Sir Bill and his dragons--past, present and future
Jan 29th 2004
From The Economist print edition
Having survived a gruelling battle with America's trustbusters, Microsoft now faces a showdown in Europe. Meanwhile, another battle looms on the horizon
Get article background
THE announcement this week that Microsoft's founder, Bill Gates, is to receive an honorary knighthood from Britain's Queen Elizabeth II seems fitting. For Bill Gates KBE (only British citizens can take the honorific "Sir") combines knightly philanthropy on an unprecedented scale with a long and impressive combat record. Over the years he has seen off numerous competitors, parrying attacks from all sides and always, somehow, emerging victorious. Microsoft's most notable success--its establishment, with its Windows software, of a monopoly in desktop operating systems--has led to its fiercest battles of all, as antitrust regulators have accused it of abusing its dominant position.
The story of the company's epic legal battle with America's Justice Department and 18 states has passed into legend. In 2000, Microsoft was found guilty of illegally exploiting the dominance of Windows (which is installed on over 95% of PCs worldwide) to gain market share for its web browser over Netscape's rival product. The company was ordered to be broken up. But the decision was reversed on appeal and a far milder punishment, in the form of restrictions on Microsoft's behaviour, was applied instead. The case still produces occasional rumbles, like the death-rattle of a mortally wounded dragon, but it no longer poses a threat to the company's survival.
Now Microsoft is heading for a showdown in Europe where, once again, the company is accused of exploiting its Windows monopoly to take control of adjacent markets, this time in media-player and server software. Intensive negotiations with the European Commission have been under way since the end of last year in an attempt to reach a settlement, though so far without success. A draft ruling against the company, believed to call for the imposition of a $300m-500m fine, along with other remedies, is now said to be circulating within the commission. "The time has come for the commission to reach a conclusion," says Amelia Torres, a spokeswoman at the competition directorate. "This investigation has been going on for a very long time."

The European case is particularly important because it concentrates on Microsoft's behaviour since the imposition of the American settlement, which is widely perceived to have had little effect. At stake, therefore, is the question of whether Microsoft will once again face remedies that treat only narrow instances of past misbehaviour, or if regulators will insist on sanctions that try to eliminate the potential for anti-competitive practices in future.
Both sides are well aware that the outcome could affect the way in which software is developed and sold, as well as the way in which consumers use it. The decision will certainly influence the way in which future antitrust complaints are judged. As it happens, this week Microsoft fired the first arrow in a battle that is widely seen as just such a future antitrust action: its fight with Google over control of the internet-search business.
Objections, your honour
The commission's case against Microsoft is detailed in a confidential document, known as the "Statement of Objections", the most recent version of which has been seen by The Economist. The document, drawn up last August, builds on two previous statements (in 2000 and 2001) which accused Microsoft of behaving anti-competitively in two areas.
First, the commission alleged that Microsoft was trying to extend its desktop monopoly into the market for workgroup servers (file, print, mail and web servers) by keeping secret the communications protocols that enable its desktop and server products to talk to each other. "Without such information, alternative server software would be denied a level playing field, as it would be artificially deprived of the opportunity to compete with Microsoft's products on technical merits alone," the commission warned in 2001.
Second, Microsoft was accused of trying to extend its monopoly into the media-player market, by incorporating its Windows Media Player (WMP) software into Windows, so ensuring that it would be installed on over 95% of new PCs. Rival products, the commission observed, did not have this advantage; nor could WMP be uninstalled. "The result is a weakening of effective competition in the market...and less innovation," it concluded.
The latest document bolsters these claims. It uses new evidence from updated market shares to illustrate how Microsoft's server and media-player have advanced at the expense of rivals. Compared with the drama of the American antitrust action, which included an infamous videotaped deposition from Mr Gates and evidence culled from internal Microsoft e-mails, this is dull stuff. But it does confirm that Microsoft is exploiting its desktop dominance in workgroup server software; and that, by "tying" WMP to Windows, it has overtaken its chief rival in the media-player market, RealNetworks.
Particularly damning are the comments from providers of media content. They say that the cost of supporting different media formats (when providing video clips on a website, for example) leads to a "winner takes all" market which it is difficult for a new media-player, no matter how innovative, to enter. The argument that the efficiencies derived from incorporating WMP into Windows outweigh the anti-competitive effects is dismissed. The commission tellingly observes that the incorporation of WMP in Windows "sends signals which deter innovation" in any technologies which Microsoft could conceivably tie with Windows in the future.
Accordingly, a number of remedies are proposed. The simplest is a fine that reflects the "gravity and duration" of the infringement. European antitrust law allows violators to be fined as much as 10% of their annual worldwide revenues--a fine of more than $3 billion in Microsoft's case. In addition, Microsoft would be required to license its server-communications protocols to rivals on a "reasonable and non-discriminatory" basis. This is consistent with the settlement that Microsoft reached in America, which also requires it to license some of its protocols.
Following a review of the progress of the American settlement, on January 23rd Microsoft agreed to simplify and extend its licensing programme to encourage wider use. Critics had complained that its previous licensing terms were so complicated that only 11 companies had signed up for them. After the announcement, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who is overseeing the American settlement, declared herself satisfied with the company's efforts to comply with the settlement.
Far more controversial, however, is the remedy proposed by the commission to address the tying of WMP to Windows. It suggests two alternatives: one forcing Microsoft to "untie" the two products and produce a version of Windows without WMP; the other a "must-carry" approach, which would require Microsoft to include its leading rivals' media-player software with every copy of Windows.
Untying the Gordian knot
The crux of the matter is, can Microsoft lawfully integrate other pieces of software into Windows? This was also, of course, at the heart of the American action. In that case it was the web browser, rather than the media player, that was under consideration, and Microsoft was found guilty of illegally exploiting its monopoly by tying its web browser to Windows. It was to prevent similar behaviour in future that the original judge, Thomas Penfield Jackson, ordered the company to be split in two. One company would control Windows, and the other the application software (such as web browsers, media players and office-productivity software). Microsoft would thus be deprived of the ability, conferred on it by its Windows monopoly, to dominate new markets.
However, the break-up remedy was overturned on appeal, and the final settlement declared that "the software code that comprises a Windows Operating System product shall be determined by Microsoft in its sole discretion." Moreover, it did not require Microsoft to remove its web browser from Windows, freeing the company to add other software elements to its operating system.
By adding WMP to Windows, Microsoft is doing exactly that. But is it legal? The company argues that support for the playing of audio and video is part of the core functionality of Windows. Furthermore, it points out that PC-makers are, in the wake of the American settlement, entitled to install media players made by other firms alongside WMP. Hewlett-Packard, for example, recently struck a deal to include Apple's iTunes music software on its new PCs. But such deals are the exception, not the rule. In December, RealNetworks filed its own $1 billion antitrust suit against Microsoft, complaining that tying WMP to Windows was squeezing it out of the media-player market, just as Netscape was squeezed out of the web-browser market.
Short of a break-up, however, there is no effective antidote to tying. Forcing Microsoft to produce a Europe-specific version of Windows without WMP (or any other specific features) would, in effect, impose an inferior product on European consumers. It is difficult to argue that this would be in their interests. And it would, in any case, probably result in a grey market as the full version of Windows was imported from elsewhere. There are also problems with the must-carry approach: which other media players would be included? Presumably those with the greatest market share. But that would itself be anti-competitive, since it would entrench the positions of the existing players. Furthermore, WMP would still be ubiquitous.
Outwardly, the gulf between Microsoft and the commission in their argument over whether the inclusion of WMP in Windows constitutes illegal tying seems unbridgeable. Last November, three days of closed hearings held in Brussels served only to entrench the two sides' positions further, according to people familiar with the case.
But both sides would now probably prefer to settle. Microsoft would like to establish a consistent regulatory framework in order to prevent an endless succession of legal battles as it adds more and more new features to Windows. "We want to find a solution that we can apply to future situations, that can be generalised in other situations," says John Frank, Microsoft's deputy general counsel.
The commission also seems keen to settle things quickly, having stepped up the legal pace considerably since last August. The number of commissioners will increase from 20 to 30 in May, when ten new member states join the EU; one theory is that the new commissioners will have a more pro-American bent and will be less willing to endorse an anti-Microsoft decision. In any case, the commission has previously expressed a desire to conclude the case before the naming of a new commission president in June.
Reading between the lines, it is just possible to discern the kind of settlement that might now be under discussion: a far wider licensing programme, perhaps one that confers special privileges on companies (such as RealNetworks and Apple) that develop software which competes with parts of Windows. But the devil would be in the details: such a deal might prove to be no more than a grand gesture, allowing the commission to declare victory and then retreat. Microsoft has, after all, shown itself to be a master at running rings around regulators. That said, the commission's Statement of Objections pre-emptively disallows a number of ways in which Microsoft could evade the proposed tying remedies--which suggests that the commission has learned from past regulatory experiences.
If no agreement is reached, however, and the expected negative ruling is issued, probably in March, Microsoft will appeal. The case will go first to the Court of First Instance in Luxembourg and then (assuming Microsoft loses again) it would move to the European Court of Justice. But all that would take years. Microsoft's enthusiasm for some kind of early settlement to insulate it from further antitrust action is influenced by the appearance of a third dragon on its horizon. For the firm is currently gearing up for a battle with a new and vigorous competitor: Google.
Here we Google again
Google dominates the internet-search business, much as Netscape once ruled in web browsers and RealNetworks did in media players. Begun as a research project by two graduate students in 1998, Google today carries out more than 200m searches a day and is estimated to have had revenues of $1 billion last year, mainly from advertising revenue.
It is the most visited search site, accounting for 35% of search-engine visits--compared with 28% for Yahoo!, 16% for AOL and 15% for Microsoft's MSN, according to comScore Networks, a market-research company. But that masks its true influence. Google's technology is used to power searches on other sites, such as Yahoo! and AOL (though Yahoo! plans to use its own technology soon). Taking this into account makes Google responsible for around 80% of all internet searches. The company is now preparing for a stockmarket flotation in the next few months.
Google's power makes it just the sort of company that Microsoft typically tries to squash. At the World Economic Forum in Davos last week, Mr Gates admitted that Google's search technology was "way better" than Microsoft's, and identified internet search as a key focus for his company. Microsoft already offers searches through MSN, its web portal. But until this week it had yet to play its trump card: exploiting its dominance of the web-browser and operating-system markets to extend the reach of its search service. That changed on January 26th when it launched a "toolbar" plug-in for its Internet Explorer browser, enabling instant searches (via MSN) from any web page. It is an imitation of Google's toolbar, which has helped to contribute to the search engine's success: on a computer screen, as with real estate, location is everything.
Initially, the MSN toolbar is a free optional download, as Microsoft's web browser and media player once were. The next step, inevitably, will be to integrate such search functions into Windows, on the grounds that it constitutes a core technology that should be part of the operating system. In his keynote speech at last November's Comdex show in Las Vegas, Mr Gates demonstrated a prototype technology called "Stuff I've Seen" which does just that. It allows computer users to search for context-specific words in e-mails and in recently visited web pages, as well as in documents on their computers.
In other words, Microsoft is preparing to use its dominance in web-browser and operating-system software to promote itself in yet another separate market--search engines this time--at the expense of competitors. Is that tying? It is entirely possible that, in a few years, the same arguments heard in the American and European cases will again be raging, unresolved. Microsoft will insist that it has done nothing wrong, as competitors cry foul and wizened regulators launch further investigations.
Indeed, the European competition authorities are not the end of the line. Regulators in Brazil and Israel are sharpening their pencils, and Microsoft also faces several outstanding civil lawsuits. The accusation, in each case, is abuse of its Windows monopoly. Will it never end?
Death by a thousand cuts
Microsoft's transatlantic legal woes began a decade ago. In July 1994, America's Justice Department and the European Commission issued rulings in tandem. They were designed to prevent Microsoft from abusing its dominant market position by licensing Windows to PC-makers on terms that discouraged them from selling PCs with rival operating systems. (Microsoft's contracts with PC-makers required them to pay it for a copy of Windows for each PC sold, even for PCs that were sold with other operating systems, or with no operating system at all.)
There were arduous negotiations. But the remedies, which narrowly addressed the results of the anti-competitive behaviour, ignored treating the underlying cause: the monopoly. Then, as now, regulators stopped short of imposing serious behavioural or structural remedies. So the legal battles have continued ever since.
Ten years on, Microsoft has come to a critical juncture. It can choose to continue its war of attrition with regulators, constantly testing the legal limits and, when it crosses them, treating the consequences as the cost of doing business. Or the company could throw off its monopoly mindset and decide to compete, like most other firms are forced to do, solely on the merits of its products.
One approach would be to hand some of its Windows protocols over to an independent standards body. This seems unlikely at the moment, particularly given the lucrative nature of the Windows monopoly--Microsoft has just reported record quarterly revenues of over $10 billion (see chart), and much of that is due to Windows. But the company, which already licenses certain protocols to rivals to build inter-operable products, could choose to act as a "common carrier" and license its technology to produce a new revenue stream. Indeed, Microsoft's actions in complying with the American settlement arguably point in just this direction. A European settlement might push it even further that way.
Another factor that might tip the balance is the rise of the open-source operating system, Linux. This is not much of a threat to Microsoft's desktop monopoly, which currently seems secure. Rather, its menace comes from the fact that governments in particular have been early adopters of the open-source system. It is difficult for Microsoft to argue that it is a responsible partner and supplier to governments on the one hand, while doing battle with regulators on the other. So the advance of open-source software in government could have a disproportionate impact.
In other words, Microsoft may some day conclude that the costs of constant regulatory battles--legal costs, fines, bad publicity, and bad relationships with governments--exceed the benefits of its Windows monopoly. This seems unimaginable now. But unless governments find the political will and legal arguments needed to break the firm up, it may be the only way its legal battles will ever end.

