http://lnk.nu/nytimes.com/6vn.html

-

Lieberman's Iraq Stance Brings Widening Split With His Party

By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
and WILLIAM YARDLEY

Published: December 10, 2005

-

WASHINGTON, Dec. 9 - Five years after running as the vice-presidential nominee on the Democratic ticket and a year after his own presidential bid, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut has become an increasingly unwelcome figure within his party, with some Democrats seeing him more as a wayward son than a favorite son.

In the last few days, the senator has riled Democratic activists and politicians here and in his home state with his vigorous defense of President Bush's handling of the Iraq war at a time some Democrats are pressuring the administration to begin a withdrawal.


Joseph I. Lieberman has angered fellow
Democrats, in one instance by reminding
them that President Bush is commander in chief.
(Carol T. Powers for The New York Times)

Mr. Lieberman particularly infuriated his colleagues when he pointed out at a conference here that President Bush would be commander in chief for three more years and said that "it's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that."

"We undermine the president's credibility at our nation's peril," Mr. Lieberman said.

Much of the open criticism has been from liberal groups and House members. But his comments have also rankled Democrats in the Senate. Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, phoned Mr. Lieberman this week to express concerns with his views, Mr. Reid's aide said.

"Senator Reid has a lot of respect for Senator Lieberman," said Jim Manley, a Reid spokesman. "But he feels that Senator Lieberman's position on Iraq is at odds with many Americans."

An aide to another leading Democratic senator who insisted on anonymity said the feelings toward Mr. Lieberman could be summed up as, "The American people want to hold George Bush accountable for the failed policy in Iraq, and Senator Lieberman doesn't."

Mr. Lieberman, who remains immensely popular in his home state, is aware of the hornet's nest he has stirred.

"Some Democrats said I was being a traitor," he said in an interview on Friday, adding that he was not surprised by the reaction, "given the depth of feeling about the war."

Although some Democrats are upset with Mr. Lieberman, Republicans are embracing him, with President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld singling him out, and his support for the war, for praise in speeches this week.

"He is entirely correct," Mr. Cheney said on Tuesday at Fort Drum, N.Y. "On this, both Republicans and Democrats should be able to agree. The only way the terrorists can win is if we lose our nerve and abandon our mission."

Concerns about Mr. Lieberman's coziness with the administration grew this week when he had breakfast with Mr. Rumsfeld at the Pentagon. Later, rumors spread that Mr. Bush was considering asking Mr. Lieberman to join the administration to succeed Mr. Rumsfeld next year as defense secretary.

"It's a total fantasy," Mr. Lieberman said. "There's just no truth to it."

In the interview on Friday, he said the two sides were making too much of his comments, and he argued that the overreactions reflected how politically polarized the debate over the war had become.

Mr. Lieberman noted that his positions on Iraq had not changed over the years, dating from 1991, when he supported the first Persian Gulf war. In 1998, he and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, proposed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein official American policy.

"The positive and negative reactions may have less to do with the substance of what I said than with the fact that a Democrat is saying it," Mr. Lieberman said. "It reflects the terribly divisive state of our politics."

He has always been something of a maverick in his party. He was the first prominent Democrat to chastise President Bill Clinton openly for his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky.

More recently, Mr. Lieberman, a centrist, angered Democratic activists by expressing a willingness to work with President Bush to overhaul Social Security, an effort that ultimately stalled in Congress.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House minority leader, said the breach was deep.

"I completely disagree with Mr. Lieberman," Ms. Pelosi said at a news conference. "I believe that we have a responsibility to speak out if we think that the course of action that our country is on is not making the American people safer."

The question in some quarters now is whether the moderate brand of politics practiced by Mr. Lieberman, who is up for re-election next year, will hurt him when the electorate is so divided, particularly over some of the president's policies.

This week, for example, former Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. criticized his continued support of the Iraq war and said that if no candidate challenged the senator on it next year, he would consider running.

In 1988, Mr. Lieberman, who was attorney general of Connecticut, narrowly defeated Mr. Weicker, a Republican senator. Two years later, Mr. Weicker ran for governor as an independent and won. He served one term before retiring in 1995.

