About Me

Name: Gabrielle Cusumano
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Is My Blog Being Sabotaged By ESP Group Inc.'s CYBERCOP, Co-defendent in the International Profit Associates ( IPA ) RICO Class Action Lawsuit?

What happened to your blog?  The bottom half that contains info about International Profit Associates  (IPA) lawsuit with ESP as co-defendents is all darkened to the point you can hardly read it.  What happened?  Did ESP'  (IPA's) Cybercop  do damage to you? 


Comment by Stillseekingtruth    Thursday, April 19, 2007     


( I looked at what "stillseekingtruth" is writing about and the only way I could republish the information that was darkened out was to post it again and highlight it in yellow so it will show up in case it is blackened out again by whomever is doing this.)

(Also quite a lot of what I have posted about Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton and their various associates,  associations and extra-curricular activities has been darkened out too (perhaps  as a  big favor to the Clinton by whomever is doing this) . Thank you for your patience good and kind readers. )
                                                                                                                                                          Gabrielle Cusumano



______________________________________________________________________________________

Cybercop(Used by US Defencse and Intelligence  Is Owned By The ESP Group, LLC, A Co-Defendant in the International Profit Associates  (IPA)  RICO Case (See Clinton Connection)


"Cybercop is owned and operated by The ESP Group, LLC
.
-
a security-focused 
 
Application Service Provider (ASP) providing highly secure, web-accessible portals to handle sensitive information for Government and Commercial clients. [...]have been accredited for handling sensitive information for the U.S. Defense and Intelligence Community. ESP services are in use by numerous government agencies and corporations and are being used for some of their most sensitive collaboration activities. "

(More on this below)
__________________________________________________________________

Record of International Profit Associates Hillary R. Clinton Contribution from OpenSecrets.Org

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY)
Top Contributors

#10 International Profit Associates $88,400

"This chart lists the top donors to this member of Congress during the election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates."]
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp?CID=N00000019&cycle=2006



For more on this see:   http://gabriellecusumano.townhall.com/g/3d91b78f-6b34-446c-aef0-08d5a5ddcb22?comments=true#comment9be8bf83-c7c1-4a54-938c-505cfe09a0a9
__________________________________________________________________

RICO and CLASS ACTION Lawsuit


*Amari Company, Inc. et al v. Burgess et al    (International Profit Associates)   

Case Number: 1:2007cv01425
Filed: March 13, 2007
 
Court: Illinois Northern District Court
Office: Chicago Office [ Court Info ]
County: XX US, Outside the State of IL
Presiding Judge: Honorable Ruben Castillo
 
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Cause: 18:1961 Racketeering (RICO) Act
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Defendant:  John Burgess; Gregg Steinburg; Kenn Sweet; Tyler Burgess; John Owen; International Profit Associates Inc.; Integrated Business Analysis Inc. USA; Integrated Business Analysis Inc., Canada; International Tax Advisors Inc.; ITA Implementations Services LLC; Creative Tax Strategies Inc.; Accountancy Associates LLC; IPA Advisory & Intermediary Services LLC; International Tax Associates Inc.; ESP Group Inc.; International Financial Advisors LLC; Implementation Services LLC; John Does; John Roes; Jane Does; Jane Roes

3/13/2007 07c 1425 Castillo

Complaint over fraud and RICO violations by defendant providers of fraudulent business financial advisory and consulting services. After getting in the door to make a sales pitch, defendants use a series of scare tactics designed to convince potential clients that their business will fail without the defendants' help. $3 million.


http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-ilndce/case_no-1:2007cv01425/case_id-207120/


*Amari Co. Inc., a Massachusetts corp.; Amazing Productions Inc., a Florida corp.; BBQ Island LLC, an Arizona limited liability co.; Central Radiator Cabinet Co. Inc.; CompSolution VA Inc., a Virginia corp.; Gilbert-American Companies, a Texas co.; Greater Dallas Wholesale Co.

Inc., a Texas corp.; Gregory & Martin Inc., a Pennsylvania corp.; Gig's Inc., a Massachusetts limited liability co. f/k/a MJP Contracting Inc., a Massachusetts corp.; HiTech Fire Detection Inc., a Texas corp.; Hinsdale Sales & Rentals, Sales & Service, a New Hampshire corp.; HRJL Architects Inc., an Ohio corp.; Integrated Sign and Graphic Inc., a Kentucky corp.; Joseph E. Clouse Inc., a Florida corp.; J.V. Hansel Inc.

d/b/a Institutional Foods Inc., an Ohio corp.; Kyle's Discount Stuff, a Kansas partnership; Mills Mfg. Inc., a Minnesota corp.; MJP Contracting Inc., a Massachusetts corp.; Precision Painting and Decorating Inc.; Trinks Brothers LLC, a Connecticut limited liability corp.; Tring Construction Inc.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff238773.htm
_______________________________________________________________________________


About CyberCop and ESP Group 

Cybercop is owned and operated by
The ESP Group, LLC
.
- a security-focused Application Service Provider (ASP) providing highly secure, web-accessible portals to handle sensitive information for Government and Commercial clients. The ESP technology is based on the “Extranet for Security Professionals”, which was a DARPA sponsored collaboration project for the National Security Community. The ESP secure technologies were validated at the Software Engineering Institute of Carnegie Mellon University and have been accredited for handling sensitive information for the U.S. Defense and Intelligence Community. ESP services are in use by numerous government agencies and corporations and are being used for some of their most sensitive collaboration activities.

ESP logo

The ESP Group provides tools engineered for security in an easily accessible web-based format that brings users from diverse platforms and locations closer together. The ESP Group provides a robust suite of collaboration tools in its portals. It also develops custom applications designed to meet individual client needs. The ESP specializes in providing a turnkey operation that includes web hosting, security and network monitoring, software customization, user training and help desk services.

CyberCop Major Players

Matt Donlon – Cybercop Co-Founder

The Cybercop/ESP concept was founded as the result of his achievements as Visiting Scientist at the Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Carnegie Mellon University, where he was the Director of the Extranet for Security Professionals program. This program gained visibility and recognition in the national security community by President Clinton and the director of the CIA, Mr. Tenet. Prior to SEI, Mr. Donlon was the Director, Security and Intelligence Office (S&IO), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Throughout his extensive career, Mr. Donlon has held many responsible positions and has received many awards for his innovativeness and contributions to the security profession. He was the Security Official in charge for the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology at NASA HQ; Program Security Officer, supporting DARPA's highly classified R&D programs for the Department of the Navy; and a Security Specialist for TRW, Inc. Mr. Donlon's career began with the CIA after graduation from Radford University where he earned a Bachelor's Degree. Mr. Donlon is also a graduate of the Federal Executive Institute (FEI). Mr. Donlon is also a current adjunct Professor at the University of New Haven, Connecticut where he assists with the Forensic Computing Investigation Program.

Mr. Donlon has been awarded the Meritorious Civilian Service Medal and the Exceptional Service Medal Department of Defense.

http://www.cybercopportal.org/about.htm_
______________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________________


The ESP Group LLC., an Application Service Provider, offers a thorough security solution for diverse organizations to share Sensitive but Unclassified (SBU) information through highly secure, compartmented, Internet accessible portals. Continuously striving to operate at a higher level of security, trust, service, technology and performance, the ESP Group focuses on aligning its solution of leveraging the Internet for sensitive applications with client's individual needs.

Back To Top
Company History

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Defense Department's R&D organization that originally created the Internet (ARPANet) and other projects, such as the stealth bomber, recognized an internal need to communicate and collaborate securely over the web. So in 1997, a multi agency security team was established to review and select the most secure technologies available in the government and private sectors to acknowledge this need.

Meanwhile, the White House's U.S. Security Policy Board, a coordinating body for the national security and intelligence communities, was charged under the Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 29 to provide a new combination of technology and business to the secure community.

In response to both directives, the Security Policy Board launched the Extranet for Security Professionals (The ESP – www.xsp.org ). The ESP is a highly secure collaboration system equipped to handle Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) information over the Internet. This private external network (Extranet) portal, accessed over the web, is used by security-cleared national and cyber-security professionals to share and collaborate on sensitive information.

Due to its overwhelming success, the ESP technology was transitioned in 1998 to the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon University. With funding and guidance from DARPA, DoD, CMS, DoE, NRO, NASA, and the Air Force, the U.S. Security Policy Board tested and matured the ESP technology. Afterwards, the ESP helped tie together the national security and intelligence community as well as supported such tasks as the Department of Defense Y2K efforts. In August 1999, the Joint Security Commission II, while reviewing the Security Policy Board's achievements, recognized the ESP experiment as a “success” and recommended that it be moved from an experimental to an operational status. Both DARPA and the SEI, in line with their technology transfer missions, supported the commercialization of the technology.

The ESP Group, LLC, a privately held company, was formed in 2000 to provide a secure solution to various governmental and private organizations for collaboration based on the ESP technology. The new company acquired the proprietary rights to the privately developed core technologies as well as licenses for government financed enhancements in early 2000. By March 2000, the ESP Group began serving clients.

Since its founding, The ESP Group has focused on developing new and existing applications with security as THE design criteria to better serve its clients.

Back To Top
The ESP Advantage

For most of ESP Group's clients, a secure communication application is a necessity. The ESP Group offers the needed protection of sensitive information as well as numerous other benefits that other Application Service Providers do not or cannot offer in its entirety.

•  Application Development. The ESP Group develops and customizes unique Web-based applications that meet the specific communication needs of clients.

•  System Administration Costs. The ESP Group allows clients to leverage the cost savings benefits and the expertise of a focused, trusted security provider without having to hire additional in-house talent.

•  Secure Socket Layer (SSL) Methodology: The advantage of SSL is that virtually anyone with a current browser and an Internet connection can establish a highly encrypted session.

•  Network Architecture Costs. With ESP, clients do not have to invest in complex and ever-changing technologies for multiple destinations. They utilize a centralized Secure Operating Center that serves multiple platforms.

•  Full-Service Helpdesk. ESP provides a help desk that supports and trains clients with their access of the portal so they can fully benefit from the systems and applications.

•  Research and Development. ESP makes significant investments in research and development so clients can be confident their communications are always secure.

Back To Top
Management Team

The ESP Group, LLC is led by a seasoned and successful management team dedicated to providing the most advanced products and services and building a responsive, reliable and sustainable organization.

Senior Partners


William Potvin – President/CEO

With over 25 years of experience leading professional services and finanical organizations, Mr. Potvin helped found The ESP Group and now specializes in delivering superior service to their clients.  Prior to founding the company, he was a management-consulting partner at Deloitte & Touche, where he led numerous successful consulting practices globally and specialized in business start-ups and privatization.

Ron Register – Chairman/Chief Operating Officer

Before he became a member of The ESP Group team, Mr. Register held a variety of positions working with the U.S. Government and other government contractors. He was an advisor and consultant on major defense programs for Cypress International, Inc.; a visiting professor for the Defense Systems Management College, Executive Institute; Deputy Director and Senior Acquisitions Executive for DARPA; and Director of Contract Management Office within DARPA.

George Johnson, CISSP – Chief Technology Officer

Mr. Johnson has worked in information technology and security for over 15 years, focusing specifically on computer and Internet security for the last seven years. In 1996, while working in the Security and Intelligence Office at DARPA, he implemented the Extranet for Security Professionals (ESP) as a proof of concept “secure web application.” When the ESP technology moved to Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute, Mr. Johnson worked as an adjunct professor in InfoSec and also served as the technical director of the ESP. Working with the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT/CCtm), he refined and matured the software and networking environment that supported both the ESP and the DoD Y2K reporting system in support of the Deputy Secretary of Defense. Since The ESP Group was formed, Mr. Johnson has been running enterprise-scale secured network applications for customers ranging from private pharmaceutical companies to the U.S. Government (DoD, Department of Energy, NASA and OPM). Mr. Johnson holds a current CISSP certification.

Matt Donlon – Founder/Executive Vice President

Through his work and achievements as the director of the Extranet for Security Professionals (ESP) and as a visiting scientist at Carnegie Mellon University’s Software Engineering Institute (SEI), Mr. Donlon founded The ESP Group. His successes with ESP gained the necessary visibility and recognition in the national security community by President Clinton and the director of the CIA, Mr. Tenet.

Prior to the SEI, Mr. Donlon was the Director of the Security and Intelligence Office at DARPA. He has also served as the Security Official in charge for the Office of Aeronautics and Space Technology at NASA HQ; the Program Security Officer, where he supported DARPA’s highly classified R&D programs for the Department of Navy; the Security Specialist for TRW, Inc.; and a member of the CIA.

Mr. Donlon graduated from Radford University where he earned a B.S. in Criminal Justice & Political Science. He is also a graduate of the Federal Executive Institute (FEI). Currently, Mr. Donlon is the coordinator for the National Security Graduate Degree program for the University of New Haven, Crystal City campus.

Throughout his extensive career, Mr. Donlon has received many awards for his innovativeness and contributions to the security profession. He has been awarded the Meritorious Civilian Service Medal and the Exceptional Service Medal from the Department of Defense.

Dr. Cliff Gregory - Vice President of Systems Development

After spending 27 years in the U.S. Navy on assignments in Europe, Asia and the United States, Dr. Gregory embarked on an impressive career where he became known for his leadership and experience in enterprise software development organizations in both the private and public sectors.

In the public sector, he has served in various senior management and technology roles with the US Navy, Hawaiian Electric Industries, Magellan Network Systems, and the Lawrence National Energy Lab. In the private sector, Dr. Gregory has been Chief Technologist and Vice President of Engineering in start-up and established companies.

Through his positions, Dr. Gregory has specialized in deploying management methodologies to make best path decisions that free managers from routine issues, allowing them to focus on areas that need truly creative thinking and improving the bottom line. He has hired and trained hardware support and software development teams to create value using an agile paradigm.

Dr. Gregory has published a number of papers on managing people and processes in an agile environment. He spent the last two years consulting with Fortune 500 companies in the area of software development management. He has founded 3 start-up companies, including Agilityware, Right-Steps Resources and Makani Uwela Renewable Energy Engineering.

Dr. Cliff Gregory received a PhD in Computer Science as well as in Engineering Design Management from the Dublin Institute of Technology (DIT).

Principals


JJ Daniels – Software Development

Mr. Daniels currently serves as a senior member of the software development staff at The ESP Group. He manages DOE, NASA and DHS Foreign Visits and Assignment applications, manages development teams and assists in new business development.

After receiving his Bachelor’s degree in Industrial Engineering and Operation Research as well as a Master’s degree in Systems Engineering from Virginia Tech, Mr. Daniels began his career as a Senior Developer at DIVX where he was responsible for developing several multi-media and front end applications. He then led a team of developers in designing and maintaining Army Logistics Software at Lockheed Martin/TWC/CSC. In his next position, he became the Director of Database Services for Stenrich and a database designer for Progressive Design. Through all the companies Mr. Daniels worked for, he was instrumental in setting up databases for the management and tracking of internal projects and human resources function.

Dwayne Miller – Software Development

Bringing over 15 years of experience in software and database design and implementation to the company, Mr. Miller currently serves as a senior member of the Software Development staff.

Prior to joining the company, Mr. Miller worked as an IT Consultant to Metro Information Services, where he was tasked with developing process software, documentation and web applications for an electronic retail sales company. Next he became the division manager for MRJ Technology Solutions, where he was the project manager for software development, exercise training support, installations and other contract related activities for the Simulation System Division. Mr. Miller then worked for Intergraph Corporation, where he, as the Senior Software Analyst, was responsible for developing a cutting edge navigational system for the U.S. Coastguard. Lastly, he supported the RF modeling and simulation effort in addition to developing quality control software as a member of the technical staff for Questch, Inc.

Mr. Miller graduated from the University of Maryland with a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Studies/Computer Science.

Karie Greider – Director of Client Services

Within the ESP Group, Ms. Greider manages all aspects of the client relationship from overseeing initial training and setup, to managing the on-site client support team and maintaining ongoing help desk and training activities.

Prior to working with The ESP Group, Ms. Greider served as a contractor at DARPA where she assisted in the development the Extranet for Security Professionals (ESP). From there, she was a member of the Technical Staff at Carnegie Mellon University in the Arlington, Virginia office where she assisted in the maturation of operations surrounding the ESP community. Ms. Greider transitioned to The ESP Group in 2000 to establish the help desk and training programs for their secure portal services.

Ms. Greider received a B.A. in Advertising from Murray State University in Kentucky.

Sean Waddell – Director of Operations

With over 10 years of network operations experience, Mr. Waddell currently serves as the Director of Operations, directing and overseeing the day-to-day operations and security of ESP's critical infrastructure. He also manages both headquarter and disaster recovery sites to ensure the systems remain online continuously for customers.

Mr. Waddell began his career at Innovative Business Technology as a system engineer tasked with architecting, administering and troubleshooting various client networks, including the National Archives, St. Paul Companies, Millenium Laser Eye Center and eBrains. He then worked for the Orkand Corporation as a systems analyst on a contract to support the Department of State. Here Mr. Waddell provided support to consulates world wide and installed and upgraded networks and Oracle database systems.

Mr. Waddell has several certifications including CCNA and Citrix Metaframe to compliment his experience in the operations field.

Back To Top
Employment

The ESP Group, LLC is a privately held company. Employment opportunities exist for self-motivated professionals at all levels of systems development and programming; secure systems administration; training and help desk; and customer service, sales and marketing.

An active security clearance is a plus and the ability to obtain one is required for most positions.

The ESP Group offers competitive compensation, benefits and advancement opportunities.

Inquiries can be sent to HR@espgroup.net .

Back To Top
Contact Info/Locations

The ESP Group's Main office is located in Arlington, Virginia.
Please call for our address and/or directions to our facility.

Arlington, Virginia - Headquarters
Phone: 703-682-6000
Email:
info@espgroup.net

http://www.espgroup.net/espGroup.htm

______________________________________________________________________________________
 _____________________________________________________________________________________

The Interactive Nightmare

The best thing about the modern computer network is also its chief liability: Everything's connected, with on-ramps conveniently located everywhere.

BY TODD DATZ

CONSIDER THE following scenario. Members of a terrorist organization announce one morning that they will shut down the Pacific Northwest electric power grid for six hours starting at 4 p.m.; they then do so. The same group then announces that it will disable the primary telecommunications trunk circuits between the U.S. East and West Coasts for a half day; they then do so, despite our best efforts to defend against them. Then, they threaten to bring down the air traffic control system supporting New York City, grounding all traffic and diverting inbound traffic; they then do so. Finally, they threaten to cripple e-commerce and credit card services for a week by using several hundred thousand stolen identities in millions of fraudulent transactions. Their list of actions is then posted in The New York Times, threatening further action if their demands are not met. Imagine the ensuing public panic and chaos.

Alarmist, perhaps? Far from it. The scenario is actually quoted from a letter sent by a group of concerned scientists to President Bush in February 2002. Signatories included O. Sami Saydjari, founder of the Cyber Defense Research Center; Matt Donlon, former director of the security and intelligence office at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; and Robert T. Marsh, a retired Air Force general and former chairman of the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. The scientists don't mince words about the cyberthreats facing the nation: "The critical infrastructure of the United States, including electric power, finance, telecommunications, health care, transportation, water, defense and the Internet, is highly vulnerable to cyberattack. Fast and resolute mitigating action is needed to avoid national disaster."

While the group's scenario was meant to grab attention, it also was grounded in reality. Each of the events depicted has happened (though not concurrently); some resulted from government-sponsored exercises, some from technical failures and some from actual cyberattacks. All could plausibly be triggered by a few knowledgeable people using some PCs and Internet access.

The cyberthreat to the nation's security and economy may not be as well understood to the general public as a dirty bomb or a vial of ricin in the wrong hands. But to experts in cybersecurity—those who know the vulnerabilities of the Internet and do daily combat with hackers, criminals and foreign governments trying to probe our critical infrastructure and military networks—the threat is vividly real. Indeed, the 54 scientists who signed the letter believe that a professionally coordinated cyberattack on the critical infrastructure could ravage not only the nation's economy (to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in damage) but also undermine public confidence in the government's ability to protect its citizens. In fact, although a cyberattack alone may lack the awful human destruction that can accompany a physical attack, because the systems controlling the critical infrastructure are often densely interconnected, such an attack could have more destructive and widespread consequences.

Amit Yoran, director of DHS's National Cyber Security Division, is said to be building a high-quality technical team at the fledgling agency.
The lead defender in protecting the critical infrastructure is the Department of Homeland Security, a collection of 23 agencies that began operations in January 2003 (see "From the Ground Up," March 2004). Spearheading the effort is the National Cyber Security Division, led by Director Amit Yoran. Like the rest of DHS, Yoran and his staff face a steep uphill climb in accomplishing the department's mission. Eight-five percent to 90 percent of the critical infrastructure rests in private hands. Yet in the absence of regulation, which the private sector often views as a poison pill, DHS has no whip; rather, it must play the role of prodder and pleader, reaching out to a leery private sector that knows it needs to harden security but wonders where the money is coming from to pay for it. As a result, many of those private-sector companies may not feel compelled to move as quickly as DHS might like. Compounding the fledgling division's challenges is its organizational immaturity: At the same time it's trying to boost cybersecurity, it's also dealing with the headaches of hiring staff, integrating IT systems, figuring out how to analyze the boatloads of data coursing through its pipelines and how to share that information. All that will take months—some say years—to sort out.

This story looks at the challenges facing DHS and its cybersecurity team, and how they're working with the private sector to address them. While regulations remain a political third-rail within the business community, DHS and some in Congress are sending signals to CEOs that serious progress had better happen fast or else regulation may turn from threat to reality.


Cybersecurity Makes a Name for Itself
Given the relatively brief history of ubiquitous computing, cybersecurity wasn't addressed at the presidential level until Ronald Reagan signed the Computer Security Act of 1987, a measure aimed at protecting the security and privacy of sensitive information in the federal government's computer systems. Recognizing the growing dependence of the critical infrastructure on information technology, President Clinton formed the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection in 1996. Led by Robert Marsh (a signatory of the aforementioned letter), the commission, consisting of both public- and private-sector members, set out to develop a national policy and implementation strategy to protect the critical infrastructure from physical and cyberattacks. In 1997, the commission, which focused primarily on the cyberthreat, issued a report that recommended improving structures and processes to promote information-sharing between government and industry, educating citizens on cybersecurity issues, revising certain statutes to address infrastructure assurance concerns and greatly improving funding for R&D into infrastructure protection.

The White House took the report and the growing infrastructure threat to heart. In May 1998, President Clinton issued Presidential Decision Directive 63 (PDD 63), which set forth a framework to address the Marsh Commission's findings. It created the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) at the FBI; the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO) at the Department of Commerce; and the National Infrastructure Assurance Council (NIAC), consisting of representatives from both the public and private sectors. It also called for the establishment of Information Sharing and Analysis Centers (ISACs). As with the Marsh report, PDD 63 emphasized that infrastructure protection need not be dictated by government but by market forces. Also that month, the president appointed Richard Clarke as the first national coordinator for security, infrastructure protection and counterterrorism.

Cybersecurity Time line
Read More
In January 2000, the White House issued its National Plan for Information Systems Protection, the first stab at creating a comprehensive cyberdefense strategy. The following year, a month after Sept. 11, President Bush established the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board to coordinate protection of critical infrastructure information systems and to recommend policies. Clarke, who was appointed special adviser for cyberspace security that same month, chaired the board. But as much as the Clinton and Bush administrations understood the need for better policy coordination, the federal government was, in fact, a hodgepodge of cybersecurity activities. A July 2002 report by the General Accounting Office identified at least 50 organizations involved in national or multinational critical infrastructure cyberprotection efforts.

As the fallout from 9/11 continued, some members of Congress began calling for a Department of Homeland Security to centralize the nation's counterterrorist efforts and protect the homeland. The Homeland Security Act of 2002, which created the department, established the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate (IAIP) within DHS as the place where cybersecurity efforts would now be coordinated.


DHS as Chief Cybercop
As DHS tried to hit the ground running, it needed to spend a good chunk of time just lacing up its shoes. Some observers expressed serious concerns last year when the department absorbed a number of existing organizations that had been making steady progress on cybersecurity in the critical infrastructure. In March 2003, NIPC (except for the Computer Investigations and Operations Section), CIAO and the Federal Computer Incident Response Center were transferred to DHS. Getting those groups under the same umbrella made sense. But Michael Vatis, the founder and former director of NIPC, testified before Congress last April that even though more than 300 positions were transferred from NIPC to DHS, most of the incumbent staffers found other positions in the FBI; only 10 to 20 actually made the move. Further complicating recruitment, DHS had not yet created its National Cyber Security Division.

Whether recruiting has improved is open for debate. James Lewis, senior fellow and director of technology policy at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, says getting talented people to join DHS is still a tough sell. "The problem they have is that DHS is relatively weak, as agencies go. It routinely gets beaten out by the FBI or CIA.... It's the new kid on the block," he says.

On the other hand, Alan Paller, director of research at the SANS Institute, believes Yoran has nabbed a bunch of good hires. "They're building a high-quality technical team—that's what Amit is doing. He knows how to hire really solid technical people and motivate them," Paller says, adding that employees like working with Yoran because, rather than being an inexperienced appointee, he comes from a cybersecurity background. (Yoran, a former military officer, worked at Symantec before joining DHS.)

As the agency struggled to begin operations, it also had to absorb the loss of Clarke, one of the country's foremost cyberterrorism experts. Clarke resigned just before the president removed the position of cybersecurity czar from the White House. Although many observers speculated that Clarke resigned in frustration at the loss of his White House post, he vehemently denies that. "I was not about to be absorbed—anybody that says that doesn't know what they're talking about." Clarke, now chairman of Good Harbor Consulting, says he left "because I'd completed 30 years of government service, because I'd just finished the project I had undertaken for the president, which was developing the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace."

Howard Schmidt, the former CSO of Microsoft and vice chair of the infrastructure board at the time, succeeded Clarke as a White House adviser on cybersecurity. But within a few months, Schmidt resigned as well, becoming CISO of eBay.

After a long search, DHS Secretary Tom Ridge appointed Yoran to head the new National Cyber Security Division. Yoran, who reports to Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection Bob Liscouski, took office in October.

Howard Schmidt, a former White House adviser on cybersecurity, worries that the relationship between the cyber and physical infrastructures isn't well understood.
Even though Yoran has been crowned the new cybersecurity czar, critics worry his kingdom has lost some power. The departures of Clarke and Schmidt and the removal of the cybersecurity position from the White House prompted questions about the administration's commitment to the issue. Clarke himself believes cybersecurity has fallen somewhat off the administration's radar. "Basically, what we've done is taken the former position we had until a year ago—where the senior person worrying about cybersecurity was a special adviser—and now that person is an office director," Clarke says. "That sent a message that was very widely interpreted by industry of the administration downgrading the importance of the issue."

Jeffrey Hunker, former senior director for critical infrastructure in the White House and now a professor of technology and public policy at Carnegie Mellon, agrees. "Now you're putting it essentially below a secretary, several layers down in a big department," he says. "My experience has been that what it really means is a lack of access, or that it limits access to the Cabinet and the presidential level."

Yoran disagrees about the access issue. "I'm there [at the White House] at least once a week, more frequently twice a week. I can assure you cybersecurity has visibility at the most senior levels of the White House and has their attention. Folks who've spent time in Washington know it's very clear the White House doesn't have an operational role. Actual operations take place in the agencies. Placing cybersecurity in DHS very clearly demonstrates we're in the implementation phase of the national strategy," he says. Lewis concurs. "Cybersecurity only makes sense if it's integrated into the larger critical infrastructure strategy. They did the right thing by putting it in Liscouski's group," he says.


Is the National Strategy Sensible or Toothless?
The National Cyber Security Division has a smorgasbord of responsibilities as it continues ramping up. It's tasked with responding to major incidents, conducting cyberspace analysis, improving information-sharing, issuing alerts and warnings, and aiding in national recovery efforts. The division is also charged with implementing the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the National Strategy to Secure Cyberspace. In announcing creation of the division last June, Ridge said that its work would focus on "the vitally important task of protecting the nation's cyberassets so that we may best protect the nation's critical infrastructure."