Copyright ? 2004 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.

Surprise Witness Throws Trial of 9/11 Suspect Into Turmoil
By Geir Moulson
The Associated Press
Friday, January 30, 2004; 4:25 PM
HAMBURG, Germany -- A surprise witness Friday countered evidence used in the trial of a Moroccan man accused of helping the Sept. 11 hijackers.
The last-minute witness, who claimed to be a former Iranian intelligence agent who also worked for the CIA, told the court that Abdelghani Mzoudi not only helped but was directly involved in the plot.
German intelligence, however, delivered a scathing assessment of the credibility of the witness.
Mzoudi faces more than 3,000 counts of being an accessory to murder and membership in a terrorist organization for allegedly helping suicide hijackers Mohamed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah.
In December, the Hamburg state court released Mzoudi for the duration of his trial based on evidence that suggested he knew nothing of his friends' plans to attack the United States.
But Friday's witness, who would only identify himself by the alias Hamid Reza Zakeri, testified that Mzoudi, 31, was behind the logistical planning of the attacks.
"I know from my source that in the Sept. 11 incident he was al Qaeda's middleman for receiving codes," Zakeri said during three hours of rambling and sometimes evasive testimony.
Zakeri said Mzoudi spent three months in 1997 learning codes at an al Qaeda camp in Iran. He said he first learned of Mzoudi in an e-mail from his source in October.
Germany's Federal Intelligence Service, however, cast serious doubt on Zakeri's credibility.
While Zakeri probably is a former Iranian agent, "the value of his information is very low," the agency said in a statement read by the judge.
The agency, which received "unsubstantiated information" from Zakeri on other issues in 2002 and 2003, has "the impression that he presents himself as a witness on any theme which can bring him benefit," it added.
Presiding Judge Klaus Ruehle repeatedly pressed Zakeri for information on his source.
But the bearded man with dark, curly hair and glasses who spoke quietly through an interpreter would only say the source was a "very prominent" person in Iran.
Zakeri said he agreed to work for the CIA in 1992. He left Iran in July 2001 when, he said, he tried to warn U.S. authorities that something was planned against the United States or Israel for Sept. 10. He said he was not taken seriously. He alleged there had been two meetings in early 2001 between senior al Qaeda figures and Iranian leaders.
Zakeri's testimony prompted the court to delay a verdict until Thursday. It was originally scheduled for last week.
Mzoudi's attorneys renewed their call for his acquittal, with defense lawyer Guel Pinar saying "the witness was telling fairy tales."
Chief prosecutor Walter Hemberger conceded Zakeri was a flawed witness, but told the court that "if you believe as we do that the defendant is guilty, some things he said fit into the picture."
He called for the maximum 15-year sentence -- the same given nearly a year ago to Mzoudi's friend, Mounir el Motassadeq, on identical charges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Supply-Side Swiss
By Joshua Livestro Published 01/27/2004
TCS
In a recent contribution to National Review Online, Jerry Bowyer attacked the Bush tax cuts package for not doing enough to lower the tax burden of the rich. If the reality of the tax cuts had lived up to the rhetoric of its opponents, Bowyer explains, the economic recovery would have taken off much quicker and much more strongly than it did: "It wasn't until May of last year, when 'the rich' were dealt into the game, that the weak recovery strengthened."
Articles like that are bound to get on the nerves of those who share the sentiments of the 1970s British Labour Party Chancellor Denis Healy, who famously claimed that the purpose of any income tax system should be to "squeeze the rich till the pips squeak." But if this is enough to get them worked up, what would they make of the recently implemented reform of personal income tax in the Swiss canton of Schaffhausen? Because towards the end of last year, the local Parliament there decided to introduce a new income tax that has as its cornerstone the principle of regression. In other words: the more money you make, the less tax you pay. As of the first of January 2004, in the canton of Schaffhausen, it actually pays to get rich.
Instead of flying into a Howard Dean-like rage, though, tax addicts would do well to consider the merits of the Schaffhausen measures before rejecting them in a knee-jerk fashion. No sane person, after all, could oppose a system of taxation that is morally sound and economically efficient -- which is precisely what these measures are all about. The morality of it is easy enough to explain. It is after all fairly widely accepted that working hard and saving for a rainy day both constitute morally good behavior. Any tax system that claims to have its basis in morality would therefore have to encourage precisely those activities. Whatever else they might like to say about it, the taxaholics would have to admit that the Schaffhausen income tax does exactly that -- and does it in spades. Who wouldn't want to go out and work, work, work, if every extra Swiss Franc earned will be taxed less than the previous one?
The economic case for a regressive system of income tax is linked to the moral case for it. It is a case first made by the American economist Arthur Laffer. Laffer shot to fame in the early 1980s, when, as a member of President Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board, his Laffer Curve theory (developed in the early 1970s) provided the public justification of the Reagan tax cuts. The basis of his theory was that a high tax rate might in fact lead to lower government revenues than a lower tax rate because of a flight of capital and labor into the black economy. Whereas punitive rates of taxation encourage tax evasion, substantially lower rates could actually have the opposite effect of tempting people back into the official economy. Ironically (or as libertarians might say, perversely) lower rates could thus lead to an increase in government revenues. According to Laffer's theory, a sufficiently large tax cut would almost certainly be self-financing.
Laffer was proved right in spectacular fashion in the 1980s when Reagan's radical tax-cutting measures led to one of the longest sustained economic booms in American history, with rising private and corporate incomes also leading to higher tax receipts. That didn't stop left-wing academics from castigating Laffer's ideas, claiming they were anything from ridiculous to immoral. The mere fact that they were actually right didn't seem to bother them much. But as Bruce Bartlett observed in a recent column on Townhall.com, academia has gradually come round to Laffer's position, in turn convincing policy makers in institutions like the IMF and the World Bank that supply-side tax policies might hold the key to the economic development of the world's poorest nations.
And what works in Pakistan or Southern Africa will certainly work in Schaffhausen. The local administrators in Schaffhausen are not just optimistic about this, they're banking on it. Unafraid to count their chickens before they are hatched, they are confidently predicting that the new income tax will lead to new streams of revenue for the canton. They have even gone so far as to express the hope that high earners would be tempted to relocate to Schaffhausen. So if you're traveling through Switzerland this summer, don't be surprised if you come across a road sign saying "You are entering Schaffhausen. Millionaires welcome here."

