Bush's Iraq-Iran-Israel Dilemma

TONY KARON

Making nice with Iran may be key to helping the U.S. out of a mess in Iraq, but that would require compromises that Israel — and Administration hawks — will resist.

Two visits to the White House earlier this week highlighted the key dilemma facing President Bush as he contemplates changes to his Iraq policy: One guest was former Secretary of State James Baker and the rest of the Iraq Study Group, which together with much of the "realist" establishment in U.S. foreign policy is urging the Administration to recognize that a dialogue with Iran (and Syria) is an essential component of any successful strategy to stabilize Iraq. Bush's other visitor was Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, whose main purpose at the White House appeared to be pressing the President to follow his own instincts and those of the hawks in his Administration by maintaining a tough line against Iran because of its nuclear program.

President Bush will soon discover what Baker and Olmert probably already know: That it won't be possible to do both.

Both Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have begun publicly raising the prospect of talking to Iran, but only if Tehran mends its ways and suspends uranium enrichment. Otherwise, both men say, Iran will be isolated. But there's something almost comical about Blair and Bush setting preconditions for a conversation in which, however they might spin it, they're asking for help. Tehran ultimately shares an interest in preventing a breakup of Iraq, but the mayhem currently unfolding there hurts the U.S. and Britain a lot more than it does Iran. On balance, it hardly makes sense to Iran to help the U.S. and Britain in Iraq without getting anything in return.

Nor does Iran fear the "isolation" threatened by Bush and Blair. Its insouciant defiance of two U.N. deadlines to suspend enrichment suggests that Tehran doubts that the U.S. and its allies can muster serious sanctions or similar diplomatic pressure. And, indeed, Washington's effort to convince the Security Council to impose sanctions appears to have stalled in the face of resistance from Russia and China. Moscow and Beijing backed symbolic sanctions against North Korea only after that country had actually tested a nuclear device, and even then they made clear that their intention was not to isolate North Korea but instead to bring it back to the negotiating table (which they appear to have succeeded in doing).

Now both countries, which have strong commercial interests in Iran, are using the contrast between North Korea and Iran to argue against taking any kind of punitive action against Tehran. Unlike North Korea, after all, Iran continues to accept the terms of the Non-Proliferation Treaty — and even though it has expressed concerns over transparency and unanswered questions, and has challenged Iran to do a lot more to reassure the world over its intentions, the IAEA says it has found no evidence that Tehran actually has a nuclear weapons program. So Moscow and Beijing are pushing back against the sanctions option and warning that it could ruin prospects for a negotiated solution.

Until now, the U.S. has insisted that any uranium enrichment on Iranian soil is unacceptable, because this would give Iran the know-how that could potentially be used to create weapons. That's a position the Israelis strongly back, and it's the reason they tend to paint the current moment — when Iran is conducting enrichment experiments but is assumed to be as much as a decade away from having the capacity to assemble a bomb — as a life-threatening emergency not only to Israel, but ultimately to the entire West.

The problem is that while the U.S. and Britain tend to share an absolutist view of enrichment, their allies in Europe tend to be more ambivalent, and there's little support for that position beyond Western Europe. The UN consensus is that Iran should be required to satisfy concerns over its program, but not that it be prevented from ever exercising its right as a signatory to the NPT to enrich uranium under IAEA scrutiny.

If and when the U.S. comes knocking to talk about Iraq, Iran will see an opportunity to discuss a range of concerns — most notably to push for a compromise that would require the U.S. to retreat from its red line over enrichment. That, of course, would not sit at all well with the Israeli leadership and their backers on Capitol Hill, as well as the likeminded hawks within and outside the Administration.

The realists might counter that the North Korea experience and the current diplomatic landscape suggests that the hard line is unlikely to achieve the desired results with Iran anyway. Refusing to engage unless Iran concedes on enrichment runs the risk of doubling the diplomatic defeats for the U.S. — by adding successful Iranian defiance to the ongoing debacle of Iraq.

So the question of what the Bush Administration will do to reverse its fortunes in Iraq will necessarily become an internal referendum on its entire Middle East policy. And the battle to shape that policy may produce a long, hot winter ahead in the corridors of power on both sides of the Atlantic.

Sphere: Related Content

Taking Aim at Immigration in Texas

CATHY BOOTH THOMAS

In control of every statewide office, Republicans are targeting illegal immigrants by proposing to cut their benefits and even deny citizenship to their U.S.-born children.

With the Democrats in charge in Washington, conservatives in Texas are wasting no time on a pity party. Republicans, after all, are still in the majority here, controlling every statewide office and the Legislature as well as the top courts. To press that advantage, conservatives plan to put their imprint next year on a variety of issues ranging from abortion to school vouchers. Their biggest push by far, however, will be passage of a host of bills dealing with illegal immigrants, including one that just might challenge the 14th Amendment, which defines citizenship and requires states to provide civil rights to anyone born on U.S. soil.

The opening salvo in the fight was made this week by Farmers Branch, a suburb of Dallas which is nearly 40% Hispanic. Despite protests in the streets and threats of lawsuits and boycotts, the city council voted to make English the official language and fine landlords who rent to illegal immigrants. In Austin, meanwhile, Republicans began trooping into the state Capitol with stacks of bills aimed at cutting off benefits to illegal aliens, taxing their remittances south of the border, and requiring proof of citizenship at the voting booth. The harshest bill would deny welfare and other benefits even to the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens — rights supposedly given them under the 14th Amendment. Latino groups, who were only recently being wooed by Republican candidates, were left aghast at the onslaught, calling it "a hate campaign" against immigrants and "anti-human being" to boot.

John Colyandro, director of the Texas Conservative Coalition, told TIME that he expects "quite a bit of legislation" on illegal immigration to pop up in 2007 — and not just in Texas. "Because Congress did not pass a comprehensive reform bill on immigration, more and more states are going to step in like Arizona," he says. Arizona voters last month passed measures denying illegal immigrants access to state-subsidized benefits like child care as well as the right to bail and punitive damages in lawsuits. In the Texas Legislature, Colyandro expects a broad array of legislation targeting benefits to illegals, as well as voter verification of citizenship, employer sanctions for hiring illegal aliens, and additional funding for border security. He says the two extremes of the current immigration debate — deporting all illegals or granting amnesty to all — are "unworkable and frankly intolerable." He adds: "Somewhere between the two are workable solutions and that's where our focus will be in the Texas Legislature in January."

Just how far are conservatives willing to go? Far, according to a bill pre-filled this week by Republican state Rep. Leo Berman, who serves a onservative constituency in the east Texas town of Tyler, "the rose capital of the nation." Under Berman's bill, children born in Texas to illegal aliens would be denied state unemployment or public assistance benefits like food stamps as well as professional licenses. In Texas alone, he argues, there are an estimated two million illegal aliens whose U.S.-born children get these benefits, which go largely un-reimbursed by the federal government. "This is costing us a fortune," Berman argues. Although he had to back down on plans to deny education and health care (the feds require it), the central tenet of his bill remains: to challenge the automatic birthright of citizenship given to children of illegal aliens — all the way up to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

How could Texas deny benefits to U.S. citizens, even if they were born to illegals? Berman notes that the 14th Amendment was a late edition to the constitution, written after the Civil War to assure citizenship for the children of slaves. The courts later extended the amendment to include the children of illegal immigrants. But times have changed, he says. "There are 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. who have benefits that most U.S. citizens don't have," says Berman. "One of the most lucrative benefits is that pregnant illegal aliens can give birth in a U.S. hospital free of charge and be rewarded with citizenship while breaking the most basic of U.S. laws." To pay for all that free hospital care, he wants to tax all money transferred south of the border by individuals at 8 % (citizens could apply for reimbursement). The fee could raise $240 million a year, he estimates.