The strategy document, like many of the things associated with DHS, has its share of passionate supporters and critics. It lays out five critical priorities:

  • Developing a national cyberspace security response system

  • Developing a national cyberspace security threat and vulnerability reduction program

  • Developing a national cyberspace security awareness and training program

  • Securing the cyberspace of all levels of government

  • Assuring national security and international cyberspace security cooperation

In fall 2002, Clarke was set to release the document at a Stanford University ceremony. But before the release, the strategy was put on the back burner. Lobbyists for businesses likely to be affected by the report (including those in the software, security and telecom industries) had successfully squelched certain provisions in earlier drafts. One, for example, called for ISPs to provide users with personal firewalls; another mandated improved wireless security. When the strategy was finally released in February 2003, some complained it had been left with little bark and even less bite. Its main cornerstone was that cybersecurity should, for the most part, be left to the private sector. While business generally applauded the strategy, many security experts derided the reliance on voluntary action as a capitulation to powerful lobbying interests.

If there is one-size-fits-all government regulation on cyberspace, you'll have a least-common-denominator solution. Over time, that won't work.

—RICHARD CLARKE

Clarke defends the strategy. Referring to those who think it lacks teeth, he says, "That's kind of a trite criticism. People who say that, one assumes, are advocates of government regulation. If there is one-size-fits-all government regulation on cyberspace, you'll have a least-common-denominator solution. Over time, that won't work. Hackers and other criminals will work their way around whatever homogenous solution you come up with."

Schmidt points out that the government sought plenty of input from around the country. "We did 12 town meetings. We met with the public, CEOs, home users and security technicians. Never before had [a strategy] been vetted so thoroughly." Like Clarke, Schmidt says the result was "a good, balanced approach to the problem."

A Bunch of Hacks
How vulnerable are the nation's computer networks? How much devastation can cyberattacks wreak?
Read More

Paller begs to differ. "It lacks teeth, " he says simply, noting that between the first and final drafts, most of the good ideas were lost. "That was the pinnacle of the business power movement in cybersecurity, the last editing of the plan," he says. "The specific proposals—the 'we will' and 'you must'—disappeared."


Assessing the Threat
How vulnerable is the United States to a massive cyberattack on its critical infrastructure? What are the bad guys zeroing in on? "It's absolutely feasible for a massive attack to take out huge segments of the Internet," says Paller. But he adds that the probability of that happening is pretty low. One reason, he says, is that the bad guys earn a living from cybercrime. Taking down the Net would damage their lifeblood, the digital hand that feeds them. Paller thinks a more likely event would be on a smaller scale, such as taking out the electrical system in some areas.

Tom Longstaff, manager of survivable network technologies at the CERT research and analysis center, is currently focusing on how to look at sensors all over the nation's computer networks to see what kinds of problems are lurking there. The biggest threats he sees fall into two categories. The first is aimed at the Internet itself. "We're seeing attacks targeting specific points in the infrastructure, not necessarily to bring it down, but to control it. These kinds of attacks focus on the mechanisms that make the Internet work," he says. One kind of attack he's seeing more of targets domain name services, undermining trust that the typed URL will bring a user to a legitimate webpage, or that an e-mail will actually go to its intended recipient.

CERT's Tom Longstaff sees a growing risk to Scada systems controlling physical processes at infrastructure elements such as power grids, gas lines and manufacturing plants.
The second worrisome category of attacks involves the interfaces between the cyber and physical worlds: Scada (supervisory control and data acquisition) systems and other process control systems that connect to power grids, gas lines and manufacturing plants. Longstaff notes that in the past, these sorts of physical systems weren't well connected to the Internet. Now, though, as companies have cut personnel and installed technology to make them more automated and efficient, the physical components of the critical infrastructure are much more vulnerable to cyberattack. "There are small computers in the field or in a manufacturing line feeding into larger computers [that] feed into business computers that are connected to the Internet.... In some cases the security is very good. But that's far from the industry standard," he says.

Schmidt sees a huge challenge in trying to understand the interdependencies that exist where electronic networks interface with the physical world. When the Slammer worm hit in January 2003, for example, people couldn't get cash out of some ATMs that connected to back-end databases compromised by the worm. Schmidt worries that the relationship between the cyber and physical infrastructure isn't well understood. He recalls that when he used to ride the train between Washington and New York, he took notice of a bunch of nondescript brick buildings along the tracks in Philadelphia. When he asked local law enforcement officials what they were doing to secure those buildings, he was told, "We're not doing anything. Nobody wants to break into those; they're just computers."


Carrot or Stick?
Last December, DHS, along with four business associations (the Information Technology Association of America, Business Software Alliance, TechNet and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), organized a National Cyber Security Summit in Santa Clara, Calif. Some 350 people from government, academia and industry attended the closed event. Working groups were formed to deal with establishing a cybersecurity early warning system; developing technical standards and common criteria around information security; making management of cybersecurity an integral part of corporate governance; creating better security awareness among home computer users and businesses; and increasing security in software development, installation and
patch management.

This sort of private-sector outreach is part of DHS's mission, which emphasizes building a strong public-private partnership to tackle cybersecurity. But all wasn't lovey-dovey in Santa Clara, according to Dan Burton, vice president of government affairs for Entrust, a digital identity security company. DHS's Liscouski delivered a stern message to the attendees. "He basically said we're at war. Industry is not doing enough, and we have no qualms about going to Congress and passing legislation to change [industries'] ways. It was a broadside toward industry at large," Burton says.

"That's not the best way to come across to the [private] sector," says Suzanne Gorman, who chairs the financial services ISAC and attended the summit. But with viruses, worms and other attacks sure to continue—and likely become more destructive—DHS seems to be delivering a not-so-subtle message: Industry secure thyself, or we'll start lighting fires under your feet. The five working groups delivered reports last month, and another summit is planned for September. If DHS determines then that enough progress hasn't been made, businesses may hear unpleasant news from Washington.

Waiting in the wings on Capitol Hill, and casting a keen eye on the task forces' progress, is Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.), the youngest member of Congress. Last fall Putnam, who chairs a House subcommittee on technology and information policy, drafted legislation (the Corporate Information Security Accountability Act of 2003) that calls for companies to disclose annually to the SEC an audit of how they're doing on information security. Compliance with Putnam's legislation could involve performing independent corporate security and risk assessments, and developing risk-mitigation, incident-response and business-continuity plans.

Putnam circulated the draft for feedback from industry and other groups. Not surprising, it generated a number of concerns, including the view that more regulation isn't the answer. Says Bob Dix, the subcommittee's staff director, Putnam listened to the private-sector feedback and decided to hold his legislation in abeyance for a period of time. Putnam, Dix says, challenged corporate America to come up with an alternative approach to "meaningfully move the ball down field to get significant improvements." In the meantime, Putnam and his staff assembled a working group from the private sector and academia to report back to him on ways that corporate information security can be improved. His report was due out around the same time as the findings from the Cyber Security Summit working groups.

While Putnam sees regulation as a last resort, Dix implies it's up to the private sector to take action. "The potential for a combined cyber and physical attack is frightening," he says. "We have reason to believe there are vulnerabilities that exist in the critical infrastructure that need to be addressed now."



Senior Editor Todd Datz can be reached at tdatz@cxo.com.

PHOTO OF YORAN BY DRAKE SOREY; SCHMIDT BY JAY BLAKESBURG; LONGSTAFF BY RIC EVANS

The Interactive Nightmare

The best thing about the modern computer network is also its chief liability: Everything's connected, with on-ramps conveniently located everywhere.  BY TODD DATZ

http://www.csoonline.com/read/040104/nightmare.html?action=print
All Credit to 2002-2007 CXO Media Inc.

Email It | Print It | Comments (0) | Trackbacks (0) | Flag as Offensive

Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:32 PM


"Safety and Security Oversight of the New National Nuclear Security ...49 Material submitted for the record by: Department of Energy, ... In 1998, Sandia began a network scanning process (using ISS/ CyberCop) almost a year ..."

Spotting intruders

BY BRIAN ROBINSON

As government concerns about the threat of cyberattacks on critical systems escalate, intrusion-detection technology is poised to become the next line of defense for federal agency computers.

Intrusion-detection technology works much like burglar alarm systems installed in many homes. Just as burglar alarms alert homeowners when someone has broken through a locked window or door, intrusion-detection systems alert systems administrators when hackers have gotten past a firewall, making it possible to thwart the attack and even track down the intruder. The technology resides either on a host computer or at key points on the network (see "How they work").

 

How they work
Intrusion-detection systems are used to detect unusual activity in a network of computer systems, to identify that activity as unfriendly or unauthorized and to enable a response to that intrusion. There are two main implementations:

1. Network-based intrusion-detection systems use monitors placed at strategic places on a network to examine data packets to see if they conform to known attack "signatures."

2. Host-based intrusion-detection systems employ intelligent agents to continuously review computer audit logs for suspicious activity, and they compare each change in the logs to a library of attack signatures or user profiles. They also poll key system files and executable files for unexpected changes.

When an intrusion is detected, the intrusion-detection system can react in a number of ways - from alerting a systems administrator and recommending various actions to automatically kicking the intruder off the network.

For the government, the ultimate goal is to link all intrusion-detection systems into a network that will allow all intrusion-detection systems in federal agencies to be instantly updated about attacks that occur at any point on the network.

Deploying intrusion-detection systems in government was a stipulation of Presidential Decision Directive 63 on critical information protection, issued last May, and intrusion-detection systems were a prominent part of President Clinton's January proposal of a $1.46 billion fiscal 2000 program to counter cyberterrorism.

PDD 63, which many people see as the driving force behind use of intrusion detection in the government, was the result of a study launched by the White House in 1997 of the nation's critical information infrastructure. But its intent was dramatically underscored just a few months before its formal announcement when hackers, using tools and techniques readily available through the Internet, launched the now-infamous Solar Sunrise attack on Defense Department computers.

PDD 63 reflects concern about the growing number of intrusions being reported across the nation. In 1998, the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), part of the federally funded Software Engineering Institute, reported that it handled 3,734 incidents in the public and private sectors, compared with 2,134 in 1997 and 2,573 in 1996. Since 1988, when it began operations, CERT has handled a total of 16,096 incidents and has issued 184 advisories and 61 bulletins. These numbers reflect the number of incidents CERT has determined are significant enough to require its analysis.

DOD already has an intrusion reporting system, in which intrusions are reported from lower-echelon commands to higher commands and then to the Defense Information Systems Agency, which collects and collates the information. On the civilian side, the National Infrastructure Protection Center, located within the FBI, also is planning an intrusion-detection reporting system.

"The NIPC has developed an architectural concept to protect the most sensitive of these [federal systems] in real time, providing nearly instantaneous alerts of an ongoing penetration to both the system operator and an NIPC technical analysis center," said Terry Maynard, chief of the NIPC's analysis and warning section, in a recent presentation to the Energy Security Forum. "As mandated in the president's directive, and with the approval and resources from Congress, we plan to begin to deploy that system in fiscal 2000 and expect to protect more than 200 federal systems by fiscal 2003."

In current intrusion-detection technology, most of this intrusion reporting has to be done manually. But the ultimate objective is to put intrusion-detection systems into all government systems and tie them together in a network so that each system will eventually "talk" to the others on the network. In this way, the notification of an attack on one government site instantly would be transmitted to the rest of the government, along with the method of attack and other details that agencies could use to guard their systems from similar intrusions.

There's confidence that this will happen. CERT, located at Carnegie Mellon University's Software Engineering Institute, has been a center for network incident reporting and analysis for the past decade. According to Jed Pickel, a member of CERT's technical staff, there is no way of automatically reporting incidents now. "But absolutely we will see an automated structure in the future," he said.

It is an ambitious goal because agencies already have their hands full dealing with their own networks, observers said. Most agencies are running complex networks that are not plain-vanilla versions from one vendor, said Bill Hadesty, director of security standards and evaluation at the Internal Revenue Service. Agencies have installed a fair number of basic security devices, such as packet sniffers, but networking those across a single organization would impose significant overhead, Hadesty said.

And government agencies have had a great deal of difficulty interfacing with each other "and [difficulty with] easier issues than this," he said. "There are many disparate systems out there, and there's a lot of trusted interfaces between systems that need to be put in place, so I think this [interagency intrusion detection] is still some ways off," Hadesty said.

Getting a handle on exactly how extensively intrusion-detection systems are being used in the government is difficult, however. There is little public information available, and agencies, for obvious reasons, are stingy in releasing information security data. Most agencies refuse to comment on either current or future plans for deploying intrusion-detection systems.

One federal official, who asked not to be identified, likened the situation in government to that in Fortune 500 companies. Neither is that far along, he said, because "after all, it's a brand-new technology, for all intents and purposes."

Paul Proctor, chief technology officer with Centrax Corp., a San Diego-based security provider that opened in September, believes the overall deployment of intrusion-detection systems in the federal government ranges from bad to poor. "I would guess that for network-based intrusion-detection systems, only 5 to 15 percent of government IT sites employ it," he said. "For host-based intrusion-detection systems, the kind that helps most directly in the battle with insider intrusions, it's probably less than 2 percent."

Before joining Centrax, Proctor spent 10 years at Science Applications International Corp., where he oversaw deployment of intrusion-detection systems at several large federal installations.

Burgeoning Market

While still a relatively new technology, agencies have a number of fairly robust commercial intrusion-detection products from which to choose, many of them based on technology originally developed by DOD and turned into commercial products by specialized security companies.

Commercial products include Axent Technologies Inc.'s Intruder Alert, Network Associates Inc.'s CyberCop and Centrax's eNTrax.

As the market for intrusion-detection systems grows - the Boston-based Yankee Group estimates the total market could be worth about $750 million by 2003, compared with just less than $160 million last year - deep-pocketed players such as IBM Corp. and network equipment vendor Cisco Systems Inc. are expected to take a more prominent role.

Cisco, in fact, already is making a play with NetRanger, a product that originated with the WheelGroup Corp., which Cisco acquired from BTG Inc. just over a year ago. WheelGroup commercialized technology initially developed by the Air Force.

NetRanger includes two components, called Sensor and Director. Sensor can be situated anywhere on a network. Using a real-time intrusion-detection engine, it examines the header and the content of each data packet that passes by its position on the network as well as the relationship of those packets to adjacent and related packets. If Sensor notices a violation in the network policy, which sets how the network manages things such as packet flow, it sends an alarm to the centrally located Director console, where the human network administrator can decide what action to take.

NetRanger also can proactively work with Cisco routers on the network. The user can configure the system to automatically shun or eliminate specific connections by changing access control lists on the routers. Any unauthorized traffic from internal users or external intruders can be blocked.

This integral approach to network security is becoming the norm in users' minds, according to Jim Massa, director of Cisco's global government alliance. "There are changing perceptions of what security is," he said. "People used to ask how to bolt security onto networks; now they are looking for secure networks. Security is now one of the first words they utter."

A real-time intrusion-detection product widely used in government is RealSecure, from Internet Security Systems Inc., Atlanta. This product combines network-based and host-based intrusion-detection systems.

RealSecure's network engine runs on dedicated workstations and examines network packets for various attack signatures. When it detects an attack or misuse, it passes an alarm to a network management console for action by an administrator, or it can be configured to automatically terminate a connection, reconfigure firewalls or do anything else the user might want to have happen if an attack occurs.

The RealSecure system agent sits on a host computer and analyzes the logs on that host to determine when an attack is occurring. It also can send an alarm to a central console, or it can automatically reconfigure the Real-Secure engine or firewalls to prevent incursions based on the attack just analyzed.

"In the future, we will probably split the product even further and take intrusion detection down to the application level itself, such as the database," said Mark Wood, product manager for ISS' intrusion-detection products. "We will also take it into 'softer' areas of misuse. In the commercial world, for example, employees could be cutting themselves checks. You can't write a pre-defined signature to protect against that kind of event, but nevertheless you need the protection."

Technical Obstacles

For what they are called on to do, current products work fairly well, but they already are bumping up against obstacles caused by the evolution of network technology, observers said.

One major problem is the creation of switched networks, in which organizations arrange networks into segments with switches that link the segments and direct network traffic along the fastest route to its destination. The increasing use of switched networks in organizations means a network intrusion-detection sensor will be needed for each switched segment, which organizations are unlikely to try if doing so means deploying as many network sensors as desktop systems in a fully switched network.

The arrival of virtual private networks also brings new problems. VPNs allow organizations to establish links between their local-area network and outside users by creating a secure path across the Internet or another public network. Unfortunately, the network traffic largely will be hidden from the intrusion-detection sensors.

One pervasive problem in the future will be the increasing speeds of networks, vendors said.

"Moving from 10 megabits/sec Ethernet speeds to 100 megabits/sec Fast Ethernet and beyond quickly outpaces first-generation network sensor products that were designed several years ago," said Tom Clare, product manager for Network Associates' CyberCop. "At best, they can handle 10 to 20 megabits/sec if traffic is light. On a 100 megabits/sec wire, [first-generation sensor products] have been shown to monitor less than 6 percent of the traffic, which means 94 percent goes by unmonitored."

Vendors are working on fixes to this, including "acceleration" products in software and firm-ware that will allow intrusion-detection systems to suck data packets off the network faster.

NetBoost Corp. has come out with a solution that could go beyond software-based solutions, the company said. The product uses custom silicon - a programmable processor with necessary support systems - to provide a fully programmable subsystem that can run several security applications at once. It enables dynamic reprogramming of applications at almost wire speeds, which, for intrusion-detection systems, means they readily can keep up with the speeds of the networks they monitor.

"[Current intrusion-detection systems] can't even keep up with a T-3 [45 megabits/sec connection], let alone a Fast Ethernet," said Len Rand, president and chief executive officer at NetBoost. "Ten megabits/sec is the maximum speed at which they can operate. You can get higher speeds, but with all of the packet header processing, etc. that needs to be done on the extra data, this can get pushed back onto the host."

The NetBoost product will enable intrusion-detection systems to work with such things as firewalls and VPNs to allow the network administrator to manipulate the system to maintain all the necessary network policies, Rand said. Some firms already have announced their support for NetBoost's product, including ISS.

Uncertain Future

Disruptive though the current kinds of intrusions may be, top-level government officials worry that a larger threat looms: sustained and systematic attacks by organized forces. For example, early last year the Navy discovered a new kind of intrusion that involved a number of attackers operating from a highly distributed base for a long period of time.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Kenneth Minihan, director of the National Security Agency, took his concerns to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee last June. While the unstructured threat from people with limited or-ganization and short-term goals always poses a threat, national security is not targeted, he told the Senate committee. But NSA is concerned with the structured threat "since that threatens system survival," he said.

Larry Dietz, director of information security for Current Analysis Inc., a Sterling, Va.-based market analysis firm, sees things moving this way. "Adversaries on network intrusions will evolve from individuals to teams," he said, "and because of that, the target in the future should be seen as the enterprise as a whole rather than individual networks. I don't think people will be able to put up a defense, as such, against these types of attack, so that puts even more emphasis on intrusion-detection systems since folks will want the ability to at least detect these problems so they can minimize the harm done by them."

Attackers use long-term intrusions to get an idea of what the networks are, where they are and how they are developing, according to Mark Fabro, worldwide director of professional services for Secure Computing Corp. Intrusion-detection systems can handle the real-time burst attacks well because these systems can see the attacks and gauge whether they break the attack thresholds of the perimeter defenses. But for now, "intrusion-detection systems are not offering a great amount of resistance to long-term reconnaissance attacks," Fabro said.

Concern about long-term threats is the impetus behind the recent push to deploy intrusion-detection systems as part of a concerted Defense initiative.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency already has begun to work on such a project, with hopes of involving the civilian agencies as well.

The project will link intrusion-detection systems across different organizations so that the signature of an attack registered at one site can be instantly relayed to other sites. Each system should be able to correctly interpret that event information without any knowledge of the specific scenario. The project requires the ability of a sensor from one system to feed the analysis portion of a different system, DARPA said.

DARPA is leading this effort through its Common Intrusion-Detection Framework working group, part of the agency's Information Survivability Program. The agency hopes to have a first demonstration of two or three linked systems in June.

The CIDF also was a starting point for the Internet Engineering Task Force Intrusion-Detection Exchange Format working group, which is working on a commercial standard for interoperability of intrusion-detection systems. A request for comments is expected to be out by the end of this year.

What government users should guard against, industry sources stressed, is thinking of intrusion detection as a "silver bullet" for their security needs, as users tended to do in the early days of firewall deployment.

For starters, said John Negron, federal sales manager for Axent, it already is obvious that the technological problems with the current generation of intrusion-detection products will not easily be overcome. "The solutions in place now may have to be completely re-engineered," he said.

And with that goes the need for expertise within agencies to know where to put intrusion-detection systems and how to interpret their output correctly. But that expertise seems to be in short supply.

"Agency managers have been hard-pressed to find experts inside the agency organizations who really know about all of this," said Terry Weipert, director of the network desktop practice at Unisys Federal. "It's usually put onto the shoulders of the system administrators, but these people have found it difficult to apply security because of the sophistication of the tools that are used."

The bottom line, observers said, is that intrusion-detection systems will be a necessary part of agencies' future security plans. Indeed, they will be a required part. But what they will not be is an easy fix.

 
 
Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:32 PM


"Safety and Security Oversight of the New National Nuclear Security ...49 Material submitted for the record by: Department of Energy, ... In 1998, Sandia began a network scanning process (using ISS/ CyberCop) almost a year ..."

Spotting intruders

BY BRIAN ROBINSON

As government concerns about the threat of cyberattacks on critical systems escalate, intrusion-detection technology is poised to become the next line of defense for federal agency computers.

Intrusion-detection technology works much like burglar alarm systems installed in many homes. Just as burglar alarms alert homeowners when someone has broken through a locked window or door, intrusion-detection systems alert systems administrators when hackers have gotten past a firewall, making it possible to thwart the attack and even track down the intruder. The technology resides either on a host computer or at key points on the network (see "How they work").

 

How they work
Intrusion-detection systems are used to detect unusual activity in a network of computer systems, to identify that activity as unfriendly or unauthorized and to enable a response to that intrusion. There are two main implementations:

1. Network-based intrusion-detection systems use monitors placed at strategic places on a network to examine data packets to see if they conform to known attack "signatures."

2. Host-based intrusion-detection systems employ intelligent agents to continuously review computer audit logs for suspicious activity, and they compare each change in the logs to a library of attack signatures or user profiles. They also poll key system files and executable files for unexpected changes.

When an intrusion is detected, the intrusion-detection system can react in a number of ways - from alerting a systems administrator and recommending various actions to automatically kicking the intruder off the network.

For the government, the ultimate goal is to link all intrusion-detection systems into a network that will allow all intrusion-detection systems in federal agencies to be instantly updated about attacks that occur at any point on the network.

Deploying intrusion-detection systems in government was a stipulation of Presidential Decision Directive 63 on critical information protection, issued last May, and intrusion-detection systems were a prominent part of President Clinton's January proposal of a $1.46 billion fiscal 2000 program to counter cyberterrorism.

PDD 63, which many people see as the driving force behind use of intrusion detection in the government, was the result of a study launched by the White House in 1997 of the nation's critical information infrastructure. But its intent was dramatically underscored just a few months before its formal announcement when hackers, using tools and techniques readily available through the Internet, launched the now-infamous Solar Sunrise attack on Defense Department computers.

PDD 63 reflects concern about the growing number of intrusions being reported across the nation. In 1998, the Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT), part of the federally funded Software Engineering Institute, reported that it handled 3,734 incidents in the public and private sectors, compared with 2,134 in 1997 and 2,573 in 1996. Since 1988, when it began operations, CERT has handled a total of 16,096 incidents and has issued 184 advisories and 61 bulletins. These numbers reflect the number of incidents CERT has determined are significant enough to require its analysis.

DOD already has an intrusion reporting system, in which intrusions are reported from lower-echelon commands to higher commands and then to the Defense Information Systems Agency, which collects and collates the information. On the civilian side, the National Infrastructure Protection Center, located within the FBI, also is planning an intrusion-detection reporting system.

"The NIPC has developed an architectural concept to protect the most sensitive of these [federal systems] in real time, providing nearly instantaneous alerts of an ongoing penetration to both the system operator and an NIPC technical analysis center," said Terry Maynard, chief of the NIPC's analysis and warning section, in a recent presentation to the Energy Security Forum. "As mandated in the president's directive, and with the approval and resources from Congress, we plan to begin to deploy that system in fiscal 2000 and expect to protect more than 200 federal systems by fiscal 2003."

In current intrusion-detection technology, most of this intrusion reporting has to be done manually. But the ultimate objective is to put intrusion-detection systems into all government systems and tie them together in a network so that each system will eventually "talk" to the others on the network. In this way, the notification of an attack on one government site instantly would be transmitted to the rest of the government, along with the method of attack and other details that agencies could use to guard their systems from similar intrusions.

There's confidence that this will happen. CERT, located at Carnegie Mellon University's Software Engineering Institute, has been a center for network incident reporting and analysis for the past decade. According to Jed Pickel, a member of CERT's technical staff, there is no way of automatically reporting incidents now. "But absolutely we will see an automated structure in the future," he said.

It is an ambitious goal because agencies already have their hands full dealing with their own networks, observers said. Most agencies are running complex networks that are not plain-vanilla versions from one vendor, said Bill Hadesty, director of security standards and evaluation at the Internal Revenue Service. Agencies have installed a fair number of basic security devices, such as packet sniffers, but networking those across a single organization would impose significant overhead, Hadesty said.

And government agencies have had a great deal of difficulty interfacing with each other "and [difficulty with] easier issues than this," he said. "There are many disparate systems out there, and there's a lot of trusted interfaces between systems that need to be put in place, so I think this [interagency intrusion detection] is still some ways off," Hadesty said.

Getting a handle on exactly how extensively intrusion-detection systems are being used in the government is difficult, however. There is little public information available, and agencies, for obvious reasons, are stingy in releasing information security data. Most agencies refuse to comment on either current or future plans for deploying intrusion-detection systems.

One federal official, who asked not to be identified, likened the situation in government to that in Fortune 500 companies. Neither is that far along, he said, because "after all, it's a brand-new technology, for all intents and purposes."

Paul Proctor, chief technology officer with Centrax Corp., a San Diego-based security provider that opened in September, believes the overall deployment of intrusion-detection systems in the federal government ranges from bad to poor. "I would guess that for network-based intrusion-detection systems, only 5 to 15 percent of government IT sites employ it," he said. "For host-based intrusion-detection systems, the kind that helps most directly in the battle with insider intrusions, it's probably less than 2 percent."

Before joining Centrax, Proctor spent 10 years at Science Applications International Corp., where he oversaw deployment of intrusion-detection systems at several large federal installations.

Burgeoning Market

While still a relatively new technology, agencies have a number of fairly robust commercial intrusion-detection products from which to choose, many of them based on technology originally developed by DOD and turned into commercial products by specialized security companies.

Commercial products include Axent Technologies Inc.'s Intruder Alert, Network Associates Inc.'s CyberCop and Centrax's eNTrax.

As the market for intrusion-detection systems grows - the Boston-based Yankee Group estimates the total market could be worth about $750 million by 2003, compared with just less than $160 million last year - deep-pocketed players such as IBM Corp. and network equipment vendor Cisco Systems Inc. are expected to take a more prominent role.

Cisco, in fact, already is making a play with NetRanger, a product that originated with the WheelGroup Corp., which Cisco acquired from BTG Inc. just over a year ago. WheelGroup commercialized technology initially developed by the Air Force.

NetRanger includes two components, called Sensor and Director. Sensor can be situated anywhere on a network. Using a real-time intrusion-detection engine, it examines the header and the content of each data packet that passes by its position on the network as well as the relationship of those packets to adjacent and related packets. If Sensor notices a violation in the network policy, which sets how the network manages things such as packet flow, it sends an alarm to the centrally located Director console, where the human network administrator can decide what action to take.

NetRanger also can proactively work with Cisco routers on the network. The user can configure the system to automatically shun or eliminate specific connections by changing access control lists on the routers. Any unauthorized traffic from internal users or external intruders can be blocked.

This integral approach to network security is becoming the norm in users' minds, according to Jim Massa, director of Cisco's global government alliance. "There are changing perceptions of what security is," he said. "People used to ask how to bolt security onto networks; now they are looking for secure networks. Security is now one of the first words they utter."

A real-time intrusion-detection product widely used in government is RealSecure, from Internet Security Systems Inc., Atlanta. This product combines network-based and host-based intrusion-detection systems.

RealSecure's network engine runs on dedicated workstations and examines network packets for various attack signatures. When it detects an attack or misuse, it passes an alarm to a network management console for action by an administrator, or it can be configured to automatically terminate a connection, reconfigure firewalls or do anything else the user might want to have happen if an attack occurs.

The RealSecure system agent sits on a host computer and analyzes the logs on that host to determine when an attack is occurring. It also can send an alarm to a central console, or it can automatically reconfigure the Real-Secure engine or firewalls to prevent incursions based on the attack just analyzed.

