By 2009, it would be clear "we have in fact achieved our objective in terms of having a self-governing Iraq that's capable for the most part of defending themselves, a democracy in the heart of the Middle East."

Cheney has been pledging such a development for the past five years. In June 2005, he asserted, "We will succeed in Iraq. ...We will stand up a new government under an Iraqi-drafted constitution...it will be an enormous success story."

Cheney also promised, "The victory of freedom in Iraq will inspire democratic reformers in other lands." Despite Cheney's assurances, the White House is quietly scaling back its "expectation of quickly achieving major steps toward unifying the country," and in July, Gen. David Petraeus warned that the fight against insurgents in Iraq could take "decades."

Everyone of Cheney's predictions since the War began have been WRONG. I find it disgraceful for him to say that Iraq will be able to Govern it's self on the eve of Bush and Cheney's departure from the WhiteHouse...

$1B In Military Equipment Missing In Iraq

WASHINGTON,(CBS)-Tractor trailers, tank recovery vehicles, crates of machine guns and rocket propelled grenades are just a sampling of more than $1 billion in unaccounted for military equipment and services provided to the Iraqi security forces, according to a new report issued today by the Pentagon Inspector General and obtained exclusively by the CBS News investigative unit. Auditors for the Inspector General reviewed equipment contracts totaling $643 million but could only find an audit trail for $83 million.

The report details a massive failure in government procurement revealing little accountability for the billions of dollars spent purchasing military hardware for the Iraqi security forces. For example, according to the report, the military could not account for 12,712 out of 13,508 weapons, including pistols, assault rifles, rocket propelled grenade launchers and machine guns.

The report comes on the same day that Army procurement officials will face tough questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding their procurement policies. One official, Claude Bolton, assistant secretary for acquisition, logistics and technology has already announced his resignation on the heels of sharp criticism of army contracting. Bolton’s resignation is effective Jan. 2, 2008. The Army has significantly expanded its fraud investigations in recent months.

Sadr tells Bush To Get Out Of Iraq

Radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr last week blasted US President George W. Bush for signing a deal with Baghdad that ensures a long-term American military presence in Iraq.

"I say this to the evil Bush - leave my country," Sadr said in the Shiite holy city of Najaf.

"We do not need you and your army of darkness," he said.

"We don't need your planes and tanks. We don't need your policy and your interference. We don't want your democracy and fake freedom. Get out of our land."

Sadr's salvo comes a week after the US president and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki announced a deal ensuring a long-term presence of US forces in the country.

Mr Bush and Mr Maliki decided to end the UN mandate for foreign troops' presence in Iraq in 2008 and replace it with a bilateral pact between the two countries for an American military presence beyond 2008.

Sadr, known for his anti-American stance, also criticised the other top Shiite parties in Iraq, Mr Maliki's Dawa and the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council (SIIC).

"Where is Dawa? Where are the brothers of Badr?" he asked, referring to the SIIC militia.

"Iraqi parliament and the government ... you must demand that the occupant leave. Today the Sadrists are oppressed and by our brothers as well as the occupant," the cleric said.

Sadr's political bloc recently walked out of the governing Shiite alliance because of differences with the coalition partners.

The Washington Post reports last week that senior military commanders in Iraq are expressing "growing concern over the Iraqi government's failure to capitalize on sharp declines in attacks against U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians."

As Center for American Progress Action Fund President John Podesta and senior fellows Lawrence Korb and Brian Katulis argue in the Post's opinion pages, the lack of political progress is being overshadowed by a strategic drift in America's domestic debate on Iraq, with "both political parties" seemingly "resigned to allowing the Bush administration to run out the clock on its Iraq strategy and bequeath this quagmire to the next president."

As they point out, the continued U.S. presence in Iraq makes Iraqi national reconciliation more difficult because "as long as U.S. forces remain in Iraq in significant numbers, regional powers feel free to meddle, knowing that America must bear the consequences." Read their full memo here and more from Katulis here and here.

Bush Defends World War Three Comments On Iran

BERLIN (Reuters) - U.S. President George W. Bush defended in a television interview last Wednesday his recent comments suggesting Iran's nuclear ambitions might trigger World War Three and insisted he wanted a diplomatic solution.

Bush told a news conference last month that preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons would be a means of avoiding a new global conflict.

"The reason I said that is because this is a country that has defied the IAEA -- in other words, didn't disclose all their program -- have said they want to destroy Israel," Bush said in the interview with German broadcaster RTL.

"If you want to see World War Three, you know, a way to do that is to attack Israel with a nuclear weapon," Bush added. "And so I said, now is the time to move. It wasn't a prediction, nor a desire."

Asked whether there was a point when the United States would decide military action was the only possible option for dealing with Iran, Bush said: "I would never say that."

"I would say that we would always try to try diplomacy first," he said. "In other words, I -- I've committed our troops into harm's way twice, and it's not a pleasant experience because I understand the consequences firsthand.

"And so I owe it to the American people to say that I've tried to solve this problem diplomatically. And that's exactly what I intend to do. And I believe we can do it, so long as the world works in concert."

Iran says its atomic work is to make electricity, not bombs.

The interview was conducted on Tuesday and RTL released the quotes on Wednesday ahead of a visit to Bush's Texas ranch by German Chancellor Angela Merkel later this week.

Experts: Danger Of Nuclear-Armed Iran May Be Hyped

Warren P. Strobel | McClatchy Newspapers

Pakistani Police Detain 500 Activists
Police Hold 500 Pakistani Activists After Emergency Rule Imposed; Vote Could Be Delayed 1 Year
By MATTHEW PENNINGTON

Islamabad, Pakistan (AP)-Police and soldiers emboldened by state of emergency powers swept up hundreds of activists and opposition members on Sunday, dragged away protesters shouting "Shame on you!", and turned government buildings into barbed-wire compounds.

Gen. Pervez Musharraf's government said parliamentary elections could be delayed up to a year as it tries to stamp out a growing Islamic militant threat effectively linking two of the greatest concerns of Pakistan's biggest international donors: the United States and Britain.

Increasingly concerned about the unfolding crisis, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Washington was reviewing billions of dollars in aid to its close terrorism-fighting ally. Britain is also examining its assistance.

"Some of the aid that goes to Pakistan is directly related to the counterterrorism mission," Rice told reporters traveling with her. "We just have to review the situation."

But, she said, she did not expect the U.S. "to ignore or set aside our concerns about terrorism."

Scores of paramilitary troops blocked access to the Supreme Court and parliament. Streets in the capital appeared largely calm, with only a handful of demonstrations. But one, attended by 40 people at the Marriott Hotel, was broken up by baton-wielding police.

"Shame on you! Go Musharraf go!" the protesters shouted as officers dragged some out of the crowd and forced them to the ground. Eight were taken away in a van.

Others were apathetic. Standing at on a dusty street corner in Islamabad, Togul Khan, 38, said he didn't care about the emergency declaration.

"For us, life stays the same, even when politicians throw Pakistan into the sky, spin it around and watch as it crashes back down to earth," the day laborer said as he waited for work.

In an address to the nation late Saturday, Musharraf said the growth of a militant Islamic movement and a court system that hindered his powers forced him to declare a state of emergency, despite the urging of Western allies against authoritarian measures.

Less than 24 hours after the order was issued, militants in the Afghan border freed 211 captured Pakistani soldiers in exchange for the army's decision to free 28 insurgents, including some allegedly connected to suicide attacks, officials said.

Though they gave no explanation for the decision, it appeared to fly in the face of Musharraf's claims that emergency rule was needed to make sure terrorists dozens of whom he says have been freed by Pakistani courts stay off the streets.

Critics say Musharraf, a 1999 coup leader who had promised to give up his army post and become a civilian president this year, imposed emergency rule in a last-ditch attempt to cling to power.

His leadership is threatened by the Islamic militant movement that has spread from border regions to the capital, the reemergence of political rival and former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, and an increasingly defiant Supreme Court, which was expected to rule soon on the validity of his recent presidential election win. Hearings scheduled for next week were postponed indefinitely.

Attorney General Malik Mohammed Qayyum denied claims by Bhutto and others that Musharraf had imposed martial law direct rule by the army under the guise of a state of emergency. He noted the prime minister was still in place and that the legislature would complete its term next week.

Crucial parliamentary elections had been scheduled for January, but Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said the polls could be delayed up to a year. He said the extraordinary measures would be in place "as long as it is necessary."

In Islamabad, phone service that was cut Saturday evening appeared to have been restored by Sunday morning, but television news networks other than state-controlled Pakistan TV remained off the air.

Aziz said up to 500 people were detained nationwide in 24 hours.

Among them were Javed Hashmi, the acting president of the party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif; cricket star-turned politician, Imran Khan; Asma Jehangir, chairman of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan; and Hamid Gul, former chief of the main intelligence agency and a critic of Musharraf.

Around 200 police with assault rifles and sticks stormed the rights commission's office in the eastern city of Lahore, breaking up a meeting and arresting about 50 members, said Mehbood Ahmed Khan, legal officer for the activists.

"They dragged us out, including the women," he said from the police station. "It's inhuman, undemocratic and a violation of human rights to enter a room and arrest people gathering peacefully there."

Bhutto, who narrowly escaped assassination in an Oct. 18 suicide bombing that killed 145 others, scoffed at claims that Musharraf imposed the emergency measures to fight Islamic militants even though Muslim insurgents were widely blamed for the attempt on her life.

"Many people in Pakistan believe that it has nothing to do with stopping terrorism, and it has everything to do with stopping a court verdict that was coming against him," she told the weekend edition of ABC News' "Good Morning America."

Musharraf replaced the chief justice, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, who had emerged as the main check on the his power. Aitzaz Ahsan, a lawyer who represented the judge, also was arrested.

The U.S. has provided about $11 billion to Pakistan since 2001, when Musharraf made a strategic shift to ally with the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks. Rice told reporters that Washington would review its aid in light of the new emergency measures, though the Pentagon earlier said the emergency rule would not affect its military support to the Muslim nation.

Britain also said it was examining if Musharraf's steps would affect the hundreds of millions of dollars in aid it has pledged to the south Asian nation.

Musharraf's emergency order suspended the 1973 constitution. Seven of the 17 Supreme Court judges immediately rejected the order, and only five agreed to take the oath of office under the new provisional constitution.

Musharraf issued two ordinances toughening media laws, including a ban on live broadcasts of "incidents of violence and conflict." Also, TV operators who "ridicule" the president, armed forces, and other powerful state bodies face up to three years in jail.

Associated Press writers Khalid Tanveer in Multan; Matthew Pennington, Zarar Khan, Sadaqat Jan, Munir Ahmad and Alisa Tang in Islamabad; and Ashraf Khan in Karachi contributed to this report.

Times: Bush Plans To Keep Pakistan From being Mockery Of Democracy 'Fell Apart Spectacularly'
Filed by John Byrne

In a somewhat sharply worded news analysis in Sunday's editions of The New York Times, the paper of record takes the president to task on his seeming failure to maintain order in Pakistan.

"For more than five months the United States has been trying to orchestrate a political transition in Pakistan that would manage to somehow keep Gen. Pervez Musharraf in power without making a mockery of President Bush’s promotion of democracy in the Muslim world," pens the Times' Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Helene Cooper.

"On Saturday, those carefully laid plans fell apart spectacularly," they continue. "Now the White House is stuck in wait-and-see mode, with limited options and a lack of clarity about the way forward."

Musharraf declared emergency rule Saturday evening, putting the Army in charge of Islamabad. Most of the Supreme Court was disbanded after they refused to certify his decision; Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry was placed under house arrest. Telephone lines were cut and critical media outlets shuttered.

The Times said Pakistan was close to a Bush administration nightmare -- an "American-backed military dictator who is risking civil instability in a country with nuclear weapons and an increasingly alienated public"

Stolberg and Cooper also note that top Al Qaeda leaders and Osama Bin Laden are "believed to be hiding out in the mountainous border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan."

Taken together, these statements could indicate a greater threat to the United States' security than Iran: an "American-backed military dictator who is risking civil instability in a country with nuclear weapons and an increasingly alienated public" on whose border Osama Bin Laden and top Al Qaeda leaders are "believed to be hiding out."

Musharraf was one of Bush's chief allies in the region, despite his all-but-dictatorship. The US has given Pakistan more than $10 billion in aid -- "mostly to the military, since 2001."

Now that military is patrolling the streets of Islamabad, cutting off phone lines and critical media outlets and placing opposition leader Imran Khan under house house arrest.

After Musharraf's decision to suspend the constitution, the Times notes: "there was no immediate action by the [Bush] administration to accompany the tough talk."

Tough talk?

"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, traveling in the Middle East, called Mr. Musharraf’s move 'highly regrettable,' while her spokesman, Sean D. McCormack, said the United States was 'deeply disturbed.'"

Teresita Schaffer, an expert on Pakistan at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington told the paper Musharraf’s decision was “a big embarrassment” for the administration.

“There’s going to be a lot of visible wringing of hands, and urging Musharraf to declare his intentions,” Schaffer remarked. “But I don’t really see any alternative to continuing to work with him. They can’t just decide they’re going to blow off the whole country of Pakistan, because it sits right next to Afghanistan, where there are some 26,000 U.S. and NATO troops.”

In his speech at the Heritage Foundation last Thursday, President Bush attacked critics of the term "war on terror," saying that "people who deny we are at war are either being disingenuous or naive." He added, "We are at war -- and we cannot win this war by wishing it away or pretending it does not exist."

Numerous people in the Bush administration, however, have admitted that using the term "war on terror" was a mistake. In September, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen banned the phrase "Global War on Terror" from "any future correspondence."

Both former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Myers have stated that the "global war on terror" is misnamed.

In 2004, Bush himself admitted the term was a mistake, stating, "We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."

Diplomats ‘Upset Over Forced Postings To Iraq.’

In a “contentious” hour-long “town hall meeting”, several hundred U.S. diplomats “vented anger and frustration last Wednesday about the State Department’s decision to force foreign service officers to take jobs in Iraq, with some likening it to a ‘potential death sentence.’” The AP reports on the exchange:

“Incoming is coming in every day, rockets are hitting the Green Zone,” said Jack Crotty, a senior foreign service officer who once worked as a political adviser with NATO forces.

“It’s one thing if someone believes in what’s going on over there and volunteers, but it’s another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment,” Crotty said. “I’m sorry, but basically that’s a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?”

“You know that at any other (country) in the world, the embassy would be closed at this point,” Crotty said to loud and sustained applause from the about 300 diplomats who attended the meeting in a large State Department auditorium.

Terror Watch List Swells To More Than 755,000
By Mimi Hall
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The government's terrorist watch list has swelled to more than 755,000 names, according to a new government report that has raised worries about the list's effectiveness.
The size of the list, typically used to check people entering the country through land border crossings, airports and sea ports, has been growing by 200,000 names a year since 2004. Some lawmakers, security experts and civil rights advocates warn that it will become useless if it includes too many people.

"It undermines the authority of the list," says Lisa Graves of the Center for National Security Studies. "There's just no rational, reasonable estimate that there's anywhere close to that many suspected terrorists."

The exact number of people on the list, compiled after 9/11 to help government agents keep terrorists out of the country, is unclear, according to the report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Some people may be on the list more than once because they are listed under multiple spellings.

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who plans a hearing on the report today, says "serious hurdles remain if (the list) is to be as effective as we need it to be. Some of the concerns stem from its rapid growth, which could call into question the quality of the list itself."

About 53,000 people on the list were questioned since 2004, according to the GAO, which says the Homeland Security Department doesn't keep records on how many were denied entry or allowed into the country after questioning. Most were apparently released and allowed to enter, the GAO says.

Leonard Boyle, director of the FBI's Terrorist Screening Center, which maintains the list, says in testimony to be given today that 269 foreigners were denied entry in fiscal 2006.

The GAO report also says:

•The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) could not specify how many people on its no-fly list, which is a small subset of the watch list, might have slipped through screening and been allowed on domestic flights.

•TSA data show "a number of individuals" on the no-fly list passed undetected through screening and boarded international flights bound for the United States. Several planes have been diverted once officials realized that people named on the watch lists were on board.

•Homeland Security has not done enough to use the list more broadly in the private sector, where workers applying for jobs in sensitive places such as chemical factories could do harm.

Boyle also urges that the list be used by for screening at businesses where workers could "carry out attacks on our critical infrastructure that could harm large numbers of persons or cause immense economic damage."

But the sheer size of the watch list raised the most alarms.

"They are quickly galloping towards the million mark — a mark of real distinction because the list is already cumbersome and is approaching absolutely useless," said Tim Sparapani of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, says "creating and maintaining a comprehensive terrorist watch list is an enormous endeavor fraught with technical and tactical challenges."

The report, she says, "underscores the need to make the watch lists more accurate, to improve screening procedures at airports and the ports of entry, and to provide individuals with the ability to seek redress if they believe they have been wrongfully targeted."

WHITE HOUSE 'NOT WORRIED' ABOUT $2 TRILLION IRAQ WAR

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported yesterday that "total spending for U.S. operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other activities related to the war on terrorism would amount to between $1.2 trillion and $1.7 trillion for fiscal years 2001 through 2017." With $705 billion in interest, the cost of the wars could amount to $2.4 trillion -- with $1.9 trillion in Iraq.

White House Press Secretary Dana Perino attacked the report as "a ton of speculation." "It's a hypothetical. ... What I can tell you is I'm not worried about the number," she said.

The CBO's projection is not "pure speculation." In fact, the report considers a range of predictions about the U.S. military presence in Iraq, consistent with the administration's desire for a Korea-like, "enduring" occupation of Iraq. "It's clear under analysis that the nation is on an unstable fiscal path," CBO Director Peter Orszag told Congress yesterday.

