sarkozy fan tutti i dittatori

http://www.voltairenet.org/article151809.html#article151809

Nicolas Sarkozy, principal sujet des journaux télévisés français

L’Institut national de l’audiovisuel a étudié les journaux télévisés français du soir des six chaînes hertziennes durant les quatre premiers mois de la présidence de M. Sarkozy (mai à août 2007).

Nicolas Sarkozy y est apparu :
79 fois en mai 2007
46 fois en juin
55 fois en juillet
44 fois en août, alors qu’il était « en vacances »
Soit un total de 224 fois en quatre mois

Comparativement, lors des quatre permiers mois de son premier mandat, Jacques Chirac est apparu :
34 fois en mai 1995
23 fois en juin
32 en juillet
5 fois en août
Soit un total de 94 fois en quatre mois

L’exposition médiatique de Nicolas Sarkozy s’est faite aussi bien aux dépends de ses ministres que de l’opposition. Par le passé, le président de la République disposait d’un accès aux médias audiovisuel souvent jugé excessif, désormais les journaux télévisés sont centrés sur ses faits et gestes, comme c’est la pratique dans les régimes autoritaires.

Ces chiffres sont publiés alors que le Parti socialiste a saisi le Conseil national de l’audiovisuel (CSA) pour protester contre le déséquilibre de l’information.

pannella chiede l'impeachment di bush

.
PANNELLA: SE LE NOTIZIE CONTINUERANNO AD ESSERE CONFERMATE C’E’ DA AUGURARSI CHE IL PRESIDENTE BUSH VENGA CACCIATO CON PROCEDURE DI IMPEACHMENT DALLA CASA BIANCA...

Roma, 28 settembre 2007

PANNELLA: SE NOTIZIE CONTINUERANNO AD ESSERE CONFERMATE C’E’ DA AUGURARSI CHE IL PRESIDENTE BUSH VENGA CACCIATO CON PROCEDURE DI IMPEACHMENT DALLA CASA BIANCA. E SI APRA IMMEDIATAMENTE UN DIBATTITO SUL COMPORTAMENTO DEL GOVERNO ITALIANO IN QUELLA OCCASIONE, MALGRADO CHE LA MAGGIORANZA ASSOLUTA DEI PARLAMENTARI ITALIANI SI FOSSERO UFFICIALMETE ESPRESSI A SOSTEGNO DELLA CAMPAGNA RADICALE: “IRAQ LIBERO CON SADDAM IN ESILIO, UNICA ALTERNATIVA ALLA GUERRA!”.
DOMANI IL COMITATO NAZIONALE DI RADICALI ITALIANI AFFRONTERÀ ANCHE QUESTO EPISODIO, SINTOMATICO ED ESEMPLARE, DELLA NONDEMOCRAZIA ITALIANA E DELLA SUA CONTINUITA’ FASCISTA.

Se continueranno a confermarsi le notizie date dall’ex Presidente spagnolo Aznar nel suo diario, secondo le quali il 23 febbraio 2003 il Presidente Bush - al corrente della di già probabile accettazione da parte di Saddam di un suo esilio “accompagnato” da un miliardo di dollari - il Presidente statunitense dichiarava di preferire di “sbarazzarsi” in altro modo (con un assassinio o con la guerra), spero egli venga quantomeno cacciato dalla Casa Bianca con un procedimento di impeachment.
Vorrei intanto annotare che se quel 23 febbraio Aznar ebbe da Bush quella conferma e quella risposta, mi parrebbe francamente improbabile che il Presidente del Consiglio Berlusconi non ne fosse poi messo al corrente dai due suoi grandi amici di Madrid e di Washington.
La cosa sarebbe tanto più grave se si ricorda che, proprio in quei giorni, il solo Parlamento italiano, al mondo, era investito della nostra campagna “Iraq libero come unica alternativa alla guerra” e con la campagna quotidiana durata tre mesi, con l’adesione della maggioranza assoluta dei Deputati e dei Senatori italiani, con adesioni che giungevano via internet da oltre 130 paesi, con sostegni e mobilitazioni di premi nobel e di personalità internazionali in ogni Regione del mondo, ed un voto esplicito della Camera dei Deputati Italiana, sostenuto purtroppo, allora, dal solo Direttore de l’Unità, Furio Colombo.
Conferme stanno giungendo da molti; e vorrei ricordare che già da due anni notizie ufficiose in tal senso erano comparse sulla stampa statunitense, rilanciate dai nostri siti radicali e da Radio Radicale.
Allora leaders dell’opposizione, oltre che il Presidente del Consiglio, furono però concordi di reagire dichiarando: “certo l’idea di Pannella sarebbe ottima non fosse che Saddam non è certamente d’accordo!”.
Domani, al Comitato Nazionale di Radicali italiani in corso parleremo anche di questo e della sistemica e letteralmente criminale clandestinizzazione e anatemizzazione del Partito e della galassia Radicale, in questa ed in decine e centinaia di occasioni. Speriamo che l’indecente comportamento editoriale e politico di quasi tutta la stampa italiana che ha clandestinizzato fino ad ora la grande lotta per ottenere finalmente al mondo la proclamazione di una Moratoria universale della pena di morte, a cominciare dal Corriere della Sera e dalla Repubblica (tanto per essere come di dovere leali e veritieri), che in queste ore vede a New York il Governo italiano, con l’unanime sostegno del nostro parlamento e ieri stesso, per la terza volta in otto mesi del Parlamento europeo, con la grande lotta politica, parlamentare, e NONVIOLENTA iniziata nel dicembre scorso per scongiurare condanna a morte e poi esecuzione del feroce, bestiale dittatore iracheno e da allora mai smessa dall’Associazione radicale Nessuno tocchi Caino e dai militanti dell’interra galassia radicale.

Addendum
fonte radio radicale
http://www.radioradicale.it/esilio-saddam-era-pronto-ma-si-scelse-la-guerra

Esilio di Saddam: era possibile ma si scelse la guerra.

La rivelazione di « El Pais »

Pubblicato il 27 Settembre 2007

George W. Bush: «Gli egiziani stanno parlando con Saddam Hussein. Sembra che abbia fatto sapere che è disposto ad andare in esilio se gli permetteranno di portare con se un miliardo di dollari e tutte le informazioni che desidera sulle armi di distruzione di massa. Gheddafi ha detto a Berlusconi che Saddam se ne vuole andare».

Dal testo del colloquio con Aznar del 22 Febbraio 2003 pubblicato da El País il 25 settembre 2007

La proposta «Iraq Libero! come unica alternativa possibile alla guerra» di Marco Pannella
«Ottima l’idea dell’esilio per Saddam, bisognerebbe che fosse d’accordo anche lui…». Berlusconi e Violante, stessa battuta.

«La proposta di Pannella ha un unico difetto: manca larisposta di Saddam…» Margherita Boniver, Sottosegretaria al Ministero degli esteri, 11 marzo 2003

«Non aggiungiamo alla tragedia di una guerra possibile il grottesco di un Parlamento italiano che vota sull’esilio di un capo di governo di un paese straniero. È come se il Parlamento iracheno votasse sull’esilio di Silvio Berlusconi. Se fossi iracheno potrei anche essere d’accordo, ma non voterei una cosa del genere…». Oliviero Diliberto, 19 febbraio 2003

«È una posizione di pacifismo realista rispetto al pacifismo acritico». Francesco Cossiga, 15 febbraio 2003

«Sono sorpreso dal disinteresse mostrato dai pacifisti per l’ipotesi dell’esilio di Saddam: così ci si priva di un obiettivo concreto e possibile per cui lottare e scendere in piazza. Se davvero – il cielo volesse – Saddam se ne andasse, sarebbe dimostrato che è solo la minaccia armata americana a ottenere ciò cui gliì amanti della non violenza e dell’uguaglianza rinunciano, fino a farsi espropriare di ogni obiettivo che non sia la cordiale rivendicazione della pace».
Adriano Sofri, 1 febbraio 2003

Il 19 gennaio 2003, mentre la comunità internazionale e le piazze si dividevano sulla pace e sulla guerra, Marco Pannella lanciava la sua proposta: l’esilio del dittatore Saddam Hussein e un’amministrazione fiduciaria dell’Onu in Iraq per garantire libertà, democrazia e diritti agli iracheni.

Il verbale pubblicato da El Pais conferma come “Iraq libero” era una proposta alternativa all’approccio dell’amministrazione Bush, la cui «inadeguata valutazione» dell’economia di impiego delle armi di distruzione, spiegava Pannella, «non ha consentito di usare l’arma assoluta di attrazione di massa che era quella di un’edificazione chiara, di un processo chiaro di conversione del regime iracheno in una democrazia». Conversione che Pannella riteneva «almeno tecnicamente errato affidare – cedendo alla demagogia democraticista del dire “l’Iraq agli iracheni”, con logiche tra il neutraliste e il nazionalismo – alle opposizioni irachene».
Nonostante le adesioni di oltre il 50% dei parlamentari italiani di entrambe le coalizioni (per
l’esattezza il 53.5% dei parlamentari, 303 di centrodestra, il 57.7%, e 193 centrosinistra, il
46.8%, 15 membri del Governo italiano, 46 parlamentari europei italiani su 87) e, via internet, di migliaia di cittadini da tutto il mondo, il Governo Berlusconi non ha voluto far proprio il progetto “Iraq libero”, non rispondendo ai numerosi appelli perché fosse preso in esame dall’Unione europea e quindi discusso alle Nazioni Unite. L’iniziativa è stata inoltre ostracizzata, resa
clandestina, dai media italiani, che hanno negato ai cittadini e agli stessi politici il loro diritto ad
esserne informati e a mobilitarsi. I segnali c’èrano già allora.