"In the future, we will probably split the product even further and take intrusion detection down to the application level itself, such as the database," said Mark Wood, product manager for ISS' intrusion-detection products. "We will also take it into 'softer' areas of misuse. In the commercial world, for example, employees could be cutting themselves checks. You can't write a pre-defined signature to protect against that kind of event, but nevertheless you need the protection."

Technical Obstacles

For what they are called on to do, current products work fairly well, but they already are bumping up against obstacles caused by the evolution of network technology, observers said.

One major problem is the creation of switched networks, in which organizations arrange networks into segments with switches that link the segments and direct network traffic along the fastest route to its destination. The increasing use of switched networks in organizations means a network intrusion-detection sensor will be needed for each switched segment, which organizations are unlikely to try if doing so means deploying as many network sensors as desktop systems in a fully switched network.

The arrival of virtual private networks also brings new problems. VPNs allow organizations to establish links between their local-area network and outside users by creating a secure path across the Internet or another public network. Unfortunately, the network traffic largely will be hidden from the intrusion-detection sensors.

One pervasive problem in the future will be the increasing speeds of networks, vendors said.

"Moving from 10 megabits/sec Ethernet speeds to 100 megabits/sec Fast Ethernet and beyond quickly outpaces first-generation network sensor products that were designed several years ago," said Tom Clare, product manager for Network Associates' CyberCop. "At best, they can handle 10 to 20 megabits/sec if traffic is light. On a 100 megabits/sec wire, [first-generation sensor products] have been shown to monitor less than 6 percent of the traffic, which means 94 percent goes by unmonitored."

Vendors are working on fixes to this, including "acceleration" products in software and firm-ware that will allow intrusion-detection systems to suck data packets off the network faster.

NetBoost Corp. has come out with a solution that could go beyond software-based solutions, the company said. The product uses custom silicon - a programmable processor with necessary support systems - to provide a fully programmable subsystem that can run several security applications at once. It enables dynamic reprogramming of applications at almost wire speeds, which, for intrusion-detection systems, means they readily can keep up with the speeds of the networks they monitor.

"[Current intrusion-detection systems] can't even keep up with a T-3 [45 megabits/sec connection], let alone a Fast Ethernet," said Len Rand, president and chief executive officer at NetBoost. "Ten megabits/sec is the maximum speed at which they can operate. You can get higher speeds, but with all of the packet header processing, etc. that needs to be done on the extra data, this can get pushed back onto the host."

The NetBoost product will enable intrusion-detection systems to work with such things as firewalls and VPNs to allow the network administrator to manipulate the system to maintain all the necessary network policies, Rand said. Some firms already have announced their support for NetBoost's product, including ISS.

Uncertain Future

Disruptive though the current kinds of intrusions may be, top-level government officials worry that a larger threat looms: sustained and systematic attacks by organized forces. For example, early last year the Navy discovered a new kind of intrusion that involved a number of attackers operating from a highly distributed base for a long period of time.

Air Force Lt. Gen. Kenneth Minihan, director of the National Security Agency, took his concerns to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee last June. While the unstructured threat from people with limited or-ganization and short-term goals always poses a threat, national security is not targeted, he told the Senate committee. But NSA is concerned with the structured threat "since that threatens system survival," he said.

Larry Dietz, director of information security for Current Analysis Inc., a Sterling, Va.-based market analysis firm, sees things moving this way. "Adversaries on network intrusions will evolve from individuals to teams," he said, "and because of that, the target in the future should be seen as the enterprise as a whole rather than individual networks. I don't think people will be able to put up a defense, as such, against these types of attack, so that puts even more emphasis on intrusion-detection systems since folks will want the ability to at least detect these problems so they can minimize the harm done by them."

Attackers use long-term intrusions to get an idea of what the networks are, where they are and how they are developing, according to Mark Fabro, worldwide director of professional services for Secure Computing Corp. Intrusion-detection systems can handle the real-time burst attacks well because these systems can see the attacks and gauge whether they break the attack thresholds of the perimeter defenses. But for now, "intrusion-detection systems are not offering a great amount of resistance to long-term reconnaissance attacks," Fabro said.

Concern about long-term threats is the impetus behind the recent push to deploy intrusion-detection systems as part of a concerted Defense initiative.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency already has begun to work on such a project, with hopes of involving the civilian agencies as well.

The project will link intrusion-detection systems across different organizations so that the signature of an attack registered at one site can be instantly relayed to other sites. Each system should be able to correctly interpret that event information without any knowledge of the specific scenario. The project requires the ability of a sensor from one system to feed the analysis portion of a different system, DARPA said.

DARPA is leading this effort through its Common Intrusion-Detection Framework working group, part of the agency's Information Survivability Program. The agency hopes to have a first demonstration of two or three linked systems in June.

The CIDF also was a starting point for the Internet Engineering Task Force Intrusion-Detection Exchange Format working group, which is working on a commercial standard for interoperability of intrusion-detection systems. A request for comments is expected to be out by the end of this year.

What government users should guard against, industry sources stressed, is thinking of intrusion detection as a "silver bullet" for their security needs, as users tended to do in the early days of firewall deployment.

For starters, said John Negron, federal sales manager for Axent, it already is obvious that the technological problems with the current generation of intrusion-detection products will not easily be overcome. "The solutions in place now may have to be completely re-engineered," he said.

And with that goes the need for expertise within agencies to know where to put intrusion-detection systems and how to interpret their output correctly. But that expertise seems to be in short supply.

"Agency managers have been hard-pressed to find experts inside the agency organizations who really know about all of this," said Terry Weipert, director of the network desktop practice at Unisys Federal. "It's usually put onto the shoulders of the system administrators, but these people have found it difficult to apply security because of the sophistication of the tools that are used."

The bottom line, observers said, is that intrusion-detection systems will be a necessary part of agencies' future security plans. Indeed, they will be a required part. But what they will not be is an easy fix.

 

Last updated: 11/17/2002   For questions or comments about this site or KBeta Security, send email to Kris Kistler

 

http://www.kbeta.com/SecurityTips/Vulnerabilities/SpottingIntruders.htm
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Safety and Security Oversight of the New National Nuclear Security ...

49 Material submitted for the record by: Department of Energy, ... In 1998, Sandia began a network scanning process (using ISS/ CyberCop) almost a year ...
www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2000/nnsahrng.html


PDF]

HOW SECURE IS SENSITIVE COMMERCE DEPART- MENT DATA AND OPERATIONS ...

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
mental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the Health ... Cybercop and several other readily available software packages to ...
energycommerce.house.gov/reparchives/107/action/107-56.pdf  - Similar pages

message id v02110104ac6ea059c1a2 130.91 88.102 date sat 2

Ann Duvall's SurfWatch, which I have referenced on the @CYBERCOP. ... Richard Stern (Director, Industry and Energy Department, The World Bank): "German Hacker in White House Computer Annoys the Internet...
 
www.interesting-people.org/archives-ftp/interesting-people/interesting-people.199509 - 493k 
 
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Energy secretary holds farewell news conference

Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary at a news conference Wednesday said the department has completed its report on highly enriched uranium vulnerability at DOE facilities.

The secretary said 155 areas of vulnerability of highly enriched uranium have been identified DOEwide. Eighteen percent are in the areas of materials and packaging, between 25 and 30 percent are what O'Leary called "institutional barriers that can be addressed quickly," and the remainder being DOE facilities.

O'Leary has announced her resignation effective Monday and President Clinton has nominated former Department of Transportation Secretary Frederico Peña to succeed O'Leary at DOE.

She also said completion and public release of the report is another aspect of her openness initiative. "Openness today is the way we do business at DOE," she said. "Openness in the Clinton administration is irreversible."

O'Leary didn't mention the Laboratory at Wednesday's news conference at DOE headquarters in Washington.

The DOE in April 1995 began the highly enriched uranium assessment. For purposes of the study, highly enriched uranium was defined as uranium with over 20 percent of the uranium 235 isotope.

The Highly Enriched Uranium Working Group report noted that the Lab has about 3.2 metric tons of highly enriched uranium, mostly at Technical Areas 18, 55 and the Chemistry and Mettalurgy Research Building at TA-3. The Lab has 19 areas of vulnerability; 14 are facility related, two materials and packaging, and three institutional, according to the report.

At the news conference, O'Leary said the working group determined that 80 grams, or about 3 ounces, of highly enriched uranium was found in a canister in Dalat in Vietnam. However, she said, the small amount didn't pose a significant proliferation risk. The highly enriched uranium was later removed and taken to the Hanford Site in Washington state.

She also said the department soon will be releasing a 25-minute videotape of Manhattan Project-era footage and DOE missile launches, some of which previously was classified.

--Steve Sandoval


CyberCop 101 conference held at the Laboratory this week

PHOTO: Charlene Douglass, standing, of Computer and Communication Security (FSS-14) explains new computer crime-fighting software during the CyberCop 101 law enforcement conference this week in the Study Center. Seated left to right are William Corcoran of the Los Alamos Police Department, Allan Farkas of the Portales Police Department and Bob Milford of Operations Security (AA/OPSEC). Milford also was representing the New Mexico Mounted Patrol, of which he is a member. The Lab and the New Mexico High Technology Crime Investigation Association are hosting the conference, which continues through Friday. Photo by Fred Rick
http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/011697text.html

___________________________________________________________________________

List of Contractor Parent Companies for FY 2005

You can click on the column headers below to re-sort the search.

Parent Company Name Contractor Name(s) Total Amount (for this search)
THE ESP GROUP LLC THE ESP GROUP LLC $3,710,605

Total parent companies for fiscal year 2005: 1

Total funding (within this search) for the year: $3,710,605

Competition summary for entire search for fiscal year 2005:
Full and open competiton $0
Full and open competiton, but only one bid $1,771,466
Competition after exclusion of sources $0
Follow-on contract $0
Not available for competition $0
Not competed $0
Unknown $1,939,139
http://www.fedspending.org/fpds/fpds.php?company_name=ESP+Group&reptype=r&database=fpds&fiscal_year=2005&detail=0&mustrn=y&datype=T&sortby=r


http://gabriellecusumano.townhall.com/g/9fbfc411-21c7-4acb-baf1-d71a20e31e4b

http://gabriellecusumano.townhall.com/g/9fbfc411-21c7-4acb-baf1-d71a20e31e4b
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Indicting Hillary" [... "shows Hillary Clinton's role in the campaign fraud"]

"The new documentary film "Indicting Hillary" shows Hillary Clinton's role in the campaign fraud that elected her to the Senate. It combines explosive home video taken by Peter Paul with key interviews to show why Hillary Clinton is unfit to lead America. " Hillary Clinton Accountability Project

The United States Justice Foundation's Hillary Clinton Accountability Project.
www.hillcap.org

                                
From
HILL CAP.ORG
 

Peter Paul Appeal Documents Criminal Misconduct by Hillary [PDF: 242K]

"Indicting Hillary" The Documentary

Click to watch the trailer

The new documentary film "Indicting Hillary" shows Hillary Clinton's role in the campaign fraud that elected her to the Senate. It combines explosive home video taken by Peter Paul with key interviews to show why Hillary Clinton is unfit to lead America.

Stan Lee swears $225,000 reported by Hillary Clinton to the FEC was not his!

This video shows "Spider Man" creator Stan Lee swearing under oath that he contributed nothing to Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign, contradicting Hillary's latest report to the FEC.


President Clinton's Business Fraud Elected Hillary, Destroyed Stan Lee Media


The first civil suit
charging a Senator and a former President with fraud, deceit and conspiracy.

Read Peter Paul's Second Amended Complaint for the whole story of the frauds Bill and Hillary directed to destroy Paul's $150 million company.

Hillary's election conspiracy with the DNC
Exclusive Video: Hillary thanks Peter Paul for the Gala she denies knowing he paid for

Hillary Swears She Doesn't Deny Paul's Allegations

Read Hillary Clinton's Sworn Declaration that does not deny ANY of Paul's allegations - and compare to Paul's Sworn Declaration of Hillary's Misconduct.

- Click the photo above to see the evidence of Clinton illegality and fraud. These documents and photos prove the allegations that Hillary is afraid to deny!

Hillary Must Testify Under Oath as a Material Witness in Clinton Fraud

We need your help to conduct discovery for the trial, now postponed from March 27, 2007 to a date after the appellate court reviews Hillary's claim that her fraudulent activity was "political" in nature and therefore protected.

Help us put Hillary on the witness stand to explain the criminal violation of Federal campaign contribution statutes she directed with Bill Clinton and has covered up ever since (see details in our latest legal brief).

The documents don't lie! Here is some of the evidence we'll present in court

Read Peter Paul's Declaration to the Superior Court of California

Hillary Clinton Campaign Treasurer Andrew Grossman was forced to admit to the Federal Election Commision in January 2006 that he hid contributions of more than $720,000 made by Peter Paul in 2000 in three false FEC reports.

Grossman's subordinate Rosen was indicted and tried in 2005 for making these false reports, but no action has yet been taken by the Justice Department against Grossman, despite his admission in 2006 to committing the crimes for which Rosen was previously charged.

Peter Paul put almost $2 million into a 'Hollywood fundraiser for Hillary.'

"Hillary never reported this contribution to the FEC. That is a federal crime."

- Paul Weyrich, founder and chairman, Free Congress Foundation

Instead, the Clintons made Hillary's biggest fundraising event disappear

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Heard through the Grapevine: Hillary's investigating Bill!

NY Daily News' Goodwin: Sen. Clinton "better put the muzzle and the leash on Bubba"

In his April 5 New York Daily News column, Michael Goodwin wrote that because Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) first-quarter fundraising total rivals that of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Clinton has "less room for error, which means she better put the muzzle and the leash on Bubba" -- a reference to Sen. Clinton's husband, former President Bill Clinton.

In a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, 70 percent of respondents thought that President Clinton "will do more good than harm" for Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign.

Goodwin also claimed that Clinton "mostly ducks serious interviews as though she doesn't want to say anything controversial." In fact, on March 13, Clinton gave a lengthy interview to The New York Times about her position on the war in Iraq. Clinton's interview, according to the Times, is "the first in a series of interviews with the 2008 presidential candidates in both parties about how they would handle the issues they would confront as president."

From Goodwin's April 5 New York Daily News column:

So despite how Obama rocked her boat yesterday, and despite all the doubts, Hillary remains on course to get the nomination. It's going to be a grind and not as sure as it looked. And now there is less room for error, which means she better put the muzzle and the leash on Bubba.

But she can't get too cautious, either. The answer to the Obama cash is for her to sharpen her game and speed up her metabolism. She often looks like she's in a celebrity bubble, waving, doling out hugs and spewing platitudes like a visiting dignitary. There is no spontaneity, no raw energy for the quest.

Excerpted for more go to:


http://mediamatters.org/items/200704050006__________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________
Clinton seeks R&R at swank Caribbean resort

Sen. Clinton steps off the campaign trail and heads to the Caribbean this weekend.

NEW YORK (AP) -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton has stepped off the presidential campaign trail for a few days, heading to the Dominican Republic to spend Easter weekend at the swank Punta Cana Resort and Spa.

She was joined by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and their daughter Chelsea at the home of fashion designer Oscar de la Renta, a Dominican native.

The Clintons have vacationed numerous times at the Caribbean resort since 2000, when Bill Clinton was closing out his second term in the White House.

Excerpted for more go to: 
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/
___________________________________________________________________________


Hillary's Problems

In a story by Arianna Huffington which in turns defends and points out defects in Bubba Clinton, she reveals that he was in L.A. recently, chumming with Ron Burkle, bag-boy billionaire, and attended one of those deep-pockets fund raisers that are "off the record." But she has "sources" who tell her;

Sources present at the off-the-record meeting tell me that during a Q & A session following Bill Clinton's speech, someone asked the former president about Hillary's support of the war.

Clinton became incensed and unleashed the kind of fury that former Clinton staffers tell me they are very familiar with.

Apparently Clinton directed his anger first at the questioner (indeed, the question itself as if it were impertinent and inappropriate), then at the whole crowd, which was startled at his vehemence.

Hit a nerve, Mr. President? He clearly recognizes that this is an Achilles heel for Hillary.

From this snippet we learn two things - one we suspected and one we already knew. We suspected that Ol' Slick would have a nasty streak and was capable of great anger - he just kept it for the most part out of the public eye. But he personifies the beer-drinking, TV-watching, trailer trash that beats up the wife if his steak ain't well done enough. So we now have confirmation that Willie does have a nasty temper.

We always knew that Hillary had a problem with her position on Iraq. The radical Left, who will be the ones who determine the next nominee are actively working against her and the reason they use is precisely what caused her hubby to explode. She's trapped on that issue and cannot escape. It will cost her a chance at the nomination and she knows it. I still think she will not run in '08 because of that one issue.

But she has a couple others too. Her philandering mate hasn't given any indication of letting up and it's just a matter of time before another scandal hits the Clintons. That is why the NY Times ran a front-page story on the state of their "marriage" and speculated on what Hillary might do. And Bubba, jetting around Southern California in Burkle's private plane well-stocked with young models, is still Bubba.

And then there's Willie's "just good friends" friend from Canada, Belina Stronach.

"She gives money to his pet projects and in return, he supports her projects, for instance, a children's hospital in Canada," Widdicombe revealed.

Stronach and her father donated money to Clinton's presidential library, and she nearly became an investor in his friend, JFK Jr.'s, George magazine, meeting with him just a week before his death.

And Belinda is no stranger to the limelight either. She's divorced from Olympic champion speed skater Johan Olaf Lass and currently has romantic ties to another politician: Canadian Brian MacKay. Still, there have been rumors of a romance between Belinda and Bill since they met five years ago at a charity event.

And you'll remember the recently completed Preakness race where the Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro broke down? Guess with whom he chose to watch the race?

Excerpted , for more go to:
http://www.mpturner.net/2006/05/hillarys_problems.html_
____________________________________________________________________________________

From the May 23, 2006 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

MATTHEWS: Let's talk about the front page of The New York Times today, at the very top of the fold. I mean, it's right up there at the banner, the Clinton marriage, "For the Clintons, delicate dance of married and public lives." This is the most teasing story I've come across in The New York Times in a long time, the paper of record. Let me give you some quotes:

"Mr. Clinton is rarely without company in public, yet the company he keeps rarely includes his wife."

"When the subject of Bill and Hillary Clinton comes up, for many prominent Democrats these days, topic A is the state of their marriage."

"Bill and Hillary Clinton have built largely separate lives."

It's a complicated story, Bob, but why do you think your paper -- I know you don't put the front page together. Why did Bill Keller put this story at the top of the newspaper today?

HERBERT: Well, you have to ask Bill, but I can tell you that in my travels, people are really interested in the state of this marriage and, frankly, I think, you know, with Hillary's presumed presidential ambitions, the state of the marriage is going to actually be a factor in her chances of getting the Democratic nomination, and perhaps, you know, becoming president.

MATTHEWS: The question I have for you, Michael, is that I was up there in Philly today on your show -- it was great to be on your show. Let me ask you about this story. Without getting too much into the goo of this story, which I'm sure we'll get into at some point between now and 2008, here's the question: Why today, why did The New York Times break from the gate? We all thought this story would begin to evolve sometime after the election when Hillary gets reelected in New York, in all probability. We'd be talking about her presidential campaign and, of course, every aspect of her life becomes fair game at that point. Why do you think the Times broke from the gate? This is May 23.

SMERCONISH: I think that it's probably the one issue about Hillary that people are most interested in. If I were to open up the telephone lines in Philly and I were to question folks about the Hillary candidacy, this is going to be way up there, probably beyond Iraq. I thought it was significant that in a typical month, they spend 14 days together. You know what, Chris? Not me. I want to make clear, but I think there are a lot of guys out there married who are probably envious of that number.

MATTHEWS: Well, I'm not. Let me ask you this. Let me go back to Bob Herbert --

HERBERT: Neither am I, Chris.

[...]

MATTHEWS: We're back with radio talk show host Michael Smerconish of Philadelphia and New York Times columnist Bob Herbert. Bob, let me read you something from your newspaper again today. This story at the front, top of the newspaper, the very top of the newspaper, it's amazing, there it is at the top.

Quote: "Because of Mr. Clinton's behavior in the White House, tabloid gossip sticks to him like iron fillings to a magnet." This is The New York Times. "Several prominent New York Democrats, in interviews, volunteered that they became concerned last year over a tabloid photograph showing Mr. Clinton leaving BLT Steak in Midtown Manhattan late one night after dining with a group that included a Belinda Stronach, a Canadian politician. The two were among roughly a dozen people at a dinner, but it still was enough to fuel coverage in the gossip pages."

[...]

MATTHEWS: It was very carefully reported. Let me read you a quote from the Clintons -- the two, the senator and the former president. It's quite an interesting quote here: "She is an active senator who, like most members of Congress, has to be in Washington for part of most weeks. He is a former president running a multimillion-dollar global foundation. But their home is in New York, and they do everything they can to be together there or at their house in D.C. as often as possible -- often going to great lengths to do so. When their work schedules require that they be apart, they talk all the time." That's a very defensive, formalized statement, isn't it, Bob?

HERBERT: I mean, I really don't know. It sounds to me -- I read it, and I didn't look for a hidden agenda, honestly. I read that as --

MATTHEWS: OK. You don't think it's setting them up for a different lifestyle? I thought it was saying --

HERBERT: I read that as --

MATTHEWS: OK.

HERBERT: -- a reasonable, accurate depiction of what's going on.

MATTHEWS: Could it be -- to avoid all this kind of speculation that we're already involved in, and I take responsibility -- well, I share it with The New York Times here -- Michael, that what they're really saying, the official spokespeople for these two impressive people, is that they're saying, "Don't count on Bill Clinton living in the White House if Hillary gets elected. He's got to run a big, multimillion dollars -- they say, the spokesmen say -- foundation. He's got a lot of responsibilities up in New York City at his office up there, so don't count on him being like a househusband or a first gentleman."

SMERCONISH: No way.

MATTHEWS: Is that what they're setting up here?

Excerpted: For more go to the link below.


From the May 24 edition of NBC's Today:

KATIE COURIC (co-host): When Bill Clinton burst onto the national political scene, he promoted his wife Hillary as an equal political partner, saying two heads were better than one. They enjoyed some of the highest highs, endured some of the lowest lows as well during their years in the White House. But now that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is eyeing her own bid for the presidency, a lot of folks are asking, "Where's Bill?" More now from NBC's Norah O'Donnell.

O'DONNELL: The star of the Democratic party, Senator Clinton, in Washington this week busy talking energy policy, but coy about her own political ambitions.

HILLARY CLINTON [video clip]: We'll just have to let the future be the future, whatever that might turn out to be.

O'DONNELL: Even as the first lady-turned-senator weighs her own White House bid, the state of her 30-year marriage faces scrutiny on the front page of The New York Times.

HEALY [video clip]: There's probably no marriage that is as dissected as Bill and Hillary Clinton's. Will the baggage that he brings -- both good and ill -- trip her up in some way?

O'DONNELL: Since leaving the White House, the Clintons have led busy and sometimes separate lives. While she is in Washington, a power broker in the Senate, he is globetrotting to the tsunami-ravaged South Asia or talking AIDS in Africa.

BILL CLINTON [video clip]: My wife said to tell you hello tonight, but you know, she's a big time politician now.

O'DONNELL: It's rare that they appear in public together. And he says his goal is to help her politically.

BILL CLINTON [video clip]: I try not never to do anything that causes her any problems.

O'DONNELL: Advisers to the Clintons declined to talk about the marriage, saying only that the two work very hard to spend time together. But intimate details of their marriage have long been public. In 1992, they went on 60 Minutes.

BILL CLINTON [video clip]: I have acknowledged causing pain in my marriage.

O'DONNELL: They have dealt with Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and Monica Lewinsky. In her memoir, Senator Clinton admitted she wanted to wring her husband's neck for lying to her about Lewinsky. And said that "the most difficult decisions I have made in my life were to stay married to Bill and to run for the Senate from New York." Now the woman who first campaigned with her husband, touting a two-for-one presidency, may hope voters will judge her someday in her own right. For Today, Norah O'Donnell, NBC News, Washington.

From the May 23 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, with host Wolf Blitzer:

BLITZER: There was a front-page story in The New York Times today -- I assume you saw it -- about the marriage, the relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton. All of us remember what happened when he was president -- the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Lanny Davis, who was his special counsel, quoted in the article as saying this: "The conventional wisdom is that the relationship might hurt her -- all those old memories and scandals will be evoked. But I'm betting, and maybe this is wishful thinking, that that's not correct."

From the May 23 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends:

KILMEADE: Back to you, guys, where I believe we're talking a little politics with a certain famous couple.

DOOCY: That's right. The Clintons. And, in fact, on the front page of The New York Times today they've got a big article -- let me --

E.D. HILL (co-host): There it is.

DOOCY: We'll all grab for it. Take a look right here. The headline is, "For Clintons, Delicate Balance of Married and Public Lives." It's interesting, it talks about how little time they actually spend together. On average -- remember, he lives -- he is a busy guy, he does have -- it seems like he spends most of the time in the Chappaqua house in New York. She's down in Washington. On average, they spend two weeks a month with each other. Although some months, like February of last year, they just spent one day the entire month together. And that day, Brian, was Valentine's Day.

HILLARY CLINTON [video clip]: Let people make their own judgments.

DOOCY: Thank you, Hillary. Brian?

KILMEADE: I didn't know -- it kinda scared me there to actually hear her voice. I though she was a guest. But yeah, that was a special day. But some are worried that the talk of their marriage is going to come up and slow them down. And for example, when Bill was cited leaving, I think it was an eating establishment, late with a bunch of friends, including a Canadian woman that he evidently is friends with, people started to panic, because he could make -- Senator Hillary Clinton could do all the great policy decisions she wants and be the strong senator she might be right now, but if the marriage starts coming into it, they feel like it could derail her campaign.

From the May 23 10 a.m. ET edition of Fox News Live with co-anchor Brigitte Quinn:

QUINN: Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president in '08. But how will her marriage affect her chances of winning? The New York Times reporting some are worried swing voters could link Hillary in their minds to the sex scandals that plagued her husband in the White House. We're talking about that with senior White House correspondent for The Washington Times Joe Curl. Also with us, Margaret Carlson, columnist for Bloomberg News and Washington editor of The Week. Great to have you both here. Joe, to you first. Do you think that Mr. Clinton, if he winds up in the tabloids these days, does that hurt Hillary Clinton at all? Or do some people maybe say, "Well, they left that Monica scandal behind when they left the White House"?

CURL: Well, at the end of that whole debacle, polls definitely showed America was tired of that story, didn't support impeachment. But remember, Brigitte, these two are probably the most savvy politicians in the country. So they're going to work carefully, time this, coordinate everything that they do. One thing that was fascinating watching the two of them at the Coretta Scott King funeral recently. Bill spoke first and as Hillary took the podium, she was basically reading the speech. He had just given a speech just off the top of his head. She reached over, grabbed his arm, and pulled him back to the podium and kept him there. So they will work very carefully. I think there will be sometimes where she will look for distance. Other times she will bring him in, whatever is more politically expedient.

QUINN: Well, Margaret, he certainly is a public figure. I mean, just yesterday we were talking about some statements he made on global warming, and it seems like anytime you talk about a topic -- he talks about a topic like global warming, people say, "Aha, that must be a campaign strategy for Hillary." Can she separate herself from anything he says publicly?

CARLSON: You know, the two are inseparable in many ways. Has there ever been a more famous marriage or one studied closer than this marriage? And Hillary has turned into a great senator. But would she be senator were it not for Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky? I don't think anybody thinks so. And the irony now is that while that got her to the Senate, it might be Bill's private life that keeps her from winning the White House.

From the 11 a.m. ET May 23 edition of Fox News Live with co-anchor Gregg Jarrett:

JARRETT: Plus, the Clintons. Maybe the busiest husband and wife in America, but are they so busy with their public lives they rarely keep the home fires burning? An asset or a liability if Hillary runs for president? Keep it right here.

From the noon ET May 23 edition of Fox News Live:

JARRETT: Bill and Hillary Clinton may be the busiest husband and wife team in America. So how in the world do they balance their married and public lives? Joining us now to talk about it: Byron York, White House correspondent for The National Review, Eleanor Clift, contributing editor at Newsweek magazine and Fox News political analyst. Good to see you both. Eleanor, let me begin with you. I mean, it is -- and I'll hold this up -- front page in The New York Times, above the fold, big article. And it does quote people like, you know, Lanny Davis, [former Clinton chief of staff] Leon Panetta and so on and so forth. But the crux of it is, in some regard, the personal lives. How much of the Monica Lewinsky affair that led to Bill Clinton's impeachment is a political and electoral albatross that might hang around Sen. Clinton if she decides to run for president?