Delay Sought in Anthrax Widow Suit
Posted by Ross on Friday January 30, 2004 at 8:08 pm MST [ Send Story to Friend ]
Link to story: http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com
The federal government is seeking to delay a lawsuit from the widow of Robert Stevens, the man killed in the 2001 anthrax attacks, on the grounds of national security. The Department of Justice is doing the same in the case of the civil claim by Dr. Steve Hatfill.
Attorney Richard Schuler, the attorney for Mrs. Stevens, has said he believed DNA tests on anthrax found at Stevens' office would prove it matched the anthrax at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Fort Detrick in Frederick, Md., which does unclassified anthrax vaccine research. But given that the strain was at a number of other locations, that is the beginning, not the end of the inquiry.
The Ames strain came from a cow in Texas in 1980. Texas veterinarian Mike Vickers sent a sample from a carcass in south Texas to the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab ("TVMDL"). Someone at that lab isolated it from a carcass and forwarded it to Ft. Detrick using a label coincidentally from Ames, Iowa. This resulted in the names "Ames" and some initial confusion among outside experts as to the history of the strain. It was forwarded pursuant to a request by Dr. Knudsen of Ft. Detrick who had sought field strains of anthrax. Dr. Knudsen at Ft. Detrick still had the correspondence from the time, to include even the misprinted mailing label.
A preliminary question is: Did the Texas lab that first isolated it, keep a sample? One scientist from the Veterinary School advises:
"Generally we think of anthrax as so closely related that strain differences are really unimportant as it has to do with killing animals. Support for this is that the Sterne strain vaccine used in livestock is very effective to prevent anthrax in cattle sheep, goats, horses no matter what strain variation they are exposed to. In summary veterinary practitioners just think of anthrax as really one strain. There are other bacterial disease that strain difference is important and vaccines have to have the specific strains to work against that strain -- not so with anthrax and naturally occurring cases in US. ***
Most diagnostic labs have so high a volume of samples that they are forced to properly destroy them after a couples of weeks (not enough storage space or funding for extra storage)."
Thus, as a general rule they would not have kept a copy, and thus not have been in a position to share it. A Dr. Whitford was the person at the Texas lab who isolated it and forwarded it. Now retired to Montana, in response to a telephone inquiry, he reports he may have sent it elsewhere.
It may have been chosen to be sent to Ft. Detrick out of other possible strains because the notes by the veterinarian, Dr. Vickers, indicate that it was particularly virulent, killing 30 cattle in a short time. He gave the example of one cow that had been healthy in the morning and then dead a few hours later. This -- or the fact it was sent to USAMRIID at Ft. Detrick -- may have made it seem unique enough to keep a copy of.
As for the testing of lab isolates where the strain is known to be (and a copy of the strain can be obtained for testing), the genetic analysis of Dr. Keim, from Northern Arizona, had potentially promised to remove all doubt as to the source of the anthrax. Hope has long since faded according to press reports. Timothy D. Read, whose work at the Institute for Genetic Research in Rockville, Md. provided the FBI with its first genetic roadmap for anthrax, has said that the differences identified by his team could not pinpoint the source.
The research is reported in "Science." The analysis is directed to showing the similarity between various samples of Ames. The institutions known to have fully virulent B. anthracis Ames, for example, include USAMRIID, Dugway in Utah, CDC, CAMR-Porton Downs in Great Britian, Battelle Memorial Institute in Ohio, University of Northern Arizona (Dr. Keim), Louisiana State University (Dr. Hugh-Jones), and University of Scranton (Dr. DelVecchio). Dr. Kenneth Alibek, the former head of the Russian anthrax production program, says Russia had Ames (and had spies at Ft. Detrick).
The anthrax that was destroyed at Iowa in early Fall 2001 had first been isolated as early as 1928. There is no reason presently to think Iowa had the Ames from Texas. That is, there is no evidence they had the pertinent Ames. The use of the phrase "virulent Ames" in the literature would have referred to the "virulent Ames" existing decades before --separate and genetically distinguishable from the isolate taken from the cow in Texas. This is good news, or bad news, depending on the weight one wants to be given the Reid and Keim genetic analysis.
Dr. Barbara Hatch-Rosenberg provides a longer list on-line but it does not distinguish from the "Ames" at Iowa for decades and the "Ames" from the cow in Texas. Nor does it distinguish between virulent and avirulent strains.
There was no requirement to document transfers prior to 1997. One former USAMRIID-sponsored vaccine researcher at UMass, Dr. Curtis Thorne, whose research on virulence of genetically altered anthrax strains is being built upon at the University of Texas (Houston) by a grant from the CIA, reports that samples used to be sent by ordinary mail. The Ames strain, along with other strains, would be distributed not for nefarious purposes, but for veterinary and other research, to include use in challenging vaccines in development.
As a disturbing example, reports and documents obtained by Congressman Markey indicate that the Los Alamos Nuclear Lab had received a shipment of virulent anthrax from Northern Arizona University on October 26, 2001, even though LANL was not authorized to receive such shipments. Los Alamos is managed by the University of California. Los Alamos did not report the incident for almost a month, and during that time, informed the community that it did not possess or intend to work on materials such as virulent anthrax until it constructed a new, higher security facility.
The "Science" article reporting the Keim and Reid genetic analysis does not address the testing done with respect to isolates from the vast majority of labs where Ames was known to be. 15 lab isolates remained to be tested. (Note that the date of the lab isolate presumed by some to be Ft. Detrick was not disclosed in the article. (Anthrax was determined to be missing in a 1992 audit.)
One expert, Dr. C.J. Peters, summarizes:
"Knowing that this strain was originally isolated in the U.S. has absolutely nothing to do with where the weapon may have been prepared because, as I tried to make the point, these strains move around. A post doc in somebody's laboratory could have taken this strain to another lab and it could have been taken overseas and it could have ended up absolutely anywhere. Tiny quantities of anthrax that you couldn't see, that you couldn't detect in an inventory can be used to propagate as much as you want. So that's just not, in fact, very helpful."
It is naive to think that Al Qaeda could not have obtained Ames just because it tended to be in labs associated with the US military. US Army Al Qaeda operative Sgt. Ali Mohammed accompanied Zawahiri in his travels in the US. The reality is that any number of lab technicians or others similarly situated might simply have walked out of some lab that had it if they could locate it in a refrigerator. (The labeling typically just consists of numbers).
A HVAC technician who used to work at Lawrence Livermore, another lab run by the University of California, is being deported from the Philippines, after meeting with officials of an organation thought to be connected to Al Qaeda.
The Defense Threat Reduction Agency began anthrax research at Lawrence LIvermore in 1998 in response to the Bin Laden anthrax threat. While one source confirms presently the lab works with live anthrax, no one at the lab has responded to inquiries as to whether the lab had virulent, live "Ames" in March 2002, when the HVAC technician, who had a high level security clearance, was last there.
Ft. Detrick sent its Ames strain to places like Porton Down in Great Britain and Suffield in Canada. We can reasonably assume that Ft. Detrick did not send it directly to any supplier in North Korea or Libya or Iran. Ken Alibek, former head of Russia's program, reports that Russia had spies at Ft. Detrick. Did North Korea?
The strain referenced in documents on Khalid Mohammed's computer was not, in fact, Ames. Working on the assumption that the anthrax purchased from the North Korea supplier was not Ames, then the question relevant to an Al Qaeda theory is what access to the US Army strain might have been accomplished by someone with 1) a multi millionaire (Bin Laden) backing his play, and 2) a lot of Muslims who believe in his Islamist cause (for example, toppling the Egyptian and Saudi regimes). The possible sources include Russia (or former Soviet bloc country), Iraq, Iran, the US Army, or a facility that obtained Ames from the US Army or other researcher who had it. (Iran has been added to the list due to new reports that they have weaponized anthrax; and that they have recruited Russian scientists.)
This was the instinct of the Administration from early on, according to Woodward's "Bush at War":
"They turned to the hot topic of anthrax. The powder in the letter mailed to Senator Daschle's office had been found to be potent, prompting officials to suggest its source was likely an expert capable of producing the bacteria in huge amounts. Tenet said, 'I think it's AQ -- meaning Al Qaeda.'
'I think there's a state sponsor involved. It's too well thought-out, the powder's too well refined. It might be Iraq, it might be Russia, it might be a renegade scientist, perhaps from Iraq or Russia.'
'I'm not going to talk about a state sponsor,' Tenet assured them."
And he didn't.