The larger issue for both Berman and Colyandro is carrying on with the conservative agenda now that Washington is in Democratic hands. "The American people expressed extreme disappointment in the Republican Congress but they certainly did not make a turn to the left," argues Colyandro, pointing to conservative-oriented ballot issues on property rights, gay marriage and quota elimination that survived even as the South Dakota abortion ban went down in defeat. In Texas, three new abortion bills have already been filed, including one that would immediately invalidate state law permitting abortions if Roe v. Wade were overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. "The Republicans didn't fare badly in Texas so we have to preserve the Republican and conservative message," says Berman. "We'll be carrying the banner, probably for most of the U.S."

Hispanics in Texas plan to challenge the Farmers Branch ordinance in the courts and will battle bills like Berman's on every front. "This is a dark time for Latinos," says Rosa Rosales, a San Antonio resident and newly elected president of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). "Can you imagine blaming children, trying to deny them medical care?" LULAC's former president, Hector Flores, who lives in the Dallas area, claims such conservative measures are "DOA on arrival" with the winds of change blowing through Washington. "These odious types of ordinances target Hispanics because of our growth. It is a hate campaign. That's not the American dream that we learned about in school," says Flores. What's need instead, he says, is comprehensive immigration reform to regulate the flow of people, not just from Mexico but other countries. "Bottom line: this is up to federal government not the state legislature."

Sphere: Related Content

Dems Tell Pelosi She Needs to Follow, Not Just Lead

KAREN TUMULTY

The new House Speaker tried to assert her authority in backing John Murtha for Majority Leader. But Murtha's loss and Steny Hoyer's victory have taught her a hard lesson.

Nancy Pelosi showed us something important about herself this week. If Tip O'Neill thought that all politics was local, Pelosi's view is that it's personal. But what may have more significance in the long run is what her caucus showed her — that, unlike the Republicans they are replacing, they will not march lockstep at every dictate from their leaders. And if there is any good news for the Democrats from the entire episode, that is it.

Congressman Steny Hoyer, the man what had waited in line for the job, gave Pelosi's candidate John Murtha a thumpin', as the President might have put it. That there was even a fight at all, however, is because of Pelosi. Against all precedent and good sense, she stepped into the election with not only an endorsement of her longtime ally, but a shocking strongarm campaign to win the job for him. She all but told incoming freshmen: "That's a nice little committee assignment you're asking for. It would be a shame if anything happened to it."

The moderate Hoyer won in part because he had the support of the committee chairmen, who are the liberal old guard. They put practicality over ideology, which is just what voters asked them to do on November 7. And Hoyer also held the support of those freshmen. They appreciated the time and money that Hoyer had put into getting them elected in 2006, and understand that unless they are independent, they won't get re-elected in 2008. As the Brookings Institution's Tom Mann, who is one of the smartest scholars of Congress, put it: "The Democrats today saved Pelosi from a disastrous start to her leadership."

Modern politics have been hard on House Speakers. O'Neill was the last one to give up the office under circumstances of his choosing; all four since him have been ousted from it, under one set of circumstances or another. If Pelosi is to avoid that fate, she must learn now to control the impulses and instincts that those around her say define her character. She will have to broaden her circle, trust her colleagues and take to heart the words of the man who managed to hold the job longer than anyone else in history. "You cannot be a leader, and ask other people to follow you," Sam Rayburn once said, "unless you know how to follow, too."

Sphere: Related Content

Bush: Vietnam Has Lessons for Iraq

MIKE ALLEN

The President visits the capital of his least favorite analogy. But he says a lost war shows the necessity of steadfastness in a new one.

When discussion in President Bush's White House has turned to Vietnam, it has usually been by way of what the Administration deems an inaccurate comparison to the Iraq war. Last June, in answer to a reporter's question of whether he drew a parallel between events in Iraq and the Vietnam war, he said , "this is, in many ways, religious in nature, and I don't see the parallels."

That may have changed. Not that the President now sees the quagmire alleged by war critics, of course. But asked on arrival in Vietnam for an economic summit whether this country holds any lessons for the debate over Iraq, the President answered: "Yes. One lesson is, is that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while." Bush went on to say that Iraq is part of a "great struggle" between "radicals and extremists, versus people who want to live in peace." He said overcoming "the ideology of hate" is going to take a long time. "Yet, the world that we live in today is one where they want things to happen immediately," he said.

The President said at a later appearance that he has been "reading and studying" about the country. "One of the most poignant moments of the drive in," he said at the Sheraton Hanoi, "was passing the lake where John McCain got pulled out of the lake. And he's a friend of ours; he suffered a lot as a result of his imprisonment, and yet, we passed the place where he was, literally, saved, in one way, by the people pulling him out." The Arizona Senator paid a visit in 2000 to Truc Bach Lake where, as a Navy lieutenant commander, he had ejected after being hit by a Soviet-made surface-to-air missile during his 23rd bombing run over North Vietnam. He was taken to the detention facility known as the "Hanoi Hilton" and was a prisoner of war for five years, two of them in solitary confinement. The downing of his aircraft is now commemorated with a stone marker emblazoned "U.S." that was visible from the presidential motorcade.

From Bush's window, he could also see bicycles and motorcycles laden with precisely balanced baskets, buckets and bundles that would tax some small cars. Even Vietnam's capital city remains relatively primitive, with hundreds of individual power lines running along the street like great skeins of spaghetti.

Within hours of his arrival, Bush was photographed at the palace in front of a huge bust of Ho Chi Minh, the revolutionary Communist leader. Bush planned a meeting with the Secretary General of the Communist Party, at party headquarters. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow said the meeting was being held because Vietnam is a Communist state. Snow told reporters aboard Air Force One that the Iraq and Vietnam wars are "not comparable" situations, and said he had not heard any concerns from Republicans about the President appearing with trappings of the Communist Party. "Vietnam is now making a transition, we're certainly encouraging that reform in many ways," Snow said, noting that the President will be discussing his "freedom agenda" for encouraging democracy abroad. It was that agenda that got the President into Iraq. Bush plans a breezy, aggressive schedule for the new few days, eager to show he can salute progress in Vietnam without getting bogged down in suggestions that he may be stuck in one of his own.

Sphere: Related Content

Search is On For Abducted Americans

APARISIM GHOSH

U.S. and British forces launch an intense manhunt for Western security men seized at a checkpoint.

A massive search and rescue operation is under way in southern Iraq for five Western security contractors taken hostage on Thursday. Four Americans and an Austrian were taken on Thursday when a convoy they were guarding was hijacked. Several Iraqis and other nationals who were also kidnapped during the hijack were released within a few hours. AP reports that British ground troops and U.S. helicopters fought gunmen in an area near where the kidnappings occurred, and that the Austrian hostage was found dead and that one of the Americans was gravely wounded.

Iraqi government sources blame Shiite militias for the snatch, which took place around 20 miles south of Basra.

Hijackings and kidnappings are commonplace in much of Iraq, especially in Baghdad and the southern provinces, which are governed by Shiite parties. Armed militias maintained by these parties often conduct criminal activities under the immunity provided by their political patrons. Thousands of Iraqis have been kidnapped by the militias; many hostages are brutally tortured and murdered.

But unlike the Sunni insurgent and jihadi groups that operate in Western Iraq, the Shi'ite militias rarely kidnap foreigners. Most of the Americans and Europeans who have been captured by such militias have been released within a few days. However, anti-American sentiment has been mounting among the Shiites, who accuse the U.S. of bias toward the Sunnis and of actively undermining the government of Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

In recent months, there has also been widespread anger at the actions of foreign private security firms, some of which have been known to mistreat Iraqis. Last week police in Nassiriya province arrested four foreign security men working for a British contractor after they fired on a police checkpoint.

The convoy hijacked today was on its way to Nassiriyah from Kuwait, on a route usually used by U.S. military convoys. It had got only 15 miles into Iraq when the hijackers struck, near the town of Safwan at 1pm local time. Some reports say the convoy was stopped at a fake checkpoint set up by the hijackers, who were wearing police uniforms. There are conflicting reports on the number of attackers, but it would appear that there was an exchange of fire between the hijackers and the security personnel guarding the convoy. Several of the trucks in the convoy were also taken.