Mr. Weicker remains something of a fixture in state politics, well known for his independent streak. In 1999, Reform Party supporters encouraged him to run for president in 2000, but he ultimately decided against that.

Mr. Lieberman faces trouble in other quarters in his home state. Although few elected Democrats would criticize him publicly, several Democratic activists promised retaliation at the polls.

James H. Dean, brother of Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, lives in Connecticut and heads Democracy for America, a group that is gathering signatures on the Internet for a letter that criticizes the senator.

An aide to James Dean said he and others from the group would deliver the letter to Mr. Lieberman's office in Hartford on Tuesday. The aide said the letter had 30,000 signatures.

Other Democratic activists warned that they might try to organize a primary challenge against Mr. Lieberman, specifically because of his position on the war.

Tom Matzzie, the Washington director for MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group with 10,000 members in Connecticut, said it would consider a challenge if the right candidate came along.

"It's like a betrayal," Mr. Matzzie said of Mr. Lieberman's stand on the war. "He is cheering the Bush Iraq policy at a time when Republicans are running away from the president."

But for all the criticism that Mr. Lieberman faces, few people say they believe that he is vulnerable to a challenge.

For his part, Mr. Lieberman said he would run hard on his record.

"I'm not taking anything for granted," he said. "I know there are a lot of people in the party who disagree with me about the war."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4515708.stm

-

UK 'covered up' Israeli nuke deal

-

The government has been accused of covering up the sale of 20 tonnes of heavy water to Israel for its nuclear programme in the early 1950s.

The BBC's Newsnight says fresh evidence shows the UK knew the ingredient it sold to Norway would be subsequently sold on to Israel for nuclear weapons.

Government officials insist they knew nothing of Israel's nuclear ambitions or Norway's intentions.

The Foreign Office has declined to comment, amid calls for an inquiry.

'Cover-up'

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell is asking Foreign Secretary Jack Straw for clarification.

He said: "The trouble with this cover-up is that this is not a cover-up, it simply flies in the face of the known facts, now that we have access to previously classified documents."

Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn wants the Commons' foreign affairs select committee to investigate.

-

"We had no idea at that stage, nobody suspected ... that the Israelis hoped to manufacture nuclear weapons." - Donald Cape

-

He said: "Right back to the late 1950s we were a party to the transfer of nuclear technology to Israel.

"We were party to the development of a nuclear facility in Israel that could and has been used for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Norway was always a smokescreen."

New claims

In August, Newsnight uncovered papers which revealed details of the deal.

But Foreign Office minister Kim Howells insisted Britain had simply negotiated the sale of surplus heavy water to Norway.

He said the UK knew nothing of Norway's intentions or Israel's desire to start a nuclear weapons programme.

But Newsnight says it has new evidence that casts doubt on these claims.

It says the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) had written to Foreign Office official Donald Cape, who approved the sale.

In the letter, the energy authority said too much heavy water had been bought from a Norwegian firm and another company from the country wanted to buy it back and sell it on to Israel.

'Sham' denied

Newsnight also has a copy of the company's contract with Israel, which stated it would provide heavy water from the UKAE.

Mr Cape denied the sale back to Norway was a "sham".

But Newsnight says confidential letters he wrote suggest the Foreign Office knew Israel had been trying to buy uranium from South Africa.

One letter quotes CIA reports from 1957 and 1958 that say Israel will try and establish a nuclear programme when it has the means.

Other secret government documents apparently say: "It has been, and remains our opinion, that Israel wanted an independent supply of plutonium so as to be in a position to make a nuclear weapon if she wished."

Mr Cape told Newsnight: "We had no idea at that stage, nobody suspected - not only in Britain but in the US - that the Israelis hoped to manufacture nuclear weapons."

-

Story from BBC NEWS

Published: 2005/12/10 00:01:25 GMT

© BBC MMV

http://www.jewishtelegraph.co.uk/world_5.html

-

Blast off! We can hit Iran, warns Sharon

IN the week when Israel successfully test-fired its latest Arrow rocket, Ariel Sharon hinted that military action could halt Iran's nuclear programme.

-

"Such a capability exists," the Israeli prime minister said.

Sharon added that Israel would not sit idly by if diplomacy fails.

"Israel, and not just Israel, cannot accept a situation in which Iran has nuclear weapons," he said.

