Great Lakes Environmental Devastation; Population Poisoning

Sheila Kaplan, on the Center for Public Integrity's site (Great Lakes Danger Zones), has this important news:

For more than seven months, the nation’s top public health agency has blocked the publication of an exhaustive federal study of environmental hazards in the eight Great Lakes states, reportedly because it contains such potentially “alarming information” as evidence of elevated infant mortality and cancer rates.

The 400-plus-page study, Public Health Implications of Hazardous Substances in the Twenty-Six U.S. Great Lakes Areas of Concern, was undertaken by a division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention at the request of the International Joint Commission, an independent bilateral organization that advises the U.S. and Canadian governments on the use and quality of boundary waters between the two countries. The study was originally scheduled for release in July 2007 by the IJC and the CDC’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).

The Center for Public Integrity has obtained the study, which warns that more than nine million people who live in the more than two dozen “areas of concern”—including such major metropolitan areas as Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and Milwaukee—may face elevated health risks from being exposed to dioxin, PCBs, pesticides, lead, mercury, or six other hazardous pollutants....

...“It raises very important questions,” Dr. Peter Orris, a professor at the University of Illinois School of Public Health in Chicago and one of three experts who reviewed the study for ATSDR....

...In a December 2007 letter to ATSDR in which he called for the release of the study, Orris wrote: ... this is perhaps the most extensively critiqued report, internally and externally, that I have heard of.”...

Last July, several days before the study was to be released, ATSDR suddenly withdrew it... . In an e-mail obtained by the Center, De Rosa {Christopher De Rosa, then the director of the agency’s division of toxicology and environmental medicine} wrote to Frumkin that the delay in publishing the study has had “the appearance of censorship of science and distribution of factual information regarding the health status of vulnerable communities.”...

...Canadian biologist Michael Gilbertson, a former IJC staffer and another of the three peer reviewers, told the Center that the study has been suppressed because it suggests that vulnerable populations have been harmed by industrial pollutants. “It’s not good because it’s inconvenient,” Gilbertson said. “The whole problem with all this kind of work is wrapped up in that word ‘injury.’ If you have injury, that implies liability. Liability, of course, implies damages, legal processes, and costs of remedial action. The governments, frankly, in both countries are so heavily aligned with, particularly, the chemical industry, that the word amongst the bureaucracies is that they really do not want any evidence of effect or injury to be allowed out there.” ...

...De Rosa, a highly respected scientist with a strong international reputation from his 15 years in charge of ATSDR’s division of toxicology and environmental medicine, was demoted after he pushed Frumkin to publish the Great Lakes report and other studies....

...Barry Johnson, a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service and a former assistant administrator of ATSDR, told the Center that before he left in 1999 he recommended that the agency investigate the dangers that chemical contaminants might pose to residents of the Great Lakes states.

“This research is quite important to the public health of people who reside in that area,” Johnson said of the study. “It was done with the full knowledge and support of IJC, and many local health departments went through this in various reviews. I don’t understand why this work has not been released; it should be and it must be released. In 37 years of public service, I’ve never run into a situation like this.”

There is a link to the report obtained by the Center for Public Integrity on the article's site.

Once again, the Bush Administration chooses a path harmful to the general welfare of the citizens of the US.

UK's WMD Dossier Release "Very Soon"

Chris Ames on the New Statesman (Feb 6, 2008, WMD dossier decision 'very soon', Brown says) has this update:

Gordon Brown has told MPs the government will decide “very soon” whether to release the secret draft of the Iraq wmd dossier written by Foreign Office (FCO) spin doctor John Williams.

The Information Tribunal ruled two weeks ago that the document, which I requested in February 2005, should be released under the Freedom of Information Act.

At Prime Minister’s Questions this lunchtime, Tory MP John Baron asked Brown whether he would “now immediately release the document, and if not, why not?” Brown replied that “a decision will be announced very soon.”

Commenting afterwards Baron said, “The Government has for too long withheld the truth about the role played by spin doctors in producing the Iraq Dossier. Now the Information Tribunal agrees that the Williams draft could have played a greater part in influencing the drafting of the dossier than the Government has so far admitted – even to the Hutton inquiry. The public deserves to decide for ourselves the importance of this document in the run up to war.”