After the hijacking, British forces in Basra stepped up security operations in the city, suggesting the kidnappers may have taken their hostages there. On Friday, British and U.S. ground troops and helicopters searched an area south of Basra for gunmen who had in previous days attacked coalition forces. There was at least one major firefight between gunmen and the troops, in which five of the gunmen were killed. It is not clear if the gunmen were connected to the hijacking of the convoy.

Sphere: Related Content

5 Myths About the Midterm Elections

PERRY BACON JR., ANA MARIE COX AND KAREN TUMULTY

Did the bloggers matter in the end? Are the Dems more conservative? Did Republicans lose on the war? TIME separates fact from fiction.

Liberal bloggers and their readers helped to swing the Connecticut Democratic Senate primary to anti-war candidate Ned Lamont, raising expectations that the midterms would turn this new generation of online activists into kingmakers. Yet in the midst of a Democratic wave, the netroots candidates failed to sweep, causing some pundits to claim that the netroots' influence continues to be overstated: "The Netroots Election? Not So Fast," editorialized The Nation. When Rick Perlstein tried, in The New Republic, to claim the election as a netroots triumph, Ryan Lizza replied in the magazine's blog that in addition to having the netroots' support, winning candidates also had the national Democratic party to thank, as it "dumped tons of money, strategic advice, and fundraising assistance into their races." What's the real takeaway? Of the 19 candidates that three of the biggest liberal blogs (Daily Kos, mydd.com and Swing State Project) raised money for, eight of the candidates won. This improves on the blogs' record from 2004, when Daily Kos picked out 16 campaigns to strongly support and raise money for, all of which lost. This cycle, bloggers may have been most strongly linked to Lamont, but they actually donated more money to Jim Webb of Virginia. Bloggers also made "macaca" into a scandal that helped sink Webb's opponent, George Allen. The netroots' record is probably too short to be judged definitively, but instead of looking at pure win/loss records, an examination of where the netroots put their emphasis suggests that the online community is either becoming more sophisticated in picking its candidates or is helping push long shots over the top.

MYTH: Democrats won because they carefully recruited more conservative candidates.
REALITY: Democrats won because their candidates were conservative about their message.

Moderate Democrats have celebrated the midterms as a victory for their brand of fiscal conservatism, foreign policy "realism" and a version of "traditional values." Certainly, Washington will see an influx of unorthodox Democrats: congressmen-elect Heath Shuler in North Carolina and Brad Ellsworth in Indiana are pro-life and pro-gun. But liberals won in some relatively conservative areas as well, and often after being largely ignored by national Democratic strategists. In the House, they include Kentucky's John Yarmuth (who supports universal health care and affirmative action), New Hampshire's Carol Shea-Porter (she was once escorted out of a Bush event for wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt) and Dave Loebsack (an anti-war liberal academic) in Iowa. The same is true of the Senate, where the new Democratic members include Vermont's Bernie Sanders, a socialist.

The fact is, voters by and large had little sense of where many of the candidates they elected stood on the issues. Democrats told voters far more about what they were against — the Republicans who run Washington — than what they were for. "This is a campaign that was run explicitly to be devoid of issues," says Amy Walter, an analyst with the non-partisan Cook Political Report. "They never had to outline their own positions on the issues, which makes it very hard to know exactly where these folks are coming from."

MYTH: The losses Republicans sufferend this election were no different than what you usually see in a President's sixth year in office.
REALITY: Redistricting minimized what might have been a truly historic shellacking.

The numbers alone do look like a typical midterm loss for the presidential party: 28 House seats, with 10 races still undecided. Republicans have clung to this math hard in recent days, with even Karl Rove pointing to electoral history to prove that things could have been worse. But Republicans spent most of the year boasting about how the redistricting of the past decade had made them all but bulletproof. Absent those new district lines, says the American Enterprise Institute's Norm Ornstein, "it could easily have been 45 or more." And there are other results that break with past patterns, Ornstein adds. Democrats did not lose a single seat — a feat the party had not accomplished since 1922. Even in the Republican sweep of 1994, the G.O.P. lost four of its open seats to Democrats. What's more, the wave swept all the way down the ballot — for instance, handing the New Hampshire House to the Democrats for the first time since 1922.

MYTH: The election was all about the war.
REALITY: It's the dishonesty, stupid.

Against traditional political wisdom, national themes did matter more than local loyalties and personalities in 2006. George Bush was far more likely to show up in a Democratic candidate's ad than a Republican's. Many Democrats have translated their victory into a mandate for change in Iraq; the day after the midterms, Sen. Harry Reid called for a bipartisan summit on the issue, saying "The President must listen and work with Democrats to fix his failed policy." But in the end, what appears to have mattered most was Congress' own behavior. Fully 74% of voters surveyed in exit polls ranked corruption and ethics as important in determining their votes; by comparison, 67% said that about Iraq. The lack of progress in Iraq helped nationalize the elections, but multiple scandals (Abramoff, Foley) appear to have driven home an urge for massive change. Mattis Goldman, who coordinated the campaign advertising for Democrat Sherrod Brown's successful Ohio Senate run, says that they chose to emphasize economic populism, change and fighting corruption. "If we had run a one-dimensional campaign just about the war," says Goldman, "I don't know how this election would have turned out."

MYTH: Republicans lost their base.
REALITY: The base turned out, they just got beat.

Right-wing pundits and some conservative politicians have argued that the midterms were, in the words of Rush Limbaugh, a "loss for Republicanism, not conservatism," and that genuine conservatives stayed away from the polls (or cast protest votes) to show their displeasure with a party that had strayed from first principles. Rep. Mike Pence (R-In.) is running for minority leader with a statement that posits, "I believe that we did not just lose our Majority — we lost our way. We are in the wilderness because we walked away from the limited government principles." But, says the White House's political director Sara Taylor, the difference between base turnout in 2002 and 2006 is within the margin of error. And independent exit polls show the same percentages of voters who called themselves "evangelicals," "white born-again Christians," "weekly church-goers," "Republicans" and "conservatives" as in 2006 as in 2004. "The base turned out," says Taylor, "but independents made up a larger share of the electorate and they broke very heavily Democratic."

Sphere: Related Content

Today in history - Nov. 17

Today is Friday, Nov. 17, the 321st day of 2006. There are 44 days left in the year.

Today's Highlight in History:

On Nov. 17, 1800, Congress held its first session in Washington in the partially completed Capitol building.

On this date:

In 1558, Elizabeth I ascended the English throne upon the death of Queen Mary.

In 1869, the Suez Canal opened in Egypt.

In 1889, the Union Pacific Railroad Co. began direct, daily railroad service between Chicago and Portland, Ore., as well as Chicago and San Francisco.

source

NowPublic

Tags: YEARS | SERVICE | meeting | days | daily | CROOK | Washington | union | Suez | San Francisco | Rome | railroad | president | Portland | pacific | Orlando | nov | Iran | elizabeth | Egypt | Chicago

Sphere: Related Content

Today in history - Nov. 17

The Associated Press

Today is Friday, Nov. 17, the 321st day of 2006. There are 44 days left in the year.

Today's Highlight in History:

On Nov. 17, 1800, Congress held its first session in Washington in the partially completed Capitol building.

On this date:

In 1558, Elizabeth I ascended the English throne upon the death of Queen Mary.

In 1869, the Suez Canal opened in Egypt.

In 1889, the Union Pacific Railroad Co. began direct, daily railroad service between Chicago and Portland, Ore., as well as Chicago and San Francisco.

In 1917, sculptor August Rodin died in Meudon, France, at age 77.

In 1934, Lyndon Baines Johnson married Claudia Alta Taylor, better known as "Lady Bird."

