...The core of the time bomb is demography, and the detonator is racism. The native populations of Europe—let's say it, the white populations—are reproducing slowly and aging fast. Without continued immigration, according to the European Union and United Nations statistics, by 2050 the number of Germans will have shrunk from 83 million to 63 million; Italians will go from 57 million to 44 million. In the same period, among the North African and Middle Eastern countries surrounding Europe, the population will double....
From the international edition of the magazine: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10019180/site/newsweek/From Christopher Dickey, the author of "Our Man in Charleston: Britain's Secret Agent in the Civil War South" and "Securing the City," this site provides updates and footnotes on history, espionage, terrorism, fanaticism, policing and counterinsurgency linked to Dickey's columns for The Daily Beast and his other writings; also, occasional dialogues, diatribes, and contributions from friends.
Sunday, November 13, 2005
Europe: Race and Rage
Thursday, November 10, 2005
France: Waning Riots in Perspective
Online dialogue with Newsweek readers about the situation in France, 9 Nov 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9934502/site/newsweek/
Jordan: Who and Why (Audio)
Newsweek Audio: Jordan Attacked, 9 Nov 2005
Newsweek's Christopher Dickey reports on the bombings in Amman, a longtime ally to Washington. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9980646/site/newsweek/
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Italy: Secret Documents, Public Statements
I am afraid the background to all this, which is central to the way the U.S. administration made its case for war, is not very well known to American readers. A piece last week by Elaine Sciolino and Elisabetta Provoledo in the New York Times, "Source of Forged Niger-Iraq Documents Identified," condescendingly called the Repubblica version "breathless," probably because it was seized on so avidly by some bloggers in the United States as yet another smoking gun to indict the White House. The Times article repeated the Berlusconi government's official line that it had nothing to do with the faked Niger dossier, no way, no how, and suggests that an FBI investigation -- which we haven't seen -- exonerates the Italian services.
Following are some of my own notes on the Repubblica pieces, essentially a rough translation, pointing out some of the holes, but also some of the new leads:
The saga that led to this afternoon’s indictment [of Libby] dates back about six years, according to an exhaustive investigation published this week by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica and co-reported by former Newsweek intern and stringer Carlo Bonini.
In 1999 and 2000, French officials were concerned that uranium was being stolen or smuggled from the mines they run in Niger, and naturally they wanted to know anything they could in order to stop it. A shady Italian figure named Rocco Martino got wind of French concerns and started fishing around for something to sell them.
Martino is “a failed carabinieri,” a 67-year-old former low-level spook who was fired from his job as a captain in Italy’s political-military intelligence service in the 1970s, according to La Repubblica. In 1985 Martino was arrested in Italy for extortion, the paper says. In 1993 he was arrested in Germany with stolen checks, the paper reported, yet he apparently continued some sort of collaboration with Italian military intelligence (SISMI) until the end of 1999.
“He plays a double game,” says the first of the La Repubblica articles published this week. Martino supposedly lives in Luxembourg (3, rue Hoehl, Sandweiler) and receives a subsidy from French intelligence supporting his consultancy called “Security Development Organization Office.” But according to the newspaper, Martino worked for both the French and the Italians, selling French news to Rome and Italian news to Paris. “This is my métier,” Martino told La Repubblica. “I sell information.”
Now, it’s important to remember that the origins of the Niger story date to before 9/11, and even before George W. Bush was elected. In fact, Saddam Hussein’s relations with Niger and his supposed interest in its uranium had been raising alarms in some circles since the 1980s, when he had a very aggressive secret nuclear program. The Italians had played a role trying to stop at least two suspect Iraqi operations back then. They had managed to put their hands on some of Niger’s codes and a telex of Amb. Adamou Chékou informing his foreign ministry in Niamey, Niger, about the mission of Wissam al-Zahawie, the Iraqi ambassador to the Holy See, as “representative of Saddam Hussein.” There was also an operation at Trieste where the Italians managed to seize high-tensile “marangin” steel that was supposed to be used in centrifuges. But that was all very old news – from before Saddam’s defeat in 1991 and the UN inspections that eventually uncovered his entire secret project to build the bomb.
At the end of 1998, as part of a showdown with Saddam, the UN had pulled out all of its inspectors. By 1999 it was generally assumed that Saddam would try to re-start his WMD programs. Indeed, such assumptions would take us to war in 2003. But there was no proof and, as we know now, the assumptions were wrong.
Martino was looking for something that he could sell for a good price in 1999 or 2000, La Repubblica reported. If he could pick up that old Iraq-Niger connection, the French presumably would be interested – and so would lots of other people. So Martino went to an old friend, Antonio Nucera. Like Martino, Nucera was a former carabinieri, but he was still with SISMI, working as head of a unit looking at arms trafficking and counterproliferation issues in Africa and the Middle East. Judicial officials have confirmed to Newsweek that Nucera put Martino in touch with a source inside the Niger embassy in Rome. The head of SISMI, Nicolò Pollari, told La Repubblica, “Nucera wanted to help his friend, so he invites a Source of the Service … to give a hand to Martino.” This source was a sixty-something woman working at the Niger embassy. She also needed money, according to Repubblica. She suggested the diplomat in the embassy who might be most useful to Martino and Nocera: First Counselor Zakaria Yaou Maiga. Apparently he liked the good life. Pollari told Repubblica that “Maiga spends six times what he gains.” Maiga is no longer in Rome.
