! News

2006-02-10T04:19:00.000-08:00

Libby: White House 'Superiors' OK'd Leaks - Yahoo! News: "Libby: White House 'Superiors' OK'd Leaks By TONI LOCY, Associated Press Writer
39 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney told a federal grand jury that his superiors authorized him to give secret information to reporters as part of the Bush administration's defense of intelligence used to justify invading Iraq, according to court papers.

Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in documents filed last month that he plans to introduce evidence that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff, disclosed to reporters the contents of a classified National Intelligence Estimate in the summer of 2003.

The NIE is a report prepared by the head of the nation's intelligence operations for high-level government officials, up to and including the president. Portions of NIEs are sometimes declassified and made public. It is unclear whether that happened in this instance.

In a Jan. 23 letter to Libby's lawyers, Fitzgerald said Libby also testified before the grand jury that he caused at least one other government official to discuss an intelligence estimate with reporters in July 2003.

"We also note that it is our understanding that Mr. Libby testified that he was authorized to disclose information about the NIE to the press by his superiors," Fitzgerald wrote.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan refused to comment. "Our policy is that we are not going to discuss this when it's an ongoing legal proceeding," he said.

William Jeffress, Libby's lawyer, said, "There is no truth at all" to suggestions that Libby would try to shift blame to his superiors as a defense against the charges.

Libby, 55, was indicted late last year on charges that he lied to FBI agents and the grand jury about how he learned CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity and when he subsequently told reporters. He is not charged with leaking classified information from an intelligence estimate report.

Plame's identity was published in July 2003 by columnist Robert Novak after her husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the administration of twisting intelligence about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium in Niger. The year before, the CIA had sent Wilson to Niger to determine the accuracy of the uranium reports.

Wilson's revelations cast doubt on President Bush's claim in his 2003 State of the Union address that Niger had sold uranium to Iraq to develop a nuclear weapon as one of the administration's key justifications for going to war in Iraq.

On Thursday, Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., said Cheney should take responsibility if he authorized Libby to share classified information with reporters.

"These charges, if true, represent a new low in the already sordid case of partisan interests being placed above national security," Kennedy said. "The vice president's vindictiveness in defending the misguided war in Iraq is obvious. If he used classified information to defend it, he should be prepared to take full responsibility."

In the summer of 2003, White House officials — including Libby — were frustrated that the media were incorrectly reporting that Cheney had sent Wilson to Niger and had received a report of his findings in Africa before the war in Iraq had begun.

In an effort to counter those reports, Libby and other White House officials sought information from the CIA regarding Wilson and how his trip to Niger came about, according to court records.

Fitzgerald, in his letter to Libby's lawyers, said he plans to use Libby's grand jury testimony to support evidence pertaining to the White House aide's meeting with former New York Times reporter Judith Miller.

During the meeting with Miller on July 8, Libby also discussed Plame, Fitzgerald said. "Our anticipated basis for offering such evidence is that such facts are inextricably intertwined with the narrative of the events of spring 2003, as Libby's testimony itself makes plain," the prosecutor wrote.

Miller spent 85 days in jail for refusing to discuss her source."

Abramoff says he did indeed meet Bush - Politics - MSNBC.com

2006-02-09T18:49:00.000-08:00

Abramoff says he did indeed meet Bush - Politics - MSNBC.com: "Abramoff says Bush met, even joked, with him
Statement follows White House claim that president does not know lobbyist

Updated: 8:34 p.m. ET Feb. 9, 2006
WASHINGTON - Jack Abramoff said in correspondence made public Thursday that President Bush met him “almost a dozen” times, disputing White House claims Bush did not know the former lobbyist at the center of a corruption scandal.

“The guy saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids. Perhaps he has forgotten everything, who knows,” Abramoff wrote in an e-mail to Kim Eisler, national editor for the Washingtonian magazine.

Abramoff added that Bush also once invited him to his Texas ranch.

The messages were made public by the American Progress Action Fund, a liberal activist group. Eisler confirmed their accuracy to Reuters but said he did not intend them to become public.

“They reflect the feeling of frustration he has not just with Bush but with all these guys claiming they didn’t know him,” said Eisler, who knew Abramoff through a book he wrote about the Pequot Indian tribe.

Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud charges in early January and is cooperating with prosecutors in a corruption probe that could implicate lawmakers and officials across Washington.

Alleged photos show the two together
Bush has said he never had a discussion with Abramoff and does not remember having his picture taken with him.

The White House has said Abramoff attended three Hanukkah receptions at the White House.

Eisler said he had seen five photographs of Abramoff with Bush, none taken at Hanukkah parties.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Thursday that the revelations did not prove Bush knew him well.

“I think as the president also indicated, he’s taken at least five photos with many people in this room at the annual holiday reception. And so I think you need to put this in context,” McClellan said.

Abramoff spokesman Andrew Blum declined to comment.

Abramoff raised more than $100,000 for Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign, a feat that won him an invitation to Bush’s ranch in August 2003, the National Journal reported at the time.

“I was invited during the 2004 campaign,” Abramoff told Eisler.

Turned down invitation to Bush’s ranch
Abramoff said he did not make the trip because as an Orthodox Jew he cannot travel on Saturdays.

In the wake of Abramoff’s indictment, the Bush-Cheney campaign said it would donate to charity $6,000 in contributions made by Abramoff or his clients, but not the money he helped raise.

The White House has acknowledged he participated in a few staff-level meetings at the White House.

Although the Abramoff scandal has mostly focused attention so far on prominent House Republicans, including former Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, at least two Bush administration officials have been implicated.

David Safavian, a former White House budget official, has been charged with lying and obstructing investigations into his 2002 golf outing to Scotland with Abramoff.

Stephen Griles, the former No. 2 official at the Interior Department, has come under scrutiny after allegations he tried to block a casino at Abramoff’s request.

Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters."

Forward: Israel Led the Charge to the Iraq War

2006-02-09T05:36:00.000-08:00

THE HOUR: Knowing What We Don't Know: "Forward Forum
THE HOUR: Knowing What We Don't Know
By leonard fein
February 10, 2006

Here's a puzzle, a small piece of a much larger set of nagging issues that bubbles just beneath the surface of our ordinary lives: On December 23, 2005, Lawrence Kaplan, a senior editor of The New Republic, asserted in The Wall Street Journal that "Israeli officials were lukewarm about the war [in Iraq] from the outset, being far more concerned with the threat from Iran."

Yet now we have a book by James Risen, national security correspondent for The New York Times, titled "State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration," that argues the exact opposite.

In a section on the prewar jockeying in Washington, Risen describes the role of Paul Wolfowitz, then undersecretary of defense. Wolfowitz, he writes, found the CIA "insufficiently hawkish," believed it "an arrogant, rogue institution... unwilling to support administration policymakers." Specifically, Wolfowitz insisted on examining "the possibility that Saddam Hussein was behind the [September 11] attacks on the United States," a possibility that the CIA discounted.

Now comes the kicker: "Israeli intelligence played a hidden role in convincing Wolfowitz that he couldn't trust the CIA... Israeli intelligence officials frequently traveled to Washington to brief top American officials, but CIA analysts were often skeptical of Israeli intelligence reports, knowing that Mossad had very strong — even transparent — biases about the Arab world." Wolfowitz, who "had begun meeting personally with top Israeli intelligence officials," preferred the Mossad's analysis to the CIA's.

Now it cannot be that Israeli officials were at one and the same time "lukewarm about the war" yet busy shuttling back and forth to encourage Wolfowitz's evident eagerness for that same war. From all that we know regarding Wolfowitz and his ideological associates — Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and others — the Risen version seems to me the more plausible.

"Plausible" is the problem. We are these days awash in a surge in speculation, deep into a set of plausible yet inconclusive allegations and explanations, charges and counter-charges, in which the rumored role of Israel and of Israel's supporters is too close to the heart of the drama for comfort.

The leading current example, but scarcely the only one, is the approaching trial of Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, late of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee but now accused of "unlawfully, knowingly and willfully" conspiring from about April 1999 until about August 27, 2004, to "communicate national defense information to persons not entitled to receive it." The source of the information was Larry Franklin, a Pentagon expert on Iran who has agreed to cooperate with the prosecution; the "persons" to whom the information was transmitted were officials at the Israeli embassy in Washington.

When the story first broke, it was widely believed that Rosen and Weissman were inadvertently caught up in an FBI investigation of Franklin. Now, however, it appears that the investigation was actually of Aipac; the language of the indictment suggests that Aipac was under investigation for more than five years.

That fact alone, one presumes, should have shocked the entire Jewish community; Aipac is its creature. And then you have the prospective implication, at trial, of a swath of top Pentagon officials — Wolfowitz, Feith and others — as well as the potential involvement of Lewis "Scooter" Libby from the office of the vice president, himself under indictment for his role in the Valerie Plame affair.

