The weapon design and arms control communities agree that it is not the capability to design a nuclear device that determines the pace of a country’s acquisition of a first weapon, but, rather, the availability of nuclear weapons materials that can be turned to weapons purposes. For a nation-state, the material for weapons can come from uranium enrichment plants (highly enriched uranium), or reactors and nuclear fuel reprocessing plants (plutonium), or both.
Regardless of its isotopic composition, the minimum amount of plutonium required to make a pure fission nuclear explosive, with a yield equivalent to one to 25 kilotons of chemical high explosives, is quite small, on the order of 1 to 3 kilograms (kg), with the exact amount depending on the level of design expertise and the desired nuclear explosive yield. The minimum amount of highly enriched uranium required is a few times larger—5 to 10kg.
While far from ideal for military applications, the isotopic composition of the plutonium typically produced in civil power reactors does not pose a serious obstacle to fabricating efficient and powerful weapons, as well as crude terrorist devices.
http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf
The proliferation of nuclear weapons is inextricably linked to nuclear power by a shared need for enriched uranium, and through the generation of plutonium as a by-product of spent nuclear fuel. The two industries have been linked since the very beginning and a nuclear weapons free world requires a non-nuclear energy policy. http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/information/info-sheets/briefings.html#nuclearpower
HOPE AND HYPE VS. REALITY IN NUCLEAR REACTOR COST
THE ECONOMICS OF NUCLEAR REACTORS:http://www.vermontlaw.edu/Documents/Cooper%20Report%20on%20Nuclear%20Economics%20FINAL%5B1%5D.pdf
Olmert: Israel must return to 1967 borders
(Haaretz)
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1036118.html
By Shahar Ilan and Nadav Shragai
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took advantage of yesterday's special Knesset marking the 13th anniversary of the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin to call for territorial withdrawals in all disputed areas and to denounce violence on the part of Jewish settlers. "We must give up Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem and return to the core of the territory that is the State of Israel prior to 1967, with minor corrections dictated by the reality created since then," he said.
"Many Israelis viciously beat up Palestinians seeking to harvest olives as they have for centuries, and there is no end [to it]. Young Israelis, smitten by messianic dreams, hit our soldiers, breaking their bones and threatening their lives, and no one stops them," Olmert said. "I will not permit this to continue," he promised. Olmert also said that, "Every government will need to tell the truth, which unfortunately will require us to tear out many parts of the homeland in Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights." Addressing the settlers, he said: "You, too, will have do carry out a moral reckoning and reach a decision." The National Union-National Religious Party Knesset whip Uri Ariel and fellow party MK Aryeh Eldad left the plenum in protest. "We cannot tolerate the fact that a failed prime minister, who is accused of corruption, uses the little free time he has left between police interviews to call for the destruction of the Jewish settlement enterprise in Israel," Eldad said. Likud whip Gideon Sa'ar accused Olmert of "cynically exploiting a state ceremony for a political speech in the spirit of the extreme left." Three hours earlier, Foreign Minister and Kadima Chairwoman Tzipi Livni told a meeting of party MKs that "the murder of a prime minister in Israel must not be a subject of political disputes. [Rabin] was the prime minister of us all." Yesterday was the last day of deliberations in the Knesset plenum before the election hiatus. Party whips postponed the dissolution of the Knesset session by a few days in order to hold the Rabin memorial. The denunciation of attacks by Jewish settlers on Israel Defense Forces soldiers and pointed criticism of the media for conducting interviews with Rabin's killer, Yigal Amir, dominated yesterday's Knesset deliberations. "We cannot tolerate the calls being heard today to hurt the prime minister or IDF soldiers. We will take immediate action against lawbreakers and inciters," opposition leader and Likud Chairman MK Benjamin Netanyahu told the Knesset. Knesset Speaker MK Dalia Itzik (Labor) said she was astonished by the competition between the television networks over broadcasting the interview with Amir. "The name of the despicable murderer must not be mentioned among us," Itzik said. "This is not an issue of freedom of expression, rather it's an attempt by the murderer to win legitimacy. Let him rot in prison, don't give him a stage, throw him into the garbage pail of history." In large measure Olmert's Knesset speech yesterday echoed his remarks at the state memorial for Rabin earlier in the day at Jerusalem's Mt. Herzl, where Rabin is buried. He called for giving up Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and returning to the 1967 borders, with slight amendments. "We have no choice but to give up, with great torment, parts of our homeland of which we dreamed for generations of yearning and prayers," Olmert said. "For a generation an increasingly sharp disagreement has been raging in Israel over what should be here. Since the murder the dispute has only become fiercer. "Rabin was not thrilled about the decision, he was tormented before Oslo, he hesitated about the agreement and was filled with doubt even after making a decision - not out of illusions or false hopes - but rather he decided to go in a direction that more and more people today are willing to accept," Olmert said. President Shimon Peres addressed recent settler violence in his remarks at Mt. Herzl. "There is a small minority of reckless, unrestrained people who boldly defy the state's authority, attack Palestinians just for being Palestinian and challenge the law-enforcement mechanisms that, among others, protect them, too. "We must isolate and expel this violent and dangerous minority," Peres added, "and we mustn't be silent in the face of their incitement. We cannot tolerate the acts of vandalism and violence. It is as though they are a state within a state. It is the responsibility of the state to carry out justice without fear - the honor of Israel and the strength of its democracy and lawfulness depends on it."
