U.K. police thwart car bomb threat

This is off MSNBC News:

LONDON - Police in London’s bustling nightclub and theater district on Friday defused a bomb that could have killed hundreds, after an ambulance crew spotted smoke coming from a Mercedes filled with a lethal mix of gasoline, propane and nails, authorities said.

The bomb near Piccadilly Circus was powerful enough to have caused “significant injury or loss of life” — possibly killing hundreds, British anti-terror police chief Peter Clarke said.

Authorities believe the bombers had intended to set the bomb off remotely, by cell phone, Sky News television reported, citing sources.

Britain’s new home secretary, Jacqui Smith, called an emergency meeting of top officials and later called the attempted attack “international terrorism.”

Hours later, police closed a major road, Park Lane, on the edge of Hyde Park after reports of a suspicious vehicle.

Sky News reported that the second vehicle was connected to the car bomb found earlier. But, prior to the television report, a police spokesperson said there was nothing to immediately suggest it was linked to the earlier incident.

All I can say here is that this is what a real terrorist threat is suppose to look like, unlike the multiple Department of Homeland Security's fantasy terrorist threats we've been exposed to by the Bush administration. The U.K. police did their job here.

Shall we take a trip and see all the fantasy terror warnings that were issued by the Bush administration? Here's a little two part reminder by Keith Olbermann:

The Nexus of Politics and Terror, Part One;



The Nexus of Politics and Terror, Part Two;

Update on U.S. embassy attack in Greece

Police guard the entrance of the US Embassy in Athens after unknown assailants fired a rocket into the facility causing damage to the building but no casualties, police and US officials said. Police sources said the rocket penetrated the building near the front-entrance emblem and exploded inside, damaging toilet facilities on the embassy's third floor(AFP/Louisa Gouliamaki)

I saw this breaking story on the U.S. embassy through the television news last night, and wrote a quick post on it. Here are a few more details about the attack. From MSNBC:

ATHENS, Greece - The U.S. Embassy in Athens came under fire early Friday from a rocket that exploded inside the modern glass-front building but caused no casualties in an attack police suspect was the work of Greek leftists.

Narrowly missing the embassy emblem, the anti-tank shell pierced the building near the front entrance shortly before 6 a.m., damaging a bathroom on the third floor, which houses the ambassador’s office, and shattering windows in nearby buildings.

Map showing location of a terrorist attack against the U.S. embassy in Athens, Greece. From MSNBC.

“We’re treating it as a very serious attack,” U.S. Ambassador Charles Ries said.

Greece’s Public Order Minister said police were examining the authenticity of anonymous phone calls to a private security company claiming responsibility on behalf of Revolutionary Struggle, a militant left-wing group.

“It is very likely that this is the work of a domestic group,” Minister Vyron Polydoras said. “We believe this effort to revive terrorism is deplorable and will not succeed.”

Revolutionary Struggle claimed responsibility for a May 2006 bomb attack on Culture Minister Giorgos Voulgarakis, in which nobody was hurt.

Police anti-terrorist officers investigate the area behind the banner of the US Embassy in Athens on Friday, Jan. 12, 2007. An anti-tank shell was fired at the U.S. embassy early Friday, striking the front of the building but causing no injuries. Greece's public order minister said the blast was 'very likely' an act of terrorism by a domestic group, raising fears of resurgent violence by far-left Greek militants. (AP Photo/Kostas Tsironis)

What really strikes me here is the timing of this attack--early Friday morning before 6 a.m. There is nobody in the embassy at that time, and thus no casualties. Did this Revolutionary Struggle choose this time so as not to inflict civilian casualties in their attack? Here is what the New York Times reports on the Revolutionary Struggle in its story on the embassy bombing:

The embassy said in a statement that it was hit by a missile. Mr. Ries said that the site was not occupied at the time of the attack and that it was now a crime scene under investigation by Greek authorities. Revolutionary Struggle, a Marxist group with strong anti-American sentiments, emerged in 2003, bombing an Athens courthouse complex.

The group remains the most active Greek terror organization since the downfall of the country’s most deadly urban guerrilla group, November 17, blamed for killing 23 people — including American, British and Turkish officials — and for dozens of bomb attacks.

Charles Ries, U.S. Ambassador to Greece, makes statement after an explosion hit the U.S. Embassy in Athens, Greece, early Friday, Jan. 12, 2007. (AP Photo/Thanassis Stavrakis)

So far, the previous Revolutionary Struggle attacks have yet produced any casualties, as reported in the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Database. The group certainly attempted an assassination of the Greek Culture Minister George Voulgarakis last May 30, 2006. According to the MIPT Terrorism Database, Revolutionary Struggle claimed that Voulgarakis was involved in an illegal interrogation of Pakistani residents, and that the assassination attempt against Voulgarakis was justified because of this interrogation, and Greece's role in the U.S. "war on terror." So this terrorist group will kill.

We're back to the timing on this attack. I get the impression that this attack was an impulsive retaliation against the U.S. escalation of both the war in Iraq, and the U.S. raid on the Iranian consulate in Northern Iraq. This embassy attack takes place two days after President Bush's surge speech, and a day after the U.S. attack on the Iranian consulate. Revolutionary Struggle may have decided to make their own quick, retaliatory strike against the U.S. just after these major news events. In one sense, this is a brilliant move on the group's part. This quick attack just after the surge speech and Iranian raid certainly generated major headlines and media attention on Revolutionary Struggle--they've picked up a lot of media brownie points for this attack. And the more media brownie points that the terrorist group can get, the more they can spread their own political agenda and ideology throughout the world. The 6 a.m. raid was the best time to initiate this attack, since the city would still be sleeping--the Revolutionary Struggle terrorists could initiate their attack, and then quickly escape. Any later times would require the group to stake out the embassy, learn about both the embassy security and the security around the neighborhood, and determine traffic patterns for potential escape routes--all of this will take time, if you want to initiate an attack to inflict maximum civilian casualties. The more time you're watching the embassy, and the surrounding area, to determine its patterns, the lesser the media impact you're going to have for initiating a terror strike just after a political or world event. Revolutionary Struggle saw an opportunity to generate some serious media exposure with this attack, and they took it.

They succeeded.

Blast rips through U.S. embassy compound in Athens

I saw this breaking story on CNN TV news. I found a Yahoo News story on this bombing:

ATHENS (Reuters) - An explosion ripped through the U.S. embassy compound in central Athens on Friday, a police source said.

It was not clear what caused the blast and there was no immediate word on whether there were any casualties.

Police cordoned off all roads around the embassy.

Police officials at the scene said that whatever caused the explosion damaged the official embassy sign outside the mission, but there was little other indication of the extent of damage inside.

There is not much information yet on this story. I'll certainly be looking into this tomorrow through the MSM web pages. First thoughts--it is more than a coincidence that this blast took place just one day after Bush's surge speech, and the U.S. raid on the Iranian consulate in northern Iraq. And now we have this bombing of the American embassy in Athens, Greece.

Talk about the escalation in the level of violence here.

British Leader Announces Plans to Resign in Next Year

British Prime Minister Tony Blair is OUT! This is from The New York Times:

LONDON, Sept. 7--Bending to pressure, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced today that he would leave office within the next 12 months, heralding the end of a remarkable three terms in office during which he has lifted the nationÂ’s mood at home but plunged it into unwelcome wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

His pronouncement meant that, some time around or before next summer, Mr. Blair will resign the leadership of the Labor Party and make way for Gordon Brown, his finance minister, to take over as prime minister. For much of this week, Britain'’s political village has been gripped with the spectacle of a brutal behind-the-scenes power struggle between the two men. On Wednesday, eight junior aides quit Mr. BlairÂ’s camp, leaving the sense of a land in crisis.

In what seemed a carefully choreographed series of pronouncements, Mr. Brown first made a separate announcement today, drawing back from a showdown with his onetime ally. "“I will support him in the decision he makes," Mr. Brown said.