The "higher debt and interest costs, is going to cause severe economic dislocation, which are exacerbated by war costs." Orszag also said yesterday that the real costs of the war could be higher than anticipated.

House Appropriations Chair Not Backing Down In Fight To End 'Misbegotten, Stupid' War
Filed by Jason Rhyne

A Democrat with a spine?

Obey was 'thunderstruck' at Bush arrogance

The Democratic chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee is prepared to play hardball with President Bush over funding the war in Iraq.

Rep. David Obey (D-WI), who has pledged to sideline the latest Pentagon funding request until next year in addition to proposing a tax hike to finance the war, says he's not letting anything -- even Democratic leaders like Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- get in his way.

Obey, who told the Washington Post that he hates the "misbegotten, stupid, ill-advised" war, pushed past Speaker Pelosi's objections to his plan to levy a tax to pay for the war, the paper reports.

"I went to Nancy a week before we did it, and I told her: 'Nancy, I'm gonna do two things,'"said Obey, according to in the Post. "One of them you're gonna like, and one of them you're not."

Pelosi, who favored Obey's idea of not addressing war funding this year, took issue with his war tax plan.

"Just as I have opposed the war from the outset ... I am opposed to a war surtax," she said of the plan at the beginning of the month, and more recently stated that she didn't think that "an across-the-board tax was a fair one...we don't go forward lightly when we're talking about a tax on all the American people."

Undaunted, Obey will introduce the bill next week with Reps. John Murtha (D-PA) and Jim McGovern (D-MA). The measure proposes adding two percent to the taxes of most Americans, and up to a 15 percent increase for wealthier tax payers, according to AP.

The chairman is also using the war to put in perspective what he views as comparatively inexpensive appropriations bills that are working their way through Congress.

"Obey views the $22 billion in extra domestic spending Democrats want as a drop in the bucket compared with the cost of the war," the paper reports. "He calls Bush's philosophy 'an obscenity.'"

The Congressman is taking a hard line against a president he says is a non-negotiator himself.

Citing an experience he had discussing homeland security spending with President Bush following the Sept. 11 attacks, Rep. Obey told the Post that the president said at the time that "if you appropriate a dollar more than I've asked for homeland security, I'll veto the bill...I've got time for four or five comments, and I'm out of here."

"I cannot tell you what a profound effect that meeting had on me," Obey said. "I was absolutely thunderstruck at the arrogance."

US Army Officer In Iraq Accused Of Aiding al Qaeda
By Mussab Al-Kharailla

BAGHDAD, (Reuters) - A senior U.S. army officer in Iraq faced court martial accusations on Friday of aiding al Qaeda and illegally possessing secret documents that could have been used "to the injury of the United States".

Lieutenant-Colonel William Steele, 52, is a former military police commander at Camp Cropper, a U.S. detention facility near Baghdad airport where he oversaw the detention of Saddam Hussein in the days before the Iraqi leader's execution on Dec. 30.

"Lieutenant-Colonel Steele aided the enemy, al Qaeda in Iraq is the enemy, there's no question," prosecutor Captain Michael Rizzotti told the final day of Steele's court martial at Camp Liberty, a U.S. military base near the airport.

Steele is charged with aiding the enemy, a crime that carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, illegally possessing classified information and maintaining an inappropriate relationship with a woman interpreter.

He is the highest-ranking U.S. officer to face a charge of aiding the enemy since Captain James Yee, a Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, was charged in September 2003. The army eventually dropped the case.

Steele is accused of allowing detainees at Cropper to use his mobile phone. His defence team argues that he did this as a humanitarian gesture. Steele himself has opted not to testify.

"He did have interaction with detainees, treating them with dignity and respect. Let's not confuse that with sympathising with the enemy," defence counsel Major David Barrett said in his closing argument.

INTIMATE EMAILS

Rizzotti said Steele had allowed an al Qaeda detainee, identified only as ISN 2184, "responsible for hundreds of deaths of coalition forces" to make a five-minute unmonitored telephone call in Arabic.

"We'll never know who was called, we'll never know what was said. ... It's the equivalent of putting an AK-47 in his hand. He aided the enemy," he said.

"Did he do it once? Did he do it twice? Nine soldiers saw him do this."

Prosecutor Rizzotti said nearly 12,000 secret documents had also been found in a search of Steele's living quarters in Camp Victory, the main U.S. base in Baghdad.

"(They were) documents that if fallen into the wrong hands could be used to the injury of the United States or the advantage of a foreign nation. He did not get authority to take these documents," he said.

Much of the trial was held in closed session because of the sensitive nature of the documents, but reporters were given a glimpse of one which contained aerial photographs of Kandahar airbase and Bagram airfield in Afghanistan.

The court also heard how Steele sent intimate emails to his interpreter Bahar al-Suseyi, including one saying "there are a few things I need to do with you/to you" and planned to take her with him on a trip to Qatar.

Rizzotti said it was inappropriate behaviour for the married camp commander, whose wife Judith has been attending the sessions. It is still unclear what sentence Steele faces on this charge if he is found guilty.

A report released last Thursday by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) found that "attempts by American-led reconstruction teams to force political reconciliation, foster economic growth, and build an effective police force and court system in Iraq have failed to show significant progress in nearly every one of the nation's provincial regions and in the capital."

Examining all 32 provincial reconstruction teams (PRT) in Iraq, the report "pieced together an almost encyclopedic view that has been sorely lacking" and found that progress will require "years of steady engagement."

"If the story of Iraq reconstruction tells anything, teaches any lesson, it is that the U.S. government was not well structured and was not well poised in 2003 to engage in the kind of post-conflict relief and reconstruction operations we have faced," SIGIR Stuart Bowen told a House panel.

Last week, the House overwhelmingly passed a resolution by a vote of 395-21 criticizing the State Department for refusing to answer questions about corruption in the Iraqi government.

Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and John Tierney (D-MA) introduced the bill last week after holding hearings at which State Department officials refused to respond to allegations made by federal investigators of "widespread corruption" in Iraq.

The resolution condemns the State Department for "withholding from Congress and the American people information about the extent of corruption in the Maliki government...for retroactively classifying documents that had been widely distributed previously as unclassified, and for directing its employees not to answer questions in an open forum."

Previously, several House chairmen wrote to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calling for "honest answers" about corruption in Iraq. The resolution garnered broad, bipartisan support, with 171 Republicans voting in favor it. "The vote is purely symbolic, but the lopsided tally represents a stark departure for President Bush's most loyal constituency in Washington."

Bush, Cheney And Intel Agencies Morphed Iraqi Defector's Lies Into A War in Iraq
Filed by David Edwards and Muriel Kane

Los Angeles Times reporter Bob Drogin, who first broke the story of "Curveball," the Iraqi defector who provided much of the false information about WMD's that was used to justify the US invasion of Iraq, appeared on CNN Wednesday to discuss his new book on the subject.

Drogin explained to CNN that Curveball was merely an Iraqi engineer who went to Germany in 1999 and started spinning stories about Saddam Hussein's fleet of mobile biological weapons laboratories. His claims couldn't be verified, but "the Bush administration believed it, even though the CIA had never talked to him." According to Drogin, Curveball was lying to the Germans and inflating his own importance because "he was trying to get asylum" and wanted "to basically jump the line."

Drogin said the real problems arose not from anything Curveball did, but with what became of his stories after they reached the US. "It was analysis that was being passed from one agency to another agency and it kept changing, it kept morphing as it went. So he told one story and by the time Colin Powell is up at the United Nations ... it was like it had gone to Walt Disney or something."

Dorgin primarily blames the intelligence agencies -- and particularly George Tenet -- for the failure to detect Curveball's lies, writing in his book that "Time and again, bureaucratic rivalries, tawdry ambitions and spineless leadership proved more important than professional integrity."

"People who tried to raise warnings, tried to raise red flags, were pushed aside, were cast out, were treated like heretics," Dorgin told CNN. "It's really sort of bizarre. It's a cult over there."

Post Editor Says Bush, Gonzales Should Be Tortured
Filed by Nick Juliano

An associate editor and columnist for the Washington Post says that until George W. Bush and others in his administration endure the "harsh" treatment to which terrorism suspects are subjected, then Bush "will be remembered as the president who tried to justify torture."

Saying his proposal is a "serious" alternative to Jonathan Swift's "modest proposal," the Post's Eugene Robinson says Bush should endure the same detainee treatment he authorized, which "international conventions deem torture."

"My proposal on torture is serious," Robinson wrote on a washingtonpost.com discussion board Sunday. "Let me know if you agree: Bush administration officials who claim the "harsh" interrogation techniques being used on terrorism suspects are not torture should have to undergo those same techniques. Personally. Repeatedly."

The New York Times revealed last week that secret Justice Department documents explicitly authorized "a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures." Bush repeated denials that the US does not torture prisoners, although he has not discussed what specific tactics are used.

"Clearly, he is using a narrow definition of torture: If we haven't actually put anybody on the rack or pulled out his fingernails, we haven't committed torture," Robinson writes. "Until George W. Bush can say, 'Hey, I've been waterboarded, and it wasn't so bad,' or Alberto Gonzales can say, 'To tell the truth, spending those three days naked in a freezing-cold cell wasn't painful or anything,' then I'll continue to believe that history will condemn this administration for a shocking lapse of moral judgment. Bush will be remembered as the president who tried to justify torture."

Democrats Pass Bipartisan Bill To Stop War Profiteering

By a vote of 375-3, the House has passed the War Profiteering Prevention Act, H.R. 400. The bill makes war profiteering a felony. If this legislation becomes law, anyone found guilty of profiting excessively from military action or reconstruction may be subject to 20 years in prison and fines up to $1 millionor as much as twice the illegal profits of their crime.

Last week, the Democratic Congress also passed legislation that would bring all United States government contractors in the Iraq war zone under the jurisdiction of American criminal law. The measure would require the F.B.I. to investigate any allegations of wrongdoing.

Both bills are spurred by the ongoing investigation of Blackwater USA. A private mercenary firm that operates in Iraq, Blackwater is under investigation for a September 16 incident in which as many as 17 Iraqi civilians may have been killed. Following the incident, the Iraqi government expelled Blackwater from the country.

Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez Says Iraq is "a nightmare with no end in sight"

A former US military chief in Iraq has condemned the current strategy in the conflict, which he warned was "a nightmare with no end in sight".

Retired Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez also labelled US political leaders as "incompetent" and "corrupted".

He said they would have faced courts martial for dereliction of duty had they been in the military.

The best the US could manage under the current approach in Iraq was to "stave off defeat", Gen Sanchez warned.

"There is no question that America is living a nightmare with no end in sight," he said, addressing journalists at Arlington, near Washington.

'Desperate'

A catalogue of political misjudgements had paved the way for the insurgency after the fall of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, according to Gen Sanchez.

He blamed the US disbanding of the Iraqi military as well as the failure to set up swiftly civilian government and cement ties with tribal leaders.

The White House this year injected an extra 30,000 US troops into Iraq in the hope of stemming sectarian violence and sowing some political stability.

But Gen Sanchez branded this so-called "surge" strategy a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of shortcomings.

"The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat," he warned.

The White House responded by pointing to the report by current commander Gen David Petraeus and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker, who said the situation was difficult but marked by gradual improvements.

White House spokesman Trey Bohn said: "We appreciate his (Gen Sanchez's) service to the country... As General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker have said, there is more work to be done, but progress is being made in Iraq."

Gen Sanchez was commander of coalition forces in Iraq for a year from mid-2003.

He retired last year in the aftermath of the scandal over detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. He was cleared of any wrongdoing.

Navy veteran questions why six nuclear missiles were flown on combat aircraft to staging area for Middle East
10/08/2007
Filed by John Byrne

A retired lieutenant commander in the Navy Reserve who served with the Navy's Supervisor of Salvage questioned in a little-noticed editorial Sunday why six active nuclear armed cruise missiles were being transferred to an active bomber base that "just happens to be the staging area for Middle Eastern operations."

"The United States also does not transport nuclear weapons meant for elimination attached to their launch vehicles under the wings of a combat aircraft," Navy veteran Robert Stormer wrote in the Texas-based Star-Telegram. "The procedure is to separate the warhead from the missile, encase the warhead and transport it by military cargo aircraft to a repository -- not an operational bomber base that just happens to be the staging area for Middle Eastern operations."

Six nuclear W80 nuclear-armed cruise missiles were flown to Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana where they sat for ten hours undetected.

"Press reports initially cited the Air Force mistake of flying nuclear weapons over the United States in violation of Air Force standing orders and international treaties, while completely missing the more important major issues, such as how six nuclear cruise missiles got loose to begin with," writes Stormer.

"Let me be very clear here: We are not talking about paintball cartridges or pellet gun ammo. We are talking nuclear weapons."

Stormer doesn't buy reports that the missiles were simply lost. The title of his piece is "Nuke transportation story has explosive implications."

"There is a strict chain of custody for all such weapons," he said. "Nuclear weapons handling is spelled out in great detail in Air Force regulations, to the credit of that service. Every person who orders the movement of these weapons, handles them, breaks seals or moves any nuclear weapon must sign off for tracking purposes."

"All security forces assigned are authorized "to use deadly force to protect the weapons from any threat. Nor does anyone quickly move a 1-ton cruise missile -- or forget about six of them, as reported by some news outlets, especially cruise missiles loaded with high explosives.

"This is about how six nuclear advanced cruise missiles got out of their bunkers and onto a combat aircraft without notice of the wing commander, squadron commander, munitions maintenance squadron (MMS), the B-52H's crew chief and command pilot and onto another Air Force base tarmac without notice of that air base's chain of command -- for 10 hours."

At the end of his editorial, he poses the following questions.

The questions that must be answered:

1 Why, and for what ostensible purpose, were these nuclear weapons taken to Barksdale?

2 How long was it before the error was discovered?

3 How many mistakes and errors were made, and how many needed to be made, for this to happen?

4 How many and which security protocols were overlooked?

5 How many and which safety procedures were bypassed or ignored?

6 How many other nuclear command and control non-observations of procedure have there been?

7 What is Congress going to do to better oversee U.S. nuclear command and control?

8 How does this incident relate to concern for reliability of control over nuclear weapons and nuclear materials in Russia, Pakistan and elsewhere?

9 Does the Bush administration, as some news reports suggest, have plans to attack Iran with nuclear weapons?

10 If this was an accident, have we degraded our military to a point where we are now making critical mistakes with our nuclear arsenal? If so, how do we correct this?

House Backs Law to Prosecute Iraq Contractors

On Capitol Hill, the House has overwhelmingly approved a measure that would subject private military contractors in Iraq to prosecution in U.S. courts.

The move comes on the heels of last month’s killing of up to twenty-eight Iraqi civilians by guards working for the private military firm Blackwater USA.

The bill would not be retroactive -- meaning Blackwater guards would still likely avoid prosecution.

The final vote was three hundred-eighty nine to thirty. If the measure attracts the same support in the Senate, Congress would have enough votes to override a Presidential veto.

Pentagon: Blackwater Guards Fired Unprovoked

Meanwhile evidence continues to emerge the Blackwater shooting was unprovoked.

A newly-disclosed Pentagon report from the attack scene says Blackwater guards were the first to fire and used excessive force.

The reports follow evidence showing the Blackwater guards opened fire in another attack just minutes after the first shooting. Iraqi witnesses say Blackwater operatives fired into a group of cars just one-hundred fifty yards away from the first shooting at Nisoor Square. At least one person was killed and two injured.

Soldier warned family: Investigate if I die
Filed by David Edwards and Nick Juliano

Ciara Durkin warned her family before returning to Afghanistan, "If anything happens to me, you guys make sure it gets investigated."

What seemed a joke at the time could have been eerily prescient as Durkin, a National Guard specialist, was found dead, shot once in the head, within the fortified walls of Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan. The Pentagon is releasing no details aside from confirmation that Durkin's was a "non-combat" death.

"We just want full disclosure," Durkin's sister Deirdre said on CBS's Early Show Thursday.

Now Durkin's family is demanding an independent investigation and has enlisted the help of Sens. John Kerry and Edward Kennedy, who represent their home state of Massachusetts.

Although Durkin was gay, her family does not believe her death had anything to do with that. But Durkin, who worked in a finance office, told her family that she had uncovered some information that would upset other military officials.

"She was in the finance unit and she said, 'I discovered some things I don’t like and I made some enemies because of it.' Then she said, in her light-hearted way, 'If anything happens to me, you guys make sure it gets investigated,'" Durkin's older sister, Fiona Canavan, told The Patriot Ledger. "But at the time we thought it was said more as a joke."

Durkin died last Friday of a single gun-shot wound, but the Army has not said whether a weapon was found near her body. The Defense Department says it is investigating the incident, according to reports.

The family told Television interviewers that they didn't believe Durkin killed herself because she seemed upbeat on a recent trip home. Only hours before her death, Durkin left her brother a cheerful voicemail and sang happy birthday to him, the family told ABC News.

“(The military) is definitely holding back,” Canavan told the Boston Herald. “As to why we can only speculate.”

AFGHANISTAN SIX YEARS LATER

Turning Success Into Failure

This past Sunday marked the sixth anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. Following the 9/11 attacks, President Bush promised the country "sustained, comprehensive and relentless operations to drive terrorists out and bring them to justice."

Six years later, both Osama bin Laden and his number two man, Ayman al-Zawahiri, have yet to be captured. The Taliban and al Qaeda, once virtually destroyed in Afghanistan, "have reconstituted their capabilities and command structure along the Afghan-Pakistan border, again posing a threat to the national security of the United States."

Despite promises from the administration that it is committed to fighting insurgents in Afghanistan, it has "not provided the necessary resources, troops, and leadership to keep Afghanistan on the path to stability."

The country has less and less to show for the sacrifices made by the 443 Americans killed in Afghanistan, as strides made following the invasion have largely been allowed to lapse under the administration's watch.