"Israel is not helpless and is taking all the steps it needs to be taking."

Foreign experts speculate that Israel, which bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, could take similar action against Iran if it believes the Islamic republic is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.

Former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu this week joined the clamour for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.

"I will continue the tradition established by Menachem Begin, who did not allow Iraq to develop such a nuclear threat against Israel, and by a daring and courageous act gave us two decades of tranquillity," Netanyahu said. "I believe that this is what Israel has to do." The situation was made more serious by an announcement by a Iranian news agency that Iran would begin construction on TWENTY nuclear reactors.

Work will begin in March. One of them is to be funded by Russia at a cost of $1 billion. Iran already has a reactor under construction at Bushehr.

Israeli officials called it a "very dangerous move."

A senior US official called on the international community to condemn "Iran's disruptive role" in the search for Israeli-Arab peace.

Nicholas Burns, the under-secretary of state for political affairs, said: "When Palestinians and Israelis are rightfully celebrating the benefits of Gaza withdrawal and the opening of the border crossing at Rafah, Iran is moving in the opposite direction by encouraging terrorism."

Israel considers Iran its greatest threat and has been working to counter the Iranian Shahab missiles, which Tehran says can reach Israel.

As a consequence, Israel carried out a successful test of its Arrow missile defence system. An Arrow missile intercepted and destroyed a target similar to Iran's long-range Shahab-3 missile.

The test was launched from an air force base in the centre of Israel and struck a target over the Mediterranean.

-

© 2005 Jewish Telegraph
www.JewishTelegraph.com

http://lnk.nu/signonsandiego.com/6vv.html

-

Israel expands war arsenal to deal with Iranian nuclear threat

By Steven Gutkin

ASSOCIATED PRESS

1:47 p.m. December 8, 2005

-

JERUSALEM – Israel is expanding its military arsenal to deal with what it views as the greatest threat to its existence: a nuclear attack by Iran.

It has acquired dozens of warplanes with long-range fuel tanks to allow them to reach Iran and signed a deal with Germany for two submarines reportedly capable of firing nuclear missiles.

Though Israeli security officials say a strike against Iran is not on the horizon, senior Israeli politicians have begun openly discussing the possibility of a military option – either alone or with other countries.

Such a mission would be far more complicated than the 1981 Israeli raid that destroyed an unfinished Iraqi nuclear reactor. It would require heavy precision bombs that can blast through underground bunkers, manned aircraft to bombard multiple targets and possibly ground commandos to make sure weapons materials are destroyed, experts say.

"It's not a target that you can find on the map, send two F15s and solve it," said Itamar Yaar, deputy head of Israel's National Security Council.

Both the United States and Israel refuse to say whether a strike plan is in the works.

Hard feelings between Israel and Iran date to just before the 1979 Islamic Revolution when the Israelis joined the United States in siding with the Shah before he was deposed.

Partly because of that, the founder of the Islamic revolution, the Ayatollah Khomeini, called Israel the "Little Satan," saving the term "Great Satan" for the U.S., Israel's patron.

The Iranian brand of Islam allows no place for a Jewish state in the Middle East, and Israel points out often that Iran is the only member of the United Nations that publicly calls for destruction of another member. Israel's animosity toward Iran stems not only from the Iranian leadership's anti-Israel statements, but also its support of armed groups like Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

Tensions between the countries have mounted recently amid growing concern about Iran's atomic program.

Tehran says its nuclear program is to generate electricity, not make bombs. But plans announced this week to build more nuclear power plants and to purchase 30 Tor-M1 surface-to-air missiles from Russia have raised fears.

Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's call for Israel to be "wiped off the map" in October also set off alarms. On Thursday, the Iranian leader said the Jewish state should be moved to Europe and questioned whether the Holocaust took place.

Both Israel and the U.S. say diplomatic options should be exhausted before any military action is contemplated.

But this week, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the ability to take out Iran's nuclear program by force "of course exists." His hard-line political rival, Benjamin Netanyahu, went further, saying he would support a pre-emptive raid.

Israel's military chief, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz, said Sunday he did not believe diplomatic pressure will be enough to keep Tehran from developing the bomb and a military solution may be necessary.

