Armwood News Blog

U.S., Poland Upbeat on Missile Defense | Serving Henderson, Transylvania and Polk Counties | North Carolina | BlueRidgeNow.com

2007-05-25T02:27:00.000-04:00

U.S., Poland Upbeat on Missile Defense Serving Henderson, Transylvania and Polk Counties North Carolina BlueRidgeNow.com

May 25, 2007
Published Friday, May 25, 2007
U.S., Poland Upbeat on Missile Defense
By VANESSA GERAAssociated Press Writer
U.S. assistant secretary of state for international security John Rood, right, and Poland's deputy foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski, left, pose for photographers ahead of their talks on missile defense in Warsaw, Poland, Thursday, May 24, 2007. Washington wants to place 10 interceptors in Poland to protect Europe and the U.S. from missiles launched from so-called rogue states, like Iran. (AP Photo) Buy a copy of this picture.
Negotiators voiced optimism Thursday that they could reach agreement for Poland to host part of a U.S. missile defense system. A Polish official said a deal could come in the next several months."This meeting today brings optimism to us because many of our observations and reflections are shared and were responded to by our American partners," said Polish deputy foreign minister Witold Waszczykowski.John Rood, U.S. assistant secretary of state for international security and nonproliferation, called Thursday's second round of talks "very constructive and fruitful."A first round of talks was held last week focusing on so-called status of forces issues, meaning the legal status of the base and its personnel, how they are treated and what their legal responsibility would be on Polish territory.The next round is slated for late June in Washington, Waszczykowski said, adding that Warsaw would present "concrete proposals." He predicted that an agreement could come in early fall.Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that he remains firmly opposed to the U.S. plan to place parts of a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, two former Soviet satellite countries in eastern Europe.Washington insists that the system is not aimed at Russia, and would in fact be ineffective against Russia's huge stockpile of missiles. Instead, the system would protect most of Europe from missiles launched from Iran, which the U.S. says is pursuing nuclear weapons."Poland shares many of America's assessments of global threats," Waszczykowski said. "Combatting missile programs deserves Poland's full attention."Meanwhile, the presidents of 16 European countries were to meet in southeastern Czech Republic on Friday and Saturday to discuss the planned missile system and Kosovo.The U.S. missile defense system plan was "a possible topic for discussion," Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Wednesday.---Associated Press writer Ryan Lucas in Warsaw contributed to this report.

Andrew Hill- 1931–2007

2007-05-07T11:36:00.000-04:00

Andrew Hill

1931–2007

by Phil Freeman

April 30th, 2007 5:43 PM

Dissonant and unforgettable
photo: Jimmy Katz

be social

The pianist Andrew Hill, who died of lung cancer on April 20, was born in 1931, not 1937, as was frequently reported, and in Chicago, not in Haiti, like he used to tell reporters and liner-note writers. Never as willfully enigmatic as Thelonious Monk or as alienating (to some ears) as Cecil Taylor, Hill was an integral member of Blue Note Records' mid-'60s class of "in 'n' out" players—musicians equally comfortable with freedom, complexity, and the deceptively simple joys of hard bop. His compositions were frequently tricky, almost to the point of dissonance, but "Pumpkin," "Refuge," "Black Fire," and many more have melodies and a swinging energy that's impossible to shake loose once you hear them.

Hill got a late start, taking up the piano at 13 and making his debut as a leader with 1959's So in Love, a trio session on the Warwick label featuring fellow Chicagoan Malachi Favors on bass. He took few sideman gigs (most notably backing Rahsaan Roland Kirk), preferring to concentrate on his own compositions. He signed with Blue Note in 1963 and recorded four albums in five months: Joe Henderson's Our Thing, Hank Mobley's No Room for Squares, and his own Black Fire (with Henderson as a sideman) and Smoke Stack, which added a second bassist to a piano trio.

Still, he wasn't an ascetic by any means—he could get down 'n' dirty when the mood struck. Hill wrote, but didn't play on, "The Rumproller," Lee Morgan's follow-up to the hit "The Sidewinder," at the same time that he was backing avant-gardists Sam Rivers and Bobby Hutcherson on the latter's Dialogue and wresting saxophonist John Gilmore free of Sun Ra's Arkestra for Hill's own Compulsion (re- issued March 20) and Andrew!!!.