The existence of what is now known as the “Williams draft” was first revealed by the New Statesman’s political editor Martin Bright in November 2006. At the time of the dossier’s production, Williams was the FCO’s press secretary. The fact that a spin doctor produced an early draft of the September 2002 dossier has cast doubt on the government’s assertions that the document that took Britain to war in Iraq was the pure work of the intelligence services.

On 22 January, the Information Tribunal rejected the FCO’s appeal against a decision by the Information Commissioner that the draft should be released. In its ruling, the tribunal criticised inconsistencies in the FCO’s evidence and observed that: “Information has been placed before us, which was not before Lord Hutton, which may lead to questions as to whether the Williams draft in fact played a greater part in influencing the drafting of the dossier than has previously been supposed.”

This evidence included a letter from the FCO to the Commissioner which stated that the draft was prepared “at the request of” Joint Intelligence Committee chairman John Scarlett, now head of MI6. The government has told both the Hutton Inquiry and parliament that Williams produced the draft “on his own initiative”.

The letter also stated that Williams was at a meeting on 9 September 2002 as “a member of a group tasked with drafting a preliminary document described by that meeting as ‘a draft assessment’ to be used in the production of a draft Dossier”. Scarlett produced what the government has always claimed to be the first draft of the dossier a day later. At the time, he referred to “considerable help from John
Williams” towards that draft.

The government has directly denied that the Williams draft includes a reference to the notorious “45 minutes” claim. It is however believed to contain a number of other instances of “sexing-up” that first appeared in Scarlett’s draft. As the New Statesman reported last week, Scarlett’s draft includes the first appearance in a published draft of a false claim that Iraq had “purchased” uranium from Africa. It appears that this claim is also in the Williams draft.

The FCO press office was this afternoon unaware of Brown’s comments and unable to clarify what “very soon” means. The government has until 19 February either to release the document or appeal to the High Court on a point of law. Ministers also have a veto over Freedom of Information Act requests, although this has never been used.

Know Your Enemy

Agence France-Presse, on Japan Today (Feb 4, 2008, U.S. strategy toward al-Qaida fatally flawed: analysts):

WASHINGTON — In its ideological struggle against al-Qaida, American anti-terrorist strategy too often overlooks the basic tenets of the infamous Chinese warlord Sun Tzu, namely: know your enemy.

That is the fixed view of leading analysts, who conclude that through ignorance of the enemy it faces, ignorance of its nature, its goals, its strengths and its weaknesses, the United States is condemned to failure.

"The attention of the U.S. military and intelligence community is directed almost uniformly toward hunting down militant leaders or protecting U.S. forces, and not toward understanding the enemy we now face," said Bruce Hoffman, a professor at Georgetown University, Washington DC.

"This is a monumental failing not only because decapitation strategies have rarely worked in countering mass-mobilization terrorist or insurgent campaigns, but also because al-Qaida's ability to continue this struggle is based absolutely on its capacity to attract new recruits and replenish its resources.

"Without knowing our enemy, we cannot fulfill the most basic requirements of an effective counter-terrorist strategy: pre-empting and preventing terrorist operations and deterring their attacks," Hoffman added.

Officials said Friday that Abu Laith al-Libi — believed to have been killed when a missile fired by an unmanned U.S. aircraft hit his Pakistani hideout — was a top al-Qaida commander who led Osama bin Laden's terror network in Afghanistan.

He was in fifth position on a classified Central Intelligence Agency wanted list, with a $5 million bounty on his head.

But in using the "al-Qaida" label when talking about suspects arrested or armed fighters killed — indiscriminately and sometimes wrongly, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or elsewhere — American or Western forces create and feed a confusion which ultimately makes victims of themselves, experts say.

"Using body counts as a criterion to measure effectiveness is a bit like Guantanamo: you produce a tally, you mix up al-Qaida members or just hired hands with people who have only the vaguest of connections, people who have none at all and finally even pure civilians," added French academic Jean-Pierre Filiu, author of "Les Frontieres du Jihad" (The Limits of Jihad).

"When you reach that point, air strikes and the elimination of 'wanted' individuals not only prove fruitless, but actually become counter-productive.

"These actions only intensify al-Qaida recruitment, instead of weakening the organisation.

"The problem is this innate tendency within all administrations or bodies to stack up figures, pull out statistics, use them to show how they are winning, how they are liquidating their enemies, etc," Filiu added.

