Are Hamas' New Guidelines Abetting Israeli Hardliners?

Playing Two Different Games
By AMIRA HASS

The Palestinians are busy forming a government. It is too early to say how the events in Jericho will affect its composition, but what in the past was an internal game of musical chairs among Fatah and its satellites--a competition over personal prestige and a power play by Yasser Arafat--now appears to be a discussion between different political movements and principles.
Hamas has already submitted its proposed guidelines for a coalition government.

The guidelines are a mixture of the declarations and slogans of a national liberation movement and the vague promises of a future government. This mix does not bode well for the Palestinian people. Even the vagueness in the guidelines, as Mahmoud Abbas has reportedly complained, is that of an "ordinary" government--things along the lines of "we will work to eradicate poverty," a standard pledge among Israeli governments.

The guidelines give considerable space to the right of return, as well as to the standard declaration that resistance in all its forms is a right--even though, at the same time, they stress that resistance is a means, not an end. The guidelines also include a promise that Palestinian Authority institutions will be established based on the principles of democracy, justice, individual rights and freedoms, and so forth. Hamas is even willing to discuss changes to its proposal in order to accommodate two tiny factions that are considering joining the government (the Popular Front and Independent Palestine). Fatah, in contrast, has made it clear that it views negotiations with Israel as a fundamental strategic choice, and it is not willing to concede on this issue. If so, it is unlikely that Fatah will join the government. The first draft of the guidelines stated that a Hamas-led Palestinian government would be willing to seriously consider the principle of negotiations if Israel would recognize the rights of the Palestinian people and provide guarantees of a full withdrawal from the territories it occupied in 1967, including East Jerusalem. If this is so, then according to Hamas, negotiations are merely a Palestinian gesture should its conditions be met.

At first glance, this is a refreshing "new discourse" that Hamas is introducing into the unequal balance of power between Israel and the Palestinians. It may paint Hamas as "real men" in the eyes of its public, but it does not appear that it will impress anyone in Israel. In effect, the "conditions" are reminiscent of the style of the armed Palestinian organizations throughout the last five years: They set conditions for Israel, or threatened to "avenge" or "act" or "respond," in precisely the arena where there is no doubt of Israel's superiority: force of arms, the ability to kill and destroy.

These organizations, with their suicide attacks and their Qassam rockets, painted the Palestinians as the aggressor, just as Israel's propaganda claimed. Now, Hamas is deemed the one who is refusing to negotiate. It is helping both Israelis and the international community to forget that for the past five years, it was Israel that refused to negotiate, and that even during the Oslo years, the negotiations consisted mainly of forceful Israeli dictates and Palestinian inertness and concessions.

The guidelines also address the security lull: It is not an end, but a means, and it is meant to achieve national goals. However, its continuation will depend on an end to all Israeli aggression and the release of the prisoners. Here it is possible to see Hamas' pragmatic desire for a lull to enable it to deal with the domestic issues that were the main reason for its election. But it is also possible to see the boastfulness of the weak, which has nothing behind it. Granted, the guidelines speak about resistance in all its forms--primarily, armed resistance and popular resistance. But the experience of the last five years has proven that the use of arms not only worsened the Palestinians' situation, but also came at the expense of mass mobilization for a popular uprising.
The use of weapons in the territories and the suicide bombings in Israel that the armed organizations, first and foremost Hamas, presented as a "response" gave Israel an opportunity to implement its long-standing plan of annexing essential territory and shedding responsibility for the occupied, and even to win American backing and tacit European support for this. It turned out that Israel was playing chess, while the Palestinians thought that the game was tables tennis. And even at that, they are losing.

From the way Hamas officials have behaved since their election, it is clear that Hamas understands that the table tennis cannot be only military. Now, it is trying to inject a new element, a political one, into the game. It wrote in the guidelines that the Palestinian cause has an Arab and Islamic dimension, and a Hamas-led government will work to mobilize Arab and Islamic support for the Palestinian people in every field.

Under the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Palestinian cause became the entire world's cause, an issue of both national rights and human rights. Over the last five years, however, Israel has worked energetically to link the Palestinians with international Islamic terrorism and the "clash of civilizations:" enlightened versus benighted.

Now, Hamas' guidelines are helping Israel as well: They depict a religious and cultural clash, outside the framework of the people's struggle against foreign occupiers.

Amira Hass writes for Ha'aretz. She is the author of Drinking the Sea at Gaza.

Source: CounterPunch
http://counterpunch.org/hass03162006.html

Top US evangelist targets Islam

Outspoken US Christian evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson has accused Muslims of planning world domination, and said some were "satanic". On his live television programme, The 700 Club, he said radical Islamists were inspired by "demonic power".

A US religious liberty watchdog called the comments "grossly irresponsible". Mr Robertson had to apologise recently for calling for Venezuela's president to be killed, and saying Ariel Sharon was struck down by divine retribution.