It was not clear whether the absence of a clear timetable would satisfy a restive Labor Party, many of whose legislators have been clamoring for an exact date for him to leave before local elections next May. Mr. Blair, who has said he will not seek a fourth term, has been desperate to set the conditions of his departure, anxious to mold a legacy of achievement to offset the profound unpopularity he has garnered from his close alliance with President Bush in the Iraq war.

Tony Blair staked his government on the Bush administration's war in Iraq. He blindly followed Bush and the neocons into the war, has gotten bogged down in a costly occupation in a country that is in the throes of civil war, and is now reaping the destruction of his own government with the falling public opinion polls and the mass resignations of key aides. What is even more amazing is the profound legacy of his previous accomplishments will be overshadowed by the disaster of Iraq. Consider this from the Times:

Mr. Blair took power in 1997 on a wave of euphoria that built as he struck the 1998 Northern Ireland peace agreement and, with Mr. Brown running the economy, opened the country to a remarkable period of low unemployment, low interest rates and high employment.

In foreign affairs, he built a close relationship with President Bill Clinton and took a prominent role in the Kosovo war, a forerunner of his interventionist policies in the Muslim world. He was returned to office with another landslide in June 2001.

But it was on Sept 11, 2001, that Mr. Blair'’s tenor and style changed. He became a close ally of President Bush first in Afghanistan then in Iraq--a war that was deeply unpopular among many Britons, including Muslims who argued that the vision of British troops fighting in Islamic countries as allies of the United States exposed the country to terrorist attack. His handling of the Iraq invasion, moreover, cost him the trust of many Britons.

In the end, Tony Blair has no one to blame but himself for getting Brtain into this mess.

Prodi Wins; Berlusconi Not Conceding Yet

L'Unione center-left coalition leader Romano Prodi, center, raises an Italian and EU flag with ally Arturo Parisi, right, as they celebrate on stage outside the coalition's headquarters in Rome, early Tuesday, April 11, 2006. Prodi claimed victory in Italy's election early Tuesday, but Premier Silvio Berlusconi's conservative forces contested the claim. 'We have won, and now we have to start working to implement our program and unify the country,' said a jubilant Prodi speaking to his supporters. Berlusconi's spokeman, Paolo Bonaiuti, contested the claim, saying, 'The center-right contests that the center-left has won,' according to reports. Near final results showed each coalition ahead in one of the two houses of parliament. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini)

This is interesting. From Yahoo News:

ROME - Challenger Romano Prodi's center-left coalition won the Italian parliamentary election, official results showed Tuesday, but Conservative Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi refused to concede defeat.

The Interior Ministry assigned Prodi's coalition four Senate seats chosen by Italians voting abroad, giving him the margin he needs to win both houses of Italy's parliament. But shortly afterward, Berlusconi said: "Nobody now can say they have won."

Final returns had already given Prodi's coalition--an unwieldy alliance ranging from Catholics to communists--the lower Chamber of Deputies, although Berlusconi's forces had already contested that result.

The ministry stressed the results must still be confirmed by Italy's highest court, and that parliament's election committees would have to rule on any challenges.

Prodi told a news conference that his government would be "politically and technically" strong, rebutting concerns about his slim margin of victory and concerns that it would be too weak to enact necessary reforms to bring Italy out of its economic slump.

The former European Commission president also said his government would put Europe at the center of its policies.

"This is a profoundly European result, and as I said, Europe will be the center of the policy of my government," Prodi said, also promising "constructive relations with the United States."

Prodi was strongly opposed to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, while Berlusconi supported Washington and sent 3,000 troops after the ouster of Saddam Hussein.

Graphic showing Italian election results by number of seats won by the main parties in the lower house of parliament. Opposition leader Romano Prodi claimed victory in Italy's knife-edge election, confident he had snatched the Senate to complete a defeat of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.(AFP/Graphic)

Please note that Berlusconi's government was connected with the passing of forged documents regarding the sale of Niger uranium yellowcake to Iraq, as revealed by the La Repubblica expose. The original scam was hatched by SISMI (Italian intelligence) agents to sell old Iraqi WMD files to the CIA for profit, in the wake of the terrorist attacks and the White House arguments for going to war in Iraq. This intelligence scam for profit moved its way up through the Italian government, where Berlusconi realized he could use these Niger documents to cement Italy's relationship with the U.S. at the forefront in the Bush administration's war on terror.

Italian Prime minister Silvio Berlusconi answers journalists' questions, during a press conference at Rome palazzo Chigi, on April 6. Italian elections appeared to have stripped President George W. Bush of another Iraq war ally in Silvio Berlusconi, with staunch US partner Tony Blair barely holding on in Britain.(AFP/File/Andreas Solaro)

My how fortunes have changed. Italian opposition to the war has forced Berlusconi to withdrawal Italian troops from Iraq by September. In fact, the referendum on Berlusconi's government rests on the sluggish Italian economy, rather than Iraq. According to TimesOnline:

Last month, Italy'’s economy failed to grow--an even worse performance than the eurozone'’s sluggish 1.3 per cent. For 14 of the past 15 years, it has grown more slowly than the eurozone average.

Public debt is more than 100 per cent of GDP, the third worst among industrialised countries, and Italy spends more than 4.5 per cent of GDP on paying the interest.

Its share of world trade is dropping fast, to 2.7 per cent in 2005, down from 4.3 per cent a decade before. Those beautiful handbags and shoes, made by small family firms across the North, are being swept away in a tide of imports from China and other Asian countries.

One government official said recently that the only strategy to counter the Chinese threat was “to make nicer handbags”.

And the Yahoo News story also notes that Italians voted their pocketbooks in this election:

Italians were mainly preoccupied with finances when they cast their ballots Sunday and Monday.

Berlusconi, 69, a billionaire whose business empire includes TV networks, failed to revitalize a flat economy but promised to abolish a homeowner's property tax. Prodi, 66, said he would revive an inheritance tax abolished by Berlusconi, but only for the richest; he also promised to cut payroll taxes.

So this is an interesting election, and a setback for the Bush administration since the White House lost a key foreign leader who supported the Iraq war. Now the White House will have to deal with a new Italian government, with a new political leader who will certainly not share the Bush administration's ideology regarding terrorism, Iraq, or even Iran. It will be interesting to see where the Italian-US relationship will go from here.

One final little detail to talk about. With Italy's Berlusconi now ousted, the only other strong ally who has supported the U.S. war in Iraq is Great Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair. And his popularity in Britain has plummeted. According to the April 4th edition of the Washington Post:

A poll published Tuesday found that 47 percent of British voters think Blair should quit by the end of the year, including 34 percent who say he should do so now. Fifty-seven percent agreed with the statement that Blair had "run out of steam" and was unlikely to achieve anything else as prime minister, according to the survey by the Populus polling firm, published in The Times.

However, support within his party _ key to Blair's ability to hold onto office _ remains strong. Half of Labour backers say he should stay until just before the next election, expected in 2009, and only 28 percent want him to go this year.

Voter support for Labour is also healthy. Thirty-six percent of those polled said they backed Labour, up a point from a month ago, and ahead of the Tories' 34 percent. Most of the rest were undecided or supported the third party, the Liberal Democrats.

So Tony Blair is also starting to feel some heat. How long will he last as Prime Minister?

Blair loses key terror bill vote

This is from CNN.Com:

LONDON, England (CNN) -- British Prime Minister Tony Blair has suffered his first major parliamentary defeat, losing a key vote on new anti-terror laws.

The House of Commons voted 322 to 291 against a measure to allow authorities to hold terror suspects for up to 90 days without charge -- an increase from the current 14 days.

It was the first major vote against the government since Blair and his Labour Party came to power in May 1997.

CNN's European Political Editor Robin Oakley said Blair had invested his full political weight in getting the law passed, adding to the political drama.

A tense Blair was in the chamber to hear the result, shaking his head as the numbers were revealed.

Blair was uncontrite following the defeat, saying he brought the bill to the Commons because police had said they needed the longer detention period. "It was better to lose doing the right thing, than to win doing the wrong thing," he added.

The prime minister had earlier made an impassioned plea for a "yes" vote.