The "body count" syndrome is actually a "trap" laid by al-Qaida into which the Americans have "fallen" blindly, added Lebanese-American researcher Fawaz Gerges, an international relations specialist at Sarah Lawrence College, New York.

"You cannot win this war on the battlefield, because there is none," said Gerges. "You're facing an unconventional war. The more you rely on military might, the more you lose the war of ideas against al-Qaida and the militants.

"In Iraq, we fell into their trap. We gave them more ideological ammunition. So many Muslims all over the world are now convinced, and this feeling is so entrenched, that the war in Iraq is not against al-Qaida, but against Islam."

Gerges detects a growing appreciation of this phenomenon "even at the heart of the American administration," expressing his belief that a "new understanding" exists which casts George W Bush's war against al-Qaida as "counter-productive."

The Times of India (Feb 4, 2008, Slain Al-Qaida commander openly met Pak officials in Peshawar):

ISLAMABAD: Top Al-Qaida commander Abu Laith al-Libi, killed last week in northwestern Pakistan, openly met Pakistani officials and a Libyan diplomat in Peshawar despite a USD 200,000 reward on his head, a media report said on Monday.

Libi's death in Pakistan was reported by Al Qaida-linked websites and it is believed he was among 12 militants who died in a missile strike carried out by an unmanned aerial vehicle on a house at Khushali Torikhel village in Pakistan's troubled North Waziristan tribal area on January 29.

The terrorist leader from Libya had lived in northwestern Pakistan for years and "felt secure enough to meet officials and visit hospitals" in Peshawar, the Washington Post quoted officials and residents of the city as saying.

As he organised suicide bombings and other attacks in Afghanistan, Libi "found a comfortable refuge in Pakistan's border region", the paper quoted sources as saying.

He "met openly with a Pakistani politician and a Libyan diplomat and called on foreign fighters recovering from their wounds".

The way in which Libi moved unchallenged around the heart of Peshawar, a city of 1.2 million people, underscored "how freely he and other Al-Qaida leaders have been able to operate in Pakistan", the report said.

On one occasion in 2006, Libi "strode into the central prison in Peshawar and another Libyan fighter sat behind bars in the custody of Pakistani authorities... the Al-Qaida leader, the Pakistani politician and the Libyan diplomat argued over whether the militant should be deported against his wishes to Libya or released to fight another day, said Javed Ibrahim Paracha, the PML-N leader who helped arrange the meeting.

(1) We are pursuing a policy that has rarely been successful in defeating insurgencies.

(2) Al-Qaida leaders have complete freedom of movement within Pakistan.

(3) Pakistan is not looking for bin Laden.

(4) Pakistan manages to lose terrorists held in custody.

(5) Jundallah - based in Pakistan - members claim to have been trained by US & British intelligence officers; there is "member movement" between Jundallah & Lashkar-e Jhangvi (LeJ), which "was involved, along with the Jaish e-Mohammad, in the abduction and murder of US journalist Daniel Pearl in January 2002".

(6) And the CIA and Musharraf collaborate for a little of the Great Carnac routine on the assassination of the former Pakistani leader who knew where all the dead bodies were buried (including Osama bin Laden's) from the CIA-ISI-jihadi adventures in Afghanistan and the Balkans.

Infinity and Beyond

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

Any sufficiently intricate manipulation of government policy is indistinguishable from incomprehensible white noise for the vast majority of America. -- AerynSun

Philip Shenon's The Commission

Max Holland on his Washington DeCoded Blog (Jan 30, 2008, Commission Confidential) has a review of Philip Shenon's astounding new book:

...In a revelation bound to cast a pall over the 9/11 Commission, Philip Shenon will report in a forthcoming book that the panel’s executive director, Philip Zelikow, engaged in “surreptitious” communications with presidential adviser Karl Rove and other Bush administration officials during the commission’s 20-month investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

Shenon, who led The New York Times’ coverage of the 9/11 panel, reveals the Zelikow-Rove connection in a new book entitled The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation, to be published next month by TWELVE books. The Commission is under an embargo until its February 5 publication, but Washington DeCoded managed to purchase a copy of the abridged audio version from a New York bookstore....