According to Repubblica, Maiga waited for the embassy to close for New Year’s 2001 and staged a break-in. The next day, another Niger functionary notified the carabinieri that there’d been a theft, but didn’t say that in fact official embassy stationery and official stamps were missing. They would be used to prepare a “letter of intent” between Niger and Iraq “concerning the supplying of uranium initialed the 5th and 6th July 2000 at Niamey,” according to Repubblica. Martino then sold this package to France’s Direction Générale de la Sécurité Extérieure (DGSE), which quickly concluded they were crap. Among other things, the Niger officials supposedly involved in the transactions were no longer in office.
This was early 2001, and the story might have ended there. Then September 11 happened, and the Bush administration quickly started turning its attention to Iraq and the supposed threat posed by its weapons of mass destruction. In the meantime, faces were changing at SISMI. Pollari took over at the top. Meanwhile, the relatively low-ranking Nucera was retiring, according to Repubblica.
What we do not know, and Rebubblica does not know, is precisely when SISMI, as such, got a hold of the fake Niger dossier. Did Martino pass it along at the same time he sold it to the French? This is not clear, and Bonini could not get any of his sources to give a firm answer. But it did show up in CIA traffic in October 2001.
The central “accusation” of the Repubblica pieces is that SISMI knew the documents were fake, and allowed or even encouraged their dissemination. But this is an inference based on circumstance rather than a point that’s been proved.
Repubblica quotes Rocco Martino saying, “At the end of 2001, SISMI transmitted the yellowcake dossier to the English of MI6. They ‘passed’ it without assessment, saying only that it was received from ‘a reliable source.’” Martino is also quoted saying, “SISMI wanted to disseminate the Niger dossiers to allied intelligence, but, at that time, didn’t want its involvement in the operation to be known.” But Martino was not necessarily in a position to know this. Berlusconi’s spokesmen have since dismissed these accusations by Martino and insisted that “no dossier about uranium, neither directly nor through intermediaries, has been consigned or made to be consigned to anyone.”
According to Repubblica, Greg Thielman at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence remembers seeing a digest of the supposed contents of the dossiers, sent over from Langley, which had gotten it from its field officer in Italy dated Oct. 15, 2001. The officer said he had seen the Italian documentation, which suggested an Iraqi attempt to acquire 500 tons of pure uranium from Niger. Also in the fall of 2001 (although dates unclear) Michael Ledeen showed up in Rome. He apparently was an acquaintance of Defense Minister Antonio Martino (no relation to Rocco), and Minister Martino asked Pollari to see Ledeen “as an old friend of Italy.” Repubblica says Ledeen was in Rome at the behest of the Office for Special Plans, but I’m not sure about this. It also says he’d been deemed undesirable by the Italian government since the 1980s. Don’t know what that was about. Repubblica quotes an unnamed official saying Pollari had gotten a cold reaction to the Niger documents from the CIA station chief in Rome, and decided not to see Ledeen. It’s not clear if Ledeen picked up on the documents while in Rome, whether from SISMI or another source.
By early 2002, Cheney knows the Niger story, at least in part, and wants to know more. In February 2002, Wilson -- who was a former ambassador to Gabon, who was DCM in Baghdad on the eve of the 1991 Gulf War, and who is the husband of Valerie Plame -- is being dispatched to check out the story in Niger. He comes back and reports the story doesn't seem credible.
Never mind. By the first anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, the Bush campaign for war against Iraq was moving ahead full steam, especially in the press, and the Italians seem to have been doing everything they could to be helpful. Were they so anxious to please that they just couldn’t bring themselves to mention that the documents were fake? Or did the Bush administration not want to know? These questions are at the core of the Repubblica stories, but they are not answered. Nor is the biggest question: to what extent was disinformation being disseminated by design?
Repubblica focuses attention on a meeting set up on Sept. 9, 2002, by Gianni Castellaneta, who was then the diplomatic adviser to Berlusconi and is now the Italian ambassador to Washington. Pollari was in Washington and paid what is now described by the NSC as a courtesy call of less than 15 minutes on Stephen Hadley, who was then Condi Rice’s number two.
The timing is interesting because the administration’s propaganda offensive was so intense at just that moment. Judy Miller’s infamous story about centrifuge parts (actually, rocket parts) had appeared just the day before with the famous quote from an anonymous official saying we didn’t want to have the next smoking gun be a mushroom cloud. More to the point, the Berlusconi-owned news magazine Panorama was just putting to bed a "scoop" headlined "The War? It's Already Begun," describing the shipment of "half a ton of uranium" to Iraq. The report said "The men of the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi secret police, had acquired it through a Jordanian company in faraway Nigeria [sic], some merchants had smuggled it after getting it out of the nuclear stores of a former Soviet republic. 1,500 kilos of uranium were taken to Amman, and from there, overland, arrived after a seven hour trip at their destination: an installation 20 kilometers north of Baghdad named Al Rashidiya, known for the production and processing of fissile material." Not clear what, if any, sourcing Panorama claimed for that muddled revelation, which seems to have confused Niger and Nigeria.