In 1962, Washington's Dulles International Airport was dedicated by President Kennedy.

In 1970, the Soviet Union landed an unmanned, remote-controlled vehicle on the moon, the Lunokhod 1.

In 1973, President Nixon told Associated Press managing editors meeting in Orlando, Fla.: "People have got to know whether or not their president is a crook. Well, I'm not a crook."

In 1979, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the release of 13 female and black American hostages being held at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran.

In 2002, Israeli statesman Abba Eban died near Tel Aviv at age 87.

Ten years ago: A Russian Mars space probe carrying plutonium plunged into the South Pacific Ocean after failing to break out of Earth's orbit following its launch. The World Food Summit concluded a five-day meeting in Rome.

Five years ago: The Taliban confirmed the death of Osama bin Laden's military chief Mohammed Atef in an airstrike three days earlier. Burhanuddin Rabbani, the Afghan president ousted five years earlier by the Taliban, returned to the capital Kabul. Lennox Lewis knocked out Hasim Rahman in the fourth round to get back his WBC and IBF heavyweight titles. Former U.S. Sen. Harrison A. Williams Jr., whose political career was ended by the Abscam bribery scandal, died in Denville, N.J., at age 81.

One year ago: U.S. Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, considered one of Congress' most hawkish Democrats, called for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. A jury in Sarasota, Fla., convicted mechanic Joseph Smith of kidnapping, raping and strangling 11-year-old Carlie Brucia, whose abduction had been captured by a car-wash security camera.

Today's Birthdays: Singer Gordon Lightfoot is 68. Movie director Martin Scorsese is 64. Actress Lauren Hutton is 63. Actor-director Danny DeVito is 62. "Saturday Night Live" producer Lorne Michaels is 62. Baseball Hall-of-Famer Tom Seaver is 62. Movie director Roland Joffe is 61. Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean is 58. Actor Stephen Root is 55. Actress-producer-director Yolanda King is 51. Actress Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio is 48. Actor William Moses is 47. Entertainer RuPaul is 46. Actor Dylan Walsh is 43. Actress Sophie Marceau is 40. Actress-model Daisy Fuentes is 40. Rhythm-and-blues singer Ronnie DeVoe (New Edition; Bell Biv DeVoe) is 39. Rock musician Ben Wilson (Blues Traveler) is 39. Rhythm-and-blues musician Jeff Allen (Mint Condition) is 38. Actress Leslie Bibb is 33. Actor Brandon Call is 30. Country singer Aaron Lines is 29. Actress Rachel McAdams is 28. Rock musician Isaac Hanson (Hanson) is 26. Actor Justin Cooper is 18. Actress Raquel Castro ("Jersey Girl") is 12.

Thought for Today: "We have so many words for states of the mind, and so few for the states of the body." — Jeanne Moreau, French actress.

Sphere: Related Content

Here Comes the Bride

Marks /&/amp; Spencer is to walk down the aisle into the bridal market. The store showcased one of it's new bridal gowns on the catwalk this week. It will soon be joined by a range of dresses, bridesmaid dresses and formal suits for grooms.

It's the next step in what has been a huge turn around for Britain's high street institution: M/&/amp;S is predicted to make profits of £1billion this year, just five years after it struggled to deliver profits of £145million five years ago.

So has Marks regained its spark with it's latest collection for spring/summer 2007? You decide.

source

NowPublic

Tags: profits | dresses | bridal | comes | Britain | bride

Sphere: Related Content

What Trent Lott Brings to the Party

The election of the once disgraced politician as the number two Senate Republican may mean that the G.O.P. has no intention of getting along too well with the new party in power.

To some observers, the choice of Trent Lott as the new number two Republican in the Senate may seem like a step backward for a party still reeling from its election drubbing. But in fact the upset victory by the Mississippi Senator, bounced out of his post as the Republican leader of the Senate four years ago after he made comments praising then-Senator Strom Thurmond for his segregationist 1948 presidential campaign, may be the clearest sign yet of how the G.O.P. plans to move forward.

source

NowPublic

Tags: then-Senator | clearest | Trent | Thurmond | YEARS | victory | upset | SEGREGATIONIST | reeling | presidential | Praising | Politician | plans | observers | leader | intention | getting | Election | drubbing | disgraced | Comments | Choice | campaign | bounced | backward | STROM | senate | republican | Mississippi | LOTT | brings

Sphere: Related Content

What Trent Lott Brings to the Party

PERRY BACON JR.

The election of the once disgraced politician as the number two Senate Republican may mean that the G.O.P. has no intention of getting along too well with the new party in power.

To some observers, the choice of Trent Lott as the new number two Republican in the Senate may seem like a step backward for a party still reeling from its election drubbing. But in fact the upset victory by the Mississippi Senator, bounced out of his post as the Republican leader of the Senate four years ago after he made comments praising then-Senator Strom Thurmond for his segregationist 1948 presidential campaign, may be the clearest sign yet of how the G.O.P. plans to move forward.

G.O.P. Senators said they were eager to have Lott back in the leadership, as he's known as a clever back-room dealer and tactician on the Senate floor, which operates through a bizarre, complicated rules that at times outgoing Majority Leader Bill Frist didn't seem to understand. "He's the most effective leader I know," said Arizona's John McCain, who has won Lott's support for his likely presidential bid. Minnesota's Norm Coleman called Lott "the master of the Senate."

And that level of savvy could come in especially handy now that Repubicans must adjust to their minority status. Along with newly elected Minority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lott could spell problems for incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who stands nine votes short of what he needs to get anything controversial passed. Lott is more conservative and partisan than his opponent, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, which could signal more polarization and less cooperation in the Senate; in other words, the post-election talk of putting partisanship aside and getting the people's business done may be short-lived.

Lott captured the minority whip post by the slimmest of margins, winning 25-24 in the secret ballot over Tennessee Senator and former G.O.P. presidential hopeful Alexander. "I feel exhilarated I have an opportunity to come back," he told reporters. That comeback may have surprised people outside of the Beltway, but it has been carefully plotted for quite a while. After he was replaced by his colleagues as the Senate leader with Frist, it was expected Lott might simply remain in the shadows or even retire. Instead, he got himself a plum post as the Senate Rules Committee, helped the new Senate leaders on key strategy and used his new freedom from leadership to take a few shots at the Bush White House; more than once, he expressed feelings other Senators had but didn't express publicly or as tartly, particularly when he bashed the Administration for picking Harriet Miers as a Supreme Court Nominee.

In fact, Lott is still angry at the White House — and especially Karl Rove — for the way he was so unceremoniously dumped, so he may not be as willing as other Republicans to do the Administration's bidding. That's only one of the risks the choice of Lott for such a prominent position carries. Republicans replaced him as their leader because they worried that his remarks about Thurmond didn't reflect well for a party trying to win minority voters and even moderate white voters by diversifying its ranks and avoiding race-baiting tactics it has used in the past. Considering that the party has been accused of using similar tactics in certain key election races this year, most notably the Harold Ford-Bob Corker Senate contest in Tennessee, Lott's reemergence might not exactly project the image the G.O.P. wants right now.

The move is also surprising since Lott has ascended to the Senate post in the same week that Republicans appointed Mel Martinez, a Senator from Florida, to head the National Republican Committee. Martinez, who is Cuban-American, is expected to help Republicans woo Latin voters. Republicans, however, say they're not worried about Lott's past remarks. ""People understand he has been deeply apologetic," said Maine's Olympia Snowe, a close friend of Lott's. Lott's colleagues have been willing to forgive him for his comments. Now, if he helps them win back the Senate, maybe they'll even forget.

Sphere: Related Content

Today in history - Nov. 16

The Associated Press

Today is Thursday, Nov. 16, the 320th day of 2006. There are 45 days left in the year.

Today's Highlight in History:

Two hundred years ago, on Nov. 16, 1806, Moses Cleaveland, the land surveyor for whom the city of Cleveland is named, died in Canterbury, Conn., at age 52.