Many dots, and so far no solid information on whether or how they are connected. But the question necessarily arises: Do these diverse dots connect back to the American intervention in Iraq? After all, it is roughly the same cast of characters that insistently drummed up the case for that intervention.

And: Is current American policy toward Iran now being "played" the way that American policy toward Iraq was before the war? Obviously, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map and who has repeatedly denied the reality of the Holocaust, is a despicable fellow. It seems entirely appropriate that the United States and its European allies are taking a tough line regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions.

But does not the case of Iraq teach us to beware those who would cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war? How much do we know — really know — about Iran? How much do we not know?

Do we, as Rumsfeld might put it, even know what it is we do not know? (It was Risen who broke the story on warrantless eavesdropping by the National Security Agency; until he did, we did not know what we did not know.)

More parochially, what are we to make of an ongoing FBI investigation of our community's leading pro-Israel lobby? Is this the old dual-loyalty canard raising its ugly head yet again? Was this Aipac recklessness induced by hubris, the result of an arrogance fed by Aipac's grand success in marshaling Congress on Israel's behalf?

And is Neal Sher, former executive director of Aipac, correct in his assertions in a recent letter addressed to the committee's board that the upshot of all this static is a chastened, even cowed Aipac, a timorous Aipac afraid to do battle where yesterday it was almost offensively bold?

It is no secret that there are more than a few people in Washington who are delighted to see Aipac getting what they regard as its comeuppance. Among them are even some members of Congress who have long resented Aipac's allegedly strong-arm tactics.

But such schadenfreude aside, where do those who care for Israel now go? And how and when can we disentangle America's consensual policy toward Israel from its controversial policies regarding Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and other nations in the explosive Middle East?"

Gordon B. Hinckley so devestated by death of Skouson that he is hospitalized

2006-01-27T11:22:00.000-08:00

Church: Mormon Leader, 95, in Hospital - Yahoo! News:

Gordon B. Hinckley thought to be guided by Cleon Skouson is devestated by the loss of the Prophet's Prophet. Speculation abounds that Hinckley may call for the end of the Chuch of Jesus of Laterday Saints.

"Church: Mormon Leader, 95, in Hospital Tue Jan 24, 7:18 PM ET

SALT LAKE CITY - Gordon B. Hinckley, the 95-year-old president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, was hospitalized Tuesday for what church officials described as a routine procedure.

Hinckley, president of the 12 million-member Mormon church since 1995, was at an undisclosed hospital Tuesday afternoon, church spokeswoman Kim Farah said.

No other details, including which hospital and the nature of the medical procedure, were immediately available.

Hinckley, a third-generation Mormon, has worked for the church for 70 years. He is its most-traveled president, and remains active in church affairs despite his age. In December, he attended a 200th anniversary celebration in Vermont marking the birth of church founder Joseph Smith.

Presidents of the Mormon church serve for life.

Mormonism is one of the world's fastest-growing religions. The church has doubled in size every 14 or 15 years since 1950.

The architect of the church's vast public relations network, Hinckley has long worked to burnish the faith's image as a world religion far removed from its peculiar and polygamous roots.

In 2004 President Bush awarded Hinckley the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in the U.S., in a ceremony at the White House."

Hitting the Mark on Iran by Michael Rubin

2006-01-27T10:32:00.000-08:00

"Hitting the Mark on Iran
by Michael Rubin
FrontPageMagazine.com
January 27, 2006
http://www.meforum.org/article/893
Ali Safavi's response is dishonest but useful as a study of Mujahedin-e Khalq (MKO) tactics.

Let there be no mistake: Masud Rajavi's Mujahedin-e Khalq is a terrorist group; Rajavi is as much a Monster of the Left as Yasir Arafat [1] or Robert Mugabe.

Mujahedin-e Khalq members trained with Arafat's Palestinian Liberation Organization and in Qadhafi's Libya. The groups terrorists have assassinated Americans, Iranian civilians, and bombed public buildings. Its members embraced Saddam Hussein and participated in the slaughter of Iraqi Kurdish civilians following their 1991 uprising against Saddam's dictatorial rule.

Safavi's endorsement of violence parallels the logic expressed by supporters of Islamic Jihad, Abu Sayyaf, and al-Qaeda. Comparisons betwen the Mujahedin-e Khalq and either American revolutionaries or French partisans ring hollow: The Mujahedin-e Khalq has no support among Iranians inside their own country. Citing the groups own publications to claim popularity as did Jalal Arani [2]is dishonest.

True, some Iranians did support the Mujahedin-e Khalq in 1972. Many Iranians, chafing under the Shah, accepted the rhetoric of demagogues like Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and groups like the Mujahedin-e Khalq. But Iranian public opinion has changed over the past 34 years. That Mr. Safavi has to return to 1972 to claim public support underlines the fallacies of his argument. Supporters who did not abandon the Mujahedin-e Khalq when it murdered civilians and planted bombs washed their hands of the group after Rajavi allied himself with Saddam Hussein. Many have since fled the Rajavi personality cult.

Mr. Safavi may want to dismiss Ervand Abrahamian's The Iranian Mojahedin.[3] It is a devastating and careful study of the Mujahedin-e Khalq. Abrahamian's books exploring torture in Iran, Khomeinis philosophy, and the history of the Mujahedin-e Khalq are well-reviewed and well-regarded by both left and right.[4] Reviewing a book of Abrahamian's essays, Daniel Pipes (neither a communist sympathizer nor a cheerleader for the Islamic Republic), wrote Abrahamian makes his case the old-fashioned way, through a close reading of texts and study of events.[5] Abrahamian's scholarship rests on archival research and documentary evidence. He is no Rashid Khalidi.[6] He did not cherry-pick his sources or remove context. Rather, he examined the opus of Rajavi's works and charted their development.

Mr. Safavi is likewise dishonest with his dismissal of Islamic Marxism, which was oft-discussed within Mujahedin-e Khalq circles and Iranian society.

Mr. Safavi poses a false choice: Theocracy or Mujahedin-e Khalq. Iranians want neither. They are sophisticated and vocal. They opine openly about various opposition groups, figures, and movements. They do not need to Mujahedin-e Khalq to channel their thoughts; they speak for themselves. They despise the Mujahedin. Safavi should not dismiss seventy million Iranians as agents of Tehran's intelligence ministry.

The only constituency that matters is Iranians residing inside Iran. Getting the signature of European parliamentarians and a few U.S. congressmen on petitions means little. Nor is the Mujahedin-e Khalq honest with its sponsorship. Few politicians make the mistake of signing their petitions twice. The U.S. government chronicles an ever expanding number of Mujahedin-e Khalq front organizations.[7] The group forms short-lived proxies to capitalize upon existing public support for issues ranging from calls for a constitutional referendum to earthquake relief.[8] But the Mujahedin-e Khalq's strategy of deception has undercut the Iranian peoples struggle for liberation by cynicism about and politicians detachment from legitimate opposition movements.

How pervasive is the groups dishonesty? In his letter to Frontpage Magazine, Safavi describes himself as a sociologist who has studied the activities of the Mujahedin-e Khalq for 34 years. Actually, Ali Safavi is a senior member of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the Mujahedin-e Khalqs political wing.[9]

Most of Safavi's prose and notes are irrelevant to the argument and obscure or ignore points raised in Monsters of the Left: The Mujahedin al-Khalq. He seeks credibility by citing everything from the Pope to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Cults often use similar strategies. Often Safavi's notes refer to points tangential to the original arguments and, in some cases, even to points Mr. Safavi himself makes. Several look credible, but do not say what Mr. Safavi alleges.

Nor does Mr. Safavi gain credibility for the Mujahedin-e Khalq by cherry-picking statements. Mujahedin-e Khalq publications are infamous in Washington for using ellipses to alter the meanings analysis published elsewhere by policymakers. Citing statements replicated in recent Mujahedin-e Khalq publications brings as much credibility as quoting from Lyndon LaRouche's Executive Intelligence Review. Quality of sourcing always matters: Justin Raimondo is hardly a trustworthy authority.[10] David S. Cloud, having left the Wall Street Journal, has quickly become the New York Times' new Jason Blair.

That the Mujahedin-e Khalq helped expose Tehrans secret nuclear program does not give it a free pass to popular legitimacy. Previous and subsequent Mujahedin-e Khalq revelations proved false. So, too, are Mujahedin-e Khalq pronouncements that they had the support of the Bush administration. It is unfortunate that left-wing bloggers like Laura Rozen and Juan Cole advanced such statements. They substituted accuracy and sourcing with speculation and fabrication. Their statements helped the Mujahedin-e Khalq claim false legitimacy.

Mr. Safavi is right that the Islamic Republic is the antithesis of democracy. The nuclear threat is real. The problem is not political, but rather ideological.[11] Iranian leaders mean what they say. Neither European engagement nor flaccid diplomacy will work. It is an embarrassment that, as the Bush administration enters its sixth year, there remains no policy toward Iran. Bush's rhetoric means little when his administration is unwilling to act in support of the Iranian people. But solidarity with the Iranian people should mean what Solidarity meant to the Polish people. When the Reagan administration debated how to support Poland against the tyranny of the Soviet Empire, career diplomats and European officials counseled a do-nothing approach, for fear that real support for the dockyard workers in Gdansk would cause complicate diplomatic initiatives. President Ronald Reagan dismissed such concerns. So, too, should Bush.

