Archive for
January, 2007
January 27th, 2007
It seems clearly a provocation, following on the kidnapping of six Iranians last week in Ibril.
Maybe it’s prompted by the new general in charge on the ground. Maybe it’s his idea (he’s fairly well respected, it seems). But probly not.
Bush Defends Moving Against Iranians in IraqÂ
January 27, 2007
By Mark Mazzetti and David S. Cloud
WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 — President Bush and his senior aides on Friday justified American actions against Iranian operatives inside
Iraq as necessary to protect American troops and Iraqis, and said they would continue as long as Tehran kept up what they called its support for Shiites involved in sectarian attacks.
“If somebody is trying to harm our troops and stop them from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, we will stop them,” President Bush told reporters at the White House.
President Bush decided several months ago to allow American troops to make targets of select Iranian operatives inside Iraq whom military officials have accused of helping militants build sophisticated and powerful roadside bombs. He and other officials faced repeated questioning about the policy, which was disclosed in recent weeks, after The Washington Post published articles on Friday exploring Iran’s regional influence and the administration’s approaches to containing it.
Several administration officials, including Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said that President Bush had given the military no new authorities to carry out the offensive, and that the Pentagon had long had permission to capture or kill foreign operatives thought to be aiding attacks against American troops.
Officials said there was no blanket authority to take action against Iranian agents, only Iranian agents thought to be directly involved in planning or carrying out attacks against American and allied forces. That is a different standard than applied to foreign fighters of Al Qaeda in Iraq, they said.
“If you are on the wire diagram as an Al Qaeda operative, you can be targeted just for reading the newspaper in your living room. These guys are not in that position,” said one senior Defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The official said there was debate within the administration about whether to become even more aggressive toward Iranians in Iraq. Already, the arrests of Iranians have caused tensions between American and Iraqi officials, as well as heightening the strains between Tehran and Washington. Meanwhile, some lawmakers have expressed concerns that the administration might even strike militarily into Iranian territory just as Congress considers resolutions denouncing Mr. Bush’s war strategy for Iraq.
“You have to balance it,” this official said. “While you want to take care of the situation, you don’t want to cause an international incident where you provoke Iran.”
The White House has not issued a presidential finding authorizing covert action against Iranians inside of Iraq or authorized any military actions inside Iran, officials said.
President Bush kicked off a campaign of escalated rhetoric against Iran during a televised address to the nation on Jan. 10. For months, officials from across the Bush administration have accused Iran of supplying Shiite militias with high-tech explosives and training them to carry out attacks with roadside bombs.
Administration officials have thus far provided little detailed public evidence to support these claims. Officials said that Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador in Baghdad, is planning a news conference for Wednesday during which he will present a dossier of Iran’s efforts to fuel sectarian violence in Iraq.
Part of Mr. Khalilzad’s presentation, officials said, will be to show evidence found during a December raid on a compound of the Iranian-backed Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri.
The officials said that among the evidence that would be presented were photographs, documents and a color-coded wall map that were seized in the raid detailing which Sunni neighborhoods in Baghdad would be targets for attack.
Some leading Democrats, including the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph R. Biden Jr., and the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, John D. Rockefeller IV, have criticized the Bush administration for building a case against Iran when American intelligence agencies still have a murky understanding of Iran’s intentions in the Middle East.
Last week, Mr. Rockefeller said that the White House campaign was unnervingly similar to Bush administration rhetoric in the months before the Iraq war.
Some Middle East specialists point out that an effort to move against Iranian agents could backfire and prompt Iran to strike back against America troops.
“It’s going to be a bumpy road inside Iraq because it puts U.S. forces at risk and because Ahmadinejad will be more confrontational,” said Patrick Clawson, an Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East policy, referring to Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Military commanders in Baghdad say they have documented a rise in the number of sophisticated roadside bombs using “shaped charges” — a type of weapon that officials believe are imported from Iran. Military statistics show that the number of coalition troops killed by these weapons jumped dramatically during the last four months of 2006.