"We are not living in a police state ... but we are living in a country that faces a real and serious threat of terrorism," he told the Commons.

At least 41 members of his own party joined the opposition in Britain's lower house of parliament to reject the measure.

Looks like Tony Blair is now getting into some trouble for aligning himself with the Bush War Machine. There's no doubt that both President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair see eye to eye regarding both the war on terrorism and Iraq. Blair's measure would have given the authorities even greater provisions to hold suspects without charge--just as the Bush administration has been pushing for greater powers in an expanded Patriot Act. The problem here is that both the British and American public may just now be realizing that their civil liberties are being shredded in the name of fighting terrorism. The public knows this war in Iraq was marketed due to the manipulation of faulty intelligence and the hyping of terrorism fears.

How much longer can Tony Blair survive in office before the British public start to turn against him?

SISMI's War in Iraq: The Iranian Connection

This is from Nur-Al-Cubicle blogsite. It seems that La Repubblica has got another three part series on the forged Niger documents and SISMI connection. Only this time, it gets more interesting. For now, we've got an Iranian connection in this political mess, along with our favorite neocon pro-Iraq-war intelligence source--Ahmed Chalabi! I have not yet had a chance to fully read through this, nor make any more comments on it. I don't know yet what to make of it.

Here's the link to the first part:

My Thoughts and Comments on The Repubblica Story

I've had a chance now to really go through and read the English translation of the Repubblica expose on the Italian forged documents and their link to the Bush White House. It is amazing. I've included the link for the Nur-al-Cubicle blogsite which I used to read this article. Here are my comments on the story:

This is totally amazing. I’m going to start this post as a series of thoughts and observations regarding La Repubblica’s expose. Quotes from the article are italicized.

Let’s start with Rocco Martino, the ‘postman,’ in this debacle. He has a background in military intelligence and worked for SISMI until 1999 as a double agent. He was also working for French intelligence, selling information on Italian intelligence to the French and French intelligence to the Italians. Rocco Martino was playing both sides off each other.

Martino finds out that the French are interested in discovering who is mining and smuggling uranium from Niger at around 1999 to 2000. So Martino hatches a plan with his friend Antonio Nucera, who works at the SISMI divisions that investigate WMD in Africa and the Middle East.

An unnamed Italian intelligence official claims that Nucera’s division got a hold of a Niger code book and a “telex from Ambassador Adamou Chékou to the Niger Foreign Ministry informing Niamey that Wissam al-Zahawie, the Iraqi Ambassador to the Vatican, would be coming to Niger as a representative of Saddam Hussein.

But that wasn’t all. We confiscated maraging steel (ultra-high strength steel) in the port of Trieste. We thought it was destined for a series of centrifuges used to separate uranium. We exchanged information on Iraqi nuclear proliferation at the end of the eighties with the British of MI6—the cream of the crop. A sincere friend of Italy worked there: Hamilton MacMillan. MacMillan mentored Francesco Cossiga [Interior Minister, in charge during the kidnapping and murdering of Aldo Moro by the Red Brigades] in Cossiga's introduction to the mysterious ways of espionage when he was "resident" in Rome.”

So Hamilton MacMillan is an intelligence official at MI6, who worked with the Italian intelligence.

Martino asked for information from Nucera regarding uranium purchases from Africa that he could sell to the French. Nucera gives this telex from the Niger ambassador regarding al Zahawie’s trip. Nucera also provides Martino with an intelligence contractor, La Signora, who works at the Niger embassy in Rome. La Signora introduces Martino and Nucera to another contact at the Niger embassy, First Embassy Counselor Zakaria Yaou Maiga. It seems that everyone here—Martino, La Signora, Maiga, and possibly Nucera needed money. So on New Year’s Eve of 2001, they simulate a break-in of the Niger embassy and steal the Niger embassy letterhead and official stamps.

‘ Old documents are extracted from the SISMI division’s archives where Nucera is deputy chief of section: code books, letters, contracts and a memorandum of understanding between the government of Niger and Iraq “concerning the supply of uranium on 5 and 6 July 2000 in Niamey”. The memorandum has a 2-page attachment entitled “Agreement.”’ The forgeries are created using old SISMI intelligence and combining it with new stuff created with the Niger embassy stationary. Martino sells the stuff to French intelligence.
“The French take the documents and toss them in the dumpster. One of the agents remarks, Niger is a French-speaking place and we know how things are there. But nobody would have confused one minister with another they way they did in that useless piece of garbage.”

September 11 comes up. President Bush wants intelligence proof that Saddam is building WMDs to build his case for Iraq. Nicolo Pollari now runs SISMI. Prime Minister Berlusconi wants Pollari to give him information that would provide Italy lots of international brownie points from the the U.S. President Bush is looking for proof to use against Saddam. The White House and Cheney are pressuring the CIA to provide that proof. “The absence of proof isn’t proof of absence, philosophizes Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. In that kind of climate, with their phony dossier, the snake oil salesmen of via Baiamonti, (Rocco Martino and Antonio Nucera) would be useful. So what do they do in the fall of 2001? Rocco Martino describes it this way: At the end of 2001, SISMI handed the yellowcake dossier to the British of MI6”.

Did SISMI hand these forged documents to their MI6 ally Hamilton MacMillan?

“They hand over a dossier devoid of scrutiny. They claim only that they got it from “a reliable source.” Then they make a small tweak: SISMI wanted to disseminate the Niger documents to allied intelligence but at the same time, did not want its collaboration in the operation known.” SISMI didn’t want British intelligence to know that these documents were forged by SISMI operatives using old archival material.

Pollari vouches for the information in these forged documents to CIA station chief Jeff Castelli. The documents end up at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence—the Office of Strategic, Military and WMD Proliferation Affairs. So by 2001, these forged documents are in U.S. intelligence hands.

Now here’s an interesting part of the story: “Strategic Affairs is not a big place. At the time, 16 analysts worked there under the direction of Greg Thielmann. Thielmann tells La Repubblica: I received the report in fall of 2001. We thought that Langley acquired it from their field officer in Italy. The agent in the field reports that Italian intelligence permitted him see some papers documenting the attempt by Iraq to acquire 500 tons of uranium ore from Niger. So, SISMI purported the truth of documents it knew to be false to the CIA. There’s a second confirmation. At Langley, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson was assigned the mission to verify the Italian “story” of the 500 tons of uranium.” SISMI tells that these documents are true to the CIA, even though they knew them to be falsified? Now Joe Wilson enters the story to check out these Italian claims.

The CIA rejects the bogus documents. ‘CIA analysts consider the report to be “somewhat limited” and “lacking in necessary detail”. Intelligence and Research analysts at the US Department of State qualify the intelligence as “highly suspect.”’

Now this gets interesting: Pollari, “who is no fool, surveys the landscape and the players of the ongoing behind-the-scenes battle in the American Administration between those who stress caution and pragmatism (the US Department of State and the CIA) and those who are looking for an excuse to start a war (Cheney and the Pentagon), which is already on the drawing board. However, when the SISMI director returns to Italy, he perceives a similar battle underway in Rome. Gianni Castellaneta advises Pollari to look in other directions, while Defense Minister Antonio Martino tell Pollari to expect a visit from an old friend of Italy.” We have hawks and doves in both Washington and Rome—both with different agendas, and yet they complement each other. The hawks of Washington—Cheney, Rumsfeld—want any excuse to start a war, while the doves of Powell, and the CIA stress caution. In Rome, Pollari is told by Castellaneta to stress caution (look in other directions), while Defense Minister Antonio Martino is pushing Pollari to see Michael Ledeen. Ledeen is working for the Office of Special Plans, headed by Paul Wolfowitz to collect information in support for the Iraq war. Pollari talks to Ledeen about the forged documents. Ledeen takes the information to Wolfowitz, who takes it to Cheney. Cheney then pressures the CIA to look into this intelligence, even though the CIA already knows these documents are bogus.