But support for freedom in Iran means listening to the Iranian people. It means funding independent labor unions and unlicensed, truly independent civil society. So that the New York Times no longer accepts Iranian government statistics like voter turn-out at face value, the U.S. government should fund independent Iranian organizations to conduct true surveys. Iranian universities are full of honest sociologists, statisticians, and students who chafe under their governments rule and can participant. Nor, if the Bush administration is serious, should the Los Angeles-based Persian-language media want for funds.

The Mujahedin-e Khalq remains a terrorist group. That its target is not a friend of the U.S. government should be irrelevant. Under no circumstances, though, should Congressmen or Senators be duped into believing the rhetoric of a group like the Mujahedin-e Khalq who may see a cash cow, but whose ideology and actions are out-of-step with the freedom and liberty Iranians desire and deserve.

Notes:

[1] http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=19590

[2] http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21025

[3] New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

[4] See reviews, for example, in the Middle East Quarterly: http://www.meforum.org/article/114; and http://www.meforum.org/article/820

[5] Review of Abrahamian. Khomeinism: Essays on the Islamic Republic. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. http://www.meforum.org/article/820

[6] http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18419

[7] http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/actions/20030815.shtml; http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/23311.htm

[8] For example, see: MKO Organizes Gathering in Washington DC Convention Center. Radio Farda. January 24, 2004. http://www.radiofarda.com/transcripts/topstory/2004/01/20040124_1430_0344_0750_EN.asp

[9] Lisa Bryant. Iranian Resistance Group Seen as Leverage in Nuclear Dispute. Voice of America. January 23, 2006. http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-01-23-voa73.cfm

[10] http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17310

[11] http://www.meforum.org/article/892"

The Sentinel: Bush Administration Helped Iranian Hardliner Get Elected

2006-01-26T16:44:00.000-08:00

The Sentinel: "Bush Administration Helped Iranian Hardliner Get Elected

By Margie Burns
Ali Hashemi Rafsanjani, the only major Iranian figure who advocated reaching out to America, made indirect overtures to the Bush administration in the period leading up to the Iranian election but was rebuffed, according to local businessman Barry O'Connell, who frequently travels to Iran.

State Department personnel referred pejoratively to Rafsanjani, the political figure best known outside Iran and most often favored by the business community in Iran and elsewhere, as "that old fox" and "that old wheeler dealer," O'Connell said. Among feelers preceding the election last June, Iran had conveyed messages through members of its legislative assembly via business contacts, which reached the South East Asia section of the State Department. According to Department personnel, O'Connell said, messages that Rafsanjani was interested in dealing with the U.S. were relayed "upstairs" to the seventh floor offices of the Secretary of State.

The feelers were ignored. Asked whether the Bush administration opposed Rafsanjani and influenced the Iranian election, O'Connell answers, "Very much so."

Interestingly, there were other impediments to cooperation with moderate or secular or business-oriented Iranians in the weeks leading up to the election, including restraints to travel in and out of Iranian air space, imposed with the cooperation of elements in the business community and government contractors. In any case, the administration rebuffs decreased the ability of Rafsanjani to draw support. "He was almost the only one reaching out to America, and they treated him this way?" O'Connell comments. "They [said] it to me personally, so it is reasonable to assume that they said it to others. This administration would not deal with him at all."

Responding to questions about the other Iranian candidates, O'Connell says that the administration "didn't seem concerned about Ahmadinejad at all." There was no apparent concern, at the policy-making level, that some hardliner or radical fundamentalist might win the election as a result of its actions. The possibility, treated as inevitability in rightwing publications and think tanks associated with White House Middle East policy, seems not to have been regarded as an outcome to be avoided.

Since the election, Rafsanjani has increased in his powers, according to O'Connell. "He is not out of power at all." The new President, Ahmadinejad, gets "all the spotlight" but does not have much power.

This is not to say that power in Iran has become all secular. The bulk of power is held by the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Hoseini-Khamenei, in office since 1989, and also by the head of the expediency committee. Thus power is largely divided among four places -- the Supreme Leader, the committee head, Rafsanjani and the new head who has gotten all the global spotlight.

These internal divisions in Iran tend not to be reflected in administration rhetoric about Iran. The White House, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and neoconservatives in media have focused publicly only on President Ahmadinejad, whose world-burning rhetoric makes their project easy. The rightwing National Review, co-founded by William A. Rusher, who also founded the infamous Concerned Alumni of Princeton and is Chairman of the media corporation that launched the most recent attack on Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.), is running articles about Iran that eerily parallel rhetoric about Iraq leading up to the Iraq war.

O'Connell points out that, while neoconservatives advocate several months of bombing Iran — two or three months, at least, of bombing purported "nuclear" sites in Iran, those sites are all in residential neighborhoods.

Supposing the administration were to bomb millions of Iranians, for two or three months, as neoconservatives are proposing, O'Connell wonders. "If we start another war," in Iran this time, "how do we get out of it?" "There is no exit strategy — like in Iraq." Right now, the U.S. maintains a tenuous hold in Iraq because of the majority Shia population who, led largely by Ayatollah Sistani, have chosen to try to participate in reestablishing Iraq as a nation. But Iraqi Shia might well react against an administration bombing millions of Shia in Iran, where they are 89 percent of the population.

Shia Islam has two main schools of thought: the theocratic, which predominates in Iran; and one that more separates church and state, which predominates in Iraq. Administration policy seems to aim at driving the two populations together in opposition to the U.S. This would approach the goal of a pan-Islam war, global war between the West and Muslims, advocated by some well-placed neoconservatives and also by Osama bin Laden.

Iran has no embassy in the U.S. but has an Iran Interests Section in the embassy of its ally Pakistan. The administration just conducted a bloody air strike against Pakistan, killing civilians."

Pro-Abortion Cult Candidate Scranton vows to stay in GOP governor's race through primary

2006-01-23T18:34:00.000-08:00

Scranton vows to stay in GOP governor's race through primary: " Posted on Mon, Jan. 23, 2006

Scranton vows to stay in GOP governor's race through primary

PETER JACKSON
Associated Press

HARRISBURG, Pa. - Bill Scranton on Monday vowed to stay in the race for the GOP nomination for governor through the May 16 primary, saying it is the only way to force opponent Lynn Swann to debate the issues and his qualifications to be the state's chief executive.

The former lieutenant governor said Swann implicitly endorsed an open primary when he said he is willing to participate in as many as three primary debates, but only after the Republican State Committee's expected Feb. 11 endorsement vote.

Scranton said he will urge the state committee to remain neutral.

"Lynn's candidacy is 18 days old - 18 days and he's asking Republican leaders for an unqualified (vote of) support for an unknown, untested, first-time candidate for public office," he told about 200 people at a Pennsylvania Press Club luncheon.

Swann is well known because of his years as a star on the Pittsburgh Steelers and a football analyst for ABC Sports, but he is new to politics.

"Running against Ed Rendell is not entry-level politics," Scranton said, referring to the Democratic incumbent, who is expected to seek a second term. "The Republican nominee must withstand tough questions, be ready with real answers and be ready with real solutions."

Swann's campaign spokeswoman said he has not decided whether he would stay in the race if he fails to win the endorsement.

"We respect the party process," said the spokeswoman, Melissa Walters. "We've been working hard to secure the endorsement and we'll continue to do so."

Scranton and Swann have been competing fiercely behind the scenes for support from state committee members and the race is considered tight. Swann has had remarkable success in straw votes among committee members in the central and northwest regions of the state, but the areas that have yet to be canvassed include some Scranton strongholds.

Swann remains optimistic that he will win the endorsement, Walters said. Scranton denied that his change in strategy reflected a lack of support from the state committee.

"I think the endorsement is very much up in the air at the moment," he said.

The other candidate for the nomination, retired Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association chief Jim Panyard, is not competing for the endorsement.

Eileen Melvin, the state's GOP chairwoman, said the committee is "sticking with the endorsement process, absolutely," and will not choose an open primary on Feb. 11. The committee's endorsements have helped launch the careers of such well known Republicans as former Gov. Tom Ridge and U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, she said.

"It works," she said. "We're focused on finding the best candidate to beat Ed Rendell."

At least one GOP leader who is backing Scranton said he was pleased by the move.

Scranton is "putting his money where his mouth is," said Paul Catalano, the Republican chairman in Lackawanna County, which includes the city named after Scranton's ancestors.

Scranton made several campaign promises Monday as he unveiled a blueprint for state government that he said would rein in spending, reduce certain business taxes, expand alternatives to public schools and overhaul the rules of public service.