On this date:

In 1776, British troops captured Fort Washington during the American Revolution.

In 1885, Canadian rebel Louis Riel was executed for high treason.

In 1907, Oklahoma became the 46th state of the union.

In 1933, the United States and the Soviet Union established diplomatic relations.

In 1959, the Rodgers and Hammerstein musical "The Sound of Music" opened on Broadway.

In 1961, House Speaker Samuel T. Rayburn died in Bonham, Texas, having served as speaker since 1940 except for two terms.

In 1966, Dr. Samuel H. Sheppard was acquitted in his second trial of charges he'd murdered his pregnant wife, Marilyn, in 1954.

In 1973, Skylab 4, carrying a crew of three astronauts, was launched from Cape Canaveral, Fla., on an 84-day mission.

In 1973, President Nixon signed the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act.

In 1981, actor William Holden was found dead in his apartment in Santa Monica, Calif.; he was 63.

Ten years ago:
President Clinton spent the first full day of a shortened vacation in Hawaii that preceded a trip to Australia, Thailand and the Philippines.

Five years ago: Investigators found a letter addressed to Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), D-Vt., containing anthrax; it was the second letter bearing the deadly germ known to have been sent to Capitol Hill. A University of Georgia football fan rushing to catch his flight ran past guards and through a passenger exit at Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport, forcing officials to halt flights; the man, Michael Lasseter, was later sentenced to five weekends or 10 days in jail and 500 hours of community service.

One year ago: Hoping to reverse the deterioration of pension plans, the Senate voted to force companies to make up underfunding and live up to promises made to employees. Vice President
Dick Cheney joined the chorus of Republican criticism of Democrats who contended the Bush administration had manipulated intelligence on
Iraq, an accusation Cheney called "one of the most dishonest and reprehensible charges ever aired in this city." "This Is Your Life" host Ralph Edwards died in West Hollywood, Calif., at age 92.

Today's Birthdays: Actor Clu Gulager is 78. Blues musician Hubert Sumlin is 75. Journalist Elizabeth Drew is 71. Blues musician W.C. Clark is 67. Actor Steve Railsback is 61. Actor David Leisure is 56. Actress Marg Helgenberger is 48. Rock musician Mani is 44. Country singer-musician Keith Burns (Trick Pony) is 43. Tennis player Zina Garrison is 43. Former baseball player Dwight Gooden is 42. Jazz singer Diana Krall is 42. Actor Harry Lennix is 42. Actress Lisa Bonet is 39. Actress Tammy Lauren is 38. Rhythm-and-blues singer Bryan Abrams (Color Me Badd) is 37. Actress Martha Plimpton is 36. Olympic gold medal figure skater
Oksana Baiul is 29. Actress Maggie Gyllenhaal is 29. Pop singer Trevor Penick is 27. Actress Kimberly J. Brown is 22. Actor Noah Gray-Cabey ("My Wife and Kids") is 10.

Thought for Today: "Men are more apt to be mistaken in their generalizations than in their particular observations." — Niccolo Machiavelli, Italian political philosopher (1469-1527).

Sphere: Related Content

Today in history - Nov. 16

Today is Thursday, Nov. 16, the 320th day of 2006. There are 45 days left in the year.

Today's Highlight in History:

Two hundred years ago, on Nov. 16, 1806, Moses Cleaveland, the land surveyor for whom the city of Cleveland is named, died in Canterbury, Conn., at age 52.

On this date:

In 1776, British troops captured Fort Washington during the American Revolution.

In 1885, Canadian rebel Louis Riel was executed for high treason.

In 1907, Oklahoma became the 46th state of the union.

In 1933, the United States and the Soviet Union established diplomatic relations.

source

NowPublic

Tags: surveyor | Cleaveland | YEARS | named | died | Washington | Thailand | Texas | speaker | Samuel | Philippines | Oklahoma | nov | Moses | Hawaii | conn | Clinton | Cleveland | canterbury | Australia

Sphere: Related Content

Japan's gPod faces opposition

Ryann Connell

Far from lovin' it, as one huge American multinational food giant urges its Japanese customers to do, Japan's sex services are struggling as U.S. business behemoths crack down on them for commandeering brand names to use for saucy products and services, according to Shukan Gendai.

Ichiro Kameda, the president of a tiny, two-man company in Osaka, is currently embroiled in a bitter battle with computer maker Apple.

"Putting it simply, the fight is all over what I call our beat generator. There's a small device with three different, sound-activated motors. It's a revolutionary invention. You can plug it in to iPods or mobile phones. It can also be programmed to operate only for certain voices," Kameda says, referring to his company's product.

Kameda's commercial pride and joy is actually a women's sex aid worn inside her most intimate orifices and buzzing her with good vibrations when set off by sound.

Though the Japanese Patent Agency gave him the right to use the devise in August last year, and the trademark he chose for the product was approved two months later, he still hasn't been able to sell. The problem? He called the product the gPod, presumably after the G-Spot and jii, the Japanese word for masturbation. Kameda has since found out his choice of product name was like, well, taking a bite out of a rotten apple.

When Kameda applied across the globe to have the gPod registered as a trademark, the computer giant raised objections, saying it was too close a resemblance to its hit iPod (it probably doesn't help that the gPod even looks like an iPod.) The fight really intensified earlier this year.

"This Japanese lawyer rolled up on my doorstep one day, saying he represented Apple and carrying a letter asking me to change the product name," Kameda tells Shukan Gendai.

Apple legal representatives have repeatedly contacted Kameda, requesting he stop using the gPod trademark, including in one letter with extracts that read: "The product planned for use with the trademark 'gPod' is a sex aid and masturbation aidcIf this product comes onto the market, you will be forced to take all sorts of legal measures to deal with itcWe would like to avoid a fight over this and would be prepared to cover any costs you have incurred."

Kameda laughs at the reaction.

"What they were telling me was that they'd pay if I agreed to stop using the trademark. Of course I turned them down. If they sue me, I'll fight," he says.

Apple Computer Inc., meanwhile, is, unlike gPod users, keeping tight-lipped about the case.

"It's company policy not to comment on legal cases," an Apple spokesman tells Shukan Gendai.

Fed up with the fight, Kameda plans to put the gPod on sale in Japan alone at the end of this month.

It's not just apples that are falling over trademarks. There was a whopper of a battle between a sex service in Chiba and hamburger behemoth McDonald's that left the call girl business far from lovin' it. The sex service called itself Nukudonarudo, a play on words taken from nukeru, slang Japanese for ejaculation, and Makudonarudo, the local pronunciation of McDonald's.

"We thought it'd be better to have a name with impact. It came about by coincidence because there was a McDonald's restaurant in front of us at the time we were meeting to discuss the service name," the operator of Nukudonarudo tells Shukan Gendai. "In this business, it's better to create a bit of a stir, so we didn't mind if they sued us."

Nukudonarudo also copied McDonald's menus to label its sex services. While the restaurant has a standard 0 yen charge for a smile, Nukudonarudo informed its customers they were entitled to a "sexy groan for 0 yen."

McDonald's was none too pleased to see itself associated with a call girl service.

"We confirmed in July that the name belonged to a sex service. We don't want our customers to consider the possibility that our company is associated with that business and their name hurts the brand we have worked very hard to establish," a member of McDonald's communications division tells Shukan Gendai. "We informed the company that its name breached the fair trade practices law and demanded it be changed."

Threatened with a massive lawsuit from a huge multinational, Nukudonarudo's owner lost his cojones.

"My lawyer told me that McDonald's in the United States had led the complaints against us and that compensation in a lawsuit could run into the hundreds of millions of yen. Considering we also called one of our services a 'Super Value Set,' I figured a court case probably wasn't the best idea," the owner tells Shukan Gendai. "We had no choice, so have recently changed the name. Now, we're gonna call ourselves 'Nukutteria' (after "nukeru" and Korean fast food chain Lotteria)."