Senator Lieberman, Former Democratic VP Candidate now McCain pusher talking about Sarah Palin yesterday:"Thank God, she's not gonna have to be president from day one, because McCain's going to be alive and well," Lieberman said in a conference call with reporters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/25/lieberman-on-palin-thank_n_137769.html
For Pennsylvania And Particularly Philadelphia:
I received an email saying that some people have not received their Absentee Ballots in the mail. Anyone who is going to be out of town on Election Day can go to Room 142 in City Hall and submit his/her absentee ballot on the spot. They don't have to go through the process of waiting for the ballot to come back in the mail. (County Board of Elections: 215-686-3469 or 215-686-3943) Bring acceptable I.D. Acceptable I.D. from http://votespa.com/HowtoVote/GuideforFirstTimeVoters/tabid/77/language/en-US/Default.aspx: Pennsylvania driver's license or PennDOT ID card ID issued by any Commonwealth agency ID issued by the U.S. Government U.S. passport U.S. Armed Forces ID Student ID Employee ID
If you do not have a photo ID, you can use a non-photo identification that includes your name and address. Approved forms of non-photo identification include:Confirmation issued by the County Voter Registration Office Non-photo ID issued by the Commonwealth Non-photo ID issued by the U.S. Government Firearm permit Current utility bill Current bank statement Current paycheck Government check
There are special provisions for people who miss the deadlines as well as military personnel.
(Reference: http://votespa.com/HowtoVote/VotingbyAbsenteeBallot/tabid/78/language/en-US/Default.aspx) Absentee Ballot Applications must be received by the Board of Elections by 5 p.m. on October 28th. Absentee Ballots must be received by the Board of Elections by 5:00 PM on October 31st. Postmarks are NOT honored; applications must be in the office before the deadline. (See: http://www.phillyelection.com/abeng.htm) The mailing address for Philadelphia County on the state's two websites is incorrect. The correct address, which is printed on the Absentee Ballot forms from the Philadelphia Board of Elections is: Philadelphia County Board of ElectionsRoom 142 City HallPhiladelphia, PA 19107-3211 For additional help, please see this website: https://www.myfamilyvotes.com/Absentee_Ballot.html. Further instructions at https://www.myfamilyvotes.com/Ab.html. (Thank you, Emma Tramble.) First-time voters and those who have moved should confirm that they are registered to vote by searching Pennsylvania's voter registration database. You also can confirm your registration by contacting your County Board of Elections (County Board of Elections: 215-686-3469 or 215-686-3943) or by calling 1-877-VOTESPA. Print out an Absentee Ballot Application here:
https://www.myfamilyvotes.com/uploads/absentee_ballot_application_for_PA.pdf (Reference: http://votespa.com/HowtoVote/VotingbyAbsenteeBallot/tabid/78/language/en-US/Default.aspx)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?_r=1&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all Editorial
Barack Obama for President
Published: October 23, 2008
Hyperbole is the currency of presidential campaigns, but this year the nation's future truly hangs in the balance.The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush's failed leadership. He is saddling his successor with two wars, a scarred global image and a government systematically stripped of its ability to protect and help its citizens — whether they are fleeing a hurricane's floodwaters, searching for affordable health care or struggling to hold on to their homes, jobs, savings and pensions in the midst of a financial crisis that was foretold and preventable.As tough as the times are, the selection of a new president is easy. After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proved that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States.•Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change. He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation's problems.In the same time, Senator John McCain of Arizona has retreated farther and farther to the fringe of American politics, running a campaign on partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism. His policies and worldview are mired in the past. His choice of a running mate so evidently unfit for the office was a final act of opportunism and bad judgment that eclipsed the accomplishments of 26 years in Congress.Given the particularly ugly nature of Mr. McCain's campaign, the urge to choose on the basis of raw emotion is strong. But there is a greater value in looking closely at the facts of life in America today and at the prescriptions the candidates offer. The differences are profound. Mr. McCain offers more of the Republican every-man-for-himself ideology, now lying in shards on Wall Street and in Americans' bank accounts. Mr. Obama has another vision of government's role and responsibilities. In his convention speech in Denver, Mr. Obama said, "Government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves: protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology."Since the financial crisis, he has correctly identified the abject failure of government regulation that has brought the markets to the brink of collapse.The EconomyThe American financial system is the victim of decades of Republican deregulatory and anti-tax policies. Those ideas have been proved wrong at an unfathomable price, but Mr. McCain — a self-proclaimed "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution" — is still a believer. Mr. Obama sees that far-reaching reforms will be needed to protect Americans and American business.Mr. McCain talks about reform a lot, but his vision is pinched. His answer to any economic question is to eliminate pork-barrel spending — about $18 billion in a $3 trillion budget — cut taxes and wait for unfettered markets to solve the problem. Mr. Obama is clear that the nation's tax structure must be changed to make it fairer. That means the well-off Americans who have benefited disproportionately from Mr. Bush's tax cuts will have to pay some more. Working Americans, who have seen their standard of living fall and their children's options narrow, will benefit. Mr. Obama wants to raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation, restore a climate in which workers are able to organize unions if they wish and expand educational opportunities.Mr. McCain, who once opposed President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy as fiscally irresponsible, now wants to make them permanent. And while he talks about keeping taxes low for everyone, his proposed cuts would overwhelmingly benefit the top 1 percent of Americans while digging the country into a deeper fiscal hole.National SecurityThe American military — its people and equipment — is dangerously overstretched. Mr. Bush has neglected the necessary war in Afghanistan, which now threatens to spiral into defeat. The unnecessary and staggeringly costly war in Iraq must be ended as quickly and responsibly as possible.While Iraq's leaders insist on a swift drawdown of American troops and a deadline for the end of the occupation, Mr. McCain is still taking about some ill-defined "victory." As a result, he has offered no real plan for extracting American troops and limiting any further damage to Iraq and its neighbors. Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq, and he has presented a military and diplomatic plan for withdrawing American forces. Mr. Obama also has correctly warned that until the Pentagon starts pulling troops out of Iraq, there will not be enough troops to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, has only belatedly focused on Afghanistan's dangerous unraveling and the threat that neighboring Pakistan may quickly follow.Mr. Obama would have a learning curve on foreign affairs, but he has already showed sounder judgment than his opponent on these critical issues. His choice of Senator Joseph Biden — who has deep foreign-policy expertise — as his running mate is another sign of that sound judgment. Mr. McCain's long interest in foreign policy and the many dangers this country now faces make his choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska more irresponsible.Both presidential candidates talk about strengthening alliances in Europe and Asia, including NATO, and strongly support Israel. Both candidates talk about repairing America's image in the world. But it seems clear to us that Mr. Obama is far more likely to do that — and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world.Mr. Obama wants to reform the United Nations, while Mr. McCain wants to create a new entity, the League of Democracies — a move that would incite even fiercer anti-American furies around the world. Unfortunately, Mr. McCain, like Mr. Bush, sees the world as divided into friends (like Georgia) and adversaries (like Russia). He proposed kicking Russia out of the Group of 8 industrialized nations even before the invasion of Georgia. We have no sympathy for Moscow's bullying, but we also have no desire to replay the cold war. The United States must find a way to constrain the Russians' worst impulses, while preserving the ability to work with them on arms control and other vital initiatives.Both candidates talk tough on terrorism, and neither has ruled out military action to end Iran's nuclear weapons program. But Mr. Obama has called for a serious effort to try to wean Tehran from its nuclear ambitions with more credible diplomatic overtures and tougher sanctions. Mr. McCain's willingness to joke about bombing Iran was frightening. The Constitution and the Rule of LawUnder Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the justice system and the separation of powers have come under relentless attack. Mr. Bush chose to exploit the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, the moment in which he looked like the president of a unified nation, to try to place himself above the law. Mr. Bush has arrogated the power to imprison men without charges and browbeat Congress into granting an unfettered authority to spy on Americans. He has created untold numbers of "black" programs, including secret prisons and outsourced torture. The president has issued hundreds, if not thousands, of secret orders. We fear it will take years of forensic research to discover how many basic rights have been violated.Both candidates have renounced torture and are committed to closing the prison camp in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.But Mr. Obama has gone beyond that, promising to identify and correct Mr. Bush's attacks on the democratic system. Mr. McCain has been silent on the subject.Mr. McCain improved protections for detainees. But then he helped the White House push through the appalling Military Commissions Act of 2006, which denied detainees the right to a hearing in a real court and put Washington in conflict with the Geneva Conventions, greatly increasing the risk to American troops. The next president will have the chance to appoint one or more justices to a Supreme Court that is on the brink of being dominated by a radical right wing. Mr. Obama may appoint less liberal judges than some of his followers might like, but Mr. McCain is certain to pick rigid ideologues. He has said he would never appoint a judge who believes in women's reproductive rights.The Candidates It will be an enormous challenge just to get the nation back to where it was before Mr. Bush, to begin to mend its image in the world and to restore its self-confidence and its self-respect. Doing all of that, and leading America forward, will require strength of will, character and intellect, sober judgment and a cool, steady hand.Mr. Obama has those qualities in abundance. Watching him being tested in the campaign has long since erased the reservations that led us to endorse Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primaries. He has drawn in legions of new voters with powerful messages of hope and possibility and calls for shared sacrifice and social responsibility. Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing. His righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians.He surrendered his standing as an independent thinker in his rush to embrace Mr. Bush's misbegotten tax policies and to abandon his leadership position on climate change and immigration reform.Mr. McCain could have seized the high ground on energy and the environment. Earlier in his career, he offered the first plausible bill to control America's emissions of greenhouse gases. Now his positions are a caricature of that record: think Ms. Palin leading chants of "drill, baby, drill."Mr. Obama has endorsed some offshore drilling, but as part of a comprehensive strategy including big investments in new, clean technologies. •Mr. Obama has withstood some of the toughest campaign attacks ever mounted against a candidate. He's been called un-American and accused of hiding a secret Islamic faith. The Republicans have linked him to domestic terrorists and questioned his wife's love of her country. Ms. Palin has also questioned millions of Americans' patriotism, calling Republican-leaning states "pro-America."This politics of fear, division and character assassination helped Mr. Bush drive Mr. McCain from the 2000 Republican primaries and defeat Senator John Kerry in 2004. It has been the dominant theme of his failed presidency. The nation's problems are simply too grave to be reduced to slashing "robo-calls" and negative ads. This country needs sensible leadership, compassionate leadership, honest leadership and strong leadership. Barack Obama has shown that he has all of those qualities.
Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming Because of Nuclear Mutagenesis. Watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4397307903287515932
Nuclear Power Is Contraindicated as a Solution to Global Warming Because of Excessive Cost: "When it comes to nuclear power specifically, every dollar invested in new US nuclear electricity will save approximately 2-11 times less carbon, and will do so roughly 20-40 times slower, than investing in the same dollar in energy efficiency and "micropower" (cogeneration plus renewables minus big hydro dams). Buying new nuclear capacity instead of efficiency causes more carbon to be released than spending the same money on new coal plants!
"These conclusions and the empirical evidence supporting them are summarized in "Forget Nuclear," and fully documented in "The Nuclear Illusion," available for download here, which is to be published in early 2009 by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences' journal Ambio. (courtesy of rmi.org)
Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming Program has said, "Switching from coal to nukes is like giving up smoking and taking up crack."
Here is the Natural Resources Defense Council's position on Nuclear Power: http://nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf.
Make a small statement. Join our My.BarackObama.com group, Nuclear Power?, here:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower
Barack Obama is a man of integrity. Our belief is that when all the facts about nuclear power are presented to him clearly, that he will reject it as an option.
The large utilities eager to build nuclear power plants are now suddenly pressing Congress about global warming. Very convenient. But is nuclear power a solution for the problem of global warming? Hmmm, No.
1)Nuclear power plants are too expensive to build. The nuclear power industry refuses to accept responsibility for the unique risks of nuclear power and demands massive federal subsidies so that they can rake in profits on their suspect investments. To quote the Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org) position on nuclear power: "Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. The power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change." Quoting the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC): "Our national electricity needs could be met, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent or more, through a combination of increased energy efficiency, wind power, solar power, advanced coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage, and high-efficiency natural gas turbines."