He promised to advocate a constitutional convention to consider government reforms, such as shrinking the size of the Legislature, to close what he described as serious loopholes in the slot-machine gambling law, and to end Pennsylvania's distinction as the only state without a lobbyist-disclosure law.

The only pre-endorsement debate among the GOP candidates, scheduled for Wednesday night in Harrisburg, was canceled after Scranton joined Swann in refusing to participate.

Scranton saw no point in a one-on-one debate with Panyard because Panyard is not competing for the party's endorsement, Scranton's campaign manager, James Seif, said Monday.

"That's not a debate," Seif said.

Seif said Scranton pulled out of the event only after Swann did not change his mind before a Friday deadline set by the debate's sponsors.

The sponsors criticized both Swann and Scranton at a Capitol news conference Monday.

"I have never seen such arrogance," said Paula Harris, president of the Andrew Young National Center for Social Change, a Harrisburg-based educational-services company that had been the lead sponsor."

AsiaMedia :: The Zionist Spin: US: 'Good guy' Pentagon analyst jailed 12 years for leaking data

2006-01-23T18:30:00.000-08:00

AsiaMedia :: US: 'Good guy' Pentagon analyst jailed 12 years for leaking data: "US: 'Good guy' Pentagon analyst jailed 12 years for leaking data
Pentagon analyst admits to revealing information about national security to journalists and diplomats

South China Morning Post
Sunday, January 22, 2006

Alexandria, Virginia --- Frustrated with what he saw as US government inaction against the threat posed by Iran, Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin decided to take national security into his own hands.

He leaked classified information to reporters, an Israeli diplomat and two members of a pro-Israel lobby group, hoping the National Security Council would take notice.

He certainly got the government's attention. Franklin has been sentenced to more than 12 years in prison, even though the judge believed his intentions were good.

"The defendant did not seek to hurt the United States," US District Judge T.S. Ellis said at Franklin's sentencing for illegally disclosing classified information. "He thought he was helping to bring certain information to the attention" of the security council.

Franklin said he discussed classified information with the diplomat and two former lobbyists from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee between 2002 and 2004. Worries about Iran have risen significantly since then.

Franklin, 59, a policy analyst whose expertise included Iran, pleaded guilty to three felony counts in October as part of a plea bargain that requires him to co-operate in the government's prosecution against the former lobbyists, who are scheduled for trial in April.

Franklin's sentence could be sharply reduced later if prosecutors are satisfied with the extent of his co-operation. He will remain free while the case continues.

Franklin did not speak at the sentencing, but said at his plea hearing in October he was motivated by frustration with US policy in the Middle East when he gave classified information to Israeli diplomat Naor Gilon and lobbyists Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman.

Prosecutor Kevin DiGregory said Franklin's actions were dangerous because "once the US government loses control of classified information, there's no way of knowing into whose hands that information may fall".

Date Posted: 1/22/2006"

The Media Line - Franklin Agrees to Implicate AIPAC

2006-01-22T06:53:00.000-08:00

The Media Line - News Detail: "PENTAGON FIGURE IN AIPAC CASE SENTENCED TO 12 YEARS... Larry Franklin, the Pentagon analyst who was arrested for passing classified information to two staffers from America’s lobby for Israel, AIPAC, has received a 12-year jail sentence. It came as part of a plea bargain on Friday. He was also fined $10,000. Of great concern to AIPAC is that as part of the plea bargain, Franklin will testify against Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen – and in doing so can earn time off his sentence. Key to the case against the fired-AIPACers is whether they knew that the information they received from Franklin was classified, a critical point that Franklin is expected to confirm. His testimony and other information that will come out of the Rosen/Weissman trial could also prove that the pair was working within the normal confines of their AIPAC jobs, presumably creating a link to top AIPAC officials who have until now denied any knowledge of their staffers’ illegal activities. Although the organization has, until now, been said not to have been a target of the investigation, some legal experts opine that this can change dramatically with Franklin’s testimony."

Accuracy In Media - AIM Report: Looney Clooney Smears Senator McCarthy - January A

2006-01-19T13:18:00.000-08:00

Accuracy In Media - AIM Report: Looney Clooney Smears Senator McCarthy - January A: "AIM Report: Looney Clooney Smears Senator McCarthy - January A
January 13, 2006 The movie begins with an outright falsehood and ends with a monumental disingenuous half-truth that insults one's intelligence.

By Wes Vernon*
"History" is almost always written by the winners in a given conflict. Anyone viewing the George Clooney film, "Good Night and Good Luck," should bear in mind that media skill does not necessarily reflect historical truth.

CBS News icon Edward R. Murrow was the clear winner in his battle with Senator Joseph R. McCarthy—not because the CBS commentator was right or that McCarthy was wrong in his investigations of Communists in and out of government (Quite the opposite, in fact), but because Murrow was a smooth media personality with a wide audience and McCarthy sported a five o'clock shadow and had inadequate public relations skills for the then new television era.

Perhaps the most glaring distortion in the film is the failure to note that Murrow, a former director of the U.S. Information Agency, was motivated to go after McCarthy because one of Murrow's friends, Laurence Duggan, had been questioned about his communist ties and committed suicide as a result. As Stephen Hunter conceded in an October 7, 2005, Washington Post review of the film, it turned out that Duggan was a Soviet spy embedded in the U.S. State Department at the time.

The facts about Duggan are included in the book, The Haunted Wood, by Allen Weinstein, the founder of the Center for Democracy, and Aleksandr Vassiliev, a journalist and former KGB agent.

The movie begins with an outright falsehood and ends with a monumental disingenuous half-truth that insults one's intelligence.

The falsehood is a billboard in the film saying that McCarthy had claimed that over 200 Communists were in the State Department.

The Facts

William F. Buckley, Jr. and L. Brent Bozell in their 1953 book, McCarthy and his Enemies, conclusively showed that the figure the Wisconsin Republican senator used in a Wheeling, West Va. speech was 57 Communists, not 205 as was reported at the time and assumed by authors and historians to this day. The higher inaccurate figure was derived in part from an honest mix-up at the time. However, it was also perpetuated early on by some who knew better but were determined to hold McCarthy to it so as to try to discredit him and his cause. Authors and commentators have picked up the 205 figure and assumed (without any original research) that it was true.

So 55 years later, we must try—again—to set the record straight. That disentanglement will be laid out in the forthcoming book (Crown Publishers, projected release September, 2006) Blacklisted by History written by M. Stanton Evans, who is the ultimate authority on McCarthy and his investigations (He has been writing the book for over ten years).

In an interview with AIM, Evans says the 205 figure was in the advance text "that some speechwriter probably prepared, obviously. And [before McCarthy] delivered the speech, he [had gone] through the [written text] and revised it."

The senator "never said it [the 205 number] and so this became a huge controversy, and in 1951, Senator [William] Benton of Connecticut moved that McCarthy be expelled from the Senate [charging] that he lied—perjured himself about the numbers in Wheeling."

The upshot was that a Democrat-dominated Senate subcommittee "sent investigators to Wheeling to interview people, and they came back [saying] in essence that McCarthy was right—that he didn't say it [205]—that therefore Benton was wrong and McCarthy was right."

But Evans notes "this report was suppressed—disappeared—and it was never mentioned in the final report of the committee" In other words, the investigators did not come back with the answer the Democrats wanted, so they ignored it, thus leaving the inaccurate figure dangling out there for the media and future historians to repeat again and again.

Setting The Record Straight

Evans promises an entire chapter in his book will answer every question about McCarthy's Wheeling speech.

That is the damage to history in the early part of "Good Night and Good Luck." Near the end comes a total distortion that is disingenuous, outrageous, and reflects the mindset of the movie producers. It glosses over the treason of Alger Hiss.

There is absolutely no doubt whatever that Alger Hiss was a Soviet agent, who bored from within the government to do the bidding of his Stalinist masters in Moscow. That has been established through post-Cold War revelations in the Venona decrypts and other archived evidence.

On the very night of Hiss's death, this writer phoned AIM founder Reed Irvine and told him of an AP obit story repeating discredited erroneous material that appeared to exonerate Hiss. Irvine then called the AP and set the record straight. The wire service made the appropriate correction, and at least some of the news outlets that had used the first wire report also corrected themselves.

The movie producers put into the mouth of the late CBS CEO William S. Paley the statement that Hiss was not convicted of treason, but instead was convicted of the lesser crime of perjury.

Even if the gullible were to believe everything else in the film, that one line alone should discredit the entire flick.

It is true Hiss was convicted of perjury. What is relevant is what his perjured testimony actually was. He was convicted for lying when he said he was not a Communist Soviet agent who had worked with Whittaker Chambers, the man who had identified Hiss under oath. Hiss lied when he had denied knowing Chambers.

The statute of limitations had run out on the charge of espionage. Alger Hiss lied when he denied that more serious charge. For the movie to put the Paley dialogue into the script without giving it essential context is beyond misleading. It is gratuitous because McCarthy had very little to do with the Hiss case. Taken together with other propaganda in the show, that Hiss line puts "Good Night and Good Luck" in a class with such discredited movies as "Mission to Moscow," "Action in the North Atlantic," and Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11." It shows again the left will never give up on the "Hiss was innocent" theme.