Esponenti dell’amministrazione Usa e britannica hanno non di rado espresso la loro disponibilità verso tale soluzione. Donald Rumsfeld ne parlò fin dal 20 gennaio 2003, mentre nel corso di un’audizione alla Camera dei Rappresentanti, il 13 febbraio, Colin Powell confermò che gli Stati Uniti stavano valutando, insieme ad altri Paesi, l’ipotesi dell’esilio di Saddam Hussein e dei suoi uomini di fiducia ai posti di potere. Proprio le Nazioni Unite avrebbero dovuto giocare un ruolo per «convincerlo», magari con una seconda risoluzione. Il segretario di Stato rivelò che si stava studiando «dove, con quali protezioni, e come esattamente mettere in atto questa operazione». Per la prima volta la Casa Bianca chiariva che non stava solo «incoraggiando» Saddam, non ne stava «solo discutendo», ma c’era del «lavoro attivo».

Il 16 marzo la guerra poteva essere ancora evitata se Saddam e i suoi principali collaboratori avessero lasciato il potere e gli Usa erano pronti a fornire una lista, dichiarò Powell.
Sappiamo anche dei piani di esilio studiati dall’Arabia Saudita (04-01-2003) e da Egitto e Turchia (15-01-2003). Inoltre, importanti commentatori occidentali, come Thomas Friedman (New York Times, 29-01-2003), giornali come il Washington Post, che avanzò l”ipotesi di una «terza via» (14-03-2003), e la stessa stampa araba (rapporto Memri, 18-02-2003) sottolineavano spesso l’opportunità e la possibilità delle dimissioni di Saddam. L’esilio o la resa di Saddam Hussein «continuerebbero a essere molto bene accolti», dichiarò il portavoce della Casa Bianca, Ari Fleischer, il giorno dell’attacco (20-03-2003).

Ma (almeno fino alle rivelazioni de El Pais del 25 febbraio 2007) la conferma più eclatante che l’esilio di Saddam fosse un’opzione realistica giunge il 3 novembre del 2005, quando un membro del governo degli Emirati Arabi Uniti rivela che l’ex dittatore aveva accettato, in linea di principio, la proposta di esilio avanzatagli dal suo governo nel corso di contatti diretti con un emissario del raìs. Saddam, oltre a garanzie e assicurazioni internazionali, chiedeva una risoluzione della Lega araba in cui il suo esilio fosse approvato, ma la proposta non fu posta all’ordine del giorno della riunione d’emergenza della Lega che si tenne in Egitto il primo marzo 2003.

La proposta d’esilio arriva al Parlamento italiano

Anche quando “Iraq libero”, il 19 febbraio 2003, approdava nel Parlamento italiano, la mozione approvata alla Camera stravolgeva totalmente il senso della proposta.
Il testo raccoglieva solo una delle due parti del progetto, quella secondaria, relativa all’esilio di
Saddam, che diveniva però priva di ogni logica se separata dalla parte centrale della proposta, di cui l’esilio doveva essere solo lo strumento: un’amministrazione fiduciaria dell’Onu per la transizione democratica in Iraq. Lo svuotamento della proposta avveniva nonostante metà dei parlamentari avesse aderito. Tale fu la disinformazione compiuta dai media da far sparire negli stessi sostenitori del progetto la consapevolezza della propria presa di posizione espressa con l’adesione.

Due settimane ancora, chiedevano i leader radicali nell’imminenza dell’attacco. Il principio di legalità, la forza di attrazione democratica e nonviolenta messi in campo dal progetto “Iraq libero” avrebbero potuto riunire l’Europa. Due settimane il tempo perché “Iraq libero” potesse essere raccolto dal premier britannico Blair, in evidente difficoltà sul fronte interno e intento fino all’ultimo in frenetiche consultazioni, ma anche dal presidente di turno dell’Unione europea Papandreu e dal presidente egiziano Hosni Mubarak, e persino dal ministro degli Esteri francese De Villepin.

Se il progetto “Iraq libero”, come chiedevano i radicali, fosse stato fatto proprio dal Governo
italiano e discusso in sede europea, poi portato ufficialmente all’Onu, le divisioni potevano essere
superate, la compattezza di un fronte unico di Stati e opinioni pubbliche avrebbe potuto rendere la richiesta più forte e pressante su Saddam. Per qualunque Stato, di fronte a tali dichiarati obiettivi, sarebbe stato arduo contestare la legittimità di un’ingerenza umanitaria.

Ma “Iraq libero” rimane «una forza che non va dismessa», annunciava Pannella. Un dossier da tenere aperto nel duplice aspetto sia del ruolo e dei limiti dell’Onu, sia delle inadeguatezze e della povertà della politica estera italiana ed europea.
«Occorre mutare radicalmente armi», occorre che siano quelle dell’attrazione di massa e della nonviolenza, «coerenti anche nella loro forma con il grande obiettivo politico, umano, di democrazia, di libertà, di diritto e quindi di pace del e nel mondo». La nonviolenza, spiegava Pannella nella conversazione settimanale del 14 dicembre, va scelta «non solo, o non tanto, o non necessariamente, per motivi morali, ma per motivi di efficacia. Si sono convertite le
condizioni storiche delle lotte, delle guerre, dei confronti, per cui può essere molto più conveniente abbondare nella direzione del comportamento nonviolento e legalitario».

big brother as british as big ben now

.
source: daily mail

Big Brother Britain: Government and councils to spy on
ALL our phones

By JASON LEWIS

17:50pm on 30th September 2007

Officials from the top of Government to lowly council officers will be given unprecedented powers to access details of every phone call in Britain under laws coming into force tomorrow.
The new rules compel phone companies to retain information, however private, about all landline and mobile calls, and make them available to some 795 public bodies and quangos.
The move, enacted by the personal decree of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, will give police and security services a right they have long demanded: to delve at will into the phone records of British citizens and businesses.
Scroll down for more...
The Government will be given access to details of every phone call in Britain. (Posed by model)
But the same powers will also be handed to the tax
authorities, 475 local councils, and a host of other
organisations, including the Food Standards Agency,
the Department of Health, the Immigration Service, the
Gaming Board and the Charity Commission. The
initiative, formulated in the wake of the Madrid and
London terrorist attacks
of 2004 and 2005, was put forward as a vital tool in the fight against terrorism. However, civil liberties campaigners say the new powers amount to a ‘free for all’ for the State snooping on its citizens.
And they angrily questioned why the records were being made available to so many organisations. Similar provisions are being brought in across Europe, but under much tighter regulation. In Britain, say critics, private and sensitive information will inevitably fall into the wrong hands.
Records will detail precisely what calls are made, their time and duration, and the name and address of the registered user of the phone.
The files will even reveal where people are when they made mobile phone calls. By knowing which mast transmitted the signal, officials will be able to pinpoint the source of a call to within a few feet. This can even be used to track someone’s route if, for example, they make a call from a moving car.
Files will also be kept on the sending and receipt of text messages.
By 2009 the Government plans to extend the rules to cover internet use: the websites we have visited, the people we have emailed and phone calls made over the net.
Jacqui Smith
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has spearheaded the move to give police and security services access to the phone records of British citizens and businesses. The new laws will make it a legal requirement for phone companies to keep records for at least a year, and to make them available to the authorities. Until now, companies have been reluctant to allow unfettered access to their files, citing data protection laws, although they have had a voluntary arrangement with law enforcement agencies since 2003.
Many of the organisations granted access to the records already have systems allowing them to search phone-call databases over a computer link without needing staff at the phone company to intervene.
Police requests for phone records will need the approval of a superintendent or inspector, while council officials must get permission from the authority’s assistant chief officer. Thousands of staff in other agencies will be legally entitled to retrieve the records once the request is approved by a senior official.
The new measures were implemented after the Home Secretary signed a ‘statutory instrument’ on July 26. The process allows the Government to alter laws without a full act of Parliament.
The move was nodded through the House of Lords two days earlier without a debate.
It puts into UK law a European Directive aimed at the ‘investigation, detection and prosecution of serious crime’. But the British law allows the information to be used much more widely to combat all crimes, however minor.
The huge number of organisations allowed to access this data was attacked by Liberty, the civil liberties campaign group. Other organisations allowed to see the data include the Royal Navy Regulating Branch, the Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, the Department of Trade and Industry, NHS Trusts, ambulance and fire services, the Department of Transport and the Department for the Environment.
A spokesman for Liberty said: ‘Hundreds of bodies have been given the power to look at this highly sensitive information. It is yet another example of how greater and greater access is being given to information on our movements with little debate and little public accountability.
‘It is a free for all. There is a lack of oversight of how and why public bodies are using these records. There is no public record of what they are using this information for.’
Tony Bunyan, of civil liberties group Statewatch, said: ‘The retention of everyone’s communications data is a momentous decision, one that should not be slipped through Parliament without anyone noticing.’
Last year, the voluntary arrangement allowed 439,000 searches of phone records. But the Government brought in legislation because the industry did not routinely keep all the information it wanted.
Different authorities will have different levels of access to the systems. Police and intelligence services will be able to see more detailed information than local authorities. And officials at NHS Trusts and ambulance and fire services can obtain the records only in rare cases when, for example, they are trying to save a patient’s life.
The new system will be overseen by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, who also ensures security and intelligence services’ phone taps are legal.
The commissioner, Sir Paul Kennedy, reports to the Prime Minister and already carries out random inspections of some agencies legally allowed to see phone records under the existing voluntary scheme. Last year inspectors visited 22 councils already making ‘significant’ use of their powers’ to access phone records. A report said the results were ‘variable’, but within the law.
Privacy watchdog the Information Commissioner, which has responsibly for protecting personal information and policing the Data Protection Act had virtually no role in the new laws.
A spokeswoman said its only function was to ensure ‘data security’ at the phone companies, adding: ‘We have no oversight role over the release of this information.’
The Home Office said there were safeguards to ensure the new law was being used properly. Every authority had a nominated senior member of staff who was legally responsible for the use the phone data was put to, ‘the integrity of the process’ and for ‘reporting errors’.
A spokesman said: ‘The most detailed level of data can be accessed only by law enforcement agencies such as the police. More basic access is available to local authority bodies such as trading standards and environmental health who can only use these powers to prevent and detect crime.’
A spokesman for the Local Government Association, which represents councils across England and Wales, said: ‘Councils would only use these powers in circumstances such as benefit fraud, when the taxpayer is being ripped off for many thousands of pounds.’
He added that it was ‘very unlikely’ the powers would be used against non-payers of council tax or for parking fines ‘as the sums involved are not sufficient to justify the use of this sort of information or the costs involved in applying it’.

arrest warrant for interpol boss

‘Arrest order’ for Interpol head

South African prosecutors have issued an arrest warrant for Commissioner of Police Jackie Selebi, reports say.