The Center for American Progress has produced a video commemorating the anniversary of the invasion, which outlines how the situation has deteriorated and the steps that must be taken to rectify it. Watch it here.


SECURITY DETERIORATES

While Bush focuses his attention on Iraq, "Afghanistan is currently suffering its most violent year since the 2001 U.S.-led intervention." A recent report from the United Nations showed that violence in Afghanistan has spiked over 30 percent in the last year alone.

Particularly troubling is the importation of tactics from Iraq, specifically suicide bombings and roadside bombs. Previously unknown in Afghanistan, suicide bombings have soared in frequency recently, with a "69 percent increase" in the first nine months of this year.

The Taliban's ability to finance these attacks is mainly derived from its operations in illegal drug trafficking, and Afghanistan produced "record levels of opium" in 2007. Recently, "traffickers have opened more labs that process raw opium into heroin, vastly increasing its value." These drug revenues bring in "anywhere from tens of millions of dollars to $140 million" for the Taliban.

CLUELESS ADMINISTRATION

Despite overwhelming evidence that things are heading in the wrong direction in Afghanistan, the Bush administration continues to spout rhetoric claiming progress.

Former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld recently told GQ that Afghanistan has "been a big success!" Bush touted progress just last week, claiming that "Afghanistan is becoming a safer, more stable country."

The only administration official that seems to understand the severity of the situation in Afghanistan is Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who "told a group of U.S. House Democratic lawmakers that the multinational mission in Afghanistan is suffering from a lack of resources." Gates specifically cited "the war in Iraq and the reluctance of U.S. allies to contribute more troops" as contributors to this shortage. 

A FIGHT WE CAN WIN:

Although the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated recently, experts agree that the window for success has not completely closed. Afghanistan has a functioning and legitimate government, led by Hamid Karzai that is representative of its people. We also have a legitimate coalition of forces in Afghanistan, with 36 countries contributing troops.  

Finally, polling of the Afghan people shows support for an international troop presence and little support for the Taliban. Ambassador Jawad concluded, "Afghanistan is winnable and achieving victory in Afghanistan is easy. The people are your partners. All we need to do is invest in building the capacity of the Afghans to defend their own country."

Huckabee Rips President Bush's Foreign Policy
Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee ripped the Bush administration's war against terrorism Friday, delivering a bold and potentially risky speech that could establish the former Arkansas governor as the maverick among top Republican candidates and test his party's loyalty to President Bush.

Last Thursday, the House Oversight Committee Chair Henry Waxman (D-CA) accused Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of "interfering" with the committee's investigation into corruption in Iraq.

"The scope of the prohibition is breathtaking," Waxman wrote, alleging that State seems to view criticism of the government as "a national security secret." "It means that unless the Committee agrees to keep the information secret from the public, the Committee cannot obtain information from officials...about whether there is corruption within the Iraqi ministries."

Waxman also pressed Rice about his committee's investigation into Blackwater USA, a private security firm that was allegedly involved in a shooting incident that left 11 Iraqis dead.

The State Department has instructed Blackwater not to provide the Committee

Blackwater working again in Iraq

The US security firm Blackwater has resumed limited operations in the Iraqi capital Baghdad four days after a deadly shootout involving the company.

The company provides security to all US state department employees in Iraq.

It had been ordered by the Iraqi government to halt operations while a joint US-Iraqi inquiry was held.

A US embassy spokeswoman said the decision to allow Blackwater to resume work had been taken in consultation with the Iraqi government.

The spokeswoman, Mirembe Nantongo, said Blackwater operations would be limited to essential missions only outside Baghdad's heavily-fortified Green Zone.

'A separate Iraqi interior ministry investigation has found that Blackwater was "100% guilty" of the incident in which 11 Iraqi civilians were killed.

Blackwater says its guards acted in self-defence, but this has been disputed by Iraqi eyewitnesses.

The interior ministry report, based on testimony from witnesses, concluded that Blackwater guards in Baghdad's Nisour Square started shooting after two mortar rounds landed nearby.

"They started shooting randomly from four positions in the square, killing 11 civilians and injuring 12 others," said interior ministry spokesman Maj Gen Abdul-Karim Khalaf.

"The first one who was killed was a driver who failed to stop and then his wife," Maj Gen Khalaf said.

The report also calls for the lifting of legal immunity for foreign security companies operating in Iraq.

The US embassy said it would not comment on the Iraqi report while its own investigation is under way.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has described the shooting as a "criminal act" and vowed not to tolerate it.

How George Bush became the new Saddam

COVER STORY: Its strategies shattered, a desperate Washington is reaching out to the late dictator's henchmen

By: Patrick Graham

It was embarrassing putting my flak jacket on backwards and sideways, but in the darkness of the Baghdad airport car park I couldn’t see anything. “Peterik, put the flak jacket on,” the South African security contractor was saying politely, impatiently. “You know the procedure if we are attacked.”

I didn’t. He explained. One of the chase vehicles would pull up beside us and someone would drag me out of the armored car, away from the firing. If both drivers were unconscious—nice euphemism—he said I should try to run to the nearest army checkpoint. If the checkpoint was American, things might work out if they didn’t shoot first. If it was Iraqi . . . he didn’t elaborate.

Arriving in Baghdad has always been a little weird. Under Saddam Hussein it was like going into an orderly morgue; when he ran off after the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003 put an end to his Baathist party regime, the city became a chaotic mess. I lived in Iraq for almost two years, but after three years away I wasn’t quite ready for just how deserted and worn down the place seemed in the early evening. It was as if some kind of mildew was slowly rotting away at the edges of things, breaking down the city into urban compost.

Since 2003, more than 3,775 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq, while nearly 7,500 Iraqi policemen and soldiers have died. For Iraq’s civilian population, the carnage has been almost incalculable. Last year alone, the UN estimated that 34,500 civilians were killed and more than 36,000 wounded; other estimates are much higher. As the country’s ethnic divisions widen, especially between Iraq’s Arab Shia and Arab Sunni Muslims (the Kurds are the third major group), some two million people have been internally displaced, with another two million fleeing their homeland altogether. Entering Baghdad I could tell the Sunni neighborhoods, ghettos really, by the blasts in the walls and the emptiness, courtesy of sectarian cleansing by the majority Shias. The side streets of the Shia districts seemed to have a little more life to them.

The Full Story at Macleans.ca

Proof of cooperation between Iran and Syria in the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction was brought to light Monday in Jane's Defence Weekly, which reported that dozens of Iranian engineers and 15 Syrian officers were killed in a July 23 accident in Syria.

According to the report, cited by Channel 10, the joint Syrian-Iranian team was attempting to mount a chemical warhead on a Scud missile when the explosion occurred, spreading lethal chemical agents, including sarin nerve gas.

Reports of the accident were circulated at the time; however, no details were released by the Syrian government, and there were no hints of an Iranian connection.

The report comes on the heels of criticism leveled by the Syrians at the United States, accusing it of spreading "false" claims of Syrian nuclear activity and cooperation with North Korea to excuse an alleged Israeli air incursion over the country this month.

According to globalsecurity.org, Syria is not a signatory of either the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), - an international agreement banning the production, stockpiling or use of chemical weapons - or the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

Syria began developing chemical weapons in 1973, just before the Yom Kipper War. Globalsecurity.org cites the country as having one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the Middle East.

White House: little Iraqi progress on benchmarks

Renee Schoof | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — In sharp contrast to the sunny tone that President Bush struck in his address to the nation Thursday night, the White House reported Friday that Iraq's leaders had made little headway over the past two months toward meeting 18 key benchmarks for progress aimed at ending high levels of sectarian violence.

Protestors Meet Outside White House Demanding End To Iraq War

Thousands of protestors gathered in a park outside the White House Saturday demanding an end to the war in Iraq, the return of US troops, and the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

The crowd of protesters, numbering between 4,000 and 6,000, then marched under a clear sky toward the US Capitol building. Many waved placards that read "Support our troops, stop the war," and "Impeach Bush."

Phil Aliff, 21, marched wearing his camouflage uniform jacket as part of a group called Iraq Veterans Against the War. Aliff first arrived in Iraq in July 2006.

"I stayed there for a year, in Abu Ghraib and outside Fallujah. When we arrived, we were told we were here to bring stabilization to the country," said Aliff.

"But we were not rebuilding anything. The Iraqis had only two hours of electricity. And I saw the atrocities committed by the Americans there."

Aliff spoke days after the top US general in Iraq, David Petraeus, testified before Congress, giving an optimistic report on conditions in Iraq and the effectiveness of the US president's "surge" strategy of adding more US troops to the fight.

"General Petraeus's report is incredibly far from the reality on the ground," said Aliff.

Another marcher, Diane Santoriello, held a photograph of her 25-year-old son Neil, lost in Iraq on August 13, 2004. "I am here to get Congress to defund the war," she said.

"The vast majority of Iraqi people want the US and other foreign forces out of the country," said Brian Becker with the ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War End Racism) coalition, the group organizing the march.

"The vast majority of the people in the US want the war ended and the troops brought home now," he added.

McCain: Bush Was Unrealistic About War

By JIM DAVENPORT

ROCK HILL, S.C. (AP) — Republican presidential candidate John McCain said Saturday that voters are frustrated with the war in Iraq because of the Bush administration's unrealistic projections early in the conflict.

The Arizona senator told reporters he was pleased with Gen. David Petraeus' testimony before Congress this past week because it "did not present this totally rosy scenario. That's why Americans are frustrated today."

He blamed "different administration officials" for that. "It's all the president's responsibility," McCain said, but those reporting to him were also responsible.

Earlier in the day, McCain was critical of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, saying his failings "frustrated and saddened" the American people.

McCain was in the midst of the South Carolina leg of his "No Surrender" tour, a trip that took him from Rock Hill in the Upstate to Little River along the coast near Myrtle Beach. At each of four speeches, he urged voters to pressure Congress to stay the course in Iraq. And he told reporters that Democrats are heading down a "blatantly unconstitutional" path on the war.

He drew crowds of 200 or better at each stop as he urged people to write lawmakers, including wavering Republicans, and "stand up for these young men and women" in uniform.

Between stops, McCain told reporters that Democrats, including presidential candidate Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, plan to overstep the role of Congress by trying to specify how long troops should stay in action.

"Where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that the Congress decides how long people spend on tours of duty and how long they would spend back in the United States? It's blatantly unconstitutional," McCain said.

Petraeus and Crocker Face Hume Humiliation (Limerick)
By Madeleine Begun Kane

Gen. Petraeus and Crocker on Fox
(Not exactly the school of hard knocks)
Where they weave and they spin
And avow “We must win,”
While Brit Hume bows and kisses their socks.

IRAQ -- REPORT: MASSIVE U.S. 'FOOTPRINT' IN IRAQ CONVEYS 'PERMANENCE,' 'OPPOSITE IMPRESSION IS NEEDED'

A report released Wednesday by a 20-member commission, headed by retired Marine Gen. James Jones, reported that it will be at least 12 to 18 months before Iraq’s army and police can take charge. Though "allies of the White House are likely to point to the report as evidence" that the U.S. presence in Iraq should continue, a closer inspection of the report reveals that the Jones commission is hardly in favor of maintaining the escalation in Iraq. 

On page 128, the report explicitly warns that the "massive" U.S. military occupation of Iraq is conveying the impression of "permanence." The report goes on to recommend "significant reductions" in the "size of our national footprint in Iraq." 

The recommendations of Gen. Jones echo the comments made by White House "war czar" Gen. Doug Lute prior to his appointment, when he said: "You have to undercut the perception of occupation in Iraq. It's very difficult to do that when you have 150,000-plus, largely western, foreign troops occupying the country."

Disregarding the advice and concerns of these generals, Bush has said he plans to largely maintain troop levels, and the White House has aggressively pursued the construction of an "embassy-fortress."

IRAQ -- O'HANLON RIPS GAO REPORT, CALLS IT 'FLAT-OUT SLOPPY'

Last week, Gen. David Petraeus alleged a 75 percent reduction in "sectarian violence" in Iraq and is expected to say the same before Congress. In contrast, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office recently reported that daily attacks in Iraq have "remained unchanged" throughout the escalation.

The Washington Post reports today that national security analysts are questioning the military's statistics. National Intelligence Estimate authors, Iraq Study Group members, intelligence officials, and academics now "accuse the military of cherry-picking positive indicators."

Brookings Institution analyst Michael O'Hanlon, however, attacked the GAO and lauded the Pentagon's distortions. In an analysis only he could offer, O'Hanlon rips the GAO report for being both "overly rigorous" and "flat-out sloppy."

Ironically, while O'Hanlon bashes the GAO when he doesn't like what it says, his very own Iraq Index borrows heavily from GAO research to report on the situation on the ground. A senior military intelligence official attributed the Pentagon's citation of the drastic reduction in violence "to a desire to provide Petraeus with ammunition for his congressional testimony."

The entire article can be read HERE.

Poll: Majority mistrustful of upcoming Iraq report

• Story Highlights
• Fifty-three percent say they don't trust military assessment of situation in Iraq
  
• Forty-three percent say they do trust report by U.S. Army's top general in Iraq
  
• CNN polling director thinks mistrust is directed at Bush administration
  
• About half think military making progress; a quarter think Iraqi government is

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A majority of Americans don't trust the upcoming report by the Army's top commander in Iraq on the progress of the war and even if they did, it wouldn't change their mind, according to a new poll.

President Bush frequently has asked Congress -- and the American people -- to withhold judgment on his so-called troop surge in Iraq until Gen. David Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, and Ryan Crocker, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, issue their progress report in September.

But according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Thursday, 53 percent of people polled said they suspect that the military assessment of the situation will try to make it sound better than it actually is. Forty-three percent said they do trust the report.

CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said he doesn't think the mistrust is directed at Petreaus as much as it is what he represents.

Holland said, "I suspect most people are hearing the words 'general' and 'Iraq' and that's what they're basing their opinion on."

He added, "It does seem to indicate that anyone associated with the Bush administration may be a less than credible messenger for the message that there is progress being made in Iraq."

Another interesting thing about the poll, Holland said, is that it indicates that about half of those surveyed -- 47 percent -- feel that the military is making progress in Iraq, although slightly more -- 49 percent -- do not.

White House press secretary Tony Snow reacted to the poll, saying that he hoped that "people do not try to engage in personal attacks on Gen. Petraeus or Ambassador Crocker."

"David Patraeus is basically the guy who's written the manual on counterinsurgency, and the one thing that you see with returning Democratic and Republican congressman is that something very significant has taken place," Snow said.

How the report is phrased also might determine how it is received, Holland said. If the report details military progress, that might be better received than what political progress the Iraqi government is making.

Twenty-six percent of those polled feel that the Iraqi government is making progress, while 69 percent said that it wasn't.

"We haven't done a lot of polling about the Iraqi government," Holland said, "but the numbers we have seem to indicate that people are pretty skeptical of any government official in Iraq."

The poll indicates that most of America's mind is made up about the war -- 72 percent said the report will have no effect on their view of the war.

Of those opposed to the war, 47 percent said Petreaus' report could not change their mind while 17 percent said it could.

Thirty-three percent said they support the war.

The poll was based on interviews of 1,029 Americans by telephone between August 6 and 8. The sampling error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points, except for the questions based on the respondents' support or lack of support of the war, which was plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

US Government, complicit in Iraq corruption, helps punish whistleblowers

Raw Story

People who have brought war-related fraud and corruption to the attention of law enforcement suffer horribly as a result, reports the Associated Press Saturday.

The article profiles people who have filed lawsuits on behalf of the American taxpayer after witnessing misuse of funds and materials at the hands of private contractors. After blowing the whistle on his employer at the time, Shield Group Security Co., Navy Veteran Donald Vance, in his suit, says he and a colleague were held in an American military prison for over three months and subject to harsh interrogation tactics "reserved for terrorists and so-called enemy combatants."

Employees of the Federal Government and private military contractors are shown to have faced demotion, detention, shunning by colleagues, and a destroyed family life as consequences of reporting corruption.

#

EXCERPTS:

“If you do it, you will be destroyed,” said William Weaver, professor of political science at the University of Texas-El Paso and senior advisor to the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition.

“Reconstruction is so rife with corruption. Sometimes people ask me, ‘Should I do this?’ And my answer is no. If they’re married, they’ll lose their family. They will lose their jobs. They will lose everything,” Weaver said.

“The only way we can find out what is going on is for someone to come forward and let us know,” said Beth Daley of the Project on Government Oversight, an independent, nonprofit group that investigates corruption. “But when they do, the weight of the government comes down on them. The message is, ’Don’t blow the whistle or we’ll make your life hell.’

#

The entire article can be read at MSNBC.com.

According to the report, Hezbollah – a Shi'a Muslim group with ties to Iran that has been labeled a terrorist organization by the United States – may target the US domestically if the US poses a serious threat to Iran. But sources say the allegations about Hezbollah were simply "thrown in."

The entire New York Times article can be read HERE.

The U.S. embassy in Iraq is set to open this fall. Projected to cost $592 million, the embassy will employ a staff of 4,000 people and assume operating costs totaling $1.2 billion a year.

It will be a 104-acre complex -- the size of approximately 80 football fields -- and the largest U.S. embassy in the world. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked for an additional $50 million in May "to to add more structures" to the embassy. "It's all for them [the U.S], all of Iraq's resources, water, electricity, security," observed an Iraqi.

"It's as if it's their country, and we are guests staying here." In building this lavish symbol of occupation, the United States subsidized the company First Kuwaiti General Trading and Contracting (FK), a foreign contractor with egregious labor abuses.

In a hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee yesterday, several former managers and employees of FK reported on the conditions at the embassy, which ranged from "deplorable" living conditions to "kidnapping" of employees.

Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) responded, "If what you are telling us is right, something appears to be seriously wrong with the management and oversight of this project."