Like some other forward-thinking jazz players, Hill found his way into academia as the '60s ended. From 1970 to 1972 he was a composer in residence at Colgate University, where he received a doctorate. He taught at Portland State University, at NYU, and in public schools and prisons in California. He recorded for the short-lived Arista/Freedom label and, later, Black Saint/Soul Note. And in 1989, he returned to Blue Note for two albums, Eternal Spirit and But Not Farewell, both featuring then-up-and-coming alto saxophonist Greg Osby and, in the younger man's view, offering Hill the chance to apply his teaching experiences to the studio.

"Before I met Andrew, although I knew his music well, I hadn't figured upon a realistic or applicable means of integrating my thoughts, studies, and creative aspirations into a composite and personal approach to music," recalls Osby via e-mail. "In many ways, I was a wandering student in search of the elusive and indescribable mentor. Andrew sensed this and took it upon himself to advise me. His unselfish counsel, candor, and generosity provided me with solutions to many unanswerable questions." In 2000, the pair reunited on Osby's The Invisible Hand, a contemplative album with the feel of post-bop chamber music.

Hill was riding a new wave of appreciation in recent years, scooping up numerous prizes and awards. Jason Moran, possibly the best young pianist in mainstream jazz, co-wrote "Aubade" with Hill and recorded it on his 2005 album Same Mother. Earlier this year, guitarist Nels Cline released New Monastery, an entire album of Hill interpretations.

Last year, Hill returned to Blue Note again, releasing Time Lines, which had the feel of a farewell, the closing of a loop. It opened and closed with two versions—one with a full band, and one solo—of "Malachi," a tune dedicated to the late bassist who'd anchored So in Love. His 1960s albums were being remastered and reissued, and Mosaic Records, the label specializing in boxed sets aimed at connoisseurs, compiled a three-CD set of previously unreleased sessions from 1967–70.

On March 29, Hill played his final concert, a lunchtime trio date at Trinity Church which, like an idiot, I missed.

Andrew Hill's last concert is available online, though, through a search at trinitywallstreet.org

Legendary Grambling coach Eddie Robinson dies | ajc.com

2007-04-04T13:17:00.000-04:00

Legendary Grambling coach Eddie Robinson dies | ajc.com

Legendary Grambling coach Eddie Robinson dies

The Associated Press
Published on: 04/04/07

RUSTON, La. — Eddie Robinson, who sent more than 200 players to the NFL and won 408 games during a 57-year career, has died.

He was 88.

Super Bowl MVP quarterback Doug Williams, one of Robinson's former players, said the former Grambling State University coach died about 11:30 p.m. Tuesday. Robinson had been admitted to Lincoln General Hospital on Tuesday afternoon.

Robinson had been suffering from Alzheimer's, which was diagnosed shortly after he was forced to retire following the 1997 season, in which he won only three games. His health had been declining for years, and he had been in and out of a nursing home during the last year.

In his 57 years in football, Robinson set the standard for victories with a 408-165-15 record. John Gagliardi of St. John's, Minn., passed Robinson in 2003 and has 443 wins.

Robinson's teams had only eight losing seasons and won 17 Southwestern Athletic Conference titles and nine national black college championships.

He sent more than 200 players to the NFL, including seven first-round draft choices.

It was a career that spanned 11 presidents, several wars and the civil-rights movement. His den was packed with trophies, representing virtually every award a coach can win. He was inducted into every hall of fame for which he was eligible.

Documents Show Gonzales Approved Firings - New York Times

2007-03-23T22:46:00.000-04:00

Documents Show Gonzales Approved Firings - New York Times

March 23, 2007

Documents Show Gonzales Approved Firings

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 10:31 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to documents released Friday that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals. The Nov. 27 meeting, in which the attorney general and at least five top Justice Department officials participated, focused on a five-step plan for carrying out the firings of the prosecutors, Justice Department officials said late Friday.

There, Gonzales signed off on the plan, which was crafted by his chief of staff, Kyle Sampson. Sampson resigned last week amid a political firestorm surrounding the firings.