Now here’s another interesting piece of information. Pollari marginalized his own SISMI station chief in Washington—an Admiral Giuseppe Grignolo. Apparently Grignolo had an excellent relationship with the CIA and possessed extensive background on WMDs. There’s a good chance that Grignolo would have quickly seen these Italian documents as fakes. So Pollari blocks Grignolo and instead works through the NSA or the Office of Special Plans.

“On September 9, 2002, General Nicolò Pollari met with Stephen Hadley, deputy to National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.”

Now we bring in the Panorama affair. Rocco Martino attempts to sell the forged documents to Panorama’s editor Carlo Rossella. Panoram publishes the Sept. 12-19, 2002 scoop “War with Iraq? It has already begun.” Martino also has given the documents to MI6, and contacts Panorama reporter Elisabetta Burba to sell her the documents. Burba checks up on the documents and discovers they are bogus. Unfortunately, Rossella loves the idea of Martino giving him ‘the smoking gun,’ and sends the documents back to the U.S. Embassy in Rome, where CIA station chief Castelli already knows they’re fakes. These forged Italian documents have gone through three different channels. The first was through the normal CIA intelligence channels, of which the CIA rejected them. The second channel was through Ledeen and the Office of Special Planning, where they went up through Wolfowitz and to Cheney. The third channel was through the Italian press, where Panorama’s editor Rossella sends them back to the U.S. Embassy in Rome—where they were first judged as bogus.

Now back to Pollari’s meeting with Hadley on September 9, 2002. “Pollari knows everything. He has been apprised of sordid adventure of Rocco Martino. His own men were up to their necks in it. He is familiar with the role played by SISMI deputy chief Antonio Nucera, who lends a hand to snake oil salesman Martino. On this day, Pollari is facing a choice for which he has all the elements: to tell Rice’s deputy that the White House had better forget about the uranium story, because it’s a hoax and that the Martino-Nucera duo are imposters, or to reinforce the convictions of the American ally through a little shrewd silence. So what does Pollari choose to do?

Some background first. On September 8, 2002, New York Times Judith Miller reports on a story where Iraq was attempting to purchase aluminum tubes which could be used as rotor sheathing for centrifuges to enrich uranium. In reality, these were not tubes to be used in centrifuges to enrich uranium, but rather the tubes were used for making artillery shells. These tubes could specifically be used to make 81-mm rocket artillery shells in the Medusa air-to-ground missile system, used by the Italian Army. The Iraqis were familiar with this type of weapon system since they purchased this system from the Italians during their military cooperation with Italy in the 1980s.

On September 9, 2002, seated in front of Stephen Hadley, Pollari has the means to address even this aspect of the issue. SISMI claims that it has documentary proof of the acquisition of aluminum tubes by Iraq. Pollari knew that this intelligence the Miller wrote was also bogus. But Pollari did not say a word about the aluminum tubes, or about the forged document regarding Iraqi purchases of uranium from Niger. Pollari kept his mouth shut. He basically went along with the entire scheme.

Pollari does not have Rocco Martino “busted” when he knocks on the door of MI6. Instead, Pollari credits Martino as “a reliable source”. He does not put the damper on the enthusiasm of Michel Ledeen and the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans. He simply sits there in silence as the imbroglio simmers. In fact, when he does open his mouth, he neither extinguishes nor disappoints American hopes. This is what happened in the case of the aluminum tubes. Following a “brilliant operation”, SISMI enters into material possession of the tubes. It’s a military intelligence victory.

On September 12, Panorama publishes its article “War with Iraq? It has already started.” On September 24, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announces that the Iraqi purchases of uranium yellowcake from Africa. Finally President Bush announces the proof of Iraq purchasing uranium from Africa in his 2003 State of the Union address.

If this entire Repubblica article is even half true, it is almost amazing how a simple third-rate attempt at forging old documents for money, could have ended up to the highest reaches of power in Washington, Rome, and London. The information portrayed in these forgeries were almost too good to be true for everyone involved. The Bush White House wanted to believe these documents as definitive proof for going to war in Iraq. The Italian government of Prime Minister Berlusconi wanted to use these documents to curry favors with the Bush White House—even though SISMI’s Pollari knew that these documents were fakes. Tony Blair used the documents to rally British support for the war. And yet no-one questioned the validity of these documents. And those who did look closely at them—the CIA in Rome, Elisabetta Burba with Panorama Magazine, even the French intelligence with whom these forgeries were originally designed for—their objections were ignored, or discredited as Ambassador Joe Wilson would learn when his wife Valerie Plame would be exposed as working for the CIA. This is not a conspiracy of top government officials in the U.S., Italy, or Great Britain, to use these documents for their own self-interests. But rather, this is a conspiracy of incompetence and hubris between the three governments and their self-interested officials. And as their incompetence regarding these forged documents becomes publicly known, it is only natural for these top leaders to cover up their own failures due to their hubris and incompetence.

The English Translation of La Repubblica is Here!

The English translation of La Repubblica is right here!

I know I'm going to be picking through it.

More Speculation Regarding British Intelligence

This is from the Left-Coaster blogsite:

This passage goes a long way in helping me confirm the mechanics of the creation of the Niger uranium hoax that I had described yesterday. Here is the translated version of the passage (emphasis mine):

So [Rocco Martino] asks for help form an old colleague at SISMI: Antonio Nucera. A Carabinieri (cop) like Rocco, Antonio is the Deputy Chief of the SISMI center in viale Pasteur in Rome. He’s chief of the 1st and the 8th divisions (weapons and technology transfers and WMD proliferation counterespionage, respectively, for Africa and the Middle East.

This section is very busy section at the end of the 1980s tailing the many agents which Saddam has deployhed around the world prior to the invasion of Kuwait. “With some success”, according to an Italian intelligence official who at the time worked for the division. The official recalls: "We succeeded in getting our hands on Niger code books and a telex from Ambassador Adamou Chékou to the Niger Foreign Ministry informing Niamey that Wissam al-Zahawie, the Iraqi Ambassador to the Vatican, would be coming to Niger as a representative of Saddam Hussein."

I have been harping on this for some time, but this is the visit that the British falsely associated with uranium in order to peddle their "uranium from Africa" allegation, long after the CIA had given up on it. It was the British Government's last remaining claim - one that they continued to push in the mendacious Butler report, in its Conclusions, to cover-up their false allegation and to give George Bush some cover in the aftermath of the Joseph Wilson op-ed and the White House's retraction of the false Bush SOTU claim.

Prior to the appearance of the forged documents, the Al-Zahawi visit was known to have been unrelated to uranium (as the CIA effectively admitted, as IAEA noted in their March 2003 statement and as the Iraq Survey Group independently confirmed later in 2004). However, once a mention of Al-Zahawi's visit was deliberately introduced into the forged documents, with the visit being falsely linked to uranium, it gave the documents a veneer of plausibility (since the trip did occur), while allowing the forgers and the intelligence agencies to claim that this trip was about uranium, even though it was not. Further, because the visit itself occurred, it made it easy for the British to keep claiming that the visit had to do with uranium (with no evidence whatsoever) even after the Niger documents were revealed as forgeries. This was an easy allegation to make and it was easier to sell to the public because, unlike a uranium sale, one could simply allege that Al-Zahawi was "seeking" uranium without any documentary proof for it. That, folks, is how the "sought...uranium from Africa" hoax was perpetrated by the Bush and Blair administrations and extended perpetually by the British Government.

I'm not sure how valid the information on this blogsite is regarding British intelligence getting duped by the Italian forgeries, but it does provide an interesting explanation. It certainly provides some measure of validity--the forgeries show that Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican, al-Zahawie was going to visit Niger, of which he did but for different reasons than the forged documents claim. British intelligence would certainly have known of the trip, and would have watched al-Zahawie. It would certainly also give the British a second claim of an intelligence source regarding Iraq's purchasing uranium, even though this claim is still linked to the original forgeries (Since the forgeries spelled out this link).

More to come to this puzzle.