Sphere: Related Content

Inside Pelosi's Power Play

Working the phones and unleashing her top aides, Pelosi is trying to turn the Murtha-Hoyer battle into a powerful statement of her authority — and what the Democrats stand for.

For a moment there it looked as if incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was making the mistake every pragmatic Democrat feared: putting soft-hearted personal allegiance ahead of cold-eyed political calculation. The first key decision she made since the Democrats' triumph in last week's elections was to back John Murtha, the anti-war hero of the left, in what seemed an impossible battle against Maryland moderate, Steny Hoyer, for the number two position in the House Democratic leadership, minority whip. And it wasn't looking good.

"I think she made a mistake," Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, the incoming head of the powerful Financial Services Committee and a Hoyer supporter, said Tuesday. "I wish it would not have happened." Pelosi loyalists worried that backing a loser early on would hurt her authority down the road, and project an image of a divided party.

source

NowPublic

Tags: unleashing | soft-hearted | cold-eyed | calculation | Murtha-Hoyer | whip | trying | triumph | statement | seemed | putting | pragmatic | PHONES | Moderate | Mistake | MINORITY | making | looked | leadership | incoming | impossible | Hero | feared | elections | decision | battle | authority | Anti-War | ALLEGIANCE | aides | ahead | Steny | speaker | PELOSI | nancy | Murtha | Massachusetts | Maryland | John | Hoyer | democrat

Sphere: Related Content

Inside Pelosi's Power Play

MASSIMO CALABRESI AND PERRY BACON JR.

Working the phones and unleashing her top aides, Pelosi is trying to turn the Murtha-Hoyer battle into a powerful statement of her authority — and what the Democrats stand for.

For a moment there it looked as if incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was making the mistake every pragmatic Democrat feared: putting soft-hearted personal allegiance ahead of cold-eyed political calculation. The first key decision she made since the Democrats' triumph in last week's elections was to back John Murtha, the anti-war hero of the left, in what seemed an impossible battle against Maryland moderate, Steny Hoyer, for the number two position in the House Democratic leadership, minority whip. And it wasn't looking good.

"I think she made a mistake," Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, the incoming head of the powerful Financial Services Committee and a Hoyer supporter, said Tuesday. "I wish it would not have happened." Pelosi loyalists worried that backing a loser early on would hurt her authority down the road, and project an image of a divided party.

Sensing the need for some spin control, Pelosi's aides spent the better part of the last few days trying to play down the significance of her support for Murtha. Other Democrats said she wasn't really backing him, just giving a token nod to an old friend and mentor who had helped her rise to her current lofty position.

But it turns out Pelosi is deadly serious — which means a Murtha loss is anything but inevitable. One source close to the Murtha effort claims Pelosi has made 40 calls to incoming freshman and wavering centrists in the party on Murtha's behalf. Pelosi's spokesman Brendan Daly said she has "made it clear to members of her support for Mr. Murtha." Two top Pelosi lieutenants, George Miller and Anna Eshoo, both of California, said Pelosi was in the fight all the way. "When she says support, it's not just an endorsement, it is full-fledged," Eshoo said.

And that will make a real difference. One senior Democratic House member who was leaning toward Hoyer told TIME her vote was entirely dependent on the seriousness of Pelosi's interest in the race. Told that Pelosi was calling around in support of Murtha, the member said her vote was Pelosi's to claim: "The Speaker usually gets what the Speaker wants." Magnified across scores of calls, that kind of attitude could spell trouble for Hoyer.

Pelosi's lieutenants appear confident. Rather than hedging their bets, they're now speaking strongly in support of Murtha' s candidacy. They say it is his position on Iraq and his outspoken criticism of the administration's handling of the war that makes him the right person to have in the number two leadership spot.

"This is as serious and as deadly as it gets, this issue," of Iraq, says Eshoo. She and Miller argue that Murtha is a strong face for the Democrats in the country. "This man has the credibility," says Miller. "He gave the Democrats a place to stand on Iraq." That, he says, is "very essential" to Pelosi.

Of course, the move remains a gamble by Pelosi. If Murtha wins, she will have made a powerful statement, in the face of strong opposition by committee chairmen, about who is running the show. "She doesn't want a dissonant voice" in her leadership, says Jim Moran of Virginia, a top Murtha backer.

But Murtha is a controversial character, thanks to his ties to the 1980s Abscam affair (he was investigated but never charged) and more recently his lavish earmarking as a member of the appropriations committee. A full blown ethics scandal would be a disaster for the Democrats as they enter their moment in the sun. And if Murtha loses, it's doubly bad for Pelosi. Not only would she have picked sides and lost, but she will have gone down fighting. Miller, for one, seems unfazed. "It's looking pretty good for Jack."

Sphere: Related Content

The Al Jazeera Invasion

You may not have heard of Wadah Khanfar, but this week, he becomes one of the world's most influential news executives. Besides being head of the 10-year-old Qatar-based Al Jazeera television channel since 2003, the Palestinian-born former reporter is now the overall boss of the network's global channel, Al Jazeera English, that goes on the air starting Wednesday. In an interview with TIME's Scott MacLeod, Khanfar, 38, explained the English channel's alternative agenda, and defended the Arabic channel against charges of bias and sensationalism.

source

NowPublic

Tags: Wadah | Palestinian-born | MacLeod | Khanfar | television | starting | reporter | overall | news | Network | interview | influential | goes | global | explained | EXECUTIVES | defended | charges | CHANNEL | BOSS | bias | being | becomes | alternative | Agenda | Wednesday | scott | Qatar | JAZEERA | INVASION | english | arabic | AL | -based

Sphere: Related Content

The Al Jazeera Invasion

You may not have heard of Wadah Khanfar, but this week, he becomes one of the world's most influential news executives. Besides being head of the 10-year-old Qatar-based Al Jazeera television channel since 2003, the Palestinian-born former reporter is now the overall boss of the network's global channel, Al Jazeera English, that goes on the air starting Wednesday. In an interview with TIME's Scott MacLeod, Khanfar, 38, explained the English channel's alternative agenda, and defended the Arabic channel against charges of bias and sensationalism.

TIME: What is the purpose of Al Jazeera English?

Wadah Khanfar: Al Jazeera is the only international network that is based in the developing world, and that will be the departure point for the English channel. I am not speaking about the geographical south, but the cultural, social and political south. The 'south' has not been presented in the international media properly. Why? Because most of the international media organizations are centered in the West. We would like to present a new model. We will take the south into consideration. We will cover the world, but will take the south as a departure point and a priority.

TIME: What does that mean?

Khanfar: When an international news organization covers a story in Somalia, Yemen, Sudan or wherever, they will fly a crew to go there, spend a few days, interact with some officials and analysts, most of the time English-speaking elite, and file the story and go home. At Al Jazeera, we are getting our local Somalis, Yemenis and Sudanese, local correspondents from within the society, who understand much better than the people who come from overseas. We will get a much better insight.

TIME: What is the Al Jazeera perspective compared to the western media perspective?

Khanfar: Some people call it the Al Jazeera spirit — courage, re-thinking authority, giving a voice to the voiceless. We have never been favored by the authority. The human being is the center of our editorial policy. We are not a TV station that rushes after stars, big names, press conferences, hand-shake journalism. The international media concentrates on the famous, the big names. Al Jazeera goes to the margins, investigates stories that are still developing and in the future become very big. Why did the Arabic world love Al Jazeera? Everybody felt he was represented in the newsroom and on the screen. That kind of belonging is ours. Hopefully the international channel will do the same. We want more diversity in our newsroom, for a dialogue of cultures on the screen.

Al Jazeera English will explain the region. We will be much more qualified to speak about the Middle East because of our presence in the region. The role of the media is to give an honest understanding of reality. Had we been able to deal with the issue of the Middle East a long time before September 11, the roots of anger and frustration, maybe the decision makers would have taken steps to stop it before it becomes al-Qaeda.