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

Lynne Stewart Trial: "Rise Up From Your Deep Slumber"
Posted by Ross on Friday January 30, 2004 at 9:31 am MST [ Send Story to Friend ]
Link to story: http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com
Lynne Stewart never taught millions how to host a party. The 62-year-old grandmother, however, is associated with a mass movement far more compelling to some than what flower arrangement to use. She is scheduled to go on trial this Spring on charges that she helped Egyptian Omar Abdel Rahman, known as the blind sheik, communicate with a terrorism network.
She was first charged by the government a half year after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Rahman was convicted in 1995 of seditious conspiracy, bombing conspiracy, soliciting an attack on an U.S. military installation, and soliciting the murder of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. His followers were indicted for plotting to bomb bridges, tunnels and landmarks in New York. Rahman allegedly had given his blessings.
A quarter-century ago, he was acquitted in the trial relating to the assassination of Anwar Sadat. He said at the time:
"We reject Camp David and we regret the normalization of relations with Israel. We also reject all the commitments that were made by the traitor Sadat, who deviated from Islam. As long as the Camp David Agreement stands, this conflict between us and the government will continue."
She and her two co-defendants are accused of helping relay messages from the cleric to a radical terrorist group based in Egypt.
"They know very well I'm no terrorist. They know very well I've never crossed the line. This is just their need to bring some kind of terrorist case to keep the lawyers in line."
Last year, the judge dismissed two of the most serious terrorism counts on the grounds that they were unconstitutionally vague. In December, the government brought new charges accusing her of conspiring to provide material support to terrorists. Michael Tigar, her attorney, has called her case "a vindictive effort to chill courageous advocacy by all lawyers."
Stewart recently has traveled across the country, making more than 100 speeches to generate support. "They need the preaching and I need the choir because it invigorates me to know there are people that care that they're really backing me."
Associated Press quotes her as saying: "My only uneasiness with Martha Stewart's case is because I do feel that there's a lot of boys out there who did worse than Martha and they're not indicted. And there was a sense of mine that she was in her position because she was a successful woman and had a high profile, sort of not unlike myself."
Authorities take the issue of aiding the sheik to communicate with his followers seriously. His words in the past have resulted, according to authorities, in acts of terrorism.
The release of the blind sheik has remained a central aim of the Egyptian militant islamists. In what would prove a public relations debacle for the islamists, on or about November 17, 1997, six terrorists shot and stabbed a group of tourists visiting an archaelogical site in Luxor, Egypt. Fifty-eight tourists were killed along with four Egyptians. The terrorists left leaflets explaining their support for the Islamic Group and calling for the blind sheik's release. The torso of one was slit and a leaflet inserted.
In 1998, the blind sheik issued a fatwa directing that Americans be killed to avenge his imprisonment. During the trial relating to bombing the U.S. embassies in Africa, one witness testified that Abdel Rahman smuggled a flier from prison calling on Muslims to avenge indignities he sustained as a prisoner. "Oh people, oh men of Allah, rise up from your deep slumber. ... Rise up and see justice done," the sheik wrote in a letter smuggled out of prison.
On September 21, 2000, an Arabic television station, Al Jazeera, televised an interview with Usama Bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri, and Islamic leader Abu Yasser (of the Islamic Group and Al Qaeda), and Mohammed Abdel Rahman (the blind sheik's son), during which they pledged jihad to free Abdel Rahman. They urged that his followers avenge the "insult" paid him by his imprisonment for conspiracy to commit murder. To add to the perceived outrage, according to the government's indictment of Attorney Stewart, his followers were told that he was being denied his insulin for his diabetes when actually he was just refusing to take it. (The alleged mistreatment concerned, at its core, restrictions on his ability to issue further communications ordering that Americans be killed).
The Cole bombing, reportedly masterminded by Khalid Mohammed, was also motivated at least in part to free the blind sheik. One government affidavit in the prosecution of Stewart for violating prison regulations, explained: "YOUSRY told SHEIKH ABDEL RAHMAN that "some people spoke to [SATTAR] on the phone and said that they did this operation for Omar Abdel Rahman so he could be released from prison and they asked SATTAR to do some negotiations with the American government and tell them 'if [Rahman is] not released we'll execute another operation. SHEIKH ABDEL RAHMAN responded that SATTAR had to take himself out of this and that a lawyer should handle any negotiations."
In the Fall of 2001, Zawahiri wrote:
"Regarding the shaykh's change of mind and his withdrawal of support for the [non-violence in Egypt] initiative that was made by the brothers in Egypt three years ago, the shaykh reached this conclusion because he received information that tens of thousands of detainees were still held in jail and tortured."
Zawahiri's wrote in "Knights Under the Banner of the Prophet" that he agreed with the supporter of "blind sheik" who said:
"the Egyptian Government is guilty of a major shortcoming by not intervening to safeguard the shaykh, guarantee his humanitarian rights inside his US jail, and find a solution to his case because, in the final count, he is an Egyptian national, a Muslim scholar, and a professor at Al-Azhar university. Finally he is a blind and sick old man. His continued detention and the inhuman way in which he is treated will continue to be a source of tension on all levels."
Ahmed and Mohammed Abdel-Rahman, two of the Egyptian sheikh's 13 children, were named as co-conspirators in the Sep 11 attacks. Ahmed Abdel Rahman helped run a terrorist training camp in Jalalabad, Afghanistan.
The blind sheik's plight was also of concern to alleged Al Qaeda operatives in the US. According to an August 2002 federal indictment, members of an alleged Detroit, Ohio terror cell had an angry conversation in June 2001 about Abdel Rahman's imprisonment. Similarly, the Government's Indictment of the Buffalo defendants explained that one of the reasons motivating the terrorists actions was that "al Qaeda opposed the United States Government because of the arrest, conviction and imprisonment of persons belonging to Al Qaeda or its affiliated terrorist groups or those with whom it worked."
Attorney Stewart has said previously that she thinks the Egyptian government eventually will negotiate with the militant islamists. Indeed, 1000 imprisoned islamists were released this past year.
That appears, however, not to be the case with respect to the United States of America.

>> EAST AFRICA WATCH...

Moi's Pension: Bill Now Allows Politics
By FRED OLUOCH
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
A CONTROVERSIAL clause in Kenya's Presidential Retirement Benefits Bill barring retired presidents from engaging in political activities if they are to earn their pension has been removed, paving the way for former president Daniel arap Moi to participate in the affairs of the official opposition party Kanu.
But questions still remained last week, barely a month after President Mwai Kibaki assented to the amended Bill on December 31, as to whether the government was reacting to pressure from Kanu, or whether it was seeking some accommodation with the party in view of the infighting within the ruling National Rainbow Coalition.
Pointing at clause 6 (1) of the Bill, which stated, "A retired president shall neither hold office in nor actively participate in the activities of any political party," while part (2) of the same clause stated, "A retired president shall be expected to play a non-partisan, consultative and advisory role to the government of Kenya", the Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs, Kiraitu Murungi, had insisted that Mr Moi would have to stay out of politics or lose his benefits.
The EastAfrican has, however, established that the clauses were amended during the committee stage, leaving the clause open to interpretation and probably giving the former president a leeway to participate in political activities.
According to William Ruto, the Kanu director of elections and a close associate of Mr Moi, the provision was bound to give room to the government to use flimsy reasons to get back at the former president since it is difficult to pinpoint what constitutes political action.
"A former head of state is experienced and mature enough to restrain himself in such circumstances. But this cannot be legally enforced, given that even voting is a political action. You cannot run away from the reality that Mr Moi was a politician for a long time and had developed a Kenyan constituency in those 24 years," he said.
The amendment, however, had more to it than sheer persistence by Kanu. It had the full blessing of some faction in the ruling party who, it is understood, had realised that the former president could serve as a stabilising force at a time when the survival of the NARC coalition is increasingly in doubt. However, he is still not allowed to hold an elective party post.
The development, strongly opposed by those who would rather see the retired president account for some of the shortcomings of his 24-year rule, is bound to raise doubts as to whether part of the Narc leadership - some of whom cut their political teeth under Mr Moi - is capable of making a complete break with the past. It is also debatable whether Mr Moi will ever face any prosecutions for any alleged past misdeeds.
Kanu's Shadow Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs and Mr Moi's personal lawyer, Mutula Kilonzo, who fiercely fought for the repeal of the restrictive clause, maintained last week that the provision was likely to interfere with the former president's right to association just like any other citizen as enshrined in the constitution.
"The man has served the country for a long time and we cannot afford to put in place discriminatory clauses that isolate him from the rest of the country. It is not possible for anybody to play non-partisan politics and NARC ought not to be frightened by the former president because he means well," he said.
But despite Mr Kilonzo's brave talk, it is now emerging that some National Alliance Party of Kenya (NAK) leaders have realised that the former president, who still wields enormous influence, could come in handy when it comes to future alliances.
NAK leaders, according to sources, intend to use the former president to continue influencing the politics of the expansive Rift Valley that was on the verge of falling into the hands of youthful MPs, who have little time for NARC.
With a record 48 years in politics, including 24 years as president, Mr Moi will have a great influence in Kenyan politics as long as he lives.
It is an open secret that the former president continues to call the shots in Kanu despite having officially relinquished the party chairmanship in September last year. A case in point is his key role in the recent formation of the Coalition of National Unity (CNU), that brought together Kanu and Ford-People.
Notably, during the parliamentary debate on the Bill in October, Mr Murungi, who had come to epitomise the "Moi-bashing" brigade, was a changed man.
As he put it, "We want to send out the message that there is dignified life after a president retires. There is no president who will not make a mistake here and there. Human errors can always be forgiven," said Murungi, who appealed to Kenyans to show tolerance, understanding and treat elder statesmen with respect for the sake of development and peace.
Apparently, Kenyans were surprised when the former president, who had been shunned since he handed over power on December 30 last year, attended the October 20 Kenyatta Day festivities at Nyayo stadium and was later invited to a State House party where he was warmly welcomed by President Mwai Kibaki, besides exchanging pleasantries with his hitherto "predators."
But more surprising were media reports that Mr Moi had, on the following day, a hushed one-hour private meeting with President Kibaki, where the two are reported to have discussed the recently-established Moi African Foundation and the possible role the former president could play in regional peace-making.
Yet, that does not take away the lingering apprehension within NARC that the former president still retains tremendous clout and capacity to interfere with the government of the day, even though he has continuously insisted that he cannot undermine an African government and has always wished President Kibaki well.
This perception came to the fore during the 2002 elections, where Mr Moi, by fronting the relatively inexperienced Uhuru Kenyatta at the expense of more seasoned politicians in Kanu, was seen to be seeking to maintain a tab on the affairs of the country even in retirement, just like the former Tanzanian president, the late Julius Nyerere.
Nyerere, despite his retirement in 1985, continued to play an active role in that country's politics, where he not only handpicked his successors - Ali Hassan Mwinyi and Benjamin Mkapa - but openly campaigned for his party, Chama cha Mapinduzi (CCM)
According to the Minister for Co-operative Development, Njeru Ndwiga, Mr Moi should strive to be non-partisan at all times, even as he is free to comment on political issues. "A retired president is a key figure in the country's politics and should be accorded respect by all Kenyans. But this respect can only be achieved by him staying away from partisan politics," he argued.
Also not happy with the development is the Safina leader, Paul Muite, who argued that the decision to give Mr Moi his retirement benefits without linking it to transitional justice sets a bad precedent.
"While restricting his political activities could have meant gagging an individual and denying him his human rights, it is not proper for one to destroy the country and then enjoy the benefits," he argued.
"You can only have democracy if you have the courage to confront the past. It is wrong to begin to pay him pension without making him account for past misdeeds, such as the ethnic clashes and destruction of the economy," he said.
Mr Muite, however, insisted that he is not vindictive, arguing, "If we don't address past looting of the economy, the current regime will do the same, since people will be taking office with the aim to loot, knowing that they will not be called to account for their actions."
Mr Kilonzo, on the other hand, maintained that there is need to differentiate between political and legal crimes. According to him, Mr Moi was politically punished when he witnessed his party being voted out of power as a result of his mistake to nominate Mr Kenyatta as the party presidential candidate. "But mistakes of a criminal nature have their place in the courts of law and I am ready for anybody who has one."
He argued that the decision to give the former president his benefits without conditions is for the future benefit of the country, since it will put a stop to the urge by politicians to amass wealth at any cost out of fear that they will be turned into paupers.
"Eighty per cent of the sitting president's salary is reasonable to convince anybody not to steal and plunder, knowing very well that they will be comfortable in retirement." he said.
---------------------------------------------------------------