CLIFT: Well, I think this article interviewed 50 people, analyzing, discussing, dissecting the Clintons' marriage. And that's not good for Hillary Clinton's presidential prospects, because if she wants to run the country, she doesn't want a campaign that's going to be about her personal life and her marriage. And so I think that is the fear among Democrats who want very much to regain the White House, that they don't want a campaign that essentially is a soap opera. And so the Clintons, you can tell from this article and the comments of the people who are interviewed, are very much trying to separate their professional lives, and I think Hillary Clinton has made great headway in presenting herself as a very competent senator. She's on her way to win big re-election in New York and separating herself somewhat from the downside of her husband. Now, he also has an incredible upside, and --

JARRETT: Sure.

CLIFT: You know, we can get into that as well.

JARRETT: Well, Byron, let me quote from the article. In fact, it's pretty blaring on the front page, third paragraph right here, quote: Bill "Clinton is rarely without company in public, yet the company he keeps rarely includes his wife. Nights out find him zipping around Los Angeles with his bachelor buddy, Ronald W. Burkle, or hitting parties in Manhattan." All right. So Byron, is Bill Clinton a political asset or a liability?

YORK: Well, clearly he is both in this case. But I think, you know, what -- if Mrs. Clinton becomes the nominee for president, if she became president, certainly there would be a lot of attention to all of this: Did they lead separate lives? What is their emotional baggage? And all of that stuff. But if Bill Clinton were to become the first spouse, as it were, it would be a totally unprecedented situation.

From the May 23 edition of Fox News' DaySide:

JULIET HUDDY (co-host): Welcome back to DaySide. The latest Fox News polls have Senator Hillary Clinton doing well against some notable Republicans in '08.

JERRICK: But what effect will the Clinton marriage have on a possible White House run? Some Democrats were reportedly a little worried about it. Should they be?

HUDDY: Brad Blakeman is a Republican strategist. And David Corn is Washington editor of The Nation and a Fox News analyst. Both join us now, as you can see, from Washington, D.C.

[...]

CORN: But two out of the three people you just had posted on the screen there running against -- possibly running against Hillary Clinton -- [Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ] and Rudy Guiliani -- they both went through divorces. Maybe there's something good here in the Clinton marriage that people can learn from. Despite the crises, they're still together.

JERRICK: Well, actually, they are still together. Brad, what do you think about that?

BLAKEMAN: Well look, more power to them. There is an old political saying that seems to be tailor-made for the Clintons and that is, "Politics makes strange bedfellows." You have a couple here who have gone through some pretty tough times, yet they have stayed together, and it's a unique kind of relationship that seems to work for them. So I'm not so sure it's going that it's going to be that big an issue. But what is going to be an issue is where Hillary stands on the issues when it comes time for her to announce her candidacy.

HUDDY: David --

JERRICK: So they are bedfellows?

HUDDY: Yeah, Michael, I knew you were going to say something about that. Dave, Bill Clinton is -- I mean, we've seen -- we all read the little gossip columns. And he's very active, he's out there on the social circuit and the parties and going to events and fundraisers and things like that. You know, doing a lot of good as well. He's not just out there partying. I want to say that. But does he -- will he need to tone that down as things start to heat up?

CORN: Listen, I don't think he's hanging out at the clubs at two in the morning in Manhattan.

HUDDY: Like Jerrick.

CORN: Yeah, who knows?

JERRICK: I saw him at the Hudson --

CORN: But you know, the Times story today said 14 days out the month they're together, which in terms of some -- I know couples who live -- who are bicoastal. Or I know -- I have some friends who have marriages, one lives in the United States, one lives in Europe. If they're spending that much time together, that's not such a bad thing for people who no longer have kids to raise together who are, listen, part of perhaps the biggest power couple in America.

JERRICK: But tell me a political candidate who has done -- who has that type of lifestyle?

CORN: Well, what type of lifestyle? You mean married to somebody who goes around the world trying to do something about AIDS? I mean, that's the thing. I think, Bill Clinton is out there -- you know, he could never stop moving as a candidate, as a president. It's not going to happen now. And as long as he doesn't get into trouble -- and we know what that means -- it's not going to be a liability that he's out there traveling a lot.

—J.K. & J.S.



All excerpted from: Media Matters
at  http://mediamatters.org/items/200605240008_
__________________________________________________________________
















__________________________________________________________________



Clinton With Stronachs at Preakness: Funny Cide 'No Fluke'

by Ray Paulick
Date Posted: May 17, 2003
Last Updated: May 17, 2003

Former President Bill Clinton, among those packed into Pimlico's Turf Club on Preakness Day, predicted New York-bred Funny Cide, winner of the Kentucky Derby (gr. I), would also win the Visa Triple Crown's second jewel.

"In deference to the junior senator from New York," Clinton said in reference to wife Hillary, "I'd better be for Funny Cide. But he ran a monster race in the Derby, and that win was no fluke. Four horses came to him and he put them all away. It was one of the best Kentucky Derbys I've seen in the last 25 years."

Clinton wouldn't provide an exacta selection, but he did say he disagreed with the oddsmakers who painted the Preakness as a two-horse race between Funny Cide and Peace Rules, the third-place finisher in the Derby. "There is a lot more quality to this field than some people realize," Clinton said. "I think we'll see a longshot in the exacta."

Clinton, whose late mother was an everyday fan at Oaklawn Park, was in the Turf Club's "power table," with Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich Jr., Magna Entertainment chairman Frank Stronach, Magna International president and CEO Belinda Stronach (Frank's daughter), and rock star John Bon Jovi.

Copyright © 2003-2007 The Blood-Horse, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/articleindex/article.asp?id=15869_






______________________________________________________________________________________


The President In the Room
Hillary Clinton's Biggest Issue? A Certain Someone in Her Background.

By Lynne Duke
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 17, 2006; D01

NEW YORK -- He stood far behind, hiding in plain sight, though his glowing white hair and ruddy complexion rendered him as inconspicuous as a face on Mount Rushmore.

The spotlight was not Bill Clinton's. It belonged, instead, to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as she celebrated her reelection victory.

So Bill stood poker-faced. He clasped his hands. He held his head high. He clapped when appropriate. He smiled ever so faintly. And he did not move. When Hillary offered thanks to him and turned around to acknowledge him, he did not step forward, did not step to her side. He stayed put, several feet away, as if taking pains to soak up not one ray of the spotlight he so dearly loves but that, now more than ever, must be hers and hers alone.

It was political Kabuki -- Bill Clinton, held in check -- on a night that some observers saw as the start of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. Bill is poised to mightily help or deeply hurt his wife's White House prospects. Either way, his impact will be profound as he undertakes the unprecedented role of ex-president turned male campaign spouse to the first woman ever to have a serious shot at the presidency.

Yes, Bill can deliver political superstardom. He's a razor-sharp political strategist. He knows the institution of the presidency. His fundraising chops are unrivaled. All that is well and good -- perhaps too good, according to a September CNN poll, which showed his favorable rating higher than hers, 60 percent to 50 percent.

But there's the other Bill, the one who could be a massive and messy distraction. That Bill is the ex-president known for his outsize appetites and indiscipline, the Bill who still revels in the limelight, who runs with global jet-setters. He is prone to pop up in the press for even the smallest of curiosities, like being spotted at dinner with another woman -- bad news for an ex-president already infamous for marital infidelity.

If she runs, will voters focus too much on him? Will they remember too much of the national trauma known as "that woman" (Monica Lewinsky) -- and the presidential prevaricating, hair-splitting (what is"is," anyway?) and impeachment that followed? Can voters look at Bill without thinking of sex? If they don't think of sex, they'll likely think the word: "president," which may also not be such a good thing for the spouse who wants that title.

From now until Election Day 2008, the national fascination with the Clintons and their marriage will be central to the race. The media-industrial complex will again feed like hungry hounds on the Clintons, their past and future; on the Clintons and their mysteries; on power and politics as the Clinton lifeblood propelling her run against all odds.

She will face haters. She'll face sexists. There'll be folks who think she's power-mad, including some still queasy about what she knew and when she knew it when it came to Bill's marital indiscretions.

Look at the polls; opinions on her are strong and run the gamut. Gallup last month asked 1,003 respondents to state what comes to mind about Hillary. Thirteen percent said they disliked her. Ten percent said she's qualified to be president. Nine percent said she's riding Bill's shirttails. Eight percent called her strong. Six percent called her intelligent, and another six percent called her dishonest and said they didn't trust her.

With numbers like that, plenty of Democrats are asking: Can she win? So the last thing she needs is people asking, as they have in the media and at cocktail parties: Can Bill control himself during her presidential campaign?

Such a familiar circumstance, such a Clintonesque conundrum, which her supporters can only hope won't lead to a Clintonesque spectacle: Bill, the management challenge.

It's such a delicate subject that many people who know the Clintons well refuse to talk about it. If they do, they summon their most diplomatic selves when addressing it.

"I guess the best way to say this is that they're going to be watched very closely," says Leon Panetta, Clinton's former White House chief of staff. "I think the press and everybody around him is going to be watching to make sure that the same mistakes aren't made."

Discipline: That's the key. It was Clinton's struggle while in the White House, says Panetta -- to stay focused, to not respond to diversions or to provocations. That struggle is an essential aspect of Clinton's personality.

"Clearly, in someone who is probably the brightest and most capable that I've ever met in politics, that's the weak side," Panetta says.

And it's not just sex we're talking about. It's the need for attention, adulation; to play a grand role, make a sweeping impact.

There's something unbridled about Bill's neediness, this love of the crowd -- like the story about his trip to the World Cup in Berlin this year. En route to the stadium on a bus carrying several aides and donors, Bill told the bus driver to head instead to the Brandenburg Gate, the New Yorker reported. There, hundreds of thousands of soccer fans had gathered to watch a match on giant television screens. Uninvited, the former president mounted the stage where a rock band had been performing, and just stood there waving and thanking the crowd, which responded with roaring cheers.

Could Bill's hunger for the spotlight pose problems? You bet, says James Thurber, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. Hillary will have to be careful not to be upstaged by him or lost in the glare of his global political stardom.

Thurber, called the issue of Bill "a central question to her candidacy."

For starters, he said: "You have to be very careful in terms of Bill Clinton taking the headlines. So one way you do it is use him behind the scenes, to bring in money to your campaign through closed events. And in my opinion, you rarely have them appear on the stage together, and if you do, you don't have him speak."

Her campaign strategists also have to be "very careful" about managing Bill because "he sucks up the air around everybody when he's there," says Thurber. "And he needs to be loved. She is more self-assured, doesn't need as much adulation as he does. And that's trouble."

There are "so many barriers for her, alone, and then add Bill in there and then add his infidelity to it," says Thurber. "Well, she doesn't want to be looking over her shoulder and having questions asked by the media about it."

But there will be questions aplenty. How could there not be? The Clinton marriage fell into political soap opera with the troubles of Bill's White House years, with nothing but question marks hovering overhead, for a time. Was he contrite? Had she forgiven him? Would she stay? The woman whose earlier assertiveness as first lady rankled some now was tagged with a new set of labels: Hillary the martyr. Hillary the steadfast, for sticking with her man. Hillary as Machiavelli, accepting marital humiliation as the price of power.

Her 'Most Difficult Decisions'

She raised the subject in her 2003 memoir, "Living History," writing, "The most difficult decisions I have made in my life were to stay married to Bill and to run for the Senate." Rarely has she discussed that period since. As she has prepared to possibly run for president, questions about the marriage have bubbled to the fore again.

Earlier this year, both the U.S. and Canadian press ran stories about Bill's periodic meetings with a Canadian auto-parts magnate turned politician, Belinda Stronach. Both have characterized themselves as just friends since they met in 2001 at a fundraiser. But tongues wagged nonetheless, because of the baggage.

Folks around the Clintons believe -- or want to believe -- that Bill's indiscretions are a thing of the past, that he has faced his demons.

Since the Lewinsky scandal, Bill has received counseling for a sex addiction. He and Hillary have grown as a couple. She has burst out of her role as wife and first lady to become a politician in her own right. He has had a brush with death, in the form of his emergency heart bypass surgery in 2004. He has found his global calling as an active former president and is fully committed to helping his wife along her chosen path.

Despite all that, the subject of the marriage is too hot to handle.

"It's uranium-242," said longtime Clinton adviser and friend James Carville, earlier this year. "You pick that stuff up and it'll blow up in your face . . . I'll talk about anything. But I ain't gettin' near anybody's marriage, especially the Clintons.' "

But he did concur that Bill Clinton could require special management by her campaign strategists, because of his political stature.

"I think it is something that people are cognizant of," he said. "You could make a pretty persuasive argument that there's more good to come out of this than bad."

Asked how Hillary's presumed rivals might deal with the Bill factor, an aide to one of them said, "Everybody knows everything there is to know about the Clintons." The aide spoke anonymously to avoid any damaging blowback for the comments. "No one needs to point out to them 'guess what? Bill Clinton was impeached [after] having an affair' . . . It's obvious to everyone that her husband is a huge benefit and he comes with some baggage."

Spokesmen for both Clintons steadfastly refused to discuss the theory that Bill might pose obstacles should Hill, as the New York tabloids call her, run for president.

"He campaigned for her in 2000. He campaigned for her in 2006," says Howard Wolfson, a Hillary Clinton adviser. "In both instances, we found, as did many other candidates across the country, that his presence on the campaign trail was a huge boost."

In her first campaign, when he was a sitting president, her handlers found it necessary to carefully calibrate Bill's role -- just as they are likely to do should she run in '08.

Both Clintons declined to be interviewed for this article. Ditto for several members of her innermost circle, known as Hillaryland.

If she runs, her husband "will do anything and everything to support her," says Jay Carson, Bill Clinton's spokesman.

So get ready to see that Bill Clinton thing at work on the campaign trail, if she runs -- that charm, that way with the crowd, that charisma. With him, it's seems innate.

Different Styles

The nation saw the contrast quite starkly during the nationally televised funeral last February of Coretta Scott King, widow of Martin Luther King Jr. Bill spoke in the subtle cadences of the pulpit and seemed to reach right into the heart of the mourners, give expression to their feelings.

Hillary spoke more stiffly, with little hint of emotion, of a connection to the crowd.


Their appearance set off a wave of speculation about her style vs. his and how it would or would not serve her in a campaign.

"Of course I've seen the difference," says Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), who prodded Hillary to run for the Senate back when she was still first lady. "But I never would think that anybody would say one would not shine as brightly. It's always been a team. I think that the personal problems have cemented that even more so than in other couples."

"I don't think there's any woman in public life that has such self-esteem and assurance as Hillary Clinton," Rangel said.

Theirs has not been a competitive marriage, but a complementary one, Panetta says. "I think that she knows he's got a lot of charisma and people pay a lot of attention to him, and I think she has always viewed that as an important asset not only because of the attention he gets and the guidance he provides, but also because it makes both of them larger than life."

They once called themselves the "blue-light special," offering "two for one" -- two leaders for the price of one, quickly dubbed "Billary." That was back during Bill's 1992 presidential campaign, when Hillary was the first professional woman, a lawyer, heading for the role of first lady.

The co-presidency idea got jettisoned pretty quickly. Campaign polls showed voters didn't necessarily want Clinton's wife acting as an unelected leader. The notion of the co-presidency gave rise to some of the early condemnations of Hillary as power hungry. And when, as first lady, she lead the failed charge for health care reform and wound up politically bruised, she retreated from major policy crusades, putting the two-for-one deal to bed.

And yet, today, the nation faces a combination that's far closer to the mythic co-presidency than their stature of yore.

"Most people say it's two for one," Rangel said of Hillary's prospective campaign. "Anyone would know that one of the most outstanding public officials in the free world is Bill Clinton. . . . To have the benefit of a former president and a person that has international respect as your partner, I don't see how it gets any better than that."

Some folks who know her take umbrage with the two-for-one idea. They say it denigrates her singular leadership abilities and suggests she's not up to the job on her own.

And it could confuse the public in a campaign in which the lines between the two Clintons would have to be clear. Her candidacy, not his; her presidency, not his; not a blue-light special; and certainly not an attempt at dynasty.

"The biggest challenge facing Hillary is: Can she convince the American people that they are not trying to build a dynasty, but rather they are trying to help improve the lives of people?" says Donna Brazile, the Democratic strategist who chaired Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign.

In the past several months, Bill has appeared to be her chief campaigner, publicly saying Hillary would be a great president, even better than him, because she would enter the White House with more experience.

It is in the nature of the Clintons and their evolved relationship, says Panetta, that Bill will subordinate himself and summon all his discipline, for Hillary's sake.

"This is the love and loyalty that they share in their relationship," Panetta said. "It's very genuine. And that's why I think he'll want it. He will not want to in any way jeopardize her chance to win the presidency."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600894_pf.html

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

[...]"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared. Never mind that that statement is ludicrous:" Says Washington Post

 
See hilarious photo of Nancy Pelosi as Miss Syria here (From the New York Post)
New York Post
Thursday, April 05, 2007
Last Update: 07:00 PM EST
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Intelligence sources in Moscow predict a US strike against Iranian nuclear installations codenamed Operation Bite scheduled for April 6 at 0040 hours.

DEBKAfile Exclusive: US financial sources in Bahrain report American investors in Bahrain advised to pack up business operations and leave

April 4, 2007, 7:55 AM (GMT+02:00)

USS Nimitz nuclear carrier

USS Nimitz nuclear carrier

The advice came from officers with US Central Command 5th Fleet HQ at Manama, who spoke of security tension, a hint at an approaching war with Iran. Arab sources report the positioning of a Patriot anti-missile battery in Bahrain this week; they say occupancy at emirate hotels has soared past 90% due mostly to the influx of US military personnel. They also report Western media crews normally employed in military coverage are arriving in packs.

Thursday, March 29, Gen. Khaled al-‘Absi, Bahrain’s chief of air defense operations disclosed that new alarm networks had been installed and air defense systems upgraded to handle chemical, biological and radioactive attacks.

The USS Nimitz and its support ships will be departing San Diego Monday, April 2, to join the John C. Stennis Strike Group in the Persian Gulf. The nuclear carrier is due to relieve the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower , but military sources in the Gulf believe all three US carriers will stay put if tensions continue to climb or if fighting breaks out involving American, British and Iranian forces.

The mighty American armada is further supported by the USS Bataan and USS Boxer strike groups.

War tensions have been triggered most recently by the crisis over the seized British sailors and large-scale US sea, air and amphibious exercises in the Gulf.

1. DEBKAfile’s Tehran sources report that in the contest within the Iranian leadership over how to handle the affair of the captured British seamen, the wildest radical element has gained the upper hand, reducing the prospects of their imminent release. Heading the tough Tehran faction are hardline president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Gen. Rahim Safavi, commander of the Revolutionary Guards whose naval wing performed the seizure.

They gained strength from the British premier Tony Blair’s initial passive, semi-conciliatory response. Tehran quickly grasped it had acquired not just a propaganda tool but a military asset, which the UK cannot match as long as the Americans desist from throwing their military might into the fray. Washington has refused to risk of a full-scale war confrontation with the Revolutionary Guards for the sake of the British sailors.

Iranian strategists also registered that, although the Blair government has begun moving mountains to gain the freedom of the marine crew held in Tehran, London appeared fairly laid back about the kidnap of BBC correspondent Alan Johnston in broad daylight by gunmen in Palestinian Gaza, although three weeks had gone by.

Revolutionary Guards serving with Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza no doubt filed a full report on the Johnston case to Tehran, which drew its own conclusions.

2. Taking part in the big demonstration of American naval, air and marine force launched March 27 are the two nuclear carrier strike forces Stennis and Eisenhower , thousands of marines and 100 warplanes. Maneuvers on this scale in the tight, overcrowded waters of the Persian Gulf carry risks of a collision between American and Iranian craft.

DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the Nimitz group is composed of the Princeton guided-missile cruiser, four guided missile destroyers – the Higgins , Chafee , John Paul Jones and Pinckney . The strike force is armed with two helicopter squadrons and a special unit for dismantling sea mines and other explosive devices.

Earlier, DEBKAfile quoted intelligence sources in Moscow as predicting that a US strike against Iranian nuclear installations codenamed Operation Bite has been scheduled for April 6 at 0040 hours. Missiles and air raids will conduct strikes designed to be devastating enough to set Tehran’s nuclear program several years back.


All Credit to DEBKA.com

http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=3990____________________________________________________________________________

Operation Bite: April 6 sneak attack by US forces against Iran planned, Russian military sources warn


Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:37:00

By Webster G. Tarpley (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1888.shtml)

Visit Online Journal for excellent articles. Webster G. Tarpley's Website.

Webster G. Tarpley is a journalist. Among other works, he has published an investigation on the manipulation of the Red Brigades by the Vatican’s P2 Suite and the assassination of Aldo Moro, a non-authorized biography of George H. Bush, and more recently an analysis of the methods used to perpetrate the September 11, 2001 attacks.

WASHINGTON DC, -- The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 am on April 6, the Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly “Argumenty Nedeli.” Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the Russian General Staff for his account.

The attack is slated to last for 12 hours, according to Uglanov, from 4 am until 4 pm local time. Friday is the sabbath in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.

The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran’s nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was reissued by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.

Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.

Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21 interview: “I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more precisely a violent action against Iran.” Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is currently the vice president of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill that would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and from Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.

“We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take place,” said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a land operation: “ Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran’s capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,” he continued.

Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. “This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran,” Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican administration, which would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program.

Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of Iran along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. “This concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle East,” he commented.

“Moscow must exert Russia’s influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter,” said General Ivashov. “In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force,” he concluded.

Resources:

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html

http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html

ALL CREDIT TO
 Webster G. Tarpley (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1888.shtml) 

And CREDIT TO INTEL DAILY AT

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=166&a=1478
_


______________________________________________________________________________________

'US ready to strike Iran on Good Friday'

Talkbacks for this article: 200

The United States will be ready to launch a missile attack on Iran's nuclear facilities as soon as early this month, perhaps "from 4 a.m. until 4 p.m. on April 6," according to reports in the Russian media on Saturday.

According to Russian intelligence sources, the reports said, the US has devised a plan to attack several targets in Iran, and an assault could be carried out by launching missiles from fighter jets and warships stationed in the Persian Gulf.

Russian news agency RIA Novosti quoted a security official as saying, "Russian intelligence has information that the US Armed Forces stationed in the Persian Gulf have nearly completed preparations for a missile strike against Iranian territory."

  • Iran fears strike by 'warmongers'
    THE IRANIAN THREAT
    JPost.com special: news, opinion, blogs and more

    The Russian Defense Ministry rejected the claims of an imminent attack as "myths." There was no immediate response from Washington.

    The reports come as the Iranian chief of staff, Hassan Fayrouz Abadi, was quoted on Saturday by Iran's Fars news agency warning leaders of Arab countries that Israel plans to open a "suicidal attack" on its neighbors this summer, to "prevent the withdrawal of the US troops from Iraq and the area."

    "I warn the dear leaders and Muslim brothers in the neighboring countries of the occupied territories that this suicidal attack of the Zionists is threatening them," he said.

    The countries in danger, he said, were "Lebanon and Syria, and later Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia."

    Also on Saturday, Russia urged Britain and Teheran to resolve the dispute over 15 British sailors and marines captured by Iran last week, a local news agency reported.

    Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mikhail Kamynin urged the two sides to provide the United Nations with their own assessments as to what happened and where exactly the detention occurred so that the body could conduct an independent probe.

    "We hope these actions will provide a foundation for the soonest possible resolution of the crisis," Kamynin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency.

    Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted that the captured British sailors and marines trespassed in Iranian waters and called world powers "arrogant" for failing to apologize, the country's official news agency reported.

    "The British occupier forces did trespass our waters. Our border guards detained them with skill and bravery. But arrogant powers, because of their arrogant and selfish spirit, are claiming otherwise," IRNA quoted Ahmadinejad as saying during a speech in the southeastern city of Andinmeshk.

    The European Union grappled with a double bind over Iran Saturday - the country's nuclear program and its seizure of the British troops - and reported no progress on either issue.

    A debate about Iran's nuclear ambitions had been scheduled as a key agenda item but "was overshadowed to a certain extent by the issue of the sailors and marines," German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said after hosting a two-day EU foreign ministers meeting in Bremen, Germany.

  • The Foreign Ministry in Iran dismissed the EU's "biased and meddlesome" comments on the captured troops, saying the dispute solely involved the governments of Iran and Britain.

    Speaking to reporters in Bremen, British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett urged Iran to resolve the crisis over the military personnel peacefully, saying London remains open to dialogue.

    "We encourage Iran to peacefully resolve this issue," she said.

    "We continue to express our willingness to engage in dialogue and discussions with Iran," she added. "That is very much in the best interest of our people and that is our foremost concern."

    "I think everyone regrets that this position has arisen," she said. "What we want is a way out of it."

    AP contributed to this report.

    http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1173879220977&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull
    __________________________________________________________________________

    Operation Bite: April 6 sneak attack by US forces against Iran planned,
    Russian military sources warn
    By Webster G. Tarpley
    Online Journal Contributing Writer

    Mar 26, 2007, 01:02

    WASHINGTON DC, — The long awaited US military attack on Iran is now on
    track for the first week of April, specifically for 4 am on April 6, the
    Good Friday opening of Easter weekend, writes the well-known Russian
    journalist Andrei Uglanov in the Moscow weekly ³Argumenty Nedeli.² Uglanov cites Russian military experts close to the
    Russian General Staff for his account.

    The attack is slated to last for 12 hours, according to Uglanov, from 4 am until 4 pm local time. Friday is the sabbath in Iran. In the course of the attack, code named Operation Bite, about 20 targets are marked for bombing; the list includes uranium enrichment facilities, research centers, and laboratories.

    The first reactor at the Bushehr nuclear plant, where Russian engineers are working, is supposed to be spared from destruction. The US attack plan reportedly calls for the Iranian air defense system to be degraded, for numerous Iranian warships to be sunk in the Persian Gulf, and for the most important headquarters of the Iranian armed forces to be wiped out.

    The attacks will be mounted from a number of bases, including the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. Diego Garcia is currently home to B-52 bombers equipped with standoff missiles. Also participating in the air strikes will be US naval aviation from aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, as well as from those of the Sixth Fleet in the Mediterranean. Additional cruise missiles will be fired from submarines in the Indian Ocean and off the coast of the Arabian peninsula. The goal is allegedly to set back Iran¹s nuclear program by several years, writes Uglanov, whose article was reissued by RIA-Novosti in various languages, but apparently not English, several days ago. The story is the top item on numerous Italian and German blogs, but so far appears to have been ignored by US websites.

    Observers comment that this dispatch represents a high-level orchestrated leak from the Kremlin, in effect a war warning, which draws on the formidable resources of the Russian intelligence services, and which deserves to be taken with the utmost seriousness by pro-peace forces around the world.

    Asked by RIA-Novosti to comment on the Uglanov report, retired Colonel
    General Leonid Ivashov confirmed its essential features in a March 21
    interview: ³I have no doubt that there will be an operation, or more
    precisely a violent action against Iran.² Ivashov, who has reportedly served at various times as an informal advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, is currently the vice president of the Moscow Academy for Geopolitical Sciences.

    Ivashov attributed decisive importance to the decision of the Democratic
    leadership of the US House of Representatives to remove language from the just-passed Iraq supplemental military appropriations bill that would have demanded that Bush come to Congress before launching an attack on Iran. Ivashov pointed out that the language was eliminated under pressure from AIPAC, the lobbing group representing the Israeli extreme right, and from Israeli Foreign Minister Tsipi Livni.

    ³We have drawn the unmistakable conclusion that this operation will take
    place,² said Ivashov. In his opinion, the US planning does not include a
    land operation: ³ Most probably there will be no ground attack, but rather massive air attacks with the goal of annihilating Iran¹s capacity for military resistance, the centers of administration, the key economic assets, and quite possibly the Iranian political leadership, or at least part of it,² he continued.

    Ivashov noted that it was not to be excluded that the Pentagon would use
    smaller tactical nuclear weapons against targets of the Iranian nuclear
    industry. These attacks could paralyze everyday life, create panic in the population, and generally produce an atmosphere of chaos and uncertainty all over Iran, Ivashov told RIA-Novosti. ³This will unleash a struggle for power inside Iran, and then there will be a peace delegation sent in to install a pro-American government in Teheran,² Ivashov continued. One of the US goals was, in his estimation, to burnish the image of the current Republican administration, which would now be able to boast that they had wiped out the Iranian nuclear program.