SLAVE LABOR

Last weeks hearing confirmed the serious abuses that have been reported for nearly two years. Because of the U.S. refusal to employ Iraqis inside the Green Zone, "most of the laborers were from such countries as India, Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, the Philippines and Sierra Leone, the committee was told." FK lied to the workers, as "all of our tickets said we were going to Dubai," testified an embassy technician, "adding that an FK manager instructed him not to tell any of the Filipinos that they were going to Baghdad."

Rory Mayberry, a former subcontract employee of the FK, told the Committee: "Let me spell it out clearly: I believe these men were kidnapped by First Kuwaiti to work at the U.S. Embassy."

One worker signed up be a "telephone repair man," and when workers discovered they were headed to Baghdad en route, an FK manager waved an MP5 gun in the air to "settle down" the employees.

In Baghdad, workers toiled for 12 hours a day, seven days a week, and for as little as $10 a day, according to John Owens, former FK manager. If a construction worker needed new shoes or gloves, he was told "No, do with what you have" by FK managers, Owens testified. "When drinking water was scarce in the blistering heat, coolers were filled on the banks of the Tigris, a river rife with waterborne disease, sewage and sometimes floating bodies."

THE SECRET EMBASSY

The planning for the embassy has been marked by a veil of secrecy by the State Department. In May, architectural firm Bergine Define Yaeger posted pictures of the embassy's design online, but two days later, the Department ordered the pictures removed, alleging a "security risk" for "our employees overseas."

In his efforts to obtain information from the Department about the embassy, Waxman "said that for two weeks he was unable to get documents and cables he had requested. Some were delivered only Thursday in response to a subpoena, he said."

But a Nov. 2005 State Department Inspector General (IG) report curiously found no evidence of abuse. The IG even alleged that employees "sought" overtime work. "No interviewee was aware of any worker who had been mistreated," the IG reiterated yesterday, dismissing the allegations.

CONTRACTS FOR WAR ALLIES

The United States is largely is responsible for FK's rise. "The company was a $35 million firm in early 2003 and now holds nearly $2 billion in contracts; largely U.S. funded and related to Iraq," reports CorpWatch.

When originally contracted, FK's human rights abuses were well-documented, and the company had "little experience in projects on the scale envisioned for the embassy."

Furthermore, there were several lower bidders than FK, including "one award-winning American company, Framaco, which offered to do the job for as much as $70 million less than First Kuwaiti."

President Bush ordered 100,000 troops to Kuwait to be "ready to conduct an operation" in February 2003; subsequently, some have alleged the contract may be a reward for Kuwait's pre-war support.

'Difficult' For Al-Qaeda To Export Violence: US General
 
 
The second-highest ranking US general in Iraq said on Thursday it would be "difficult" for Al-Qaeda in Iraq to export violence outside the country despite expressed concerns by US intelligence.

"Al-Qaeda in Iraq, I think, is struggling with its mission here in Iraq," said general Raymond Odierno, who spoke to reporters via teleconference from Iraq.

"Currently I think it would be very difficult for them to export any violence outside of Iraq," he said.

Nevertheless, Odierno said Al-Qaeda was attempting to set up a training base inside Iraq, and he acknowledged that some foreign fighters could be learning tactics there and using them elsewhere.

"There is an attempt here by the leadership of Al-Qaeda to create a training area and a place when they can recruit and train people in the Middle East. That's why they would like us to fail here so they can use Iraq," he said.

"There might be some things they have done here in Iraq that people might be learning from. There might be people who have been coming here for short periods of time, foreigners, that might try to conduct some attacks."

A US intelligence report on Tuesday warned that Al-Qaeda had regrouped in its Pakistani "safe haven" and was determined launch fresh attacks on the United States.

War Games Show Bush Wrong On Iraq Pullout; Qaeda Unlikely To Succeed

By: David Edwards and Will Menaker

Supporters of the war in Iraq -- including President George W. Bush -- claim that a withdrawal of US forces would lead to an al Qaeda takeover of Iraq. Yet according to Pentagon war games, this scenario is highly unlikely.

On Wednesday's Countdown Keith Olbermann interviewed Washington Post correspondent Thomas Ricks who discussed his article on Pentagon war gaming for a post-US Iraq.

Pentagon simulations on US withdrawal find the most likely scenario would be a three-way split of the country between Kurds, Shias, and Sunnis. Ricks warns while the breakup would be "very ugly," with possibly "tens of thousands of people dying," an al Qaeda takeover of Iraq would not be possible by "any stretch of the imagination."

In addition, the war games also found Iran would not benefit from US withdrawal, and in fact would be sucked in to the same kind of destabilizing sectarian conflict the US finds itself embroiled in.

Olbermann asked Ricks whether it is fair to draw the conclusion that the best way to stop Iran from interfering in Iraq is to leave, to which Ricks responded, that while there are no "good answers" left in Iraq, leaving would make it significantly easier to deal with Iran.

Ricks noted that while these lessons appear to be taken to heart by members of the military, it is ultimately up to them to convince the White House come September, when this war will become "General Petraeus' war" just as much as it is Bush's.

GOP Sen. Gordon Smith calls war in Iraq 'insane'

Filed by David Edwards and Muriel Kane

Fox News, reporting Tuesday on the increasing number of Republicans in Congress criticizing the Iraq War, interviewed Senator Gordon Smith (R-OR), cosponsor of a resolution for withdrawal.

Smith is known for a speech last December in which he stated, "I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal."

Smith told Fox, "If I could do anything over, I would – in that speech I gave – I would replace the word 'criminal' with the word 'insane.'" He suggested that the "surge" might have had a chance of working four years ago, but said, "On my numerous visits to Iraq ... each time I go, the government seems more and more dysfunctional. And all we're doing is depending on them to step up and govern."

Smith went on to explain the legislation he is sponsoring, saying, "There's nothing in this amendment that says we withdraw from the war on terror." When Fox host Shepard Smith pressed him on whether there might be a civil war in Iraq that is indistinguishable from the war on terror, the senator denied both points. "It may become a full-blown civil war," he acknowledged, "but the point is, it's not ours, it's theirs. It's not something we can win. ... I'm just tired of American kids dying for that."

Veteran Republicans put Bush on notice on Iraq

In the clearest sign yet of Republican anxiety over Iraq, two party elder statesmen Friday urged President George W. Bush to begin pulling US troops out of the sectarian cross-fire by the end of the year.

A new blueprint by Senators Richard Lugar and John Warner was similar to many plans from anti-war Democrats to get troops out of Iraq, with an important difference -- it did not include a hard date for a withdrawal to be complete.

The plan was released a day after Bush rejected any changes to the war plan until US commander in Iraq General David Petraeus gives a definitive report on progress of the current troop surge strategy in two months.

"We are attempting to ensure that US military and diplomatic policy is prepared for change when the Petraeus report arrives in September," Lugar said.

"We are hopeful that regardless of where Senators stand on surge versus withdrawal, they will find our amendment to be a constructive bipartisan attempt to prepare for whatever policy follows in the coming months."

The legislation, which appears designed to unite those Republicans who have broken with Bush on the war with anti-war Democrats, calls for a new plan to be delivered to Congress by October 16.

The President should be ready to start carrying it out by the end of this year, the amendment, to a defense policy bill said.

It called for US troops to be transitioned from "policing the civil strife or sectarian violence in Iraq" and their redeployment as "conditions permit."

US forces should then be focused on security Iraq's borders, denying a safe haven to terrorists, battling Al-Qaeda and training and equipping Iraqi forces.

Most Foreign Insurgents In Iraq Are Saudis

Most foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from Saudi Arabia, despite attempts by US officials to portray Syria and Iran as the main culprits of violence, a US newspaper reported Sunday.

Citing an unnamed senior US military officer and Iraqi lawmakers, the Los Angeles Times newspaper said about 45 percent of all foreign militants targeting US troops and Iraqi security forces were from Saudi Arabia, 15 percent from Syria and Lebanon, and 10 percent from North Africa

Official US military figures made available to The Times also show that nearly half of the 135 foreigners in US detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, the report said.

Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, the paper said.

The senior US officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said 50 percent of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come as suicide bombers, The Times pointed out.

The situation has left the US military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against US forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad, the paper said.

Failure in Afghanistan risks rise in terror, say generals

Nicholas Watt and Ned Temko
Observer

Britain's most senior generals have issued a blunt warning to Downing Street that the military campaign in Afghanistan is facing a catastrophic failure, a development that could lead to an Islamist government seizing power in neighbouring Pakistan.

Adam Holloway, a Tory member of the committee who is a former Grenadier Guards officer, said: 'We are getting to the point where it will be irretrievable. That's where we are now. We are in danger of a second strategic failure [after Iraq], which we cannot afford.'

Thousands in U.S., abroad speak out on war
Story Highlights
• NEW: Counterdemonstrators rip up protester's peace sign
• Cindy Sheehan likens Pentagon to movie's 'Death Star'
• Rally in Washington and Virginia ends after three hours
• Thousands also protest in other cities, countries as war enters 5th year

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Thousands of anti-war demonstrators and supporters of the U.S. policy in Iraq shouted at each other Saturday from opposite sides of a street bordering the National Mall as protesters formed a march to the Pentagon to denounce a war entering its fifth year.

The anti-war group carried signs saying "U.S. Out of Iraq Now," "Stop Iraq War, No Iran War, Impeach" and "Illegal Combat." The other side carried signs saying "Peace Through Strength," "al Qaeda Appeasers On Parade" and "We Are At War, Liberals Root For the Enemy."

Police on horseback and foot separated the demonstrators, who were on opposite sides of Constitution Avenue in view of the Lincoln Memorial. Barriers also kept them apart.

But war protester Susanne Shine of Boone, North Carolina, found herself in a crowd of counterdemonstrators. She came out in tears, with her sign in shreds.

"They ripped up my peace sign," she said.

Thousands crossed the Potomac River from the Lincoln Memorial to rally loudly but peacefully near the Pentagon.

"We're here in the shadow of the war machine," said anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, whose soldier son was killed in Iraq.

"It's like being in the shadow of the Death Star," she said, referring to the planet-sized warship in the movie "Star Wars." "They take their death and destruction and they export it around the world. We need to shut it down."

Speakers blamed congressional Democrats, too, for refusing to cut off money for the war.

"This is a bipartisan war," New York City labor activist Michael Letwin told the crowd. "The Democratic Party cannot be trusted to end it." Letwin said the key to ending the war soon is to bring more troops and their families into the protest movement.

An hour into the three-hour rally, with the temperature near freezing, fewer than 1,000 protesters were left.

Police reported no arrests Saturday, after more than 200 Friday night.

People traveled from afar in stormy weather to join the march.

"Too many people have died and it doesn't solve anything," said Ann Bonner, who drove through snow with her husband, Tom O'Grady, and two children, 13 and 10, from Athens, Ohio. "I feel bad carrying out my daily activities while people are suffering, Americans and Iraqis."

Veteran says he's conflicted
Saturday's march was the main event in anti-war demonstrations around the country.

Rallies also took place in Los Angeles, California; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Hartford, Connecticut; Lincoln, Nebraska; and other cities.

In Los Angeles, Vietnam veteran Ed Ellis, 59, hoped the demonstrations would be the "tipping point" against the war.

"It's all moving in our direction, it's happening," he said. "The administration, their get-out-of-jail-free card, they don't get one anymore."

In Washington, war supporters played "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"; the anti-war crowd danced to Stevie Wonder's "Superstition."

Veterans, some from the Rolling Thunder motorcycle group, lined up at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

"I'm not sure I'm in support of the war," said William "Skip" Publicover of Charleston, South Carolina, who was a swift boat gunner in Vietnam and lost two friends whose names are etched on the memorial's wall.

"I learned in Vietnam that it's difficult if not impossible to win the hearts and minds of the people."

Retired Marine Jeff Carroll, 47, an electrician in Milton, Delaware, held a sign saying: "Proud of our soldiers, ashamed of our president."

Carroll said he served in Lebanon when the Marine barracks was bombed in a deadly attack in 1983, and thinks the United States should be focusing on Afghanistan and Osama bin Laden instead of Iraq.

"We're fighting the wrong country," he said.

But Larry Stimeling, 57, a Vietnam veteran from Morton, Illinois, said the loss of public support for the Iraq war mirrors what happened in Vietnam and leaves troops without the backing they need.

"We didn't lose the war in Vietnam, we lost it right here on this same ground," he said, pointing to the grass on the National Mall. "It's the same thing now."

Park Police Lt. Scott Fear said more than 200 people were arrested from a crowd of several thousand protesters who marched to the White House on Friday night after a peace service at the Washington National Cathedral.

Overseas Saturday, at least 20,000 demonstrators rallied against the war in Madrid, Spain; more than 6,000 in Istanbul, Turkey; 1,000 in Athens, Greece; and several hundred in Copenhagen, Denmark.

IRAQ -- DOOLITTLE: IRAQ IS A 'QUAGMIRE,' U.S. FORCES SHOULD BE OFF FRONT LINES 'BY THE END OF THE YEAR'

Speaking Thursday at a town hall meeting with constituents, Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA), who is currently under investigation for his "association with disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff," called the war in Iraq a "quagmire." Doolittle argued, "We've got to get off the front lines as soon as possible. ... In my mind, that means something like the end of the year."

"I am increasingly convinced that we never are going to succeed in actually ending people dying in Iraq. I think it's going to be a constant conflict...and if that is going to happen...it needs to be the Iraqis dying and not the Americans," he said further.

Noting the growing number of prominent conservatives -- including Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), and Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) -- who have rejected the Bush administration's failed stay-the-course strategy in Iraq, Doolittle said, "My belief is that the majority of my colleagues on the Republican side have become skeptical of all of this. ... And that's a big change."

Further, Doolittle predicted that the "anticipated September report by Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, will indicate that a long-term U.S. presence is needed despite the recent troop surge."

Despite his supposed commitment to ending the war, Doolittle was careful to remind the Sacramento Bee that he -- like Lugar -- "opposes setting a timetable to withdraw forces from Iraq."

Further, despite Lewis "Scooter" Libby lying to a grand jury during an investigation of a key aspect of the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq, Doolittle remarked, "I thought the commutation was the president's right to do. I don't know why he didn't just pardon him outright."

The "sprawling, 21-building embassy" compound in Iraq is roughly the size of Vatican city, projected to cost $592 million to construct and $1.2 billion per year to run. The embassy has been plagued by accusations that it is being "built with coerced labor," its staff is "too young" and "not qualified," and reports that the embassy compound is already too small to accommodate the extremely large embassy staff.

Last Thursday the Washington Post reports that a "toughly worded cable sent from the embassy to State Department headquarters on May 29" reveals that such problems continue to grow. According to the cable, as "the kitchen staff tried to cook the inaugural meal" in a new facility designed to "house the security guards protecting the embassy," they discovered that "some appliances did not work," "workers began to get electric shocks," and a "burning smell enveloped the kitchen as the wiring began to melt."

James L. Golden, managing director of the embassy's construction wrote a "stinging response" to the cable in which he "berated personnel in Baghdad for sending their message over an open embassy system, rather than keeping the complaints in-house." Further, he "accused the embassy...of making false claims to deflect attention from their own errors." Until the problems are resolved, the embassy guards must stay in what was referred to in the cable as "tents and deplorable living conditions."

Defense Sect. Gates Fires Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Pace Says He Refused To Quit Voluntarily
By ROBERT BURNS
AP Military Writer

In his first public comments on the Bush administration's surprise decision to replace him as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace disclosed that he had turned down an offer to voluntarily retire rather than be forced out.

To quit in wartime, he said, would be letting down the troops.

Pace, responding to a question from the audience after he spoke at the Joint Forces Staff College in Norfolk, Va., on Thursday evening, said he first heard that his expected nomination for a second two-year term was in jeopardy in mid-May. Defense Secretary Robert Gates on June 8 announced Pace was being replaced.

"One thing that was discussed was whether or not I should just voluntarily retire and take the issue off the table," Pace said, according to a transcript released Friday by his office at the Pentagon.

"I said I could not do that for one very fundamental reason," which is that no soldier or Marine in Iraq should "think - ever - that his chairman, whoever that person is, could have stayed in the battle and voluntarily walked off the battlefield.

"That is unacceptable as a leadership thing, in my mind," he added.

Pace, whose current term ends Oct. 1, said he intended to remain on the job until then. Navy Adm. Michael Mullen has been announced as President Bush's choice to succeed Pace, who is the first Marine ever to hold the military's top post.

The decision to drop Pace has fed the political debate in Washington over the Iraq war. On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid caused a stir when he said Pace had failed in his job of providing Congress a candid assessment on the war. Democrats typically have shied from stinging comments about military officers, instead focusing criticism on Bush and administration policies in Iraq.

Asked for comment on Reid's statement, a spokeswoman for Pace, Marine Col. Katie Haddock, said Pace "is focused on his duties as chairman and is not going to respond to press reports on who's saying what. He will let 40 years of service speak for itself."

A Vietnam veteran, Pace indicated in his Norfolk comments that his experience in that war colored his decision not to quit voluntarily.

"The other piece for me personally was that some 40 years ago I left some guys on the battlefield in Vietnam who lost their lives following 2nd Lt. Pace," he said. "And I promised myself then that I will serve this country until I was no longer needed - that it's not my decision. I need to be told that I'm done.

"I've been told I'm done.

"I will run through the finish line on 1 October, and when I run through the finish line I will have met the mission I set for myself," he said.

Pace was vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs during the run-up to the Iraq war and during the early years of a conflict that has dragged on far longer than the administration foresaw. In October 2005 he succeeded Air Force Gen. Richard Myers as Joint Chiefs chairman, and until recently had largely been spared the war-related criticism that senior civilian officials attracted.

The decision to sideline Pace came as a surprise, since Gates had previously indicated privately that he intended to recommend that the president re-nominate him. In his remarks in Norfolk, Pace confirmed that Gates had told him he preferred to keep him as chairman but in mid-May began to see signs of opposition on Capitol Hill.