Saudi Charity Plotted to Bomb Zanzibar Hotels, US Charges
By KEVIN J. KELLEY
SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT
MEMBERS OF the Tanzanian branch of a Saudi charity plotted last year to attack several hotels in Zanzibar, the US charged last week.
"The scheduled attacks did not take place due to increased security by local authorities, but planning for the attacks remained active," US officials added.
The charges came as the US Treasury Department called for international financial sanctions against the Tanzanian and Kenyan branches of the Al Haramain Islamic Foundation. The two East African organisations, along with Al Haramain affiliates in Indonesia and Pakistan, are involved in terrorist activity, the US said.
The Kenyan and Tanzanian groups are specifically linked to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network, according to American officials. The two branches are also said to have ties to an organisation in Somalia that the US says is involved in terrorism.
Acting jointly with the government of Saudi Arabia, US officials last week asked the United Nations to order its member states to freeze assets belonging to the al Haramain groups in the four named countries. Al Haramain has denied any connection to terrorism.
Individuals associated with the Kenyan and Tanzanian branches are said to have been involved in the plots to destroy the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998.
An unnamed former director of the Tanzanian branch of Al Haramain assisted the advance team that plotted the bombings, which killed a total of 212 Africans and 12 Americans.
The US Treasury Department also revealed that an Al Haramain employee had indicated how the Nairobi embassy would be attacked a full year before the bombing actually took place. This source disclosed in August 1997 that a suicide bomber would crash a vehicle into the embassy's gate. And that is indeed how the bombing was carried out 12 months later. The allegation of the terrorist plot comes five months after the US State Department issued a travel advisory on Tanzania, which included warnings of threats in Zanzibar.
Attempts by The EastAfrican to raise the issue with the government and Bakwata - Tanzania Muslims apex organisation were unsuccessful.
A few months ago, however, two Al Haramain leaders were declared prohibited immigrants - one for cheating in his real citizenship papers. It could not be established immediately why the second one was deported.

>> ZARQAWI FILE...

U.S. Links Zarqawi to Attacks in Iraq
By KATHERINE PFLEGER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) - U.S. officials say they have mounting evidence to suggest al-Qaida operative Abu Musab Zarqawi has had a hand in multiple attacks in Iraq, including those on a mosque in Najaf, the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad and Italy's paramilitary police station in Nasiriyah.
Another al-Qaida member, Hassan Ghul, was arrested this month while entering northern Iraq and is believed to have met with Zarqawi to plan attacks against U.S. and coalition forces, said a U.S. official, speaking on the condition of anonymity.
Now in U.S. custody, Ghul is believed to be cooperating with interrogators. He known as a facilitator who can move people and money around and is the highest ranking member of al-Qaida to be arrested in Iraq.
The official said Ghul has also worked closely with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, purported mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Coalition forces are dealing with both Iraqi opposition and foreign insurgents, like Zarqawi. He has been described as a key link between al-Qaida and Saddam Hussein, but has managed to avoid capture.
The official wouldn't comment on Zarqawi's suspected location.
In August, a truck bomb struck hit U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, killing 23 people, and a car bomb exploded outside mosque in Shiite Muslim holy city of Najaf, killing more than 85. In November, a suicide truck bomber attacked Italy's paramilitary police headquarters in southern city of Nasiriyah, killing more than 30.
The United States has "strong suspicions" that Zarqawi was involved in all three, the official said.

>> BREMER AND SISTANI...

Call Me Ali
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/current
Juan Coleprofessor of modern Middle East and South Asian History at the University of Michigan and author, Sacred Space And Holy War: The Politics, Culture and History of Shi'ite Islam (I.B. Tauris, 2002)
explains the rise and vision of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani


BREMER AND QUIL...
Kirkuk report (6:00)
http://www.theworld.org/latesteditions/20040130.shtml
The Northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk is a site of turmoil involving the city's three main ethnic groups. The battle for political control is on hold, but the scramble to control Kirkuk's re-emerging economy is well under way. The World's Quil Lawrence has the story.

BREMER AND THE HAJ...
Iraq passport report (6:00)
http://www.theworld.org/latesteditions/20040129.shtml
From overwhelming bureaucracy to disarray at the passport office, getting a passport in Iraq these days isn't easy. The World's Quil Lawrence reports from Baghdad.

>> HUMAN RIGHTS THEY SAID...

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/current
William Schulz
William Schulz argues that since 9/11, human rights violations carried out in the name of the war on terror have become all too common in the United States. His new book is Tainted Legacy: 9/11 and the Ruin of Human Rights. Schulz is the executive director of Amnesty International USA.

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH INTERVIEW...
Listen to World Update
Updated daily at 10:00 GMT
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/programmes/world_update.shtml

U.S. Officials Still Holding Juveniles in Guantanamo Prison for Terror Suspects

By Ian James Associated Press Writer
Published: Jan 30, 2004
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) - The United States is still holding juveniles at its prison for terrorist suspects in Guantanamo Bay despite this week's release of the three youngest detainees, officials said Friday.
Human Rights Watch said the United States is violating an international treaty that obligates it to rehabilitate child soldiers.
On Thursday the United States freed three boys, believed to be between 13 and 15. The International Committee of the Red Cross said Friday it helped reunite them with their families in Afghanistan.
Two of the boys were captured during raids on Taliban camps and were imprisoned at Guantanamo in January 2002, while the third was captured trying to obtain weapons for the Taliban and taken to Guantanamo in February 2003, military officials said in November. However, officials said Thursday that all three arrived in February 2003. It wasn't immediately possibly to clarify the discrepancy.
Military officials said the boys were kept apart from adult detainees, and were given lessons, including in English, and allowed to play soccer and to watch videos.
But other juveniles aged 16 and 17 are being held among the approximately 650 other detainees from about 40 countries whose exercise periods are limited and whose only diversion are books.
"There is still a small group of juveniles under 18 at Guantanamo," said Amanda Williamson of the ICRC's office in Washington, D.C. The Department of Defense has confirmed that an unspecified number of 16- and 17-year-olds are still in detention, and Jo Becker of Human Rights Watch said the Pentagon had said there are "a handful."
"Guantanamo is not really an appropriate place to detain juveniles because they're taken so far from their culture and are unable to benefit from the support of their families," said Williamson. His ICRC organization is the only independent group allowed to visit the detainees.
Pressure has been mounting on U.S. officials to release the juveniles or transfer them to another facility. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who is in charge of the detention mission, recommended in August that the three youngest boys be sent home, saying they "were kidnapped into terrorism (by) despicable people who are using juveniles as a part of this scourge of terrorism."
The United States turned its naval base on Cuba's eastern tip into a prison during the war in Afghanistan, when soldiers arrested hundreds of suspected al-Qaida and Taliban fighters in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Military officials said the boys had provided viable intelligence but had no further value and were no longer a threat to the United States.
Human Rights Watch asked when the other juveniles would be freed.
Becker said that the United States was violating the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Children, which it ratified in December 2002. The treaty establishes 18 as the minimum age for participation in armed conflict and obligates governments to demobilize and rehabilitate former child soldiers, Becker said.
AP-ES-01-30-04 2204EST
---------------------------------
>> IF ONLY WATCH...