The British Connection in La Repubblica

This is also from the blogsite Crooked Timber:

La Repubblica has another story today on the role of Italian intelligence in feeding bogus evidence on Niger to Hadley and others in the US and elsewhere. There’s one key piece of new information. UK intelligence claimed to have evidence independent of the forged documents, which showed that Iraq had indeed been trying to obtain uranium in Niger. According to La Repubblica:

This “evidence” has never been brought forward … “If it ever were brought forward,” said a source in Forte Braschi to la Repubblica, with a smile, “it would be discovered, with red faces, that it was Italian intelligence collected by SISMI at the end of the 1980’s, and shared with our friend Hamilton McMillan.”

As best as I can piece this together, the timeline that La Repubblica is arguing for goes as follows. Italian intelligence collected [genuine] information that Hussein was trying to obtain raw uranium at the end of the 1980’s, before the First Gulf War. This information was stored by the branch of Italian intelligence dealing with weapon proliferation issues. When the invasion of Iraq was imminent, this information was brought out from the archives, and bundled together with fake documents in order to make the latter look more legitimate. This dossier was then circulated to UK and US intelligence. The latter didn’t bite at first, causing the director of Italian intelligence to use back channels to Hadley and to Wolfowitz via Ledeen. UK intelligence did bite, either then or later. UK intelligence later claimed that it had a source of intelligence independent from the faked documents saying that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium. However, according to La Repubblica the ‘independent’ source was also from Italian intelligence, and related to efforts by Hussein’s regime to obtain uranium in the 1980’s. Hence, it was for all intents and purposes irrelevant to the question of whether Hussein was trying to obtain uranium in post-sanctions Iraq.

And now we come to President Bush's famous 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union Speech:

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

So the big question is, where did the British government get its intelligence regarding Saddam's purchasing of uranium from Africa? Was it from the forged documents that SISMI sent over? Was British intelligence completely duped by this stuff? Remember--the CIA didn't bite at this stuff! Then there's this question of British intelligence finding a source that was independent of the forged documents saying Saddam was buying uranium from Africa. The Brits have not said what that source was. Repubblica claims that the independent source was also from Italian intelligence and the fake documents--perhaps the Panorama magazine story? We know that Panorama's editor Carlo Rossella sent reporter Elisabetta Burba to the American embassy with the forged documents. Could Rossella have also contacted the British with this intelligence information? What is this other source of information?

More to come.

Italian Faces Pre-War Intelligence Probe

Looks like the Associated Press has picked up on this Italian intelligence story:

ROME - The head of Italy's military secret services will be questioned by a parliamentary commission next week over allegations that his organization gave the United States and Britain disputed documents suggesting that Saddam Hussein had been seeking uranium in Africa, officials said Tuesday.

Nicolo Pollari, director of the SISMI intelligence agency, will be questioned on Nov. 3 by members of the commission overseeing secret services, said Micaela Panella, a commission spokeswoman.

She said Pollari asked to be questioned after reports Monday and Tuesday in the Rome daily La Repubblica claiming SISMI passed on to the CIA, U.S. government officials and Britain's MI6 intelligence services a dossier it knew was forged.

The documents detailed a purported Iraqi deal to buy 500 tons of uranium yellowcake from Niger, a claim the United States and Britain used to try to prove Saddam Hussein was seeking to develop weapons of mass destruction and justify the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The Italian government a staunch U.S. ally repeatedly has denied reports that SISMI passed on documents about the Niger affair.

Now here's the fun part:

Pollari's hearing will not be open to the public, but the commission's president, Enzo Bianco, was expected to brief reporters after the meeting, Panella said.

You do know what's going to happen? The commission's going to sweep this whole affair under the rug. The last thing the Italian government wants to do is discover that they were involved in this whole, sorrid affair. Thus, we have secret hearings, where the commission's president Bianco can say anything he wants and quash this thing on the Italian side. Pollari may become the fall guy, in which case he'll be quietly let go.

If Pollari was invovled in creating these forged documents, then he was acting under orders from someone higher up. Who was that higher-up? Was it the advisor to the Foreign Minister Gianni Castellaneta? And if so, was Castellaneta following orders from Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi? Do you think the commission wants to uncover all of this--if Pollari talks about it? Would Berlusconi or Castellaneta want all this to come out? In one sense, it is out through the press, but then the Italian government can simply deny this whole thing took place. Pollari's testimony to the commission would validate this connection between the Italian government and the Bush White House PR-spin machine.

More questions, more speculation...More to come.

La Repubblica Scoop--Some More Answers and Questions

Note: When I first published this piece, there was some problems with the punctuation. I've tried to clean this up the best I can.

I found this from the Crooked Timber blogsite:

As various bloggers have noted, the Italian paper La Repubblica seems to have a scoop on the sources of the famous forged Niger documents, and the role played by the Italian intelligence services. Laura Rozen has a summary article in the Prospect, but there's some additional detail in the original article. For the benefit of non-Italian readers, I've done a quick translation of the relevant bits and put it below the fold. Two health warnings. First, this is a rough and ready translation. I'm not a professional, and there may well be a few inaccuracies (please point them out in comments if you spot them). Second, La Repubblica is, as Italian newspapers go, a trustworthy publication, but like all Italian newspapers, it's surrounded by a swirl of politics and special interests. I'm obviously not in a position to attest to the veracity of its claims, but at the least, they're very interesting.

It's a fact that on the eve of the Iraq war, and under the supervision of the diplomatic advisor to the Foreign Ministry, Gianni Castellaneta (today ambassador to the USA), the director of SISMI organized his agenda in Washington with the staff of Condoleeza Rice, who was National Security Adviser to the White House at that time. La Repubblica is able to document this two track process between the government and Italian intelligence. At least one of these "barely official" [molto poco istituzionali] meetings of Pollari's was, according to secret service agents, the "creation of a system" that would bring together government, intelligence and public affairs [informazione].

To summarize: Nicolo Pollari's SISMI wanted to substantiate the [case for] the Iraqi acquisition of raw uranium to build a nuclear bomb. The game-plan was rather transparent. "Authentic" documents relating to an attempted acquisition in Niger (old Italian intelligence from the 1980's) were the dowry of the second-in-command of CISMI's Roman headquarters (Antonio Nucera). They were bundled together with another fabricated document through a simulated burglary on the Nigerien embassy (from which they had gotten headed notepaper and seals). The documents were shown by Pollari's men to CIA station agents, and at the same time, a SISMI "postman" by the name of Rocco Martino was sent to Sir Richard Dearlove of MI6 in London.

turning to the second chapter of the Great Swindle, organized in Italy, to build the case that military intervention in Iraq was necessary. The Italian report on uranium

The CIA analysts thought the first report "very limited" and "without the necessary details." INR analysts in the Department of State assessed the information as "highly suspect." The immediate impact on the American Intelligence community wasn't very gratifying for Pollari. Gianni Castellaneta advised him to look in "other directions" too, while the minister of Defence, Antonio Martino invited him to meet "an old friend of Italy's." The American friend was Michael Ledeen, an old fox in the "parallel" intelligence community in the US, who had been declared an undesirable person in our country [Italy] in the 1980's [editorial note; I understand that this claim was contested when it was made by Sidney Blumenthal]. Ledeen was at Rome on behalf of the Office of Special Plans, created at the Pentagon by Paul Wolfowiz to gather intelligence that would support military intervention in Iraq. A source at Forte Braschi told La Repubblica : "Pollari got a frosty reception from the CIA's station head in Rome, Jeff Castelli, for this information on uranium. Castelli apparently let the matter drop [lascia cadere la storia]. Pollari got the hint and talked about it with Michael Ledeen." We don't know what Michael Ledeen did in Washington. But at the beginning of 2002, Paul Wolfowitz convinced Dick Cheney that the uranium trail intercepted by the Italians had to be explored top to bottom. The vice-president, as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence tells it, once again asked the CIA "very decisively" to find out more about the "possible acquisition of Nigerien uranium." In this meeting, Dick Cheney explicitly said that this piece of intelligence was at the disposition of a "foreign service."