More Flaws

On other counts, "Good Night and Good Luck" is all downhill in terms of accuracy.

Murrow is depicted as saying McCarthy was off base "99 percent of the time." Though perhaps an offhand figure of speech, the comment literally is terrible math, even worse history. It goes hand in hand with the line that "McCarthy never caught any subversives."

Senator McCarthy never claimed to be a one-man substitute for the FBI or authorized intelligence services. Time after time, he found subversives, security risks, or outright Communists had been in sensitive positions and were protected by higher government authority, and he demanded to know why.

It is literally not true that "McCarthy never found any Communists." Many witnesses who testified before his committee pleaded the Fifth Amendment when asked if they were members of the Communist party. But both before and after the Wisconsin senator assumed his committee chairmanship, he did in fact hit pay dirt. Herewith, two examples:

Owen Lattimore. The film makes no reference to Lattimore other than McCarthy's invoking his name (along with others) during his response to Murrow's attack.

Owen Lattimore was a prime focus of attention shortly after McCarthy burst upon the national scene in 1950. The senator had come across a massive cover-up in the then 5-year old Amerasia case. In 1945, several persons were arrested after intelligence authorities raided an office in New York City where the magazine Amerasia was published. The pro-Chinese Communist sheet had published highly sensitive classified information. It appeared to be a transmission belt in the U.S. for sup-porters of the Chinese Communists who were then mounting an (ultimately successful) effort to overthrow the pro-Western regime of Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.

What McCarthy had discovered was a Truman administration cover-up that had used the clout and powerful contacts of the old Roosevelt administration "Mr. Fixit," Thomas Corcoran, or "Tommy the Cork" as FDR affectionately called him. His role in pulling strings behind the scenes was finally brought to light in the 1996 book, The Amerasia Spy Case by Harvey Klehr and Ronald Radosh. McCarthy, along with the rest of world, did not know of Corcoran's role in quickly making the Amerasia case just "go away." Those arrested got off with little more than a slap on the wrist, and the headlines disappeared.

McCarthy's focus on Amerasia led to the exposure of a carefully orchestrated campaign to convince U.S. government officials and the American media (notably the book-publishing world) that the Chiang Kai-shek government was hopelessly corrupt and incompetent and that the Communist crusade to take power was unstoppable. The result was the media of that day were telling Americans that the Chinese Communists were not really Communists, but instead were "simple agrarian reformers." Rarely—if ever—was it mentioned that the "reformers" were backed to the hilt with arms and ammunition from the neighboring Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union.

At the center of the propaganda effort was the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR), of which Owen Lattimore was a top official. IPR's influence was considerable—both in the State Department and the U.S. media.

McCarthy blew the whistle on the cover-up and the IPR, and (among others) Lattimore who protested his innocence. At first Lattimore was exonerated by the stacked anti-McCarthy Tydings committee which compounded the whitewash.

However, McCarthy was ultimately vindicated by another panel. The Democrat-dominated Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, of which McCarthy himself was not a member, was chaired by Nevada Democrat Pat McCarran. That thorough months-long investigation concluded in a voluminous report that "[Owen] Lattimore was for some time beginning in the middle 1930's a conscious articulate instrument of the Soviet conspiracy." The panel cited a long list of instances of Lattimore's willing collaboration with the enemies of this country.

Annie Lee Moss. A young Fairfax, Va. mother and homemaker named Mary Stalcup Markward had for seven years been a member of the Washington D.C. Communist Party. She was director of the party's membership, all the while working undercover for the FBI. She testified before McCarthy's committee that Annie Lee Moss had been listed on the CP membership rolls.

McCarthy focused on a bewildering circumstance. Not only had the Army ignored an FBI warning that one of its employees, Annie Lee Moss, was a Communist, but also compounded the offense by reassigning Moss, a Signal Corps cafeteria worker, to the far more sensitive position of Pentagon code clerk. By any standard, that was an unusually huge promotion. Who did it? And why?

Murrow's selective editing showed the case backfiring on McCarthy when Moss appeared before the committee as a befuddled woman who supposedly had been confused with another Annie Lee Moss.

Four years later, after McCarthy had died, the Subversive Activities Control Board presented solid evidence that Markward's testimony was true and that the Annie Lee Moss who appeared before the McCarthy committee was in fact a member of the Communist Party.

Clooney did not include that information in "Good Night and Good Luck."

Among other distortions/inaccuracies in the film:

Murrow castigated McCarthy for saying that the ACLU was listed as a front for the Communist Party. Murrow said there was no such listing. But not mentioned in Clooney's movie is the fact that McCarthy was referring to a period in the early Thirties—a time when, as journalist Allan H. Ryskind notes in Human Events, various government agencies "with cause" did in fact view the ACLU as subversive.

Intellectual dishonesty by the sin of omission occurs several times in "Good Night and Good Luck."

The media played up the emotional confrontation between Senator McCarthy and Army Counsel Joseph Welch during the Army-McCarthy hearings.

The Army's case against McCarthy was going rather badly as the hearings progressed. The Army claimed it was pressured by McCarthy's committee to give special treatment to Private G. David Schine, a former committee staffer. Evidence showed the opposite: The Army favored Schine in a futile effort to persuade McCarthy to drop his probe of Ft. Monmouth and the remnants of the Rosenberg spy ring. That prompted Welch to do what author M. Stanton Evans (in our AIM interview) describes as a "series of [irrelevant] improvisations and digressions which became issues that had nothing to do with the substance of the charges."

The most famous one came when the Boston lawyer badgered McCarthy counsel Roy Cohn by repeatedly demanding—in a mocking way—to submit the names of any real communists "before sundown."

That went on and on until it goaded McCarthy into swinging back.

He then said if Mr. Welch was so anxious to expose subversives before sundown, then it should be noted that Fred Fisher, a member of Welch's law firm, had been a member of the National Lawyers Guild, a group cited as a mouthpiece for the Communist Party.

The movie focuses on the scene showing Welch sobbing and urging that McCarthy not "assassinate this lad [Fisher] further."

What Clooney's movie leaves out is that Welch himself had outed Fisher six weeks earlier.

Welch "had brought it up publicly in the New York Times," Evans tells AIM. "In the New York Times there was a big picture of Fred Fisher [with Welch saying] he had relieved him of the [Army/McCarthy] investigations because he [admitted] he had been a member of the National Lawyers Guild when Welch confronted him." Thus, says Evans, "Welch had done exactly what he was deploring McCarthy for doing."

After the hearing adjourned, Welch quickly walked out to the hall and around the corner. Whereupon—believing the audience and TV cameras were out of sight—the Army counsel turned to an associate and asked, "Well, how did it go?"

"This ['assassinated'] lad," by the way was not injured for life. Fred Fisher became a partner in a prestigious Boston law firm and president of the Massachusetts Bar Association.

On the day McCarthy died—May 2, 1957— radio commentator Fulton Lewis, Jr. declared he had "never seen such a shocking exhibition of distorted reporting and reportorial untruth as I witnessed throughout the coverage of the Army-McCarthy hearings."

"It was a journalistic lynching party, spurred on by powerful frightened groups, who were in for the kill," Lewis said, adding that "any reporter who dared try to tell the truth as to what was going on, as I did, was boycotted through sponsors, harassed by defamation, held up to scorn, and all but crucified himself."

That fully describes the media's inaccurate portrayal of Senator McCarthy, amplified in 2005 by "Good Night and Good Luck."

Lessons Learned?

But demonstrating that it, like the press, has not learned any lessons from this period, the Department of State has announced that it is launching an "Edward R. Murrow Journalism Program" in conjunction with the Aspen Institute and six leading U.S. schools of journalism. An Aspen Institute press release claimed that Murrow was guided by "integrity, ethics, courage, and social responsibility."

We could possibly expect such a program under the Clinton Administration. But under the Bush Administration and Secretary Condoleezza Rice? There is something still seriously wrong at the State Department.

WORSE THAN WIKIPEDIA

John Seigenthaler, the founding editorial director of USA Today, has been making numerous media appearances ever since he blew the whistle on how the on-line encyclopedia Wikipedia had published false information about him. He first used USA Today, the largest circulation newspaper in the U.S., to tell this story. Seigenthaler got the false information taken out of a bio about him but he still complains that it took too long and was too difficult to get the changes made.

As we have noted, USA Today is the same paper that still won't apologize for smearing President Bush by using phony National Guard documents. The paper got them from the same source used by CBS, Bill Burkett, who admits he lied about where he got them. Nobody knows where they came from, another indication of their suspicious nature. AIM took this this case all the way to the annual meeting of Gannett, parent company of USA Today, and still was unable to get USA Today editor Ken Paulson to apologize or reprimand anybody.

