JERUSALEM (Reuters) – The United States plans to sell Israel $319 million worth of air-launched bombs, including 500 “bunker busters” that could be effective against Iran’s underground nuclear facilities, Israeli security sources said on Tuesday.

The Pentagon said in June it was considering the sale to Israel of 500 BLU-109 warheads, which can penetrate 15 feet of fortifications, in a package meant to “contribute significantly to U.S. strategic and tactical objectives.” U.S. and Israeli officials had no immediate comment.

Israeli security sources said the procurement would go through. “This is not the sort of ordnance needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker busters could serve Israel against Iran, or possibly Syria,” an Israeli source said.

Haaretz daily, citing Israeli government sources, said the sale would take place after the U.S. elections in November.

Full Article: Reuters

by George Monbiot

Poor Mr Baradei,
His mission is a parody:
He tells the states (with some aplomb)
They can and cannot have the bomb

Here is the world’s most nonsensical job description. Your duty is to work tirelessly to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. And to work tirelessly to encourage the proliferation of the means of building them. This is the task of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei.

He is an able diplomat, and as bold as his predecessor, Hans Blix, in standing up to the global powers. But what he is obliged to take away with one hand, he is obliged to give with the other. His message to the non-nuclear powers is this: you are not allowed to develop the bomb, but we will give you the materials and expertise with which you can build one. It is this mortal contradiction which permitted the government of Iran this weekend to tell him to bog off.

His agency’s motto – “Atoms for Peace” – wasn’t always a lie. In 1953, when Eisenhower founded it with his famous speech to the United Nations, people really seemed to believe that nuclear fission could solve the world’s problems. An article in the Herald Tribune, for example, promised that atomic power would create “an earthly paradise… Our automobiles eventually will have atomic energy units built into them at the factory so that we will never have to refuel them… In a relatively short time we will cease to mine coal.”

Eisenhower seemed convinced that the nuclear sword could be beaten into the nuclear ploughshare. “It is not enough to take this weapon out of the hands of the soldiers. It must be put into the hands of those who will know how to strip its military casing and adapt it to the arts of peace.” The nuclear powers, he said, “should… make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials” which should then be given to “the power-starved areas of the world”, “to provide abundant electrical energy”. This would give them, he argued, the necessary incentive to forswear the use of nuclear weapons.

The IAEA, its statute says, should assist “the supplying of materials, equipment, or facilities” to non-nuclear states. It should train nuclear scientists and “foster the exchange of scientific and technical information”. Its mission, in other words, is to prevent the development of nuclear weapons, while spreading nuclear technology to as many countries as possible. It is also responsible for enforcing the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which has the same dual purpose.

Full Article: Guardian UK

by Stephen Leahy
BROOKLIN, Canada – Hurricane Ivan, the incredibly powerful storm that killed at least 120 people in the Caribbean and southern United States, may be a harbinger of the Earth’s hotter future, say experts.

“As the world warms, we expect more and more intense tropical hurricanes and cyclones,” said James McCarthy, a professor of biological oceanography at Harvard University.

Despite the recent destructive series of hurricanes and tornadoes, global warming is off the radar screen of the U.S. presidential election campaign.

Large parts of the world’s oceans are approaching 27 degrees C or warmer during the summer, greatly increasing the odds of major storms, McCarthy told IPS.

When water reaches such temperatures, more of it evaporates, priming hurricane or cyclone formation. Once born, a hurricane needs only warm water to build and maintain its strength and intensity.

Over the last 100 years, the Earth has warmed by about .6 degrees C, according to the 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international scientific body that studies the relationship between human activity and global warming.

The IPCC report was based on research by more than 2,500 scientists from about 100 countries who determined that emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide act as a blanket that prevents much of the sun’s energy from dissipating into space.

Full Article: commondreams.org

by Greg Palast
“It’s that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions,” the aging American journalist told the British television audience.

In June 2002, Dan Rather looked old, defeated, making a confession he dare not speak on American TV about the deadly censorship — and self-censorship — which had seized US newsrooms. After September 11, news on the US tube was bound and gagged. Any reporter who stepped out of line, he said, would be professionally lynched as un-American.