His latest comments were expunged from The 700 Club's website, but Mr Robertson's Virginia-based Christian Broadcasting Network confirmed them with a transcript.

'Crazed fanatics'

On the programme, the 75-year-old preacher responded to a news item about the reaction of Muslims in Europe to the publishing of cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad.
The footage showed Muslims screaming "May Allah bomb you! May Osama Bin Laden bomb you!"

Mr Robertson said the pictures "just shows the kind of people we're dealing with. These people are crazed fanatics, and I want to say it now: I believe it's motivated by demonic power. It is satanic and it's time we recognize what we're dealing with".

He went on to say that "Islam is not a religion of peace", and "the goal of Islam, ladies and gentlemen whether you like it or not, is world domination".

Mr Robertson said in a statement later he was referring specifically to terrorists as being motivated by Satan.

'Gasoline on the fire'

The Reverend Barry W Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the comments "grossly irresponsible".

"At a time when inter-religious tensions around the world are at an all-time high, Robertson seems determined to throw gasoline on the fire," he said.

Mr Robertson, who says his programme is watched by a million Americans daily, has come under intense criticism for recent comments.

He suggested that American agents should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez , and said the stroke that left Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in a coma was God's punishment for Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

In both cases he issued an apology within days.

Story from BBC NEWS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4805952.stm

Israeli Attacks Jail, Enrages Palestinians

By SARAH EL DEEB, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 55 minutes ago

Israeli forces driving bulldozers and firing tank shells burst into a Palestinian prison Tuesday and removed dozens of inmates in a raid targeting prisoners convicted of killing an Israeli Cabinet minister.

Furious Palestinians attacked offices linked to America and Europe, torching the British Council building in Gaza City and kidnapping a foreign employee of the Red Cross in Gaza. Gunmen also seized four guests — including two South Korean journalists and a French woman — from a Gaza City hotel.

The Palestinians blamed the Jericho raid on the British and Americans, who removed their monitors from the jail just before the Israeli raid. There were a total of 200 prisoners and guards in the jail at the time of the raid.

Israel forced 170 prisoners out of the jail wearing only their underwear. But one of the main targets of the raid, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine leader Ahmed Saadat, held out inside.

"We are not going to surrender. We are going to face our destiny with courage," he told Al-Jazeera television from the jail.

The operation was the most high-profile Israeli incursion into a Palestinian town in months and came just two weeks before Israeli elections. Palestinians condemned the raid as a campaign stunt, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas blamed the United States and British governments.

American and British observers who had monitored the jail for the past four years withdrew just before the raid, citing security concerns. The Israeli government ordered the raid because the monitors were withdrawn, the army said. Israel said the Palestinians were to blame for violating an agreement on detaining the Palestinians accused of killing the Israeli minister in 2001.

Saadat told Al-Jazeera, which broadcast the raid throughout the Arab world, that he held Abbas partly responsible, saying he should have gotten him out of prison sooner. As he spoke, an explosion was heard in the background, and Saadat said: "I can't continue. The situation is very difficult." Then he hung up.

In Jericho, dozens of prisoners in their underwear came of the prison building and were searched and blindfolded by Israeli troops. Some of them were taken away. Israeli officials said a number of prisoners were being targeted for arrest, including the five involved in the assassination.

A senior Israeli military official said the inmates must surrender or face death.

Hundreds of Israeli troops entered the town Tuesday morning and surrounded the prison, calling over loudspeakers for prisoners to give themselves up. The troops then burst through the front gate of the jail with a bulldozer, drove inside in armored personnel carriers and engaged in a shootout with Palestinian police, said local security commander Akram Rajoub.

One policeman standing near the gate was killed, as was a prisoner, security officials said.

Two large explosions were heard at the prison and thick smoke filled the sky. Helicopters flew overhead.

Youths in the town threw rocks at the Israeli soldiers, and Palestinians burned tires in the roads. Troops were later heard calling for all the prisoners and guards to come out of the jail.

Saadat is being held for ordering the assassination of Israeli Tourism Minister Rehavam Zeevi in 2001. Saadat was elected to the Palestinian legislature in January.

Israel also demanded the surrender of four other members of the PFLP, including the gunman who killed Zeevi, and Fuad Shobaki, the alleged mastermind of an illegal weapons shipment to the Palestinian Authority several years ago.

Zeevi's son, Palmach, told Israel's Channel 10 TV the raid was "an extraordinary and very important decision" by the government of acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is running for prime minister at the head of the new, centrist Kadima Party.

The six men were being held at the jail under the supervision of British and American wardens in accordance with a deal worked out between President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in April 2002. The agreement allowed the prisoners to be transferred from Yasser Arafat's besieged compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah, where they were holed up during Israel's operation Defensive Shield in April 2002.