Pollari, back in Rome from his visit to D.C., testified before the Italian parliament’s intelligence oversight committee. In the first of two appearances, he said “We don’t have documentary proof, but information that a central African country has sold pure uranium to Baghdad.” Thirty days later, Pollari said, “We have the documentary proof of the acquisition of natural uranium in a central African republic on the part of Iraq.”
It’s at about this point that Rocco Martino gets in touch with Elizabetta Burba, a correspondent for Panorama, and tries to sell her the by now rather tired documents. She does some basic due diligence and concludes they’re “bufala.” But her editor, Carlo Rossella, meanwhile passes the documents along to the station chief at the US embassy with the rationale that he’s the best person to verify them. It’s the same crap the COS thought had little merit the year before, but in a slightly different package. Another report makes its way back to Washington, but seems to have gotten, er, misplaced inside the agency. Meanwhile, however, the myth endured – one might say it was cultivated – in other parts of the administration, and in Britain, before becoming 16 words in the president’s State of the Union address in 2003.
A final thought: it’s striking the way the supposed case for Saddam’s nukes kept coming back to two questions: Niger uranium and centrifuge parts – the same two elements that had been floating around since the 1980s. Not sure what that signifies, apart from a conspicuous lack of imagination by the fabricators.
end
Riots: Is Paris Burning? No, But France Is
Night after night last week rage spread through the ghettos that ring Paris, then beyond—to the slums of Dijon in Burgundy, Rouen in Normandy, Toulouse, Rennes, Marseilles. When, on the fourth night, a tear-gas canister exploded near the entrance to a warehouselike mosque in Clichy-sous-Bois, forcing hundreds of worshipers to flee barefoot and gagging into Place Anatole France, a new cry went up from the vandals. "Now this is war," said one. Others cried "jihad."
It was neither, in fact, and the Paris known to tourists was not burning. It was far from the city center that cars and dumpsters were incinerated, buses attacked with Molotov cocktails and hundreds of arrests made. Police said gangs were increasingly organized, using the Internet and cell-phone text messages to coordinate. Dozens of people were injured and shots were fired at police; on Friday night alone nearly 900 cars were torched nationwide. But at the weekend, no one had been killed. The Los Angeles riots of 1992, by contrast, claimed the lives of more than 50 people.
What has shaken the French government, and badly, is its continued inability to contain the metastasizing anger spreading through the country's many predominantly Muslim ghettos. Like a Middle Eastern intifada, the violence is stripping away whatever comfortable assumptions existed about the authorities' ability to cope. Decades of French policies intended to force the integration of immigrants and their children into French society are seen to have failed, and in the age of terror, the fear is that rage like this will swell the ranks of radical Islamists in the heart of Europe. For years, itinerant preachers have moved through these same communities recruiting for holy wars in Bosnia, Chechnya and now Iraq, where a few young French Muslims have gone to die as suicide bombers. Madrid and London have shown what happens when that sort of fury is turned inward. ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9938406/site/newsweek/
Also worth a look is Tracy McNicoll's onscener from earlier in the week.
Eric Pape, Marie Valla, Carla Power, Tracy and I have written a great deal about Muslims in Europe over the last few years. Some of the more interesting and useful articles:
Newsweek Intl: Immigration: At the Gates, 16 Oct 2005
As the European Union expands, it's coming face to face with the new world.
Newsweek: Jihad Express, 13 Mar 2005
For Islamic Militants in Europe, Iraq far outshines Afghanistan as an urban-terrorism training ground
Newsweek Intl: The New Crusade, 1 Nov 2004
Fighting for God in a secular Europe, conservative Christians, the Vatican and Islamic militants finda a common cause.
Newsweek Intl: Europe's Southern Shadow, 11 Oct 2004
Immigration from North Africa is the problem of the coming decade
Newsweek Intl: The Return of Hate, 1 Mar 2004
Anti-Semitism, fueled by an angry minority, is on the rise. But the real problem is that no one seems to care.
Newsweek Intl: Generation M, 1 Dec 2003
Europe: A young generation of homegrown Muslims is challenging the region’s self-image
Piracy: Cruise Ships and Al Qaeda

Oakmont couple recounts pirate attack of their cruise ship
Associated Press (published in the San Jose Mercury)
SANTA ROSA, Calif. 6 Nov 2005- A local couple aboard a luxury cruise liner targeted by armed pirates off the east African coast Saturday recounted the terrifying moments as the bandits tried to board the ship in an e-mail to friends and family.
Two boats full of pirates, armed with grenade launchers and machine guns, approached the Seabourn Spirit about 100 miles off the Somali coast and opened fire while the bandits tried to get onboard, according to the Miami-based Seabourn Cruise Line, a subsidiary of Carnival Corp.
But the captain "swerved the ship sharply to the left trying unsuccessfully to ram the oncoming boat and then took off at full speed," Harry and Jan Hufford, of Oakmont, said in the e-mail obtained Saturday by The Press Democrat of Santa Rosa.
The couple, both retired Southern California government officials, wrote home shortly after the attack to assure loved ones that they were OK. None of the 151 passengers abroad the ship were injured, but one member of the 161-person crew was injured by shrapnel, cruise officials said.
According to the Huffords, the captain told passengers over the public address system around 5:30 a.m. "that a boat with armed men was coming along the starboard side and we were to lock ourselves in our cabins."