TIME: What problems is the Arabic channel having with Arab governments nowadays?

Khanfar: Each country has its own politics. Saudi Arabia has never allowed our bureau to operate in Saudi Arabia. Jordan was critical recently. Their official newspapers waged an official campaign against Al Jazeera, accusing us, again, of implementing a Zionist conspiracy to dismantle the Arab world. They had many complaints, one of them started with a prison protest that Al Jazeera covered.

TIME: Do you still hear from the U.S. government?

Khanfar: Less than before. Maybe because the situation in the Middle East has become more complicated than blaming a single TV station. Some American officials are still skeptical and very critical. By now, I expect that the American administration has discovered that they have committed a great mistake by accusing Al Jazeera of inciting emotions and violence against the Americans. Al Jazeera's bureau has been closed in Iraq for almost two years. The level of violence in Iraq has not subsided. Things are going much worse. Is it Al Jazeera that kept the Iraqis upset with the Americans, or something else?

TIME: Have you ever received pressure from the Qatari government, the financers of the channel?

Khanfar: The Qatari foreign minister criticized us in many cases. I consider that an opinion, not pressure. The only asset we have right now is our editorial independence. If the editorial independence is compromised by the Qataris, Al Jazeera will lose its edge over the rest of the Arab media. The status that Al Jazeera has given Qatar is high and very useful.

TIME: Do you really believe President Bush spoke with Tony Blair about bombing Al Jazeera in Qatar, as was reported by a British tabloid?

Khanfar: It has not been confirmed. We are demanding to know what happened. We are considering all our options.

TIME: Do you stand by Tayseer Alouni, the Al Jazeera correspondent convicted in Spain of having links with Al Qaeda?

Khanfar: We think that Tayseer is innocent and did not commit any crime. He was very professional in the way that he dealt with Al Qaeda. We are going to continue the legal battle to prove his innocence. If Tayseer followed the same steps every journalist does to have an interview with Osama bin Laden, I don't think he can be accused of cooperation.

TIME: You think it was a political verdict?

Khanfar: There is a mood in some countries right now because of the issue of terrorism. Tayseer was unique because he was a symbol of the coverage of Afghanistan. He was the only reporter in Afghanistan. Sentiment and feelings do influence legal proceedings. We have to stand with him. As with cameraman Sami Al Hajj, who was arrested as he was entering Afghanistan. He is in Guantanamo. His lawyer told me he doesn't see anything against him. Sami was interrogated and all of the questions were about Al Jazeera. So, it is about Al Jazeera.

TIME: So how does Al Jazeera get the Bin Laden tapes?

Khanfar: There is no secret. There is no direct link between us and Al Qaeda to receive a tape. No one from them phones and calls and says, "Please, I am going to bring you a tape at this moment in time, so prepare for me to drop it wherever." We are a TV station. We are not an intelligence agency. In all cases, we received them through people we do not know. We cannot figure out who has delivered these tapes. If somebody brings me material, and I feel that this material is a scoop, I will use it. I am not ashamed of that. We are not going to stop doing that.

Sphere: Related Content

Can James Baker Save Iraq?

ROBERT BAER

The former Secretary of State is admired and trusted by Gulf Arabs, but that may be as much a liability as an asset.

The other day I called an Arab security official in the Gulf and joked with him about how well things are going in Iraq. He wasn't in the mood for irony. "The Iranians and the Shi'a are coming to get us," he said, "and you Americans don't have a clue how to stop them."

I heard the same thing from a half dozen other Gulf Arab contacts I talked to the same day. Sure, they're all unhappy about Iraq. But what really concerns them is what happens when the U.S. packs up and leaves. The most likely scenario is an out-and-out civil war, Sunni against Shi'a, with Iran and Saudi Arabia eventually sucked in. And, by the way, can the United States stop Iran from occupying Iraq?

In all the gloom my Arab contacts see one ray of hope—James Baker, the co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group. Most Gulf Arabs—Sunnis to be sure—look at Baker as a friend. Baker was the brains behind the UN-sanctioned coalition that drove Saddam out of Kuwait. Baker had the sense to leave Saddam in power, knowing full well the alternative was civil war. The Iraq policy Baker put in place in 1992 gave the Gulf eleven years of peace.

Another reason the Gulf Arabs trust Baker is because of his financial ties to the region. After Baker left government, he was on the first plane to the Gulf to cash in on his contacts. He was a major player in the Carlyle Group, an Arab-friendly company that solicits Gulf money. In December 2003, Bush appointed Baker to solve Iraq's unpaid debt, much of which is owed to Gulf countries. Baker is doing his best to make sure the Gulf Arabs aren't robbed. Baker's law firm represents the Saudi Defense Minister Sultan bin 'Abd-al-'Aziz in the 9/11 civil suit.

So far, so good. The only problem is, it is those same Gulf ties that keep the Iraqi Shi'a from trusting Baker. And that's not to mention that Baker was Secretary of State when George H.W. Bush, after having exhorted Iraqi Shi'a in the south to stage an uprising, let Saddam put up his helicopters and strafe Shi'a demonstrators at the end of the first Gulf War. To put it mildly, the Iraqi Shi'a are convinced Baker has taken sides.

Baker may know Iraq and the Gulf better than any other American statesman. And on the face of it he's a logical choice to lead the Iraq Study Group, which is widely expected to recommend some kind of policy shift after the election, quite possibly one that would involve Washington actually talking to its enemies in the region such as Iran and Syria.

But right now, with the Sunni Arabs from the Gulf paying for many of the bombs that are blowing up Shi'a markets and mosques, you have to wonder if Baker is the right person to sort out the differences between Iraq's Shi'a and Sunni. Don't we have unconflicted, disinterested statesmen anymore?

Sphere: Related Content

Cleared of Wrongdoing in Haditha?

SALLY B. DONNELLY

Military sources say the two top generals in Iraq at the time of the alleged massacre, almost exactly one year ago, won't likely face any serious charges.

It's been almost a year since the alleged massacre of 24 Iraqi civilians by U.S. troops in the town of Haditha on November 19, 2005, which was first reported by TIME. Yet after 10 months of probes no one in the U.S. military has been formally punished, criminally charged or even officially cleared. That, however, is soon about to end.

While unnamed Pentagon sources and outsiders have speculated that senior Marine commanders knew — or should have known — exactly what the Marines did on the ground that day, military sources now say that both Marine two-star generals in Iraq at the time will likely be cleared of any serious criminal wrongdoing.

An initial administrative investigation led by Army Major General Eldon Bargewell found several failures by the top two Marine officers, Major General Steve Johnson and Major General Richard Huck. The failures, or "red flags," that were uncovered so troubled the Marine Corps that it took the unusual step of ordering a special criminal inquiry by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) to see if serious charges should be brought — a rare move to consider against officers so far up the chain of command.

That process was further complicated by the fact that the Bargewell report was quite vague in parts, says a source who has seen it. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, superior officers can be considered responsible for war crimes committed by their subordinates if they were in a position to prevent the crimes and failed to do so. That NCIS investigation has now been completed and has not found enough evidence to bring serious charges — such as criminal negligence or obstruction of justice — against either Johnson or Huck because they did not know the details of what happened in Haditha, say government sources.

Still, the two generals will likely face some kind of formal punishment. The senior Marine general in Iraq at the time, Johnson, has already had a planned promotion to a three-star job stalled and his career may be finished, according to military sources. Huck, who had already left the Corps to prepare for retirement, has been ordered back into uniform because of the investigation and is working for a senior officer.