Israeli hard-liners chafed at the deal, believing it allowed an assassin to escape justice, and Palestinians disliked a deal that forced them to jail one of their top militant leaders under Israeli pressure.

Israeli political analyst Yossi Alpher said the upcoming Israeli elections were one of the reasons behind the raid, but the main catalyst was fears that Hamas, which won Jan. 25 parliamentary elections, would free Saadat. Soon after the election, Hamas political chief Khaled Mashaal said the group planned to release Saadat.

On March 7, Abbas said he was willing to free him but would not take responsibility for any action Israel would take against him later.

Britain said it had repeatedly warned Abbas, who was in Europe Tuesday, that it would withdraw its monitors from the prison.

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said in a written statement that Britain and America had repeatedly told the Palestinian Authority about security problems at the prison and urged it to do more to ensure the monitors' safety. The authority is responsible for security at the jail under a 2002 agreement.

Straw said Britain and America wrote to Abbas on March 8 telling him the countries would withdraw their monitors unless security improved immediately.

Israel's Channel Two television reported that the Israeli troops began the raid 20 minutes after the foreign monitors left.

Abbas accused the Americans and British of withdrawing the monitors without telling him, violating the 2002 agreement. He said he would hold them responsible if anything happens to the prisoners.

"The authority denounces this aggression and calls on the Israeli government to withdraw immediately from Jericho and to stop all the military acts, and it calls on the American and British observers to return immediately," he said in a statement.

In Gaza City, about 300 demonstrators, including dozens of gunmen, broke into the European Commission building and raised the PFLP flag on the roof. They also torched the British council offices and burned the cars of people who work there. Police protecting that building left after a brief shootout with the gunmen.

Gunmen also briefly stormed the offices of AMIDEAST, a private organization that provides English classes and testing services.

Some of the protesters chanted: "Death to the Americans! Death to the British!"

The PFLP issued a statement warning that it would target Britons and Americans if Saadat or the other prisoners are hurt.

"Any attempt to harm our comrades will make all British and Americans a target by our cells," the group said.

In Jenin, two dozen Palestinian gunmen fired in the air. Their leader, Zakariya Zubeydi from the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, said he and his followers would now target Americans and Britons.

"We will fight against every American and British person in the Palestinian lands," he said. "We will fight against the American and British interests everywhere because of what happened at the Jericho prison."

Incoming Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, a Hamas leader, called the raid "a dangerous escalation against the Palestinian leaders and freedom fighters."

Source: AP via Yahoo! News
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_palestinian_prisoner...

The War Dividend: The British companies making a fortune out of conflict-riven Iraq

By Robert Verkaik
Published: 13 March 2006

British businesses have profited by at least £1.1bn since coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein three years ago, the first comprehensive investigation into UK corporate investment in Iraq has found.

The company roll-call of post-war profiteers includes some of the best known names in Britain's boardrooms as well many who would prefer to remain anonymous. They come from private security services, banks, PR consultancies, urban planning consortiums, oil companies, architects offices and energy advisory bodies.

Among the top earners is the construction firm Amec, which has made an estimated £500m from a series of contracts restoring electrical systems and maintaining power generation facilities during the past two years. Aegis, which provides private security has earned more than £246m from a three-year contract with the Pentagon to co-ordinate military and security companies in Iraq. Erinys, which specialises in the same area, has made more than £86m, a substantial portion from the protection of oilfields.

The evidence of massive investments and the promise of more multimillion-pound profits to come was discovered in a joint investigation by Corporate Watch, an independent watchdog, and The Independent.

The findings show how much is stake if Britain were to withdraw military protection from Iraq. British company involvement at the top of Iraq's new political and economic structures means Iraq will be forced to rely on British business for many years to come.

A total of 61 British companies are identified as benefiting from at least £1.1bn of contracts and investment in the new Iraq. But that figure is just the tip of the iceberg; Corporate Watch believes it could be as much as five times higher, because many companies prefer to keep their relationship secret.

The waters are further muddied by the Government's refusal to release the names of companies it has helped to win contracts in Iraq.

Many of the companies enjoy long-standing relationships with Labour and now have a financial stake in the reconstruction of Iraq in Britain's image. Of the total profits published in the report, the British taxpayer has had to meet a bill for £78m while the US taxpayer's contribution to UK corporate earnings in Iraq is nearly nine times that. Iraqis themselves have paid British company directors £150m.

The report acknowledges that British business still lags behind the huge profits paid to American companies. But, in two fields, Britain is playing a critical and leading role.

The threat from the Iraqi insurgency means British private security companies are in great demand. Corporate Watch estimates there are between 20,000 and 30,000 security personnel working in Iraq, half of whom are employed by companies run by retired senior British officers and at least two former defence ministers.