AIM editor Cliff Kincaid made those points when he called in to C-SPAN during Seigenthaler's appearance. Seigenthaler responded by accusing Kincaid of having misrepresented the nature of the controversy. "I'm well aware of what happened," he claimed. "Yes, there was contact with that source." He then insisted that the paper had run a story "that validated what they had done and explained what they had done and what they had not done."

He's apparently referring to the fact that after the paper got caught using the phony documents, it ran a story about the problem. But that's not the same as what happened when CBS got caught. CBS was investigated by a special panel and people were fired. Doing a follow-up story is not the same thing as disciplining people.

Seigenthaler was falsely accused of being suspected of participating in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy. He had the right to be outraged. Again, however, he had a megaphone—USA Today—to trumpet his alarm and concern. And that's the same paper that smeared Bush with no consequences to anyone involved in the smear.

What You Can Do

Send the enclosed cards or cards and letters of your own choosing to the State Department's Karen Hughes and to actor George Clooney. Also, order your copy of the important book War Footing by mail or online.

Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer & broadcast journalist."

Employee's True Face Background of a Fox News Analyst

2006-01-19T04:35:00.000-08:00

Employee: " Employee's True Face
Background of a Fox News Analyst
Iran Interlink, February 2004
Ali Reza Jafarzadeh, frontman for the MKO and the NCRI in the United States, is still being introduced by the Fox News Network as their independent Iran analyst. Fox News' insistence on using this individual has prompted ridicule by many in the media and in political circles. Fox News has clearly decided that using this notorious man is more important for their pay masters than maintaining their reputation as a serious broadcaster. Or it could be that the Network has no other choice in its decision making except to consent to this scandal. Whatever the reason, Fox News has refused to answer any questions about it. The company is already under investigation about its code of conduct and connections with terrorist organizations.

For those who have still any doubts about the issue, below is a brief biography of the notorious terrorist whom Fox News introduces as its analyst.

Alireza Jafarzadeh was born in Mashad (Iran) and moved to the USA before the 1979 revolution in Iran. He began there as a student of Civil Engineering. But he soon became engaged with the Mojahedin Khalq Organization (MKO) in the US. The MKO is designated by the US, UK, EU and many other countries as a terrorist entity in part because of the MKO's affiliation with the regime of Saddam Hussein. MKO activities include the massacre of Iraqi Kurds and Marsh Arabs in March 1991 after Gulf War I, and co-operation with Iraqi Intelligence in hiding WMDs from UN weapons inspectors. Jafarzadeh worked for the MKO in several countries including Iraq. He was promoted to the position of spokesman for the MKO in the US which then gave him a position as member of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), the MKO's political wing, which is also designated in the US as a terrorist entity.

Jafarzadeh quickly became a devoted member of the MKO and on the order of the organization's Ideological (or cult) Leader, Massoud Rajavi, married Robabeh Sadeghi of Babol, Iran, after she fled her country in 1986. In 1990, Massoud Rajavi ordered all MKO members to divorce for ideological reasons. Jafarzadeh and Sadeghi, were divorced on his command.

Jafarzadeh was such a committed member that he repeatedly volunteered for suicide operations. In the MKO publication No. 127, he is quoted as saying that he is ready to burn himself in front of the UN's New York office whenever it is needed for the MKO's cause.

In 1988, together with 15 other MKO members in the US, Jafarzadeh left for Iraq to participate in the Eternal Light military operation. He served in Hossein Abrishamchi's military unit in Iraq and undertook terrorist training in an Iraqi camp called Zaboli Camp. After the MKO's disastrous defeat in this operation, he was sent back to the US.

In a press conference on 24 March 1991, Jafarzadeh explained the details of one particular MKO operation in Iraqi Kurdistan (Operation Morvarid). This was soon exposed, by Human Rights Watch among others, as the deliberate massacre of Kurdish civilians by the MKO on the direct orders of Saddam Hussein.

Some months later, MKO radio announced Jafarzadeh had been made a Deputy Executive member of the MKO. His name along with his paramilitary rank was also published in MKO newspapers.

In 1992, with the help of Saddam Hussein's Intelligence Service, Jafarzadeh traveled to Pakistan to negotiate and establish new relations between the MKO and one of the war lords of Baluchestan (on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border). The relation was established in order to facilitate sending terrorist teams into Iran for paramilitary terrorist operations. Jafarzadeh was the broker for this deal and in person paid some of the tribal chiefs on behalf of Iraqi Intelligence.

From 1998 Jafarzadeh has been introduced as a member of the NCRI (MKO) Foreign Affairs Committee. In 1992 he took part in interviews (including an interview with Voice of America Radio) as the NCRI representative.

Jafarzadeh also attended a meeting in Washington in 2001. The meeting was organized by the MKO to protest inclusion of their name in the US administration's list of terrorist organizations. Jafarzadeh was the MKO's speaker at this meeting to explain their position.

Fox News now introduces Jafarzadeh as either their employee or as the head of a consultancy company. But as recently as 2002 the same man was interviewed by Fox News as the MKO's representative in the US Congress.

There are serious allegations that Jafarzadeh has been involved in illegal deals in the USA, including deals involving chemicals which can be used to produce WMDs. There are also allegations that the MKO, with him as its representative, have been involved in serious money laundering and drug trafficking in the USA. These allegations, as well as his and Fox News' dodgy connections in Washington, are currently under investigation."

SPC STRATEGIC POLICY CONSULTING, INC - Alireza Jafarzadeh Biography

2006-01-19T04:33:00.000-08:00

SPC STRATEGIC POLICY CONSULTING, INC: "1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20004; Tel: 202-756-2288; Fax: 202-318-8382; www.spconsulting.us

Alireza jafarzadeh Biography

Alireza Jafarzadeh is the president of Strategic Policy Consulting, Inc. He is also a FOX News Channel foreign affairs analyst.

Alireza Jafarzadeh is a well-known authority in issues relating to terrorism, and Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East; Iran’s nuclear weapons program; and its internal political developments, including the anti-government demonstrations, the student movement, and human rights.

The international concerns about Iran’s nuclear weapons program has largely arisen from Jafarzadeh’s stunning revelations about 7 major previously secret nuclear sites, including the sites in Natanz, Arak, Karaj, Ab-Ali, and Tehran.

Jafarzadeh revealed the existence of Natanz uranium enrichment facility, and Arak's heavy water facility in August 2002, Ab-Ali centrifuge testing facility near Tehran in February 2003, two additional nuclear sites near Karaj in May 2003, and two other new nuclear sites in Kolahdouz military complex in Tehran, and Ardekan in July 2003. He unveiled the details of Iran’s development of bio-weapons in May 2003, and had previously provided valuable information about the Shahab-3 medium range missile.

On April 27, 2004, Jafarzadeh revealed information that Iran, using some 400 nuclear experts, is now running a secret nuclear weapons program supervised by the military and the Supreme Leader parallel to their overt nuclear energy program. Jafarzadeh had previously unveiled in March, a secret meeting held earlier by Iran’s senior officials where they decided to speed up their nuclear weapons program, while faking cooperation with the IAEA.

He first disclosed the details of Iran’s involvement in the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia, in 1997, and the Jewish Community Center bombing in Argentina in 1993.

In November 2003, Jafarzadeh exposed an extensive covert network of the Iranian regime’s agents who had been involved, for months, in meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq, seeking to derail the political process and establish a sister Islamic Republic in Iraq.

As an accomplished analyst, Jafarzadeh has frequently appeared on major television and radio broadcasts including Fox News Channel, CNN, MSNBC, CBS Evening News, NBC, VOA, NPR, BBC and WABC to discuss Iran’s WMD program and terrorist activities around the world.

Jafarzadeh has published essays in, and been interviewed by, news outlets including New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Baltimore Sun, Chicago Tribune, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, USA Today, Philadelphia Inquirer, Boston Globe, Miami Herald, Austin-American Statesman, Time, and Newsweek magazines, Space & Missile, Defense Week, Arms Control Today, and the Financial Times.

Jafarzadeh has lectured in Georgetown University, University of Michigan, and National War College, and has been a frequent speaker at briefings, hearings and luncheons at the US Congress, the United Nations, Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, and the Morning Newsmaker Program at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.

Prior to becoming a contributor for FOX News Channel, and until August 2003, Jafarzadeh acted for a dozen years as the chief congressional liaison and media spokesperson for the US representative office of Iran’s parliament in exile, the National Council of Resistance of Iran.

Jafarzadeh earned his Bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor, and his Master’s degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Texas, in Austin."

Sharif FarsiWeb - FarsiWeb

2006-01-16T16:12:00.000-08:00

Sharif FarsiWeb - FarsiWeb: It is amazing just what the Iranian opposition is capable of. They set up an anti-Govenment front working out of Sharif University.

"Sharif FarsiWeb
From FarsiWeb
Sharif FarsiWeb, Inc. (شرکت فارسی‌وب شریف، سهامی خاص) is a company established in 2003, based on the then FarsiWeb Project Group of Computing Center, Sharif University of Technology. Distributing and supporting Sharif Linux, consulting technical and legal issues of Free/Open Source Software, and standardizing Persian language issues in information technology are main activies of the company.