As for the Marines who were on the ground in Haditha that day, they too will soon learn what charges they might face. Military sources say Lt. General James Mattis, the senior officer responsible for deciding whether to press charges and the punishments if the Marines are found guilty, will make his recommendations in mid-December. Three Marines, including Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, may be charged with murder for their actions in Haditha after their squadmate, Lance Corporal Miguel Terrazas, was killed by an IED in the early morning of that fateful day. The Marines on the ground are alleged to have retaliated by entering several houses in the area and killing the civilians, including women and children. Wuterich's attorney has challenged that version, instead arguing the Marines came under enemy fire and acted in self defense.

A Marine spokesman would not comment about the invesitgations or when they might end. "The investigation is on-going...as soon as the facts are known and decisions on future actions are made, we will make that information available to the public to the fullest extent allowable, says Lt. Col. Sean Gibson."

The long delay in justice hasn't stopped others from making their own judgments about Haditha. Many observers and politicans have already decided those involved are guilty — Democratic Congressman and former Marine John Murtha has claimed that the Marines "killed in cold blood," comments for which Wuterich has filed a defamation lawsuit against Murtha. Others have asserted that civilian casualties are a tragic reality of a morally confusing battlefield. The truth, as it always is in the fog of war, is likely somewhere in-between.

Sphere: Related Content

Mass Abduction Highlights Iraqi Security Crisis

APARISIM GHOSH

Uniformed men traveling in dozens of vehicles snatch more than 100 people from a government ministry .

Even by Baghdad standards, it was an incredibly brazen snatch. In broad daylight Tuesday morning, armed men wearing police-commando uniforms kidnapped more than 100 people from the research directorate of the Ministry of Higher Education. Eyewitnesses said the kidnappers arrived in a fleet of dozens of trucks with government markings, and took barely 15 minutes to complete what was obviously a carefully planned operation. They rounded up the directorate's employees, then locked all the women in one room before taking away the men.

The Iraqi government announced it had sacked five police commanders as a response to the kidnapping, but it was not immediately clear whether the commanders were being punished for negligence or criminality.

Higher Education Minister Abed Dhiab al-Ujaili ordered all of Iraq's universities closed, saying he doesn't want to endanger any more of his staff. Speaking on state TV, he blamed the kidnapping on "criminals and terrorists" and accused them of "targeting higher education to empty it."

The kidnapping was another blow to Iraq's post-Saddam education system, which has already been undermined by the murder of over 180 professors and the emigration of over 3,000 others. In recent weeks, prominent academics have been killed in Baghdad.

Suspicion over Tuesday's kidnapping immediately fell on the Shi'ite militias who have waged a massive campaign of sectarian kidnapping and murder. The kidnap bore many of the hallmarks of a militia operation, including the use of military uniforms and the targeting of Sunnis. Al-Ujaili is a member of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a Sunni organization, and some Shi'ites have accused him of filling his department with cosectarians. It is common for Iraqi ministries to recruit mainly from the sect of the minister concerned.

"There are Sunni ministries and Shi'ite ministres, and ours is known as a Sunni ministry," said one department official, who asked not to be identified because he is not authorized to speak with journalists. "I'm not surprised we were hit, but I never expected it would be such a big operation." The minister said both Sunni and Shi'ites were taken in the raid. Unconfirmed reports said around a dozen were released later in the day.

In the Karrada neighborhood, where the research directorate is located, residents said the scale of the kidnapping suggested collusion — perhaps even participation — by real policemen. "How can you kidnap 100 people in the middle of the city and not be caught at a checkpoint," said Raed Hussein, a shop assistant who works not far from the directorate. "The only way you can get away with this is if you have the support of the police." There are hundreds of police checkpoints in the Iraqi capital, and it is almost impossible to travel more than a mile without having to pass one.

Sphere: Related Content

A Rude Awakening for Americans in Nicaragua

Some U.S. investors and retirees in the Central American nation fear president-elect Daniel Ortega, but others are more worried about how President Bush will respond to the stunning election victory.

It took North Carolina native Don McCandless 13 months, several work crews and some $600,000 to restore his crumbling two-story colonial home in Granada to its former stately self. McCandless spared no effort or outlay to get the details of his planned retirement home perfect, including the master-bathroom Jacuzzi, the satellite TVs, and the regal 18-seat dinning room with its ornate hand-painted ceiling and decorative tiled floors.

source

NowPublic

Tags: tiled | stately | regal | outlay | master-bathroom | hand-painted | decorative | McCandless | Jacuzzi | worried | two-story | stunning | spared | Satellite | retirement | RETIREES | restore | respond | President-elect | plans | perfect | others | ornate | Native | months | Investors | including | ELECTED | effort | Dinning | Details | crumbling | CREWS | COLONIAL | ceiling | rude | president | ORTEGA | Nicaragua | granada | daniel | Central | Carolina | Bush | Awakening | American

Sphere: Related Content

Hizballah Plays Politics in Lebanon

ANDREW LEE BUTTERS

The Shi'a group's resignation from the cabinet could bring down the country's shaky government and threaten its fragile stability.

In a normal democracy, the resignation of a few ministers wouldn't spark a constitutional crisis. But Lebanon is anything but normal — it's a sectarian democracy, based upon the balance of power between religious groups. And that balance is now collapsing.

On Sunday, Hizballah, the militia and Shia Muslim political party, pulled out of the governing coalition along with Amal, another Shia political party. Hizballah and Amal, which together represent almost all of Lebanon's Shia, had been demanding four new cabinet positions on the grounds that their resistance against Israel during the war over the summer merits greater representation in government.

The prime minister, Fouad Siniora — perhaps wondering why he should reward Hizballah for single-handedly starting the destructive war by kidnapping three Israeli soldiers — balked at a move that would have given Hizballah effective veto power. Instead he offered three seats, which Hizballah and Amal rejected, promising street demonstrations in return.

Since Siniora still has a majority, he could go on trying to run the country without participation from the Shia parties. The constitution specifies that the country's president must be Christian, its prime minister must be Sunni Muslim, and that the speaker of parliament must be Shia Muslim. It doesn't, however, say what the balance of the cabinet has to be. But it would be practically impossible for the government to have legitimacy and effectiveness without any Shia, who are, after all, the country's largest religious group.

Lebanon's current internal political breakdown is in many ways a reflection of the wider Middle East clash between East and West. The war between Israel and Hizballah was in some ways a proxy battle between the United States (which supplies money and weapons to Israel) and Iran and Syria (which supply money and weapons to Hizballah), and the country is very much divided along those same lines. Hizballah's desire for greater say in the government reflects its concern that Siniora and his allies will cooperate with the U.S. and the United Nations to disarm Hizballah, which was one component of the ceasefire that ended the war this summer; Hizballah is the only political party that kept its weapons after the end of the Civil War in 1990.

"What we are witnessing now is the politics of brinksmanship," said Hilal Khashan, a professor of political science at the American University of Beirut. "Who will back off first? There is a crisis for Siniora and the majority. They cannot afford to give Hizballah and their allies a veto in the cabinet. Hizballah meanwhile is fighting for their necks. They are being chased by Security Council resolutions calling for their disarmament. They brought the political system to a standstill. Hizballah is suffering as well."

No one in Lebanon really knows how this game of chicken will play out. Beirut has been tense all week, with police units out in force around key government buildings, checking bags and scaring off what few tourists remain in the city. The concern is that Hizballah anti-government demonstrations will provoke pro-government counter demonstrations, risking confrontations between the two sides. In the meantime, the country's economy, already burdened by this summer's destruction, will continue to suffer. Post-war reconstruction remains in paralysis.

In the end, the winner of Lebanon's political confrontation may be determined not by street protests in Beirut but by political jockeying in Washington. With Democrats pushing the Bush administration to engage with Syria and Iran over the turmoil in Iraq, Hizballah may gain from the newfound stature of its patrons, according to Khashan. Still, that effect remains to be seen. "This is the Middle East," said Khashan. "You always have new uncontrolled variables that transform the situation at the last minute." One thing is for certain; now more than ever, Lebanon doesn't have time on its side.

Sphere: Related Content