The captain later instructed passengers to gather in the ship's restaurant, and as the Huffords were leaving their cabin, they heard a heavy thud, the e-mail said. A rocket had hit a cabin nearby, "but it jammed in the metal balcony door frame and shattered the glass but fortunately exploded downward," it said.
"There are bullet holes at several locations and two of the floor-to-ceiling windows in the lounge at the rear of the ship were shattered by bullets," the Huffords wrote.
The Spirit, which sustained minor damage, was bound for Mombasa, Kenya, at the end of a 16-day voyage from Alexandria, Egypt. It was expected to reach the Seychelles on Monday, and then continue on its previous schedule to Singapore, company officials said.
The Seabourn Spirit's attackers are being deemed incompetent pirates, and indeed they may have been. (One has to admire the sang-froid of the Spirit's captain, first trying to run them over, then simply outrunning them.) But the possible nexus between piracy and terrorism on the high seas is a huge concern. Al-Qaeda itself has a long record of naval operations. The most successful was the suicide attack on the USS Cole in Aden harbor on October 12, 2000, which killed 17 people and injured 39. But there was also a successful attack on the French oil tanker Limburg off the coast of Yemen two years later, on October 6, 2002. As I reported in the very first Shadowland column, "Evil Genius," published February 20, 2003, Al Qaeda had planned a truly spectacular operation to take place on or about the same time as the attacks on the United States on September 2001. After the column appeared, based on foreign intelligence sources, those in the U.S. questioned the timing, but not the plans or intent. I'm posting the relevant bits here since there's no longer a live link to the original on the Newsweek site:
As described to NEWSWEEK for the first time by foreign officials who work closely with the CIA, the aim was to sink a U.S. warship with everyone aboard, and the scenario was every bit as grand and complicated as something out of an old James Bond movie. Through a front company, Al Qaeda actually bought a large
freighter equipped with a heavy-duty crane. It also bought several small speedboats from a manufacturer in the United Arab Emirates. The plan was to carry the smaller craft on the mother ship, fill them with explosives, lower them into the water and send them on their way toward the warship as, in effect,
suicide torpedoes. If those failed—and they would have been vulnerable to defensive fire if the ship’s crew was alert—the freighter itself was filled with explosives, making it the biggest conventional bomb ever built. It wouldn’t have to ram the warship to sink it, just explode nearby. According to these
officials, most of the crew on the Al Qaeda freighter didn’t even know what was going on. Some were from Pakistan, others from India. A few were Christians.
The head of this operation was Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who played a key operational role in putting together the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 and blowing an enormous hole in the side of the American destroyer USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, killing 17 American sailors. “Nashiri does
his job very patiently,” says an Arab intelligence officer with intimate knowledge of the case. “Nairobi was three years in the planning.”
So what happened? By one account, Nashiri had trouble getting the enormous quantity of explosives needed for the Hormuz plot. But this intelligence officer says no: “It was all to do with the timing and the moving of the elements. The problem was security procedures.” The more grandiose a plan, the more people who
are involved, the greater the chance it will be compromised and some or all of the plotters caught. Nashiri knew he was already being hunted by the CIA. Jordan’s intelligence service had been tracking him since 1997. Rather than risk giving away the whole game—possibly the whole 9-11 plot—the operation was called
off.
Even after Al Qaeda’s Afghan base was broken up by the U.S. invasion in 2001, Nashiri—also known as Mullah Bilal—kept plotting seaborne operations, training frogmen for underwater demolition and pilots for small kamikaze aircraft. A group of Saudis was dispatched to Morocco to prepare the logistics for an attack on U.S. warships in the Strait of Gibraltar. Their mission was to rent a safe house and acquire Zodiac rubberized speedboats to use in a hit similar to the one against the Cole. But a tip from one of the Moroccans held at Guantanamo in early 2002 led to the arrest of the plotters by the Moroccan security services.
Nashiri tried to change his strategy. Like other Al Qaeda planners, he scaled back the grand plans and focused on what he thought would be easier targets: attacks on American compounds in the northwest of Saudi Arabia and in Jeddah. But those plots were foiled. Too many people knew about him. Too many of the
Arab services, as well as the Americans, were on his trail.
Late last year, Nashiri was spotted in Yemen, but the Yemenis didn’t arrest him. He went to Dubai and was picked up there. Ever since, Nashiri has been in one of the secret CIA interrogation centers outside the United States, beyond the reach of American law or mercy. According to intelligence sources familiar with his dossier, he’s been quite talkative. By combining what Nashiri has told them with details from other captured masterminds like Abu Zubaydah (none of whose
whereabouts are a matter of public record) the CIA can cross-check information, spot inconsistencies, and expand its web of coverage.
So we’re all a lot safer? Yes, in fact.
Safer. But not safe.
“The elements who worked with Nashiri, they have the same expertise,” says the counterterror chief of a friendly country. “When Nashiri was arrested they became more determined than ever to take his place.” They are also more determined than ever to get weapons of mass destruction. The acquisition is very
risky from an operational point of view. The terrorists have to go outside their closed and secure networks if they want nukes, plutonium or sophisticated chemical and biological weapons, and that exposes them to capture. But there’s this great advantage: once you’ve got the Bomb or its bio-chem equivalent, you
don’t have to be a genius to use it. You just have to be evil.