Sharif FarsiWeb has been established with help from Cyber7, Sharif University of Technology, and Science and Arts Foundation. Its shareholders are Cyber7 and some of the FarsiWeb team members.

[edit]Contact information

Map of FarsiWeb labs (click to enlarge)Email: info@farsiweb.info
Phone: +98 21 66025705
Address:
Second floor, 25, Mina Alley,
Shahid Sadeghi Street, Azadi Avenue,
Tehran 14588
Iran
The FarsiWeb lab was in Sharif University until August 2005, but has since moved out of the campus. The lab is still in walking distance from Sharif campus. For directions, you can use the map at the right side of this page.
"

Alireza Jafarzadeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2006-01-16T10:15:00.000-08:00

Alireza Jafarzadeh - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Alireza Jafarzadeh
From Wikipedia, the free "encyclopedia".

Alireza Jafarzadeh is a controversial figure in Iranian politics. Some say he is an expert on Iran and a leading dissident, Others including the US Department of State and the Congressional Record link him to violent terrorist groups. On August 14, 2002, Jafarzadeh drew worldwide attention when he became either a whistleblower or a disseminator of anti-Iranian propaganda by claiming that Iran was running a secret nuclear facility in Natanz, and a dideuterium oxide facility in Arak. Jafarzadeh has gained a degree of credibility in that some of his claims have been shown to be true. This is not to say that many of his claims are later shown to be false.

Jafarzadeh is a Foreign Affairs Analyst for Fox News and is often a guest on Voice of America, andABC Radio Network's John Batchelor Show. He has spoken at Georgetown University and the University of Michigan. He currently heads Strategic Policy Consulting and is reportedly writing a book on Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Since 1997, Jafarzadeh has also been one of the spokesmen for Mujahedeen-e Khalq group, which is regarded as a terrorist organization by the United States.

- Jafarzadeh's status as a "Scientist" is a subject of dispute. Jafarzadeh has no known scientific training, degrees, or positions that suggest a strong scientific knowledge or range of experience. On Jafarzadeh's own web site he writes, "Jafarzadeh earned his Bachelor’s degree from the University of Michigan, in Ann Arbor, and his Master’s degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Texas, in Austin.""

FOXNews.com - "Alireza Jafarzadeh, a FOX News contributor, alleged"

2006-01-13T06:46:00.000-08:00

FOXNews.com - Politics - White House, Europeans Warn Iran After Nuclear Equipment Unsealed: "White House, Europeans Warn Iran After Nuclear Equipment Unsealed

Tuesday, January 10, 2006
WASHINGTON — In the presence of International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, Iran on Tuesday unsealed uranium enrichment equipment that the U.N. agency had blocked from use because the Islamic republic was in violation of nuclear non-proliferation rules.

The return to its nuclear program at the plant in Natanz angered U.S. and European officials who say Iran is resuming nuclear research that they believe is part of an effort to build nuclear weapons.

Iran's move is a "serious escalation" of its nuclear standoff with the West, and if it continues to defy world opinion, the U.N. Security Council will have no choice but to impose sanctions, said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

"Any resumption, any resumption of enrichment and reprocessing activities would be a further violation" of previous agreements made by Iran, McClellan said. "Such steps would be a serious escalation of the nuclear issue by the regime in Iran.

"If it continues down this road and the negotiations have run their course, then there is only one option to pursue. And that is referral to the Security Council. And that is what we will be talking with our — are talking about with our — European friends and others," McClellan said.

Iran would be committing a serious mistake if it ignored the international community on its nuclear program, said French President Jacques Chirac.

An IAEA statement issued in Vienna, Austria, said Iran did unseal the equipment, and told the agency the scale of its enrichment work would be limited.

"What we resume is merely in the field of research, not more than that," the deputy head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Mohammad Saeedi, told a news conference. "Production of nuclear fuel" — which would involve enrichment — "remains suspended," he said.

Saeedi refused to say whether the seals had been broken, calling it a "confidential issue between us and the IAEA."

McClellan said Iran's 18-year history of trying to hide weapons efforts has proven that the international community's worries about Tehran's nuclear efforts are "well founded."

"There is serious concern throughout the international community about the regime's behavior, and given Iran's history of concealing and hiding their nuclear activities from the international community and its continued non-compliance of its safeguard obligations, such concern is well-founded," he said.

Elsewhere in Washington on Tuesday, analysts following Iran's nuclear weapons intentions contended that Tehran never observed a "freeze" in its effort to gain a nuclear bomb and that Tuesday's move will put it even closer to its goal than previously known.

Strategic Policy Consulting chief Alireza Jafarzadeh, a FOX News contributor, alleged that Iran has manufactured as many as 5,000 centrifuges during the two-year timeframe that it claimed its activity was suspended. Jafarzadeh, an Iranian opposition activist who was responsible for exposing the Natanz facility in 2002, said he believes Tehran had pre-positioned these centrifuges for installation at Natanz before the "official" restart announced Tuesday and thus is much closer to weapons production than previously believed.

If Iran chooses to install these centrifuges, "it would put Iran only months away from having a nuclear bomb," he told a news conference held by the Iran Policy Committee.

Despite that threat, though, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Tuesday that no military intervention against Iran is under consideration.

"This is a matter which has to be solved by peaceful means, but it will involve a good deal of diplomatic and other pressure on Iran. We have shown our good faith in Europe the past two and a half years. I do not believe we could have done more to reach out to the Iranians," he said.

Already, all five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council have each separately sent to Iran a diplomatic communiqué — known as a 'demarche' in international parlance — warning the Islamic Republic that it could face sanctions should it go forward with its nuclear program. The permanent members are the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Russia and China.

Bush administration officials told FOX News that the communiqués, sent Saturday, are an important step forward in blocking Iran's nuclear ambitions because China and Russia, which have huge economic interests in Iran, have hinted in the past that they would oppose and veto such a referral if brought to the Security Council.

"We are working very closely with Russia, China, France and Britain on sending a clear message to the Iranians," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

Each of the permanent Security Council members has veto authority on the 15-member panel that enables them to thwart resolutions. Sources say the five sent separate communiqués because China and Russia repeatedly tried to soften the language of the warning and no consensus could be reached for a joint warning.

While pleased that China and Russia delivered separate warnings to Iran, Bush administration officials say they are very cautious about prematurely assuming that the two nations are willing to get tough with Iran and support sanctions.

"Given Iran's track record on seeking nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian program, defying the international community, bobbing and weaving, obfuscating, we're ultimately all going to end up in the Security Council on this issue," said McCormack.

But one senior administration official suggested that both China and Russia sent their demarches reluctantly and might in the end oppose a referral or sanctions. Nonetheless, McCormack said the efforts by China and Russia are noteworthy.

"I think that the Chinese are perfectly capable of delivering their own messages," McCormack said. "What we have been doing, have done and will continue to do, is to continue to work with them, work with the Russians and others so that Iran receives a clear, consistent, unmistakable message from the rest of the world."

One senior official told FOX News that the demarches from each of the five permanent Security Council members urged Iran to resume talks with the EU-3, comprised of Germany, France and the U.K.

The United States is backing a stalled European effort to negotiate with Iran, and supports a separate offer from Russia to perform some of the most sensitive nuclear enrichment tasks on Iran's behalf. Both initiatives would allow Iran to pursue legitimate civilian nuclear energy while reducing the risk that the same technology could be diverted to make weapons.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said it is essential for Iran to quit its ambitions for a while until "a resolution of the problems remaining over the Iranian nuclear program" could be reached.

He said Russia — a longtime ally of Iran — was working to ensure that Tehran maintains its freeze on enriching uranium until talks can be held between Moscow and Tehran over the proposal to move enrichment to Russia.

Negotiations aimed at getting Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations by the EU-3 have been stalled for months as Iran has insisted it has a right to nuclear energy and does not seek weapons. The EU-3 members have all issued strong rebukes against Iran for its announcement that it would resume its nuclear research and development.

French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy called on Iran on Monday to immediately retract its decision to restart nuclear activities. He said the EU-3 would meet on the issue soon.

Douste-Blazy also called Iran's intention to restart nuclear activities linked to uranium enrichment "reason for very serious concern."

"We call on Iran to go back on its decision without delay and without conditions," he said.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said earlier Monday that Iran was sending "very, very disastrous signals" on its nuclear program that "cannot remain without consequences for the EU-3's negotiation process."

Javier Solana, the European Union foreign and security affairs chief, told Iran on Saturday that if it resumes its uranium enrichment program, it might doom any further negotiations with the 25-nation bloc about economic aid and other issues.

During President Bush's trips to Europe last year he sought, and aides say received, assurances from the EU-3 that if talks failed, they would support a U.N. Security Council referral for sanctions.