Mr Selebi is the current head of the international police body, Interpol.
He has not been arrested, and his spokeswoman said she knew nothing of the warrant. The National Prosecuting Authority has not commented.
Opposition parties have highlighted Mr Selebi’s reported criminal links and say if reports of the warrant are true, he should be suspended from his post.
Previous press reports have linked Mr Selebi to Glenn Agliotti, who was arrested last year in connection with the murder of leading businessman Brett Kebble.
The warrant for Mr Selebi’s arrest was reportedly issued by the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), which operates independently from the South African Police Services, the regular police force headed by Mr Selebi.
The NPA has not publicly confirmed the issuing of a warrant.
Controversy
Reports say the NPA issued the warrant last week, before chief prosecutor Vusi Pikoli was suspended from his duties by President Thabo Mbeki.
The role of the NPA’s Special Investigations Unit, known as the Scorpions, and its relationship with the police has been the subject of intense political controversy in South Africa over the past four years.
Mr Pikoli’s suspension followed reports of disagreement with Justice Minister Brigitte Mabandla over the role of the NPA and the Scorpions in the prosecution of former Deputy President Jacob Zuma on charges of corruption.
But Friday’s Mail & Guardian newspaper suggested that Mr Pikoli’s suspension resulted from his failure to inform his political superiors of moves to investigate Mr Selebi.
Political commentator Adam Habib said Mr Mbeki would have to deal decisively with the latest claims.
« If there’s a link [between Mr Pikoli’s suspension and investigations into Mr Selebi] this will have serious implications, because the constitution says the NPA must be free and independent of political interference, » he said.
Suspension calls
Diane Kohler-Barnard, spokeswoman for the opposition Democratic Alliance (DA) said that if the reports of the warrant proved to be true and the case were not pursued, « it will become quite clear that Advocate Pikoli’s suspension was as a direct result of his decision to pursue and prosecute the commissioner ».
« The DA has for the past year called for the suspension of Commissioner Selebi following allegations of his connections to underworld figures and of the NPA investigating him, » Ms Kohler-Barnard’s statement continues.
« If reports are accurate the fact that a warrant was obtained is to be welcomed as there are several outstanding questions around the commissioner’s actions and relationship with his colleagues which can only be answered in a court of law. »
The African Christian Democratic Party (ACDP) called for Mr Selebi’s suspension from his duties.
« There have been rumours for years about Jackie Selebi’s links to Glenn Agliotti and organised crime, » said ACDP Deputy Chairperson Jo-Ann Downs said.
« Perhaps an investigation will finally answer those questions. »
Story from BBC NEWS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/7017029.stm

Published: 2007/09/28 10:59:23 GMT

plan d'attaque us/israel vs iran selon le canard

Le journal français Le Canard enchaîné affirme, dans son édition de mercredi, qu’il existerait un plan d’attaque israélo-américain contre l’Iran. Le journal indique que ce sont les services secrets russes qui ont découvert ce plan. Le président russe, Vladimir Poutine, aurait déjà informé les autorités iraniennes.
Dans un premier temps, l’aviation israélienne effectuerait des raids contre les sites nucléaires iraniens. Les avions-radars américains guideraient et protègeraient ces raids. Par la suite, l’aviation américaine prendrait le relai, selon les résultats obtenus, soutient le journal.
Les services secrets russes précisent même que les attaques auraient lieu entre la fin du ramadan, soit vers la mi-octobre, et le début de l’année 2008. Rappelons que le Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU a donné à la République islamique jusqu’à décembre 2007 pour qu’elle permette à l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique d’effectuer de nouveaux contrôles de ses sites nucléaires.
L’article du Canard enchaîné indique également que les services secrets français ont observé une importante livraison d’armes de Moscou à Téhéran. Il s’agirait de batteries de missiles antinavires, de missiles antiaériens et d’hélicoptères.
Toujours selon des sources des services secrets français cités par le journal, les avions-radars américains AWACS et des avions israéliens ont effectué plusieurs sorties à proximité des cibles iraniennes.
Le mystérieux raid israélien contre la Syrie, le 6 septembre dernier, pourrait être vu comme une répétition avant une éventuelle attaque contre l’Iran.
Le quotidien nationaliste panarabe Al-Qods Al-Arabi, édité à Londres, avait évoqué, il y a quelques jours, une attaque américaine contre l’Iran. Selon l’auteur de l’article, il existerait des indices qui laissent à penser que Téhéran sera la prochaine cible de Washington.
Parmi les indices avancés par l’auteur, le fait que George Bush ait utilisé les termes d’« holocauste nucléaire » est un avertissement à Téhéran pour qu’il cesse d’enrichir de l’uranium; la présence de Nicolas Sarkozy en tant que nouvel allié de Washington laisse la place laissée vacante par l’ex-premier ministre Tony Blair; enfin, la signature par l’Arabie saoudite d’un contrat de de quelque 5 milliards avec une société américaine pour entraîner et équiper quelque 35 000 hommes chargés de protéger les installations pétrolières saoudiennes.

us snipers told to kill unarmed iraqis

Testimony in Court-Martial Describes a Sniper Squad
Pressed to Raise Body Count

By Paul von Zielbauer

The New York Times

Friday 28 September 2007

Camp Liberty, Iraq - An Army sniper is taught to kill people « calmly and deliberately, » even when they pose no immediate danger to him. « A sniper, » Army Field Manual 23-10 goes on to state, « must not be susceptible to emotions such as anxiety or remorse. »
But in a crowded military courtroom seemingly stunned into silence on Thursday, Sgt. Evan Vela all but broke down as he described firing two bullets into an unarmed Iraqi man his unit arrested last May.
In anguished, eloquent sentences, Sergeant Vela, a member of an elite sniper scout platoon with the First Battalion, 501st Infantry Regiment, quietly described how his squad leader, Staff Sgt. Michael A. Hensley, cut off the man’s handcuffs, wrestled him to his feet and ordered Sergeant Vela, standing a few feet away, to fire the 9-millimeter service pistol into the detainee’s head.
« I heard the word ‘Shoot,’ » Sergeant Vela recalled. « I don’t remember pulling the trigger, » he said. « I just came through and the guy was dead, and it just took me a second to realize the shot had come from the pistol. »
Then, Sergeant Vela said, as the man, a suspected insurgent, convulsed on the ground, Sergeant Hensley kicked him in the throat and told Sergeant Vela to shoot him again. Sergeant Vela, who is not on trial but faces murder charges in connection with the killing, said he fired a second time.
His testimony on Thursday, in the court-martial of Specialist Jorge G. Sandoval Jr., another sniper who is accused of murder, provided a glimpse into the dark moments of a platoon exhausted, emotionally and physically, by days-long missions in the region south of Baghdad that soldiers call the « triangle of death. » In their testimony, Sergeant Vela and other soldiers described how their teams were pushed beyond limits by battalion commanders eager to raise their kill ratio against a ruthless enemy.
During a separate hearing here in July, Sgt. Anthony G. Murphy said he and other First Battalion snipers felt « an underlying tone » of disappointment from field commanders seeking higher enemy body counts.
« It just kind of felt like, ‘What are you guys doing wrong out there?’ » he said at the time.
That attitude among superiors changed earlier this year after Sergeant Hensley, an expert marksman, became a team leader, according to soldiers’ testimony. Though sometimes unorthodox, soldiers said, Sergeant Hensley and other snipers around him began racking up many more kills, pleasing the commanders.
Soldiers also testified that battalion commanders authorized a classified new technique that used fake explosives and detonation wires as « bait » to lure and kill suspected insurgents around Iskandariya, a hostile Sunni Arab region south of Baghdad.
As their superiors sought less restrictive rules of engagement - to legalize the combat killing of anyone who made a soldier « feel threatened, » for example, instead of showing hostile intent or actions - the baiting program, as it was known, succeeded in killing more Iraqis suspected of being terrorists, soldiers testified.
But testimony in proceedings for Sergeant Hensley and, on Thursday, for Specialist Sandoval, both of whom face murder charges in connection with separate killings of Iraqi men last spring, suggest that as the integrity of the battalion’s secret baiting program began to crack, so did Sergeant Hensley.
Only a select group of snipers in the battalion were told of the program, but many more were ordered, without explanation, to carry the baiting items on missions, creating rumors that the items were intended to be planted on victims of unjustified killings, soldiers testified.
Sergeant Hensley, according to several snipers, added to such suspicions when he told a junior member of his team to plant a roll of copper wire - clear contraband - on a suspected insurgent that Specialist Sandoval killed on April 27 after being authorized to shoot by his platoon commander.
On a separate mission two weeks earlier, Sergeant Hensley had killed another Iraqi man he said appeared to be « laying wire » near an irrigation ditch, as the man’s wife and children worked and played nearby.
Then on May 11, Sergeant Vela killed the unarmed man. Afterward, as he testified Thursday, Sergeant Hensley pulled an AK-47, a weapon favored by insurgents, out of his pack and placed it on the body, telling his team that the gun would « say » what happened.
Specialist Sandoval’s court-martial on murder charges began here on Wednesday, and is scheduled to conclude Friday. Sergeant Hensley’s court-martial on murder charges is scheduled to begin here Oct. 22.
An evidentiary hearing for Sergeant Vela, who took the stand on Thursday in the Sandoval court-martial after being granted immunity from incriminating himself in that case, is expected later this year.
Sergeant Murphy has been investigated for a killing of another Iraqi man on April 7. Prosecutors have warned two more battalion members that they are also suspected of committing possible crimes as accomplices in the murder cases.
Struggling to explain why a highly trained Army sniper unit, renowned for its lethal economy of patience and discipline, would bog down under a cloud of murder investigations, some soldiers in interviews faulted commanders for pushing units to keep their kill counts high.
Others pointed toward the outsized influence on the unit by Sergeant Hensley, who, according to other soldiers’ testimony, was dealing with two recent deaths: that of a close friend, killed in a roadside bomb, and also the suicide of his girlfriend back home.
« Staff Sgt. Hensley just continued to drive on, » said Specialist Joshua Lee Michaud, in testimony at the July hearing about the sergeant’s toughness. « Both of them didn’t even faze him. »
A trainer of snipers, Sgt. First Class Terrol Peterson, testified Thursday that the very emotions a sniper must control to do his job properly - anxiety and remorse - sometimes emerge in unexpected and painful ways. « When a sniper breaks, he breaks bad, » Sergeant Peterson said.