    Among the other outcomes, General Ivashov pointed to a partition of Iran
    along the same lines as Iraq, and a subsequent carving up of the Near and Middle East into smaller regions. ³This concept worked well for them in the Balkans and will now be applied to the greater Middle East,² he commented.

    ³Moscow must exert Russia¹s influence by demanding an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to deal with the current preparations for an illegal use of force against Iran and the destruction of the basis of the United Nations Charter,² said General Ivashov. ³In this context Russia could cooperate with China, France and the non-permanent members of the Security Council. We need this kind of preventive action to ward off the use of force,² he concluded.

    Resources:

    http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070319/62260006.html


    http://fr.rian.ru/world/20070321/62387717.html

    Webster G. Tarpley is a journalist. Among other works, he has published an investigation on the manipulation of the Red Brigades by the Vatican¹s P2 Suite and the assassination of Aldo Moro, a non-authorized biography of George H. Bush, and more recently an analysis of the methods used to perpetrate the September 11, 2001 attacks.

    Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
    Email Online Journal

    http://www.bloggernews.net/15675
    ___________________________________________________________________________US to Attack Iran by End of April: Report

    Yahoo India ^  4/4/2007 IANS| 

    Kuwait City, April 4 (Xinhua) The US is planning to attack Iran's nuclear reactors and other nuclear facilities by the end of this month, the Kuwait-based Arab Times newspaper reported Wednesday.

    Citing anonymous sources in Washington, it said that various White House departments had started preparing the political speech to be delivered by the US president later this month, announcing the military attack on Iran.

    The speech will provide the 'evidence' and the 'justification' for the US to resort to the military option after failing to persuade Tehran to give up its nuclear ambitions, said the report.

    According to the Times, one of the justifications expected in the speech is Iran's alleged role in the killing of American soldiers in Iraq by supporting various militias with money and arms.

    The US president's speech will also point to Iran's political interference in Iraq, obviously in cooperation with Syria.

    The sources were quoted as saying that US will not resort to a ground attack in order to avoid human losses.

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Russian News Agency-Us Plans Easter Week Attack On Iran


    RIA Novosti ^ | 3-19-2007 | RIA Novosti

    Translated from French by Google:

    MOSCOW, March 19 - RIA Novosti. The Russian military experts estimate that the planning of the American military attack against Iran passed the point of nonreturn on February 20, when the director of the IAEA, Mohammed El Baradei, recognized, in his report/ratio, the incapacity of the Agency “to confirm the peaceful character of the nuclear program of Iran”.

    According to the Russian weekly magazine Argoumenty nedeli, a military action will proceed during the first week of April, before Easter catholic and orthodoxe (this year they are celebrated the 8), when the “Western opinion” is on leave.

    It may be also that Iran is struck on Friday 6 (April) public holiday in the Moslem countries.

    According to the American diagram, it will be a striking of only one day which will last 12 hours, 4 hours of morning at 16 o'clock in afternoon.

    The code name of the operation is to date “English C-ck” (Bite).

    A score of Iranian installations should be touched. With their number, centrifugal machines of uranium enrichment, centers of studies and laboratories.

    But the first block of the nuclear thermal power station of Bouchehr will not be touched. On the other hand, the Americans will neutralize the DCA, will run several Iranian buildings of war in the Gulf and will destroy the stations - keys of command of the armed forces. As many measurements which should remove in Teheran any capacity to counteract.

    Iran projected to run several tankers in the strait of Ormuz with an aim of cutting the provisioning of the international markets of oil and of striking with the Israel missile.

    The analysts affirm that strike them American will be launched from the island of Diego-Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, from where will take off of the bombers with long operating range B-52 with on their board cruise missiles; by the embarked aviation of the American aircraft carriers deployed in the Gulf and belonging to the 6th American Fleet in the Mediterranean; cruise missiles will be also drawn since the submarines concentrated in the Pacific and off Arabia. Result, the Iranian nuclear program will be rejected several years behind.

    In private talks, American Generals suppose that the times of deployment of American anti-missile defense in Europe can be deferred to later.

    Another event envisaged, the oil barrel could fly away to 75-80 dollars and this for one prolonged period.

    Meanwhile, the new resolution on Iran and whose project was adopted by the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany should be voted with CS as of this week.

    The text envisages sanctions against 10 Iranian public companies and to three companies concerned with the Body of the guards of the Islamic revolution, unit of elite to the orders of the spiritual leader of the Islamic Republic, the ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    Sanctions are also envisaged against 15 physical people: eight leaders placed high of companies of State and seven characters - keys with the Body of the guards of the Islamic revolution.

    ___________________________________________________________________________

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Pakistan's middle-class ready for a move back toward democracy. They're ready for Musharraf to step down" NPR Report

     "Ahmed Rashid, author of the best-selling Taliban and Jihad, argues that Musharraf has misjudged his country's mood, that Pakistan's middle-class is ready for a move back toward democracy and that they're ready for Musharraf to step down." Fresh Air on NPR 

     

    • Audio for today's show will be available at approx. 3:00 p.m. ET

    ALL CREDIT TO NPR AND FRESH AIR AND TO HOST TERRI GROSS

    By Ahmed Rashid
    Thursday, March 22, 2007; A21

    LAHORE, Pakistan -- In the rapidly unfolding crisis in Pakistan, no matter what happens to President Pervez Musharraf -- whether he survives politically or not -- he is a lame duck. He is unable to rein in Talibanization in Pakistan or guide the country toward a more democratic future.

    Since March 9, when Musharraf suspended the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, public protests have escalated every day -- as has a violent crackdown by the police and intelligence agencies on the media and the nation's legal fraternity.

    The legal convolutions about Chaudhry's dismissal boil down to one simple fact: He was not considered sufficiently reliable to deliver pleasing legal judgments in a year when Musharraf is seeking to extend his presidency by five more years, remain as army chief and hold what would undoubtedly be rigged general elections.

    Musharraf's desire to replace Chaudhry with a more pliable judge has badly backfired. After just 10 days of protests, lawyers around the country have made it clear to the senior judiciary that they will not tolerate further legal validations for continued military rule or tolerate Musharraf remaining as president. At least seven judges and a deputy attorney general have resigned in protest.

    Across the country, in law offices, in the media, among the opposition parties and other organized sections of civil society, the feeling is growing that Musharraf will have to quit sooner rather than later. After eight years of military rule it appears people have had enough.

    Moreover, Musharraf is losing control of three key elements that have sustained his rule but are now either distancing themselves or turning on him completely. The first is the ruling Pakistan Muslim League Party, which has acted as the civilian appendage to the military but faces an election and knows that going to bat for the unpopular Musharraf will turn off voters. Party leaders and cabinet ministers are already distancing themselves from him.

    The second element is the country's three intelligence agencies, which are at loggerheads over control of Musharraf, Pakistan's foreign policy, its political process and the media. Military Intelligence and the Inter-Services Intelligence are military agencies, while the largest civilian agency, the Intelligence Bureau, is now run by a military officer. Ironically, Inter-Services Intelligence, the most powerful agency in the country, has been the moderate element urging Musharraf to open up the political system to the opposition parties. The other two agencies are the hard-liners and are urging Musharraf to adopt even tougher measures.

    The third loss for Musharraf has been the unqualified international support he has received since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Anger in the U.S. Congress and media, and particularly among members of the Republican Party, toward Musharraf's dual-track policy in Afghanistan -- helping to catch al-Qaeda members but backing the Taliban -- is making it difficult for President Bush to continue offering Musharraf his blanket support.

    That was the tough-love message that Vice President Cheney delivered to Musharraf in Islamabad last month: Unless Musharraf goes after the Taliban, the Bush administration can no longer protect him.

    Any loss of Western support will be critical to the army, which is on an arms-buying spree and depends on annual U.S. military aid of about $300 million. Musharraf has balanced the pro- and anti-American factions in the army's officer corps, but if both sides see him as a lame duck, unable to deliver the goods or stabilize the country, their support will dwindle.

    Musharraf is now too weak to pursue policies that could keep his back-stabbers in check, restore his credibility at home and abroad, and pursue his agenda of remaining in power for the next five years.

    It is far better that he revert to the promise he made when he seized power in 1999: to return the country to democracy. His best course of action would be to say he is not a candidate for president, hold free and fair elections, allow the return of exiled politicians, restore full political rights and gracefully depart with his legacy, which is considerable, intact.

    It is in the interest of the United States to support such an exit strategy. The military can no longer counter the phenomenal growth of Islamic extremism in Pakistan through offensives alone. What the country needs is greater political consensus and a popularly elected government, and to replace the extortions of the mullahs with the return of day-to-day parliamentary politics. The army created a political vacuum in which extremism has thrived. Pakistan needs a return to civil society and government.

    Ahmed Rashid, a Pakistani journalist, is the author of "Taliban" and "Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam in Central Asia."

    All Credit to the Washington Post
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/21/AR2007032101786_pf.html
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Pakistan's uncertain year ahead
    Ahmed Rashid
    By Ahmed Rashid, Lahore

    Gen Pervez Musharraf
    'The key issue is what political alliances Gen Musharraf will broker'

    Pakistan is moving into a new year that will be critical for the country's future political direction.

    The government says everything is on schedule for the re-election of President Pervez Musharraf and general elections by the end of 2007.

    Yet Pakistanis are still gripped with severe bouts of uncertainty and few believe the government's assurances.

    The unpredictability of what will actually happen is already affecting business confidence, say economists.

    Islamic extremist groups, the mainstream Islamic parties and exiled national leaders are more interested in a showdown with Gen Musharraf to curtail his powers, or remove him from office, than an election.

    Fortunately for the military, the opposition parties are deeply divided among themselves.

    The reason for the uncertainty, that will last all of next year, is that the decision will be made by one man - Gen Musharraf himself - because in Pakistan there is no institutionalised, well-worn democratic succession process and the constitution is a mere piece of paper that can be altered by decree.

    After seven years of Gen Musharraf and the military, people are tired of the army and looking for change


    The government scenario elaborated to me by leading figures of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League (PML) says that next autumn Gen Musharraf will likely go for an endorsement from the present National Assembly and provincial assemblies as president for the next five years.

    Rumours of a deal

    He will then dissolve parliament, set up a three-month caretaker government that will hold free and fair elections and then go for a second endorsement as president in 2008.

    Most PML politicians do not expect him to relinquish his role in the military, in which case he will remain as both army chief and president.

    However the decisions all lie with Gen Musharraf and his handful of military advisers rather than the ruling party or the prime minister - hence so much uncertainty.

    Protests against Gen Musharraf
    'Islamic groups are looking for a showdown with Gen Musharraf'
    The key issue is what political alliances Gen Musharraf will broker for the election.

    After his recent outbursts against extremism and the need for people to vote for moderates, rather than religious extremists, the long-running speculation that the army has struck a deal with the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and its leader in self-imposed exile, Benazir Bhutto, are rife.

    Both sides deny any deal, despite the political buzz.

    However Gen Musharraf has made it clear that the return of Benazir Bhutto is out of the question. So too, he says, is the return of the prime minister he deposed, Nawaz Sharif, the exiled leader of another faction of the PML.

    So why should the PPP cut a deal when its leader will not be allowed to campaign or stand for elections?

    If there is a compromise and a deal with the PPP, it would mean the military breaking of its alliance with the Islamic parties that presently rule the provinces of Balochistan and the North West Frontier.

    It is something that many in the US and western Europe are desperate to see happen and would clearly applaud.

    The problem is that the PML and its leader Chaudry Shujjat Hussain, in particular, see the PPP as a major threat to their monopoly on power at the centre and in the largest province Punjab.

    Concrete assurances

    Moreover the logic of a deal with the PPP would mean that the military would also have to cast their lot with smaller secular Baloch and Pashtun nationalist parties in Balochistan and the NWFP - which the army is loathe to do because they oppose the continuation of military rule.

    Again Gen Musharraf will have the last word and it is likely that he will only declare his political alliances at the last moment, thus fuelling continued uncertainty about the future.

    The best option for a genuine step forward to democratisation would be for Gen Musharraf to announce that he would stand as a civilian president, that genuinely free and fair elections would be held and the future government would be freely determined on the election outcome.

    Benazir Bhutto
    'Speculation is rife that the army has struck a deal with Benazir Bhutto'
    To gain public confidence he would also need to pledge that the elections would genuinely empower parliament and the next prime minister and that he and the army would take a back seat.

    That would need concrete assurances such as a pledge to remove over 1,000 army officers who presently occupy key civilian posts in the government, economic institutions, media and the universities.

    Thus the polls would be a transformative election moving the country slowly towards full and genuine civilian rule.

    After seven years of Gen Musharraf and the military, people are tired of the army and looking for change.

    Moreover only a genuine civilian government could begin the attempt to start a reconciliation process with all the alienated, angry elements of society such as the Baloch nationalists and the Pashtun extremists in the tribal agencies bordering Afghanistan.

    Is such a transformative election likely?

    Not really.

    Gen Musharraf has repeatedly said in the past few months that that Pakistan would fall apart if he was not there to guide it, that a strong hand is needed and there can be only one centre of power - and by that he means the army.

    So 2007 will be full of political noise and thunder, talk of deals and conspiracies, but when people do actually go to the polls, many will not be expecting anything much to change.  

    All Credit To the BBC NEWS
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6211639.stm

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    US Is Accused Of Formenting Internal Violence In Iran Using Jundullah. (ABC News)

     [...]"Arab separatists, accused of being supported by foreign powers, the British in particular, have long claimed that the government is intentionally neglecting development of their native province. The Ahmadinejad disclosure is considered a proof of their allegations.

    "Extremist Wahhabis and groups like al-Qaeda definitely play a role in unrest and terrorist attacks in Sunni-populated provinces," a political analyst in Tehran said, asking not to be quoted by name. "In spite of lack of solid evidence, it is quite possible that countries like the US are also keen on enflaming unrest in these areas to weaken the central government.

    "Historic ethnic, religious and economic discrimination against the people of these regions also provide the fuel for the foreign flintstone." *
    _____________________________________________________________________________________ 

    Middle East
         Mar 8, 2007
    Iran fires back at the West
    By Kimia Sanati

    TEHRAN - As a Shi'ite-majority country with several large ethnic groups such as the Kurds, Arabs and Balochs that follow the Sunni faith, Iran has for years been vulnerable to unrest, riots and terrorist attacks that officials routinely attribute to foreign powers.

    "Iranian intelligence services have acquired information that shows the United States, Britain and Israel have been behind the unrest in various parts of Iran, including Khuzestan, Kordestan and West Azarbaijan, in the past few years," Mostafa Pour Mohammadi, Iran's intelligence minister, was quoted as saying by the Aftab

    News Agency.

    A car-bomb attack last month by the separatist Jundullah (also called Popular Iranian Resistance Movement) in the southeastern city of Zahedan, which killed 13 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, triggered clashes between security forces and guerrillas of the PJAK, a separatist Kurdish party, around the city of Khoy in northwestern Iran.

    "In the past one and a half years and following air raids on PJAK bases in northern Iraq, clashes with the Iranian military have increased. The clashes used to occur at border points mostly, but the recent encounter was more intense and occurred inside Iranian soil," the Aftab News Agency quoted Abed Fattahi, representative of Oroumiyeh in Parliament, as saying.

    A Revolutionary Guard helicopter crashed last Friday 17 kilometers inside the Iranian border, killing its two high-ranking commanders and seven other military staff. The guerrilla group that claimed responsibility has connections with the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) that has bases in Turkey and northern Iraq. The same group blew up the Iran-Turkey gas pipeline last September.

    Guard statements said technical problems forced the helicopter to make an emergency landing after which it exploded, but in a statement released after the crash, PJAK claimed to have downed the helicopter using SA-7 missiles. Both sides also claimed to have inflicted heavy casualties on the other.

    "Enemies, particularly the US, Britain and the Zionist regime [Israel], seek to create insecurity along Iran's southeastern and northwestern borders through their mercenaries," Brigadier-General Rahim Safavi, chief Revolutionary Guard commander, was quoted by Fars news agency as saying. "But the Iranian armed forces are fully prepared to suppress any move by the anti-revolutionaries and alien-affiliated bandits and gangs with maximum power."

    In spite of the public hanging of a Jundullah terrorist responsible for the Zahedan bombing only a few days after the incident, calm has not returned to the southeastern region. An attack on law-enforcement forces in Sistan and Balochistan on Tuesday by "armed bandits" left one dead and another wounded, a military commander told Mehr news agency. Four others were transferred back over the border to Pakistan, he said.

    Ethnic conflict in Kordestan and in the Kurdish-populated cities of West Azarbaijan province in northwestern Iran date back to the days following the Islamic Revolution of 1978. In July 2005, pictures of the tortured body of a young Kurdish activist shot dead by government agents in Mahabad in northwestern Iran set off riots that quickly spread to other Kurdish cities in Kordestan and Oroumiyeh provinces. But these were quickly suppressed and more than a hundred Kurdish activists arrested.

    "Kurds, many of them Sunnis, have been fighting for many years for their civil rights," a Kurdish journalist in Tehran said, asking not to be quoted by name. "Their ways are now becoming more civil-oriented rather than being a continuation of armed encounter with the central government as in the past. PJAK and Komele, both rather small leftist parties, still carry on with armed struggle, something that many other Kurdish rights activists now find irrelevant and useless.

    "Freedom of expression and freedom to use our mother language in education are among the demands of the Kurdish people," he said. "There are several million Kurds in this country, but there is not one high-ranking Kurdish government official. It is next to impossible for a Kurd, especially a Sunni Kurd, to rise in rank to high positions.

    "And elections are never free. There is a screening procedure, not only for Kurds or other minorities but for all citizens, that serves as a powerful tool to bar the opposition from entering elected bodies like the Parliament or city and village councils."

    Shi'ite Azeris, Iran's largest ethnic minority, have their own issues too. Last May, a cartoon allegedly insulting to Azeri speakers that appeared in the official government gazette sparked demonstrations and riots in Tabriz, East Azarbaijan province, that quickly spread to other cities and towns and left several dead.

    Khuzestan in southwestern Iran is another problem zone. Home to 2 million Arabs, the province has a huge share of Iran's oilfields. Badly damaged by the war between Iran and Iraq (1980-88), the province is one of the less developed regions of the country, and there have been several incidents of popular riots as well as terrorist bombings by Arab separatist groups in the past two years. The attacks, on oil pipelines and in urban areas, have brought about death and destruction, particularly in Ahwaz, the provincial capital.

    "A total of 40 people were jailed in connection with bombings and 22 were sentenced to death," said Emadeddin Baghi, founder of Iran's first death-penalty abolition society. "Some of these men had no role in any of the actual bombing operations but had possessed bombs. One was a minor at the time of his arrest and another man had been in jail two months before the alleged bombing took place," said Baghi, chairman of the Society for Defending Prisoners' Rights.

    Of the 22 Arabs sentenced to death for involvement in the Khuzestan bombings, 12 have been hanged, three of them on the day of the bombing in Zahedan.

    "Even according to Iranian laws, those who possessed bombs but never used them couldn't be executed," Baghi said. "The men had no access to legal counseling, so we found volunteer lawyers to represent them. The lawyers themselves were then charged with acting against national security and prosecuted. They were acquitted later, but the atmosphere of trepidation took its toll and the lawyers lost their initial impetus. Our lobbying failed, too. We couldn't stop the executions."

    On one of his famous nationwide tours, President Mahmud Ahmadinejad disclosed a secret highly guarded until then. There existed a Supreme National Security Council decree in effect for many years, Ahmadinejad told his audience, not to make any major government investments in western and southwestern Khuzestan. The decree had now been annulled, he said.

    *Arab separatists, accused of being supported by foreign powers, the British in particular, have long claimed that the government is intentionally neglecting development of their native province. The Ahmadinejad disclosure is considered a proof of their allegations.

    "Extremist Wahhabis and groups like al-Qaeda definitely play a role in unrest and terrorist attacks in Sunni-populated provinces," a political analyst in Tehran said, asking not to be quoted by name. "In spite of lack of solid evidence, it is quite possible that countries like the US are also keen on enflaming unrest in these areas to weaken the central government.

    "Historic ethnic, religious and economic discrimination against the people of these regions also provide the fuel for the foreign flintstone." *

    (Inter Press Service)

     


     

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IC08Ak02.html
    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    From
    March 4, 2007

    Gunfire over the Pakistan border rattles Iranian leaders

    THE crack of machinegun fire and ribbons of smoke over Kulao, a dusty Pakistan town close to the Iranian border, last week indicated that Wahid Baksh, a rebel commander known as Iran’s most wanted man, had a real war on his hands.

    Eight armoured trucks carrying members of Pakistan’s elite AntiTerrorist Force sealed off roads and opened fire on Baksh’s heavily guarded compound moments before he was due to be interviewed by The Sunday Times.

    Troops carrying rocket launchers and machineguns fought with Baksh’s guards, captured five of his men and ransacked his home. But Baksh had slipped away and called two hours later on his satellite phone to confirm he was unscathed.

    The Pakistanis had moved in because the Iranian government was convinced his group had killed two soldiers and kidnapped four. “Somebody has killed their soldiers and they think I’ve done it. I also got a call from the Iranians and I told them it wasn’t my group,” he said.

    Baksh, 47, is the leader of Sipah e Rasool allah (Army of the Prophet), the largest of three armed Iranian dissident groups waging a hidden war against Tehran’s Shi’ite government, which they accuse of persecuting the Sunni minority.

    In the past three months the dissidents have stepped up their campaign of bombing, shooting and kidnapping against Iranian troops in Sist-an-Balochistan province, which borders Pakistan. Two weeks ago the insurgents killed 18 revolutionary guards and injured 30 with a car bomb. In December they kidnapped seven Iranian soldiers but later released them, apparently after a ransom had been paid.

    The offensive has rattled Iran, already preoccupied with an American military build-up in the Gulf and United Nations sanctions over its uranium enrichment programme.

    Tehran fears that the US may be behind the attacks and will use the dissidents in Sistan-Balochistan province as a base for any future incursion.

    Last week Major-General Yahya Rahim Safavi, the commander-in-chief of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, accused the US and Israel of funding the rebels. He warned that his troops were “prepared to chase and disband the enemies even beyond Iran’s borders”.

    Dissident sources claim American interests are behind a recent increase in funding from Iranian exiles in London and Dubai and calls for rival insurgent groups to combine forces under a moderate leader.

    Last month the Iranian authorities executed Nasrullah Shanbe Zehi, an alleged member of the Jundullah Sunni militant group, which claimed responsibility for the car bombing. He was hanged from a crane after he allegedly confessed that he had been trained in Pakistan and that the attacks were part of an American plot to destabilise Iran.

    Pakistan responded to Iranian calls for a crackdown on the insurgents with the armed raid on Baksh’s fortified compound.

    Ziaur Rehman, an Iranian religious student close to the dissident commanders, says the rebellion was sparked by attacks on Sunni clerics.

    Baksh claims that the persecution of Iranian Sunnis is being ignored. “Nobody in the world, including the human rights groups, comes to our aid. We are alone. And we will continue our fight, even if we die because we are righteous,” he said.

    “The world should listen to our grievances.” He claimed 200 Iranian Sunnis were hanged as “dissidents” this year, an allegation repeated by several opposition groups.

    Tall, burly and heavily bearded, Baksh, 47, commands 70 full-time fighters but can call on reinforcements from up to 2,000 armed Iranian dissidents among 10,000 exiles living on the Pakistan side of the border. He is regarded as a relative moderate yet boasts of his group’s success at kidnapping, and of executions of Iranian soldiers outside his compound.

    “We have killed a lot of them,” said Baksh. “We bring them here, interrogate them and bury them.”

    Jundullah (Party of God), is a more militant group that has gained a reputation for savagery. Its leaders are said to have been trained by the Taliban in neighbouring Afghanistan and released a video last year of fighters questioning Iranian soldiers before decapitating them.

    Iranian exile sources in Pakistan say Jundullah has recently received a large consignment of weapons and vehicles. “They are getting money from somewhere — we heard that it’s coming from America,” claimed one source.

    The US dismisses the allegations and other western sources are sceptical of any official American involvement. But dissidents in the region claimed leading exiles from Iranian commu ities in Britain, Dubai and Norway had made regular visits to the area to deliver funds and to put pressure on the insurgents to unite.

    The Iranians have summoned the Pakistani ambassador to register their complaints and closed border posts last week.  All Credit to The Times Online

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1466948.ece_
    _____________________________________________________________________________________At the opposite end of the country, along Iran's border with Afghanistan and Pakistan, the security forces are also being stretched—by dozens of bandit groups and particularly by the savagery of Abdolmalek Rigi, a young Baluch who kills in cold blood in the name of his vaunted ideals, Sunni Islam and Baluchi nationalism. Iran has 4m-plus Baluchis.

    Last winter, Mr Rigi's Jundullah, or Soldiers of God, kidnapped nine Iranian soldiers, one of whom they later killed. In March, they held up a convoy and slaughtered 22 people, including officials in the provincial administration of Sistan and Baluchistan. Last month, a similar raid, for which Mr Rigi did not claim responsibility, killed 12 people.

    Mr Rigi, who is given publicity by some Arabic TV stations, denies that he trafficks in any of the Afghan opiates that traverse the region in vast quantities; his motives, he insists, are political. According to Mr Pourmohammadi, he flees into Pakistani Baluchistan, where President Pervez Musharraf is struggling to put down an insurgency of his own, with impunity.

    In the case of Mr Rigi's attacks, and a series of bomb blasts over the past year in the part-Arab province of Khuzestan, which borders southern Iraq, the Iranians at first blamed the British and Americans—without offering proof. Moreover, the Iranians' lightning response to such atrocities does not suggest painstaking detective work. Not all Iranians were convinced, for instance, by the broadcast confessions of two Arabs later executed for alleged involvement in the blasts in Khuzestan, home to some 2m Arab Iranians. Mr Rigi has appeared on foreign channels to rebut Iranian claims that he has been killed.

    Amid daily boasts of captures, deaths and brilliant punitive operations, Iranian officials never admit the role of chronic unemployment and poverty, not to mention Iran's institutionalised distrust of minorities, in stoking the unrest. In Sanandaj, for instance, university graduates may find themselves choosing between manual labour and a life in the hills with PJAK. “Is it surprising”, the academic asks, “that some choose the latter?” It certainly deters would-be investors. Rio Tinto, an Anglo-Australian mining company, recently said it was withdrawing from a gold-mining project in Kurdistan.

    In these cases of minority unrest,” observes a seasoned diplomat from a country bordering Iran, “you see the effects of America's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.” Sandwiched between countries in a state of flux, whose own minorities sense an opportunity, Iran's border areas are vulnerable. Crucially, though, the instability has yet to affect Iran's populous central areas, where Persians are a big majority.

    In a fractious discussion among Iranian exiles last winter at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think-tank in Washington, it was plain that Iran's mainstream opposition groups are as hostile to minority irredentism as the Islamic Republic is. For all the unrest around its edges, Iran's heartland remains strong, centralised, and unsympathetic to uppity minorities. Iran's nuclear bomb, if it comes, is unlikely to be aimed inwards. posted by DoctorZin @ 6/05/2006 10:32:00 PM 
    at http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/2006/06/uppity-minorities.html

    Also on the same page from The Economist

    The Islamic Republic's culture minister is under the cosh for reacting tardily to last month's publication of a cartoon, showing a cockroach speaking Azeri Turkish, which sparked rioting across Iran's Azeri-dominated north-west.

    Members of the Majlis, Iran's parliament, have threatened to impeach Mustafa Pourmohammadi, the interior minister, for failing to stem lawlessness in the part-Baluch south-east. Cast an eye over western Iran's troubled Kurdish and Arab regions and you may concur with Rahim Shahbazi, an Azeri nationalist based in America, who calls ethnic strife a “nuclear bomb that will blow away the Iranian regime”. READ MORE

    Several days of protests by Iranian Azeris peaked on May 25th, when four demonstrators were killed in the part-Azeri town of Naghadeh. Many Azeris, the biggest minority in a country dominated by ethnic Persians, had not been placated by the banning of the government-owned newspaper in which the offending cartoon appeared, nor by the arrest of the cartoonist and an editor. The killings were only fleetingly acknowledged by the authorities. An official account was hastily withdrawn from the newswire where it was posted.

    Iran's Azeris, (perhaps 16m-strong in a population of 70m-plus) are mostly Shia Muslim and have not, compared to Sunni minorities, done badly out of the (Shia) Islamic Republic. Though schooling in Azeri is not permitted and the constitution bans private broadcasting in any language, intermarriage with Persians is widespread and Azeris are well represented in Iran's trading and bureaucratic elite. From the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (himself of Azeri origin) downwards, Iranian officials have blamed the recent unrest on foreign “enemies”.