The biggest British player, Aegis - run by Tim Spicer, the former British army lieutenant colonel who founded the security company Sandline - has a workforce the size of a military division and may rank as the largest corporate military group ever assembled, according to the report. Other private security companies have sprung up overnight to protect British and American civilians.

Britain is also playing a leading role in advising on the creation of state institutions and the business of government. PA Consulting, which has also received a contract for advising on the Government's ID cards scheme, worth around £19m, is now a key adviser in Iraq.

Adam Smith International, a body closely linked to the right-wing think-tank used by Margaret Thatcher, has been heavily involved in the foundation of the Iraqi government and continues to influence its newly formed ministries. According to the Tory MP Quentin Davies, who visited Iraq, the advisers are "reordering Iraqi government operations at the most basic level, to help restructure some of the Iraqi ministries, in fact physically restructure them, even suggesting how the minister's office should be laid out".

Another favourite of the Thatcher governments, now involved in Iraq, is Tim Bell, who ran the Tories' election campaigns in 1979, 1983 and 1987. His PR firm Bell-Pottinger has been involved in advising on the 2004 elections and a strategic campaign to promote bigger concepts such as the return of sovereignty, reconstruction, support for the army and police, minority rights and public probity.

Loukas Christodoulou, of Corporate Watch, has been monitoring British business relations with Iraq since the invasion. He says in his conclusion to our joint report: "The presence of these consultants in Iraq is arguably a part of the UK government's policy to push British firms as lead providers of privatisation support. The Department for International Development has positioned itself as a champion of privatisation in developing countries. The central part UK firms are playing in reshaping Iraq's economy and society lays the ground for a shift towards a corporate-dominated economy. This will have repercussions lasting decades."

In five years, the £1.1bn of contracts identified in the report will be dwarfed by what Britain and the US hope to reap from investments. Highly lucrative oil contracts have yet to be handed out.

British businesses have profited by at least £1.1bn since coalition forces toppled Saddam Hussein three years ago, the first comprehensive investigation into UK corporate investment in Iraq has found.

The company roll-call of post-war profiteers includes some of the best known names in Britain's boardrooms as well many who would prefer to remain anonymous. They come from private security services, banks, PR consultancies, urban planning consortiums, oil companies, architects offices and energy advisory bodies.

Among the top earners is the construction firm Amec, which has made an estimated £500m from a series of contracts restoring electrical systems and maintaining power generation facilities during the past two years. Aegis, which provides private security has earned more than £246m from a three-year contract with the Pentagon to co-ordinate military and security companies in Iraq. Erinys, which specialises in the same area, has made more than £86m, a substantial portion from the protection of oilfields.

The evidence of massive investments and the promise of more multimillion-pound profits to come was discovered in a joint investigation by Corporate Watch, an independent watchdog, and The Independent.

The findings show how much is stake if Britain were to withdraw military protection from Iraq. British company involvement at the top of Iraq's new political and economic structures means Iraq will be forced to rely on British business for many years to come.

A total of 61 British companies are identified as benefiting from at least £1.1bn of contracts and investment in the new Iraq. But that figure is just the tip of the iceberg; Corporate Watch believes it could be as much as five times higher, because many companies prefer to keep their relationship secret.

The waters are further muddied by the Government's refusal to release the names of companies it has helped to win contracts in Iraq.

Many of the companies enjoy long-standing relationships with Labour and now have a financial stake in the reconstruction of Iraq in Britain's image. Of the total profits published in the report, the British taxpayer has had to meet a bill for £78m while the US taxpayer's contribution to UK corporate earnings in Iraq is nearly nine times that. Iraqis themselves have paid British company directors £150m.

The report acknowledges that British business still lags behind the huge profits paid to American companies. But, in two fields, Britain is playing a critical and leading role.

The threat from the Iraqi insurgency means British private security companies are in great demand. Corporate Watch estimates there are between 20,000 and 30,000 security personnel working in Iraq, half of whom are employed by companies run by retired senior British officers and at least two former defence ministers.

The biggest British player, Aegis - run by Tim Spicer, the former British army lieutenant colonel who founded the security company Sandline - has a workforce the size of a military division and may rank as the largest corporate military group ever assembled, according to the report. Other private security companies have sprung up overnight to protect British and American civilians.

Britain is also playing a leading role in advising on the creation of state institutions and the business of government. PA Consulting, which has also received a contract for advising on the Government's ID cards scheme, worth around £19m, is now a key adviser in Iraq.

Adam Smith International, a body closely linked to the right-wing think-tank used by Margaret Thatcher, has been heavily involved in the foundation of the Iraqi government and continues to influence its newly formed ministries. According to the Tory MP Quentin Davies, who visited Iraq, the advisers are "reordering Iraqi government operations at the most basic level, to help restructure some of the Iraqi ministries, in fact physically restructure them, even suggesting how the minister's office should be laid out".