When he announced the decision last Friday, Gates said that after consulting with members of the Senate he concluded that sticking with Pace would risk a Senate confirmation struggle focusing on the Iraq War.

"It would be a backward-looking and very contentious process," Gates said. At the same time, he made clear he had made his decision with reluctance, saying he wished it had not been necessary.

"I am no stranger to contentious confirmations, and I do not shrink from them," Gates said. "However, I have decided that at this moment in our history, the nation, our men and women in uniform and General Pace himself would not be well served by a divisive ordeal. ..."

In his remarks in Norfolk, Pace said Gates had accurately portrayed what transpired.

"He brought me in the office and sat me down and said 'Pete, this is what's happening. I want to re-nominate you. I want you to know that this is what I'm beginning to hear, this is what I'm going to go do, this is how I'm going to go do it.'"

"He went out and did exactly what he said on television, and exactly what he's been saying in his interviews, which is he went out and pulsed various members of Congress and he heard back from them the things that he said that he heard," Pace said.

At that point, Pace said, he assured Gates that he was willing to go through even a contentious confirmation process.

"I also told him that what he needed to do, in my opinion, was what was best for the institution, and whatever he and the president decided was going to be best for the institution was what Pete Pace was going to do," he said. "Oh and by the way, I can read the Constitution, which says the president gets to nominate and the Senate gets to confirm, or not, and neither one of those two things is going to happen, therefore I'm not staying."

With the Iraq supplemental debate behind them, both Democrats and Republicans have begun rallying around a September deadline to reassess President Bush's escalation strategy. The make-it or break-it moment will come in the form of a status report by Gen. David Petraeus, the top military commander in Iraq. He "has said that by then he will have a handle on whether the current troop increase is having any impact on political reconciliation between Iraq's warring factions."

When he appears on Capitol Hill, Petraeus will face lawmakers who are increasingly uniting around the strategic need to begin the redeployment of U.S. troops. "You know what's going to happen in September? They'll bring General Petraeus back and he'll say, 'Just give me until the end of the year. I think things are turning around.' And then we'll be out of session, come back in late January, February, and the fact is a thousand troops will lose their lives in a situation that doesn't make any sense," said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) last week.

"By September, when General Petraeus is to make a report, I think most of the people in Congress believe, unless something extraordinary occurs, that we should be on a move to draw those surge numbers down," said Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) recently.

In Jan. 2007, as "part of a broad revamping of the military team that will carry out the administration's new Iraq strategy," Bush named Petraeus to replace Gen. George W. Casey Jr. as the top American military commander in Iraq.

Casey, who had publicly expressed doubt about the wisdom of any short-term increase in troops in Iraq, had his expected departure "moved up several months from the originally anticipated shift in spring or summer," in order to make way for Petraeus and the "surge."

As soon as Petraeus was named, Bush's supporters in Congress began touting him as the savior of American strategy in Iraq. "He's the General Grant of the surge," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) at the time. "He's our last best chance as a military commander to bring about a change on the ground."

As the Washington Post noted at the time, Petraeus, who was unanimously confirmed by the Senate, also became "the last best chance for Bush allies to head off a resolution rejecting the troop increase or at least keep many Republicans from supporting it." His testimony in September may be the administration's "last best chance" to head off a long-overdue redeployment of U.S. troops.

POLITICAL PROP:

Bush used the confirmation of Petraeus as a cudgel to coerce senators to support his "surge" plan. "The Senate overwhelmingly supported his nomination to be the new general in command of Iraq," Bush said on Fox News in February. "The fundamental question is: Will they back him up? They voted for him. Will they back him up?"

Following Congress's approval of the troop increase, the administration has continued to rely on Petraeus to support its political aims. In April, while Congress was preparing to vote on its Iraq timeline legislation, the administration brought Petraeus back to the United States for a rare visit, a tactic that was slammed by Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) as "purely a political move."

In a speech arguing for his strategy in Iraq in early May, Bush mentioned Petraeus by name no fewer than 12 times, at one point even acknowledging that "the best messenger, by the way, for us is David Petraeus."

Petraeus has allowed himself to be used as a "political prop" to support the White House's war czar nominee. He has also echoed Bush's line that al Qaeda, not sectarian civil war, is the greatest threat in Iraq -- an assessment that contradicts the intelligence

According to President Bush, incoming war czar Army Lt. Gen. Doug Lute "will be the full-time manager for the implementation and execution of our strategies for Iraq and Afghanistan."

During his confirmation hearing last Thursday, Lute clarified that his new authority means that National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley's portfolio will no longer include Iraq and Afghanistan.

When Lute answered, "Sir, that's the design, yes," Reed responded, "Well, then [Hadley] should be fired, because, frankly, if he's not capable of being the individual responsible for those duties and they pass it on to someone else, then why is he there?"

After a short recess, Lute returned with a prepared statement -- likely communicated to him by the White House -- in which he backpedaled from his earlier claim that Hadley is now irrelevant on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Previously, Lute has rebuked Hadley's often inaccurate statements about the war in Iraq. For example, Hadley has falsely claimed that Iraq is not in a civil war, that the Iraq Study Group supported Bush's escalation, and defended Vice President Cheney's claim that the insurgency was in its "last throes."

Lute, however, has suggested that "reduction in force structure would undercut insurgent propaganda," warned against fostering a "dependency syndrome" in which "Iraqis would be content to stand by and watch if the Americans continued providing for their security," and stated that there is "no evidence" to suggest that debating timelines for redeployment from Iraq "undercuts" U.S. troop morale.

U.S. Freezes Assets Of 4 Iranian Companies
By JEANNINE AVERSA
AP Economics Writer

The Bush administration moved Friday to financially clamp down on four Iranian companies suspected of connections to Tehran's nuclear program.

It marked the government's latest move to put the financial squeeze on Iran, a country the United States accuses of fostering terrorism and whose nuclear ambitions have drawn international rebuke.

The Treasury Department's action is against Pars Tarash, Farayand Technique, Fajr Industries Group and Mizan Machine Manufacturing Group.

The action means that any bank accounts or other financial assets belonging to these three companies found in the United States must be frozen. Americans also are forbidden from doing business with them.

"So long as Iran continues to pursue a nuclear program in defiance of the international community's calls to halt enrichment, we will continue to hold those responsible to account for their conduct," said Stuart Levey, the department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.

The action comes as leaders of the world's eight major industrial powers, meeting in Heiligendamm, Germany, on Friday, sent a warning to Iran over its disputed nuclear program.

The group said it would support "adopting further measures" if Iran fails to suspend enriching uranium, which can produce fuel for civilian energy or material for a bomb. The statement was a sign of support for U.N. Security Council moves to discuss a third set of sanctions against Iran.

The Treasury Department alleges that Pars Tarash and Farayand Technique are owned or controlled or act on behalf of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran or its subsidiary, the Kalaye Electric Co.

The Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, or AEOI, manages Iran's overall nuclear program and reports directly to Iran's president, the department said. It is Iran's main research and development facility for nuclear technology, the department said.

The department alleges that Fajr Industries and Mizan Machine are owned or controlled or acting on behalf of Iran's Aerospace Industries Organization. That group is a subsidiary of Iran's defense ministry and is the overall manager and coordinator of Iran's missile program, Treasury said.

Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) is a program designed to train U.S. soldiers to withstand torture if they are ever captured as prisoners of war.

Developed during the Cold War, U.S. solders are subjected to techniques based "on how the Soviet Union and its allies were believed to treat prisoners," including "prolonged use of stress positions, exposure to heat and cold, sleep deprivation and even waterboarding."

A recently declassified investigation from the Department of Defense's Inspector General confirms "how the military training was 'reverse engineered' for use by American interrogators," training them on more "effective" ways to elicit information.

Those practice also migrated to Iraq: "In September 2003...Joint Personnel Recovery Agency sent an interrogation assessment team to Iraq to provide advice and assistance to the task force interrogation mission."

Because the techniques were so extreme, several intelligence officers "vehemently objected to the use of the techniques, but their protests were ignored." Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) said he found the Pentagon report "very troubling" would hold hearings on how the SERE training methods "migrated" into Iraq and Guantanamo as the basis for interrogation. "They were put to a purpose that was never intended," he said.

Pentagon Concedes A 'Tough' Month In Iraq 
   
The Pentagon admitted Wednesday that May has been "tough" for US forces in Iraq, with no fewer than 113 soldiers killed over the course of the month.

"First and foremost, it's been a tough month," Brigadier General Perry Wiggins, deputy director of regional operations with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at a Defense Department briefing.

May has been one of the deadliest months for US troops in Iraq. The deadliest was November of 2004, when 137 US troops died in Iraq, followed by April 2004 with 135.

Wiggins said that the higher casualties were not entirely unexpected, given the "operational risks" associated with President George W. Bush's "surge" of thousands of additional American troops into some of Iraq's most dangerous hotspots.

"We're moving into places where we haven't been, not necessarily before," Wiggins said. "We're having more contacts with the enemy."

At least 3,465 US forces have died in Iraq since the March 2003 US-led invasion, many while fighting the ongoing insurgency there.

DEMOCRATS CAVE IN

PENTAGON BREAKS PLEDGE TO TROOPS, SENDS THEM BACK TO IRAQ AFTER JUST NINE MONTHS AT HOME:

On April 11, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that tours of duty for the Army would be extended from 12 months to 15 months, effective immediately.

In exchange for the extensions, soldiers would receive at least a year home between deployments. This rest time was intended to "provide some long-term predictability for the soldiers and their families...particularly guaranteeing that they will be at home for a full 12 months," Gates added.

But Gates has not kept his promise. Last Thursday, Stars and Stripes reported, "Members of the 1st Armored Division's 1st Battalion, 6th Infantry, Company A, learned Tuesday that they are scheduled to head back to Iraq in November, just nine months after the 150-soldier company left the combat zone in February after a 13-month deployment."

A recent Pentagon report concluded that soldiers on extended and repeated deployments "were more likely to suffer acute stress, and that mental health problems correlated with higher rates of battlefield misconduct."

When asked about this nine-month deployment, Gates simply replied, "I'll be very interested in finding out more about that."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman's response was that "there are some people, just by the nature of transferring units and things like that may not end up with the full 12 months." According to Whitman, the 12-month rest period between deployments "is a goal," not a guarantee.

FOX NEWS PUNDIT ADVOCATES ETHNIC CLEANSING POLICY IN IRAQ:

Roll Call executive editor and Fox News contributor Mort Kondracke wrote that if President Bush's escalation plan doesn't work, his Plan B should be "winning dirty," which involves "accepting rule by Shiites and Kurds, allowing them to violently suppress Sunni resistance and making sure that Shiites friendly to the United States emerge victorious." Kondracke explained that "winning dirty" entails ethnic cleansing: "Winning will be dirty because it will allow the Shiite-dominated Iraqi military and some Shiite militias to decimate the Sunni insurgency.

There likely will be ethnic cleansing, atrocities against civilians and massive refugee flows." He revealed that at least one member of Congress agrees with his plan. "No one has publicly advocated this Plan B, and I know of only one Member of Congress who backs it -- and he wants to stay anonymous," Kondracke wrote. "But he argues persuasively that it’s the best alternative available if Bush's surge fails."

Iraqi Lawmakers Call for U.S. Troops to Leave
By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA

Radical Shiite politicians pressed Thursday for legislation demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led troops and a freeze on the number of foreign forces already in the country - even as the U.S. Congress debates the fate of the troubled mission.

The proposed Iraqi legislation, drafted by the parliamentary bloc loyal to anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, was signed by 144 members of the 275-member house, according to parliamentary officials.

The Sadrist bloc, which holds 30 parliamentary seats and sees the U.S.-led forces as an occupying army, has pushed similar bills before, but this would be the first time it persuaded a majority of lawmakers to sign on.

Gen. Petraeus Warns Troops Not To Torture Iraqis
 
The commander of US forces in Iraq warned his soldiers Friday not to abuse Iraq detainees after a survey found that one third of US troops approve of torture as a method of gathering intelligence.

"Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information from the enemy. They would be wrong," General David H. Petraeus said in a letter to the troops.

"Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they often are neither useful nor necessary," he added.

A survey carried out by the army's mental health advisory team, released last week, found that more than a third of US combat troops deployed in Iraq condone torture to obtain important information from an insurgent.

Nearly one in 10 of those surveyed acknowledged personally mistreating civilians or damaging their property unnecessarily.

The study found continuing problems with morale and said acute mental health issues were more prevalent among troops with extended tours, or on their second or third deployment to Iraq.

Petraeus, in an open letter to his force that was published on a military website, acknowledged the report's findings that the stress of combat drove some soldiers over the edge.

"I fully appreciate the emotions that one experiences in Iraq," Petraeus said in his letter. "Seeing a fellow trooper killed by a barbaric enemy can spark frustration, anger, and a desire for immediate revenge."

But he called on US troops to treat detainees with "dignity and respect."

"In everything we do, we must observe the standards and values that dictate that we treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect. While we are warriors, we are also human beings."

The team surveyed 1,320 soldiers and 447 marines between August and October 2006 in Iraq. Although the report was completed in November, it was released on May 4 in censored form after its findings began to leak to the press.

AFTER VETO, CONGRESS WEIGHS NEW OPTIONS TO PRESSURE BUSH ADMINISTRATION ON IRAQ:

In the wake of President Bush's veto of the $124 billion Iraq war supplemental bill, congressional war critics have begun negotiations on new legislation that would pressure Bush to place benchmarks on Iraq.

Currently under consideration is a proposal by Rep. David Obey (D-WI) suggesting the House guarantee funding of the war through July and give Congress the power of the purse to deny those funds if the Iraqi government does not meet certain benchmarks.

"Leaders in the House are considering a proposal that would pay for the Iraq war at least through July but could cut off funding after that if the Iraqi government does not meet certain political and security goals."

Another proposal would fund the war through September. "Further funding would come only after Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander in Iraq, briefed Congress on military progress and the progress of the Iraqi government in achieving a set of benchmarks, such as quelling sectarian violence, disarming militias and adopting changes to the Iraqi constitution to guarantee equality among ethnic and religious groups." 

The compromise is stirring up debate on Capitol Hill, as several conservatives have indicated a divide over Iraq policy in the wake of Bush's veto. In a meeting at the White House, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) "pushed a hard line, demanding that Democrats give Bush a funding bill stripped of war policies and extraneous spending.

But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) sounded more conciliatory," emphasizing that they would accept benchmarks "tied to nonmilitary assistance and that Republicans be prepared to compromise."

MCCAIN CLAIMS 'OPEN SEXUALITY' IN MILITARY IS 'INTOLERABLE RISK':

In a letter released last week by the Service members Legal Defense Network, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) expressed his support for the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy that bans lesbians, gays, and bisexuals from serving openly in the military.

McCain said he staunchly opposes openly gay service members, asserting that “open sexuality within military presents an intolerable risk to morale, cohesion and discipline” and national security. McCain’s personal beliefs are antiquated and ill informed.

The overwhelming majority of the military supports equal rights for all service members. Last December, a poll of service members in Iraq and Afghanistan found that 73 percent were “comfortable with lesbians and gays.”

A 2004 poll found that a majority of junior enlisted service members believed gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military, up from 16 percent in 1992.

Furthermore, 55 percent of Americans believe “gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly in the military.” Since Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was instituted, at least 11,000 service members, hundreds of whom had with key speciality skills such as training in Arabic, have left the military. The military could attract as many as 41,000 new recruits if gays could serve openly.

WHITE HOUSE ATTEMPTS TO DISAVOW 'MISSION ACCOMPLISHED' SPEECH:

The Senate passed legislation ordering the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by Oct. 1. President Bush has promised to swiftly veto the bill, which will reach him on Tuesday, the fourth anniversary of his infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech.

In last Thursday’s press briefing, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino called it a "ridiculous P.R. stunt" that "is the height of cynicism, and absolutely so unfortunate for the men and women in uniform and their families who are watching the debate."

She added, "And I would just remind you that I know that our opponents for years have tried -- have misconstrued that speech. ... The President never said 'mission accomplished' in his speech."

In January, spokesman Tony Snow also tried to claim, "The president, on that very speech, said just the opposite, didn't he?" Despite these statements, the President's U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln speech on May 1, 2003, was a public relations stunt announcing the end to "major combat operations in Iraq."

He called the "battle of Iraq" a "victory." In his radio address shortly after the speech, Bush boasted, "I delivered good news to the men and women who fought in the cause of freedom: their mission is complete and major combat operations in Iraq have ended."

Additionally, as Bob Woodward reported in Oct. 2006, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had to pressure the White House to take out of the speech the actual phrase "Mission Accomplished," but he couldn't "get the sign down."

Four years ago, the Boston Globe also reported that the Bush administration extended by one day the deployment of the sailors aboard the Lincoln -- which had already been at sea for 10 months, the longest by carrier in 10 years -- as part of its public relations stunt:

"The carrier was just 30 miles from shore by the time he arrived, and officials said it had slowed down so that Bush could spend the night on board before the USS Abraham Lincoln docks today."

BUSH ADMINISTRATION EXCLUDES BOMBING ATTACKS IN CASUALTY COUNTS:

In an interview with PBS's Charlie Rose last Tuesday, President Bush discussed what an "acceptable level of violence" would be in Iraq. When pushed by Rose on whether it was possible to create zero violence in Iraq, Bush retorted, "if the standard of success is no car bombings or suicide bombings, we have just handed those who commit suicide bombings a huge victory."

He added later that people who "judge the administration's escalation plan" based on such acts of violence "have just given Al Qaeda or any other extremist a significant victories."