...Shenon delivers a blistering account of Zelikow’s role and leadership, and an implicit criticism of the commissioners for appointing Zelikow in the first place—and then allowing him to stay on after his myriad conflicts-of-interest were revealed under oath....

...He depicts Zelikow as exploiting his central position to negate or neutralize criticism of the Bush administration so that the White House would not bear, in November 2004, the political burden of failing to prevent the attacks.....

...Zelikow failed to disclose several additional and egregious conflicts-of-interest, among them, the fact that he had been a member of Rice’s NSC transition team in 2000-01. In that capacity, Zelikow had been the “architect” responsible for demoting Richard Clarke and his counter-terrorism team within the NSC. As Shenon puts it, Zelikow “had laid the groundwork for much of went wrong at the White House in the weeks and months before September 11. Would he want people to know that?”...

...Determined to blunt the Jersey Girls’ call for his resignation or recusal, Zelikow proposed that he be questioned under oath about his activities. General counsel Daniel Marcus, who conducted the sworn interview, brought a copy of the résumé Zelikow had provided to Kean and Hamilton. None of the activities Zelikow now detailed—his role on Rice’s transition team, his instrumental role in Clarke’s demotion, his authorship of a post-9/11 pre-emptive attack doctrine—were mentioned in the résumé....

...In late 2003, around the time his involuntary recusal was imposed, Zelikow called executive secretary Karen Heitkotter into his office and ordered her to stop creating records of his incoming telephone calls. Concerned that the order was improper, a nervous Heitkotter soon told general counsel Marcus. He advised her to ignore Zelikow’s order and continue to keep a log of his telephone calls, insofar as she knew about them....

...Even after his recusal, Zelikow continued to insert himself into the work of “Team 3,” the task force responsible for the most politically-sensitive part of the investigation, counter-terrorism policy....

Why is it important ... crucial to the coverup of 'what really happened' ... that Zelikow concealed his part in the demotion of Clarke? Because it is on the critical path to the "successful" 9/11 operation:

From William Bowles:

...The White House, feeling the heat over charges that President George W. Bush failed to make terrorism an urgent priority before September 11, has released documents showing that one week before the 2001 attacks he ordered plans for military action against al Qaeda.

Portions of a September 4, 2001, national security presidential directive were released as plans were set for national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly on April 8 before the September 11, 2001, commission."

…The September 4 presidential directive called on Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to plan for military options 'against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air Defence, ground forces, and logistics.'

It also called for plans against al Qaeda and 'associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities.'

Now, you can't get this from Reuters anymore because they've pulled it (as has Wired News — if you look elsewhere in the U.S. media, you'll find a sentence or two buried deep within articles focusing on other related topics), but newspapers in the United Kingdom, Australia, India, and elsewhere have headlined it. This is quite curious, because this is really is an extraordinary story: The administration had actually called for a war against Afghanistan before September 11th, which of course takes away from September 11th as a reason for that war. And to think that they called me crazy nine months ago when I first reported this. Now even the administration is admitting this.

To read the various U.S. stories that actually report this is to become very confused. There are differences between them that are often totally at odds with each other. One might think that the writers were actually reporting from different planets, or if one were cynical, one might think that the administration simply hasn't fully flushed out how they want to spin this story. One sparsely-reported point, for example: The official date on NSPD-9 is September 4th, a full seven days before 9-11. This however is the date that NSPD-9 was first placed on the President's desk for his signature, but it was revised several times before the President actually signed it on September 17th. A more curious but entirely unreported point: If the document was not in final form on 9-11, why is attacking the Taliban mentioned firstand attacking al Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9-11, mentioned only second? Oh, to see those earlier pre-9-11 drafts, but of course, that will never happen.

For it's part, the rationale of the administration is obvious. With a date of September 4th on this document, the administration gets to say, "See? Richard Clarke was wrong. We were working on terrorism before 9-11!" Well, this document comes close but doesn't actually say that. What it does is say that the administration was working on a war with Afghanistan before 9-11, and the administration is hoping that everyone will simply assume that these are one and the same. If people do, then NSPD-9 is the "perfect alibi", … except that it isn't.