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Iran: The Purges Go Global
The Associated Press, Reuters THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2005 |
The original post: Iran: Picking Fights on Purpose?
Shadowland: The Looking-Glass Wars
Shadowland: The Looking-Glass Wars, 2 Nov 2005
Nov. 2, 2005 - He ate raw meat at our late lunch among a wilderness of mirrors. My guest, an Arab spymaster in Lebanon for most of the 1975-90 civil war, had chosen to meet in Paris at one of those opulent hotels where fashion shows are held. Haute couture designers like these places, as do high-living spies, because the gilt-framed mirrors on the walls let the knowing see everything and everybody from many different angles. As we talked about car bombs, the hotel staff was setting up chairs for a défilé. Over steak tartare, we discussed the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri and 22 other people on the Beirut waterfront last Valentine’s Day.
It occurred to me that this guy in this place and, for that matter, eating this particular food while talking about this particular subject epitomized that cool and frightening detachment from horror that is so typical of a certain class in the Middle East: the murdering class. I have met Arabs, Iranians, Israelis--Muslims, Christians and Jews--who fit that description and know the etiquette. Unlike Al Qaeda’s apocalyptic lunatics, these are mostly government officials or their proxies who use murder to make points in the Middle East’s brutal political dialogues. "It's an ongoing game, playing by the rules of the Bible," a senior official in Israeli intelligence once told me, "and at a certain point there is a balance of terror where everyone knows what's expected."...
... A lot of evidence suggests we’re growing hardened. The abuses at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram show how easily Americans can slide into the mores of the Middle East and its murdering class. The longer we stay, the more often we should remind ourselves that “an ongoing game, playing by the rules of the Bible,” is not the same as the rule of law. Not at all.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9899874/site/newsweek/
------
If further proof were needed, The Washington Post, the New York Times and the Independent have all run front page stories in the last few days looking at the West's slide toward the mindset of the Middle East. The most striking piece is Dana Priest's in the Post:
CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons
Debate Is Growing Within Agency About Legality and Morality of Overseas System Set Up After 9/11
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 2, 2005; A01
The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.
The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.
The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA's unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA's covert actions.
The existence and locations of the facilities -- referred to as "black sites" in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents -- are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country....
-----
Independent: Tony Blair's plans for tough new anti-terror legislation have been subjected to a damning critique by Amnesty International, as MPs prepare to debate the measures today. In a submission to MPs, Amnesty International denounced the proposals to increase police powers of detention and make a new offence of the glorification of terrorism. It called them "ill-conceived and dangerous" , amounting to an attack on "the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law".
Monday, October 31, 2005
Iraq-Niger-WMD: Oblivious to the Obvious
The inclination of the Bush administration to ignore the obvious is now well known. But, still, as more details come out about the great WMD debate inside the bureaucracy before the war, you have to shake your head. Joe Wilson's letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee last year refuting some of the assertions in the "additional comments" section of the report about his role in the Niger uranium inquiries includes a succinct chronology of the administration's self-deception. I find the following items particularly revealing:
- On October 6, 2002, the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points 1) the evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities. 2) the procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And 3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this in one of the two issues where we differed with the British." (Pg 56)
The war party in the administration saw such reservations as pusillanimous, and there is more than a whiff of CYA gas in the tone of that note. But whether such common sense arguments were firm or feeble, the administration just wasn't listening. (See Maureen Dowd's devastating critique of Cheney's clique and "that incestuous, secretive, vindictive, hallucinatory dark hole they've been bunkered in for five years.") Although U.N. inspections of Iraq began again with a vengeance in late 2002, the Bush administration did not hand off the dubious dossier on Niger uranium to the International Atomic Energy Agency until late February 2003. The then-deputy director Jacques Baute determined within a few minutes that the documents were forgeries. IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei (now a nobel laureate) reported this to the U.N. Security Council on March 7, 2003. But there was no way the administration would stop its roll toward war at that point. The invasion of Iraq began less than two weeks later.
Iran: Picking Fights on Purpose?
Hello Chris,
Just when I thought it was impossible, Ahmadi’nejad has again outdone his hostile stance with vile comments that Israel “must be wiped out from the map of the world”.
Describing the annual Qods (Jerusalem) rally in Tehran CNN reported that “Thousands of Iranians staged anti-Israel protests across the country Friday and repeated calls by their ultraconservative president demanding the Jewish state's destruction.” The annual Qods rallies have been going on since the beginning of the revolution (1979), when ayatollah Khomeini, declared that the last Friday of the month of Ramadan would be marked as a day in solidarity with the Palestinian people. Ahmadi’nejad and his ilk surely remember those early days when hundreds of thousands (not thousands) of Iranians would willingly join the march. Despite the headlines, the rally this year was a total flop and a pathetic show in the face of the harassment and pressures on state employees, civil servants, members of the armed forces, teachers, factory workers and students to attend.
Ahmadi’nejad beaming fearlessly now tells the outside world that "My word is the same as that of (the) Iranian nation". But in reality he is having difficulty even speaking on behalf of the regime’s inner circle. There are now rumours that a significant number of Iranian ambassadors are to lose their jobs, including key regime figures such as Zarif at UN, Adeli in London, Kharazi in Paris, Kharghani in Germany and Alborzi at the UN, Geneva.