It was late last year, officials in Washington said, that Mr. Bush signed off on a more aggressive military offensive inside Iraq to counter Iranian influence. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice confirmed the policy change in an interview on Jan. 12. An article in The Washington Post on Friday reported new details about how the policy was being carried out, including some that the administration said were inaccurate, without elaborating.
One person briefed on the Bush administration strategy said officials in Washington believed that by giving assistance to radical Shiite militants in organizations like the Mahdi Army, Iran was hoping to split off hard-line elements within these organizations and make them more beholden to Tehran.
By moving against Iranians inside Iraq, the Bush administration hopes it can persuade them to stop their efforts to create rifts among Shiites and to provide aid in attacks against American troops, the person said, requesting anonymity because the briefing he had received was not intended to be made public.
“The Iranian government needs to know that whether it’s the Quds Force or any other kind of Iranian organization, we are not going to tolerate American soldiers being targeted in that fashion,” said R. Nicholas Burns, a top State Department official. He was referring to a section of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.
January 27th, 2007
Great story in L.A. Times about Gates’s first press conference as Secretary of State.
Defense chief shows he’s no Rumsfeld
By Julian E. Barnes , Times Staff Writer
January 27, 2007
If there was any question that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates would go to almost any length to demonstrate he was the anti-Rumsfeld, he dispelled it Friday.
In his first-ever Pentagon news conference, Gates’ manner and method could not have been more different than those of his controversial predecessor — starting with the room.
Donald H. Rumsfeld made the Pentagon briefing room so much his own, Gates has evidently decided he has no intention of using it. Instead, Gates met the media in his private dining room, seating reporters and himself around a large conference table.
And the answers he offered could not have been more dissimilar to Rumsfeld’s.
Stylistically, Gates refrained from scoffing at reporters, from restating their questions on more favorable terms and from challenging the premises of inquiries. He avoided any metaphysical lectures or expositions on the electricity supply of North Korea. Instead, he took the questions as they came, working his way through 32 of them, quickly and concisely.
Substantively, there were some sharp differences. Indeed, Gates came close to blaming Rumsfeld for many of the problems in Iraq.
The new Defense chief offered strong words of support for the nomination of Gen. George W. Casey Jr. to become the next Army chief of staff and said Casey was not to blame for the problems of Iraq. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has criticized Casey’s leadership of the war and said he would vote against the general’s nomination.
Asked if commanders should be held accountable for Iraq, Gates seemed — almost — to throw Rumsfeld under the bus.
“I think that one has to look at this in the context of the decisions made by the civilian superiors of officers and how the battlefield they face was shaped by those decisions,” Gates said.

Rumsfeld always insisted in his news conferences that his commanders were free to ask for more forces. But military planners had said privately that Rumsfeld created an atmosphere where such requests were unwelcome. On Friday, Gates took pains to demonstrate that he was listening to his military commanders. Although he would not say whether he might send more than 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, he said military commanders could ask for more.
“What we have done, I hope, is create an environment in which the commanders feel open to requesting what they think they need,” Gates said.
During a Senate hearing this week, a slight strategy difference seemed to emerge between Gates and the man he recommended to become the top commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus. Gates said on Jan. 12 that some of the additional forces on their way to Baghdad might end up not being needed. But Petraeus said Tuesday that he would not know if the strategy was working until all the forces were in place.
Gates did not completely back off Friday but stated emphatically that Petraeus would get the troops he wanted, and said the department was looking to get them to Baghdad sooner than spring. “As long as he feels he needs them,” Gates said, “they’re all going to flow.”
Members of Congress often accused Rumsfeld of painting an overly rosy picture of the situation in Iraq. Here again, Gates pledged to be a different kind of defense secretary.
“My hope is to establish a record with the Hill going forward, regardless of what may have been the case in the past, where we have a reputation for candor and for saying — calling things exactly as they are, for good or for bad,” Gates said.