Another favourite of the Thatcher governments, now involved in Iraq, is Tim Bell, who ran the Tories' election campaigns in 1979, 1983 and 1987. His PR firm Bell-Pottinger has been involved in advising on the 2004 elections and a strategic campaign to promote bigger concepts such as the return of sovereignty, reconstruction, support for the army and police, minority rights and public probity.

Loukas Christodoulou, of Corporate Watch, has been monitoring British business relations with Iraq since the invasion. He says in his conclusion to our joint report: "The presence of these consultants in Iraq is arguably a part of the UK government's policy to push British firms as lead providers of privatisation support. The Department for International Development has positioned itself as a champion of privatisation in developing countries. The central part UK firms are playing in reshaping Iraq's economy and society lays the ground for a shift towards a corporate-dominated economy. This will have repercussions lasting decades."

In five years, the £1.1bn of contracts identified in the report will be dwarfed by what Britain and the US hope to reap from investments. Highly lucrative oil contracts have yet to be handed out.

Source: The Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article350959.ece

Transcript: Sen. Chris Dodd on 'FNS'

Monday, March 13, 2006

The following is a partial transcript of the March 12, 2006, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":

CHRIS WALLACE, HOST: With Republicans fighting amongst themselves, do Democrats have their house in order to take back Congress this fall? We want to talk about that with one of their key leaders, Senator Chris Dodd.

And, Senator, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday".

SEN. CHRIS DODD, D-CONN.: Good to be with you, Chris.

WALLACE: I want to start with something that General John Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, said this week about the opposition to the Dubai ports world deal. Here it is.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEN. JOHN ABIZAID, COMMANDER, U.S. CENTRAL COMMAND: I'm very dismayed by the emotional responses that some people have put on the table here in the United States that really comes down to Arab and Muslim bashing that was totally unnecessary.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

WALLACE: Wasn't there a good deal of demagoguery by Republicans and Democrats in opposing this ports deal?

DODD: Not necessarily. This hit a very, very responsive nerve, Chris, in the country. This didn't go away. This issue wasn't going to disappear. Some issues like this do after a few days.

When you have after — and now we're almost five years after 9/11, where still almost 90 percent, or more than 90 percent, of our ports are being controlled by foreign entities, less than 5 percent of the cargo coming in, year after year after year — Congress has tried to have better port security, going back to Fritz Hollings, my former colleague from South Carolina.

I've offered on four different occasions the Rudman report recommendations on port security, been defeated every time. Even in this budget, we'll be voting on this week, there's no separate line item, despite the glaring problems we have on port security in the country.

You know, you could argue some of the — I'm not going to say that every member of Congress who spoke on the issue, Republican or Democrat, necessarily chose words that I would choose, but it was indicative of the public feeling about this issue. And I don't think you can dismiss that.

WALLACE: But, Senator, does the United Arab Emirates represent a security threat? Over the years, we look back at your record, you have voted to sell UAE jet fighters, missiles. Since 9/11, they turned over the mastermind to the USS Cole. They allow our warships to use their ports. They allow our warplanes to use their bases.

I mean, did the UAE deserve this?

DODD: Well, I don't think they did. But I think I'd begin discussing this with the administration's failure to recognize that this is a country, again, that has some serious issues and problems. You just heard Duncan Hunter talk about some of the history here.

Remember, we had a very good relationship with a guy named Saddam Hussein not many years ago, either, in that part of the world. And today, of course, we have a very different situation on our hands.

I didn't like to hear some of the rhetoric I did, but the fact of the matter remains this is a country that has a very spotty record when it comes to national security issues. And the world did change on 9/11.

Now, my hope is that we'll deal with this issue more thoroughly and step back from it. And again, I point out, the administration should have set up at least a 45-day examination period here and didn't do that.

Now we need to look at this Committee for Foreign Investment. We need to have the CIA representative on that committee, the national intelligence director on it. There should be a pause when you have a foreign government going to operate a port at least to examine the national security implications today. That didn't happen at all.

So we need to reform that process. So not necessarily pointing a finger at the UAE or other countries here, but today to take a closer look at how these ports are being operated.

WALLACE: You have been in the Senate — I hope you won't mind me saying this — for a quarter century now.

DODD: Yes. A very young man I am.

WALLACE: What does it tell you about this president's standing when members of his own party desert him the way they did in the past couple of weeks?

DODD: Well, it's not unique. I've seen it happen over the last 25 years in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, particularly in the second term. But again, I think they get lazy, I think what happens. You know, the term limits — they're not going to run again. And so people begin to let down their guard.