saddam proposed exile for cash

.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-484162/Saddam-asked-Bush-1bn-exile.html

Saddam asked Bush for $1bn to go into exile

By DAVID GARDNER

23:45 26 settembre 2007

Saddam Hussein is said to have offered to go into exile for $1bn

George Bush was convinced that Saddam was serious about going into exile

Saddam Hussein offered to step down and go into exile one month before the invasion of Iraq, it was claimed last night.

Fearing defeat, Saddam was prepared to go peacefully in return for £500million ($1billion).

The extraordinary offer was revealed yesterday in a transcript of talks in February 2003 between George Bush and the then Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar at the President's Texas ranch.

The White House refused to comment on the report last night.

But, if verified, it is certain to raise questions in Washington and London over whether the costly four-year war could have been averted.

Only yesterday, the Bush administration asked Congress for another £100billion to finance the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The total war bill for British taxpayers is expected to reach £7billion by next year.

More than 3,800 American service personnel have lost their lives in Iraq, along with 170 Britons and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

However, according to the tapes, one month before he launched the invasion Mr Bush appeared convinced that Saddam was serious about going into exile.

"The Eqyptians are speaking to Saddam Hussein," said Mr Bush.

"It seems he's indicated he would be prepared to go into exile if he's allowed to take $1billion and all the information he wants about weapons of mass destruction."

Asked by the Spanish premier whether Saddam - who was executed in December last year - could really leave, the President replied: "Yes, that possibility exists. Or he might even be assassinated."

But he added that whatever happened: "We'll be in Baghdad by the end of March."

Mr Bush went on to refer optimistically to the rebuilding or Iraq.

The transcript - which was published yesterday in the Spanish newspaper El Pais - was said to have been recorded by a diplomat at the meeting in Crawford, Texas, on February 22, 2003.

Mr Bush was dismissive of the then French President Jacques Chirac, saying he "thinks he's Mr Arab".

Referring to his relationship with Downing Street, he said: "I don't mind being the bad cop if Blair is the good cop."

The President added: "Saddam won't change and he'll keep on playing games.

"The time has come to get rid of him. That's the way it is."

Days before the invasion began on March 22, 2003, the United Arab Emirates proposed to a summit of Arab leaders that Saddam and his henchmen should go into exile.

It was the first time the plan had been officially voiced but it was drowned out in the drumbeat of war.

A spokesman for Mr Aznar's foundation had no comment on its authenticity.

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

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/espana/Llego/momento/deshacerse/Sadam/elpepunac/20070926elpepinac_1/Tes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602414.html

TEXTO DE REFERENCIA: ACTA DE LA CONVERSACIÓN ENTRE GEORGE W. BUSH Y JOSÉ MARÍA AZNAR - CRAWFORD, TEJAS, 22 DE FEBRERO DE 2003

"Llegó el momento de deshacerse de Sadam"

26/09/2007

Presidente Bush. Estamos a favor de conseguir una segunda resolución en el Consejo de Seguridad y querríamos hacerlo rápidamente. Querríamos anunciarla el lunes o el martes [24 o 25 de febrero de 2003].

Presidente Aznar. Mejor el martes, después de la reunión del Consejo de Asuntos Generales de la Unión Europea. Es importante mantener el momentum [impulso] conseguido por la resolución de la cumbre de la Unión Europea [en Bruselas, el lunes 17 de febrero]. Nosotros preferiríamos esperar hasta el martes.

PB. Podría ser el lunes por la tarde, teniendo en cuenta la diferencia horaria. En cualquier caso la próxima semana. Vemos la resolución redactada de manera que no contenga elementos obligatorios, que no mencione el uso de la fuerza, y que constate que Sadam Hussein ha sido incapaz de cumplir sus obligaciones. Ese tipo de resolución puede ser votada por mucha gente. Sería algo parecida a la que se obtuvo cuando lo de Kosovo [el 10 de junio de 1999].

PA. ¿Se presentaría ante el Consejo de Seguridad antes e independientemente de una declaración paralela?

Condoleezza Rice. En realidad no habría declaración paralela. Estamos pensando en una resolución tan simple como sea posible sin muchos detalles de cumplimiento que pudieran servir para que Sadam Hussein los utilizara como etapas y consiguientemente incumplirlas. Estamos hablando con Blix [jefe de los inspectores de la ONU] y otros de su equipo para obtener ideas que pueden servir para introducir la resolución.

PB. Sadam Husein no cambiará y seguirá jugando. Ha llegado el momento de deshacerse de él. Es así. Yo, por mi parte, procuraré a partir de ahora utilizar una retórica lo más sutil posible, mientras buscamos la aprobación de la resolución. Si alguien veta [Rusia, China y Francia poseen junto a EE UU y Reino Unido derecho a veto en el Consejo de Seguridad en su calidad de miembros permanentes], nosotros iremos. Sadam Hussein no se está desarmando. Le tenemos que coger ahora mismo. Hemos mostrado un grado increíble de paciencia hasta ahora. Quedan dos semanas. En dos semanas estaremos militarmente listos. Creo que conseguiremos la segunda resolución. En el Consejo de Seguridad tenemos a los tres africanos [Camerún, Angola y Guinea], a los chilenos, a los mexicanos. Hablaré con todos ellos, también con Putin, naturalmente. Estaremos en Bagdad a finales de marzo. Existe un 15% de posibilidades de que en ese momento Sadam Hussein esté muerto o se haya ido. Pero esas posibilidades no existen antes de que hayamos mostrado nuestra resolución. Los egipcios están hablando con Sadam Hussein. Parece que ha indicado que estaría dispuesto a exiliarse si le dejaran llevarse 1.000 millones de dólares y toda la información que quisiera sobre armas de destrucción masiva. [Muammar El] Gaddafi le ha dicho a Berlusconi que Sadam Hussein quiere irse. Mubarak nos dice que en esas circunstancias existen muchas posibilidades de que sea asesinado.

Nos gustaría actuar con el mandato de las Naciones Unidas. Si actuamos militarmente lo haremos con una gran precisión y focalizando mucho nuestros objetivos. Diezmaremos a las tropas leales y el ejército regular rápidamente sabrá de lo que se trata. Hemos hecho llegar un mensaje muy claro a los generales de Sadam Hussein: los trataremos como criminales de guerra. Sabemos que han acumulado una enorme cantidad de dinamita para hacer volar los puentes y otras infraestructuras y hacer saltar por los aires los pozos petrolíferos. Tenemos previsto ocupar esos pozos muy pronto. También los saudíes nos ayudarían a poner en el mercado el petróleo que fuese necesario. Estamos desarrollando un paquete de ayuda humanitaria muy fuerte. Podemos ganar sin destrucción. Estamos planteando ya el Irak post Sadam, y creo que hay buenas bases para un futuro mejor. Irak tiene una buena burocracia y una sociedad civil relativamente fuerte. Se podría organizar en una federación. Mientras tanto estamos haciendo todo lo posible para atender las necesidades políticas de nuestros amigos y aliados.

PA. Es muy importante contar con una resolución. No es lo mismo actuar con ella que sin ella. Sería muy conveniente contar en el Consejo de Seguridad con una mayoría que apoyara esa resolución. De hecho, es más importante contar con mayoría que que alguien emita un veto. Creemos que el contenido de la resolución debería entre otras cosas constatar que Sadam Hussein ha perdido su oportunidad.

PB. Sí, por supuesto. Sería mejor eso que hacer una referencia a "los medios necesarios" [se refiere a la resolución tipo de la ONU que autoriza a utilizar "todos los medios necesarios"].