January 26th, 2007
Boycott of Israel Call Creates Fracas at Davos Forum
January 27, 2006, Friday
By MARK LANDLER AND JOHN MARKOFF (NYT)
A magazine article calling on nations to boycott Israel because of its treatment of Palestinians has provoked a tempest at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting here, prompting the organizers to pull the magazines from the forum’s shelves here and issue an apology. The article, which appeared in Global …
January 26th, 2007
BEIJING (Reuters) - Chinese police have arrested three men for killing two young women to sell their corpses as “ghost brides” for dead single men, a Chinese newspaper reported, warning the dark custom might have claimed many other victims.
Yang Donghai, a 35-year-old farmer in western China’s Shaanxi province, confessed to killing a woman bought from a poor family for 12,000 yuan ($1,545) last year.
She thought she was being sold into an arranged marriage, but Yang killed her in a gully and sold her corpse for 16,000 yuan, the Legal Daily reported Thursday. He and two accomplices then killed a prostitute and sold her for 8,000 yuan before police caught them.
“I did it for the money; it was a quick buck,” Yang said, according to the paper. “If I hadn’t slipped up early, I planned to do a few more.”
The women were victims of an old belief, still alive in the yellow-earth highlands of western China, that young men who die unmarried should go to their graves accompanied by deceased women who will be their wives in the afterlife. Often these women die natural deaths.
January 25th, 2007
Great new “crowd control” weapon! (BBC story below.) A Reuters

journalist volunteered to try it out and says it feels like a blast from a hot oven — “too painful to bear without diving for cover”! But Pentagon says it’s harmless. Gonna make “escalations of force” so much easier and more efficient. “Active Denial System” — great name. Gonna need these babies when the hurricanes start kicking up again. Keep people in line. Keep’m where they’re supposed to be. Pentagon says jump — how high? Where would we be without our great patriotic scientists and generals? Scientists and generals must be the wisest people on the planet. So glad they’re in charge. So proud to see american tax dollars hard at work.
US military unveils heat-ray gun
The US military has given the first public display of what it says is a revolutionary heat-ray weapon to repel enemies or disperse hostile crowds.
Called the Active Denial System, it projects an invisible high energy beam that produces a sudden burning feeling.
Military officials, who say the gun is harmless, believe it could be used as a non-lethal way of making enemies surrender their weapons.
Officials said there was wide-ranging military interest in the technology.
“This is a breakthrough technology that’s going to give our forces a capability they don’t now have,” defence official Theodore Barna told Reuters news agency.
“We expect the services to add it to their tool kit. And that could happen as early as 2010.”
‘Blast from an oven’
The prototype weapon was demonstrated at the Moody Air Force Base in Georgia.
A beam was fired from a large rectangular dish mounted on a Humvee vehicle.
The beam has a reach of up to 500 metres (550 yards), much further than existing non-lethal weapons like rubber bullets.
It can penetrate clothes, suddenly heating up the skin of anyone in its path to 50C.
But it penetrates the skin only to a tiny depth - enough to cause discomfort but no lasting harm, according to the military.
A Reuters journalist who volunteered to be shot with the beam described the sensation as similar to a blast from a very hot oven - too painful to bear without diving for cover.
Documents given out during the demonstration said more than 600 volunteers were exposed to the ray a total of more than 10,000 times since testing began over 12 years ago. They said there had been no injuries requiring medical attention during the five-year advanced development programme.
Crowd control
Military officials said the weapon was one of the key technologies of the future.
“Non-lethal weapons are important for the escalation of force, especially in the environments our forces are operating in,” said Marine Col Kirk Hymes, director of the development programme.
The weapon could potentially be used for dispersing hostile crowds in conflict zones such as Iraq or Afghanistan.
It would mean that troops could take effective steps to move people along without resorting to measures such as rubber bullets - bridging the gap between “shouting and shooting”, Col Hymes said.
A similar non-lethal weapon, Silent Guardian, is being developed by US company Raytheon.
January 24th, 2007
Story below re Wm Rodriguez, who worked in the WTC and has spoken at length re hearing and experiencing explosions in the building well before the collapses.
Here he says the first occurred circa 830 am and 22 other people in a basement office with him heard and felt them. Who are the 22 people?