Bob Kim — and I have a great deal of respect for — who's the undersecretary of treasury, who is in charge of the CFIUS program — why didn't someone raise their hand in that room and say wait a minute, here's a country with a record that's a little spotty, they want to operate six or seven major ports in the country, a $7 billion deal, shouldn't we check with the boss on this one?

I think the laziness of it, not paying attention — the cabinet secretary should have been on there, much better prepared for that kind of a thing. So this happens, and clearly the Republicans are getting ready for 2006 elections. They're worried about issues like this, and so they're going to distance themselves.

WALLACE: But let's talk about your party...

DODD: Sure.

WALLACE: ... because according to the polls, this should be a good election year for Democrats, but a number of top Democrats are worried. And in fact, when asked about the health of the Democratic Party about a month ago, you said this — and let's put it up on the screen — "A lot worse than it should be. We seem to be losing our voice when it comes to the basic things people worry about."

DODD: Well, again, at that point here, I was concerned we were going off on some tangents here and not coming back. But just recently, you'll see the kind of unity the Democrats have shown, just last week, on the issue of bringing up the lobbying reform, ethics reform package — dealing with this issue, allowing one of our colleagues to be able to offer an amendment or work out some time agreement to do so.

I think Democrats on issues of national security, support for our troops, for educating our children, health care, energy policy, are standing for progress for the future and for a better future — a better chance for people in this country.

WALLACE: But, Senator, your party keeps promising to put out a plan, an affirmative agenda of what Democrats stand for. They promised to put it out in November. They promised to put it out in January. They've promised to put it out this spring.

Now we still don't know when it's going to come out. What's the problem?

DODD: Well, no, they are doing it. I think we are doing it on issue by issue as they come along here. And again, you're going to see more of that in the coming days. But remember, we don't control either the Senate, the House of Representatives or the presidency.

WALLACE: But you control your own party. You can put out your own plan.

DODD: Well, and we are laying out these issues and we're doing it in a united way. Remember, we've got 45 Democrats in the Senate. You've got around 200 in the house — governors.

Putting all of that together with one coherent plan all the time is not necessarily easy, particularly when you're battling upstream as we are in the House, the Senate and dealing with the president every day.

WALLACE: Is it enough for Democrats simply to oppose the president?

DODD: Well, again, I don't think you can do that alone. I think people do want to hear proactive, positive ideas. And I think we've done that — again, I emphasize to you — on things like national security and support for our troops, a number of issues coming along — on energy policy, and education, on health care.

You're watching a very united Democratic Party here.

WALLACE: Not on Iraq. You're all over the place.

DODD: Not necessarily. There are some differences here, but basically people want to see us succeed.

WALLACE: Well, stay in, leave. I mean, that's a pretty big difference.

DODD: Well, I think generally, people want us to succeed. But also, again, we're not setting the policy. And again, you know, the president — again, look at some of the lead editorials today. This is cratering.

We're now three months since the elections and still no government in Iraq. And what we're saying is here this government has to get its act together. These people have to get their act together — certainly, the leaders of the Shias and the Sunnis. And if they don't, then nothing we're going to be able to do is going to save that country. That's really their responsibility.

WALLACE: Senator, I want to put up an article written by the editor of Slate Magazine, a magazine that's generally pretty friendly to Democrats, about three leaders of your party, House leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate leader Harry Reid, and Party Chair Howard Dean.

Here's what it said. Under the title The Three Stooges, it says, "The three of them have shown themselves to be somewhere between useless and disastrous as party leaders. Individually they lack substance and party smarts — Pelosi — coherence and force — Reid — and steadiness and mainstream appeal — Dean. Collectively, they convey an image of liberal elitism, disarray and crabbiness."

Other than that, Senator, I think he was a big fan. Doesn't he have a point?

DODD: No, not at all. Listen, in this day and age, with the ability to transmit information like that around — that's mild what you get sometimes. Get back to the major point here.

WALLACE: Well, I want to ask you about that, though. Are you really...

DODD: I totally disagree with that. Nancy Pelosi has been a wonderful leader in the House. Harry Reid is doing a great job of uniting Democrats, as I mentioned, on these issues I've talked about. And certainly, Howard Dean — they bring different perspectives.

And the party is not a party that's homogeneic in that sense. There are differences within our party. But that's one of the strengths of the Democratic Party. And each of these leaders I think brings that strength to this party.

That's one of the reasons why I think we're going to be very successful, and most people do as well, in the November elections, winning back the House, winning back the United States Senate, and setting itself in a very strong position to win the presidency in 2008.

WALLACE: But do Democrats have — pardon the expression — a Newt Gingrich, who in 1994 was so successful in setting out a vision, an affirmative plan that connected with the country and helped persuade them to vote for change — in that case to push out the Democrats who were in the majority in the House and the Senate?

Who's your messenger and what's your message?