2)Nuclear power is extremely unsafe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has acknowledged in a reference document "that early containment failure cannot be ruled out with high confidence for any of the plants." Even with the most technologically advanced checks and safeties, eventually some critical part of everything man makes fails. If an explosion occurs at a gas-fired or coal-fired plant, this is not good. But if a nuclear reactor melts down and breaks through its containment vessel, we have at least a regional catastrophe. Large areas of necessary habitable land are rendered uninhabitable, and people die of radiation-caused cancer.
3)To again quote the Rocky Mountain Institute's position on nuclear power: "Nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal."
4)Quoting the NRDC: "Plutonium is a normal by-product of electricity production in conventional reactors. Thus, the same reactors and fuel-processing facilities that are used for energy production can also be used for the manufacture of weapons." "Perhaps the most serious of all the problems that would be exacerbated by dramatically increasing global nuclear capacity is the threat of nuclear proliferation."
Join our My.BarackObama.com group, Nuclear Power?, here: http://my.barackobama.com/page/group/NuclearPower
From The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/world/middleeast/30olmert.html?hp
Olmert Says Israel Should Pull Out of West Bank
By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: September 29, 2008
JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published on Monday that Israel must withdraw from nearly all the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem to attain peace with the Palestinians and that any occupied land it held onto would have to be exchanged for the same quantity of Israeli territory.
He also dismissed as “megalomania” any thought that Israel would or should attack Iran on its own to stop it from developing nuclear weapons, saying the international community and not Israel alone was charged with handling the issue.
In an unusually frank and soul-searching interview granted after he resigned to fight corruption charges — he remains interim prime minister until a new government is sworn in — Mr. Olmert discarded longstanding Israeli defense doctrine and called for radical new thinking in words that are sure to stir controversy as his expected successor, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, tries to build a coalition.
“What I am saying to you now has not been said by any Israeli leader before me,” Mr. Olmert told Yediot Aharonot newspaper in the interview to mark the Jewish new year that runs from Monday night till Wednesday night. “The time has come to say these things.”
He said traditional Israeli defense strategists had learned nothing from past experiences and seemed stuck in the considerations of the 1948 Independence War.
“With them, it is all about tanks and land and controlling territories and controlled territories and this hilltop and that hilltop,” he said. “All these things are worthless.”
He added, “Who thinks seriously that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred meters, that this is what will make the difference for the State of Israel’s basic security?”
Over the last year, Mr. Olmert has publicly castigated himself for his earlier right-wing views and he did so again in this interview. On Jerusalem, for example, he said, “I am the first who wanted to enforce Israeli sovereignty on the entire city. I admit it. I am not trying to justify retroactively what I did for 35 years. For a large portion of these years, I was unwilling to look at reality in all its depth.”
He said that maintaining sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem, Israel’s official policy, would involve bringing 270,000 Palestinians inside Israel’s security barrier. It would mean an ongoing risk of terrorist attacks against civilians like those carried out earlier this year by Jerusalem Palestinian residents with a bulldozer and earth mover.
“A decision has to be made,” he said. “This decision is difficult, terrible, a decision that contradicts our natural instincts, our innermost desires, our collective memories, the prayers of the Jewish people for 2,000 years.”
The government’s public stand on Jerusalem until now has been to assert that the status of the city was not under discussion. But Mr. Olmert made clear that the eastern, predominantly Arab, sector had to be yielded “with special solutions” for the holy sites.
On peace with the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert said in the interview: “We face the need to decide but are not willing to tell ourselves, yes, this is what we have to do. We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the territories, if not all the territories. We will leave a percentage of these territories in our hands, but will have to give the Palestinians a similar percentage, because without that there will be no peace.”
Elsewhere in the interview, when discussing a land swap with the Palestinians, he said the exchange would have to be “more or less one to one.”
Mr. Olmert also addressed the question of Syria, saying that Israel had to be prepared to give up the Golan Heights but that in turn Damascus knew it had to change the nature of its relationship with Iran and its support for Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia.
On Iran, Mr. Olmert said Israel would act within the international system, adding, “Part of our megalomania and our loss of proportions is the things that are said here about Iran. We are a country that has lost a sense of proportion about itself.”
Reaction from the Israeli right was swift. Avigdor Lieberman, who heads the Yisrael Beiteinu party, said on the radio that Mr. Olmert was “endangering the existence of the State of Israel irresponsibly.”
He added that those who thought Israel’s problem was a lack of defined borders — as Mr. Olmert stated in the interview — “are ignoramuses who don’t understand anything and they invite war.”
As they reacted to Mr. Olmert’s remarks, Palestinian negotiators said it was satisfying to hear Mr. Olmert’s words but they said the words did not match what he had offered them so far. Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior Palestinian official, told Palestinian Radio that it would have been better if Mr. Olmert had taken this position while in office rather than while leaving it and that Mr. Olmert had not yet presented a detailed plan for a border between Israel and a Palestinian state.
In theory, Mr. Olmert will continue peace negotiations while awaiting the new government. But most analysts believe that, having been forced to resign his post, he will not be able to close a deal.
When Refusing to Kill Has a Higher Sentence Than Murder
9-20-08
by Ann Wright
Ann Wright is a retired US Army Reserves colonel with 29 years of military service. She also was a US diplomat who served in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Mongolia. She was on the small team that reopened the US Embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, in December 2001. She resigned from the US diplomatic corps in March 2003 in opposition to the Bush administration's decision to invade and occupy Iraq. She is the co-author of "Dissent: Voices of Conscience," profiles of government insiders who have spoken and acted on their concerns of their governments' policies.
http://www.truthout.org/article/when-refusing-kill-has-a-higher-sentence-than-murder
Meanwhile:
Nuclear Power is not a good option.
“A widely heralded view holds that nuclear power is experiencing a dramatic worldwide revival and vibrant growth, because it’s competitive, necessary, reliable, secure, and vital for fuel security and climate protection.
“That’s all false. In fact, nuclear power is continuing its decades-long collapse in the global marketplace because it’s grossly uncompetitive, unneeded, and obsolete—so hopelessly uneconomic that one needn’t debate whether it’s clean and safe; it weakens electric reliability and national security; and it worsens climate change compared with devoting the same money and time to more effective options.