So, Gianni Castellaneta of the Italian Foreign Ministry, and the director of SISMI--Pollari per chance--were working with NSA Condi Rice in gathering intelligence favorable to President Bush to sell the war in Iraq to the American public. Pollari's SISMI was given the task to build this case for the Iraq war by spicing up some old Italian intelligence documents regarding Iraq's purchase of uranium in the 1980s. These old intelligence documents were being held by SIMSI's Antonio Nucera. But since the documents were old, they would have been rejected by the CIA. So, these 1980s documents were bundled together with some new forged documents using the Nigerian embassy's stationary and seals. Pollari gave the documents to the CIA in Rome, while Rocco Martino sent another set of documents to Sir Richard Dearlove of MI6 in London. So who ordered this scam? Was it Castellaneta? Pollari? Or could it be a higher-up, such as the Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi? Did Condi Rice know of this scam?

The CIA rejected the documents. Now this gets interesting. '"The immediate impact on the American Intelligence community wasn't very gratifying for Pollari. Gianni Castellaneta advised him to look in "other directions" too, while the minister of Defence, Antonio Martino invited him to meet "an old friend of Italy's." The American friend was Michael Ledeen"' Because the CIA rejected the documents, Castellaneta told Pollari to shop the documnets around. Defense Minister Martino told Pollari to show the documents to Michael Ledeen. "Ledeen was at Rome on behalf of the Office of Special Plans, created at the Pentagon by Paul Wolfowiz to gather intelligence that would support military intervention in Iraq." Ledeen was working for Paul Wolfowiz. Wolfowiz was with the Office of Special Plans, who was certainly shopping for proof to make the Bush case for going to war in Iraq. You can bet that what Pollari had was hot stuff for both Ledeen and Wolfowiz.

So the Italian intelligence provided the CIA with forged documents. The CIA rejected those documents, after which the Italians then went through the back door to give the documents directly to the White House. [A]t the beginning of 2002, Paul Wolfowitz convinced Dick Cheney that the uranium trail intercepted by the Italians had to be explored top to bottom. The vice-president, as the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence tells it, once again asked the CIA "very decisively" to find out more about the "possible acquisition of Nigerien uranium." In this meeting, Dick Cheney explicitly said that this piece of intelligence was at the disposition of a "foreign service." Cheney didn't say what foreign intelligence service these documents came from--If the CIA knew that they came from Italy, the CIA would immediatly claim they were bogus since the CIA had already seen these documents. But the White House gets these documents, and it is almost too good to be true. It is definitive proof that Iraq was purchasing uranium from Nigeria. VP Cheney orders the CIA to investigate this intelligence, even though the CIA knew that these documents were forgeries. And to make these documents seem more credible, Rocco Martino gives them to a Panoram journalist, allowing them to be published and to provide more credibility to them through public opinion.

And there's more:

Pollari could concentrate on another essential aspect of his stratagem. Promoting SISMI and himself, extracting the proceeds of his secret labour over a year. After returning from his secret meeting with Hadley, Pollari sought a hearing from the parliamentary committee that oversees the secret services. There were two hearings. In the first, the director of SISMI maintained "We don't have documentary evidence, but we do have information that a central African state has sold pure uranium to Baghdad." Thirty days later, Pollari said, "We have documentary evidence of the acquisition of natural uranium by Iraq in a central-African republic."

Pollari had to get the Italian intelligence services to back his plan. So first, he says there were no documentary evidence at a parlimentary committee meeting, but then later on says that he had documentary evidence. Pollari lied to his parlimentary committee overseeing his intelligence service. And finally there is this:

Pollari still had the problem of how to convey the fake document to Washington without leaving any of his fingerprints. The SISMI "postman," Rocco Martino, who had already knocked on MI6's door, contacted the Panorama correspondent, Elisabetta Burba, and tried to sell her the document. Burba correctly checked the information in Niger, she concluded that the story didn't stand up. But the editor of the weekly, Carlo Rossella, enthusiastic that he might have found, as his staff describe it, a "smoking gun," sent her with the document to the American embassy, as the "highest source for verification."

Pollari had sent Rocco Martino to give the documents first to MI6, and then to the Panorama's reporter. Now this is also interesting. Carlo Rossella told Panorama's reporter Elisabetta Burba to send the documents to the American embassy. In my previous blog post, I noted that Carlo Rossella was a favorite of Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi. Did Berlusconi (or someone in his office) tell Rossella that these documents were important to his agenda of helping sell the Iraq war on behalf of President Bush?

The more I read into this, the more I'm starting to ask if this is a scam that was created by both the Italian intelligence, and someone in the U.S. government? Why would Italian intelligence go about trying to deceive American intelligence with these forged documents? And these documents were poor forgeries--the CIA outright rejected them. And yet, Pollari was able to end run these through directly into the White House, where Cheney ordered the CIA to investigate this intelligence lead that the CIA knew was a fraud. So we come back to the question of who started this scam and why? One obvious "why" answer would be to provide documented proof that Iraq was purchasing materials to make WMDs, and this was the reason for President Bush to go to war in Iraq. But who created this fraud? It had to be someone high up in the Italian government, who could order Italian intelligence to play out this scheme. Was it Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi? Did Berlusconi order Castellaneta to find or make-up proof as a means to help President Bush? Did President Bush personally ask Berlusconi for help in marketing his war? Where does Hadley and Rice fit in on this? We know that Hadley and Pollari met on September 9, 2002 and that three days after, the Pomona story on the forged documents was published. Did Pollari tell Hadley of these documents? And if so, did Hadley know that these documents were forgeries--did he check with the CIA?

Such a puzzle.

Italy's intelligence chief met with Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley just a month before the Niger forgeries first surfaced.

This is from Laura Rozen at the American Prospect Online:

In an explosive series of articles appearing this week in the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, investigative reporters Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe d'Avanzo report that Nicolo Pollari, chief of Italy's military intelligence service, known as Sismi, brought the Niger yellowcake story directly to the White House after his insistent overtures had been rejected by the Central Intelligence Agency in 2001 and 2002. Sismi had reported to the CIA on October 15, 2001, that Iraq had sought yellowcake in Niger, a report it also plied on British intelligence, creating an echo that the Niger forgeries themselves purported to amplify before they were exposed as a hoax.

Today's exclusive report in La Repubblica reveals that Pollari met secretly in Washington on September 9, 2002, with then–Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Their secret meeting came at a critical moment in the White House campaign to convince Congress and the American public that war in Iraq was necessary to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons. National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones confirmed the meeting to the Prospect on Tuesday.

Pollari told the newspaper that since 2001, when he became Sismi's director, the only member of the U.S. administration he has met officially is his former CIA counterpart George Tenet. But the Italian newspaper quotes a high-ranking Italian Sismi source asserting a meeting with Hadley. La Repubblica also quotes a Bush administration official saying, "I can confirm that on September 9, 2002, General Nicolo Pollari met Stephen Hadley."

The paper goes on to note the significance of that date, highlighting the appearance of a little-noticed story in Panorama a weekly magazine owned by Italian Prime Minister and Bush ally Silvio Berlusconi, that was published three days after Pollari's meeting with Hadley. The magazine's September 12, 2002, issue claimed that Iraq's intelligence agency, the Mukhabarat, had acquired 500 tons of uranium from Nigeria through a Jordanian intermediary. (While this September 2002 Panorama report mentioned Nigeria, the forgeries another Panorama reporter would be proferred less than a month later purportedly concerned Niger.)

The Sismi chief's previously undisclosed meeting with Hadley, who was promoted earlier this year to national security adviser, occurred one month before a murky series of events culminated in the U.S. government obtaining copies of the Niger forgeries.

The forged documents were cabled from the U.S. embassy in Rome to Washington after being delivered to embassy officials by Elisabetta Burba, a reporter for Panorama. She had received the papers from an Italian middleman named Rocco Martino. Burba never wrote a story about those documents. Instead her editor, Berlusconi favorite Carlo Rossella, ordered her to bring them immediately to the U.S. embassy.

Although Sismi's involvement in promoting the Niger yellowcake tale to U.S. and British intelligence has been previously reported, the series in La Repubblica includes many new details, including the name of a specific Sismi officer, Antonio Nucera, who helped to set the Niger forgeries hoax in motion.