I didn’t realize that his testimony to the 9/11 commish was closed session — and that Zelikow then blacked him out of the 911 Commish Report entirely. Another black mark re the Report.
Nor did I know (but am happy to see) that Hillary has dared pose with him.
May come back to haunt her.
Key 9/11 survivor in Lancaster
THE last man to leave the World Trade Center building alive is coming to Lancaster on Thursday, February 8, to speak on his experiences during and since 9/11
WILLIAM Rodriguez was working as a janitor in the World Trade Center on the ninth of September 2001 when he heard explosions – from below.
But William didn’t just try to save his own skin; as the only key holder for the North Tower stairwell where he was working, he unlocked doors and helped firefighters to rescue hundreds of people.
William was also the last survivor to leave the building. He spent the rest of 9/11 helping out as a volunteer in the rescue efforts, and at dawn the following morning, was back at Ground Zero continuing his efforts.
After 9/11 William lost his job and has worked ever since to help others who were affected by the atrocities.
In February William is coming to Lancaster to tell his side of the story; a story the US Government would not let him tell in full.
William, a native of Puerto Rico, a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of New Jersey, was employed as a maintenance worker at the 110-storey World Trade Center building for 19 years.

William with Hillary Clinton.
Arriving at 8.30am on the morning of 9/11, he went to the maintenance office located on the first sub-level, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level.
Fourteen people were in the office at that time. As he was talking with others, he says there was an incredibly loud and powerful explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were 22 people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.
At first William thought it was a generator that had exploded, but the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion.
“When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking,” said William, who was crowded together in the office with 14 other people, including Anthony Saltamachia, supervisor for the American Maintenance Company.
Just seconds later he says there was another explosion high above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the 90th floor.
Then he says there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the fires caused by the blasts.
Unlocking doors for the firefighters as he went, William got to the 39th floor before he was turned back by the firefighters. As he began his descent he heard a plane hit the south tower.
Down at ground level he saw the mangled and bloodied bodies of people who had jumped. William says he will never forget the anguish that hit him, or the sight of the senseless carnage.
The Twin Towers were the only known steel frame buildings in history claimed to have failed because of fire. Other steel frame buildings have been known to burn for hours and hours and not collapse. The cause of the Twin Towers’ failure is not known because the evidence was rendered unavailable for investigation.
Independent investigators said both towers suspiciously fell “like a house of cards,” claiming that William probably heard pre-arranged detonated bomb blasts, strategically placed and timed to make it appear that the plane was the cause of the collapse.
After the trauma of losing many of his close friends and the sheer horror of the events of 9/11, William looked forward to his appearance at a closed-door hearing of the 9/11 Commission.
But he started changing his opinion as he saw how the commission worked, and also when the American media edited out his testimonies about hearing bomb blasts in the buildings, whilst the Spanish media reported his claims unedited.
William was one of the last people to testify to the commission and spoke behind closed doors, unlike other witnesses. His testimony was not included in the final report
He said the commission didn’t answer his questions and avoided the issues he was presenting. When the administration started to link the 9/11 attacks with the preparations of the 2003 Iraq war, he said he felt “manipulated and used”.
He also sought out the National Institutes of Technology, which was investigating the collapse of the WTC, but was sent packing.
And the FBI was not interested in his claim that he’d met one of the hijackers ‘casing’ the buildings several months before 9/11.
In October 2004, William filed a civil lawsuit directed against George W Bush, Richard B Cheney, Donald H Rumsfeld and others, including a total of 100 defendants, together with Ellen Mariani and lawyer Phil Berg. The RICO Act is normally used by the US government to nail organised crime as a conspiracy, but this time it was used against the government itself, claiming a conspiracy on its part.
The government filed a motion to dismiss, or at least transfer, the case on grounds of national security. Berg answered by filing an affidavit that alleged the defendants “had knowledge that the attacks were impending… but they failed to (take countermeasures), not by reason of mere negligence, confusion, or ineptitude, but because they affirmatively desired such attacks to occur.”