NSPD-9 is first mentioned in conjunction with the 9-11 commission by Donald Rumsfeld in his prepared remarks before that commission. It is again mentioned by Richard Clarke during his Meet The Press interview, with Clarke then calling for its declassification, clearly feeling that this would vindicate his claims that the administration was slow to move on terrorism. Indeed, while NSPD-9 was clearly worked on well before it reached the President's desk, NSPD-5 (Review of U.S. Intelligence – still classified) suggests that the administration only started to seriously consider terrorism intelligence in May of 2001, four months after it took office. NSPD-5 called for the creation of two panels to study U.S. intelligence capabilities, but it is unclear what if anything these two panels ever did or if they were even assembled. They may very well have been, but the administration's recent appointment of a new commission to do the exact same thing (second article) suggests otherwise.

All of this suggests of course that NSPD-9 is anything but the "perfect alibi". For the administration, if it works, fine, but in declassifying a portion of this directive, the administration is showing how very desperate Clarke's revelations have made it. This is a high risk strategy, and could well backfire before a press willing to look more closely (connect the dots), something they have obviously not yet done.

The problem begins of course with Dick Cheney's extraordinary suggestion (there is a reason this man tries to stay out of the spotlight) that Richard Clarke was "out of the loop". As Josh Marshall pf Talkingpointsmemo.com correctly points out here, if Clarke was given the terrorism oversight job by NSC chief Condoleezza Rice, how could he possibly have been out of the loop? Yet, as Clarke has said, not much was going on within the administration regarding terrorism for a good bit of time, at least to his tastes. Could both of these men be telling the truth? In fact, yes, but only if Cheney is not talking about the "loop" that Clarke is.

Up until shortly after 9-11, Richard Clarke was the administration's "go to" man on terrorism. If it was about terrorism, Richard Clarke was involved. After 9-11, he states that he learned within days that Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were clearly planning to use 9-11 as an excuse to attack Iraq. Indeed, a Vanity Fair article out this week details a meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair just 9 days after 9/11, during which Bush tells Blair that Iraq is next after Afghanistan and Blair essentially agrees. Clarke himself wants nothing to do with this, and so a reassignment (satisfactory to him) takes place. The important thing to note however is that until this point, Clarke is the terrorism czar for the administration.

It is in his role as terrorist czar that Clarke brought forward with him from the Clinton administration some sort of plan for getting to Osama bin Laden that clearly involves the use of the U.S. military in Afghanistan. While the specific level of detail to which this plan had been developed at that time has not been disclosed, Clarke's comments regarding it clearly suggest that it was well beyond the conceptual stage. It is a plan that is soon presented in some fashion to members of the new Bush administration, but within weeks (February 13th) of the inauguration, NSPD-1 (not classified) is issued. NSPD-1 does a number of things, but two are critical. First, NSPD-1 eliminates inter-agency (intelligence) work groups, forcing all intelligence sharing between the various agencies (FBI, CIA, DIA, etc.) through the administration's senior staff. Second, it forces Richard Clarke to the second tier. Richard Clarke is now "out of the loop", and he will not get back into the loop until NSPD-9. These two things will prove to be fatal on 9-11.

Sibel Edmonds, Turkey, Nuclear Power, Missile Technology, Defense Industry

Luke Ryland has an interview with Sibel on OpEdNews (Jan 28, 2008, Sibel Edmonds: 'Buckle up, there's much more coming.'):

... Sibel Edmonds: ... The US media also suffers from a pack mentality. I was told by one executive that they weren't doing the story because it was 'old news' because 60 Minutes did a single segment in October 2002, even though they only covered a tiny part of the case. This executive literally told me that he'd only cover the story if it was 'hot and sexy.' I often think that I'd need to be able to hire Britney Spears to be a spokesperson - and this is not just for my case, but for any of the many other solid, important cases at the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. Apparently this is what it would take to get any coverage.

Of course, given the pack mentality, if any of these stories does become 'hot and sexy' then all the journalists focus on the same issues and there's no differentiation in their reporting....

...Turkey's army of lobbyists in DC are very effective. The US press tends to stay away from any stories critical of Turkey, I would say even more than Israel.

There's also the possible problem of 'eating crow' but I hope this isn't an issue, this story is way too important for any of that. The information that has been published in the Times recently could have easily come out four years ago in the US press. We now need everyone to focus on the important issues....