The five-step plan involved notifying Republican home-state senators of the impending dismissals, preparing for potential political upheaval and naming replacements and submitting them to the Senate for confirmation.

The documents indicated that the hour-long morning discussion, held in the attorney general's conference room, was the only time Gonzales met with top aides who decided which prosecutors to fire and how to do it.

Justice spokeswoman Tasia Scolinos said it was not immediately clear whether Gonzales gave his final approval to begin the firings at that meeting. Scolinos also said Gonzales was not involved in the process of selecting which prosecutors would be asked to resign.

On March 13, in explaining the firings, Gonzales told reporters he was aware that some of the dismissals were being discussed but was not involved in them.

''I knew my chief of staff was involved in the process of determining who were the weak performers -- where were the districts around the country where we could do better for the people in that district, and that's what I knew,'' Gonzales said last week. ''But that is in essence what I knew about the process; was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. That's basically what I knew as the attorney general.''

Later, he added: ''I accept responsibility for everything that happens here within this department. But when you have 110,000 people working in the department, obviously there are going to be decisions that I'm not aware of in real time. Many decisions are delegated.''

The documents were released Friday night, a few hours after Sampson agreed to testify at a Senate inquiry next week into the firings of eight U.S. attorneys last year.

Asked to explain the difference between Gonzales' comments and his schedule, Justice spokesman Brian Roehrkasse largely sidestepped the question by saying the attorney general had relied on Sampson to draw up the plans on the firings.

''The attorney general has made clear that he charged Mr. Sampson with directing a plan to replace U.S. attorneys where for one reason or another the department believed that we could do better,'' Roehrkasse said. ''He was not, however, involved at the levels of selecting the particular U.S. attorneys who would be replaced.''

Gonzales this week directed the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to investigate the circumstances of the firings, officials said. The department's inspector general also will participate in that investigation.

Nonetheless Democrats pounced late Friday.

''If the facts bear out that Attorney General Gonzales knew much more about the plan than he has previously admitted, then he can no longer serve as Attorney General,'' said Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, who is heading the Senate's investigation into the firings.

Added House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers:

''This puts the Attorney General front and center in these matters, contrary to information that had previously been provided to the public and Congress.''

Presidential spokesman Trey Bohn referred questions to the Justice Department, saying White House officials had not seen the documents.

The developments were not what Republicans, skittish about new revelations, had hoped.

Earlier Friday, a staunch White House ally, Sen. John Cornyn, summoned White House counsel Fred Fielding to Capitol Hill and told him he wanted ''no surprises.''

''I told him, 'Everything you can release, please release. We need to know what the facts are,''' Cornyn said.

Sampson will appear Thursday at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, his attorney said. His appearance will mark the first congressional testimony by a Justice Department aide since the release of thousands of documents that show the firings were orchestrated, in part, by the White House.

Sampson ''looks forward to answering the committee's questions,'' wrote his attorney, Brad Berenson, in a two-paragraph letter to Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and the panel's top Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

''We trust that his decision to do so will satisfy the need of the Congress to obtain information from him concerning the requested resignations of the United States attorneys,'' Berenson wrote.

E-mails between the White House and the Justice Department, dating back to the weeks immediately after the 2004 presidential election, show Sampson was heavily engaged in deciding how many prosecutors would be replaced, and which ones. The Bush administration maintains the dismissals of the eight political appointees were proper.

Democrats, however, question whether the eight were selected because they were not seen as, in Sampson's words, ''loyal Bushies.''

''He was right at the center of things,'' Schumer said earlier of Sampson. ''He has said publicly that what others have said is not how it happened. ... He contradicts DOJ.''

Schumer said he hoped Sampson would provide more detail about who initiated the firings and whether they were politically motivated.

------

Associated Press writer Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

Suspected Leader of 9/11 Attacks Is Said to Confess - New York Times

2007-03-15T08:50:00.000-04:00

Suspected Leader of 9/11 Attacks Is Said to Confess - New York Times

March 15, 2007

Suspected Leader of 9/11 Attacks Is Said to Confess

By ADAM LIPTAK

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, long said to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, confessed to them at a military hearing held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, on Saturday, according to a transcript released by the Pentagon yesterday. He also acknowledged full or partial responsibility for more than 30 other terror attacks or plots.