Things aren’t going that great for our bolshie president even in Iran’s’ hardline-dominated parliament. Back in August four of his proposed cabinet ministers were rejected by parliament and months after his election victory, he has yet to fill four vacant ministerial posts.
The former revolutionary guard’s campaign pledge of social justice and distributing oil money to the poor remains increasingly unrealistic and may eventually bring about utter disappointment even from the regime’s core supporters. The new parliament has to date announced plans to reduce subsidies on the sale of imported petrol, bread and cement. Some are already reporting the ‘beginning of the end for Iranian president's honeymoon period’.
The sabre rattling of fanatics as ever is also drowning out Iran’s active pro-democracy voices. Only a few days ago (26 October) at a gathering of over a thousand people (that included the elected heads of Iran’s’ largest nationwide student union Tahkim Vahdat) Mohsen Kadivar in a speech directly addressed ayatollah Khamanei, the leader of Iran and asked, "a symbol of freedom is for your opponents and those that criticise you to be safe in this society otherwise merely talking of social justice is easy... Why are Ganji, Soltani and Zarafshan still in jail? Kadivar added, “I ask the security officers who are at present amongst us to take my words to the leader...”
Amnesty International reported grave concern about the safety of Akbar Ganji Iran’s longest serving imprisoned journalist. According to Massoumeh Shafii, his wife, he had been severely beaten by Iranian security officers who wanted him to apologise in writing for his books and letters, and to undertake not to give interviews if he was to be granted prison leave.
It may be hard to believe but our former revolutionary guard president fears such speeches and the writings of activist like Ganji more than any US threat. He beams triumphantly like never before as he takes questions from the press about Israel and the US. Men like him thrive on war and their whole existence is based on conflict. They know that their power base will be strengthened, because even those Iranians who oppose them will move to their camp in defence against foreign aggression. They also know that they can put down dissenters with more force than ever before.
Writer and journalist Ahmad Zeidabadi, a one-time cellmate of Akbar Ganji, has said the Ganji is “a South Tehran [working class] stubborn lad that will fight any force or harassment.” Ahmadi’nejad became president on the backing of the noble south Tehran poor. He has promised them prosperity and jobs. He is more fearful of a confrontation with the great and good lads of South Tehran than any dirty war with the West.
Best
NA
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Libby: Snow Falling on Aspens

The first pages, available on Amazon, make very strange reading this morning, like some allegory of the events that led to Libby’s indictment for allegedly lying about his interest in the identity of the nonofficially covered Valerie Plame Wilson: “He knew it was foolish to want to know the girl’s name. … But he wished to know the girl’s name.”
I particularly liked some of the "statistically improbable phrases," or SIPs, discovered by Amazon’s search engine. They give a random but revealing skim of weird images and perceptions from the prose of this man who helped shape the fictions that led us to war in Iraq: assistant headman, tiny dancer, man with the pole, mountain trousers, old samurai, lacquer workers, liquid woman, dead hunter, youth hesitated, charcoal maker, youth glanced, yellow fur, man with the club, youth nodded, youth stared, moment the youth, snow wall, young samurai.
One could almost confect a surreal little pseudo-Japanese poem:
Libby, assistant head man.
Libby, tiny dancer.
Libby, man with the pole.
Libby, mountain trousers.
Libby, old samurai.
Judy, lacquer worker.
Judy, liquid woman.
Judy, dead hunter.
Patrick, youth glanced.
Patrick, man with the club.
Patrick, youth nodded.
Patrick, youth stared.
White House, snow wall.
Patrick, young samurai.
- CD
Correspondents: Tom Masland, 1950-2005

Tom’s family was tremendously important to him. We talked often about our fathers and about his wife, Gina, and his three sons, who were always too far away from wherever it was that we were. And Tom loved his music -- his jazz -- playing it and writing about it with great talent and quiet excitement. When Tom ended his assignment in Africa and moved back to the States last summer, he was looking forward to the time he’d be spending with those other loves and lives. And then, on a rainy night on the Upper West Side earlier this week, Tom was hit by the mirror of a passing SUV. As Tom fell, his head struck the pavement. On Thursday night he died in hospital.
Tom’s funeral is Sunday, and there will probably be a memorial service this summer, a pig roast on Maryland’s Eastern Shore, which he would have loved and which will give a lot of us a chance to celebrate his life. One of our friends says his ashes probably will be scattered on the Cheasapeake, which is fitting. But I cannot think of Tom without thinking of blue ground, and imagining him among the rough diamonds that are found there. - CD
Following are links to Newsweek’s tributes to Tom Masland:
Journalist, Jazzman, Gentleman
Thomas Wootton Masland: 1950-2005
Nov. 7, 2005 issue - When our colleague Tom Masland stepped off the curb onto West End Avenue on the rainy night of Oct. 24, he had his funky little black bag over his left shoulder and his sax in a case in his right hand, and his life was about to end. He had just finished a gig at a Manhattan jazz club called Cleopatra's Needle, and was on his way to another performance downtown. In his day job, he had been a foreign correspondent and an editor for NEWSWEEK, occupations he had performed with such devotion and skill that many of us wouldn't know until he died how much else there was to him....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9862366/site/newsweek/
Highlights of Masland's Work:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9855425/site/newsweek/
Q&A: Masland on Life as a Correspondent
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9854851/site/newsweek/
Photos: On Assignment in Africa
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9855000/site/newsweek/
This is the conclusion of the Q&A after Tom was wounded in Liberia:
You have a wife and three kids; do you worry about going into these kinds of situations?