UN votes on tough terror measures

By Susannah Price
BBC correspondent, United Nations
The United Nations Security Council has voted unanimously to name and shame countries that fail to report on their efforts to fight global terrorism.
It passed by 15-0 a resolution aimed at strengthening sanctions against al-Qaeda, Taleban and related groups.
Last year, a UN committee said stronger measures might be needed to compel UN member states to help fight terrorism.
It is hoped a threat of being publicly named will encourage governments to enforce sanctions against such groups.
More than half of the UN's member states have not submitted reports on what they are doing to limit the activities of these groups through freezing assets, a travel ban, or arms embargoes.
This latest resolution means the UN's al-Qaeda monitoring committee will be able to circulate a list of countries that do not submit a report by the end of March.
They will also publicise the reason behind the failure, whether it is a question of resources or political will.
The chairman of the monitoring committee and sponsor of the resolution, Ambassador Heraldo Munoz of Chile, said this would send a strong signal.
The new resolution calls on governments to look out for al-Qaeda or associated groups, trying to channel funds through different means, such as the informal banking system.
But it does not include any real new sanctions.
American diplomats said they wanted to improve the implementation of measures in the original resolution before taking any further steps.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/3446769.stm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Published: 2004/01/31 02:13:12 GMT

Ex-French PM guilty of corruption


A court has found former French Prime Minister Alain Juppe guilty of involvement in a party funding scam in Paris in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Juppe, one of President Jacques Chirac's closest allies, immediately appealed against the conviction.
The court gave him an 18-month suspended sentence and barred him from political office for up to 10 years.
However, he will be able to continue as mayor of Bordeaux, and as head of the governing UMP party during the appeal.
It's a hammer blow for Jacques Chirac, who thus loses his closest adviser and his designated successor, for whom he had real affection
Anita Hauser, political commentator
The prosecution argued that Juppe allowed party employees to be put on the city payroll and to be paid for by private companies when he was deputy mayor of Paris.
Mr Chirac was then the city's mayor.
Juppe denied the charges, saying that he put an end to all irregularities as soon as he found out about them.
He said this month he would quit politics if found guilty.
Earthquake
He had widely been expected to run as the centre-right's candidate in the 2007 presidential election if Jacques Chirac does not seek a third term.
JUPPE'S CAREER
1976: Hired as speech writer to Mr Chirac
1983-1995: Deputy Mayor of Paris
1986-1988: Deputy Finance Minister
1993-1995: Foreign Minister
1995-1997: Prime Minister
2002-present: Head of the governing UMP
"You can imagine the political earthquake this is going to cause," said Anita Hauser, political commentator for the private LCI television channel.
"It's a hammer blow for Jacques Chirac, who thus loses his closest adviser and his designated successor, for whom he had real affection," she said.
Juppe was prime minister between 1995 and 1997, when he lost an election amid industrial unrest caused by his attempts to push through social and economic reforms.
'Unjust'
He made no comment after the verdict was announced and left the courtroom by a back door.
The court wanted to throw Mr Juppe out of politics
Juppe defence lawyer Francis Szpiner
But his lawyer, Francis Szpiner, said the verdict was "questionable and unjust" and said he would file an appeal.
"The court wanted to throw Mr Juppe out of politics," he said.
Correspondents say Juppe's departure from the political scene would create an awkward vacuum at the top of the UMP party, which could result in a power struggle.
BBC Paris correspondent Caroline Wyatt says the sentence itself could also raise fresh questions about Mr Chirac's own role in the party-funding affair, even though as French president he has immunity from prosecution.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/3444239.stm
Published: 2004/01/30 14:32:53 GMT
? BBC MMIV

John Kerry and Other Men's Money
by Ann Coulter
Posted Jan 29, 2004
After the New Hampshire primary, Dennis Kucinich's new slogan is: ".001 Percent of America Can't Be Wrong!" John Edwards' new slogan is: "Vote for Me or We'll See You in Court." Joe Lieberman's new slogan is: "Sixth Place Is Not an Option." (Bumper sticker version: "Ask Me About My Delegate.") Al Sharpton's new slogan is "Hello? Room Service?" Wesley Clark's new slogan is: "Leading America's War on Fetuses." Howard Dean's new slogan is: "I Want to Be Your President ... And So Do I!"
That leaves John Kerry (new slogan: "Nous Sommes Nombre Un!"), who is winning Democratic voters in droves on the basis of his superior ability to taunt George Bush for his lack of combat experience. Like every war hero I've ever met, John Kerry seems content to spend his days bragging about his battlefield exploits. Wait, wait ... Let me correct that last sentence: like no war hero I've ever met ...
As everyone has heard approximately 1 billion times by now, Kerry boasts that he has REAL experience with aircraft carriers, and if Bush wants to run on national security, then ... BRING IT ON!
I note that when George Bush directed that precise phrase at Islamic terrorists who yearn to slaughter American women and children, liberals were enraged at the macho posturing of it. But they feel "Bring it on!" is a perfectly appropriate expression when directed at a dangerous warmonger like George Bush. ("Bring it on!" was deemed better than Kerry's first impulse, "Let's get busy, sister!")
Kerry was indisputably brave in Vietnam, and it's kind of cute to see Democrats pretend to admire military service. Physical courage, like chastity, is something liberals usually deride, but are tickled when it accidentally manifests itself in one of their own. One has to stand in awe of Kerry's military service 33 years ago. Of course, that's where it ends, including with Kerry -- inasmuch as, upon his return from war in 1970, he promptly began trashing his fellow Vietnam vets by calling them genocidal murderers.
But if Bush can't talk to Kerry about the horrors of war, then Kerry sure as hell can't talk to anyone about the plight of the middle class. Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by marrying their wives and daughters.
For over 30 years, Kerry's primary occupation has been stalking lonely heiresses. Not to get back to his combat experience, but Kerry sees a room full of wealthy widows as "a target-rich environment." This is a guy whose experience dealing with tax problems is based on spending his entire adult life being supported by rich women. What does a kept man know about taxes?
In 1970, Kerry married into the family of Julia Thorne -- a family estimated to be worth about $300 million. She got depressed, so he promptly left her and was soon seen catting around with Hollywood starlets, mostly while he was still married. (Apparently, JFK really was his mentor.) Thorne is well-bred enough to say nothing ill of her Lothario ex-husband. He is, after all, the father of her children -- a fact that never seemed to constrain him.
When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled -- and Heinz is worth more than $700 million. Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests, but he can't even stand up to his wife.
Heinz made Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement, presumably aware of how careless he is with other people's property, such as other people's Vietnam War medals, which Kerry threw on the ground during a 1971 anti-war demonstration.
At pains to make Kerry sound like a normal American, his campaign has described how Kerry risked everything, mortgaging his home in Boston to help pay for his presidential campaign. Technically, Kerry took out a $6 million mortgage for "his share" of "the family's home" -- which was bought with the Heinz family fortune. (Why should he spend his own money? He didn't throw away his own medals.) I'm sure the average working stiff in Massachusetts can relate to a guy who borrows $6 million against his house to pay for TV ads.
Kerry's campaign has stoutly insisted that he will pay off the mortgage himself, with no help from his rich wife. Let's see: According to tax returns released by his campaign, in 2002, Kerry's income was $144,091. But as The Washington Post recently reported, even a $5 million mortgage paid back over 30 years at favorable interest rates would cost $30,389 a month -- or $364,668 a year.
The Democrats' joy at nominating Kerry is perplexing. To be sure, liberals take a peculiar, wrathful pleasure in supporting pacifist military types. And Kerry's life story is not without a certain feral aggression. But if we're going to determine fitness for office based on life experience, Kerry clearly has no experience dealing with problems of typical Americans since he is living in the lap of other men's money.
Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born poseur with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich woman's money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him to run for president. If Democrats want to talk about middle-class tax cuts, couldn't they nominate someone who hasn't been a poodle to rich women for the past 33 years?
Copyright ? 2003 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

The Anti-Federalist Society
Why Turkey, Iran, and Syria all have worries about Iraq's new federalist outlook.
by Gerald Robbins
01/28/2004 11:40:00 AM

TURKEY'S PRIME MINISTER Recep Tayyip Erdogan is scheduled to meet with President George Bush in Washington today. Among the topics that will be discussed are Iraq's political future. While the aim of this parley is to correct the recent dissonance in U.S.-Turkish relations, recent signals from Ankara indicate that this will not be a simple task.
The two leaders last met in December 2002. The major issue then concerned Washington's ultimately futile attempt to secure Turkish support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Both sides now wish to move past those differences, yet Iraq still remains a contentious topic. There's major discord over how to govern post-Saddam Iraq. Whereas Washington believes in a federalist solution, Ankara thinks otherwise.
Generally speaking, Turks are wary about federalism. It is a concept at variance with the nation's administrative infrastructure. History explains why: The Ottoman Empire's decentralized character was a major factor in its eventual downfall. Loose management of a multiethnic population resulted in constant rebellions and general instability.
Kemal Ataturk, modern Turkey's founding father, saw autonomy's detrimental effects and sought to rectify it. His solution was to create a strong, centralized system, largely derived from the French model of governance. This structure has remained intact throughout the past 80 years, warding off all attempts at reform.
THE ISSUE of the Kurds substantiates Turkey's centralist nature. Fears that a centralized Iraq can augment separatist notions among Turkey's estimated 13 to 16 million Kurds (approximately 20 to 25 percent of the nation's 67 million inhabitants) are based on precedent. From the early 1980s to mid 1990s, the Turkish government fought a Kurdish insurrection which claimed 37,000 lives. Turkey's national psyche is still scarred.
Yet comparing Turkey's Kurds with their Iraqi brethren is mixing apples and oranges. The Kurdish populace is a collection of different tribes and dialects that are often at cross-purposes with one another. This even extends to the political sphere--Turkey's Kurdish separatists adhere to Marxist-Leninist precepts while Iraq's Kurdish leadership reflects a meshing of clan affiliation with social democratic thought.
It can be further argued that a de facto federalism already exists in Kurdish Iraq. A U.N.-sponsored Kurdish enclave was established after the 1991 Gulf War ended. Cognizant of Turkey's cross-border concerns, it hasn't turned into a staging area for Kurdish separatism. Trading thrives between this landlocked entity and the Turkish interior.
FEARS ABOUT FEDERALISM aren't a uniquely Turkish phenomenon. The very idea of decentralization also worries Iraq and Syria. In Teheran's case, the prospect of a federalist structure succeeding within the region is particularly vexing. It not only possesses a sizeable minority of 6.5 to 8 million Kurds, but nearly one quarter of Iran--66.5 million people--are Azeri Turks. When Arab, Baluchi, and other groups are further added to Iran's ethnic picture, it turns out that only 51 percent of the country's total population is of Persian descent.
NONETHELESS, democratic Turkey, theocratic Iran, and authoritarian Syria are all united in their stances against federalism. There's a censuring tone that's nearly indistinguishable among their respective leaderships. When Syrian president Bashir al-Assad visited Turkey earlier this month (the first time a Syrian leader traveled there), he stated that a Kurdish state in Iraq would be "a red line, not only as far as Syria and Turkey, but for all the countries in the region." Prime Minister Erdogan recently told the Egyptian newspaper al-Ahram that federation "contradicts the reality of Iraq and the will of neighboring countries." Even the Turkish military, usually known for averting public discourse, had their say. "If there is a federal structure in Iraq on an ethnic basis, the future will be very difficult and bloody," one of Turkey's top generals commented.
Amid all this knee-jerk reaction, signs of a more amenable tone towards federalism have begun to appear. Several Turkish analysts note that it isn't federalism that they object to per se, but the emphasis on an ethnic and religious criteria for Iraq. A regional federalism is advocated instead, with Germany seen as the ideal prototype: They would like to see Bavaria's relation to Berlin emulated by the Kurds formulating their ties to Baghdad.
Germany's model can be studied, but to view it as the potential solution to Iraq's political future is an exercise in specious thinking. Bavarian and Turkish sociopolitics can't be homogenized into a one-size-fits-all apparatus. There is no set methodology to federalism, Iraq's model will differ from German and even American designs.
At least the Turks appear willing to give federalism a closer look. It doesn't fit current regional viewpoints, but Ankara and her autocratic neighbors lack any viable alternatives. It will be a tough task marketing, but decentralization is the best solution for Iraq and the future Middle East.