“It’s an obscene comparison,” he said, “but there was a time in South Africa when people would put flaming tires around people’s necks if they dissented. In some ways, the fear is that you will be necklaced here. You will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck.” No US reporter who values his neck or career will “bore in on the tough questions.”

Dan said all these things to a British audience. However, back in the USA, he smothered his conscience and told his TV audience: “George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions. He wants me to line up, just tell me where.”

During the war in Vietnam, Dan’s predecessor at CBS, Walter Cronkite, asked some pretty hard questions about Nixon’s handling of the war in Vietnam. Today, our sons and daughters are dying in Bush wars. But, unlike Cronkite, Dan could not, would not, question George Bush, Top Gun Fighter Pilot, Our Maximum Beloved Leader in the war on terror.

On the British broadcast, without his network minders snooping, you could see Dan seething and deeply unhappy with himself for playing the game.

“What is going on,” he said, “I’m sorry to say, is a belief that the public doesn’t need to know — limiting access, limiting information to cover the backsides of those who are in charge of the war. It’s extremely dangerous and cannot and should not be accepted, and I’m sorry to say that up to and including this moment of this interview, that overwhelmingly it has been accepted by the American people. And the current Administration revels in that, they relish and take refuge in that.”

Full Article: commondreams.com

By John Barry and Dan Ephron
Unprepared as anyone is for a showdown with Iran, the threat seems to keep growing. Many defense experts in Israel, the United States and elsewhere believe that Tehran has been taking advantage of loopholes in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and is now within a year of mastering key weapons-production technology. They can’t prove it, of course, and Iran’s leaders deny any intention of developing the bomb. Nevertheless, last week U.S. and Israeli officials were talking of possible military action—even though some believe it’s already too late to keep Iran from going nuclear (if it chooses). “We have to start accepting that Iran will probably have the bomb,” says one senior Israeli source. There’s only one solution, he says: “Look at ways to make sure it’s not the mullahs who have their finger on the trigger.”

After the Iraq debacle, calls for regime change without substantial evidence of weapons of mass destruction are not likely to gain a lot of traction. But if the allegations are correct, Iran is only one of the countries whose secret nuclear programs hummed along while America waged a single-minded hunt for WMD in Iraq. Another is North Korea, which hasn’t stopped claiming that it’s turning a stockpile of spent fuel rods into a doomsday arsenal. And arms-control specialists are increasingly alarmed by Brazil’s efforts to do precisely what Iran is doing: use centrifuge cascades to enrich uranium—with a couple of key differences. Unlike Iran, Brazil has never signed the NPT’s Additional Protocol, which gives expanded inspection rights to the International Atomic Energy Agency. And unlike Iran, Brazil is not letting the IAEA examine its centrifuges. If the Brazilians go through with their program, it’s likely to wreck the landmark 1967 treaty that made South America a nuclear-free zone. But the White House has shown scant concern about the risk.

The Iran crisis is more immediate in the eyes of the Bush administration, in part because Iran is among the president’s “Axis of Evil.” Israel, which has long regarded Iran as a more dire threat than Iraq, is making thinly veiled threats of a unilateral pre-emptive attack, like its 1981 airstrike against Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor. “If the state decides that a military solution is required, then the military has to provide a solution,” said Israel’s new Air Force chief of staff, Maj. Gen. Elyezer Shkedy, in a newspaper interview last week. “For obvious reasons,” he added, “we aren’t going to speak of specifics.” U.S. defense experts doubt that Israel can pull it off. Iran’s facilities (which it insists are for peaceful purposes) are at the far edge of combat range for Israel’s aircraft; They’re also widely dispersed and, in many cases, deep underground.

But America certainly could do it—and has given the idea some serious thought. “The U.S. capability to make a mess of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is formidable,” says veteran Mideast analyst Geoffrey Kemp. “The question is, what then?” NEWSWEEK has learned that the CIA and DIA have war-gamed the likely consequences of a U.S. pre-emptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. No one liked the outcome. As an Air Force source tells it, “The war games were unsuccessful at preventing the conflict from escalating.”