William said: “I have tried to tell my story to everybody, but nobody wants to listen. It is very strange what is going on here in supposedly the most democratic country in the world. In my home country of Puerto Rico and all the other Latin American countries, I have been allowed to tell my story uncensored. But here, I can’t even say a word.”
January 24th, 2007
The New York Times
January 24, 2007
At Brandeis, Carter Responds to Critics
By PAM BELLUCK
WALTHAM, Mass., Jan. 23 — In his first major public speech about his controversial book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” former President Jimmy Carter told an audience at Brandeis University on Tuesday that he stood by the book and its title, that he apologized for what he called an “improper and stupid” sentence in the book and that he had been disturbed by accusations that he was anti-Semitic.
Although controversy had preceded his visit here, Mr. Carter was greeted with a standing ovation and treated with obvious respect by the audience, even as students asked questions that were critical of his assertions.
“This is the first time that I’ve ever been called a liar and a bigot and an anti-Semite and a coward and a plagiarist,” Mr. Carter told the crowd of about 1,700 at Brandeis, a nonsectarian university founded by American Jews, where about half the students are Jewish. “This is hurting me.”
He added, “The fact that they deteriorate into ad hominem attacks on my character has probably been a greater barrier to progress than the fact that I chose a particular word in the title.”
Mr. Carter said he realized his use of the word “apartheid” “has caused great concern in the Jewish community.” He said he had used it “knowing that it would be provocative.” He said he had intended to describe conditions not in Israel but in the occupied Palestinian territories, and had not meant to “equate Zionism with racism,” but to point out “that this cruel oppression is contrary to the tenets of the Jewish religious faith and contrary to the basic principles of the state of Israel.”
But he said a sentence in which he seemed to suggest that Palestinians would not have to end their suicide bombings and acts of terrorism until Israel withdraws from the territories “was worded in a completely improper and stupid way,” adding: “I have written my publisher to change that sentence immediately. I apologize to you personally, to everyone here.”
While many students and professors said they disagreed with elements of the book, they said they welcomed the opportunity to hear Mr. Carter.
“I’m happy to have a contrary viewpoint, I’m happy to have a former president, I’m happy to have controversy,” said Daniele Kohn, 21, a fine arts major, who asked Mr. Carter why, in a television interview, he had seemed to suggest that the Palestinian condition was worse than the Rwandan genocide. (Mr. Carter responded that he had not meant to suggest that.) “I think this school hasn’t gotten publicly upset in far too long.”
Mr. Carter’s book has prompted criticism from many American Jews and some Middle East experts, who say it contains factual errors and misrepresents the role of both the Israelis and the Palestinians. In addition to the word apartheid, with its implication that Israel’s actions resemble the racist policies of South Africa, these critics object to Mr. Carter’s assertion that Israel has committed human rights abuses against the Palestinians, that pro-Israel lobbyists have stifled debate in the United States and that American newspaper editorials are overwhelmingly pro-Israel.
The book prompted the resignations of 14 of Atlanta’s business and civic leaders from the Carter Center’s advisory board. Kenneth W. Stein, a professor at Emory University who was the first executive director at the Carter Center, resigned his position as a fellow there in December. And Dennis Ross, a former envoy to the Middle East who is now a news analyst, has accused Mr. Carter of using maps that Mr. Ross created without his permission, and mislabeling them in the book, accusations Mr. Carter has denied.
Mr. Carter initially rejected an invitation to speak at Brandeis because it suggested that he debate Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor who has sharply criticized the book. Wanting the university to welcome contrary views, more than 100 students and faculty members signed a petition contending that Mr. Carter should be invited without conditions. Questions were preselected by the committee that invited Mr. Carter, and the questioners included an Israeli student and a Palestinian student.
After Mr. Carter left, Mr. Dershowitz spoke in the same gymnasium, saying that the former president oversimplified the situation and that his conciliatory and sensible-sounding speech at Brandeis belied his words in some other interviews.
“There are two different Jimmy Carters,” Mr. Dershowitz said. “You heard the Brandeis Jimmy Carter today, and he was terrific. I support almost everything he said. But if you listen to the Al Jazeera Jimmy Carter, you’ll hear a very different perspective.”