Gerald Robbins is an Associate Scholar with the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

? Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.

Cringe-onomics
Did any of the Democratic presidential contenders take Economics 101?

By J. Edward Carter

You can learn a lot about economics by watching Howard Dean and his rivals tussle over the Democratic presidential nomination. If you pay close attention, take copious notes, and ignore nearly everything the Democratic contenders say, you will learn a lot. Dean, Clark, Edwards, and Kerry have each offered campaign proposals that would make any self-respecting economist cringe.
While some of their proposals may be characterized as merely ineffective or misleading, others are downright harmful. Some of their more egregious proposals include:
To "help families live and thrive off their wages," Howard Dean says he "will press Congress to move toward increasing the minimum wage to $7.00 per hour." Despite the populist appeal of such a move, increasing the minimum wage will only harm the least-skilled and least-educated members of the labor force. Even Dean's economic advisers have cautioned against raising the minimum wage.
As Joseph Stiglitz, former chairman of President Clinton's Council of Economic Advisors and an occasional Dean advisor, wrote in his textbook, "a higher minimum wage does not seem a particularly useful way to help the poor." Why? According to Alan Blinder, another former Clinton economist known to be advising Dean, "The primary consequence of the minimum wage law is not an increase in the incomes of the least skilled workers but a restriction of their employment opportunities."
To spur economic growth and job creation, Dean would create "a White House Office of Economic Growth" (OEG). As the old saying goes, for every perceived problem there is an acronym in Washington waiting to be created. This reflects the notion that creating a new office and a new layer of bureaucrats is the same as finding a solution. Presumably Dean would add the OEG alongside the two currently existing offices in the White House that deal solely with economic matters -- the National Economic Council (NEC) and the Council of Economic Advisors (CEA).
John Edwards has called for a slew of new federal spending programs and (paradoxically) a return to fiscal discipline. Among other things, Edwards wants to lavish $50 billion on state governments and provide massive federal subsidies for education and health care. The cumulative price tag for his proposals could amount to nearly $1 trillion. Yet, Edwards insists he is an advocate of "fiscal discipline."
Unfortunately, in Washington, the common-sense notion of fiscal discipline -- being frugal and watching what you spend -- has been hijacked and redefined to mean "a willingness to raise taxes." In truth, raising taxes is akin to buying larger pants in lieu of exercise and a low-calorie diet. True fiscal discipline entails keeping government spending under control to minimize the drain of resources from the private sector to the public sector.
Likewise, Wesley Clark has yet to grasp the true meaning of fiscal discipline. Although Clark proposes to "save $2.35 trillion over ten years," tax increases account for more than half ($1.2 trillion) of the total. Reduced debt-service costs generate another $600 billion in savings. Actual spending cuts account for less than one-fourth of the total. And the vast majority of those spending cuts are unspecified and concealed under sweeping generalities such as "streamline government." But more importantly, Clark's spending cuts -- his "tough steps" -- equal less than two percent of what the federal government is expected to spend over the next ten years.
John Kerry routinely preaches that corporations should pay their "fair share" of the nation's tax burden." That sounds like a no-brainer. But it isn't. As most college freshmen learn in Economics 101, corporations do not pay taxes, people do. The burden of corporate taxation is ultimately borne by customers (through higher prices), stockholders (smaller dividends and capital gains), and employees (lower wages). As one introductory economics textbook warns, "Suffice it to say that you should be cautious when you advocate increasing corporate income taxes. You may be the one who ultimately ends up paying the increase."
The contenders for the Democratic nomination have much in common. They want to raise taxes. They want to spend more taxpayer dollars on a range of politically popular causes. And, unfortunately, they often demonstrate a poor understanding of basic economics. So sharpen your pencils and get ready to ignore almost everything you hear on the campaign trail. You can learn a lot.
-- J. Edward Carter is an economist in Washington, D.C., and the chairman of Economists for Bush.
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/carter200401300856.asp

----------------------------------------------------
Get Thee to the CIA
A new job for David Kay.

David Kay has returned from Iraq, having failed to locate the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) he was sent there to find. President George W. Bush's would-be successors and other critics have seized upon his conclusion that -- notwithstanding U.S. and foreign-intelligence assessments to the contrary -- they ceased to exist in large quantity after 1991 to justify charges of presidential malfeasance.
President Bush could be forgiven for feeling annoyed with Dr. Kay. A heated reelection campaign is not exactly the moment any candidate would chose have new turmoil engendered over one of his most controversial decisions.
The president should, instead, feel grateful to the erstwhile head of the Iraq Survey Group, both for his past, courageous public service and for his present candor. And there is no better, or more appropriate, way to express his appreciation than to ask him to replace George Tenet as Director of Central Intelligence (DCI).
David Kay has, after all, demonstrated once again the qualities of intellect, integrity, and independence that are always desirable in leaders of the U.S. intelligence community, but rarely more necessary than right now. Although he has expressed a view about the status of Saddam's missing weapons programs that is debatable -- and may ultimately be proven wrong -- the former weapons inspector has certainly said many things that have long needed saying.
For example, Dr. Kay has made clear that, if there is fault to be found over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the blame should lie with those intelligence officials who produced the faulty data, not those policymakers who made decisions on the basis of it. As he told National Public Radio last Sunday, "It's an issue of the capabilities of one's intelligence service to collect valid, truthful information."
In congressional testimony yesterday, Dr. Kay went even further: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president [an apology] rather than the president owing [one to] the American people." He went on to warn President Bush's partisan critics that, "We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration. It is not a political 'got you' issue. It is a serious issue of how you could come to the conclusion that is not matched by the [facts]."
One of Dr. Kay's most important observations cut the legs out from under those who insist the president and his subordinates -- in particular, Vice President Dick Cheney -- manipulated the intelligence they received from the CIA and other agencies. "In the course of [his work in Iraq], I had innumerable analysts who came to me in apology that the world that we were finding was not the world that they had thought existed and that they had estimated. Reality on the ground differed in advance. And never -- not in a single case -- was the explanation, 'I was pressured to do this.' The explanation was very often, 'The limited data we had led one to reasonably conclude this. I now see that there's another explanation for it.'"
He went on to note that, "...Almost in a perverse way, I wish it had been undue influence because we know how to correct that. We get rid of the people who, in fact, were exercising that. The fact that it wasn't tells me that we've got a much more fundamental problem of understanding what went wrong and we've got to figure out what was there. And that's what I call fundamental fault analysis."
Dr. Kay also offered an opinion on the question that properly should be the focus of the debate in this election cycle: Given what the Bush team was being told about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime, did it act not only properly, but prudently?
He told the Senate Armed Services Committee: "Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Now that you know reality on the ground as opposed to what you estimated before, you may reach a different conclusion -- although I must say I actually think what we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war."
That danger lay in the reality that, no matter how large the stocks of weapons of mass destruction retained by Saddam Hussein at the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, he surely retained at least small quantities, a likelihood David Kay acknowledges. As Secretary of State Colin Powell reminded the U.N. Security Council in his appearance before it on the eve of war, even a tiny vial of biological weapons could be employed to kill tens of thousands of people.
Underscoring this danger, Dr. Kay added: "After the war and with the inspection effort that we have carried out now for nine months, I think we all agree that there were not large amounts of weapons available for imminent action; that's not the same thing as saying it was not a serious, imminent threat that you're not willing to run for the nation. That is a political judgment, not a technical judgment."
More to the point, Dr. Kay's team has established that the Iraqi despot had the production capacity and know-how to produce a great deal more chemical and biological weaponry when international economic sanctions were lifted. It should be recalled that Russia, France, and Germany, among others, were actively working to bring about such an outcome. In fact, they would almost certainly have succeeded, but for President Bush's decisive leadership and action.
Even if Democratic presidential candidates refuse to acknowledge it, David Kay's testimony actually confirms the president's most important claim to reelection: He spared us the very difficult problem of having to do something about the "Butcher of Baghdad" after the U.N. had let Saddam out of the so-called "box" in which he was supposedly being "contained." Had that happened, there can be no doubt the Iraqi despot would not only have been the "grave and growing danger" President Bush said he was, but a truly "imminent" one.
George W. Bush could do himself and the country an enormous favor by recognizing that David Kay is the sort of man who should be fixing what ails America's intelligence services, notably by ending the practice of trying to get intelligence "on the cheap" without the costly and time-consuming investment in clandestine human assets (also known as spies). More importantly, Dr. Kay could be relied on as director of central intelligence to do what he has been doing ever since he got back from Iraq -- speaking truth to power, something we are likely to need more than ever if the war on terror is to be won by freedom-loving people.
-- Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and an NRO contributing editor.