PA. Sadam Husein no ha cooperado, no se ha desarmado, deberíamos hacer un resumen de sus incumplimientos y lanzar un mensaje más elaborado. Eso permitiría por ejemplo que México se moviera [en referencia a cambiar su posición contraria a la segunda resolución, que Aznar pudo conocer de labios del presidente Vicente Fox el viernes 21 de febrero en una escala realizada en Ciudad de México].

PB. La resolución estará hecha a la medida de lo que pueda ayudarte. Me da un poco lo mismo el contenido.

PA. Te haremos llegar unos textos.

PB. Nosotros no tenemos ningún texto. Solamente un criterio: que Sadam Hussein se desarme. No podemos permitir que Sadam Hussein alargue el tiempo hasta el verano. Al fin y al cabo ya ha tenido cuatro meses en esta última etapa y eso es tiempo más que suficiente para desarmarse.

PA. Nos ayudaría ese texto para ser capaces de patrocinarlo y ser sus coautores y conseguir que mucha gente lo patrocine.

PB. Perfecto.

PA. El próximo miércoles [26 de febrero] me veo con Chirac. La resolución ya habrá comenzado a circular.

PB. Me parece muy bien. Chirac conoce perfectamente la realidad. Sus servicios de inteligencia se lo han explicado. Los árabes le están transmitiendo a Chirac un mensaje muy claro: Sadam Hussein debe irse. El problema es que Chirac se cree Mister Arab

y en realidad les está haciendo la vida imposible. Pero yo no quiero tener ninguna rivalidad con Chirac. Tenemos puntos de vista diferentes, pero yo quisiera que eso fuera todo. Dale los mejores recuerdos de mi parte. ¡De verdad! Cuanto menos rivalidad sienta él que existe entre nosotros será mejor para todos.

PA. ¿Cómo se combina la resolución y el informe de los inspectores?

Condoleezza Rice. En realidad no habrá informe el 28 de febrero sino que los inspectores presentarán un informe escrito el 1 de marzo, y su comparecencia ante el Consejo de Seguridad no se producirá hasta el 6 o 7 de marzo de 2003. No esperamos gran cosa de ese informe. Como en los anteriores, pondrán una de cal y otra de arena. Tengo la impresión de que Blix será ahora más negativo que lo que antes fue sobre la voluntad de los iraquíes. Después de la comparecencia de los inspectores en el Consejo debemos prever el voto sobre la resolución una semana después. Los iraquíes, entre tanto, intentarán explicar que van cumpliendo sus obligaciones. Ni es cierto ni será suficiente, aunque anuncien la destrucción de algunos misiles.

PB. Esto es como la tortura china del agua. Tenemos que poner fin a ello.

PA. Estoy de acuerdo, pero sería bueno contar con el máximo número de gente posible. Ten un poco de paciencia.

PB. Mi paciencia está agotada. No pienso ir más allá de la mitad de marzo.

PA. No te pido que tengas una paciencia infinita. Simplemente que hagas lo posible para que todo cuadre.

PB. Países como México, Chile, Angola y Camerún deben saber que lo que está en juego es la seguridad de los EE UU y actuar con un sentido de amistad hacia nosotros.

[El presidente Ricardo] Lagos debe saber que el Acuerdo de Libre Comercio con Chile está pendiente de confirmación en el Senado y que una actitud negativa en este tema podría poner en peligro esa ratificación. Angola está recibiendo fondos del Millenium Account y también podrían quedar comprometidos si no se muestran positivos. Y Putin debe saber que con su actitud está poniendo en peligro las relaciones de Rusia con los Estados Unidos.

PA. Tony querría llegar hasta el 14 de marzo.

PB. Yo prefiero el 10. Esto es como el juego de policía malo y policía bueno. A mí no me importa ser el policía malo y que Blair sea el bueno.

PA. ¿Es cierto que existe alguna posibilidad de que Sadam Hussein se exilie?

PB. Sí, existe esa posibilidad. Incluso de que sea asesinado.

PA. ¿Exilio con alguna garantía?

PB. Ninguna garantía. Es un ladrón, un terrorista, un criminal de guerra. Comparado con Sadam, Milosevic sería una Madre Teresa. Cuando entremos vamos a descubrir muchos más crímenes y le llevaremos al Tribunal Internacional de Justicia de La Haya. Sadam Hussein cree que ya se ha escapado. Cree que Francia y Alemania han detenido el proceso de sus responsabilidades. Cree también que las manifestaciones de la semana pasada

[sábado 15 de febrero] le protegen. Y cree que yo estoy muy debilitado. Pero la gente de su entorno sabe que las cosas son de otra manera. Saben que su futuro está en el exilio o en un ataúd. Por eso es tan importante mantener la presión sobre él. Gaddafi nos dice indirectamente que eso es lo único que puede acabar con él. La única estrategia de Sadam Hussein es la de retrasar, retrasar y retrasar.

PA. En realidad el mayor éxito sería ganar la partida sin disparar un solo tiro y entrando en Bagdad.

PB. Para mí sería la solución perfecta. Yo no quiero la guerra. Sé lo que son las guerras. Sé la destrucción y la muerte que traen consigo. Yo soy el que tiene que consolar a las madres y a las viudas de los muertos. Por supuesto, para nosotros esa sería la mejor solución. Además, nos ahorraría 50.000 millones de dólares.

PA. Necesitamos que nos ayudéis con nuestra opinión pública.

PB. Haremos todo lo que podamos. El miércoles voy a hablar sobre la situación en el Oriente Medio, proponiendo un nuevo esquema de paz que conoces y sobre las armas de destrucción masiva, de los beneficios de una sociedad libre, y situaré la historia de Irak en un contexto más amplio. Quizá os sirva.

PA. Lo que estamos haciendo es un cambio muy profundo para España y para los españoles. Estamos cambiando la política que el país había seguido en los últimos 200 años.

PB. A mí me guía un sentido histórico de la responsabilidad igual que a ti. Cuando dentro de unos años la Historia nos juzgue no quiero que la gente se pregunte por qué Bush, o Aznar, o Blair no hicieron frente a sus responsabilidades. Al final, lo que la gente quiere es gozar de libertad. Hace poco, en Rumania me recordaban el ejemplo de Ceausescu: bastó con que una mujer le llamara mentiroso para que todo el edificio represivo se viniera abajo. Es el poder incontenible de la libertad. Estoy convencido de que conseguiré la resolución.

PA. Mejor que mejor.

PB. Yo tomé la decisión de ir al Consejo de Seguridad. A pesar de las divergencias en mi Administración, les dije a mi gente que teníamos que trabajar con nuestros amigos. Será estupendo contar con una segunda resolución.

PA. Lo único que me preocupa de ti es tu optimismo.

PB. Estoy optimista porque creo que estoy en lo cierto. Estoy en paz conmigo mismo. Nos ha correspondido hacer frente a una seria amenaza contra la paz. Me irrita muchísimo contemplar la insensibilidad de los europeos sobre los sufrimientos que Sadam Hussein inflige a los iraquíes. Quizá porque es moreno, lejano y musulmán, muchos europeos piensan que todo está bien con él. No olvidaré lo que me dijo una vez Solana: que por qué los americanos pensamos que los europeos son antisemitas e incapaces de hacer frente a sus responsabilidades. Esa actitud defensiva es terrible. Tengo que reconocer que con Kofi Annan tengo unas magníficas relaciones.

PA. Comparte tus preocupaciones éticas.

PB. Cuanto más me atacan los europeos tanto más fuerte soy en los Estados Unidos.

PA. Tendríamos que hacer compatible tu fortaleza con el aprecio de los europeos.

rappel sur l'ascension mediatique de sarkozy

http://www.voltairenet.org/article151721.html#article151721
« Human Bomb » : France-Télévisions écrit l’Histoire officielle du président Sarkozy

Quatre mois après l’accession de Nicolas Sarkozy à la présidence de la République française, France-Télévisions diffuse en première partie de soirée un télé-film à sa gloire : H.B. Human Bomb - Maternelle en otage. Il s’agit de la reconstitution d’un fait divers de 1993.

Un déséquilibré bardé d’explosifs prit en otages 21 enfants et une institutrice dans une école maternelle à Neuilly-sur-Seine, réclamant une rançon de 100 millions de francs. N’écoutant que son courage, le maire de la ville et ministre du Budget de l’époque, Nicolas Sarkozy, négocia avec le preneur d’otages et lui remit l’argent pour sauver les enfants. En définitive, le déséquilibré fut abattu par les policiers. « Force est resté à la Loi », conclu le ministre de l’Intérieur Charles Pasqua, omniprésent en coulisse durant tout l’événement.

Étrangement, 14 ans plus tard, la presse française commente le téléfilm sans s’interroger plus avant sur les faits qu’il décrit. Or, à l’époque, une vive polémique opposa magistrats et policiers, donnant même lieu à un procès en correctionnelle.
Des débats judiciaires, auxquels l’auteur de ces lignes a assisté, on pouvait retenir les points suivants :
On ignorait tout ce qui a poussé le déséquilibré à commettre son acte, s’il a été manipulé ou s’il a agit de sa propre initiative. Aucune enquête n’avait été conduite sur ce point.
Les policiers avaient organisé un périmètre de sécurité autour de l’école, au cas où le preneur d’otage actionnerait ses explosifs. Cependant ce périmètre était restreint pour permettre aux médias de suivre l’évènement et il était si restreint qu’il n’offrait aucune sécurité. Tout se passait donc comme si les policiers savaient que le danger d’explosion n’était pas réel.
Les policiers avaient laissé un ministre en exercice négocier avec le forcené comme s’ils savaient, eux, qu’il ne risquait pas sa vie.
Des policiers non-identifiés, en liaison avec le ministre Charles Pasqua et à l’insu de leurs collègues, des pompiers et du procureur, avaient drogué le café du preneur d’otage de sorte qu’il dormait profondément lorsque l’équipe d’intervention a surgi et l’a abattu en interprétant comme une menace ce qui n’était qu’un geste durant son sommeil.
Personne n’avait vu d’acte de procédure mentionnant la restitution au trésorier payeur général de la rançon prélevée sur le Trésor public par le ministre du Budget.