DODD: Well, again, I'll tell you, in 1994, I watched those elections very carefully. The problem was less about Newt Gingrich as it was with — the president was in the mid part of that first term, and there were serious problems. The president's numbers were very, very low, not unlike the president's numbers today.

I think that probably had more to do with why the Congress went the different direction it did politically than Newt Gingrich, with all due respect. So I don't necessarily see that as the key to success in 2006.

The key is going to be a continued failure by this administration, its leadership in Congress, to provide an alternative sound idea of where we need to go as a people, and alternatively for Democrats to lay out some good ideas — is exactly what I think we're doing.

WALLACE: And finally, and we have about a minute left, lobbying reform. There was a period right after the 1st of the year where the Abramoff scandal — when it looked like this was a big, hot issue. There's a general feeling on Capitol Hill it's losing some steam.

DODD: Well, I'm worried about that, and I'm hoping that Bill Frist will bring this matter back up again. He could have the other day. We had a unanimous vote out of the Senate Rules Committee...

WALLACE: But didn't Senator Schumer put an amendment on?

DODD: That's very legitimate in the United States Senate. And the Democratic leader, Harry Reid, said by the way, we'll take this amendment off, give us a time certain for a one-hour debate, or a two- hour debate, after the consideration of this bill, and we'll take the amendment down and get back to lobbying reform.

And the Republican leader refused to do that. Now, my hope is we get back to this issue. It's up to the Republican leadership to set that back up on the agenda again. I'm not convinced they're going to do that. That would be a great mistake.

WALLACE: Senator Dodd, we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you...

DODD: Thank you, Chris.

WALLACE: ... as always, for joining us.

DODD: Thank you.

WALLACE: Always a pleasure to talk to you.

DODD: Good to be with you as well.

Source: FOXNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187590,00.html

BOMBS AWAY IN THE SUBCONTINENT

BOMBS AWAY IN THE SUBCONTINENT:

INDIA NUKE DEAL BIG VICTORY FOR NEOCONS, ISRAEL, AND ANTI-CHINA LOBBY
INDIA LOBBY and JEWISH/ISRAELI LOBBY Teaming Up in Washington

"If this nuclear deal [with India] stands, the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty is going to fall. The president has just blasted
a huge hole through the framework that his predecessors
worked for over 30, 40 years to help build up."

MER - MiddleEast.org - Washington - 7 March: The hardline Neocons couldn't be happier - now they have a giant Asian India free to greatly expand it's nuclear arsenal and at the same time free to enrich American 'defense' contractors in the process. Furthermore the lobbying alliance in Washington has expanded as well with the Indians getting tips and paying bucks to some of those associated with the powerful Israelis on Capitol Hill -- especially now that the Bush/Cheney regime has to get so many laws changed to make the big Indian deal work. When the Israeli-Jewish lobby, it's big-time allies on the Hill like Tom Lantos and Ileana Ros_Lehtinen, and the operators like Frank Gafney, are all lining up to push hard for something -- in this case the new Cheney-inspired Bush-fronted India-U.S. alliance -- you know something big and bad is up. The Indians have even named their fast-growing lobby after AIPAC calling it the U.S.-India Political Action Committee (USINPAC). "For the past eight months USINPAC has aggressively worked to get key membes of Congress on board, and we will not rest until this agreement is signed into law" says Sanjay Puri, Chairman of USINPAC, referring of course to the new quasi-treaty outlined by President Bush last week in Delhi.

In a very real sense, however disguised and presented in other ways, the U.S. is bulking up and the new Indian alliance is a significant new American. The U.S. goal is triple barrelled -- to keep China in check as American arms-makers and corporations benefit and as the U.S. targets the rest of the Middle East 'evil ones' all of whom are now in the gunsights -- Iran, Hezbollah (Lebanon), Syria, Hamas (Palestine), and anyone else who dare defy the 'If you are not with us you are against us' mantra.

Now once and awhile someone in the Washington establishment and on the PBS News Hour program is something other than bland and political correct. But then the 'liberals' and the truer internatinalists are only on the run and in hiding these days, they are not totally dead. So when it comes to the Indian deal there is still a Washington constituency for opposing and exposing the Imperialists who have major constituencies in both of the major parties far beyond the hardest-line Neocon circles. In this context read the scathing comments by Joe Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on 2 March, the day President Bush announced the new India-U.S. alliance in Delhi:

MARGARET WARNER: How do you see it, Joe Cirincione, the nuclear deal?

JOSEPH CIRINCIONE: If this nuclear deal stands, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is going to fall. The president has just blasted a huge hole through the framework that his predecessors worked for over 30, 40 years to help build up

.

The Indian demands are well-known. We know they've wanted trade, they've wanted access to nuclear technology for years. But...

MARGARET WARNER: And you're talking about a civilian technology?