Bush said that these images of brutal violence on television are "one of the problems I face in trying to convince the American people" that the war is worthwhile. One reason Bush is hesitant to talk about suicide bombings is because they have increased 30 percent over the past six weeks despite the escalation, according to U.S. military data.

The administration clearly considers the rash of suicide bombings in Iraq to be a public relations problem. Perhaps, in response, it has been intentionally underreporting the toll bomb attacks are having on the Iraqi population.

McClatchy reported that "car bombs and other explosive devices have killed thousands of Iraqis in the past three years, but the administration doesn't include them in the casualty counts it has been citing as evidence that the surge of addition U.S. forces is beginning to defuse tensions between Shiite and Sunni Muslims."

Experts contend that not counting bombing victims skews the evidence of how well the "surge" is protecting Iraqi civilians. "Since the administration keeps saying that failure is not an option, they are redefining success in a way that suits them," said Jeames Denselow, an Iraq specialist at Chatham House.

PENTAGON CONFIRMS BUSH IS HYPING FALSE IRAQ DEADLINE:

The AP put out a report confirming that President Bush has been hyping a false Iraq spending deadline.

For weeks, Bush has been trying to force Congress to abandon its support for an Iraq withdrawal timeline by claiming that a "clean" Iraq spending bill must be signed by mid-April or U.S. troops will suffer.

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report showing that the Army actually has enough money in its existing budget to operate through June.

The Bush administration and its conservative allies disputed the CRS's findings. But now, the CRS numbers have been confirmed by the Pentagon.

"The Pentagon says it has enough money to pay for the Iraq war through June, despite warnings from the White House that troops are being harmed by Congress' failure to quickly deliver more funds," according to the AP's report.

"The Army is taking a series of  'prudent measures' aimed at making sure delays in the bill financing the war do not harm troop readiness, according to instructions sent to Army commanders and budget officials April 14."

IRAQ -- RED CROSS SAYS SITUATION IN IRAQ IS 'EVER-WORSENING': 

"The situation for civilians in Iraq is 'ever-worsening,' even though security in some places has improved as a result of stepped-up efforts by U.S.-led multinational forces," the International Committee of the Red Cross said Friday in a report entitled Civilians Without Protection: The Ever-worsening Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq. 

The Red Cross is one of the few major international humanitarian groups to maintain a presence throughout Iraq as security has deteriorated. The report states that "hospitals were stretched to the limit by daily mass casualties, malnutrition was on the rise and power shortages were becoming more frequent around the country. ... Thousands of Iraqis continued to be forced out of their homes owing to military operations, generally poor security and the destruction of houses."

Furthermore, unemployment and hardship levels have been rising as an estimated one-third of the population is now living in poverty. Despite the current U.S. troop escalation, said Pierre Kraehenbuehl of the Red Cross, "We're certainly not seeing an immediate effect in terms of stabilization for civilians currently.

That is not our reading." The Red Cross report starkly contrasts with rhetoric from members of Congress, including Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who in a recent visit to Baghdad said that "you and I could walk through those neighborhoods [in Baghdad] today." 

Bush to Lose Top Iraq Adviser
 
US President George W. Bush is losing his top day-to-day adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan, Meghan O'Sullivan, in the coming months, the White House confirmed Friday.

In a resignation letter to Bush national security adviser Stephen Hadley, O'Sullivan called her job "appropriately all-consuming" and expressed optimism that the new US-led security crackdown in Iraq would pay off.

"After four years -- and now with the policy on new and promising footing -- I am looking forward to tending to other aspects of my life," O'Sullivan said in the letter, which the White House released.

O'Sullivan, 37, did not set a departure date, and the White House said she stay on for some time. She has been working full-time on Iraq since the March 2003 US-led invasion.

"Meghan has done a great job. She has served this President with real distinction during a critical time in Iraq," Hadley said. "Meghan has shown unfailing commitment and worked hard to implement the president's vision for a peaceful, stable and secure Iraq."

Bush's senior national security council director for Iraq, Kevin Bergner, is going to Baghdad. Brett McGurk, who also works on Iraq at the national security council, will be acting senior director in Bergner's absense.

Saddam's Officers to Receive Pensions
 
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has ordered that senior officers of Saddam Hussein's military receive pensions and requested that lower-ranking soldiers be allowed to serve again as part of a sectarian reconciliation plan, the government said Friday.

Al-Maliki's office said the decision was made during a Cabinet meeting late last month.

Many former top intelligence, security and military officials are believed to have joined the Sunni insurgency after L. Paul Bremer, the former U.S. administrator, disbanded Iraq's 350,000-member military on May 23, 2003, a month after Saddam's regime was ousted.

The al-Maliki statement said any former officer above the rank of major would be given a pension equal to that of officers now retiring. Former officers above major who wanted to rejoin the army were encouraged to check with the military command to learn if they were acceptable in the Iraqi army that is being rebuilt by American forces.

Those who had the rank of major or lower may voluntarily return to the army and will be guaranteed a place.

Lower ranking officiers and enlisted men with scientific or medical training would be given jobs in an appropriate government ministry, the statement said.

Al-Maliki, who is the supreme commander of the armed forces, issued a 24-point reconciliation plan shortly after taking power last year. Though never put into place, it was seen at the time as an attempt to draw disaffected Sunnis into the political fold.

The prime minister and President Jalal Talabani were expected to introduce legislation in parliament last week that would allow former members of Saddam Hussein's ruling Baath party — including those in the feared security and paramilitary forces — to regain government jobs.

The measure still has not reached the floor, a delay that reflects heavy opposition to the measure among Shiite and Kurdish officials whose people were oppressed by Saddam.

The Bush administration has set out several benchmarks for al-Maliki's government. One is passage of the de-Baathification law to encourage Sunnis to rejoin the political process.

IRAQ Escalation's Reality

Three months into the President Bush's Iraq escalation strategy, the American people have continued to lose "faith in [his] conduct of the war."

Just last week, the House passed legislation calling for a major withdrawal of troops, and the Senate passed similar legislation. But Bush continues his defiant support of the escalation plan, ignoring the calls for change from both the American and international communities.

In a speech on the Iraq war last Thursday, Bush extolled his own policies. "American forces are now deployed 24 hours in these neighborhoods, and guess what's happening. The Iraqi people are beginning to gain confidence," he said.

But a BBC/ABC News poll this month revealed that only 18 percent of Iraqis have confidence in the U.S.-led coalition troops and almost 90 percent "say they live in fear that the violence ravaging their country will strike themselves and the people with whom they live."

On the domestic front, support for the escalation has dropped to new lows. A new Gallup poll shows that only 29 percent of Americans believe the escalation is working. "In addition, fully 80 percent of Americans 'endorse a requirement that U.S. troops meet strict readiness criteria before being deployed to Iraq,' while 60 percent 'favor a timetable for withdrawing all U.S. troops from' Iraq by fall 2008.'"

Even the hallmark of Bush's Iraq strategy -- the transfer of power from U.S. forces to Iraqi security forces -- is collapsing. In hearings before the House Armed Services Committee last week on the training of Iraqi security forces, one witness said, "I have seen us rush under-trained, under-equipped, and inexperienced [Iraqi] units into combat and missions for which they were not ready. I have seen us basically create a force that can sometimes win, but is not ready to hold, and is certainly not ready to build."

On the ground, the escalation has caused a displacement in violence to new areas of the country. With a failing strategy that costs the United States more and more each day, the case for strategic redeployment has never been stronger.

VIOLENCE DISPLACED:

Despite Bush's calls for optimism, an administration official has acknowledged that "there is no trend" showing that the troop escalation is working. In fact, violence is only being displaced.

"Deaths of Iraq civilians and U.S. troops have increased outside the capital. ...

If violence is down in Baghdad, analysts said, it is likely because the Shiite militias operating there are waiting out the buildup in U.S. troops, nearly all of whom are being deployed in the capital.

At the same time, Sunni insurgents have escalated their operations elsewhere." Tal Afar, a northwest Iraq town, is a microcosm for the deadly results of the U.S. troop escalation. Just this week, two massive truck bombs "ripped through markets on Tuesday, killing at least 48 people and wounding dozens, police said, as violence surged outside the Iraqi capital."

In retaliation, "Shiite militants and police enraged by the massive truck bombings went on a revenge spree against Sunni residents, killing as many as 60 people. ... The carnage was the worst bloodshed in a surge of violence across Iraq as militants on both sides of the sectarian divide apparently have fled to other parts of the country to avoid a U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown, raising tensions outside the capital."

With the troop escalation underway, "the U.S. military has warned that insurgents are adopting new tactics in a campaign to spread panic."

Last Thursday, suicide bombers detonated highly toxic chlorine bombs -- the eighth such attack since Jan. 28 -- in Fallujah, wounding 15 U.S. and Iraqi security forces. Suicide car bombers "continue to devastate Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods [in Baghdad], often under the noses of reinforced American patrols."

The number of car bombs in Baghdad "reached a record high of 44 in February" and 77 nationwide. Since January, eight U.S. helicopters have been shot down as "Iraqi insurgents...are learning that downing a U.S. helicopter serves as powerful propaganda -- an underdog's blow against the technical prowess of the American Goliath."

WHITE HOUSE SHOCKED BY ABDULLAH'S CONDEMNATION OF IRAQ OCCUPATION:

Last week, Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah denounced the "American military presence in Iraq as an "illegitimate foreign occupation" and called on the West to end its financial embargo against the Palestinians."

The Bush administration responded with shock to Abdullah’s declaration. “We were a little surprised to see those remarks,” said Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns. White House spokesman Dana Perino went so far as to claim, “It is not accurate to say that the United States is occupying Iraq.”

Abdullah's remarks were just the latest instance of the Saudi's public distancing from the Bush administration. The Washington Post's Jim Hoagland reported that the Saudi government rejected an offer to attend a White House state dinner with President Bush.

Prince Bandar, “the Saudi national security adviser, flew to Washington last week to explain to Bush that April 17 posed a scheduling problem. ‘It is not convenient’ was the way it was put, says one official.” "I think he was concerned that he was seen too much as Bush's friend," said Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

GAO: Looted Iraqi Munitions Pose New Threat, Some Sites Still Not Secure
By PAULINE JELINEK
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) Explosives looted from Iraq munitions sites probably will continue to support terrorist attacks throughout the region, a congressional report said last Thursday. It said some sites were still not secure more than 3 1/2 years after the war started.

Failure to guard the sites "has been costly," the Government Accountability Office report said, noting looted munitions are being used to make roadside bombs, the No. 1 killer of U.S. soldiers in Iraq.

Quoting from previous Defense Department reports, the study says widespread looting occurred after the fall of Baghdad in early 2003 because war planners did not put enough troops into the country to secure weapons depots and because officials incorrectly assumed Iraqi soldiers would surrender and help with security.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters Thursday that large amounts of unexploded munitions continue to be a huge problem in Iraq.

"Fundamentally, the entire country was one big ammo dump. And there were thousands of these sites," Gates said. "We're doing our best to try and find them but, given the expanse of the country and all the other tasks that the military is trying to carry out there, it's a huge task."

The report recommended that the Pentagon do an Iraq-wide survey of unsecured sites and factor already identified lessons learned into future war planning.

In the report, the Defense Department said that commanders are aware of the problem, have done similar surveys over the past three years and lack the manpower for a new one without harming the war effort.

The report is an unclassified version of a classified study compiled from November 2005 through October 2006. At the time it was completed, U.S. commanders in Iraq "stated that some remote sites have not been revisited to verify if they pose any residual risk, nor have they been physically secured."

"Estimates indicate that the looted munitions will likely continue to support terrorist attacks throughout the region," the report said. The military "has taken many actions" in response to the problem but they're only "good first steps" that need to be encased in procedures for the future, it said.

IRAQ -- PETREAUS WANTS TO ADD ANOTHER BRIGADE TO ESCALATION:

Gen. David Petraeus "has requested another Army brigade, in addition to five already on the way, as part of the controversial 'surge' of American troops designed to clamp down on sectarian violence and insurgent groups," the Boston Globe reports.

The appeal "would involve between 2,500 and 3,000 more soldiers and dozens of transport helicopters and powerful gunships," bringing the "planned expansion of U.S. forces to close to 30,000 troops."

The Globe also reports that "military spokesmen in Baghdad have already reported that the number of sectarian killings and insurgent attacks have dropped significantly in the four weeks since US and Iraqi troops began to move into neighborhoods plagued by militias and gangs."

But as the Washington Post reported, "Sectarian attacks in Baghdad are down at the moment, but the deaths of Iraqi civilians and U.S. troops have increased outside the capital." Moreover, analysts say that if violence is down in Baghdad, "it is likely because the Shiite militias operating there are waiting out the buildup in U.S. troops, nearly all of whom are being deployed in the capital.

At the same time, Sunni insurgents have escalated their operations elsewhere." The Post also reported that many of President Bush's recent rosy claims about the escalation have been skewed or flatly false.

IRAQ
Beginning Of The End

Thursday, just two months after taking power, House and Senate leadership released binding plans to redeploy U.S. forces out of Iraq as soon as March 2008, refocusing America's security posture on international terrorist networks and the war in Afghanistan.

Within hours, White House officials issued a rare veto pledge aboard Air Force One, demonstrating President Bush's deep ideological commitment to his open-ended Iraq policy. But as the Los Angeles Times notes, "in one stroke" progressive leaders in Congress "have transformed a many-sided debate about the conflict into a sharp-edged argument about the endgame."

The new legislation offers Americans a clear choice: "Follow the president's plan to use U.S. combat troops indefinitely, or shift American soldiers to a secondary role and begin withdrawing them." The country's preference has long been clear.

A USA Today/Gallup poll released this week again shows that most Americans (60 percent) favor setting a deadline for U.S. troops to leave by the end of next year.

Another poll released Thursday shows that "a majority of Americans in competitive, conservative-leaning House districts" -- 70 percent of which were won by Bush in 2004 -- "approve of setting a date for troops to withdraw from Iraq."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was dismissive of Bush's veto threat. "Never confine your best work, your hopes, your dreams, the aspirations of the American people to what will be signed by George W. Bush, because that is too limiting a factor."

HOLDING THE PRESIDENT TO HIS WORD:

Under the House plan, Congress would "institute the same tough benchmarks for the Iraqi government that Bush detailed in a national address in January."

It works like this: in July and then again in October, Bush "will be asked to certify that the Iraqi government is showing progress and has met political and military benchmarks.

If at either point Mr. Bush can't meet the certification requirements, the bill calls for withdrawal within 180 days.

If the requirements are met, more time is allowed, but in any case, withdrawal would begin next spring with the goal of having most forces out of Iraq by the end of August." Under all scenarios, U.S. troops will be redeployed out of Iraq by August 2008.

FULLY FUNDING OUR TROOPS:

The additional funds in the $120-billion-plus House bill are "heavily tilted toward defense, veterans and homeland-security priorities." The plans provide full funding to U.S. forces in Iraq, including the resources they need to redeploy safely.

The plan introduced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) includes $3.5 billion for improving military hospitals and veterans hospitals, and provides additional funds for veterans suffering with traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, or severe burn scarring.

It also forces Bush to acknowledge and justify the U.S. military's readiness crisis. If Bush chooses to violate the military's basic guidelines and send U.S. soldiers into combat without proper training and equipment, he must sign a waiver and explain his actions to the country.

In a speech Thursday at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) announced a new G.I. Bill to help returning service members adapt to civilian life, fix the process that determines medical compensation for injured troops, and increase aid to families and children who have lost a loved one. Clinton told The Progress Report that Bush has "in a very deliberative way created conditions that are straining our military."

House Democrats push to Stop the DoD from selling F-14 parts to Iran 
By SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writer

 
An effort to bar the Pentagon from selling surplus parts for the F-14 fighter jet — a plane now flown only by Iran — will be introduced in the House.

An Arizona Democrat said Thursday she will make it her first proposal as a congresswoman.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (news, bio, voting record), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, called her bill "a commonsense piece of legislation."

"I don't believe most Americans are aware of the fact that the Iranians do have a fleet of F-14s and that we sold them to them," Giffords said. "I hope that this legislation is just one step in what will be many to be able to keep better control over our equipment and to make sure that we are not helping to militarize the Iranians."

Giffords' Tucson-based district includes one of the military's biggest retirement homes for aircraft. She planned to introduce legislation Friday similar to a Senate bill that would permanently ban the Defense Department from selling surplus F-14 parts. Republican Rep. Steve Pearce (news, bio, voting record) of New Mexico signed on Thursday afternoon as a co-sponsor.

Sen. Ron Wyden (news, bio, voting record), D-Ore., sponsored the "Stop Arming Iran Act" in January after The Associated Press reported that buyers for Iran, China and other countries had taken advantage of weaknesses in Pentagon surplus-sale security to acquire sensitive military equipment, including missile components and parts for F-14 "Tomcats" and other aircraft. Law enforcement officials know of at least one instance in which a surplus purchase made it to Iran.

The U.S. military retired its F-14s last year, leaving Iran the only country still trying to keep the jets airworthy. The United States allowed Iran to buy the Tomcats back in the 1970s when the countries were friendly.

The Pentagon's surplus division originally planned to sell thousands of spare F-14 parts, but after the AP's report, it temporarily halted the sales and began conducting a full security review of the jet components.

Investigations continue into Pentagon surplus that may have gone astray. Just this week, federal agents seized four F-14s sold in California.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement investigators say an officer at Point Mugu Naval Air Station authorized the sale of the four retired Tomcats for $2,000 to $4,000 each, none of them demilitarized — rendered useless for military purposes — as Navy rules required. The money went to the "VX-9 (Squadron) Morale Welfare and Recreation" fund, a court document shows.

Three were purchased in April 1999 by a scrap dealer and ultimately wound up at air museums in Chino, Calif., in one case with the engine and afterburners intact. The fourth was sold to Paramount Pictures for use in the TV series "JAG" and later resold to the owner of Aviation Warehouse in El Mirage, Calif., according to a customs agent affidavit filed in federal court in Los Angeles last week.