    At a time when the American government is looking for Iranian opposition groups to support, many Iranians believe such claims. Some Azeri nationalists in neighbouring Azerbaijan and others in America used the internet, radio and television broadcasts to incite protesters during the unrest. By contrast, neighbouring Turkey, which also casts a protective eye over its cousins in Iran, kept mum.

    Turkey's restraint is partly due to shared interests. Kurdish minorities straddle the border. Emboldened by the autonomy now enjoyed by Iraq's Kurds, and dispirited by their own nationalist parties, some Iranian Kurds were thrilled last year when Abdullah Ocalan, the jailed leader of Turkey's Kurdish rebel movement, called for a region-wide confederation. Since then, according to Kurds from Sanandaj, the capital of the Iranian province of Kurdistan, scores of recruits have crossed into Iraq to join the Party for Free Life in Kurdistan (PJAK), an Iranian' subsidiary of Mr Ocalan's Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Both groups are based in northern Iraq.

    Iranian Kurds, especially the Sunni majority, complain that discrimination hurts their promotion chances in the local bureaucracy. In the words of a prominent Iranian Kurdish academic, they “loathe” the state's pro-government Kurdish-language television station. Many Kurds tune in to Roj TV, which carries PJAK propaganda.

    The PJAK's popularity has gone up since a Kurdish criminal suspect died at the hands of Iran's security forces last summer, causing much rioting. A Kurdish group says the security forces killed ten demonstrators in a single incident in February.

    The Turks were unbothered by Iran's bombardment of suspected PJAK positions in Iraq last month. The Iranians have handed over captured PKK fighters to the Turks, and both countries recently massed troops near the border where Turkey, Iran and Iraq all meet. No government thinks it can seal these mountain border areas, a paradise for smugglers. But the Turks and Iranians aim to intimidate the PKK's Kurdish hosts in Iraq and their American overlords into reining in Mr Ocalan's cohorts.

    ______________________________________________________________________________________

    BUT OF COURSE ABC NEWS CONNECTS ONLY THE US FOR THE ATTACKS IN IRAN


    ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran     

    April 03, 2007 5:25 PM

    Brian Ross and Christopher Isham Report:

    Iran_militant_group_nr A Pakistani tribal militant group responsible for a series of deadly guerrilla raids inside Iran has been secretly encouraged and advised by American officials since 2005, U.S. and Pakistani intelligence sources tell ABC News.

    The group, called Jundullah, is made up of members of the Baluchi tribe and operates out of the Baluchistan province in Pakistan, just across the border from Iran. 

    It has taken responsibility for the deaths and kidnappings of more than a dozen Iranian soldiers and officials.

    U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or "finding" as well as congressional oversight.

    Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states.

    Click Here for Full Blotter Coverage.

    Jundullah has produced its own videos showing Iranian soldiers and border guards it says it has captured and brought back to Pakistan.

    The leader, Regi, claims to have personally executed some of the Iranians.

    "He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist," said Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counterterrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant who recently met with Pakistani officials and tribal members.

    "Regi is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerrilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnapping them, executing them on camera," Debat said.

    Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least 11 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard riding on a bus in the Iranian city of Zahedan.

    Last month, Iranian state television broadcast what it said were confessions by those responsible for the bus attack.

    They reportedly admitted to being members of Jundullah and said they had been trained for the mission at a secret location in Pakistan.

    The Iranian TV broadcast is interspersed with the logo of the CIA, which the broadcast blamed for the plot.

    A CIA spokesperson said "the account of alleged CIA action is false" and reiterated that the U.S. provides no funding of the Jundullah group.

    Pakistani government sources say the secret campaign against Iran by Jundullah was on the agenda when Vice President Dick Cheney met with Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf in February.

    A senior U.S. government official said groups such as Jundullah have been helpful in tracking al Qaeda figures and that it was appropriate for the U.S. to deal with such groups in that context.

    Some former CIA officers say the arrangement is reminiscent of how the U.S. government used proxy armies, funded by other countries including Saudi Arabia, to destabilize the government of Nicaragua in the 1980s.

    All Credit ABC News and Brian Ross http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/04/abc_news_exclus.html
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    News Busters' Report on ABC Report and News Busters Bloggers Comments
     

    Day After Highlighting Iran's Nuclear Threat, ABC Exposes 'Secret War' to Avert It

    Posted by Brent Baker on April 3, 2007 - 19:41.

    A night after leading with an “exclusive” about the more imminent than thought horrific threat posed by Iran's nuclear weapons capability, ABC's World News began Tuesday with another Brian Ross “exclusive” in which he exposed a clandestine “secret war” inside Iran, a revelation that seemingly could undermine U.S. efforts to prevent Iran's extremist leaders from using those weapons of mass destruction. “Tonight,” anchor Charles Gibson announced at the top of Monday's World News, “an alarming acceleration of Iran's nuclear program. Iran could have material for a bomb in two years. A Brian Ross exclusive.” Ross soon explained how “in the last three months Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium -- meaning, according to weapons experts, that it could have enough material for a nuclear bomb within two years...”

    Jump ahead 24 hours, and Gibson teased Tuesday's World News: “Tonight, a secret war going on inside Iran. Deadly stealth attacks in Iran, being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. government. Brian Ross investigates.” Ross outlined how “U.S. and Pakistani sources tell ABC News that the U.S. has been secretly advising and encouraging a militant group that has carried out a series of guerrilla raids inside Iran, raids that have led to the deaths or capture of Iranian soldiers and officials. The group operates out of the Baluchistan province of Pakistan, just across the border from Iran.” Naturally, ABC managed to make a connection to Dick Cheney as Ross relayed: “Pakistani sources say the secret campaign against Iran was on the agenda when Vice President Cheney met with Pakistani President Musharaff in February.”

    Gibson led the April 3 World News:

    “Good evening. We have an exclusive report tonight on efforts to undermine the government of Iran. Efforts undertaken with the knowledge of the U.S. government. Our chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross, has uncovered a U.S. intelligence connection to a militant group in Pakistan that is conducting raids across that country's border with Iran, raids that in some cases, have been deadly. The purpose of those attacks, to destabilize Iran. Brian is here, tonight, with details. Brian?”

    Ross elaborated: “Charlie, U.S. and Pakistani sources tell ABC News that the U.S. has been secretly advising and encouraging a militant group that has carried out a series of guerrilla raids inside Iran, raids that have led to the deaths or capture of Iranian soldiers and officials. The group operates out of the Baluchistan province of Pakistan, just across the border from Iran. The group, made up of Baluchi tribesmen, has produced its own videos showing Iranian soldiers and border guards it says it has captured and brought back to Pakistan. U.S. government sources say the U.S. provides no direct funding of the group. But since 2005, has maintained ties to its youthful leader, this man, Abd el Malik Regi, who claims to have personally executed some of the Iranian captives.”

    Alexis Debat, ABC News consultant: “He used to fight with the Taliban. He's part drug smuggler, part Taliban, part Sunni activist.”

    Ross: “Alexis Debat, a senior fellow on counter-terrorism at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant, says tribal sources told him Regi and his group, called Jundullah, are getting money funneled through Iranian exiles who have connections to European and Gulf state countries.”

    Debat: “He is essentially commanding a force of several hundred guerilla fighters that stage attacks across the border into Iran on Iranian military officers, Iranian intelligence officers, kidnaping them, executing them on camera.”

    Ross: “Most recently, Jundullah took credit for an attack in February that killed at least eleven members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the city of Zehedan. Last month, Iranian state television broadcast what it said were confessions by those responsible for that bus attack. They reportedly admitted to being members of Jundullah and said they had been trained for the mission at a secret location in Pakistan.”

    Debat: “This absolutely could not happen without the approval at the most senior level of the Pakistani government.”

    Ross: “In fact, Pakistani sources say the secret campaign against Iran was on the agenda when Vice President Cheney met with Pakistani President Musharaff in February. The only relationship with the group that the U.S. intelligence will admit to for the record, is seeking its help in tracking al Qaeda figures in that part of Pakistan. Other than that, U.S. officials say only they do not provide direct funding to the group to attack Iran. Charlie.”

    Gibson, at anchor desk with Ross: “But, Brian, could a small group like this actually have an effect in destabilizing the Iranian government?”

    Ross: “There is a belief by U.S. officials, that this minority group, plus four or five other minority groups, if stirred up, could in fact destabilize and upset the Tehran central government, leading to a destabilization.”

    Gibson: “All right. Our chief investigative correspondent, Brian Ross. Brian will have more of his report later on Nightline."


    The April 2 posting of the Ross story on ABC News' “The Blotter” blog, “Exclusive: Iran Nuclear Bomb Could Be Possible by 2009,” by Brian Ross and Christopher Isham.

    The April 3 “The Blotter” posting of the Ross story, “ABC News Exclusive: The Secret War Against Iran,” by Brian Ross and Christopher Isham.

    Reader's Comments

    daveinboca Says:
    April 3, 2007 - 20:18

    I saw the Brian Ross piece tonight and missed the one Monday on Iranian nukes, but the ABC pieces fit into a good cop/bad cop sequence aiming to please both their traditional Dem audience and their newly acquired Repubs offended by NBC's leftward lurch and CBS's trenchant ultra-lib tropes.

    Anyone believing that the big network evening news shows are about mere journalistic values should simply open their wrists, since on TV the nearest thing to fair and balanced is FoxNews, but they pitch a bit to the right. It's all spin and torque and pitch and yawl and other kinds of diversions that the networks employ to play their audiences.

    josephsamuelson Says:
    April 3, 2007 - 20:29

    Holy shinto.

    Like bringing down the Ahmedinejad regime is a BAD thing.

    ABC is unbelievable.

    ABC ... the Rosie O'Donnell network.

    Ten7s Says:
    April 3, 2007 - 20:34

    Why would ABC report this? Its unlikely that ABC has accurate information. And even if it is accurate, its of no value to US to have everyone know it. These bozos can't keep their mouths shut to save their lives.

    Funny that they mention Pakistan and President Musharaff. He's under constant threat, and if he goes, there's a chance that the Islamists will have their hands on Pakistan's ample supply of nukes.

    SportPolitics Says:
    April 3, 2007 - 21:53

    What the idiots report after they blame Bush and the CIA, is that expatriates are hanging out in Gulf States and "Europe" ( leaving France or Germany unmentioned of course) ,and that THOSE PEOPLE are funding it.

    They never do ask if the EU nation giving them harbor is encouraging this behavior,helping fund this behavior,and lending intel to this behavior.

    Why not just instead attack GWB and the ol' hated nemesis as well - the CIA - who - if the msm'ers play it just right, and it looks like they have, the cia will soon be assaulted by thousands of raging left wing loons who claim the CIA is covertly funding terrorists and training terrorists to attack Iran and it's soldiers secretly, even as the USA claims it doesn't cooperate or negotiate with terrorists.

    Now, since that above is leftwardly established, this will be the first time the left actually admits those Baluchistan CIA controlled minions are "terrorists" and not Freedom Fighters, even though they attack Iranian military.

    LOL - It's all setup sweet for the lib lines, and if any nation in Europe is a help doing it, the msm will NEVER release anything about that - even when they hear it from the secret inside the US gov sources.

    It's still flat out forbidden to all msm'ers to admit that the French own the yellowcake mining ops in Niger... or that they bought and paid for the "forged documents".

    The msm are traitors on that alone.

    KC Mulville Says:
    April 4, 2007 - 10:15

    Read the report on ABC’s website. Brian Ross doesn’t say that the U.S. officials are the original source for the information. Instead, the original information came from Iranian television, which broadcast the confessions of captured guerillas. I can't help but wonder if Ross got the report from that Iranian broadcast, and then Ross asked U.S. officials (probably in the most oblique way) whether we are supporting such guerilla groups.

    • Note what the U.S. officials actually said. The U.S. doesn’t support these groups. Ross' report, however, sounds as if the U.S. officials confirmed that the U.S. is behind the backdoor arrangement, but Ross avoids saying that directly. He simply positions that accusation after quoting the officials.

    (A) "U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group ..."

    and then

    (B) "Tribal sources tell ABC News that money for Jundullah is funneled to its youthful leader, Abd el Malik Regi, through Iranian exiles who have connections with European and Gulf states."

    Notice that the phrase "the money for Jundullah" isn't overtly said to be American. It's simply (A) placed strategically after (B).

    • The CIA denies the relationship outright. However, Ross quotes former CIA agents that this “sounds like” proxy wars from the 1980s. That mentions the CIA and proxy wars in the same breath, even though the CIA denies any connection.
    • Notice that Ross never asked the VP office to confirm the report that Cheney discussed these groups on his visit to Pakistan.

    Now, about the motive. Iran has already been caught supporting raids against the U.S., and supplying more deadly explosives to pierce American armor. Obviously, they would like to see a moral equivalence between what they’re doing and what the Americans are doing. Then they broadcast this report on their television, obviously to assure their own people that they’re not the bad guys … and ABC picks it up!

    Instead of an example of great investigative journalism, someone needs to ask Ross if he simply repeated what he saw on Iranian TV.

    bigtimer Says:
    April 3, 2007 - 20:40

    I heard this question come up today to the President in the Rose Garden....

    I think it is time...well past time to do some very serious fighting with the democrat party and the communist media that is their spokesman.

    I have had it.

    The enemy within is not even trying to be subtle about it all anymore.

    War needs to be held here within....I do not care how anymore.

    dahliatravers Says:
    April 3, 2007 - 21:09

    There is no question that the government of Iran is dangerous, both to its own citizens and to the region. If this report is true, it is exactly how the government should be taken on - via internal destabilization. The Bush admin is to be applauded for taking this tack.

    However, it is disappointing and disturbing that ABC would report on this, thereby tipping off the enemy and further jeopardizing both the mission and the people involved.

    Prester John Says:
    April 3, 2007 - 21:13

    5 June 1944

    It's 6 PM in New York and welcome to ABC New Tonight.

    Tonight's lead story: Is tonight the night? According to unnamed US and British military sources in London, General Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces, decided late last night to order the long-expected Allied invasion of Occupied Europe. These same sources tell ABC News that the lead elements of three airborne divisions, two American and one British, are already in the air on their way to dropzones in an area of France that is generally assumed to be in Normandy. It is reported that General Eisenhower and his senior commanders are hoping that the recent bad weather, which has already delayed the invasion at least once, will lull the German command into a sense on complacency that will result in the occupying forces in France being surprised by the Allied invasion. Large numbers of transport ships have been seen leaving Portsmouth and other ports along the coast of southern England. They will likely link-up with a number of battleships and heavy cruisers that will provide first support to the invasion forces. Sources say the initial landings will likely be conducted by at least 6 Allied divisions, 3 of which will be the US 1st, 4th and 29th Divisions. ABC News has also been told that that a series of coded messages have already been transmitted to French resistance units in the invasion area and the rest of France to alert them to the imminent invasion and to execute prearranged plans to disrupt German communications, commit acts of sabotage against their supply lines, and to otherwise impair the German's ability to react to the invasion. In an additional attempt to divert German attention from the area of the French coast that is to be attacked, Allied air forces will continue the heavy bombardment of targets in the Pas de Calais area for at least the next 30 days. General George S. Patton, who the Germans have long expected to command American forces in the invasion, has been rumored to be in command of a phony army in the east of England that has been acting as a decoy to attract the attention of German intelligence assets. It is is unknown exactly how successful these efforts have been. US and Allied officials have been reluctant to disclose any additional information on the invasion other than to say that the next 24 hours will likely be the longest day of the war.

    dahliatravers Says:
    April 3, 2007 - 22:25

    Excellent.

    BD Says:
    April 3, 2007 - 22:30

    "Casualties were expected to be moderate in the initial invasion, but now... since this report they are expected to rise to the amazingly HIGH level.

    Indiana Joe Says:
    April 3, 2007 - 21:13

    It's gotten so that our enemies don't need a counter-intelligence department... they just need a TV set, or a subscription to the New York Times.

    Haven't we FINALLY reached the point of "aiding and abetting the enemy," or even "treason?" And if this sort of "reporting" doesn't qualify, what on Earth does?!?

    bigtimer Says:
    April 3, 2007 - 22:30

    Hi IJ...

    I totally agree as I guess you may have noticed in my sentiments above.

    Enough is enough...way past enough/

    Sonny Lykos Says:
    April 3, 2007 - 22:39

    Meanwhile no one cares because American Idol and Survivor are more important. Ahhhh...... the ignorant masses speak - or not!

    bigtimer Says:
    April 3, 2007 - 22:42

    You got that exactly right Sonny!

    Past pathetic.

    Woe to us all.

    pocomoco Says:
    April 4, 2007 - 00:17

    Sorry to tell y’all (that’s Texican for everybody), but this is old news. This, so called “secret war” inside Iran was reported years ago after the Shah was deposed, and, most probably, the U.S. was assisting it.

    To think that this is in some way "aiding and abetting the enemy” is ludicrous, because the mullahs have known of its existence for years.

    Also, do not be surprised if this was a news plant by the U.S. to create uncertainty within Mr. Alphabet Soup’s government. Remember, ‘in chaos there is great opportunity’.

    DebraJMSmith Says:
    April 4, 2007 - 02:16

    I believe that the main reason we are still in Iraq, is to keep physically close by Iran. And I believe Iran knows this. Iran is like the naughty child who is waiting to be out of eye-range of mom.

    Debra...

    Lilac Cotton Says:
    April 4, 2007 - 12:27

    I am so happy to have infiltrated the camp of morons.

    http://carmenisacat.blogspot.com/

    RJ Says:
    April 4, 2007 - 12:42

    Moonbat alert.

    Thanks for that sneering (but I'm sure it was an intelligent sneer) addition to the conversation, Lilac Cotton.

    I note your blog site link is a thoughtful and balanced analysis of the murdering Zionist jackals in Israel. I'm sure your intellectual power will raise the level of discourse around here.

    bassndude Says:
    April 4, 2007 - 12:50

    Iran transplant? Perhaps a member of hamas? The blog really focuses on the insane. Or is that stupidity? Your rants are jumbled and jejune. Very banal and inane. What are you, 12?

    Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

    liberal_bug_zapper Says:
    April 4, 2007 - 05:06

    We have traitors in our government. The only people who knew about this secret war have betrayed us. If these secret attacks are stopped, Iran nukes up and if they use those nukes. I am all for hunting down every person who leaked any information during this time, taking them before the President, and asking for their hanging. All we need is two people who know the traitor did it and they're a gonner. These people must be stopped.

    Just think, this treason could be the precursor to an all out nuclear exchange. This person or these persons who have betrayed us and leaked this information will be responsible for the deaths of millions. Is it not too much to imagine that if left in the government, that they will continue to betray until we and our children are all cinders and ash? Democrats and Liberals will stop at nothing for power... and that includes the destruction of this great country. They're of the mindset that if they can't have it, no one can.

    You know, only when we begin to try traitors for treason and begin executing the guilty will this stop. How long must we wait? For another 9/11, only with nukes? Will it happen in my city? Will it happen in one of your cities? Will it kill your children? If it does, will you only hold those who made the bomb and delivered it responsible, or will you also hold responsible, those who enabled the bomb makers and the delivery? We need to preempt these traitors before it's too late. It really just keeps getting worse and worse, and the treason keeps getting worse and worse.

    US public = Frog

    Treasonous Liberals and the damage they're doing = slowly boiling pot of water

    Anyone think I'm wrong?

    ____________________________________________________

    "To say that any people are not fit for freedom, is to make poverty their choice, and to say they had rather be loaded with taxes than not." ~ Thomas Paine

    foolnomore Says:
    April 4, 2007 - 10:32

    these people would push their grand-mother ,under, the bus to get the story ,they've all sold ,what souls that they had a long-long, time ago.

    Yet Jundullah suspected behind US consulate attack

    KARACHI: Investigators suspect the Islamic militant group Jundullah (Allah’s Brigade) carried out the suicide car bombing that killed a US diplomat and three other people in Karachi, an official said on Saturday.

    No group claimed responsibility for the bombing Thursday that some officials believed was timed for the eve of US President George W Bush’s visit to Pakistan.

    Investigators believe the bombing’s sophisticated planning seemed to point to Jundullah, also blamed for attacks on other US and Christian targets, said a police investigator, speaking on condition of anonymity.

    Guards tried to stop the bomber’s car at a checkpoint, but the attacker sped off and rammed into the diplomat’s SUV, killing the envoy and his Pakistani driver. A guard and woman nearby also died, and 52 people were injured.

    The official said that the attack’s planners were sophisticated enough to know that they couldn’t use an old car, commonly used in such bombings, because it would arouse suspicion in the upscale neighborhood, the official said.

    The bomber was driving a 2004 Toyota Corolla, reported stolen in May 2005 in Lahore, about 1,300 kilometres northeast of Karachi, the official said. Jundullah was accused in a 2004 attack on an army general, who survived, in Karachi, and 11 members of the group were sentenced to death last month in the assassination attempt.

    Jundullah has also been suspected of attacks on the US Consulate, a Christian Bible studies group, a peace concert by an Indian singer and a police station. AP March 5, 2006
    http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C03%5C05%5Cstory_5-3-2006_pg7_3
    __________________________________________________________________

    The dismantling process

    Four years after the catastrophic invasion of Iraq, Bush shows no sign of calling off his two-year campaign to destabilise Iran.

    During the build-up to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003, Colin Powell, United States secretary of state, reportedly told President Bush: "If you break it, you own it." He was referring to the multi-ethnic, multi-sectarian Iraq.

    Four years after the catastrophic invasion of Iraq, the wisdom of Powell's aphorism contrasts sharply with the pathetic inability of the Bush White House to make the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds of Iraq work together in harmony.

    But instead of learning from the debacle of Iraq, and desisting from destabilising another country in a volatile region, the Bush administration shows no sign of calling off its two-year old clandestine campaign to destabilise Iran.

    Revelations in the New Yorker and the Washington Post in January-February 2005 showed that the Pentagon had been flying drones over Iran since April 2004 for espionage. This had come about after the spying network established by the Central Intelligence Agency in Iran had been exposed and eliminated, according to James Risen, the New York Times reporter on national security, in his book State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration.

    Briefed by their experts on Iran, the American policy makers became aware that Iran is also multi-ethnic and multi-sectarian. So they saw an opportunity to weaken the Tehran government by funding and arming ethnic minorities on the ground that the regime's primary support comes from ethnic Persians.

    According to the CIA, relying on figures supplied by Iranian exiles, Persians are only 50% of the population. So, if the ethnic minorities can be roused to rebel against the central authority, the theocratic regime will be endangered.

    These figures are flawed, and the strategy based on them is dangerously misconceived.

    The
    ethnic composition of Iran is Persians, 65%; Azeris, 20%; Kurds 7%, Arabs 3%; Baluchis, 2%; Turkmen, 2.5%; and Armenian, 0.5%.

    Creating disaffection among Azeris is a non-starter. Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei is an Azeri speaker. An Azeri insurgency cannot take off without the active cooperation of Azerbaijan. There is no sign that the government in Baku wants to be part of this destabilising plan.

    In any case, the bond of Shia Islam that Azeris and Persians share is much stronger than any differences arising from the different languages the two communities speak.

    It is that segment of the Iranian population that follows Sunni Islam which provides a realistic chance of engaging in insurgency. Among them the predominantly Sunni, yet secular, Kurds are pre-eminent. Ever since the
    Islamic revolution in 1979, a section of the Kurdish community concentrated in the area adjoining the Iraqi Kurdistan has been up in arms against the theocratic regime in Tehran.

    In recent years the Komala-e Jian Kordestan (Association of Revival of Kurdistan; also known as Kurdistan Free Life party), has emerged as an insurgent group. It is allied with the Kurdistan Workers party of Turkey. Taking refuge in the mountains of the Iraqi Kurdistan, the two factions have been engaged in violent activity against their respective governments.

    According to the Turkish sources, cited by
    the Guardian, the US is funding and indirectly arming the Komala-e Jian Kordestan.

    The CIA also seems to be aiding dissident groups - albeit through proxies - in the Iranian province of Baluchistan-Sistan adjoining Pakistan. A faction, called Sipah-e Rasul Allah (Soldiers of God's Messenger), and headed by Wahid Baksh, has been conducting a campaign of bombing, shooting and kidnapping. Baksh claims that Sunnis are being persecuted in Iran.

    A more militant faction, named Jundullah (Army of God), has resorted to car bombings and kidnapping and beheading Iranian soldiers.

    According to Iranian exile sources in Pakistan, Junduallah recently received a large consignment of arms and vehicles. "They are getting money from somewhere," said one source. "We heard that it's coming from Americans."

    Washington denies the allegation. But leading Iranian exile leaders from Dubai and Britain have visited the area regularly to deliver funds - which most likely originate from the CIA.

    The ethnic Arab minority, concentrated in the oil-rich province of Khuzistan which shares its border with Iraq, is another community which has tempted the CIA. Acts of violence in the province are attributed to disaffected ethnic Arabs.

    Let us suppose the Bush administration's strategy of encouraging armed insurgencies by ethnic minorities succeeds in creating mayhem in Iran. Do its policy makers have a plan to put Humpty Dumpty back together?
    http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/dilip_hiro/2007/04/riding_tigers.html
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    BLA commander among 18 miscreants arrested from Mand

    Thursday March 15, 2007 (0040 PST)

     

    QUETTA, March 14 (Online): Frontier Corps Balochistan in a crack down against miscreants rounded up eighteen miscreants including central commander of Balochistan Liberation Army on Wednesday after a brief clash in the gas-rich province of Balochistan. Wahid Baksh Qambar is a leader of the banned Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA), a shadowy insurgent group fighting for control of the province's gas resources was arrested after skirmishes in Tump area near Mand near the border with Iran, 640 km (400 miles) southwest of the provincial capital, Quetta. Qambar and his men were hiding there and when security forces intercepted they opened fire and after three hours of operation the miscreants surrendered. The arrested miscreants have been identified as Dilip, Faiz Mohammad, Hamid Khan and others. Huge cache of arms and ammunition was also recovered from their possession.

    End.


    ______________________________________________________________________________________
    Shia-Sunni Violence Spreads in Iran

    Inter Press Service News Agency
    February 20, 2007
    Kimia Sanati
    A week after alleged Sunni militants blew up a vehicle transporting members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), killing 11 and injuring 18, sectarian tension is reported prevailing in the predominantly Sunni southeast that borders Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    The car bomb attack in Zahedan, capital of the southeastern province of Sistan va Baluchistan, was attributed by Iranian officials to the Sunni militant group Jundullah (army of god) that has networks in Pakistan and is fighting to establish a unified, independent Baluchistan. It is regarded as a terrorist organisation by both Iran and Pakistan.

    On Monday, Nasrollah Shanbezehi, one of four men captured soon after they set off the car bomb, was hanged at the site of the blast. Nasrollah was earlier shown on local state-run TV channels confessing to the bombing and having crossed over from Pakistan a few days before the attack on the IRGC.

    Despite efforts by the Iranian government to contain the spread of religious sectarianism within the country, Jundullah has carried out several terrorist attacks in the province, including the assassination of four policemen earlier this month. It is allegedly responsible for the kidnapping and assassination of a number of clerics and officials and a bloody road massacre in Kerman province last year.

    Jundullah, also called 'Popular Iranian Resistance Movement', has accepted responsibility for the attacks. In a press release dated Feb. 14 and posted on the Internet as well as in interviews with radios and satellite TV channels outside Iran, the leader of the group, Abdul Malik Rigi, said the operations were carried out in retaliation for the execution of its members by the Iranian regime.

    The self-styled 24-year-old militant from Baluchistan's Rigi tribe goes by the title 'Emir Abdul Malik Baluch,' and professes peaceful methods as long as Tehran follows the same principle. "But in the face of the regime's violent response to peaceful protests, there has remained no other way than to resort to taking up arms,'' the press release said.

    Following the attack, a senior security official in Zahedan said the terrorist operation had been directed "from abroad" and that arms and a powerful bomb had been recovered from a hideout raided by the police the night before the car bombing, Iranian Labor News Agency (ILNA) reported.

    In his short confession, Nasrollah said he had been recruited by Jundullah only three months ago and had undergone two months of training in Pakistan under 'English-speaking' instructors. He said he had been promised a reward of around 1,000 US dollars by the group and that his only motivation was money.

    The name of Jundullah, said to be a splinter of Jundullah of Pakistan, first emerged after a hostage-taking incident in the Sistan va Baluchistan province in January 2006 when militants abducted nine members of IRGC. The hostages were allegedly moved to Pakistan.

    Footage aired by the Al-Arabiya satellite TV channel later showed the hostages who Jundullah said would be executed unless 16 of their members in Iranian jails were freed.