Instead, administration hawks are pinning their hopes on regime change in Tehran—by covert means, preferably, but by force of arms if necessary.

Full Article:msn.com

by Kate Holt and Sarah Hughes
To survive, the people of eastern Congo have a choice: either to risk deadly diseases mining minerals for rebel soldiers, or flee into the jungle… An entire population has been enslaved – and abandoned by the West.

The planes swoop down, sometimes as many as 15 a day. Most are battered and rusty. They land on the makeshift airstrip, a dusty road 23km from Walikale in the east of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

By the road is a group of young soldiers wearing a motley collection of camouflage uniforms, multicoloured hats and white wellington boots. They lean on their Kalashnikovs, smoking and watching another group of men trudging to and from the planes under the hot sun, carrying heavy white sacks filled with a valuable cargo.

Under the soldiers’ watchful eyes, the men load the planes. No one speaks, partly from fear, partly because this is hard, desperate work. Each bag weighs 50kg. For these ordinary-looking sacks contain cassiterite – the expensive mineral ore from which tin is extracted.

The story of Walikale is a story of greed, violence and death. It is the tale of a country rich in minerals and resources, and of the gunmen who seized those resources to fund their conflict; of an international community that appears unable or unwilling to commit troops to an area where little seems likely to improve; of aid agencies forced out, taking their medical knowledge and supplies with them; of the people left abandoned, working in inhuman conditions for minimal pay; and of the wealthy countries thousands of miles away who trade in tin and never question what the consequences might be.

The story of Walikale is the story of the Congo: ravaged by war, plundered by prospectors, abandoned by those who said they would protect it, and ruled by the gun.

Independent UK

by Robert Novak
Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go.

This prospective policy is based on Iraq’s national elections in late January, but not predicated on ending the insurgency or reaching a national political settlement. Getting out of Iraq would end the neoconservative dream of building democracy in the Arab world. The United States would be content having saved the world from Saddam Hussein’s quest for weapons of mass destruction.

The reality of hard decisions ahead is obscured by blather on both sides in a presidential campaign. Six weeks before the election, Bush cannot be expected to admit even the possibility of a quick withdrawal. Sen. John Kerry’s political aides, still languishing in fantastic speculation about European troops to the rescue, do not even ponder a quick exit. But Kerry supporters with foreign policy experience speculate that if elected, their candidate would take the same escape route.

Whether Bush or Kerry is elected, the president or president-elect will have to sit down immediately with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The military will tell the election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out.

Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush’s decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials. An informed guess might have Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state, Paul Wolfowitz as defense secretary and Stephen Hadley as national security adviser. According to my sources, all would opt for a withdrawal.

Getting out now would not end expensive U.S. reconstruction of Iraq, and certainly would not stop the fighting. Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality. It would then take a resolute president to stand aside while Iraqis battle it out.

The end product would be an imperfect Iraq, probably dominated by Shia Muslims seeking revenge over long oppression by the Sunni-controlled Baathist Party. The Kurds would remain in their current semi-autonomous state. Iraq would not be divided, reassuring neighboring countries — especially Turkey — that are apprehensive about ethnically divided nations.

Full Article:Chicago Sun Times

What a bunch of election crap. If there is a speck of truth to this story, it means that after they injected maximum chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan, they are ready to move on—to Iran and Syria? I firmly believe that the long-term strategy is about proving that the ‘Arabs’ are incompatible with ‘us’ and thus extreme measures will be justified. The more terrorism the better. The ‘neocons’ are right where they want to be. How long will it take people to become appalled?

by Jason Burke
The British Army is to start pulling troops out of Iraq next month despite the deteriorating security situation in much of the country, The Observer has learnt.

The main British combat force in Iraq, about 5,000-strong, will be reduced by around a third by the end of October during a routine rotation of units.

The news came amid another day of mayhem in Iraq, which saw a suicide bomber kill at least 23 people and injure 53 in the northern city of Kirkuk. The victims were queueing to join Iraq’s National Guard.