Mr. Carter started his Brandeis speech by calling it “the most exciting invitation” he had received since his inaugural address 30 years ago, and enumerating his years of pro-Israel stances and involvement in the Middle East peace process.
Responding to one of the criticisms of him, he said: “I have never claimed or believed that American Jews control the news media. That is ridiculous to claim.” He said “a lot of support for Israel comes from Christians like me who have been taught since they were 3 years old to honor and protect God’s chosen people from whom came people like our Christian Savior, Jesus Christ.”
But he said he believed there was too little willingness in Congress and elsewhere to debate or accept his premise that “Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighbors’ land and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights.”
Despite the warm and dignified welcome, several students said they were disturbed by the book and Mr. Carter’s conclusions.
“He did some great work in the past,” said David Kuperstein, a junior, but “it has made me a little bit angry, the unfounded skew and bias that he specifically shows in his book toward Israel.”
January 24th, 2007
This is from the NY Times
January 24, 2007
A former New York City police officer died of a lung disease last night, hours before his son attended the State of the Union address to draw attention to the plight of 9/11 rescue workers like him who became ill after they were exposed to toxic dust at ground zero.

The police officer, Cesar A. Borja, 52, died around 6:15 p.m. at Mount Sinai Medical Center, where he was enrolled in a monitoring and treatment program for ground zero workers, said Lauren Woods, a hospital spokeswoman.
Officer Borja died of pulmonary fibrosis, a type of chronic lung disorder that involves scarring of the tissue between the air sacs.
Officer Borja had been in intensive care and had been accepted as a potential candidate for a lung transplant, but his critical condition, complicated by infection, precluded him being listed to receive a lung, said his physician, Dr. Maria L. Padilla.
A Congressional official briefed on the officer’s case, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of federal health privacy rules, said that federal officials had approved government financing for virtually all of Officer Borja’s care — an acknowledgment that his condition was linked to work at ground zero.
Officer Borja’s 21-year-old son, Ceasar, had been invited to attend President Bush’s address as a guest of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. On Monday at ground zero and again yesterday in Washington, the young man stood next to Mrs. Clinton and discussed the need for federal financing for treatment of 9/11 workers.
“It is really painful for me to be here, so close to where my father contracted this disease,” Ceasar Borja said in New York on Monday, wearing a dark blue coat and speaking slowly and softly. He said he was trying to stay strong for his mother and two younger siblings and added, “9/11 did not end that day.”
Last night, the son was at a dinner at Bullfeathers, a Capitol Hill restaurant, when he received a phone call notifying him of his father’s death, according to an official briefed on the situation.
Four Congressional aides were at the dinner, along with several other guests invited to attend the presidential address in order to draw attention to 9/11 responders. Those at the dinner tried to comfort Ceasar Borja, the official said, and he decided to go through with his plan to attend the address.
Officials warned last month that money for two major monitoring and treatment programs — one run by Mount Sinai and the other by the city’s Fire Department — would run out in a matter of months.
Representative Vito J. Fossella, the only Republican House member from New York City, has urged White House officials to support the workers, but so far he has evidently not met with success. President Bush did not mention the 9/11 workers in his address last night
January 24th, 2007
I grew up in Lebanon, New Jersey.
The NY Times is hardly covering the outbreak two days ago of what threatens to be the beginning of a civil war. Doesn’t fit with the Feel Good About the Mideast in 2007 prom theme perhaps.
But I guess everyone knows to read Robert Fisk at The Independent. He’s lived in Beirut 30 years or so.
January 24th, 2007
What the heck is going on with the numbers?!
SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — The American Petroleum Institute reported a fall of 4.2 million barrels in distillate supplies for the week ended Jan. 19. The Energy Department had reported a rise of 700,000 barrels.
Motor gasoline supplies were down 2 million barrels, the API said, contrary to the government’s reported rise of 4 million.
Crude supplies fell 832,000 barrels, the API said, but the government posted a 700,000-barrel climb.
END OF STORY
How’s a felly to know when to buy and sell his pork bellies?