Bref, à l’époque, la justice avait établi que le policier qui avait tiré ignorait que ses collègues avaient drogué le forcené, mais on se posait la question de savoir si le preneur d’otage n’avait pas été manipulé par des hommes proches de Charles Pasqua pour donner une occasion à son fils spirituel Nicolas Sarkozy de se mettre en scène ; si les conditions de son exécution n’avaient pas été créées pour effacer les traces de la manipulation ; et si les manipulateurs n’avaient pas été grassement rémunérés avec l’argent du Trésor public.

Il est regrettable que ces questions légitimes n’aient toujours pas reçu de réponses et que la presse les aient même oubliées. Un grand éditeur parisien nous avait déclaré en 2006 vouloir publier une enquête sur ce sujet durant la campagne électorale présidentielle et y a en définitive renoncé.

cheney considered asking israel to strike iran

Cheney mulled Israeli strike on Iran: Newsweek

Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:06pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Vice President Dick Cheney had at one point considered asking Israel to launch limited missile strikes at an Iranian nuclear site to provoke a retaliation, Newsweek magazine reported on Sunday.
The news comes amid reports that Israel launched an air strike against Syria this month over a suspected nuclear site.
Citing two unidentified sources, Newsweek said former Cheney Middle East adviser David Wurmser told a small group several months ago that Cheney was considering asking Israel to strike the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz.
A military response by Iran could give Washington an excuse to then launch airstrikes of its own, Newsweek said.
Wurmser’s wife, Meyrav Wurmser of the neoconservative Hudson Institute think tank, told Newsweek the claims were untrue.
Wurmser left Cheney’s office last month, the magazine reported. The steady departure of neoconservative hawks from the administration has also helped tilt the balance against war, it said.
Washington has been pursuing diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to alter its nuclear program. It has refused to take military options off the table, even U.S. resources are taxed by having 169,000 troops in Iraq.
Although some intelligence sources say Iran is years away from nuclear capability, Israel believes that military action may be necessary as early as 2008, Newsweek said.
Israel has declined to comment on the reported air strike, while Syria has denied receiving North Korean nuclear aid and said it could retaliate for the September 6 violation of its territory.

b 52 flies with nukes unknowingly (3 texts)

source :http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=24190

Mystery surrounds deaths of Minot airmen

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:10:30

Capt. John Frueh

Six members of the US Air Force who were involved in the Minot AFB incident, have died mysteriously, an anti-Bush activist group says.
The incident happened when a B-52 bomber was « mistakenly » loaded with six nuclear warheads and flown for more than three hours across several states, prompting an Air Force investigation and the firing of one commander.
The plane was carrying Advanced Cruise Missiles from Minot Air Force Base, N.D, to Barksdale Air Force Base on August 30.
The Air Combat Command has ordered a command-wide stand down on September 14 to review procedures, officials said.
The missiles, which are being decommissioned, were mounted onto pylons on the bomber’s wings and it is unclear why the warheads had not been removed beforehand.
In addition to the munitions squadron commander who was relieved of his duties, crews involved in the incident, including ground crew workers had been temporarily decertified for handling munitions.
The activist group Citizens for Legitimate Government said the six members of the US Air Force who were directly involved as loaders or as pilots, were killed within 7 days in ‘accidents’.
The victims include Airman First Class Todd Blue, 20, who died while on leave in Virginia. A statement by the military confirmed his death but did not say how he died.
In another accident, a married couple from Barksdale Air Force Base were killed in the 5100 block of Shreveport-Blanchard Highway. The two were riding a 2007 Harley-Davidson motorcycle, with the husband driving and the wife the passenger, police said.
« They were traveling behind a northbound Pontiac Aztec
driven by Erica Jerry, 35, of Shreveport, » the county
sheriff said. « Jerry initiated a left turn into a
business parking lot at the same time the man driving
the motorcycle attempted to pass her van on the left
in a no passing zone. They collided. »
Adam Barrs, a 20-year-old airman from Minot Air Force Base was killed in a crash on the outskirts of the city.
First Lt. Weston Kissel, 28, a Minot Air Force Base bomber pilot, was killed in a motorcycle crash in Tennessee, the military officials say.
Police found the body of a missing Air Force captain John Frueh near Badger Peak in northeast Skamania County, Washington.
The Activist group says the mysterious deaths of the air force members could indicate to a conspiracy to cover up the truth about the Minot Air Base incident.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Missteps in the Bunker

By Joby Warrick and Walter Pincus

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, September 23, 2007; A01

Just after 9 a.m. on Aug. 29, a group of U.S. airmen entered a sod-covered bunker on North Dakota’s Minot Air Force Base with orders to collect a set of unarmed cruise missiles bound for a weapons graveyard. They quickly pulled out a dozen cylinders, all of which appeared identical from a cursory glance, and hauled them along Bomber Boulevard to a waiting B-52 bomber.
The airmen attached the gray missiles to the plane’s wings, six on each side. After eyeballing the missiles on the right side, a flight officer signed a manifest that listed a dozen unarmed AGM-129 missiles. The officer did not notice that the six on the left contained nuclear warheads, each with the destructive power of up to 10 Hiroshima bombs.
That detail would escape notice for an astounding 36 hours, during which the missiles were flown across the country to a Louisiana air base that had no idea nuclear warheads were coming. It was the first known flight by a nuclear-armed bomber over U.S. airspace, without special high-level authorization, in nearly 40 years.
The episode, serious enough to trigger a rare « Bent Spear » nuclear incident report that raced through the chain of command to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and President Bush, provoked new questions inside and outside the Pentagon about the adequacy of U.S. nuclear weapons safeguards while the military’s attention and resources are devoted to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Three weeks after word of the incident leaked to the public, new details obtained by The Washington Post point to security failures at multiple levels in North Dakota and Louisiana, according to interviews with current and former U.S. officials briefed on the initial results of an Air Force investigation of the incident.
The warheads were attached to the plane in Minot without special guard for more than 15 hours, and they remained on the plane in Louisiana for nearly nine hours more before being discovered. In total, the warheads slipped from the Air Force’s nuclear safety net for more than a day without anyone’s knowledge.
« I have been in the nuclear business since 1966 and am not aware of any incident more disturbing, » retired Air Force Gen. Eugene Habiger, who served as U.S. Strategic Command chief from 1996 to 1998, said in an interview.
A simple error in a missile storage room led to missteps at every turn, as ground crews failed to notice the warheads, and as security teams and flight crew members failed to provide adequate oversight and check the cargo thoroughly. An elaborate nuclear safeguard system, nurtured during the Cold War and infused with rigorous accounting and command procedures, was utterly debased, the investigation’s early results show.
The incident came on the heels of multiple warnings— some of which went to the highest levels of the Bush administration, including the National Security Council—of security problems at Air Force installations where nuclear weapons are kept. The risks are not that warheads might be accidentally detonated, but that sloppy procedures could leave room for theft or damage to a warhead, disseminating its toxic nuclear materials.
A former National Security Council staff member with detailed knowledge described the event as something that people in the White House « have been assured never could happen. » What occurred on Aug. 29-30, the former official said, was « a breakdown at a number of levels involving flight crew, munitions, storage and tracking procedures—faults that never were to line up on a single day. »
Missteps in the Bunker
The air base where the incident took place is one of the most remote and, for much of the year, coldest military posts in the continental United States. Veterans of Minot typically describe their assignments by counting the winters passed in the flat, treeless region where January temperatures sometimes reach 30 below zero. In airman-speak, a three-year assignment becomes « three winters » at Minot.
The daily routine for many of Minot’s crews is a cycle of scheduled maintenance for the base’s 35 aging B-52H Stratofortress bombers—mammoth, eight-engine workhorses, the newest of which left the assembly line more than 45 years ago. Workers also tend to 150 intercontinental ballistic missiles kept at the ready in silos scattered across neighboring cornfields, as well as hundreds of smaller nuclear bombs, warheads and vehicles stored in sod-covered bunkers called igloos.
« We had a continuous workload in maintaining » warheads, said Scott Vest, a former Air Force captain who spent time in Minot’s bunkers in the 1990s. « We had a stockpile of more than 400 . . . and some of them were always coming due » for service.
Among the many weapons and airframes, the AGM-129 cruise missile was well known at the base as a nuclear warhead delivery system carried by B-52s. With its unique shape and design, it is easily distinguished from the older AGM-86, which can be fitted with either a nuclear or a conventional warhead.
Last fall, after 17 years in the U.S. arsenal, the Air Force’s more than 400 AGM-129s were ordered into retirement by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. Minot was told to begin shipping out the unarmed missiles in small groups to Barksdale Air Force Base near Shreveport, La., for storage. By Aug. 29, its crews had already sent more than 200 missiles to Barksdale and knew the drill by heart.
The Air Force’s account of what happened that day and the next was provided by multiple sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the government’s investigation is continuing and classified.
At 9:12 a.m. local time on Aug. 29, according to the account, ground crews in two trucks entered a gated compound at Minot known as the Weapons Storage Area and drove to an igloo where the cruise missiles were stored. The 21-foot missiles were already mounted on pylons, six apiece in clusters of three, for quick mounting to the wings of a B-52.
The AGM-129 is designed to carry silver W-80-1 nuclear warheads, which have a variable yield of between 5 and 150 kilotons. (A kiloton is equal to the explosive force of 1,000 tons of TNT.) The warheads were meant to have been removed from the missiles before shipment. In their place, crews were supposed to insert metal dummies of the same size and weight, but a different color, so the missiles could still be properly attached under the bomber’s wings.
A munitions custodian officer is supposed to keep track of the nuclear warheads. In the case of cruise missiles, a stamp-size window on the missile’s frame allows workers to peer inside to check whether the warheads within are silver. In many cases, a red ribbon or marker attached to the missile serves as an additional warning. Finally, before the missiles are moved, two-man teams are supposed to look at check sheets, bar codes and serial numbers denoting whether the missiles are armed.
Why the warheads were not noticed in this case is not publicly known. But once the missiles were certified as unarmed, a requirement for unique security precautions when nuclear warheads are moved—such as the presence of specially armed security police, the approval of a senior base commander and a special tracking system—evaporated.
The trucks hauled the missile pylons from the bunker into the bustle of normal air base traffic, onto Bomber Boulevard and M Street, before turning onto a tarmac apron where the missiles were loaded onto the B-52. The loading took eight hours because of unusual trouble attaching the pylon on the right side of the plane—the one with the dummy warheads.
By 5:12 p.m., the B-52 was fully loaded. The plane then sat on the tarmac overnight without special guards, protected for 15 hours by only the base’s exterior chain-link fence and roving security patrols.
Air Force rules required members of the jet’s flight crew to examine all of the missiles and warheads before the plane took off. But in this instance, just one person examined only the six unarmed missiles and inexplicably skipped the armed missiles on the left, according to officials familiar with the probe.
« If they’re not expecting a live warhead it may be a very casual thing—there’s no need to set up the security system and play the whole nuclear game, » said Vest, the former Minot airman. « As for the air crew, they’re bus drivers at this point, as far as they know. »
The plane, which had flown to Minot for the mission and was not certified to carry nuclear weapons, departed the next morning for Louisiana. When the bomber landed at Barksdale at 11:23 a.m., the air crew signed out and left for lunch, according to the probe.
It would be another nine hours—until 8:30 p.m.— before a Barksdale ground crew turned up at the parked aircraft to begin removing the missiles. At 8:45, 15 minutes into the task, a separate missile transport crew arrived in trucks. One of these airmen noticed something unusual about the missiles. Within an hour, a skeptical supervisor had examined them and ordered them secured.
By then it was 10 p.m., more than 36 hours after the warheads left their secure bunker in Minot.
Once the errant warheads were discovered, Air Force officers in Louisiana were alarmed enough to immediately notify the National Military Command Center, a highly secure area of the Pentagon that serves as the nerve center for U.S. nuclear war planning. Such « Bent Spear » events are ranked second in seriousness only to « Broken Arrow » incidents, which involve the loss, destruction or accidental detonation of a nuclear weapon.
The Air Force decided at first to keep the mishap under wraps, in part because of policies that prohibit the confirmation of any details about the storage or movement of nuclear weapons. No public acknowledgment was made until service members leaked the story to the Military Times, which published a brief account Sept. 5.
Officials familiar with the Bent Spear report say Air Force officials apparently did not anticipate that the episode would cause public concern. One passage in the report contains these four words:
« No press interest anticipated. »
‘What the Hell Happened Here?’