I do it extremely sparingly; I do the minimum of this kind of thing. And if I am going to do something like this, I get in and out. I don't work like the photographers. They really expose themselves to a lot more danger than I do. Obviously they have to get a clear line of sight for stuff that is happening, but, to me, it is worth it to witness what is actually happening because I see things that I wouldn't otherwise, in terms of the way Charles Taylor's fighters were performing. I got stuff I wouldn't have had by just going to hospitals to see the wounded brought in or taking another tack on covering this offensive. I mean, the effect on civilians is probably the most compelling aspect of the story, because the mortaring of these refugees who are packed into the other side of town was quite awful. But, at the same time, I felt I would gain something from going to and passing by the front there. So I thought it was worth taking a small risk, and I try to be very careful about it. There is a way of doing dangerous things carefully.
Photo by Louise Gubb
Shadowland Mail: Last Miller Missives
From Patty Gann
10/20/2005 3:00
Your article on the lessons learned from the miller story is one of the best articles i have read in a long time. you explained so much that i suspected but couldn't put all the pieces together.
i hope that you are wrong that americans don't want in-depth news. i sure want to be informed and most of my friends do also and we are continually frustrated by the lack of real news reported, especially on television. i'm am afraid of whats in store for our country's future if something doesn't change.
thanks again!
sincerely,
patty gann
From Gus Gonzales
Austin, TX
10/25/2005 12:04
Solid, prize-winning investigative reporting from the ground up. A critical mass of this kind of reporting could have slammed the brakes on the public's support for entering the war in 2002 and 2003. Bush and his legacy certainly will bear the weight of history for his mistakes. But he didn't do it alone. As a nation, America is ultimately responsible for the tragedy of good intentions that has been the Iraq War. We have reaped the bitter fruit of seeds sown years ago by our own insular minded arrogance, ignorance and pride. We stopped caring about the truth, preferring to proclaim it instead though the bombastic pronouncements of our leaders. They gave us what they thought would grant them power, and we went along. The mark of sin is upon all our heads. No one is innocent. And the judgment is meted out daily to those in Iraq who wear the uniform of our rapidly declining republic. They are in the Hell of our own making. For this, we have damned them, and ourselves, to ruin. This republic shall not soon last for the sins of its citizens. It will sleepwalk into its' own suicide. Millions of somnabulistic-minded Americans aid and abet the worst excesses of our political "leaders" when they demand simple answers to the big, complex, scary world out there. The sun has set on the American Dream. The languid moon soon rises over the American Nightmare, the sum of the nothingness in the national character, which once demanded truth to power. We will laugh ourselves into oblivion...
The original article:
Burning Questions
The Cannibalistic media frenzy over Judy Miller ignores the lessons we should be learning from here case. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9742110/site/newsweek/
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Mail: Keller, Miller et al
The role of New York Times reporter Judy Miller in the Plame affair continues to generate controversy. Just when you think the flames on her pyre are about to die down, someone – sometimes including Judy – does something to fan them back to life. At the end of the week, Times Editor Bill Keller sent a long e-mail to staffers. (See below.) Judy took umbrage at the word “entanglement,” among other things. I’m told she believes her reputation eventually will be vindicated because she spent 85 days in prison to stop the courts from launching a fishing expedition for her sources. You’ll recall that only Libby was identified. Our readers have some interesting things to say about that:
Colleagues,
As you can imagine, I've done a lot of thinking -- and a lot of listening -- on the subject of what I should have done differently in handling our reporter's entanglement in the White House leak investigation. Jill and John and I have talked a great deal among ourselves and with many of you, and while this is a discussion that will continue, we thought it would be worth taking a first cut at the lessons we have learned.
Aside from a number of occasions when I wish I had chosen my words more carefully, we've come up with a few points at which we wish we had made different decisions. These are instances, when viewed with the clarity of hindsight, where the mistakes carry lessons beyond the peculiar circumstances of this case.
I wish we had dealt with the controversy over our coverage of WMD as soon as I became executive editor. At the time, we thought we had compelling reasons for kicking the issue down the road. The paper had just been through a major trauma, the Jayson Blair episode, and needed to regain its equilibrium. It felt somehow unsavory to begin a tenure by attacking our predecessors. I was trying to get my arms around a huge new job, appoint my team, get the paper fully back to normal, and I feared the WMD issue could become a crippling distraction.
So it was a year before we got around to really dealing with the controversy. At that point, we published a long editors' note acknowledging the prewar journalistic lapses, and -- to my mind, at least as important - - we intensified aggressive reporting aimed at exposing the way bad or manipulated intelligence had fed the drive to war. (I'm thinking of our excellent investigation of those infamous aluminum tubes, the report on how the Iraqi National Congress recruited exiles to promote Saddam's WMD threat, our close look at the military's war-planning intelligence, and the dissection, one year later, of Colin Powell's U.N. case for the war, among other examples. The fact is sometimes overlooked that a lot of the best reporting on how this intel fiasco came about appeared in the NYT.)