    One of the hostages, an IRGC officer, was later executed by the group and the footage was offered to Al-Arabiya but the channel declined to air it. The others were later released through 'negotiations', with the government denying that it paid any ransom.

    In March 2006 members of the group dressed in police uniforms attacked the motorcade of the governor of Zahedan, killing 22 members of his entourage on the spot and abducting 12 more. The governor himself was badly wounded but survived.

    Hossein Ali Shahriari, who represents Zahedan in parliament, has accused Western governments of not doing enough to get Pakistan to stop allowing militant groups from operating from its territory. Shahriari accused the United States, Britain and Pakistan of assisting Jundullah to foment sectarian violence in Iran, the Aftab News Agency reported.

    But Shahriari also blamed national security agencies of failing to establish security in the lawless province even after the recent attacks and suggested arming the local people and allowing them to participate in law enforcement as counter measure.

    Other Iranian officials have also pointed fingers at Pakistan and 'certain' Western countries. "They entered Iran from Pakistan and have carried out their attack with full support from Western powers. They are neither Shia nor Sunni, they are dependents of arrogant powers and are equipped and supported by them," Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) quoted a senior provincial security official as saying.

    Sistan va Baluchistan straddles the main drug-trafficking route from Afghanistan and Pakistan to Europe and is among the poorest and most lawless provinces in the country. Many locals resort to drug trafficking and smuggling in order to survive. Malnutrition is at critical level among the natives and the frustrated majority Sunni population is minimally involved in government decisions.

    "Frustration will naturally drive desperate locals to groups such as Rigi's as long as poverty, the main problem in the province, remains unsolved. Sectarian discrimination, no doubt, is also another contributing factor but those arrested so far mostly belong to impoverished groups in Baluchistan and have no support among Sunni intellectuals. The Iranian government bears equal responsibility. The IRGC and its militia wing (Basij) practically rule the area," a political analyst in Tehran told IPS, asking not to be identified.

    "There is clearly a sectarian war going on in the Islamic world. Iraq was not the starter, but was certainly a catalyst. Scores are now being settled in places other than the main battle field and Iranian Baluchistan is one of them. There were bloody stand-offs between the regime and militant Sunnis as early in the early 1990s when al-Qaeda and Sunni extremists were becoming hugely active in Pakistan and Afghanistan,'' the analyst said. (END/2007)

    http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/iran/4477.html_____________________________________________________________________________________

    Reflections on the Iranian hostage conflict and current problems with Iran

    by Hibernianscribe

    Kulao, Pakistan close to the Iranian border echoed to the sound of AK47 gunfire and smoke clearly indicating that Wahid Baksh, Iran's most wanted man had a battle on his hands last week. Pakistan's elite anti-terrorist squad sealed off roads and opened fire on Baksh's heaviy guarded compound, overran the defenders and captured 5 of his men and ransacked his home. Baksh (47) is the leader of Sipah e Rasool Allah (Army of the Prophet), the largest of 3 armed Iranian dissident groups waging a hidden war against Iran's Shi'ite Government, which they accuse of persecuting the Sunni minority.

    During the last 3 months the Iranian dissidents have bombed and kidnapped Iranian troops in Sisian-Baluchistan province which borders Pakistan.

    This offensive worries Iran, presently preoccupied with a U.S. militay build up in the Gulf and U.N. sanctions over its uranium enrichment programme. Teheran fears the U.S. will use the dissidents in Sistan-Baluchistan province as a base for future operations. Last week, Maj.Gen. Yahya Rahim Safavi, the Commander-in Chief of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps acused the U.S. and Israel of funding the rebels. Certainly, there has been an increase in funding from London and Dubai.

    Last month, Iran executed Nasrullah Shanbe Zehi a member of the Jundullah (Party of God) a Sunni militant group, he confessed to car bombings and admitted he was trained in Pakistan. Pakistan responded to Iranian pressure by attacking Baksh's armed compound.

    Baksh claims 200 Iranian Sunnis were hanged as dissidents in Iran this year and that his group is entirely alone in opposing Iran. Meanwhile Jundullah a group that has a reputation for savagery has recently acquired a large contingent of weapons and vehicles from Sunni groups based in the U.K., Dubai and Norway.

    Is the United States involved?

    ALL CREDIT TO  Hibernianscribe AT http://www.helium.com/tm/198680/kulao-pakistan-close-iranian

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Nancy Pelosi In Syria Looking For Saddam's WMD? Or Is There Some Other Ridiculous Reason.

    "A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq's WMD located in three Syrian sites" 



    US House of Representatives Speaker, Nancy Pelosi

     

    i

    SYRIA: U.S. CONGRESS LEADER'S VISIT RILES MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD








    Damascus, 3 April (AKI) - The Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood on Tuesday condemned new US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria. Pelosi shook the hands with "the president (Syria's Basher al-Assad) of one of the worst repressive, totalitarian regimes," the dissident Brotherhood said in a statement.

    Syria "still carries out political arrests and torture...and is responsible for the disappearance of thousands of dissidents as well as the forced exile of many others," a Brotherhood leader, Ali Sadr al-Din al-Bayanuni, said in the statement.

    Another Syrian opposition group, the US-based the Reform Party of Syria, also criticised Pelosi't trip to Damascus.

    "We believe that dialogue with violent dictators harbouring terrorists sends the wrong signal about the US commitment to freedom; especially when dialogue has been tried on many occasions with no results to speak of," the party said in a statement posted on their Internet site.

    The White House has also criticised the visit by Pelosi a Democrat who was elected Speaker after her party captured the US Congress from President George W. Bush's Republicans in Congressional elections late last year.

    The visit was "a very bad idea," the White House said.

    Bush has turned down recommendations by a bi-partisan Iraq Study Group that the US engage with Syria and Iran - both described by Washington in the past as "rogue states" - to find a way of ending the violence in Iraq.  

    (Baw/Aki)

    Apr-03-07 16:02

         
    http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.401517786&par=0


    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    Syria WMD Programs Locations
    36°02'02"N 37°21'03"E

    Open sources report that there are at least three Syrian facilities currently engaged in producing Chemical Weapons, located near Damascus, Hama, and Safira village (in the Aleppo area).

    A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq's WMD located in three Syrian sites

    Check the translation of this letter from Arabic to English .Read article

    WMD MAP in syria

    copy of the original letter sent out from syria

     

    .

    The Following information were taken from GlobalSecurity.org

    Click on the small image to view a larger version

    Syria Map General View
    Overview of the Middle East with Syria in the center
    Syria WMD Locations
    Al Safir SCUD Base and Weapons Depot, Syria
    Syria SCUD Base Location
    Tactical Pilotage Chart with NIMA CIB imagery overlay showing the general location of the Al Safir SCUD base
    Syria Al Safir
    Tactical Pilotage Chart with NIMA CIB imagery overlay showing Al Safir
    Syria Chemical weapons plant
    Russian 1:200,00 Map of the Al Safir chemical weapons plant and storage area as of 1980
    Syira Chemical WMD
    The CW plant and storage area in the western canyon are visible. The munitions storage area would not be detected until 1987. Work on the underground SCUD base would not be visible until 1995. Completion of the Tunnel complex and the SCUD support base was detected in the July 2002 Digital Globe image
    Syria WMD 1987
    Russian 1:50,000 Map of the Al Safir Scud base as of 1987
    Syria WMD 1994
    Syrian 1:50,000 Map as of 1994. The omission of the facility from the Syrian government's map is a sure indicator that the facility is of military nature
    Scud Base
    Digital Globe image taken on 30 July 2002 of the Al Safir CW plant and SCUD base. Al Safir is protected by an SA-2 SAM battery
    SCUD BAse Syira
    Overview of the probable SCUD support base and underground facility. A munitions storage area lies to the right
    Syria WMD munition
    Close-up of the munitions storage area. Additional storage bunkers have been added between 1987 and 1995
    Syria missile site
    An Russian-build SA-2 surface-to-air-missile site, defending the storage area and underground facility
    SA-2 SAM Syria close up
    Close-up of the SA-2 SAM site with Guideline missiles on launchers, Fan Song Radar, and Control Vans. Cable are visible running from the command van to the launchers
    Chemical Weapons plant - Syria
    Overview of the Al Safir chemical weapons plant. Expansion took place between 1987 and 1995
    Nervew Agent Plant Syria
    This high-voltage sub-station is an indicator of the presence of activity requiring a large volume of electricity. A normal warehouse complex would not require this much energy
    Nerve Agent Plant- Syria
    These forced-air cooling towers also indicate the presence of an industrial process requiring the disposal of waste heat. Chemical processes for nerve agents produce highly unstable intermediates that react explosively with water. Steam-heating and water cooling must be replaced with special heat-exchange fluids and heating oils that require the use of cooling towers rather than steam vents
    Syria WMD
    The co-location of munitions storage igloos within the security perimeter of the processing facility is an additional indicator of the Chemical weapons nature of this plant
    Syria WMD Storage
    The lower storage igloos were added sometime between 1995 and 2002
    Syria- Underground WMD
    The munitions storage area on the right was built sometime between 1980 and 1987. The buildings on the left are probably associated with SCUD missiles deployed underground and were built after 1995.
    Syria Storage of WMD
    These storage igloos are located at a separate facility, which was built between 1980 and 1987
    Underground WMD- Syria
    Between 1995 and 2002 an Underground Facility (UGF) was built as well as above-ground support facilities, possibly to house SCUD-D missiles Syria reportedly acquired in 19XX.

    These buildings were built after 1995 and are probably associated with SCUD missiles housed underground. The large building measures 30 x 130 meters
    Iraq WMD in syria in Tunnel
    A probable command and control facility, located near the tunnel entrances to an underground facility where the Weapons of Mass Destruction are hidden.
    Syria WMD Underground tunnel- Iraq WMD
    The Tunnel entrances are protected by the box canyon walls, from direct attack from precision-guided munitions. Each of the three tunnel portals is more than wide enough to accommodate the Soviet-build MAZ-543 transporter for the SCUD missile

    The above information were taken from GlobalSecurity.org

    copyright 2LA.org

    Credit: DigitalGlobe . Copyright (c) DigitalGlobe. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Contact DigitalGlobe for media permission or purchase at 1 (800) 496-1225 or info@digitalglobe.com .
    DigitalGlobe is not affiliated with 2LA.org.

    http://www.2la.org/syria/wmd.html 


    _____________________________________________________________________________________Saddam general: WMDs in Syria
    Another former confidant of ex-dictator makes claim, also links Iraq to al-Qaida

    Posted: February 15, 2006
    1:00 a.m. Eastern


    © 2006 WorldNetDaily.com


    Saddam Hussein
    A former general and friend of Saddam Hussein who defected but maintains close contact with Iraq claims the regime supported al-Qaida with intelligence, finances and munitions and believes weapons of mass destruction are hidden in Syria.

    Ali Ibrahim al-Tikriti, southern regional commander for Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen militia in the late 1980s, spoke with Ryan Mauro of WorldThreats.com.

    Known as the "Butcher of Basra," al-Tikriti commanded units that dealt with chemical and biological weapons. He defected shortly before the Gulf War in 1991.

    Last month, Saddam Hussein's No. 2 Air Force officer, Georges Sada, told the New York Sun Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were moved to Syria six weeks before the war started. Sada claimed two Iraqi Airways Boeing jets converted to cargo planes moved the weapons in a total of 56 flights. They attracted little attention, he said, because they were thought to be civilian flights providing relief from Iraq to Syria, which had suffered a flood after a dam collapse in 2002.

    Discussing Saddam's support of terrorism, al-Tikriti said the dictator's regime sponsored Palestinian groups with logistical and material support.

    For a time, support for al-Qaida was limited, the former general said, mainly because al-Qaida's aim was to create an Islamic empire while Saddam wanted a secular Arab nationalist empire.

    "They only really came to terms in the mid '90s due to the fact that both knew they shared the same short-term enemy," the general said. "Once they came to terms on this, Saddam provided al-Qaida with intelligence support and whatever money or munitions they could provide."

    Al-Tikriti said Saddam "had very long-standing contacts in the black market as well as with Moscow and would provide whatever munitions he could through these contacts."

    The secular Baathists and radical Islamists certainly are able to put aside their differences to cooperate against the U.S., he insisted.

    "If you look in Iraq today, you are witnessing Arab nationalist terrorist organizations and Islamist terrorist organizations working together to fight the United States."

    Al-Tikriti dismissed the commonly heard claim that the U.S. helped bring Saddam to power, calling it "absolutely ludicrous."

    The Baathist revolution, he said, was backed by the Soviet Union because of the shared socialist ideology.

    "I was there helping with the revolution and worked on two occasions with Soviet KGB officials to help train us, much like the United States did with the Taliban during the Soviet campaign in Afghanistan," he said. "The United States never directly gave us any WMDs but rather ingredients. They were not mixed and these 'ingredients' could have been easily used for commercial use but were rather used to build low life chemical weapons."

    Al-Tikriti says he knows Saddam's weapons are in Syria because of contingency plans established as far back as the late 1980s, in the event either Damascus or Baghdad were taken over.

    "Not to mention, I have discussed this in-depth with various contacts of mine who have confirmed what I already knew," he said.

    Saddam, after lying for so many years, knew the U.S. eventually would come for the weapons, he said, and wanted to maintain legitimacy with pan-Arab nationalists.

    Also, he had "wanted since he took power to embarrass the West, and this was the perfect opportunity to do so," al-Tikriti said.

    "After Saddam denied he had such weapons, why would he use them or leave them readily available to be found?" he said. "That would only legitimize President Bush, who he has a personal grudge against."

    What we are witnessing now, he said, "is many who opposed the war to begin with are rallying around Saddam saying we overthrew a sovereign leader based on a lie about WMD. This is exactly what Saddam wanted and predicted."

    Al-Tikriti said he turned against the Baath Party after his wife stood up to him and questioned his brutal tactics.

    "This really made me think, because no one has ever even considered to question the tactics of myself or any others and lived to tell about it," he said. "This courageous move made me think deep and hard."

    Al-Tikriti said he still maintains good sources inside and outside of Iraq.

    "Some of Saddam's key scientists are personal friends of mine, as well as other key leaders in the former Iraqi military," he said. "I have helped draw information since my defecting to the United States government voluntarily and with the permission of these contacts. The only difference between many of them and I, is that I had the opportunity to defect and they didn't."

    Previous stories:

    New evidence on Saddam's WMDs?

    Duelfer: 'A lot of material left Iraq and went to Syria'

    Is this one of Saddam's mobile bio-weapons labs?

    Inspector: Saddam had WMD on 'short notice'

    Saddam's WMD have been found

    Secret intelligence memolinks Saddam, bin Laden


    http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827_____________________________________________________________________Russia Moved Iraqi WMD
    Charles R. Smith
    Thursday, March 3, 2005
    Moscow Moved Weapons to Syria and Lebanon

    According to a former top Bush administration official, Russian special forces teams moved weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq to Syria.

    "I am absolutely sure that Russian Spetsnatz units moved WMD out of Iraq before the war," stated John Shaw, the former deputy undersecretary for international technology security.

    Story Continues Below

     

    According to Shaw, Russian units hid Saddam's arsenal inside Syria and in Lebanon's Bekka valley.

    "While in Iraq I uncovered detailed information that Spetsnatz units shredded records and moved all WMD and specified advanced munitions out of Iraq to Syria and Lebanon," stated Shaw during an exclusive interview.

    "I received information from several sources naming the exact Russian units, what they took and where they took both WMD materials and conventional explosives. Moscow made a 2001 agreement with Saddam Hussein to clear up all Russian involvement in WMD systems in Iraq," stated Shaw.

    Shaw's assertions match the information provided by U.S. military forces that satellite surveillance showed extensive large-vehicle traffic crossing the Syrian border prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

    Moscow Paranoid About WMD

    Shaw's information also backs allegations by a wide variety of sources of Russia's direct involvement in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. One U.N. bioterrorism expert announced that Russia has been Iraq's "main supplier of the materials and know-how to weaponize anthrax, botulism and smallpox."

    Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Robert Goldberg cited former U.N. weapons inspector Richard Spertzel, who stated that Moscow supplied Baghdad with fermentation equipment to produce biotoxins.

    According to Spertzel, the Russians on the U.N. inspection team in Iraq were "paranoid" about his efforts to uncover smallpox production.

    Goldberg noted that no country has "done more to rebuild" Saddam's chemical and biological weapons programs or "been more aggressive in helping hide the truth" than Russia.

    It is a fact that Saddam Hussein rose to power backed by Russian weapons and Russian money. Saddam was in debt to Moscow for over $8 billion for the arms he purchased from Russia when he was captured by U.S. forces.

    The primary Iraqi chemical weapons were VX nerve gas and mustard gas, a blistering agent, both obtained from Russia.

    According to the book "Russian Military Power," published in 1982, "It is known that the Soviets maintain stocks of CW (chemical weapons) agents."

    The two primary Russian chemical weapons in the 1982 Soviet inventory were the nerve agent "VX" and "blistering agents - developments of mustard gas used so effectively in World War I."

    Russian Chemical Weapons in Iraq

    Iraq did most of its WMD killing using Russian-made MiG and Sukhoi aircraft equipped with chemical sprayers. In addition, Saddam used French-made artillery and helicopters to dump gas on Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurds.

    Iraq obtained Russian delivery systems and the same inventory of Russian-made chemical weapons at the same time. Iraqi SU-22 Fitter attack jets were armed with Warsaw Pact-designed bombs filled with chemical weapons. Iraq used these Russian jet fighters to drop chemical weapons on Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war.

    Iraq tried to use these SU-22 jets during the 1991 Gulf War, but they were detected and destroyed on the ground before they could launch a deadly chemical attack.

    Other Russian weapons found with chemical weapons include the FROG-7 missile, 122 mm rockets, 152 mm artillery and the M-1937 82 mm mortars. All the Iraqi artillery missiles, rockets, shells and mortar rounds filled with chemical weapons are of Russian design.

    Iraqi forces were trained by Russians in the use of chemical weapons and equipped by Russia with anti-chemical suits. The Iraqi armed forces were trained, equipped and supplied with the proper logistics to perform chemical warfare by Russia.

    Lebanon and Syria

    The arming of Iraq with such weapons has a direct impact on events today in the Middle East. The presence of former Iraqi WMD systems in Lebanon raises serious questions surrounding the Feb. 14 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Many blame Syria for Hariri's murder.

    However, the possibility that Hariri discovered the location of the Iraqi WMD systems inside his country lends some credible backing to a Syrian assassination effort to silence him.

    In addition, the sudden sale of advanced missile and other weapons to Damascus by Moscow also supports the allegation that Syria is hiding something for Russia.

    Russian weapons makers have previously insisted on hard, cold cash payments for their missiles, especially after the fall of Saddam and the collapse of credit deals done with Baghdad. More importantly, the Syrian economy is in bad shape, making it difficult for Damascus to come up with the required money for advanced Russian weapons.

    Instead, it now appears that Moscow has extended both very good terms and no down payment required to Syria for an extensive purchase of advanced missiles and weapons. This is in contrast to weapons sales to other "good" Russian customers such as China, which can afford to pay up front for weapon systems.

    CIA Failed

    There is no question that the Russian effort to remove Iraqi WMD systems was the most successful intelligence operation of the 21st century. The Russians were able to move hundreds of tons of chemical, biological and nuclear materials without being discovered by CIA satellites or NSA radio listening posts.

    "There is a clear sense on how effective they were," noted Shaw.

    "The fact that the CIA did not know shows just how successful the Russian operation was," he concluded

    http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/2/230625.shtml
    _____________________________________________________________________________________

    THE NEW YORK SUN

    December 15, 2005 Edition > Section: Foreign > Printer-Friendly Version

    Saddam's WMD Moved to Syria, An Israeli Says

    BY IRA STOLL - Staff Reporter of the Sun
    December 15, 2005
    URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/24480

    Saddam Hussein moved his chemical weapons to Syria six weeks before the war started, Israel's top general during Operation Iraqi Freedom says.

    The assertion comes as President Bush said yesterday that much of the intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was incorrect.

    The Israeli officer, Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, asserted that Saddam spirited his chemical weapons out of the country on the eve of the war. "He transferred the chemical agents from Iraq to Syria," General Yaalon told The New York Sun over dinner in New York on Tuesday night. "No one went to Syria to find it."

    From July 2002 to June 2005, when he retired, General Yaalon was chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force, the top job in the Israeli military, analogous to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the American military. He is now a military fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. He made similar, but more speculative, remarks in April 2004 that attracted little notice in America; at that time he was quoted as saying of the Iraqi weapons, "Perhaps they transferred them to another country, such as Syria."

    The Israeli general's remarks came on the eve of Mr. Bush's speech to the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, in which the president addressed the issue of intelligence and defended the decision to go to war. "When we made the decision to go into Iraq, many intelligence agencies around the world judged that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction. This judgment was shared by the intelligence agencies of governments who did not support my decision to remove Saddam. And it is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Mr. Bush said in remarks that were one of a series of speeches he has given recently on the war.

    Mr. Bush's defense of the war echoed themes he has been pressing since before the war began and through his successful campaign for re-election. "Given Saddam's history and the lessons of September the 11th, my decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat - and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power."

    An official at the Iraqi embassy in Washington, Entifadh Qanbar, said he believed the Israeli general's account, but that the Iraqi government is "basically operating in the dark" because it does not have its own intelligence agency. He said the issue underscored the need for the new Iraqi government to have control of its own intelligence service. "We don't have any way to find anything out about Syria because we don't have intelligence," Mr. Qanbar said. He said there is a high-rise building in Baghdad with 1,000 employees working on intelligence but that it has no budget appropriation from the Iraqi government and "doesn't report to the Iraqi government."

    "Nobody knows who it belongs to, but you should understand who it belongs to," he said, in what was apparently a reference to American involvement.

    An Iraqi politician, Mithal Al-Alusi, whose sons were both assassinated in Iraq last year, told The New York Sun's Eli Lake last month that his party would press the Iraqi government to renew the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Mr. Al-Alusi said he believes Saddam clearly had the weapons before the invasion. "They will find the weapons, I am sure they will," Mr. Al-Alusi said.

    A spokesman at the Syrian embassy in Washington did not return a call seeking comment. But General Yaalon's comment could increase pressure on the Syrian government that is already mounting from Washington and the United Nations. Mr. Bush has been keeping the rhetorical heat on Damascus. On Monday, he said in a speech, "Iraq's neighbor to the west, Syria, is permitting terrorists to use that territory to cross into Iraq."

    Also Monday, Mr. Bush issued a statement saying, "Syria must comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1559, 1595, and 1636 and end its interference in Lebanon once and for all. "The resolutions call for ending Syria's occupation of Lebanon and for Syrian cooperation into the investigation of the assassination of a Lebanese politician, Rafik Hariri.

    On Saturday, the White House issued a statement calling attention to Syrian prisoners of conscience such as Kamal Labwani. "The Syrian Government must cease its harassment of Syrians peacefully seeking to bring democratic reform to their country. The United States stands with the Syrian people in their desire for freedom and democracy," said the statement, issued in the name of the White House press secretary.

    Yesterday, the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, described Syria as an "oppressive regime." He also pointed to a recent report by a United Nations investigator looking into the assassination of Hariri. "The Syrian Government has failed to offer its full cooperation," Mr. McCormack said, citing the U.N. investigator's report that "details allegations of document burning by the Syrians, of intimidating witnesses."

    When, during an interview with the Sun in April, Vice President Cheney was asked whether he thought that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria, Mr. Cheney replied only that he had seen such reports.

    An article in the Fall 2005 Middle East Quarterly reports that in an appearance on Israel's Channel 2 on December 23, 2002, Israel's prime minister, Ariel Sharon stated, "Chemical and biological weapons which Saddam is endeavoring to conceal have been moved from Iraq to Syria." The allegation was denied by the Syrian government at the time as "completely untrue," and it attracted scant American press attention, coming as it did on the eve of the Christmas holiday.

    Syria shares a 376-mile border with Iraq. The Syrian ruling party and Saddam Hussein had in common the ideology of Baathism, a mixture of Nazism and Marxism.

    Syria is one of only eight countries that has not signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty that obligates nations not to stockpile or use chemical weapons. And it has long been the source of concern in America and Israel and Lebanon about its chemical warfare program apart from any weapons that may have been received from Iraq. The director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March of 2004, "Damascus has an active CW development and testing program that relies on foreign suppliers for key controlled chemicals suitable for producing CW."

    December 15, 2005 Edition > Section: Foreign > Printer-Friendly Version

    http://www.nysun.com/article/24480_

    _____________________________________________________________________________________Italian police uncover al-Qaeda link in Syria

    April 17 2003


    Syria has functioned as a hub for al-Qaeda operatives who moved Islamic extremists and money from Italy to north-eastern Iraq, where the recruits fought alongside the recently defeated Ansar al Islam terrorist group, according to an Italian investigation.

    The investigation, which began last year, could intensify the growing debate about Syria's alleged ties to terrorism.

    Two weeks ago, Italian police arrested seven alleged al-Qaeda operatives. They were charged with sending about 40 extremists through Syria to terrorist bases operated jointly by al-Qaeda and Ansar al Islam, whose stronghold in north-eastern Iraq was recently overrun by Kurdish and US troops.

    Transcripts of wiretapped conversations between the arrested suspects and others paint a detailed picture of overseers in Syria co-ordinating the movement of recruits and money between Europe and Iraq, according to court documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times. An Italian judicial order dated March 31 said the conversations showed that a Kurdish spiritual leader, identified as Mullah Fuad, was the respected "gatekeeper in Syria for volunteers intent on reaching Iraq".

    Mullah Fuad and others based near Damascus gave orders to the suspects in Italy, according to authorities.
    ");document.write("  advertisement

    "); } } // -->
       advertisement
      
       advertisement

    Italian investigators say they have no evidence that the Syrian Government was aware of the network or protected it. Still, the activity of the alleged terrorist network raises questions because Damascus has aggressive security services that would likely be aware of extremists operating in the country.

    "We are not interested in the politics of it," an Italian law enforcement official said. "The investigation shows that there were several leaders in Syria - that's the bottom line."

    Syria has helped the US-led crackdown on al-Qaeda that began after the September 11 attacks. In an unusual act of co-operation with US authorities, Syrian agents in late 2001 arrested and interrogated a Syrian-German suspect accused of recruiting Mohamed Atta and other September 11 hijackers. Yet Syria also has long been accused of aiding and protecting Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.

    As rumblings of a coming US war on Iraq increased last year, Italian police detected increased phone contact between suspects in Italy and the Ansar al Islam terrorist training camps in Iraq.

    The conversations soon indicated the route to the terrorist stronghold in Kurdistan led through Syria.

    Italian investigators are still trying to identify Mullah Fuad and the other suspects in Syria.

    In addition to the mullah, the Italians are keenly interested in a North African suspect in Syria named Abderrazak. He figured in wiretapped conversations with two of the arrested suspects, Cabdullah Ciise, a Somali who allegedly has ties to the attacks on Israeli tourists in Kenya last November, and Mohamed Daki, an accused Moroccan document forger who is an admitted associate of members of the Hamburg cell that plotted the September 11 attacks. Abderrazak could also have ties to the Hamburg cell, Italian investigators say.

    Los Angeles Times

    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/16/1050172655079.html
    ______________________________________________________________________________________




    Today's date: Tuesday, 3 April 2007
     Human Rights Watch Annual Reports
    Human Rights Watch World Report 2006 - Syria

    Syria's human rights situation is poor, and showed little or no improvement in 2005. Emergency rule, imposed in 1963, remains in effect, despite public calls by Syrian reformers for its repeal. In June, a state security court acquitted Aktham Na`issa, president of the Committees for the Defence of Democratic Liberties and Human Rights in Syria, of charges that he opposed "the objectives of the revolution" and disseminated "false information" aimed at "weakening the State," but the authorities continue to harass and imprison other human rights defenders and non-violent critics of government policies. The government strictly limits freedom of expression, association, and assembly. Thousands of political prisoners, many of them members of the banned Muslim Brotherhood and the Communist Party, remained in detention. Syrian Kurds, the country's largest ethnic minority, continued to protest their treatment as second-class citizens. Women face legal as well as societal discrimination, and have little means for redress when they are victims of sexual abuse or domestic violence.

    The February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri sharply intensified international pressure on the Syrian government. Bowing to this as well as Lebanese popular pressure, Syria withdrew its troops from Lebanon on April 26.