No charges have been filed. "There is no evidence any of the parts on these planes got to enemy hands," Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said Wednesday. "But it certainly poses a security risk."

Cheney: Dems must back troop surge
Associated Press

 
WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney demanded Thursday night that the Democratic-controlled Congress support President Bush's military buildup "on time and in full."

Cheney said that a too-soon withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq could send victorious militants spreading out, with some flocking to Afghanistan to fight alongside a regrouping Taliban.

Speaking before a receptive audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference, the vice president — just back from a trip that included unannounced stops in Afghanistan and Pakistan — sharply criticized efforts by some Democrats to restrict funds for additional troops.

Though noting that the House had already passed a nonbinding resolution voicing opposition to Bush's Iraq policy, Cheney said that "very soon both houses of Congress will have to vote on a piece of legislation that is binding." The legislation would help pay for the additional 21,500 troops Bush is sending to Iraq.

"I sincerely hope the discussion this time will be about winning in Iraq, not about posturing on Capitol Hill. Anyone can say they support the troops, and we should take them at their word. But the proof will come when it's time to provide the money and the support," Cheney said. "We expect the House and the Senate to meet those needs on time and in full."

Meanwhile, House Democratic leaders, party officials said Thursday, have coalesced around legislation that would require troops to come home from Iraq within six months if that country's leaders fail to meet promises to help reduce violence.

The plan would retain a Democratic proposal prohibiting the deployment to Iraq of troops with insufficient rest or training or who already have served there for more than a year. Under the plan, such troops could only be sent to Iraq if Bush were to waive those standards and report to Congress each time.

The proposal is the latest attempt by Democrats to resolve divisions within the party on how far to go to scale back U.S. involvement in Iraq. Rep. James Moran, D-Va., said the latest version has the support of party leadership and he believes it has the best chance to attract broad support.

Most Guard units rated 'not ready'
Report: Equipment shortage means 90% of units ill-prepared
By ANN SCOTT TYSON
Washington Post

WASHINGTON - Nearly 90 percent of Army National Guard units in the United States are rated "not ready" - largely because of shortfalls in equipment worth billions of dollars - jeopardizing the Guard's ability to respond to crises at home and abroad, according to a congressional commission that released a preliminary report on the state of U.S. military reserve forces.

The commission found that heavy deployments of the National Guard and Reserves since 2001 for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and other anti-terrorism missions have deepened shortages, forced the military to cobble together units and hurt recruiting. The problems threaten to undermine the nation's 830,000-strong selected reserves, the commission said.

"We can't sustain the (National Guard and Reserve) on the course we're on," said Arnold Punaro, chairman of the 13-member Commission on the National Guard and Reserves, established by Congress in 2005.

The commission report criticized the Pentagon for the "flawed assumption" that as long as the military is prepared to fight a major war, it is ready to respond to a disaster or emergency at home.

Army National Guard units in the United States have on average about 50 percent of their authorized stock of dual-use equipment, meaning gear needed both for fighting wars and domestic missions, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report. The National Guard estimates it would require $38 billion for equipment to restore domestic Army and Air units to full readiness. The Army has budgeted $21 billion to augment Guard equipment through 2011.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the use of U.S. military reservists has escalated sharply, from about 12.7 million days of service in 2001 to an estimated 63 million in 2006. The increase of U.S. troops in Iraq is expected to require the accelerated call-up of as many as four National Guard combat brigades beginning early next year as part of an effort to relieve the strain on active-duty brigades, which are spending as much time in combat as at home.

But while the selected reserves make up more than one-third of the total U.S. military, they receive only 3 percent of the equipment funding and 8 percent of the Defense Department budget, the report said.

National Guard units deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have been required to leave behind large quantities of gear in the combat zone.

Partly as a result, Guard units in the United States grew increasingly hollow, with 88 percent now so poorly equipped that they are rated "not ready" to deploy, the report said, citing Lt. Gen. H. Steven Blum, chief of the National Guard Bureau. A National Guard chart showed that 45 percent of the Air National Guard also is "not ready."

A way out of Iraq:

Americans are looking for a way out of Iraq. Sixty-three percent of the public want all U.S. troops home from Iraq by the end of 2008. Another 54 percent said they would vote to cut off funding for the escalation if they were in Congress.

With the support of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) has laid out a plan that would both increase support for the overstretched U.S. military and block Bush's Iraq buildup.

Conservatives have swiftly attacked Murtha's proposal, which will he will likely introduce next month, claiming that it is a "slow-bleed" plan that hurts the troops and aids the terrorists.

But as Americans now recognize, the real injury to our forces comes from sending them into a brutal civil war with inadequate equipment and extended deployments.

This week, the Senate will attempt to "repeal the 2002 resolution authorizing the war in Iraq in favor of narrower authority that restricts the military's role and begins withdrawals of combat troops." It also plans to incorporate some of Murtha's proposals, such as ensuring that all combat troops are proper equipment.

The Washington Post accused Murtha of "cynicism" and "an alarming ignorance about conditions in Iraq." But it is the Bush administration that has chosen to ignore the situation on the ground in order to push a dangerous, unpopular policy.

TROOPS MUST BE 'FULLY COMBAT READY':

Conservative lawmakers have already blasted Murtha's plan, charging that it is a "slow-bleed" strategy. "While American troops are fighting radical Islamic terrorists thousands of miles away, it is unthinkable that the United States Congress would move to discredit their mission, cut off their reinforcements and deny them the resources they need to succeed and return home safely," said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH).

But U.S. troops are already being denied resources by the Bush administration; Murtha's plan would ensure that they have them. His plan would restrict the $93.4 billion in new combat funds that Bush has requested -- requiring that they be used to increase troop readiness.It would bar a buildup in Iraq until all troops are "fully combat ready."

A recent audit by the Pentagon's Inspector General showed that U.S. soldiers have had to go without the necessary weapons, armor, vehicles, and equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Additionally, the military lacks equipment and resources for Bush's escalation plan. The Army and Marine Corps "are short thousands of vehicles, armor kits and other equipment needed to supply" the extra 21,500 troops Bush plans to send to Iraq.

"It's inevitable that that has to happen, unless five brigades of up-armored Humvees fall out of the sky," one senior Army official said. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "the military has about 41,000 armored vehicles in Iraq -- fewer than will be needed 'to cover all of the troops that are deploying.'"

IRAQ -- CHALABI MAKES POLITICAL COMEBACK IN IRAQ, OVERSEES ESCALATION STRATEGY:

The Wall Street Journal reports, "In his latest remarkable political reincarnation, onetime U.S. favorite Ahmed Chalabi has secured a position inside the Iraqi government that could help determine whether the Bush administration's new push to secure Baghdad succeeds."

The vaguely defined position will allow Chalabi to serve "as an intermediary between Baghdad residents and the Iraqi and U.S. security forces mounting an aggressive counterinsurgency campaign across the city."

Created by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, the position "is meant to help Iraqis arrange reimbursement for damage to their cars and homes caused by the security sweeps in the hope of maintaining public support for the strategy."

Chalabi has had a sordid history with the U.S. involvement in Iraq. He was paid by administration intelligence agencies to provide evidence for the Iraq war, nearly all of which turned out to be false.

Among Chalabi's questionable activities, he provided dubious Iraqi sources to the administration in the run-up to the war, he helped plant fabricated news stories about Iraq's weapons, and he was accused of passing U.S. secrets to Iran.

In the Dec. 2005 Iraqi elections, Chalabi's political party failed to win a single parliamentary seat. He has remained, however, "an active behind-the-scenes player in Iraq's chaotic political scene." A senior American official said, "The question is whether he is really doing this to help, or whether he's trying to build himself a new political base in Baghdad or carry water for the Shiites. And we simply don't know the answer to that yet."

Terrorism suspect is Republican donor
By Aaron Blake
 
A New York man who pleaded not guilty last week to charges of supporting terrorism contributed about $15,000 to the House Republicans' campaign committee and claimed to be involved with the Senate Republicans' campaign committee in recent years.

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari, also known as Michael Mixon, donated almost all of the money to the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) during the 2004 election cycle and listed on his résumé that he was an "Inner Circle Life Member" with the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the Associated Press reported.

The NRSC website says people can become "Inner Circle Life Members" by being nominated by a selection committee and donating $15,000 per person or $20,000 per couple.

An indictment states Alishtari accepted money to send $152,000 to Afghanistan and Pakistan to support a terrorist training camp. He is charged with terrorism financing, material support of terrorism and money laundering, and faces 95 years in prison.

Democrats are asking how much access Alishtari had with Republicans and whether the NRCC would return the money.

"We are extremely concerned and disturbed by these charges, but we need to be careful not to rush to judgment as the judicial process moves forward," NRCC spokeswoman Jessica Boulanger said. "If the individual in question is found guilty of a crime, it is our intent to donate the money to charity."

The NRSC did not comment by press time.

IRAN -- WHITE HOUSE BACKS OFF INTEL CLAIMS: 

Last week, the Bush administration finally presented its long-delayed intelligence briefing on Iranian arms shipments into Iraq. Prior to the presentation, a U.S. official told the New York Times that it had been delayed because they were "trying to scrub" the intelligence, adding "the last thing we want to be accused of is cherry-picking."

While much of the information had previously been known, the highlight of the presentation -- as reported by ABC World News -- was that it was "the first time military officials...made the link to the highest level of Iran's government."

IRAQ Avoiding The Hard Truths

Last week, the public learned that the Bush administration will go to exceeding lengths to avoid leveling with the American people about the difficulties in Iraq.

In its early stages, the Bush escalation plan has encountered many "glitches," and yet the administration claims "so far, so good."

This week, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reported that the escalation could be twice as large as President Bush has claimed, stating that the 21,500 troops that will be sent to Iraq need to be accompanied by as many as 28,000 support troops.

The White House responded that the additional troops won't need additional support.

The administration also stated that it could not project the amount of funding that Iraq will require past 2009. Yet the CBO was able to estimate that the cost for Bush's plan would be $919 billion over the next ten years.

In the wake of the recent spate of U.S. helicopter downings in Iraq, the administration has decided, according to one journalist, to keep information about the incidents "close to the vest."

For an unpopular president trying to execute an unpopular strategy, a more candid and honest approach is needed.

IRAN -- NORQUIST: BUSH'S ADVISERS TELLING HIM TO 'INVADE IRAN. THEN EVERYONE WILL SEE HOW SMART WE ARE':

In this month's issue of Vanity Fair, Craig Unger writes that the same neoconservative advisers who advocated for the Iraq war are now recycling the same tactics to push for the bombing of Iran.

But he also notes that many of President Bush's key conservative allies are not pleased with the administration's course on Iran. "Everything the advocates of war said would happen hasn't happened," says the president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, an influential conservative who backed the Iraq invasion.

"And all the things the critics said would happen have happened. [The president's neoconservative advisers] are effectively saying, 'Invade Iran. Then everyone will see how smart we are.'"

 In addition, Richard Perle, a former Bush administration official, has said, "I have very little doubt" that Bush would order "necessary military action" against Iran.

"Make no mistake, President Bush will need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office," wrote American Enterprise Institute analyst Joshua Muravchik. Former CIA officer Philip Giraldi said, "I've heard from sources at the Pentagon that their impression is that the White House has made a decision that war is going to happen."

Last Wednesday night on Hardball, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) echoed Unger's conclusions, saying he was "very worried" that the administration's actions toward Iran might "set something off" in the Persian Gulf.

Bush Lied Escalation is Doubled

A report released last Thursday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CB) shows that the real troop increase associated with President Bush’s escalation policy could be as high as 48,000, more than double the 21,500 soldiers that Bush has claimed.

Moreover, despite administration assertions that the escalation would cost $5.6 billion, the CBO report estimates that "costs would range from $9 billion to $13 billion for a four-month deployment and from $20 billion to $27 billion for a 12-month deployment."

The new facts about escalation come just as Congress is set to receive a long-delayed National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq, the first such document from the U.S. intelligence community since 2002.

According to the Washington Post, the NIE "outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration."

Many U.S. troops short on crucial gear
By SHARON THEIMER
Associated Press Writer

 
Hundreds of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have experienced shortages of key protective equipment including armored vehicles, roadside-bomb countermeasures and communications gear, a Pentagon survey released Tuesday shows.

The Defense Department Inspector General's Office polled roughly 1,100 service members and found they weren't always adequately equipped for their missions. The troops were interviewed in Iraq and Afghanistan last May and June.

Those surveyed reported shortcoming with vehicles outfitted with armor; "crew-served weapons," which are weapons it takes more than one person to handle, such as artillery or a large machine gun; electronic countermeasure devices, such as equipment designed to foil roadside bombs by interfering with cell-phone signals that may be used to detonate them; and communications equipment.

The survey found that those not getting needed gear include troops performing untraditional missions such as training, reconstruction, detainee operations and explosive ordnance disposal.

In some cases, they went ahead with the work anyway, used informal means to get what they needed or canceled or put off operations while waiting for equipment, the report summary said.

The report found the U.S. Central Command and the Army's internal equipment controls inadequate and recommends improvements.

Only a summary of the findings were made public; much of the report is classified.

MILITARY -- DEFENSE DEPARTMENT TINKERS WITH U.S. TROOP CASUALTY COUNT:

The New York Times reports, "Statistics on a Pentagon Web site have been reorganized in a way that lowers the published totals of American nonfatal casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan."

On Monday, the Defense Department's website listed a total of 47,657 "nonmortal casualties" in Iraq.

But on Tuesday, "the same page no longer showed a total for nonmortal casualties. The bottom line is now 'total -- medical air transported,' and the figure is 31,493."

The new figure no longer includes minor injuries, gastrointestinal illnesses, or mental illnesses.

Paul Sullivan of Veterans for America "said the changes actually meant the Pentagon was trying to conceal the rising toll of injuries and illness."

Earlier this week, the Veterans Affairs Department also revised the casualty number on its website at the request of the Defense Department.

Afghan assembly grants immunity for war crimes
By Sayed Salahuddin

Afghanistan's parliament has granted immunity to all Afghans involved in the country's 25 years of conflict, lawmakers said on Thursday, despite calls by human rights groups for war crimes trials.

The decision passed on Wednesday in the lower house, Wolesi Jirga, would also cover fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar and former prime minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, who now heads his own militant group, critics and supporters of the move said.

Rights groups have strongly pressed the government to punish those guilty of abuses, including some members of parliament and senior government officials, saying justice was vital for peace.

But the national assembly said its motion would help reconciliation in a nation shattered by years of war and civil strife that have left almost no family untouched by tragedy.

"In order to bring reconciliation among various strata in the society, all those political and belligerent sides who were involved one way or the other during the two-and-half decades of war will not be prosecuted legally and judicially," the motion passed by the assembly says.

The Wolesi Jirga elected in late 2005 includes former senior communist officials, ex-Mujahideen (holy warrior) leaders who fought the Soviets and some former Taliban.

Dozens are accused of human rights abuses.

Several lawmakers said President Hamid Karzai, who has led Afghanistan since the Taliban was ousted in 2001, knew of the assembly's move in advance.

"In a way, this provides immunity for all," Shukria Barakzai, a leading woman activist MP, told Reuters. She was among a small group of delegates who left the session in protest.

Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq, a former Mujahideen leader who was among the key legislators behind the amnesty, said it was in line with Karzai's efforts to push national reconciliation.

He also believed the immunity would cover Omar and Hekmatyar.

"This is a law and the law will be implemented on all individuals equally," he told Reuters.

The decision was approved days after Karzai again indicated he could consider talks with Taliban leaders to end the bloodshed after the country's most violent year since the Taliban's ouster.

One of Karzai's advisers on Wednesday clarified talks would not be held with the Taliban as a political, ideological or military group.

Sen. Clinton: Iran is a threat to Israel
By SAMANTHA GROSS
Associated Press Writer

 
Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Thursday that "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," Clinton told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

Clinton, D-N.Y., spoke at a Manhattan dinner held by the nation's largest pro-Israel lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Some 1,700 supporters applauded as she cited her efforts on behalf of the Jewish state and spoke scathingly of Iran's decision to hold a conference last month that questioned whether the Holocaust took place.

"To deny the Holocaust places Iran's leadership in company with the most despicable bigots and historical revisionists," Clinton said, criticizing what she called the Iranian administration's "pro-terrorist, anti-American, anti-Israeli rhetoric."

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called the Holocaust a "myth" and said Israel should be "wiped off the map" and its Jews returned to Europe.

Iran insists its nuclear program is designed to produce energy, not weapons. Ahmadinejad said Thursday that his government is determined to continue with its nuclear program, despite U.N. Security Council sanctions imposed over its refusal to halt uranium enrichment, a process that can produce fuel to generate electricity or for the fissile core of an atomic bomb.

Clinton, the front-runner for her party's presidential nomination, called for dialogue with foes of the United States, saying Iran "uses its influence and its revenues in the region to support terrorist elements."

"We need to use every tool at our disposal, including diplomatic and economic in addition to the threat and use of military force," she said.

IRAQ -- ROCKEFELLER SAID CHENEY EXERTED 'CONSTANT' PRESSURE ON PAT ROBERTS TO LIE FOR THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION:

Senate Intelligence Committee chairman John Rockefeller (D-WV) said in an interview that Vice President Dick Cheney exerted "constant" pressure on the former chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), to stall an investigation into the Bush administration's use of flawed intelligence on Iraq.

The so-called Phase II report on the administration's use of pre-war intelligence was delayed for over two years. Two of its five portions were finally released in Sept. 2006.

Rockefeller said that he knew that the Vice President attended regular policy meetings in which he conveyed White House directions to conservative Capitol Hill staffers.

They "just had to go along with the administration," he said. During the course of the Phase II investigation, Roberts made numerous contradictory statements, stating early on, "It is a priority. I made my commitment and it will get done."