The news, when it did leak, provoked a reaction within the defense and national security communities that bordered on disbelief: How could so many safeguards, drilled into generations of nuclear weapons officers and crews, break down at once?
Military officers, nuclear weapons analysts and lawmakers have expressed concern that it was not just a fluke, but a symptom of deeper problems in the handling of nuclear weapons now that Cold War anxieties have abated.
« It is more significant than people first realized, and the more you look at it, the stranger it is, » said Joseph Cirincione, director for nuclear policy at the Center for American Progress think tank and the author of a history of nuclear weapons. « These weapons—the equivalent of 60 Hiroshimas—were out of authorized command and control for more than a day. »
The Air Force has sought to offer assurances that its security system is working. Within days, the service relieved one Minot officer of his command and disciplined several airmen, while assigning a major general to head an investigation that has already been extended for extra weeks. At the same time, Defense Department officials have announced that a Pentagon-appointed scientific advisory board will study the mishap as part of a larger review of procedures for handling nuclear weapons.
« Clearly this incident was unacceptable on many levels, » said an Air Force spokesman, Lt. Col. Edward Thomas. « Our response has been swift and focused— and it has really just begun. We will spend many months at the air staff and at our commands and bases ensuring that the root causes are addressed. »
While Air Force officials see the Minot event as serious, they also note that it was harmless, since the six nuclear warheads never left the military’s control. Even if the bomber had crashed, or if someone had stolen the warheads, fail-safe devices would have prevented a nuclear detonation.
But independent experts warn that whenever nuclear weapons are not properly safeguarded, their fissile materials are at risk of theft and diversion. Moreover, if the plane had crashed and the warheads’ casings cracked, these highly toxic materials could have been widely dispersed.
« When what were multiple layers of tight nuclear weapon control internal procedures break down, some bad guy may eventually come along and take advantage of them, » said a former senior administration official who had responsibility for nuclear security.
Some Air Force veterans say the base’s officers made an egregious mistake in allowing nuclear-warhead-equipped missiles and unarmed missiles to be stored in the same bunker, a practice that a spokesman last week confirmed is routine. Charles Curtis, a former deputy energy secretary in the Clinton administration, said, « We always relied on segregation of nuclear weapons from conventional ones. »
Former nuclear weapons officials have noted that the weapons transfer at the heart of the incident coincides with deep cuts in deployed nuclear forces that will bring the total number of warheads to as few as 1,700 by the year 2012 -- a reduction of more than 50 percent from 2001 levels. But the downsizing has created new accounting and logistical challenges, since U.S. policy is to keep thousands more warheads in storage, some as a strategic reserve and others awaiting dismantling.
A secret 1998 history of the Air Combat Command warned of « diminished attention for even ‘the minimum standards’ of nuclear weapons’ maintenance, support and security » once such arms became less vital, according to a declassified copy obtained by Hans Kristensen, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ nuclear information project.
The Air Force’s inspector general in 2003 found that half of the « nuclear surety » inspections conducted that year resulted in failing grades—the worst performance since inspections of weapons-handling began. Minot’s 5th Bomb Wing was among the units that failed, and the Louisiana-based 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale garnered an unsatisfactory rating in 2005.
Both units passed subsequent nuclear inspections, and Minot was given high marks in a 2006 inspection. The 2003 report on the 5th Bomb Wing attributed its poor performance to the demands of supporting combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Wartime stresses had « resulted in a lack of time to focus and practice nuclear operations, » the report stated.
Last year, the Air Force eliminated a separate nuclear-operations directorate known informally as the N Staff, which closely tracked the maintenance and security of nuclear weapons in the United States and other NATO countries. Currently, nuclear and space operations are combined in a single directorate. Air Force officials say the change was part of a service-wide reorganization and did not reflect diminished importance of nuclear operations.
« Where nuclear weapons have receded into the background is at the senior policy level, where there are other things people have to worry about, » said Linton F. Brooks, who resigned in January as director of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Brooks, who oversaw billions of dollars in U.S. spending to help Russia secure its nuclear stockpile, said the mishandling of U.S. warheads indicates that « something went seriously wrong. »
A similar refrain has been voiced hundreds of times in blogs and chat rooms popular with former and current military members. On a Web site run by the Military Times, a former B-52 crew chief who did not give his name wrote: « What the hell happened here? »
A former Air Force senior master sergeant wrote separately that « mistakes were made at the lowest level of supervision and this snowballed into the one of the biggest mistakes in USAF history. I am still scratching my head wondering how this could [have] happened. »