“Yet the more decisively nuclear power is humbled by swifter and cheaper rivals, the more zealously its advocates claim it has to serious competitors. The web of old fictions ingeniously spun by a coordinated and intensive global campaign is spread by a credulous press” and boosted by the new nuclear enthusiasts.
http://rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E08-01_AmbioNucIllusion.pdf
Global warming from the carbon in coal, all the other air pollution from coal burning, and the destruction of Montana, Wyoming and Appalachia are all a part of a steamroller bearing down on us, one that if we act and act now, we can dodge to a fair degree. But there will soon be a worse steamroller bearing down on us if you and I let it happen. A planet so poisoned with radioactivity that all life will be sickly.
Nuclear Power is a dinosaur. But not just any dinosaur. It is unsafe, and it is too expensive. And during the nuclear cycle, plutonium for nuclear weapons is produced.
Regardless of the steady propaganda recently pumped into the major media outlets by the nuclear power industry, nuclear power’s time is past. Come on over to our side. We currently are staring at 2 steamrollers, and nuclear power apologists would have their steamroller BIGGER??
Barack Obama is a man of integrity. Our belief is that when all the facts about nuclear power are presented to him clearly, that he will reject it as an option. The large utilities eager to build nuclear power plants are now suddenly pressing Congress about global warming. Very convenient. But is nuclear power a solution for the problem of global warming? Hmmm, No. 1)Nuclear power plants are too expensive to build. The nuclear power industry refuses to accept responsibility for the unique risks of nuclear power and demands massive federal subsidies so that they can rake in profits on their suspect investments. To quote the Rocky Mountain Institute (rmi.org) position on nuclear power: “Contrary to an argument nuclear apologists have recently taken to making, nuclear power isn't a good way to curb climate change. True, nukes don't produce carbon dioxide—but the power they produce is so expensive that the same money invested in efficiency or even natural-gas-fired power plants would offset much more climate change.” Quoting the Natural Resources Defense Council(NRDC): "Our national electricity needs could be met, while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent or more, through a combination of increased energy efficiency, wind power, solar power, advanced coal-fired plants with carbon capture and storage, and high-efficiency natural gas turbines." 2)Nuclear power is extremely unsafe. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has acknowledged in a reference document “that early containment failure cannot be ruled out with high confidence for any of the plants.” Even with the most technologically advanced checks and safeties, eventually some critical part of everything man makes fails. If an explosion occurs at a gas-fired or coal-fired plant, this is not good. But if a nuclear reactor melts down and breaks through its containment vessel, we have at least a regional catastrophe. Large areas of necessary habitable land are rendered uninhabitable, and people die of radiation-caused cancer. 3)To again quote the Rocky Mountain Institute's position on nuclear power: "Nuclear power poses significant problems of radioactive waste disposal." 4)Quoting the NRDC: "Plutonium is a normal by-product of electricity production in conventional reactors. Thus, the same reactors and fuel-processing facilities that are used for energy production can also be used for the manufacture of weapons." "Perhaps the most serious of all the problems that would be exacerbated by dramatically increasing global nuclear capacity is the threat of nuclear proliferation."
Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's Global Warming Program said, "Switching from coal to nukes is like giving up smoking and taking up crack."
Here is the NRDC's position on Nuclear Power: http://nrdc.org/nuclear/power/power.pdf.
Make a small statement. Join our My.BarackObama.comgroup, Nuclear Power?, here:
Who are we?
by Dorothy in Rural MO
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/dorothy75/gG5z3z
Who the hell ARE we? What have we become? What have we allowed this nation to become? Originally American companies, who now give no allegiance to ANY nation, but have bought our Congress and our military off, have become who we are abroad - and that is frightening...
This week, I have listened to a variety of reports, none boding well for the US...
That Trent Lott, and crew, are attempting to BLOCK Ecuador's lawsuit to force Chevron to clean up the god-awful environmental disaster that they left behind..
That the Congress EXEMPTED Chevron from trade sanctions on companies doing business in Burma, thus supporting, directly or indirectly, another military dictatorship..
That Congress basically bailed out Freddie Mac to prevent China from chucking the dollar;
That the top 1/2 of 1% now own some 22% of the nation's wealth, while the BOTTOM 90% only own 4%- so where's the other 72%? (I suspect it is NOT in the US)
That more Americans are 'food insecure' (read one paycheck from hungry) while commodities speculators are 'making a killing' - god, I HATE that phrase... while millions around the world are facing outright starvation - not always because it's not available but because it's overpriced...
AND that corporate America is on the warpath, frightening their employees with dire tales of what will happen if Obama gets elected (but they're NOT trying to influence the vote) - PUH-LEEZE....
I've read Kinzer's OVERTHROWN; I've read Confessions of an Economic Hit Man; I've read FREE LUNCH; I've even read some of Milton and Thomas Friedman's nightmare economics theories - and they DID give us nightmares, not to mention, Pinochet and crew - oh, boy, I really want to repeat THAT horror!
We have military bases in over 130 countries - why? To protect corporate profits? That is not the way to win friends... it is the road to exploitation and oppression. And we wonder why the world hates our government? DUH...
We have been too willing to sell our military to protect the profits of companies that have left us high and dry, that have moved jobs to the cheapest labor market, that have 'externalized' their filth onto indigenous populations here and elsewhere; that don't pay taxes here; that will sell us out in a heartbeat on any excuse and then blame US.
How do we repair the damage our 'free trade' reign of terror has wrought on the poorest and most vulnerable across the world? How do we help the democratic movements that we have helped quash in the name of trade? How do we rebuild sustainable alliances that are actually based on MUTUAL respect and benefit? How do we become something OTHER THAN the biggest bully on the block?