Later, he said it would be "a monumental waste of time to replow this ground any further."

In Nov. 2005, Roberts said the report would soon be released. But the former chairman delayed the release for nine more months before it was public.

Iraq Plan May Hamper Domestic Defense
By LOLITA C. BALDOR
Associated Press Writer

President Bush's troop buildup in Iraq and the demands of the four-year-old war are causing concern at the Pentagon that the conflict could hamper the military's response to domestic crises.

The head of the National Guard said Wednesday his troops lack the necessary equipment and that will hurt their ability to respond to natural or manmade disasters at home.

"I am not as comfortable as some others seem to be in accepting the low readiness levels here at home," Lt. Gen. Steven Blum said. "It creates a problem. It will cost us time and time will translate into lives."

Adm. Timothy Keating, commander of U.S. Northern Command, also said there may be "specific equipment shortfalls that, in the longer term, could have an impact on our ability to respond."

Keating also said that right now, "the analysis we've done does not indicate any significant degradation in our ability to respond" to a crisis at home.

Their comments came as opposition grew in Congress to President Bush's plan to send more than 21,000 additional troops to Iraq in the coming months.

The military leaders, in interviews with The Associated Press, echoed warnings from other military commanders about the buildup's potential effect on the readiness levels of forces at home.

Some at the Pentagon believe the training and equipment shortfalls affect homeland defense. Yet others believe the military is big enough and strong enough to respond to any crisis — but that response would not be as neat or as quick as it should be.

Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, and Gen. James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps, told the House Armed Services Committee that the buildup is putting more pressure on the military, and that the response to a crisis elsewhere probably would be slower and more risky.

Schoomaker said Army units moving into Iraq are fully trained, staffed and equipped. But, he said, "I have continued concerns about the nondeployed forces," as well as the "strategic depth of our Army and its readiness."

Army officials also say it will be a struggle to get all the equipment they need for the buildup. Some troops, they said, may not have all their equipment as they train for the mission, but would have it as they cross into Iraq from Kuwait.

Equipment and training are main concerns for the troops at home, particularly for National Guard units that have scrambled to get equipment. Units have resorted to swapping equipment among the states to ensure that trucks, helicopters and communications equipment are where they are needed most.

Noting the Guard was short on equipment before the war began, Andrew Feickert, national defense specialist with the Congressional Research Service, said deployed units then had to leave much equipment in Iraq.

"Units that have returned are trying to replace and repair their equipment," Feickert said.

"With this new situation, they might be called upon to come up with even more equipment to bring deploying units up to strength."

Keating said concerns focus more on whether the military has the training and equipment to respond to multiple situations at one time.

The military, he said, needs more training and equipment for chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks, including chemical suits, medical equipment and treatment facilities.

He said he is working with Blum to ensure that specialized Guard units needed to respond to such incidents would be kept in the United States as much as possible.

General: Army increase will cost $70B
By PAULINE JELINEK
Associated Press Writer

Increasing the size of the Army, strained by America's two ongoing wars, will cost an estimated $70 billion, a top Army general said Tuesday.

And if yet another conflict were to develop before the force can be bolstered, it would take longer to fight and cost more American casualties than otherwise might be expected, said Lt. Gen. Stephen Speakes, a deputy chief of staff.

Reversing previous administration thinking, President Bush said last month that he wants a larger military. And Defense Secretary Robert Gates earlier this month recommended that the Army's troop strength be increased by 65,000 soldiers, to a total of 547,000 worldwide and the Marines be increased by 27,000 to 202,000. Almost half of that Army increase already has been achieved under a temporary program that Gates said would be made permanent; the full increase is to be achieved within five years.

The Army's preliminary estimate is that it would cost $70 billion to increase its size and the funds would be spread over budget years 2009 through 2013, Speakes told a defense writers group Tuesday .

Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker has said that the service budget jumps $1.2 billion with each 10,000 soldiers that it recruits and trains. Speakes said the $70 billion figure includes everything — from equipment to pay to health benefits. No figure was immediately available for the increase in the Marine Corps.

"What we are asking is that Americans make a decision about priorities," he said of the huge new defense cost.

Meanwhile, he acknowledged, fighting the war in Iraq on top of the war in Afghanistan has left ground forces in a weakened state of readiness.

That is, some units are below the standard measure used to determine if they are ready to fight a conventional, high-intensity war. This is because they have substantial equipment shortfalls and their training is focusing on the low-intensity, counterinsurgency battle being fought in Iraq.

"What America needs to do is realize that we can fulfill the national strategy (of defending against another conflict simultaneously), but ... that it will take more time and it will also take us increased casualties to do the job," he said.

"We have an issue, and that's part of what, I think, the recent decisions by the president and secretary of defense have addressed," Speakes said. "We're going to build a more robust Army, we're going to continue to invest in a ground force that has the right capabilities, the right equipment, the right training to do it's job," he said, adding that enormous improvements in the quality of the Army have been made in recent years.

"This is a voyage in progress, it's being measured against the harsh litmus test of combat which has forced some grim realities on all of us," Speakes said.

Cheney denies GOP tension over Iraq

WASHINGTON (UPI) -- U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney denies that mistakes in Iraq have hurt the Bush administration's credibility with Republicans in Congress. 
 
Cheney, in an interview Wednesday with CNN's Wolf Blitzer, said the administration is committed to moving ahead with its plan to send more troops to Baghdad, even if Congress opposes it.

He said pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq "would simply validate the terrorists' strategy that says the Americans will not stay to complete the task."

Cheney told CNN the U.S.-led ouster of Saddam Hussein has made the world "much safer."

"Saddam has been brought to justice and executed, his sons are dead, his government is gone. And the world is better off for it," he said.

Cheney, however, did acknowledge "ongoing problems" in Iraq.

"We still have more work to do to get a handle on the security situation, and the president's put a plan in place to do that," he said.

Escalation to Failure

Nearly seventy percent of Americans oppose Bush’s escalation plan, as do top military leaders, Bush’s staunchest international ally, and the Iraq Study Group. After four years in the shadows, Congress has begun to use its power as a co-equal branch of government to do something about the administration’s failed policies in Iraq. On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a resolution condemning Bush’s escalation strategy. Americans are mobilizing against the president’s plan. A protest rally has been planned for this weekend in Washington, D.C., while other groups such as Americans Against Escalation in Iraq plan to lobby members of Congress “who have spoken out against the war, but who have so far declined to pledge support for a resolution denouncing Bush’s plan to increase the number of troops.”

• Americans can support the troops by opposing the escalation plan. A recent Military Times poll of active-duty forces found 39 percent of those polled think troop levels should remain the same or should decrease. Only 38 percent support sending more troops into Iraq, with 13 percent supporting a complete withdrawal. Yet the administration and its conservative allies continue to push the false premise that opposition to the administration’s failed policies--which once again became painfully evident last Saturday--means a lack of support for the troops. “In Iraq, all of this undermines the morale of the military and makes their task that much harder on the ground,” The Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page said about the ongoing debate.
  
  
• There is another way: progressives across the country are calling for strategic redeployment. “It’s the only game in town,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) said of escalation. Cheney claimed “the critics have not suggested a policy.” Tony Snow added: “If you’ve got a better proposal that will achieve success in Iraq, help Iraqis get swiftly into the lead, and will demonstrate support for American forces, let us hear it.” Listen closely, Tony. Over a year and a half ago, the Center for American Progress released a responsible Iraq strategy that called for comprehensive strategic redeployment. The strategy, which was updated in May 2006, calls for reducing U.S. troops to 60,000 in six months and to zero in 18 months, while redeploying troops to Afghanistan, Kuwait, and the Persian Gulf to contain the threat of global terror networks.
  
  
• More and more conservatives are speaking out against the president. The White House is trying to downplay the growing discontent among conservatives about Bush’s policies. Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked Cheney recently if they were losing the support from conservatives. “Well, I don't think Chuck Hagel has been with us for a long time,” Cheney said. Asked for a comment on the escalation resolution, Tony Snow said there had been “no real surprises” because Hagel voted for it, ignoring the fact that Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) was the only member of the Foreign Relations Committee to express support for the president’s plan. Other influential conservative voices--including those of Sens. John Warner (R-VA), Norm Coleman (R-MN), and Sam Brownback (R-KS)--have said they will not support the plan. (See where all members of Congress stand HERE.)

Report: Cheney Rejected Iran Concessions
The Associated Press

LONDON -- An Iranian offer to help the United States stabilize Iraq and end its military support for Hezbollah and Hamas was rejected by Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003, a former top State Department official told the British Broadcasting Corp.

The U.S. State Department was open to the offer, which came in an unsigned letter sent shortly after the American invasion of Iraq, Lawrence Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powell's chief of staff, told BBC's Newsnight in a program broadcast Wednesday night. But, Wilkerson said, Cheney vetoed the deal.

"We thought it was a very propitious moment" to strike a deal, Wilkerson said. "But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself."

A spokesman for the State Department said Thursday he wasn't aware of any letter from the Iranians to the U.S. government in 2003.

"Far as I know, there's never been an offer from the Iranian Government on those kinds of concerns," said Tom Casey, the state department's deputy spokesman.

Wilkerson said that, in return for its cooperation, Tehran asked Washington to lift sanctions and to dismantle the Mujahedeen Khalq, an Iranian opposition group which has bases in Iraq.

Iran also offered to increase the transparency of its nuclear program, according to Wilkerson.

Wilkerson has been a frequent critic of the Bush administration in general and Cheney in particular, holding the vice president responsible for the mistreatment of detainees and the failure of Iraq's postwar planning.

Terrorists Take Over Google Earth
By Thomas Claburn
InformationWeek

Terrorists in Basra, Iraq, have turned Google Earth into a tool for targeting attacks, according to The Daily Telegraph, a U.K. newspaper.

Citing unnamed British Army intelligence sources, the Telegraph said that documents recovered from the homes of insurgents included print-outs of Google Earth images with notations detailing the longitude and latitude of a British military camp.

The article quotes the unidentified intelligence officer as saying, "We believe they use Google Earth to identify the most vulnerable areas such as tents," and notes that one solider has been killed and several wounded in mortar attacks at the camp in question.

The implication is that Google Earth bears some measure of responsibility is dubious considering the mapping software has its limitations.

Google spokesperson Rachel Whetstone said she was unable to comment on whether or not Google had spoken with British military representatives about this issue. She did say however that Google was receptive to such concerns when raised.

This is not the first time that Google's avowed mission "to organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful" has collided with the military need for secrecy.

In December 2005, the New York Times reported that the governments of India, Russia, and South Korea, among others, were concerned that Google Earth images might reveal too much about their military bases.

A complicating factor in this controversy is that Google isn't actually using satellites to spy on anyone. The company buys its images from the likes of DigitalGlobe, an imagery company based in Colorado.

Whetstone said many people were aware of this. "I think there is a very clear understanding that you can get the information on Google Earth from other sources," she said. "The information all comes from third parties. Google Earth imagery, on the whole is used for the purposes for which it was intended. Sadly, some things in life can be used for things we might not want them to be used for."

BUSH ESCALATES WAR BY EXTENDING DEPLOYMENTS, REMOVING TROOPS FROM AFGHANISTAN:

New reports show how President Bush plans to escalate the war in Iraq despite the U.S. military being overstretched around the globe. The Associated Press reports that the Pentagon "has abandoned its limit on the time a citizen-soldier can be required to serve on active duty, ...a major change that reflects an Army stretched thin by longer-than-expected combat in Iraq."

Until now, the Guard and Reserve policy "was that members' cumulative time on active duty for the Iraq or Afghan wars could not exceed 24 months. That cumulative limit is now lifted; the remaining limit is on the length of any single mobilization, which may not exceed 24 consecutive months."

Additionally, the Boston Globe reports that a U.S. Army battalion "fighting in a critical area of eastern Afghanistan is due to be withdrawn within weeks to deploy to Iraq."

The move comes despite "an urgent appeal" from U.S. commanders in Afghanistan for more forces. "Army Brigadier General Anthony J. Tata and other US commanders say [the diversion of forces from Afghanistan to Iraq] will happen as the Taliban is expected to unleash a campaign to cut the vital road between Kabul and Kandahar."

ADMINISTRATION - SOLDIERS BARRED FROM TALKING TO MEDIA AFTER BUSH'S SPEECH:

A day after President Bush announced an escalation plan to send 21,500 more troops to Iraq, he spoke to 300 soldiers in a "teary-eyed" address at Fort Benning, GA.

The Washington Post notes that the White House chose Ft. Benning hoping for "an unreservedly enthusiastic reception" to the President's speech, since military bases have usually been "reliable backdrop[s] for the White House."

But instead, soldiers gave him only a "quiet response." The Los Angeles Times added that he "received a less enthusiastic reception than has been the case on his past visits to military bases to promote his Iraq policy" and the New York Times observed that the soldiers "clapped politely but showed little of the wild enthusiasm that they ordinarily shower on the commander in chief."

Additionally, reporters were prohibited from talking to the soldiers -- many of whom will be deploying to Iraq soon -- after the speech, to "ensure that there would be no discordant notes."

Wall Street Journal reporter Yochi Dreazen wrote that "reporters were shooed out of the dining hall by White House aides and public-affairs personnel from the military base, who said that soldiers were now off-limits to the media."

Only hours later, after "an angry confrontation with both White House and Fort Benning media-affairs personnel," did the base offer to make a "small number" of selected soldiers available. Reporters, however, had to skip the opportunity because the press plane back to Washington was leaving in less than an hour.

AP poll: Americans pan Iraq troop surge

WASHINGTON — Seventy percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq, according to a new poll that provides a devastatingly blunt response to President George W. Bush's plan to bolster military forces there.

All sides in the Iraq debate are keenly aware of mounting public dissatisfaction with the situation: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday it is one thing on which all Americans – including administration officials – are united.

Yet the Associated Press-Ipsos poll found widespread disagreement with the Bush administration over its proposed solution, and growing skepticism that the United States made the right decision in going to war in the first place.

Just as 70 percent of Americans oppose sending more troops to Iraq, a like number do not think such an increase would help stabilize the situation there, the poll suggested. When asked to name the most important problem facing the U.S., 38 percent of those polled volunteered war, up significantly from 24 percent three months ago.

The AP-Ipsos telephone survey of 1,002 adults was conducted Monday through Wednesday night, when the president made his speech calling for an increase in troops. News had already surfaced before the polling period that Bush planned to boost U.S. forces in Iraq.

The public's concern over Iraq was a prominent topic in Congress on Thursday as legislators reacted to the president's plan to increase troop levels by 21,500.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden harked back to the Vietnam War as he warned Rice that any solution to the Iraq problem must have public support. "They've got to sign on," he told her.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, told Rice: "You are not listening to the American people. … And you wonder why there is a dark cloud of skepticism and pessimism over this nation."

But Republican Sen. John McCain said it would be an oversimplification to think that people just want the United States out of Iraq.

"They're understandably frustrated, they're understandably saddened," he said. "But if you can show the American people that there is a way forward to success, and also describe to them the consequences of failure, I believe this policy can be supported." Iraq is a drag on Bush's overall job approval rating, too. That rating is at 32 percent in the latest survey, a new low in AP-Ipsos polling.

Just 35 percent of Americans think it was right for the United States to go to war, another record low in AP polling and a reversal from two years ago.

Pakistan: U.S. hasn't shared information on al Qaeda

By Zeeshan Haider

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan said on Friday the United States had not given it any information about the presence of al Qaeda leaders, following remarks from U.S. intelligence chief John Negroponte that they were holed up in Pakistan.

"We have no such information nor has any such thing been communicated to us by any U.S. authority," Pakistan's military spokesman Major-General Shaukat Sultan told Reuters.

Washington's ally has always contended that Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahri could be either side of the rugged, porous border with Afghanistan.

But in an unusually direct statement, Negroponte on Thursday named Pakistan as the center of an al Qaeda web that radiated out to the Middle East, North Africa and Europe.

In a testimony to a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Negroponte wrote, without naming bin Laden or Zawahri, that al Qaeda leaders are holed up in a secure hide-out in Pakistan.

He said they were rebuilding a network that has been decimated by the capture or killing of hundreds of al Qaeda members since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Many security analysts suspect that bin Laden is likely to be hiding in Pakistan's tribal regions or neighboring districts of North West Frontier Province.

There has also been speculation that he may have died, though intelligence agencies say they have not picked up any supporting evidence.

A half-dozen audio tapes of bin Laden were circulated in the first half of 2006, but the al Qaeda leader last appeared in video tape in late 2004. Subsequent tapes released were identified as old footage.

Zawahri, meantime, has had several tapes released. On January 5, an audio-tape was posted on the Web by al Qaeda's media arm al-Sahab, exhorting Somalian Islamists to attack Ethiopia. The authenticity of the tape could not be verified, but correspondents familiar with Zawahri's voice said it was his.

HIT AND MISS

In January last year CIA-operated drone aircraft carried out a missile strike on Pakistan's Bajaur tribal region based on information that Zawahri might be there.

The strike on Damadola village did not kill Zawahri, though it possibly eliminated a handful of al Qaeda militants. It killed 18 villagers.

Analysts say Pakistan's denials that it was informed of the strike beforehand were aimed at off-setting domestic criticism of its alliance with the United States.

Last October, around 80 men, some of them young boys, were killed in a missile attack on a madrasa in Bajaur, though this time the Pakistan military said it carried out the operation.

In his testimony, Negroponte acknowledged Pakistan's efforts in the fight against terrorism but said it was also a "major source of Islamic extremism".

He also noted President Pervez Musharraf was aware of the risk of sparking a revolt among ethnic Pashtuns living in the tribal belt straddling the border, as well as the political risks of a backlash from Islamist political parties, especially as national elections are due in Pakistan this year.