JOSEPH CIRINCIONE: A civilian technology. They want to buy fuel from us, to buy reactors from us. But up until now, no previous president has given in to those demands, not Richard Nixon, not Ronald Reagan, not the president's own father. The president, President Bush, has now given away the store. He did everything but actually sell nuclear weapons to India.

MARAGARET WARNER: But explain why it blows a hole in the NPT, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, when India never signed the NPT. I mean, it's not like Iran or North Korea, which signed and then either cheated or tried to get out.

JOSEPH CIRINCIONE: Ah, but India did sign cooperation agreements to get those reactors in the first place. Back in the '60s and '70s, they promised that, if we sold them the reactors, Canada and the U.S. did, they would use them only for peaceful purposes. They cheated on that agreement.

In 1974, they took plutonium out of a reactor and detonated a nuclear weapon with it. That's why this entire framework has grown up, to prevent any country from doing that again. The president, with one stroke, has now demolished that framework.

.......

MARGARET WARNER: But what about -- excuse me. What about Mr. Cirincione's point that it did mislead countries, Western countries, that sold them civilian nuclear reactors? Is that true?

SUMIT GANGULY: Well, quite frankly, it's overstated. His position is overstated. There was some diversion of plutonium from a Canada-supplied reactor. But, on the other hand, there was nothing formally in that agreement that prohibited India from taking spent fuel from that reactor.

It may have violated the spirit of an agreement, but it did not violate the letter of an agreement.

JOSPEH CIRINCIONE: Well, that's just absurd. And that's what the U.S. Congress reacted to when Richard Nixon encouraged the Congress to pass new laws that prohibited the U.S. from doing anything that would help India or another country do what India had just done.

And that's what the president is now violating; he's not only giving up on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which prohibits us from assisting India with its nuclear weapons program, but he requires the change of five or six major U.S. laws.

MARGARET WARNER: And let me ask you one quick follow-up before we turn the corner to the broader relationship. Are you saying it means nothing, though, for the whole international system that India is finally going to separate its civilian from military program and is going to finally allow inspection of two-thirds, at least, of its reactors?

JOSPHEN CIRINCIONE: It's the other way around. It's one-third of its reactors are not subject to any inspection at all, and that's the problem.

In essence, what this deal means is that India is going to be able to double or triple the number of nuclear weapons it can make every year. It can make about six to 10 now. With U.S. fuel going to the civilian reactors, it is free to turn its military reactors to triple that production.

And that could set off a nuclear arms race, because Pakistan's not going to stand by idly and watch that happen. Neither is China. And what's Japan going to do? That's the problem for the region, as well as the regime.

...............

MARGARET WARNER: How much of a factor or how valid a factor do you find the China -- sort of countering rising China as a reason -- we understand you object on the nuclear deal, but the bigger picture?

JOSEPH CIRINCIONE: Sure. First of all, the sea change in India-U.S. relations took place with Bill Clinton's visit. He was treated like a king when he went there in 2000. There were no demonstrations against him, and he didn't give up on U.S. principles or U.S. law.

China clearly plays a big role in this. This deal was basically put together by a small number of officials. Some of those officials are the neoconservatives who see China as a looming threat. For them, the problem isn't that India has nuclear weapons; it's that they don't have enough nuclear weapons. They want to encourage nuclear as a nuclear ally against China.

.................

MARGARET WARNER: ... my two guests here in the remaining minute or so we have. OK, what are the prospects on the Hill? Briefly explain, first of all, why the Hill has to sign off on the nuclear deal, that is, Joe Cirincione, and, secondly, what you think the prospects are?

JOSEPH CIRINCIONE: Well, the president's deal changes four, five, six major U.S. nonproliferation laws. Congress has to make those changes. This is going to take years. Nothing is going to happen on this deal this year.

We're going to have hearings, and they're going to be heated hearings. The Senate chairman, Senator Lugar of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has already said he's got concerns about this. Henry Hyde, his House counterpart, has said it. You heard Ed Markey. There's going to be a lot of questions, some amendments to this deal before it gets approved.

MARGARET WARNER: How much of a fight do you expect?

KURT CAMPBELL: Two things to keep in mind. For the first time in a long time, Congresspeople on both sides of the House are really speaking up and standing up to the White House on a range of issues. And I expect that this will be another issue that they're going to raise some concerns about.

And secondly, India is a proud and occasionally prickly nation. I do not think they're going to enjoy the process of the inevitable roughing-up that they're going to get through the process of negotiating this very important agreement with Capitol Hill, between the executive branch and Capitol Hill.

And so I would agree with Joe; stay tuned. There's still quite a lot to play out over the course of the next several months and years.

MARGARET WARNER: So it could make Dubai look like small potatoes?

KURT CAMPBELL: Yes.

Source: Middle East Realities
http://www.middleeast.org/read.cgi?category=Magazine...