“I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z,” he said.

In a rambling statement, Mr. Mohammed, a chief aide to Osama bin Laden, said his actions were part of a military campaign. “I’m not happy that 3,000 been killed in America,” he said in broken English. “I feel sorry even. I don’t like to kill children and the kids.” [Excerpts, Page A23.]

He added, “The language of war is victims.”

Though American officials had linked Mr. Mohammed to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and to several others, his confession was the first time he spelled out in his own words a panoply of global terror activities, ranging from plans to bomb landmarks in New York City and London to assassination plots against former Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and Pope John Paul II. Some of the plots he claimed to plan, including the attempt on Mr. Carter, had not previously been publicly disclosed.

Mr. Mohammed indicated in the transcript that some of his earlier statements to C.I.A. interrogators were the result of torture. But he said that his statements at the tribunal on Saturday were not made under duress or pressure.

His actions, he said, were like those of other revolutionaries. Had the British arrested George Washington during the Revolutionary War, Mr. Mohammed said, “for sure they would consider him enemy combatant.”

The hearing also summarized some of the evidence the Pentagon says supports the designation of Mr. Mohammed as an enemy combatant, including a computer hard drive containing information about the Sept. 11 hijackers, letters from Mr. bin Laden and the details of other plots. It was seized, the government says, when Mr. Mohammed was captured.

Mr. Mohammed spoke before a combatant status review tribunal that has the narrow task of determining whether President Bush had properly designated him an enemy combatant. Mr. Mohammed’s confession will almost certainly be used against him if and when he is tried for war crimes by a military commission.

Parts of the transcript were redacted by the military, and there were suggestions in it that Mr. Mohammed contended he was mistreated while in the custody of the C.I.A. after his arrest in 2003. He was transferred to military custody at Guantánamo Bay last year.

By tribunal rules, Mr. Mohammed was aided by a “personal representative,” not a lawyer. His attempt to call two witnesses was denied. And the tribunal indicated that it would consider classified evidence not made available to Mr. Mohammed.

Combatant status review tribunals are informal hearings created in response to a 2004 decision by the United States Supreme Court to judge whether prisoners at Guantánamo were properly designated as enemy combatants and subject to indefinite detention. Unlike the military commissions that hear war crimes charges, the combatant status review tribunals offer minimal procedural protections and are not recognizably judicial.

In the past, the hearings have been partly open to the press. But a series of recent hearings, involving some of the 14 so-called high-value detainees transferred to Guantánamo from secret C.I.A. prisons last year, were closed. In addition to the Mohammed transcript, the Pentagon yesterday also released transcripts of the hearings of Abu Faraj al-Libbi and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, top Qaeda operatives.

Mr. Libbi did not attend his hearing, and in a statement contained in the transcript he said he would refuse to do so until he could be tried according to accepted judicial principles in the United States. He said he had not been granted a lawyer and could not introduce witnesses in his defense.

“If I am classified as an enemy combatant,” he said in the statement, “it is possible that the United States will deem my witnesses are enemy combatants and judicial or administration action may be taken against them. It is my opinion the detainee is in a lose-lose situation.”

The tribunals in all three cases reserved judgment on the question of whether the men were indeed properly classified as enemy combatants, but there is little doubt that the president’s designation will be affirmed.

The prisoners may appeal the conclusions of the tribunals to a federal appeals court in Washington. While not contesting his own guilt, Mr. Mohammed asked the United States government to “be fair with people.” He said that many people who had been arrested as terrorists in the wake of 9/11 were innocent.

Mr. Mohammed’s representative, an Air Force lieutenant colonel whose name was not released, read a statement on Mr. Mohammed’s behalf “with the understanding he may interject or add statements if he needs to.”

In the statement, Mr. Mohammed described himself as the “military operational commander for all foreign operations around the world” for Al Qaeda.

He also took responsibility for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and the 2002 bombing of a nightclub in Bali.

Mr. Mohammed also outlined a vast series of plots that were not completed. Among his targets, he said, were office buildings in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York; suspension bridges in New York; the New York Stock Exchange “and other financial targets after 9/11”; the Panama Canal; British landmarks including Big Ben; buildings in Israel; American embassies in Indonesia, Australia and Japan; Israeli embassies in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Australia; airliners around the world; and nuclear power plants in the United States.