... Luke Ryland: Two weeks after the first article in the Times about the involvement of high-level US officials being involved with Turkish and Israeli interests in supplying the nuclear black market, President Bush quietly announced that the US will start supplying nuclear technology to Turkey. Do you think that is a coincidence?

Sibel Edmonds: The timing is certainly very, very suspicious. The proposals that are being floated are very suspicious too. There are reports that Turkey will build an enrichment facility, and that Turkey will become the key supplier of nuclear fuel to other Muslim countries who want nuclear power plants. None of this makes any sense.

And again, the US media is nowhere to be seen on this issue. Where are the journalists? Do you remember the noise made a couple of years ago when the US announced that it would supply India with nuclear technology? So far, nearly a week after the announcement and not a single major US media outlet has even reported on the deal! Think of the hypocrisy, with all the saber-rattling at Iran over enrichment.

If it's such a good idea to sell nuclear technology to Turkey, why isn't the White House out there selling the idea? Where are the arguments in the press saying that this will be good for regional stability, or that it will help reduce demand for oil, or even that it is simply good business because US firms will be able to sell their hardware and knowledge? There's nothing! Silence. What does that tell you?....

From Reuters/UK (Jan 28, 2008, Turkish Enka, KEPCO to cooperate on nuclear energy):

Turkish energy-to-construction firm Enka Insaat ENKAI.IS has agreed with Korea Electric Power Corp. (KEPCO) ... to work together on nuclear energy in Turkey, the Turkish firm said on Monday.

Enka said in a statement to the stock market that the preliminary agreement was signed on Friday, but gave no more details.

Energy-importer Turkey has said it expects to hold tenders for its first nuclear power plants by May at the latest and aims for construction to start this year....

Note that Fikret Güler is a member of the Board of Enka (see Enka's website), and Hilmi Güler is the Turkish Energy Minister.

From Transnationale.org, KEPCO belongs to:

shareholder ... country ... %
Barclays Plc ... UK ... 0.2
Brandes Investment Partners, L.P ... US ... 3.2
Franklin Resources, Inc ... US ... 0.5
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. ... US ... 0.3
ING Groep ... Netherlands ... 0.3

INVESCO International Ltd. ... Jersey ... 0.7
Mellon Financial Corp. ... US ... 0.2
Morgan Stanley ... US ... 0.2
Putnam LLC ... US ... 0.1

KEPCO is also working in Romania, see the 2002 article on PlanetArk.

Thomas Grove and Ercan Ersoy report for Reuters/UK (Jan 28, 2008, INTERVIEW-Turkey Sabanci to pick nuclear partner by mid-March):

Turkey's Sabanci Holding SAHOL.IS will choose by mid-March from up to six European and Asian companies to partner its bid in a Turkish nuclear power plant tender, the head of Sabanci's energy group said on Monday.

"We are looking for a utility company and are in talks with five or six companies ... (We can decide on one) at the end of February or the beginning of March," Selahattin Hakman, the president of the conglomerate's energy group, told Reuters.

Turkey will hold a tender for the construction and operation of three seperate nuclear power station tenders by May at the latest, and construction is targeted to begin this year, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan said earlier this month.....

Interestingly, Mustafa Oguz reports for the Turkish Daily News (Jan 21, 2008, Turkey to face serious brainpower deficit in nuclear power):

.... About 20 years ago, Istanbul Technical University's (İTÜ) Nuclear Energy Institute annually received over 100 graduate studies applications, but now the Institute is merely a branch of the University's Energy Institute, preferred by only five graduate studies candidates. “The department has eight professors and five people apply. We must train our own workforce if we speak of independence,” said Bilge....

...“Me and my colleagues spent two years on the safety of a nuclear plant in 1986. I do not see that such precautions can be taken within the framework of the existing law,” he said....