The U.N.'s top nuclear watchdog at the IAEA told Sky News last week that he is losing his patience with Iran. Mohamed ElBaradei makes his next report in March, and administration officials say by that time it will be clear if Russia and China will support sanctions.

FOX News' Carl Cameron and Teri Schultz and The Associated Press contributed to this report."

UBERLIN, Germany (CNN) - "Alireza Jafarzadeh offered no proof"

2006-01-13T06:43:00.000-08:00

U.S. Backs Europe Over Nuclear Iran: "U.S. Backs Europe Over Nuclear Iran
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted GMT 1-12-2006 20:18:7 Send to Printer Printer Friendly Email This Link Reader Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BERLIN, Germany (CNN) -- Britain, France and Germany have called for the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog to refer Iran to the Security Council over the country's atomic ambitions.

In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the United States strongly supports the move and joins the European Union "and many other members of the international community in condemning the Iranian government's deliberate escalation of this issue."

Iran broke U.N. seals on its nuclear enrichment facility this week, insisting it only wants to develop a civilian nuclear power program in accordance with international law. But several Western countries fear Tehran is intent on developing a nuclear bomb.

Foreign ministers from the European Union's three biggest nations -- the so-called EU3 -- met Thursday following Iran's moves to restart its nuclear program.

"Our talks with Iran have reached a dead end," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told reporters after meeting with his British and French counterparts, Jack Straw and Philippe Douste-Blazy, and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.

Straw said the group decided to call for an emergency session of the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to vote on referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council.

The ministers did not say exactly what action should be taken by the Security Council, which could impose sanctions.

The decision by the EU3 marks the end of more than two years of diplomatic efforts to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program.

Rice said Iran's action "demonstrates that it has chosen confrontation with the international community over cooperation and negotiation."

"As a result, the IAEA board of governors must go forward with a report to the U.N. Security Council so that the council can add its weight in support of the ongoing IAEA investigation," she added.

Meanwhile, officials in London and Moscow said envoys from the EU3 would meet counterparts from China, Russia and the U.S. next week in London to discuss the issue further.

Russia, which is building a nuclear reactor in Iran, also has expressed "deep disappointment" over Iran's decision, The Associated Press reported.

A Foreign Ministry statement outlining a phone call between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Rice said both sides shared "a deep disappointment over Tehran's decision to leave behind the moratorium on all activities tied with uranium enrichment, resuming research work in this sphere."

The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal reported that during the call, Lavrov told Rice that Russia would abstain, rather than vote against, efforts to move the issue from the IAEA -- the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog -- to the Security Council.

China, which imports significant amounts of Iranian oil, said it hoped Iran would return to talks on the nuclear dispute and urged all parties to exercise restraint.

"We hope Iran can do more to promote mutual confidence between itself and the EU3, and return to negotiations," Reuters quoted a spokesman for China's foreign ministry, Kong Quan, as saying. 'Small-scale' enrichment work

Iran's move was announced Tuesday by Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, who said: "Nuclear research officially resumed at sites agreed upon with (U.N.) inspectors."

He said Iran was not resuming the production of nuclear fuel, a process that would involve uranium enrichment.

"We differentiate nuclear fuel production with research and access to technology," he said. "Suspension of nuclear fuel production will be continued in the country."

But Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, told his agency's governing board that Iran intended to begin "small-scale" uranium enrichment work, Reuters said.

"Iran plans to install a small-scale gas ultracentrifuge cascade in its pilot fuel enrichment plant at Natanz," a Western diplomat told Reuters, reading from ElBaradei's report to the 35-nation board of the IAEA.

Citing the report, the diplomat said that Iran planned to feed a small amount of uranium hexafluoride into centrifuges -- machines that purify uranium for use in nuclear power plants or weapons -- as part its research work on the devices

The diplomat's comments came as one of Iran's former opposition leaders claimed that the country had secretly produced 5,000 centrifuges at its underground facility in Natanz.

Alireza Jafarzadeh offered no proof. But he added that Iran was also constructing centrifuge cascade platforms at the facility. If Iran possesses the necessary knowledge, the centrifuges could be mounted on the platforms and used to produce highly enriched uranium.

Once the machines are fully operational, Jafarzadeh said, Iran would be "only months away from having enough fissile material for at least one nuclear bomb."

Jafarzadeh -- who would not divulge his source, saying only that it was within the Iranian regime -- called for an emergency meeting of the IAEA board of governors to send the issue of Iran's non-compliance to the U.N. Security Council. Diplomat: Centrifuges corroded

On Thursday, a Western diplomat who is close to the IAEA told Reuters that Iran had completed the removal of U.N. seals on its nuclear fuel research sites but would need time to refurbish machinery before it could start enriching uranium.

The diplomat said the Iranians would probably have to rebuild their entire cascade of enrichment centrifuges.

"There's a lot of humidity, corrosion. It's going to take a long time," Reuters quoted him as saying.

This is the second time that IAEA seals have been removed in Iran. In August, researchers unsealed equipment at its Isfahan plant and resumed uranium conversion activities.

Uranium conversion is a first step towards uranium enrichment, which could lead to the manufacture of nuclear weapons.

Iran's hard-line conservative government insists its nuclear programs have peaceful aims, and it has the right to restart nuclear facilities and enrich uranium for the production of nuclear energy.

Other nations, however, including the U.S., fear Tehran's true goal is to produce nuclear weapons.

Those fears have been reinforced by recent comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has said Israel should be wiped out.

Iran vowed Thursday to press ahead with the nuclear program despite the threat of U.N. referral.

"Unfortunately, a group of bullies allows itself to deprive nations of their legal and natural rights," AP quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

"I tell those superpowers that, with strength and prudence, Iran will pave the way to achieving peaceful nuclear energy," he said. "The Iranian nation is not frightened by the powers and their noise."

Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, told CNN's Christiane Amanpour in an interview that Iran doesn't want to get into enrichment on any large scale, and insists its activities are for research purposes only.

Larijani said he hopes sanctions are not pursued, as Tehran believes room for negotiation with the West remains.

CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour and Berlin Bureau Chief Chris Burns contributed to this report.

© 2005, Assyrian International News Agency. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use. "

"Alireza Jafarzadeh’s claim could not be verified"

2006-01-13T06:41:00.000-08:00

Britain threatens UNSC action on Iran -: "Britain threatens UNSC action on Iran
1/11/2006 3:00:00 PM GMT

"Iran has already manufactured as many as 5 000 centrifuge machines," Jafarzadeh claimed

The British Prime Minister Tony Blair calls on the UN Security Council to take action against the Islamic Republic following its announcement of resuming nuclear fuel research.

On the other hand, former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said any sanctions would be futile.

"Adopting harsh measures like imposing sanctions cannot bring about the desired outcome," Rafsanjani said during a sermon at Tehran’s University marking the Muslim Eid ul Adha festival.

Blair vowed Wednesday to refer Iran’s nuclear dossier to the Security Council for possible sanctions.

"I think the first thing to do is to secure agreement for a reference to the Security Council, (if) that is indeed what the allies jointly decide as I think seems likely," Blair told parliament.

"Then ... We have to decide what measures to take and we obviously don't rule out any measures at all," he added.

Opposition figure claims Iran has 5,000 centrifuges

Citing what he said was intelligence from the Iranian opposition and sources within the Iranian nuclear programme, an exiled opposition figure alleged on Tuesday that Iran has secretly built thousands of centrifuge machines for its atomic plant at Natanz, Agence France Presse reported.

However, Alireza Jafarzadeh’s claim, which came hours after Iran resumed sensitive nuclear research after a two-year suspension could not be verified- If confirmed, according to analysts, it would enflame the current standoff over Iran's nuclear programme.

With its latest move, Iran is risking censure by the UN Security Council.

"Iran has already manufactured as many as 5 000 centrifuge machines ready to be installed in Natanz, which is a clear breach of its agreements with the IAEA and the EU," Jafarzadeh said at a news conference, adding that the Islamic Republic had been continually building underground centrifuge cascade installation platforms at Natanz.

Information released in 2002 by Jafarzadeh, former spokesperson for the Iranian opposition in Washington, was the first outside glimpse into Iran’s nuclear activities which triggered International Atomic Energy Agency scrutiny.

"The 5 000 centrifuge machines are going to be installed in underground cascade halls ... all of this has been going on while supposedly the program has been under freeze," he claimed.

Yesterday Iran announced removing UN seals on its nuclear-enrichment facility, triggering worldwide criticism specially the U.S., the Europe Union and Japan, who see the move as defiance of demands that Iran suspends its nuclear program and could provide justification for it to be referred to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.

"If the regime in Iran continues on the current course and fails to abide by its international obligations, there is no other choice but to refer the matter to the Security Council," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Also Russia and China which have blocked an IAEA resolution to refer Iran to the UNSC, expressed frustration with Tehran because of its latest move.

Meanwhile, chief of the UN nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei voiced exasperation, saying: "I am running out of patience."

This increases the risk of a UNSC referral more than anytime during the more than three-year IAEA probe into Iran's nuclear activities."