By waiting a year to own up to our mistakes, we allowed the anger inside and outside the paper to fester. Worse, we fear, we fostered an impression that The Times put a higher premium on protecting its reporters than on coming clean with its readers. If we had lanced the WMD boil earlier, we might have damped any suspicion that THIS time, the paper was putting the defense of a reporter above the duty to its readers.
I wish that when I learned Judy Miller had been subpoenaed as a witness in the leak investigation, I had sat her down for a thorough debriefing, and followed up with some reporting of my own. It is a natural and proper instinct to defend reporters when the government seeks to interfere in our work. And under other circumstances it might have been fine to entrust the details -- the substance of the confidential interviews, the notes -- to lawyers who would be handling the case. But in this case I missed what should have been significant alarm bells. Until Fitzgerald came after her, I didn't know that Judy had been one of the reporters on the receiving end of the anti-Wilson whisper campaign. I should have wondered why I was learning this from the special counsel, a year after the fact. (In November of 2003 Phil Taubman tried to ascertain whether any of our correspondents had been offered similar leaks. As we reported last Sunday, Judy seems to have misled Phil Taubman about the extent of her involvement.) This alone should have been enough to make me probe deeper.
In the end, I'm pretty sure I would have concluded that we had to fight this case in court. For one thing, we were facing an insidious new menace in these blanket waivers, ostensibly voluntary, that Administration officials had been compelled to sign. But if I had known the details of Judy's entanglement with Libby, I'd have been more careful in how the paper articulated its defense, and perhaps more willing than I had been to support efforts aimed at exploring compromises.
Dick Stevenson has expressed the larger lesson here in an e-mail that strikes me as just right: "I think there is, or should be, a contract between the paper and its reporters. The contract holds that the paper will go to the mat to back them up institutionally -- but only to the degree that the reporter has lived up to his or her end of the bargain, specifically to have conducted him or herself in a way consistent with our legal, ethical and journalistic standards, to have been open and candid with the paper about sources, mistakes, conflicts and the like, and generally to deserve having the reputations of all of us put behind him or her. In that way, everybody knows going into a battle exactly what the situation is, what we're fighting for, the degree to which the facts might counsel compromise or not, and the degree to which our collective credibility should be put on the line."
I've heard similar sentiments from a number of reporters in the aftermath of this case.
There is another important issue surfaced by this case: how we deal with the inherent conflict of writing about ourselves. This paper (and, indeed, this business) has had way too much experience of that over the past few years. Almost everyone we've heard from on the staff appreciates that once we had agreed as an institution to defend Judy's source, it would have been wrong to expose her source in the paper. Even if our reporters had learned that information through their own enterprise, our publication of it would have been seen by many readers as authoritative -- as outing Judy's source in a backhanded way. Yet it is excruciating to withhold information of value to our readers, especially when rival publications are unconstrained. I don't yet see a clear-cut answer to this dilemma, but we've received some thoughtful suggestions from the staff, and it's one of the problems that we'll be wrestling with in the coming weeks.
Best, Bill
Some mail from readers:
From Kathy McMorrow
Santa Rosa CA
10/18/2005 6:55
My common sense tells me that Judith Miller is not a very good reporter, that she promised confidentiality to a source who didn't merit it and that the Administration manipulated her because they could and it served their ends. Protecting the confidentiality of a whistle-blower who speaks the truth to power is honorable; protecting the confidentiality of those in power who are abusing it to kill dissent is just plain dumb. Judith Miller and the NY Times were used as an instrument to keep the American public from knowing the truth. Nothing the paper or Miller has said since her contempt order was lifted makes me believe that they won't be duped again. PS. When I was in J-school, we got 50 points off for misspelling a name. Valerie Flame indeed!
From Guy Linn
Reston, Va.
10/19/2005 2:02
Thru almost five years of Bush, the press has been cowered into not asking the tough questions and in many cases are mere shills for the adminstration line. Judy Miller is unfortunatly the rule rather than the exception which does not inspire confidence in what we read now. This does not bode well for democracy.
From Ken Widaman
La Verne, CA
10/20/2005 11:50
The revelation (and resultant furor) of Robert Novak's original article on this subject led me to the conclusion that, "He's either a dupe or a shill." Dickey's article leads me to believe that Miller is both. Thank you for the insight into how very difficult it must be to maintain journalistic integrity when such minor intellects (dare I say "Media Whores"?) are rewarded in the marketplace.
From Anne Ward
Libertyville, IL
10/21/2005 2:44
That Judy Miller is the figure in the spotlight is a joke. Yes, she did a terrible job "reporting" the WMD story. She's got to live with the damage done to her reputation. However, the journalists who want to throw Miller on the pyre should instead focus on the real story - what did the administration know and when did they know it? Why on earth did we go to war in Iraq? The administration knew before Bush's 2003 State
of the Union address that Saddam's nuclear ambitions in Africa were naught. Yet those "16 words" still made it in, invoking a terrifying image of a madman with a nuclear arsenal. How can our intelligence community fail so hugely? What is being done to fix the intelligence problems that got us into this mess? Did the administration manipulate
evidence to make the case for war in Iraq? Why Iraq? Those questions are the ones that the media should be investigating relentlessly. Whether or not Judy is breaking a sweat over any of this is irrelevant.