What may be most significant to American observers, however, is the newspaper's allegation that the Italians sent the bogus intelligence about Niger and Iraq not only through traditional allied channels such as the CIA, but seemingly directly into the White House. That direct White House channel amplifies questions about a now-infamous 16-word reference to the Niger uranium in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address -- which remained in the speech despite warnings from the CIA and the State Department that the allegation was not substantiated.

So Italian intelligence first tried to send these documents to the CIA, but the CIA rejected them. So instead, a General Nicolo Pollari met with Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to inform Hadley of the Iraq uranium yellowcake purchase. And even more importantly, this information was never confirmed by U.S. intelligence. Now here's an interesting question--did Pollari know, at the time of the meeting with Hadley, that this intelligence was bogus? Did Italian intelligence report this bogus information to the CIA, or even to Hadley?

Now the question of these documents. First, there is this Italian magazine Panorama that's owned by the Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi, who happens to be a Bush ally. Forged documents of this uranium yellowcake deal was obtained by a Panorama reporter, who was then ordered by an editor of Panorama--who just happened to be a Berlusconi ally--to take them to the U.S. embassy in Rome? Who is this Sismi intelligence officer Nucera, and where does he fit into this picture? Where did this Italian middleman Rocco Martino get these forged documents? Who forged the documents? Who paid for these forged documents? Where did Panorama get this story about Iraq purchasing 500 tons of uranium from Nigeria through a Jordanian intermediary?

I'm sorry, but this is starting to look like a snow job here. Berlusconi was a Bush ally who probably wanted to help Bush's Great War on Terrorism. And since Bush couldn't find any documentation proving that Iraq was aquiring WMDs, someone decided to create "proof" of Iraq's involvement in aquiring nuclear weapons. Hence, this entire scam of Iraq purchasing uranium yellowcake, and the forged documents to prove it. The scam had to come from overseas, where this proof could be fixed through a third party-country's overseas intelligence services. And it had to go through a country who was an ally of Bush, where such an ally could have the power to selectively control these documents moving from the host country's intelligence services to the U.S. intelligence without suspicion. So Italy enters the picture with Prime Minister Berlusconi. The big question now is, who's the mastermind behind this entire scam?

London Attacked: Four Blasts Hit City During Rush Hour

From the Associated Press:

LONDON (July 7) - Four explosions rocked the London subway and tore open a packed double-decker bus during the morning rush hour Thursday, sending bloodied victims fleeing in the worst attack on London since World War II. At least 40 people were killed, U.S. officials said, and more than 700 were wounded.

A clearly shaken Prime Minister Tony Blair called the coordinated attacks ''barbaric'' and said they were designed to coincide with the G-8 summit opening in Gleneagles, Scotland. They also came a day after London won the bid to host the 2012 Olympics. A group calling itself the Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe claimed responsibility.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the explosions have the ''hallmarks" of an al-Qaida related attack. He added that neither Britain's police nor the intelligence services had any warning of the attacks.

The four blasts went off within an hour, beginning at 8:51 a.m. (3:51 a.m. EDT), and hit three subway stations and the double-decker bus. Authorities immediately shut down the subway and bus lines that log 8.4 million passenger trips every weekday.

There are a couple obvious conclusions in this attack. The attack was certainly planned to coincide with the G-8 Summit meeting being held in Gleneagles, Scotland. What is a better way to attract attention to your political cause than to initiate a terrorist attack to coincide with a major national or international event. You can bet the G-8 leaders will be talking about this attack. For the attack to come after London's winning of the 2012 Olympics is probably a random chance. This attack was also in the planning stages for a long time--perhaps at least a year. You need time to scout out possible bombing locations, subway time schedules, and security. You need to set up safe houses for the terrorists to coordinate their information and intelligence, recruit members, build the bombs, and plan the attacks. You certainly need money wired to London to finance the operation. And you certainly need to plan for an escape route after the attack.

What I think is more interesting is this group calling itself The Secret Organization of al-Qaida in Europe claiming responsibility for the attack. I'm not sure if they're responsible or not, but it does provide some interesting observations. The first is that al-Qaida has morphed from a centralized terrorist organization--based in Afghanistan--to a decentralized organization where cells operate independently. American or British intelligence had no clue about this terrorist cell or cells' planning and execution of this attack. In a way, this tells us something about the structure of the al-Qaida organization. There may be a centralized command structure among top al-Qaida leaders, who would select possible dates for attacks based on political gain, propaganda and moral support for their fighters, and possibly select team leaders to execute high profile attacks. These team leaders would be responsible for recruiting cells, planning and executing the attacks. The team leaders would also be given funds for their operation. The team leader could be the link between the centralized al-Qaida and the decentralized terrorist cells. Recruitment of members could come from the Middle East--certainly Afghanistan, Pakistan, and especially Iraq, where the member have experienced combat against U.S. and British forces in the war there.

Al-Qaida has now adapted into a far more dangerous organization. This attack clearly shows that they are back. Their fighters are far more experienced--especially at initiating terror attacks against U.S. forces and supply lines in Iraq. Their cells will be far tougher to break into--especially if the cells operate independently of each other. And with world anger mounting against the U.S. for its war in Iraq, recruitment of new members will certainly swell al-Qaida's ranks. We have to start thinking of new and innovative ways on how to fight this terrorist war--going in with military or police forces isn't going to win this war.

We are now losing the war on terrorism.

London Lands 2012 Olympics: New York's Bid Falls Short

From The Associated Press:

SINGAPORE (July 6) - London was awarded the 2012 Olympics on Wednesday, upsetting European rival Paris in the final round of voting to take the games back to the British capital for the first time since 1948.

After Moscow, New York and Madrid were eliminated in the first three rounds, London overcame its cross-Channel opponent 54-50 on the fourth ballot of the International Olympic Committee vote - capping the most glamorous and hotly contested bid race in Olympic history.

Paris had been the front-runner throughout the campaign, but London picked up momentum in the late stages with strong support from Prime Minister Tony Blair.

What can I say, but CONGRATULATIONS LONDON! I'm sure the city will put on a spectacular show.

Protesters, Police Scuffle Ahead of G-8 Summit

This is from the Associated Press:

EDINBURGH, Scotland (July 4) - Hundreds of black-clad anarchists and anti-G-8 protesters clashed violently with police in Scotland's capital Monday, as demonstrators sought to keep up pressure on world leaders ahead of a summit of wealthy nations.

Shield-carrying police locked down entire streets, penning in protesters with the help of officers on horseback. Authorities advised businesses to close, describing the protesters' behavior as threatening.

Groups of up to 200 demonstrators, some dressed as clowns, roamed Edinburgh, banging drums, blowing whistles and taunting officers. Police said they had arrested nearly 30 protesters.

The protests were aimed at Wednesday's meeting of the Group of Eight industrialized nations at the nearby Gleneagles Hotel, where world leaders will discuss African poverty and ways to deals with global warming.

Some demonstrators are demanding that leaders take urgent action on world poverty and the environment, while anarchists don't want the summit itself to go ahead.

The protests followed the Live 8 series of concerts around the world, in which rock stars and celebrities urged the G-8 leaders to take decisive steps to end African poverty.

This is interesting. When the Live8 concert took place over this weekend, I didn't take much consideration for its social or political effects in the world. And even now as the concert has ended, I still don't think it is going to do much for ending the African poverty and debt relief. President Bush is certainly going to ignore the concert and the G-8 protesters opinions. And while the rest of the G-8 world leaders may make some references that the protesters are raising concerns over long-term issues, nothing will be done at this G-8 summit. The American public will continue to remain ignorant of this issue--they'll listen to the music of their favorite rock stars as the concerts are televised, but then the corporate media will cut to commercials as the stars will give their speeches on the issues (hey, got to pad the bottom-lined profits for the shareholders).