Full Article: Guardian UK

Thousands of UK troops may be sent to Afghanistan next year
by Nick Meo and Robert Fox
Britain and the US are both set to step up their troop presence in Afghanistan, which faces a presidential election next month and a fraught parliamentary election early next year, that could see a confrontation with the country’s powerful warlords.

The US has confirmed it will send up to 1,100 extra troops in time for the 9 October presidential vote, amid increasingly urgent pleas by the interim President, Hamid Karzai, for greater security and a warning by the American ambassador to Kabul, Zalmay Khalilzad, of a possible “Tet offensive” by militants in Afghan cities, echoing the uprising that hastened the departure of American forces from Vietnam.

A far bigger British deployment is being mooted, meanwhile, to take place early in 2005, a critical time when a series of dangerous security problems are expected to converge. The Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Mike Jackson, says plans have been made to send a headquarters staff and a brigade-sized force of around 8,000 peacekeeping soldiers to Afghanistan
Independent UK

by Dexter Filkins
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 18 – Faced with a growing insurgency and a January deadline for national elections, American commanders in Iraq say they are preparing operations to open up rebel-held areas, especially Falluja, the restive city west of Baghdad now under control of insurgents and Islamist groups.

A senior American commander said the military intended to take back Falluja and other rebel areas by year’s end. The commander did not set a date for an offensive but said that much would depend on the availability of Iraqi military and police units, which would be sent to occupy the city once the Americans took it.

The American commander suggested that operations in Falluja could begin as early as November or December, the deadline the Americans have given themselves for restoring Iraqi government control across the country.

“We need to make a decision on when the cancer of Falluja is going to be cut out,” the American commander said. “We would like to end December at local control across the country.”

“Falluja will be tough,” he said.

At a minimum, the American commander said, local conditions would have to be secure for voting to take place in the country’s 18 provincial capitals for the election to be considered legitimate. American forces have lost control over at least one provincial capital, Ramadi, in Al Anbar Province, and have only a tenuous grip over a second, Baquba, the capital of Diyala Province northeast of Baghdad. Other large cities in the region, like Samarra, are largely in the hands of insurgents.

Full Article: NY Times

by Tom Zeller Jr.
Just over six weeks before the nation holds the first general election in which touch-screen voting will play a major role, specialists agree that whatever the remaining questions about the technology’s readiness, it is now too late to make any significant changes.

Whether or not the machines are ready for the election – or the electorate ready for the machines – there is no turning back. In what may turn out to be one of the most scrutinized general elections in the country’s history, nearly one-third of the more than 150 million registered voters in the United States will be asked to cast their ballots on machines whose accuracy and security against fraud have yet to be tested on such a grand scale.

Because of the uncertainties, experts say there is potential for post-election challenges in any precincts where the machines may malfunction, or where the margin of victory is thin. Sorting out such disputes could prove difficult.

“The possibility for erroneous votes or malicious programming is not as great as critics would have you believe,” said Doug Chapin, the director of Electionline.org, a nonpartisan group tracking election reform. “But it’s more than defenders of the technology want to admit. The truth lies somewhere in between.”

Since the 2000 presidential election and its contentious aftermath, voting systems that record votes directly on a computer – as opposed to those that use mechanical levers or optically scanned paper ballots – have quickly moved to the center of a rancorous debate. The disagreement pits those who see them as unacceptably vulnerable to vote manipulation and fraud against those who see them as an antidote to the wretched hanging chad.

Even in the final run-up to November’s elections, the issue remains in flux. In California, the machines have been certified, decertified and recertified again. In Ohio, a closely contested state, an electronic upgrade to the state’s predominantly punch-card system was halted in July by the secretary of state there, who cited unresolved security concerns.

All the while, a vocal mixture of computer scientists, local voting-rights groups and freelance civic gadflies have relentlessly cited security flaws in many of the machines, with some going so far as to say that the flaws could be intentional and accusing the major companies of having ties to conservative political causes.

Full Article: NY Times

The Times is so very fond of damning divergent points of views with its use of language.