"Who is the one to implement it? That is another question that I'm not going to answer. 'When?' is another question that I'm not going to answer. But there are options worldwide," he said.

U.S. officials have refrained from calling for military action, favoring diplomacy, inspections and trade sanctions. Still, President Bush has said the U.S. will not let Iran get the bomb.

Some experts argue a military strike would not be feasible because of a lack of good intelligence on targets, the existence of multiple atomic installations scattered throughout Iran, some underground or bored into mountains, and the country's increasingly sophisticated defense systems.

But others say the capability is there, a combination of precision missiles, bunker-buster bombs, airpower and elite ground forces to penetrate the most difficult sites.

The U.S. – with cruise missiles that can deliver high-explosive bombs to precise locations and B-2 bombers capable of dropping 85 500-pound bombs in a single run – could take on the task, several experts said.

Whether Israel could is an unanswered question. However, the country already has received about half the 102 American-built F-16I warplanes it ordered, with extra fuel tanks to let them reach Iran.

Israel signed a deal with Germany to build two more Dolphin submarines capable of firing atomic missiles at Iran. Israel already has three Dolphins, a key deterrent to any future nuclear confrontation.

Israel is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons, though it refuses to confirm or deny it.

Last week, Israel successfully tested its Arrow missile defense system against a missile similar to Iran's Shahab-3, which can be equipped with a nuclear warhead to reach Israel or several U.S. military installations in the Middle East.

Experts say possible targets in Iran include the Bushehr nuclear facility and a uranium conversion center at Esfahan.

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, said any strike would be fraught with pitfalls. But a successful one would have to be a "bolt out of the blue" to prevent Iran from moving its uranium centrifuges, a key component for enriching uranium used to make nuclear bombs.

He also said ground commando raids would likely be necessary to ensure hidden tools used for atomic purposes are destroyed.

Israeli analyst Gerald Steinberg said it wouldn't be necessary to get "100 percent of the targets" to set back Iran's nuclear program. A limited operation to disrupt power supplies, block access to sites or remove key components could be enough.

He noted Iran has learned lessons from Israel's 1981 strike against the Osirak nuclear reactor near Baghdad, dispersing nuclear sites, putting facilities underground and improving defense.

"But 25 years have passed since then and the offensive capabilities of the armies involved have also advanced," he added.

Albright warned any strike, especially one that leaves some nuclear capabilities intact, would likely strengthen Iran's resolve to aggressively pursue atomic weapons.

He said Iran would most likely retaliate by making "life miserable for the United States in Iraq" and launch attacks against Israel through proxies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrillas.

http://lnk.nu/bloomberg.com/6w0

-

El-Baradei Warns Against Attack on Iran Over Nuclear Dispute

-

Dec. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, today warned against an attack on Iran over allegations the nation is trying to develop an atomic bomb.

``I don't believe there is a military solution to the problem'' at this stage, ElBaradei told reporters in Oslo, where he will receive the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize tomorrow. ``A military solution could be counterproductive.''

ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, urged Iran to provide the IAEA with more details of its nuclear program. The U.S. claims Iran is trying to make a nuclear weapon. Iran says its nuclear program is intended only for the production of electricity.

The Peace Prize was awarded jointly to ElBaradei and the IAEA for their work to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and prevent the spread of atomic weapons and their use by terrorists.

ElBaradei said he hopes Iran will provide UN inspectors with missing information about its atomic program in the next few months to prevent the conflict from accelerating. The 63- year-old Egyptian said he hasn't seen any evidence Iran is developing nuclear arms.

``Iran is cooperating with us but the pace is slow,'' ElBaradei said. ``They are inching forward, but we are asking them to lean forward. We are getting impatient.''

Talks between the European Union and Iran, aimed at ending the standoff over the nuclear program, broke down in August after Iran resumed uranium conversion, an initial step to increase the concentration of the U-235 isotope that starts and sustains a nuclear reaction.

The IAEA board voted in September to refer the dispute over Iran's nuclear program to the 15-nation UN Security Council, without setting a date. The U.S. and its European allies decided last month not to press for such referral immediately, in order to allow more time for an agreement that would permit Iran's uranium enrichment to take place in Russia.

-

ALSO SEE...

-

Referring Nuke-Threats to Security Council by Gordon Prather
http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=8239