... The nuclear issue, with its economic, scientific and political dimensions is one of the most important matters on Turkey's agenda, yet the country's opposition parties remain aloof to vital developments related to the subject. Representatives of Turkey's three main political parties, namely the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP) were supposed to state their parties' views during the problems and solutions part of the Nuclear Energy Arena meet and hear criticism and remarks from experts in the field. Moreover, the platform was opened by the President of United Kingdom Atomic Energy Agency Barbara Thomas Judge, who emphasized nuclear power's new age and spoke about the experiences of her country that is contemplating erecting fourth generation nuclear plants. However, other than the AKP delegate, Taner Yıldız, who gave evasive responses to questions posed by academics on the nuclear law and the lack of trained nuclear brainpower, opposition parties did not make a serious contribution to discussions. The MHP delegate, Professor Alim Işık, tailored his party's energy dossier minutes before his turn, to recite innumerable data on nuclear energy in the world and energy consumption in Turkey, a theme already covered several times during the day. As for the CHP, the party was simply absent. Although the name of Özlem Çerçioğlu was included in the list of speakers, she did not show up and the party did not care to send another representative to the platform.

The event was organized by the Strategic, Technical, Economic Research Center (STEAM).

Joshua Frank on DissidentVoice (Jan 25, 2008, Why Bush Wants to Legalize the Nuke Trade with Turkey) has these insights:

According to FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds there is a vast black market for nukes, and certain U.S. officials have been supplying sensitive nuclear technology information to Turkish and Israeli interests through its conduits....

...In likely reaction to the London Times report, the Bush Administration quietly announced on January 22 that the president would like Congress to approve the sale of nuclear secrets to Turkey. As with most stories of this magnitude, the U.S. media has put on blinders, opting to not report either Edmonds’ story or Bush’s recent announcement....

...The Bushites seem to be covering their own exposed backsides, for the timing of Bush’s call to sell nuke secrets to Turkey is certainly suspicious, if not overtly conspicuous. It appears the White House has been spooked by Edmonds and hopes to absolve the U.S. officials allegedly involved in the illegal sale of nuclear technology to private Turkish “entities”....

...If Congress does not block or amend Bush’s legislation to sell nukes to Turkey within 90 days, it will become law automatically, likely acting retroactively to clear the alleged crimes of Marc Grossman and his neocon, nuke-trading friends.

Lale Sariibrahimoglu comments in Today's Zaman (Jan 22, 2008, Turkey to acquire missile technology):

...US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy Ed McGinnis, in charge of developing the US's Global Energy Partnership (GNEP), had talks in Ankara on Jan. 17, reportedly supporting Turkey's nuclear energy development plans. But the US has also been urging Turkey to join the 19-nation GNEP platform that envisages, among other things, safe development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes while seeking to control nuclear arms proliferation.

By the way, it is worth recalling that earlier Turkish press reports stating that the US had been warm to the idea of turning Turkey into a nuclear uranium enrichment center through which Iran can also obtain uranium for peaceful purposes did not seem correct.

As far as I understand, the US is not of the opinion that it should encourage Turkey, which has not even started building nuclear energy plants, to enrich uranium. In the eyes of the US, supporting Turkey becoming a center for uranium enrichment is a premature idea....

...Once Turkey begins to acquire the capability to develop nuclear technology to meet its energy needs, its next or parallel step is expected to be to build its missile technology, not nuclear arms, says a Western military source.

Since 2004, Turkey has maintained a policy of boosting its poorly based defense industry toward its development from the status of a medium-level technology base to a higher-level and strategic country, mainly in areas such as missile-building, which requires high technological capability.

To reach that target and become a major player in the defense industry, Turkey has already taken steps to force major military-owned companies to intensify the building of high-tech defense equipment while ending joint production policies that have failed to enable the creation of a meaningful defense industry base in the country.

Ankara has thus increasingly been forging cooperation with countries, including South Korea, that are ready to share their technology with Turkey. China has also been cooperating with Turkey in the development of rockets with a range of 150 kilometers.

Timing is Everything

For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets, Jan 6, 2008, Times (UK)


Within 2 days ....

From Poynter Online

Topic: Memos Sent to Romenesko
Date/Time: 1/8/2008 1:56:11 PM
Title: AP to keep a closer eye on Britney
Posted By: Jim Romenesko



Memo from Associated Press' Los Angeles assistant bureau chief
From: Baker, Frank S.
Sent: Tue 1/8/2008 11:58 AM
To: News - Southern California Editorial Staff
Subject: Britney

All:

Now and for the foreseeable future, virtually everything involving Britney is a big deal. That doesn't mean every rumor makes it on the wire. But it does mean that we want to pay attention to what others are reporting and seek to confirm those stories that WE feel warrant the wire. And when we determine that we'll write something, we must expedite it.

Thanks.

Frank