    Arbitrary Detention, Torture, and "Disappearances"

    In March 2005, the government released 312 political prisoners. They included Muhannad al-Dibs and Muhammad `Arab, Damascus University students, whom the Supreme State Security Court (SSSC) had just sentenced to three years in jail for organizing a protest against the suspension of two Aleppo University students; they were convicted of "resistance" and "support of goals contrary to the revolution." On November 2, the government freed a further 190 political prisoners as part of its "overall reforms." Among those released in the second group were `Ali Abdullah, a member of the Atasi political discussion forum, and Muhammad Ra`dun, president of the Arab Organization for Human Rights (AOHR), as well as members of "Islamist organizations." Security forces had arrested Abdullah on May 16 for his suspected ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and Ra`dun on May 22 for his affiliation with the AOHR and for allegedly publishing false information.

    Dr. `Arif Dalila, a prominent economics professor and a proponent of political liberalization, continues to serve a ten-year prison term imposed in July 2002 for his non-violent criticism of government policies. Ma'mun al-Humsi, a democracy activist and former member of parliament, is serving a five-year jail term for "attempting to change the constitution." The London-based Syrian Human Rights Committee (SHRC) estimates that about four thousand political prisoners remain in detention in Syria. The authorities refuse to divulge information regarding numbers or names of people in detention on political or security-related charges. Moreover, 2005 passed without any government acknowledgement that its security forces had "disappeared" an estimated seventeen thousand persons – Lebanese citizens and stateless Palestinians – in Lebanon in the early 1990s. Many of these people are known or believed to be imprisoned in Syria.

    In recent years, dozens of people suspected of being connected to the Muslim Brotherhood have been arrested upon their voluntary or forced return home from exile. Syrian authorities arrested `Abd al-Sitar Qattan, for example, on November 23, 2004, upon his return from Saudi Arabia, and reportedly prosecuted him before the SSSC under Law 49 (1980), which states, in part, that affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood is punishable by death.

    The government also targeted students whom it suspected of having ties with Islamist groups. In March 2005, the government arrested over forty students of Tishrin University, in Latakia, for being affiliated with an Islamist movement called Sunna` al-Hayat (Makers of Life). At least some of the detained students were reportedly tortured, according to the Damascus-based Human Rights Association in Syria.

    An unprecedented coalition of political reform activists, on October 16, publicly issued the "Damascus Declaration for Democratic and National Change," which calls for establishing a democratic system that respects citizens' rights, ensures freedom of speech and association, and ends discrimination based on religious or political beliefs. As of November the government's reaction was unknown.

    New Arrests of Human Rights Activists

    Human rights activists continue to be frequent targets of government harassment and arrest. Among those arrested in the past year and still in detention are Salim al-Salim, an activist from Homs in the Society of Human Rights in Syria, arrested on February 24; Nizar Rastawani, from Hama, arrested on April 18; the writer and activist `Ali al-Abdullah, arrested on May 15 for having publicly read a letter written by `Ali Sadr al-Din al-Bayanuni, London-based leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, about the group's agenda; and Habib Salih, arrested on May 29 in response to his writings and his appearance on satellite television channels. In the case of Rastawani, security agents refused to admit he was in their custody until his missing car was spotted at one of their security branches ten days after they arrested him.

    The government prevented many human rights activists from traveling. According to the SHRC, the authorities are presently preventing over 190 activists from traveling outside the country.

    Discrimination and Violence Against Kurds

    Kurds are the largest non-Arab ethnic minority in Syria, comprising about 10 percent of the population of 18.5 million. Activists have long called for an end to systematic discrimination, including the arbitrary denial of citizenship to an estimated 120,000 Syria-born Kurds.

    Since the March 2004 clashes between Kurdish demonstrators and security forces in Qamishli that left more than thirty dead and four hundred injured, tensions in that city and surrounding areas have remained high. A prominent Kurdish cleric, Muhammad Ma`shuq al-Khaznawi, disappeared during a visit to Damascus in May 2005; the Interior Ministry denied having al-Khaznawi in its custody, and authorities found his body in eastern Syria three weeks after his disappearance. His sons and Kurdish activists blamed state security for the abduction and murder, stating that there were signs of torture on his body. After the announcement of al-Khaznawi's death, more than five thousand protesters gathered in Qamishli to condemn the killing. The protest escalated when looters, allegedly local Arabs, pillaged more than eighty Kurdish shops.

    In September 2005, police beat a Syrian Kurdish woman to death when she attempted to stop the demolition of illegally built homes outside Damascus. According to defense lawyer and human rights activist Anwar Bunni, residents were primarily poor Kurdish workers.

    On November 2, Syrian authorities freed seven Kurds, including three women, who had been arrested earlier in the year for belonging to a "secret organization aiming to annex part of Syrian territory to a foreign country."

    Discrimination against Women

    Syria's constitution guarantees gender equality, and many women are active in public life, but personal status laws as well as the penal code contain provisions that discriminate against women. The penal code allows a judge to suspend punishment for a rapist if the rapist chooses to marry his victim, and provides leniency for so-called "honor" crimes, such as assault or killing of women by male relatives for alleged sexual misconduct. Wives require the permission of their husbands to travel abroad, and divorce laws remain discriminatory.

    Key International Actors

    The United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 1559 on September 2, 2004, calling for the complete withdrawal of all foreign – i.e. Syrian – troops from Lebanon, and reiterating support for Lebanon's sovereignty and independence. The Security Council on April 7, 2005, adopted Resolution 1595, launching an investigation into the February 14 assassination, in Beirut, of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Lebanese authorities arrested four senior pro-Syrian Lebanese intelligence and security officers in August on suspicion of involvement in the Hariri assassination, but the preliminary report of chief U.N. investigator Detlev Mehlis, submitted to Secretary-General Kofi Annan on October 20, implicated senior Syrian security officials as well. On October 31, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1636 threatening "further action" against Syria if it did not fully cooperate with the investigation.

    France, the United Kingdom, and the United States were among states which pressed Syria to implement Resolution 1559 and fully withdraw its forces from Lebanon. The European Commission and Syria initialed an Association Agreement in October 2004, but U.K. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said on July 12, 2005, that the signing would likely not take place in 2005. The text stipulates that Syria must implement all international non-proliferation accords, and that "respect for human rights and democratic principles" constitutes "an essential element of the agreement."












    2006-11-24 Syria-Lebanon-Iran
    Syria: Dissidents Say Damascus Behind Lebanese Minister's Slaying
    (AKI) - Former Syrian government minister Ahmad Abu Daleh and one of the country's more prominent dissidents makes no secret of who he thinks was behind the assassination of Lebanese Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel. Wednesday's killing "is a fundamental component of the Syrian regime's hegemonic attitude," Abu Daleh said in an interview with Adnkronos International (AKI). Abu Saleh, who currently lives in the Czech Republic, accuses Syrian president Basher al-Assad's government of having a hand in the murder of other anti-Syrian Lebanese political figures. These include former prime minister Rafik Hariri, (murdered in Feb 2005), journalist Samir Kassir (June 2005), ex-Communist leader George Hawi (June 2005) and Parliamentarian Gebran Tueni (December 2005).

    Abu Saleh a Baath Party leader during Syria's shot-lived union with Egypt (1958-1961) told AKI he has survived three attempts by Syria's current rulers to kill him. Other Syrian dissidents have also pointed the finger against the government for Gemayel's murder.

    The National Salvation Front's deputy president Abd al-Halim Khaddam and the observer-general of the Syrian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood Ali Sadr al-Din al-Bayanuni have both blamed the authorities in Damascus for the murder. The killing is "a link in the chain of murders that aim to detabilise Lebanon and hence prevent the stting up of an international tribunal to try those [included Syrian security officials] suspected of having killed Hariri," Khaddam said.

    A foreign-based group representing six dissident political parties the Syrian Democratic Alliance in a statement released in Washington also added its voice to those blaming Damascus.
    Posted by Fred 2006-11-24 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| Top http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=172979&D=2006-11-24&HC=2
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    "Iran" in Cox and Forkum, April 1, 2007 and April 2006

     " We hope that everyone enjoyed this year's April Fools Day gag. No hoax this time, but the animation should have been somewhat of a "shock" since it's a first for us. If you haven't figured it out, try putting your cursor over the cartoon. Some have found it to be quite therapeutic. We decided to give Ahmadinejad the volts for a change."

    Posted by Forkum at 12:08 AM / Permalink
    April 01, 2007

    Shock & Awe


    UPDATE -- April 2: We hope that everyone enjoyed this year's April Fools Day gag. No hoax this time, but the animation should have been somewhat of a "shock" since it's a first for us. If you haven't figured it out, try putting your cursor over the cartoon. Some have found it to be quite therapeutic. We decided to give Ahmadinejad the volts for a change.



    http://www.coxandforkum.com/#


    Tea & Sophistry

    07.03.29.TeaSophistry-X.gif

    More dithering in the face of Iranian hostilities. Bush must be rubbing off on Blair. From FOX New: Britain Takes Case of Detained Troops in Iran to U.N..

    Britain took its case to free its 15 sailors and marines held by Iran to the United Nations on Thursday, asking the Security Council to support a statement that would "deplore" Tehran's action and demand their immediate release.

    But Security Council diplomats said the brief press statement circulated by Britain's U.N. Mission is likely to face problems from Russia and others because it says the Britons were "operating in Iraqi waters" — a point that Iran contests.

    The British move came as Iran rolled back on its promise to release the sole female British sailor among the captives, Faye Turney. The Iranian military chief, Gen. Ali Reza Afshar, said that because of the "wrong behavior" of the British government, "the release of a female British soldier has been suspended," the semiofficial Iranian news agency Mehr reported.

    Iran's top negotiator, Ali Larijani, also hinted that the British crew members may be put on trial. ...

    If Britain follows through with its policies toward Iran, Larijani said "this case may face a legal path" — a clear reference to Iran's prosecuting the sailors in court.

    Blair's official spokesman said Britain wanted to resolve the crisis quickly and without having a "confrontation over this."

    Meanwhile, Iran is using the hostage mother-of-one for propaganda, and a group of students in Tehran call for the execution of the British captives. From The Daily Mirror: Iran releases hostage marine's 'anti-war' letter. (via Little Green Footballs)

    Iran is walking all over us and the British. How many acts of war do the mullahs have to commit before we begin fighting back?

    April 13, 2006

    Mild and Woolly

    06.04.13.MildWoolly-X.gif

    Apparently some on the left are mobilizing to prevent military action against the U.S.-hating, terrorist-sponsoring, genocide-threatening, Nuke-seeking, Holocaust-denying, homosexual-executing theocrats of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    From Little Green Footballs:
    Moonbats Launch Preemptive Anti-War Petition
    Mama Moonbat: Let Iran Get Nukes

    And at The Huffington Post, Bill Scher advises the left to start Reframing The Iran Debate. This is a must-read for seeing how far the "anti-war" left will go to evade the reality of what kind of regime is confronting us. Excerpts:

    So far, the neoconservatives have done a good job of re-running their Iraq playbook and framing discussion on Iran, by laying out these premises:

    1. Iran is close to getting nukes.
    2. Iran's President is crazy and irrational and committed to wiping Israel off the map. He can't be reasoned with.
    3. Bush is trying real super hard to get the UN to do something about it, but if they won't...

    If we are to have any hope of preventing a senseless war with Iran, we cannot accept this frame. If all of the above points are reported as fact and accepted by Americans across the ideological spectrum, anti-war arguments will be seen as knee-jerk, immature and reckless, and not get a fair hearing. In turn, Democrats in Congress will get steamrolled again.

    How can we reframe the discussion? Our arguments should flow from the following framework:

    1. Iran presently has a strong, rational incentive to get nukes. ...
    2. Iran has acted rationally and can be reasoned with. ...
    3. There is plenty of time to negotiate. ...

    UPDATE I -- April 14: Ahmadinejad reminds us who we're dealing with. From CNN: Iran president: Israel a threat to Islamic nations.

    Iran's president said on Friday that the existence of the "Zionist regime", Iran's term for Israel, was a threat to the Islamic world, days after declaring Iran had become a nuclear power by enriching uranium.

    But the tone of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech to a conference on the Palestinian issue was slightly more moderate than fiery rhetoric last year, when Iran's official IRNA news agency quoted him as telling a conference: "Israel must be wiped off the map."

    "The existence of the Zionist regime is tantamount to an imposition of an unending and unrestrained threat so that none of the nations and Islamic countries of the region and beyond can feel secure from its threat," Ahmadinejad said on Friday.

    UPDATE II: The Jerusalem Post includes some important genocidal details that CNN conveniently left out: Ahmadinejad: Israel will be eliminated. (via Little Green Footballs)

    Opening the conference, Ahmadinejad fired a series of verbal shots at Israel, saying it was a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated, and questioning the validity of the Nazi Holocaust against Jews in World War II.

    "Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihiliation," Ahmadinejad said. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm," he said.

    The land of Palestine, he said, referring to the British mandated territory that includes all of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank, "will be freed soon."

    He did not say how this would be achieved, but insisted to the audience of at least 900 people: "Believe that Palestine will be freed soon."

    So the speech wasn't "more moderate than fiery rhetoric last year" as CNN reported. Ahmadinejad is just getting more poetic about his final solution.

    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

    Zell, Not Burkle, Broad to Acquire Tribune

    Zell Will Acquire Tribune for $8.2 Billion, Beating Bids by Burkle, Broad Tribune Co., owner of the Chicago Tribune and Los Angeles Times, accepted an $8.2 billion takeover offer by billionaire Sam Zell, shunning a rival bid by Ron Burkle and Eli Broad. Bloomberg.com (April 2, 2007)http://www.bloomberg.com/news/index.html?Intro=intro_news 



    But over the weekend the speculation mounted;

    "Burkle identifies heavily with Democrats, chumming with Willie Brown and John Burton, donating to the campaigns of Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Antonio Villaraigosa, and throwing a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton. He's also best buddies with Bill Clinton. Compared with Burkle, David Geffen is bipartisan. Could he resist imposing his politics on the paper?" Slate.com

    The Men Who Would Own the L.A. Times   Geffen. Burkle. Broad. Who'd be the worst owner?


    Dropping mortar round after mortar round of insubordination on their bosses at the Chicago-based Tribune Co., Los Angeles Times Editor Dean Baquet and Publisher Jeffrey M. Johnson have fought them to a stalemate. The daring duo refused—in the news pages of their own paper—to make the staff cuts ordered by the barbarians from the Midwest. The staff naturally applauded this public act of resistance, which succeeded in enlisting members of the city's ruling elite in the insurrection: The city fathers and mothers wrote an angry letter to Tribune's brass expressing their view that the Times isn't just a newspaper but a "public trust" with a "responsibility to serve the community."

    Instead of firing Baquet and Johnson, which everybody expected, the Tribune bosses have changed the subject, according to today's New York Times. They've set the issue aside for a meeting of the Tribune board to deal with the equally insubordinate Chandler family. In 2000, the Chandlers sold the Times and the media empire to which it belonged to Tribune, making themselves Tribune's largest stockholder. The family isn't livid about budget cuts but rather Tribune's depressed stock price, and the remedy they seek is the company's breakup.

    The least likely resolution to the stalemate would be the sale of the Times to one of the three local billionaires who have petitioned Tribune's board for the right to buy it: media mogul David Geffen (net worth, $4.5 billion); supermarket buyout guy Ron Burkle ($2.3 billion); and builder-investor Eli Broad ($5.5 billion). I write "least likely," but what do I know? I thought it inconceivable that Tribune would allow two executives to mutiny and live.



    On the very, very, very long shot that Tribune sells its way out of its Los Angeles Times nightmare, what sort of owner would each of these aspiring newspaper saviors be? The track record of the filthy rich who acquire newspapers as playthings or as business propositions is not good. Mortimer Zuckerman, whose hunger for New York status motivated him to buy New York's Daily News, doesn't really have the heart or temperament for the tabloid war he's in with the New York Post. Wendy McCaw has made herself a national joke with her management of the Santa Barbara News-Press. And if you understand what Philip Anschutz's master plan is for the free dailies he runs in San Francisco, Washington, and Baltimore—beyond creating new forms of litter—please tell me.

    David Geffen. Click image to expand.David Geffen
    Our most eager Los Angeles Times suitor is David Geffen. A 1993 New York Times profile attests to his generosity, a quality that Baquet and Johnson would surely appreciate. Geffen gave his longtime secretary 1 percent of the sale of his record company upon her retirement, which worked out to $5 million. But he's also so parsimonious that he came to believe that owning a beachfront house in Malibu gave him title to the entire Pacific Ocean. Geffen pledged to provide public access to the beach in front of his property in exchange for California Coastal Commission permits to remodel and expand his residence but took 22 years to make good on the promise.

    He possesses a Tribune-esque personality, with a vindictive streak so broad that even his friends talk openly about it. "David will do anything for you if you're his friend," movie producer Howard Rosenman told the New York Times. "But if you're his enemy, well, you might as well kill yourself."

    Enemies who don't kill themselves and who were once Geffen's friends have a shot at becoming a Geffen friend again, according to Tom King, who wrote a biography of the mogul in 2000. This sort of inconsistent consistency is common to many newspaper owners. King captured Geffen's dualistic nature in a 2000 comment to the Los Angeles Times: "On one hand, David repels people, and on the other hand, he draws them in." Zuckerman and McCaw, on the other hand, seem only to repel people.

    As the McCaw catastrophe illustrates, journalists expect owners to pay the bills and keep their paws off the newsroom. Of course owners almost always fiddle around with their papers—why else own one?—but the smarter ones do it subtly. How would the vengeful Geffen react to negative Times coverage of his buddies in the Democratic Party, the art world, financial circles, and Hollywood? According to today's New York Times story, Geffen has told friends he'd be satisfied with a 5 percent return on his investment at the Los Angeles Times compared with the 20 percent margin it's alleged to earn Tribune now. How long would Geffen feel that way? How about when inflation rises to 4 percent? It would be wiser to give Geffen his own column than the keys to the Los Angeles Times.

    Ron Burkle and friend. Click image to expand.Ron Burkle and friend
    Ron Burkle likes to party. So do journalists. He likes to trap his tormenters with gotcha traps, as he did with Jared Paul Stern. So do journalists. He allegedly hired a private investigator to spy on his ex-wife, according to a report in the Los Angeles Business Journal. (He denies it.) Hewlett-Packard hired private investigators to spy on journalists. Well, two out of three ain't bad.

    Unlike David Geffen, who mostly wants to run his mouth, Burkle has actually taken a flyer at the vanity press-mogul thing before, attempting to purchase the dregs of the Knight Ridder breakup this year. He tried to bring an NFL franchise to Los Angeles and owns part of the NHL's Pittsburgh Penguins, which is totally silly but makes him no sillier than Tribune (owners of the Chicago Cubs) and the New York Times Co. (part owners of the Boston Red Sox).

    Southern California is the most pro-labor market in the nation, and not only has Burkle marched with the farm workers, but he's adored by the union president he negotiated against when he owned local supermarkets. "He's probably the best employer we ever dealt with," Ricardo Icaza told the San Francisco Chronicle. Maybe if he wins the Times, he'll bring unions to that famously nonunion shop.

    On the downside, many, if not most, of Burkle's nonsupermarket ventures tank. The Chronicle notes that besides the failed NFL bid, Burkle blew dough on three dot-bombs. Burkle identifies heavily with Democrats, chumming with Willie Brown and John Burton, donating to the campaigns of Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and Antonio Villaraigosa, and throwing a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton. He's also best buddies with Bill Clinton. Compared with Burkle, David Geffen is bipartisan. Could he resist imposing his politics on the paper?

    Ultimately Burkle only wants to date the Los Angeles Times, not marry it, because he doesn't have the scratch to purchase it outright (estimated valuation of the Times, $2 billion and northward). His fortune stands at a mere $2.3 billion, according to Forbes, so he'd need partners, and as the Chandler family is teaching Tribune, partners can be trouble.

    Eli Broad. Click image to expand.Eli Broad
    Eli Broad ranks as the screwiest of the three Los Angeles Times suitors. Eli, you're 73! You don't need the heartache of owning a newspaper! Drive out to Malibu and trade a few of your Lichtensteins to Geffen for one of his de Koonings.

    Broad's problem is that he's a philanthropist who operates like a businessman. He gives money to museums and schools and then insists on tinkering with the operations. The nerve! In 2001, the Los Angeles Times counted the many Broad tentacles snaking their way through the Los Angeles arts establishment and asked, "how much Broad is too much Broad? Does the city's wealthiest and most outspoken patron support arts institutions, or control them, just by being Broad?"

    Broad and Burkle, who are friends, might partner to buy the paper. How about David? When the Los Angeles Times handicapped the three potential owners in the middle of the summer, it reported that "Broad, 73, and Geffen are said to have a chilly relationship," which means the three would never unite like the DreamWorks SKG troika.

    What would Broad's L.A. broadsheet look like? The New York Times interviewed him in June and reported:

    If the real estate billionaire Eli Broad had his way, the Los Angeles Times would run more photographs of donors at charity events. There would be fewer stories on movies and more about the city's museums and classical arts. And it would champion civic projects, becoming, in his view, the glue to unite a diverse and fractured city.

    Ewwwww!!!

    Broad doesn't really want to buy the Los Angeles Times, he wants his foundation to hold hands with other foundations to join together to run it as a daily philanthropy. This arrangement would have limited appeal to journalists who already think that their low pay makes them donors to their bosses' causes.

    The idea of nonprofit ownership isn't completely ridiculous. A foundation owns and runs the respected St. Petersburg Times, but it was set up by its last owner and is guided by journalistic principles, as opposed to the promote-the-arts-and-do-good-for-the-community ones advocated by Broad. Alicia C. Shepard cites the Anniston Star as another good example of a foundation-run newspaper in a recent piece about nonprofit for, of all places, the Chicago Tribune. Over in England, an endowment finances the Guardian. But Broad's proposal 1) promises a dull newspaper that not even his circle would want to read and 2) includes way too many cooks who want to be the top chef. A boardroom battle pitting Los Angeles philanthropist against Los Angeles philanthropist would be Armageddon compared with the current Chandler family rumble with Tribune.

    The least bad candidate for Los Angeles Times owner turns out to be Tribune. I know they're perfect Satans, but they're the Satans journalists understand. At least they know something about running newspapers. Here's hoping that Tribune cancels the contracts they've put out on the lives of Baquet and Johnson, a reasonable budget is advanced, and everybody out in L.A. just learns to get along.

    ******

    Research assistance by Christopher Beam. Jeans by Levi. Shoes by Alden (Chukka Boot Shell Cordovan #7). Hair by Daniel's of McLean. Send e-mail to slate.pressbox@gmail.com . (E-mail may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise. Permanent disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co.)

    Related in Slate: Shafer assessed the vanity press moguls in 2004. In 2005, he considered "Billionaire Newsboy" Philip Anschutz.

    Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large.
    Photograph of Ron Burkle by Stephen Jaffe/Agence France-Presse. Photograph of David Geffen by James Leynse/Corbis. Photograph of Eli Broad by Vince Bucci/Getty Images.
    All Credit To Slate.com     http://www.slate.com/id/2150154/
    ____________________________________________________________

    OneJerusalem.org Conference Call: Dick Morris -

    (4) The "Dominant Scandal" Of the 2008 Presidential Election
    The man who helped sustain the political fortunes of a President who was eventually impeached (and so is no stranger to the dynamics of political scandals) announced that a suspicious business arrangement involving a former President, an oil sheik, and a creepy billionaire will be the "dominant scandal" in the candidacy of the presumptive Democratic nominee. Untangling all of the tangled players in all of their opaque roles is way too much to write about when you can just go and listen to his description. There's two parts to this scandal, each alone really bad for the Clintons - together they combine in all of the wrong ways for the Democrats.

    The first scandal is about Bill's close relationship with the Emir of the United Arab Emirates, Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum. We're not going to say that the UAE is a theocracy, because self-declared sophisticates get very huffy when that happens - so how about we all agree that for the purposes of a Presidential campaign, any distinctions between "radical Muslim theocracy" and "complicated multi-layered state where a fully-functioning and state-supported sharia court system just happens to control several layers" are totally irrelevant? It is easy to all but prove that Bill Clinton seems to exercise a strong influence on how the Emir tries to financially influence US policy-making. It is also undeniable that the Emir has given Clinton and Clinton's organizations significant financial disbursements. It would significantly help Hillary if anyone would ever believe that these two things are unrelated.

    The most immediately suspicious evidence involves the attempt by the UAE firm to take over day to day operations for a number of US ports - the US firm that Dubai hired to guide them through the process just happened to be the one that provides Clinton with the only thing that can be reasonably called regular employment (and below we'll get to how Morris transforms this potential awkwardness into the makings of a career-ending scandal - but right now, just focus on Clinton and the Emir's connections). It was noted by not a few people at the time that while Hillary was threatening to take legislative action to shut down the UAE takeover on national security grounds, her husband was advising the Emir on how to navigate the scandal (and Hillary's initial claim of ignorance on that point became all the more untenable when someone pointed out that she had just finished disclosing that her husband was paid almost half a million dollars to give speeches in Dubai).

    And after the ports deal fell through, the Emir didn't give up on acquiring US assets. He then targeted two US defense firms. This time, he hired a new firm to steer him through the deal. So instead of the company that Clinton de facto works for, he choose... another company that Clinton has incredibly deep ties to. The Glover Park Group is a consulting firm of / club-house for Clinton administration ex-pats. It's headed by Joe Lockhart, it has lots of late Clinton staffers throughout the ranks, etc). So some eyebrows were raised when the Emir choose this firm to help him acquire the US defense firms. We imagine that said eyebrows will arch a little bit higher if/when connections are established - as Morris implies they will be - between this second deal and Clinton familial relations. At the very least, this is an obvious public relations disaster and a genuine public policy problem - as Morris said, Hillary would be running under the shadow of a foreign head of state paying enormous sums of money to husband of then-sitting Senator, and the husband then directing that foreign head of state's excess largess toward financial and professional friends.

    Now the other distinct scandal that may not be distinct much longer: the connections between the Clintons and disgraced supermarket billionaire Ron Burkle. Burkle's Yucaipa firm provides Clinton with the only thing that he has that can really count as employment, and he's supposed to get them donors. We'll talk about what kinds of donors in a second, but by now you see where this could end up. But the Clinton/Burkle connections are damaging even without the media folding in dealing a foreign billionaire easily caricatured as a de facto representative of militant Islam. As Mickey Kaus and almost no one else repeatedly pointed out, the Burkle/Clinton relationship stinks plenty on its own. We never really read a comprehensive investigative roundup (we don't really think one was ever produced), but there were plenty of hints of Democratic cronyism - a trend that seems to be developing across these scandals which will not make them harder to fold into each other.

    But the real nightmare scenario for Hillary occurs if it turns out that there is a real and demonstrable connection between these two already very shady financial / personal / political relationships. Bill Clinton gets paid a lot to get the very creepy Burkle financers and in return Burkle distributes money to Clinton's friends - damaging but spinnable as right-wing conspiracy mongering. Bill Clinton gets paid a lot to handle the UAE Emir's domestic political palm greasing and in return the Emir distributes money to Clinton's friends - damaging but spinnable as reactionary Arab-baiting.

    But if you combine the two scandals, then Hillary is facing the prospect of a politically disastrous scandal that has the relatively singular virtue of being more or less grounded in fact. The connection isn't even particularly convoluted: at some point after Clinton became employed by Burkle's Yucaipa company, it so worked out that Clinton's good friend the Emir ("good friend" being "pays him $450,000 for a couple speeches good") hired Yucaipa to run his financial investments... including, obviously, the port buyout deal. You could argue that these two events were unconnected, but you'd have a tough time actually convincing anyone (Morris: they're "not coincidental"). This would be the same port buyout deal that Hillary opposed as a major terrorist risk.

    The perfect storm: Bill Clinton was willing to put a company that his wife more or less called a terrorist risk in charge of US ports because he was being paid to do so by Ron Burkle on one hand and the Emir of the UAE on the other. The ways this impacts campaign strategies are staggering: it super-charges Republican attempts to paint the Democrats as a War on Terror disaster, it super-charges claims that the Clintons are corrupt, it super-charges claims that Hillary can't be relied on to tell the truth / reveal her genuine personal beliefs. Even Hillary's increasingly strong anti-terrorism credentials now become the frightened overcompensation of a candidate for her spouse's politically damaging connections to people she brands potential terrorists. Above all else, it's so ugly and tangled that Hillary couldn't talk her way out of it - the public sense that some kind of massive impropriety that's been covered up has occurred is the definition of a scandal that a politician can't disprove.

    All Credit Given to  Mere Rhetoric at
    http://www.mererhetoric.com/archives/2006_09.html
    Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
    « Previous1Next »