But now on the heels of the Live8 concerts, we've got the protesters starting up their demonstrations at the G-8 summit in Scotland. The concerts have certainly galvanized the civil activists. And we'll see more demonstrations over the next couple of days. Europe has a far more open and freer press, allowing for the greater exchange of alternative ideas and opinions, rather than the corporate-controlled press that we have here in the U.S. This exchange of ideas can bring a greater demonstration and disapproval among Europeans towards the Bush administrations policies. The question is, will these demonstrations help break the political lethargy that paralyzes the American public? Will it galvanize the American public to take greater actions in the political arena?

Future of Turkey, Other Aspiring EU Members in Question After Voters Reject EU Constitution

An Associated Press article analyzes the future of Turkey and other nations attempting to join the European Union. The article asks whether the EU is willing to accept 10 new members, mostly Eastern European countries, and possibly Turkey—whose own negotiations to join the EU have been going on for 10 years. With the voters of France and the Netherlands rejecting the proposed European Union constitution, how does this rejection play out in the Turkey’s membership negotiations into the EU?

Turkey has been a wildcard of an anomaly with the European Union. The nation straddles three continents—Europe, Asia, and Africa. Throughout history, it has been a strategic link in the trade routes between Europe and Asia. The Eastern Roman Empire—The Byzantine Empire—was formed in the Middle Ages with Constantinople as its capital (Now known as modern-day Istanbul). Turkey is currently a member of NATO, and is the only Muslim nation with a democratically elected government. Turkey is probably the most “Westernized” nation in the Muslim world. Its government and foreign policy has stressed a desire to join the European Union as a means to economically expand its trade and business ties with Europe. The problem with Turkey is that it is a large, rapidly growing Second World nation with a population of 70 million that is predominantly ethnic Turkish, and Muslim. This is a hard pill for the members of the European nations to swallow, considering that as an EU member, Turkey would become the second largest nation in the EU after Germany, which has a population of 80 million. Another problem the EU has is with immigration. Almost all the nations in the EU are comprised of their own ethnicities—the French live in France, the Germans live in Germany, the Dutch live in the Netherlands. They all have their separate languages and cultures. The nations of the EU have had a deeper, xenophobic fear of allowing foreign immigrants to become naturalized citizens, who would then degrade or dilute their natural culture. So barriers and restrictions to naturalized citizenship in European nations are set at a high level. In addition, immigration into EU countries is limited as a means to keep foreigners out of the country. An EU Turkey would allow Turkish citizens to move anywhere in Europe. Finally, there is a security issue at stake. For Turkey to be admitted into the EU would cause the EU’s borders to extend into the Middle East, bordering Syria and Iraq. Such an extension of borders could allow terrorists to slip into Turkey, and thus into the EU for future planned terrorist attacks. An EU Turkey with a growing population, predominantly Muslim, ethnic, with borders on an unstable Middle East, also poses another threat to Europeans. It is a threat that French, German, and Dutch citizens would have to accept the growing power of Turkish legislators in the European Parliament to make decisions affecting their lives, or their sovereignty. All of these fears had an influence in the rejection of the constitution by both France and the Netherlands.

The European Union has got to stop toying with Turkey’s membership and start making the hard choice of whether to let Turkey join, or not. By allowing Turkey to join the EU, this expands cultural and economic ties between both Europe and Turkey, and Europe and the Middle East. It provides a model to the world where a Muslim nation can be both a major power and a democracy. Turkey can become a bridge between the First World countries of Europe and the Third World countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. If the European Union rejects Turkey, this may force Turkey to become isolated in the world—neither a part of a European block, nor a Middle Eastern block, nor a Russian or Asian block of economic trade zones. Turkey’s economic isolationism from any trade blocks could cause resentment or anger among the Turkish population against Europe. This could result in a rise of nationalism within Turkey. The worst-case scenario would be for a rise of nationalism combined with religious extremism. This combination could allow for Islamic fundamentalists to seize power in Turkey, institute a theocratic government, then exporting their fundamentalism into Europe through the Balkan Peninsula in the form of state-sponsored terrorism.

Turkey is the wildcard in the EU. The leaders of the European Union and Turkey have got to learn how to play this card correctly which would benefit both the nations in the EU and Turkey. Any other way, could become a major disaster.

EU Regroups After Double Defeat

Another AP Story here:

European leaders may have to scrap the proposed EU Constitution after Dutch voters rejected it by a massive margin, voicing their concern over dwindling national identity in a rapidly expanding union and their distrust of increasingly powerful bureaucrats.

In simpler terms, both the French and the Dutch have voted their own cultural and national self-interest over that of the broader continent-wide Europe. People there think of themselves as French, Dutch, British, Spanish, rather than European. It is akin to Californians here thinking of the interests of California first, over that of the United States on all issues. Europe is comprised of nations--and before that, kingdoms--that have existed as separate entities for almost a thousand years with their own language, culture, and unique identity. It will be almost impossible to separate those nationalistic feelings, or to channel them into some supra-national view of being 'European.' unfortunately, the policy-makers at the EU have been trying this impossible task in selling this constitution.

The policy-makers cannot push this constitution on a population with strong ties towards their own nation and culture. What the EU should try to do is to continue to develop stronger economic ties between the nations. This could be to liberalize the trade between EU nations, improve business formulation between countries, improve intrastate regulations on trade between member states, and allow a greater freedom of travel and immigration between EU members. As an economic entity, the EU can have a greater success in providing a larger market in products and services to its EU members. However, the strong nationalistic ties in foreign policy, defense, culture, language and identity is still strong within the member nations. The EU will have to remain patient in slowly changing the nationalistic bonds between the individual and their nation-state, to a bond between the individual and 'Europe.'

France Rejects European Union's First Constitution

France rejected the European Union's constitution in a referendum, Sunday, creating a potential crisis for the EU as the organization attempts to enlarge the block with East European nations. President Jacques Chirac swiftly conceded defeat after polling groups showed about 55 percent of the voters opposed the EU's first constitution.

This is a big, complicated story in Europe. The European Union is basically a large trading block of nations which have opened their borders to trade, developed a new currency for all member nations--the euro--while the member nations have nullified their own currency, and have tried to integrate their economies into a large free trade zone. It is almost economically akin to the United States of Europe--but without a joint military policy, foreign policy, or a single political government. The EU member countries include France, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Great Britain. The EU was first born out of the old European Coal and Steel Community which established an economic treaty between France and Germany, then later expanded to six countries under the European Economic Community. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 established the euro as a common currency for the EU, and integrated monetary and budgetary policies among the member states. The EU constitution would allow the EU to streamline some of its parliamentary and government procedures, as well as attempt to develop a common defense and foreign policy for the EU as a whole.

So why did France reject the EU? The most likely reason is that France wanted to have a greater say in EU affairs. France has always had a need for both a greater say in political affairs, and to reiterate its independence as a means of security. France originally joined in an economic alliance with Germany with the European Coal and Steel Community as a means to both check the rising economic power of West Germany, and to influence West Germany in policy matters reflecting French interests. In regards to its independence and need for security, France first became one of the original members of NATO until French President Charles De Gaulle took France out of the NATO military command in 1967 and expelled all foreign-controlled troops from the country. You have to wonder if De Gaulle was worried that France would become another occupied country, similar to her occupation under Nazi Germany, but under the benign influence of the U.S. and Great Britain. When the Maastricht Treaty was signed, French leaders probably saw themselves as a counterweight to an expanded Germany who could dominate the European economy. As the EU was expanded to include the East European countries, the French would have realized that their power and influence in EU affairs would be diluted as the new constitution was established. And so France reverts itself back to an independent streak, though not completely out of the EU.

But there's a greater, underlying problem regarding the EU's constitution. There is only so much that a nation-state can give up for integration, before it starts to give up its sovereignty and its right of existence as a nation-state. When the European Union was formed, the member nations had to give up their right to print their own currency for a common European currency known as the euro. The member nations also had to give up some monetary powers in their economies such as setting interest rates, and maintaining low budget deficit and inflation rates. Giving these powers up to a greater political organization means giving up your sovereignty. And since the EU's constitution also alludes to the idea of developing both a common foreign policy and a security policy, the member nations would have to someday give up the greatest power a nation-state has: The power to make war. France is certainly not ready to give that power up.

I'm not sure where the EU's constitution will go from here.