http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200401290843.asp
-----------------------------------------------

DCI ANNOUNCES DUELFER TO SUCCEED KAY AS SPECIAL ADVISOR
Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet announced today that Dr. David Kay will be stepping down as his Special Advisor for Strategy regarding Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Programs. The DCI also announced that Dr. Kay will be succeeded by Charles A. Duelfer, who served as Deputy Executive Chairman of the UN Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) from 1993 until its termination in 2000 and is currently a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.
Duelfer, 51, will be working closely with Major General Keith W. Dayton, who commands the Iraq Survey Group (ISG).
In making the announcement, Tenet praised Dr. Kay for his "extraordinary service under dangerous and difficult circumstances."
"David is a model private citizen who willingly lent his unique expertise to his government in a time of need," Tenet said. "At a time when our WMD hunt efforts were just beginning, David provided a critical strategic framework that enabled the ISG to focus the hunt for information on Saddam's WMD programs."
Dr. Kay will be returning to the private sector.
In accepting Dr. Kay's resignation and announcing Duelfer's appointment, Tenet said, "Building on the framework that David has put in place, I am very confident that Charlie and the ISG will continue to make progress in the months ahead in determining the status of the former Iraqi regime's WMD programs."
"Given his knowledge of Iraqi weapons programs and his understanding of the nature and extent of Iraqi efforts to conceal these programs, I can think of no one better suited to carry on this very important work than Charlie Duelfer," the DCI said.
In accepting the position, Duelfer said, "I'm honored that Director Tenet has asked me to tackle this challenging assignment. I'm approaching it with an open mind and am absolutely committed to following the evidence wherever it takes us."
In submitting his resignation, Dr Kay said: "It has been my honor and privilege to work with a tremendous group of men and women in Iraq, Qatar, and Washington. Despite arduous working conditions and an inhospitable and often threatening environment, the ISG, led by General Dayton, has performed its important mission with great skill and the utmost integrity. While there are many unresolved issues, I am confident that the ISG will do everything possible to answer remaining questions about the former Iraqi regime's WMD efforts."
Duelfer, like his predecessor, will be based in Iraq and will be in charge of directing the overall approach for the search for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. ISG will continue to provide direct support to the Special Advisor.
Before joining UNSCOM in 1993, Duelfer was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for arms control and multilateral defense matters. From 1990 to 1992, he was in charge of defense trade matters as the Director of the Center for Defense Trade and deputy to the Assistant Secretary of State for Politico-Military Affairs. In this capacity, he had responsibility for arms transfers, munitions licensing, and conventional arms control. Duelfer has a B.A. from the University of Connecticut and a M.Sc. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

McCain Calls for Intelligence Error Probe
By KATHERINE PFLEGER
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -
Parting company with many of his fellow Republicans, Sen. John McCain said Thursday he wants an independent commission to take a sweeping look at recent intelligence failures.
The White House has dismissed the proposal, saying the CIA is committed to reviewing the intelligence behind claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration also argues that the weapons search is not yet complete.
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., has expressed frustration with those who suggest an outside investigation is needed before his committee has a chance to complete an inquiry now underway. Senate Armed Service Chairman John Warner, R-Va., supports letting the committee finish its work.
In an interview with The Associated Press, McCain said he believes the public needs an assessment that won't be clouded by partisan division. The Arizona senator said he is seeking a full-scale look not only at apparently botched intelligence on Iraq's weapons capabilities, but also flawed estimations of Iraq, North Korea and Libya and the faulty assessments from other Western intelligence services.
"I am absolutely convinced that one is necessary," McCain said, "because this is a very serious issue and we need to not only know what happened, but know what steps are necessary to prevent the United States from ever being misinformed again."
McCain's comments come less than one week after the CIA's lead weapons inspector, David Kay, left his position and began stating publicly that purported weapons of mass destruction didn't exist.
Democratic presidential candidates Sen. John Edwards, Sen. John Kerry, and Howard Dean also called for an independent investigation during a debate held Thursday in South Carolina.
National security adviser Condoleezza Rice reiterated the administration's position Thursday, saying that efforts to learn the extent of Saddam's weapons arsenal are sufficient.
"No one will want to know more than the president the comparison between what we found when we got there and what we thought was there going in," Rice said on NBC's "Today" show.
When asked if she thought Americans have a legitimate concern about whether intelligence was manipulated to justify the decision to go to war, Rice replied, "The president's judgment to go to the war was based on the fact that Saddam Hussein for 12 years had defied U.N. resolutions" regarding his stock of weapons."
She added that the administration went to war, because Saddam "had been considered a danger for a long time and it was time to take care of that danger."
Kay and some Democrats, including Senate minority leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., have also stated the need for an outside investigation into the intelligence community. Along with the Senate inquiry, several retired intelligence officers have delivered a review to CIA Director George Tenet on the performance of the CIA and other agencies.
McCain, who was one of the loudest voices in a successful campaign to form a commission on the Sept. 11 attacks, said he spoke to administration officials, but doesn't know what - if any - action the White House will take. McCain believes the investigation would take over a year, removing the findings from election-year politics.
McCain said the commission should consider a series of questions: Were the estimates wrong? If so, why? Who is responsible? What steps need to be taken to ensure that the president has accurate intelligence information?
Names McCain suggested for the commission include former House Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash., former Secretary of State and Treasury George Shultz, former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger and former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft.

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

U.S. Military Sure of Catching Bin Laden
By STEPHEN GRAHAM
Associated Press Writer
KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- The U.S. military is "sure" it will catch Osama bin Laden this year, perhaps within months, a spokesman declared Thursday, but Pakistan said it would not allow American troops to cross the border in search of the al-Qaida leader.
Thursday also was one of the deadliest days for American forces in Afghanistan: Seven soldiers were killed when a weapons cache exploded southwest of the capital. Three other American soldiers were wounded and another was missing after the blast, the U.S. Central Command said.
U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty's prediction about capturing bin Laden comes as the Army readied a spring offensive against Taliban and al-Qaida holdouts. A U.S. official hinted Wednesday that the offensive might extend into Pakistan.
Bin Laden, chief suspect in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that sparked the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, is believed to be holed up somewhere along the mountainous border.
Pakistani Brig. Javed Iqbal Cheema, a senior security official who coordinating counterterrorism efforts with U.S. officials, said Pakistani policies do not allow American troops to operate in the country.
The U.S. commander in the region, Gen. John Abizaid, said Thursday American forces will continue conducting "limited military operations" along the Afghan border, but he has no plans to put U.S. troops inside Pakistan against Pakistani wishes.
Since last month's capture of Saddam Hussein, American commanders in Afghanistan have expressed new optimism about finding bin Laden. Hilferty said the military - the United States has 11,000 men in the country - now believes it could seize him within months.
"We have a variety of intelligence and we're sure we're going to catch Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar this year," Hilferty said. "We've learned lessons from Iraq and we're getting improved intelligence from the Afghan people."
Hilferty declined to comment on where he believed bin Laden or Mullah Omar, the former Taliban leader, might be hiding.
Earlier this week, the American commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. David Barno, told the British Broadcasting Corp. that he expects bin Laden to be brought to justice by year's end.
American forces are pinning hopes for better intelligence from Afghans on new security teams setting up in provincial capitals across a swath of southern and eastern Afghanistan.
The security teams are supposed to open the way for millions of dollars in U.S. development aid and allow the Afghan government to regain control over lawless areas largely populated by ethnic Pashtuns, from which the Taliban drew their main support.
This month alone, about 70 people have died violently, including two international peacekeepers killed by suicide bombers in Kabul. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the bomb attacks.
The spring offensive touted by U.S. defense officials Wednesday would come just when the new security teams are supposed to be up and running, and warmer weather opens the high mountain passes.
Hilferty said he could not talk about future operations.
Pakistani officials said Thursday they would not allow American forces to use their territory for any new offensive. Cheema said he had not heard of the plan for a spring offensive.
U.S. forces used Pakistani bases and airspace during the campaign that led to the ouster in late 2001 of the Taliban regime, but Pakistan insisted it only provided logistical support.
"As a matter of fact they (the United States) have not contacted us for this purpose," Cheema told The Associated Press.
A Pakistani intelligence official said Pakistani authorities had no specific information about bin Laden's whereabouts.
Pakistan President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a key U.S. ally, would face withering criticism from political opponents, particularly Islamic hard-liners, if American forces deploy inside Pakistan.
Abizaid called Musharraf a "strong ally" of the United States and said, "We'll help him where he wants help.
"The idea that we would work uncooperatively with the Pakistanis is not one that I'm entertaining," he said.
Despite periodic reports that the Taliban are making a comeback in Afghanistan, "I believe the Taliban is in deep trouble," both as a military and political force, Abizaid said.
Pakistan says it has arrested more than 500 al-Qaida men over the past two years; many of them have been handed over to the United States.
Residents have reported seeing a small number of foreign personnel on such operations, but Pakistan denies it.
"We will not allow any foreign troops to conduct any operations in Pakistan," Pakistani army spokesman Gen. Shaukat Sultan said. "Whenever they (the United States) ask for such thing, we always decline."
In January, Pakistani forces raided a border village where al-Qaida fighters were believed to be hiding. The interior minister said 18 suspected terrorists were captured.
Associated Press writers Bob Burns in Washington and Munir Ahmad in Islamabad, Pakistan, contributed to this report.
Copyright 2004 Associated Press. All rights reserved.