Until Obama came along, I was pretty convinced that the US had BECOME "the evil empire". While he is certainly a statesman, and will not make everyone happy all the time, at least the tenor and timbre of his language says that we must, once again, become good, responsible and responsive world citizens. That if we have been blessed with more, we must be more responsible for helping those with less - because we MADE our more on their less... Good world citizens... what a concept.
Negotiating with Iran is maddening, but bombing would be a catastrophe
US military posturing towards Tehran lacks credibility and, in any case, such action would fail in all its purposes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/04/iran.usa
Max Hastings. The Guardian, August 4, 2008
The favoured season for launching wars used to come when the harvest had been gathered. This year, there is talk of an Israeli strike against Iran in November or December, when it would no longer embarrass the US election process but George Bush will still be in the White House during the presidential transition.
Last year, following a US intelligence submission which stated that Iran was not actively pursuing the creation of atomic weapons, a direct American attack on the country's nuclear facilities became implausible - and remains so. But Jerusalem and Washington are talking seriously about a possible Israeli strike, for which American collusion would be indispensable.
In Washington at the weekend, Shaul Mofaz, Israel's deputy defence minister and a candidate for the premiership, said of negotiations to halt Iran's nuclear programme: "It's a race against time, and time is winning." He repeated the familiar Israeli warning that Iran's possession of nuclear weapons would be "unacceptable".
Optimists welcomed last month's meeting in Geneva, at which the US under-secretary of state, William Burns, met Iranian delegates. This was the highest level contact for decades between the two nations. Yet there remains no sign of Iranian retreat from its longstanding position, that it is entitled to maintain a uranium enrichment programme. Pessimists fear that the Burns trip was designed to highlight Tehran's intractability, in advance of military action.
Last month, Tehran announced that it now possesses 6,000 centrifuges, a dramatic increase in its last declared figure. This was probably an exaggeration for negotiating purposes, but gives no comfort at all to the UN, the EU or anybody else seeking signs of a breakthrough towards a deal.
Most Europeans would like to hear their new American idol, Barack Obama, warn the Israelis against undertaking military action against Iran. Even if Obama does not yet sit in the White House, no Jerusalem government could lightly defy America's likely next president on an issue of such gravity.
But no man who wants to win a US election dares to qualify his support for Israel. Obama's statements during his brief visit to the country last month were indistinguishable from those of Bush. There seem grounds for anticipating that Obama may be less radical, more indulgent towards Israel, than visionaries suppose. A McCain administration, meanwhile, would merely pick up where Bush leaves off.
There is no doubt about the desire of both the Israeli and US governments to destroy Iran's nuclear plants by force. Two years ago, a Washington political guru suggested to me that Bush's last months would be the time to watch, when he became obsessed with his legacy. "Solving" the Iran nuclear issue, said my friend, would be foremost in Bush's mind. So, indeed, it seems today.
The best prospect of averting this disaster - and, of course, many of us would perceive it as such - lies in the intractable practical difficulties. The US military has briefed the president that, with most of Iran's facilities underground, only nuclear bunker-busting bombs offer a real prospect of achieving their destruction.
It remains hard to believe that the US could countenance the use of such weapons, by their own aircraft or those of the Israelis. Conventional bombs could inflict some damage. A limited attack would demonstrate Israel's ability to strike at will if the Iranians persist with their programme.
But the economic and political costs of such an exhibition of force would be appalling. Oil prices would soar to dizzier heights. Any possibility of dialogue between Iran and the west would vanish for years to come. The Iranians would probably fulfil their threat, to retaliate with terrorist action against US interests worldwide. Former US air force colonel Sam Gardiner, a respected military analyst, suggests that bombing Iran "would be unlikely to yield the results American policymakers do want, and ... likely to yield results that they do not".
The Iranian government may be reckless - even fanatical - but it is not mad. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have assuredly made these calculations for themselves. The US is seeking to behave with the outward assurance of a superpower, while crippled by its difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US wishes to bestride the Middle East as an armoured knight, but its foes know that beneath the plates it is bleeding badly.
The Iranians appear to be gambling that, at the last ditch, the US will flinch from taking military action, or from allowing Israel to do so, because the costs would be unacceptably high. The implacable unhelpfulness of Russia and China about western purposes towards Tehran strengthens Iranian resolve. Moscow and Beijing have no more desire than the Americans to see Iran possess nuclear weapons. But they both gain satisfaction from Washington's embarrassments, and from strengthening their own influence in the Middle East at American expense.
However deep is European distaste for the Bush administration, for the Iraq war and for the excesses of Israeli policy, it seems important not to lose sight of some basics. The Tehran government aspires to regional hegemony, which it would be unlikely to exercise in an enlightened fashion. Iran is an exceptionally nasty elective dictatorship that denies freedoms and represses human rights, not least those of women. It is deplorable that Israel and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons, but the world will become an even less safe place if Iran also acquires them. Its desire to do so seems hard to dispute, even if doubts persist about its proximity to fulfilment.
Thus, America's fundamental objective deserves endorsement, which it receives from the UN and the EU through their backing for sanctions. The difficulty, as usual, is that so many issues are entwined - Iraq and Israel foremost among them. Lawrence Freedman has just published a new book, A Choice of Enemies, in which he examines America's relationship with the Middle East over the past 30 years. His conclusion is that today's problems stretch beyond anything that can be dignified as solutions. They can only be "managed or endured".
This is unspectacular, but seems right. The folly of American military posturing towards Iran is its absence of credibility. That is to say, no one doubts Bush's executive power to launch an air attack, or sanction the Israelis to do so. However, it is evident to all but the neocons and some dangerous people in Jerusalem that such action must fail in its purposes, making matters worse rather than better.
The dreadful Bibi Netanyahu, who may soon again become Israel's prime minister, declared that 9/11 was "good for Israel", and so from his viewpoint it was. It left the Muslim world almost friendless in the US, and increased the readiness of Americans to perceive the Israelis as comrades in arms against a common enemy.