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

waynemadsenreport

« Lost » B-52 nuke cruise missiles were on way to Middle East for attack on Iran

publication date: Sep 23, 2007

Sept. 24, 2007 -- SPECIAL REPORT—« Lost » B-52 nuke cruise missiles were on way to Middle East for attack on Iran; Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater.
WMR has learned from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that the B-52 transporting six stealth AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, on August 30, were destined for the Middle East via Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.
However, elements of the Air Force, supported by U.S. intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community.
Yesterday, the Washington Post attempted to explain away the fact that America’s nuclear command and control system broke down in an unprecedented manner by reporting that it was the result of « security failures at multiple levels. » It is now apparent that the command and control breakdown, reported as a BENT SPEAR incident to the Secretary of Defense and White House, was not the result of a command and control chain-of-command « failures » but the result of a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force and intelligence agencies against a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons.
The Washington Post story on BENT SPEAR may have actually been an effort in damage control by the Bush administration. WMR has been informed by a knowledgeable source that one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was, and may still be, unaccounted for. In that case, the nuclear reporting incident would have gone far beyond BENT SPEAR to a National Command Authority alert known as EMPTY QUIVER, with the special classification of PINNACLE.
Just as this report was being prepared, Newsweek reported that Vice President Dick Cheney’s recently-departed Middle East adviser, David Wurmser, told a small group of advisers some months ago that Cheney had considered asking Israel to launch a missile attack on the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz. Cheney reasoned that after an Iranian retaliatory strike, the United States would have ample reasons to launch its own massive attack on Iran. However, plans for Israel to attack Iran directly were altered to an Israeli attack on a supposed Syrian-Iranian-North Korean nuclear installation in northern Syria.
WMR has learned that a U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional weapons was scheduled to coincide with Israel’s September 6 air attack on a reputed Syrian nuclear facility in Dayr az-Zwar, near the village of Tal Abyad, in northern Syria, near the Turkish border. Israel’s attack, code named OPERATION ORCHARD, was to provide a reason for the U.S. to strike Iran. The neo-conservative propaganda onslaught was to cite the cooperation of the George Bush’s three remaining « Axis of Evil » states—Syria, Iran, and North Korea—to justify a sustained Israeli attack on Syria and a massive U.S. military attack on Iran.
WMR has learned from military sources on both sides of the Atlantic that there was a definite connection between Israel’s OPERATION ORCHARD and BENT SPEAR involving the B-52 that flew the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale. There is also a connection between these two events as the Pentagon’s highly-classified PROJECT CHECKMATE, a compartmented U.S. Air Force program that has been working on an attack plan for Iran since June 2007, around the same time that Cheney was working on the joint Israeli-U.S. attack scenario on Iran.
PROJECT CHECKMATE was leaked in an article by military analyst Eric Margolis in the Rupert Murdoch-owned newspaper, the Times of London, is a program that involves over two dozen Air Force officers and is headed by Brig. Gen. Lawrence Stutzriem and his chief civilian adviser, Dr. Lani Kass, a former Israeli military intelligence officer who, astoundingly, is now involved in planning a joint U.S.-Israeli massive military attack on Iran that involves a « decapitating » blow on Iran by hitting between three to four thousand targets in the country. Stutzriem and Kass report directly to the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Michael Moseley, who has also been charged with preparing a report on the B-52/nuclear weapons incident.
Kass’ area of speciality is cyber-warfare, which includes ensuring « information blockades, » such as that imposed by the Israeli government on the Israeli media regarding the Syrian air attack on the alleged Syrian « nuclear installation. » British intelligence sources have reported that the Israeli attack on Syria was a « true flag » attack originally designed to foreshadow a U.S. attack on Iran. After the U.S. Air Force push back against transporting the six cruise nuclear-armed AGM-129s to the Middle East, Israel went ahead with its attack on Syria in order to help ratchet up tensions between Washington on one side and Damascus, Tehran, and Pyongyang on the other.
The other part of CHECKMATE’s brief is to ensure that a media « perception management » is waged against Syria, Iran, and North Korea. This involves articles such as that which appeared with Joby Warrick’s and Walter Pincus’ bylines in yesterdays Washington Post. The article, titled « The Saga of a Bent Spear, » quotes a number of seasoned Air Force nuclear weapons experts as saying that such an incident is unprecedented in the history of the Air Force. For example, Retired Air Force General Eugene Habiger, the former chief of the U.S. Strategic Command, said he has been in the « nuclear business » since 1966 and has never been aware of an incident « more disturbing. »
Command and control breakdowns involving U.S. nuclear weapons are unprecedented, except for that fact that the U.S. military is now waging an internal war against neo-cons who are embedded in the U.S. government and military chain of command who are intent on using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war with Iran.
CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD would have provided the cover for a pre-emptive U.S. and Israeli attack on Iran had it not been for BENT SPEAR involving the B-52. In on the plan to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iran involving nuclear weapons were, according to our sources, Cheney, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley; members of the CHECKMATE team at the Pentagon, who have close connections to Israeli intelligence and pro-Israeli think tanks in Washington, including the Hudson Institute; British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, a political adviser to Tony Blair prior to becoming a Member of Parliament; Israeli political leaders like Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu; and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who did his part last week to ratchet up tensions with Iran by suggesting that war with Iran was a probability. Kouchner retracted his statement after the U.S. plans for Iran were delayed.
Although the Air Force tried to keep the B-52 nuclear incident from the media, anonymous Air Force personnel leaked the story to Military Times on September 5, the day before the Israelis attacked the alleged nuclear installation in Syria and the day planned for the simultaneous U.S. attack on Iran. The leaking of classified information on U.S. nuclear weapons disposition or movement to the media, is, itself, unprecedented. Air Force regulations require the sending of classified BEELINE reports to higher Air Force authorities on the disclosure of classified Air Force information to the media.
In another highly unusual move, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has asked an outside inquiry board to look into BENT SPEAR, even before the Air Force has completed its own investigation, a virtual vote of no confidence in the official investigation being conducted by Major General Douglas Raaberg, chief of air and space operations at the Air Combat Command.
Gates asked former Air Force Chief of Staff, retired General Larry Welch, to lead a Defense Science Board task force that will also look into the BENT SPEAR incident. The official Air Force investigation has reportedly been delayed for unknown reasons. Welch is President and CEO of the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA), a federally-funded research contractor that operates three research centers, including one for Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President and another for the National Security Agency. One of the board members of IDA is Dr. Suzanne H. Woolsey of the Paladin Capital Group and wife of former CIA director and arch-neocon James Woolsey.
WMR has learned that neither the upper echelons of the State Department nor the British Foreign Office were privy to OPERATION ORCHARD, although Hadley briefed President Bush on Israeli spy satellite intelligence that showed the Syrian installation was a joint nuclear facility built with North Korean and Iranian assistance. However, it is puzzling why Hadley would rely on Israeli imagery intelligence (IMINT) from its OFEK (Horizon) 7 satellite when considering that U.S. IMINT satellites have greater capabilities.
The Air Force’s « information warfare » campaign against media reports on CHECKMATE and OPERATION ORCHARD also affected international reporting of the recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) resolution asking Israel to place its nuclear weapons program under IAEA controls, similar to those that the United States wants imposed on Iran and North Korea. The resolution also called for a nuclear-free zone throughout the Middle East. The IAEA’s resolution, titled « Application of IAEA Safeguards in the Middle East, » was passed by the 144-member IAEA General Meeting on September 20 by a vote of 53 to 2, with 47 abstentions. The only two countries to vote against were Israel and the United States. However, the story carried from the IAEA meeting in Vienna by Reuters, the Associated Press, and Agence France Press, was that it was Arab and Islamic nations that voted for the resolution.
This was yet more perception management carried out by CHECKMATE, the White House, and their allies in Europe and Israel with the connivance of the media. In fact, among the 53 nations that voted for the resolution were China, Russia, India, Ireland, and Japan. The 47 abstentions were described as votes « against » the resolution even though an abstention is neither a vote for nor against a measure. America’s close allies, including Britain, France, Australia, Canada, and Georgia, all abstained.
Suspiciously, the IAEA carried only a brief item on the resolution concerning Israel’s nuclear program and a roll call vote was not available either at the IAEA’s web site—www.iaea.org—or in the media.
The perception management campaign by the neocon operational cells in the Bush administration, Israel and Europe was designed to keep a focus on Iran’s nuclear program, not on Israel’s. Any international examination of Israel’s nuclear weapons program would likely bring up Israeli nuclear scientist Mordechai Vanunu, a covert from Judaism to Christianity, who was kidnapped in Rome by a Mossad « honey trap » named Cheryl Bentov (aka, Cindy) and a Mossad team in 1986 and held against his will in Israel ever since.
Vanunu’s knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons program would focus on the country’s own role in nuclear proliferation, including its program to share nuclear weapons technology with apartheid South Africa and Taiwan in the late 1970s and 1980s. The role of Ronald Reagan’s Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency Ken Adelman in Israeli’s nuclear proliferation during the time frame 1983-1987 would also come under scrutiny. Adelman, a member of the Reagan-Bush transition State Department team from November 1980 to January 1981, voiced his understanding for the nuclear weapons programs of Israel, South Africa, and Taiwan in a June 28, 1981 New York Times article titled, « 3 Nations Widening Nuclear Contacts. » The journalist who wrote the article was Judith Miller. Adelman felt that the three countries wanted nuclear weapons because of their ostracism from the West, the third world, and the hostility from the Communist countries. Of course, today, the same argument can be used by Iran, North Korea, and other « Axis of Evil » nations so designated by the neocons in the Bush administration and other governments.
There are also news reports that suggest an intelligence relationship between Israel and North Korea. On July 21, 2004, New Zealand’s Dominion Post reported that three Mossad agents were involved in espionage in New Zealand. Two of the Mossad agents, Uriel Kelman and Elisha Cara (aka Kra), were arrested and imprisoned by New Zealand police (an Israeli diplomat in Canberra, Amir Lati, was expelled by Australia and New Zealand intelligence identified a fourth Mossad agent involved in the New Zealand espionage operation in Singapore). The third Mossad agent in New Zealand, Zev William Barkan (aka Lev Bruckenstein), fled New Zealand—for North Korea.
New Zealand Foreign Minister Phil Goff revealed that Barkan, a former Israeli Navy diver, had previously worked at the Israeli embassy in Vienna, which is also the headquarters of the IAEA. He was cited by the Sydney Morning Herald as trafficking in passports stolen from foreign tourists in Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, and Cambodia. New Zealand’s One News reported that Barkan was in North Korea to help the nation build a wall to keep its citizens from leaving.
The nuclear brinkmanship involving the United States and Israel and the breakdown in America’s command and control systems have every major capital around the world wondering about the Bush administration’s true intentions.


NOTE: WMR understands the risks to informed individuals in reporting the events of August 29/30, to the present time, that concern the discord within the U.S. Air Force, U.S. intelligence agencies, and other military services. Any source with relevant information and who wishes to contact us anonymously may drop off sealed correspondence at or send mail via the Postal Service to: Wayne Madsen, c/o The Front Desk, National Press Club, 13th Floor, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC, 20045.