Yet the fallout from a putative Israeli attack on Iran - and I hope I am right to use the word only figuratively - should cause even post-Bush Americans to perceive that this is no way to order the world. Negotiating with the Iranians is a maddening and frustrating business. But bombing them would be a catastrophe for us all. Many fingers will need to be tightly crossed between now and next January.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25835684#25835684
Maliki Endorses Obama Timeline in Huge Blow for McCain, Bush
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tom-hayden/maliki-endorses-obama-tim_b_113845.html
In a stunning diplomatic breakthrough for Barack Obama, Iraq's prime minister yesterday endorsed the Democratic candidate's 16-month timeline for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki endorsed the Obama approach in a July 18 interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, just as President Bush and Sen. John McCain were touting a vague new commitment to a "horizon" for withdrawal. The New York Times did not report the Maliki statement in its July 19 edition.
Uncertainty about Maliki's surprise statement persists since his top political spokesman told the Times only one week ago that troop withdrawals would take three to five years, if not longer. [NYT, July 11]. The number of American troops he would request as counter-terrrorism units, trainers and advisers could be tens of thousands.
But as Obama's plane touched down in Afghanistan, Maliki's comments were having a far-reaching effect on the war and presidential politics, with the Maliki government withdrawing from George Bush and making McCain appear foolish.
This could be the "Philippine option" predicted in Ending the War in Iraq, in which the US arranged behind the scenes for the Manila government to request the departure of the American fleet. While the sequencing may be accidental, it appears that the Obama forces could reap a windfall. Obama will seem more successful than Bush in managing the last stages of the war, depriving McCain of the claim to superior foreign policy experience. Obama's imminent arrival in Baghdad could seem like a victory lap in the foreign policy "primary."
Why would Maliki break so sharply with his long-time US partner in the White House? Are the Iraqis more adept at playing American politics than the White House is?
As noted before at this site, Iraqi public opinion -- Shi'a and Sunni -- strongly favors a deadline for American troop withdrawal. The provincial elections to be held later this year [at the insistence of the US] will produce victories for candidates who demand ending the occupation, both in Sunni areas like Anbar and Mahdi Army areas like Sadr City. Maliki's coalition must appear to stand for Iraqi sovereignty and the departure of US forces.
Somewhere in the background is Iran with its strong ties to the entire Shi'a community in Iraq. The Iranian interest is in keeping Shi'a factions unified in a demand that the US troops and bases are folding up and returning home. Iran believes that a retreating US will be less able to strike from positions of strength on the ground if a US-Iran conflict takes place.
Besides Iran and the Shi'a bloc, the big winners in this scenario would be the multinational oil companies now subtly assuring themselves access to Iraq's oilfields after thirty years of absence. The Bush Administration could mask defeat in claims of "mission accomplished", perhaps with garlands of flowers provided by Maliki at a joint ceremony.
Though genuine peace would a blessing, the real losers stand to be the Sunni minority which is the backbone of the insurgency, and the long-suffering Shi'a poor in Sadr City whose social-economic needs are little recognized by the dominant Shi'a party. In the region's geo-politics, Saudi Arabia would be angered at the rise of greater Shi'a and Iranian power in potentially competitive oil fields. And despite their alarm about Iran's nuclear plans, Israel would welcome an Iraq shorn of its power in the Sunni world.
As for al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, they could claim a victory in helping drive the American forces out of Iraq, but their narrow public support would shrink further if Iraqis recover sovereignty. A loophole in the Obama plan, certainly endorsed by Maliki, would allow American counter-terrorism units to go after alleged al-Qaeda units operating in Iraq as US combat forces draw down.
The huge "if" hovering over this sudden development is simply whether the Bush Administration can force Maliki to back down from his statement, or at least retreat from going further.Here is Maliki's statement, delivered as Obama's visit to the region was beginning:
Whoever is thinking about the shorter term [for withdrawal] is closer to reality. Artificially extending the stay of U.S. troops would cause problems... As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned... Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic... Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.
Tom Hayden is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [2007].
Frozen provincial minds and their missiles
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13kristof.html
Obama Gets Help From Iraq's Prime Minister and from the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
It's been a good week for Sen. Barack Obama. National security is the one area where his opponent, Sen. John McCain, holds an advantage in the polls. Yet on the two most contentious security issues—Iran and Iraq—Obama's views have now been endorsed by two of the most unassailably authoritative figures: the highest-ranking officer in the U.S. armed forces and the prime minister of Iraq.
When it comes to military matters, McCain the war hero might get away with pulling rank on the junior senator from Illinois—but he can't claim more experience than those two.
The stab from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki turned into a comedy routine. Maliki stated this week that he would not sign any treaty allowing U.S. armed forces to remain on his nation's soil—the current accord, known as a Status of Forces Agreement, expires at the end of this month—unless it includes a timetable for their withdrawal.
Obama has called for just such a timetable. McCain has opposed one, famously saying that a substantial number of U.S. combat troops might need to stay in Iraq for another 100 years.
When asked about Maliki's statement, McCain told reporters that it had been mistranslated—to which Maliki responded that, no, the English version was correct. At that point, some of McCain's supporters said that the prime minister wasn't serious, that he'd been forced by political constituencies to demand a timetable. Maliki again insisted that he meant what he'd said. (Even if he was caving to political pressures, one could infer that this suggests a majority of Iraqis and their major parties want us to commit to getting out in the not-too-distant future.)
It's a rather awkward situation for McCain, who did publicly say four years ago at the Council on Foreign Relations that if an elected government of Iraq asked us to leave, "I think it's obvious that we would have to leave," adding, "I don't see how we could stay when our whole emphasis and policy has been based on turning the Iraqi government over to the Iraqi people."
Meanwhile, Maliki's insistence on this score makes life a lot easier for Obama. McCain pressured him into planning a trip to Iraq this summer—he hadn't been there for two years—so he can see the place up close before making judgments about its future. While he's there, Obama will be briefed by Gen. David Petraeus and other commanders; he'll probably also talk with junior officers and enlisted men, and with Iraqi politicians, too. Security in Iraq is better than it was a year ago. To some degree, this improvement is the result of George W. Bush's surge (combined with Petraeus' strategy, Muqtada Sadr's cease-fire, the paying of many insurgents to stop shooting at us, and, most important, the alliance between U.S. forces and Sunni insurgents against the common enemy of al-Qaida—an alliance initiated by the Sunnis before the surge began). It might have been awkward for Obama to praise the troops' accomplishments then rapidly pull them out. But he could say, "If our friend the Iraqi prime minister wants us to set a schedule for withdrawing, well, how could any president of the United States insist otherwise?"
Obama also got a boost this week from reports in the Jerusalem Post and Haaretz that Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently told top officials of the Israeli Defense Forces that the United States would not give them a "green light" to launch airstrikes on Iran.
This is not merely a political statement. To send fighter-bombers to attack Iran, the Israelis would need permission to fly over Iraq on the way. Maliki certainly wouldn't approve such a plan; Mullen was saying that President Bush wouldn't, either.
Obama has said that the situation in Iran—the continued enrichment of uranium, the recent test-firing of missiles, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's persistently belligerent rhetoric—calls for a full-court diplomatic press. This means economic pressure but also direct talks. Mullen and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have said much the same thing in public, noting that an attack would merely delay, not halt, Iran's nuclear program and that Iranian retaliation to an airstrike could do far greater damage—especially economic—to the United States and its allies.
McCain hasn't called for military action (except for the standard boilerplate of keeping "all options on the table"), but he refuses to consider direct talks—thus leaving us in the same hole we're in now.
Once more: advantage Obama.
US election 2008: Britain's backing Obama: Democrat beats McCain by five votes to one
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/14/barackobama.johnmccain
Barack Obama is overwhelmingly Britain's choice to be the next US president, five times more popular than his Republican rival, John McCain, a Guardian/ICM poll shows today. Carried out ahead of the Democratic candidate's visit to Britain next week, the poll reveals that 53% feel certain he would make the best president, with only 11% favouring McCain; 36% declined to express an opinion.
Obama will soon set off on a marathon trip that will take in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Jordan, Germany, France and, lastly, Britain. The exact timing of the visit to Iraq and Afghanistan is being kept under wraps for security reasons, but he is expected in Britain on July 25 or 26. His campaign team and the British government had originally discussed making the UK his first stop but, citing diary clashes, rescheduled it as the last.
It will be his first trip overseas - apart from a holiday weekend in the Caribbean - since he launched his bid for the White House in February last year. The aim is to counter accusations from McCain that he lacks foreign experience.
Obama's poll lead may have as much to do with his high profile and recognition factor as it does his policies. But it underlines the desire among US allies to see a change of political direction there after eight years of George Bush. Obama's campaign team hopes to use the European leg of the trip to press home to the US public that replacing Bush with the Democratic candidate should see America's popularity in Europe restored.
McCain is less well known than Obama, despite having visited Britain several times and attending the House of Commons and the Conservative party conference.
The survey, carried out late last week, found that Obama's support is strongest among male voters - 57% of whom want him to be president. There are small regional variations in support: 50% back him in the south-east, against 57% in the north of England. But overall enthusiasm for an Obama presidency is solid across people of all ages and backgrounds. Unlike the US, there is no evidence of young Britons being keener on Obama than older people.
Obama, who met Gordon Brown in Washington earlier this year, is scheduled to meet him again. In keeping with diplomatic etiquette, he also plans to meet the Tory leader, David Cameron.
He wants to fit in time to thank British-based Americans who have been raising funds for his campaign and for a photo-opportunity that would win him airtime on US television. The centrepiece of his visit to Europe will be Berlin, where he plans to deliver a speech about establishing a new transatlantic relationship. Obama's extensive foreign policy team have promised a complete rethink for the post-Bush era. He will stress that, in contrast with Bush, he will listen to Europe. According to an adviser, he is also likely, to avoid being portrayed as soft, to call on Germany and France to play a bigger military role in Afghanistan.
There is confusion about how long Obama has spent in Europe before. Some reports claim he has only spent 24 hours in total, but he told a local paper in the US last year: "I've travelled extensively in Europe ... I love Europe."
Obama, who likes being compared with John F Kennedy, opted for Berlin in part because of the former president's much-quoted speech outside the town hall, in which he declared "Ich bin ein Berliner."
Pictures with foreign leaders are useful during election campaigns in establishing foreign policy credentials. But the main purpose of his trip is to be filmed in Iraq with US troops. Obama, who has pledged an early withdrawal of most American troops from Iraq, has been in Iraq before but has been repeatedly taunted by McCain about his failure to visit the country since becoming a presidential candidate.
ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,009 adults aged 18+ on July 9-10. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
Iraqi Officials Insisting On Timetable To Withdraw
By CAMPBELL ROBERTSON
Published: July 9, 2008
BAGHDAD — Iraqi officials continued to insist Tuesday that a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition troops must be included in any security agreement with the United States.
Meanwhile, in western Anbar Province, 22 bodies were found at a Ramadi elementary school that was undergoing construction, 20 of them buried in the playing fields, apparently over a lengthy period, the local police said.
Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the national security adviser, said the government would reject any security agreement that did not include a schedule for the departure of foreign troops.
“We will not accept a memorandum of understanding without having timeline horizons for the cessation of combat operations as well as the departure of all the combat brigades,” Mr. Rubaie said in a telephone interview. However, he declined to offer specifics on a timeline, suggesting that the Iraqi government itself was not yet sure how quickly it wanted the United States to withdraw.
Earlier in the day, Mr. Rubaie was in the holy city of Najaf meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq’s most senior Shiite religious leader. The ayatollah has not expressed an opinion on the specifics of the negotiations, emphasizing only that Iraq must protect its sovereignty.
Mr. Rubaie’s remarks came a day after Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki confirmed that his government was considering a short-term pact with the United States that would extend the presence of American troops but also include a timetable for withdrawal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/world/middleeast/09iraq.html?ref=world