He said he managed “the cell for the production of biological weapons, such as anthrax and others, and following up on dirty-bomb operations on American soil.”

Mr. Mohammed also said that he had taken part in “surveying and financing for the assassination of several former American presidents, including President Carter.” He added that he was responsible for an assassination plot against President Clinton in the Philippines in 1994.

But Mr. Mohammed interrupted his representative to clarify that he was not solely responsible for a 1995 attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II during a visit to the Philippines.

“I was not responsible,” Mr. Mohammed said, “but share.”

American officials and President Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan have said that Mr. Mohammed took part in killing Daniel Pearl, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, in Pakistan in 2002. Though Mr. Mohammed referred to Mr. Pearl in passing in the transcript, he did not confess to the killing. He did say that he had plotted to assassinate President Musharraf.

At the end of the recitation, Mr. Mohammed was asked, “Were those your words?”

“Yes,” he answered.

Later, he said: “What I wrote here, is not I’m making myself hero, when I said I was responsible for this or that. But you are military man. You know very well there are language for war.”

It is not clear how many of Mr. Mohammed’s expansive claims were legitimate. In 2005, the Sept. 11 commission said that Mr. Mohammed was noted for his extravagant ambitions, and, using his initials, described his vision as “theater, a spectacle of destruction with KSM as the self-cast star, the superterrorist.”

Mr. Mohammed declined to speak under oath, saying his religious beliefs prohibited it. But he said he was telling the truth.

“To be or accept the tribunal as to be, I’ll accept it,” he said. “That I’m accepting American Constitution, American law or whatever you are doing here. That is why religiously I cannot accept anything you do.”

He added: “When I not take oath does not mean I’m lying.”

Mr. Mohammed, 41, is an ethnic Pakistani who grew up in Kuwait and graduated from North Carolina State Agricultural and Technical State University in 1986. He was captured on March 1, 2003, in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, and was held in the secret C.I.A. prison system, where he is believed to have been subjected to harsh interrogation.

In a long monologue that fills about four single-spaced pages of the transcript, Mr. Mohammed said his motives were military ones.

“If America they want to invade Iraq they will not send for Saddam roses or kisses, they send for a bombardment,” he said. “I consider myself, for what you are doing, a religious thing as you consider us fundamentalist. So, we derive from religious leading that we consider we and George Washington doing the same thing.”

He pleaded on behalf of some of his fellow detainees. “I’m asking you again to be fair with many detainees which are not enemy combatant,” Mr. Mohammed said. “Because many of them have been unjustly arrested.”

The unclassified part of the hearing lasted for a little more than an hour, according to the transcript.

Near the end, Mr. Mohammed summed up. “The American have human right,” he said. “So, enemy combatant itself, it flexible word.”

“War start from Adam when Cain killed Abel until now,” he said.

Margot Williams contributed reporting.

N.Y. Times - Obama on the Issues (and his Grandfather’s Wives)

2007-03-08T06:34:00.000-05:00

March 5, 2007, 4:54 pm

Obama on the Issues (and his Grandfather’s Wives)

By Nicholas D. Kristof

In Tuesday’s column, I write about Barack Obama and argue that it’s a canard that he is too inexperienced to be a good president. I quote briefly in the column from an interview I did with him in his Senate office on Feb. 27, but here are highlights from the transcript as a whole.

Q. Let’s start with Iraq. What happens if we do pull out troops from Iraq and then everybody just starts massacring each other and we have a genocide there?

A. Look, I think that the trajectory that we’re on is unsustainable and untenable. But I’ve been very clear that we need to be as careful of getting out as we were careless getting in….. Beginning a withdrawal and redeployment doesn’t mean that we are abandoning the field. Some of those folks need to go to Afghanistan and I think the reports that have been coming out of Afghanistan . . . the last several weeks confirm that we have a lot of unfinished business there. Some of those troops could be deployed in Kuwait or in various — around the region that would still allow us to respond in cases of an emergency.
Now, having said all that, is there a risk of a temporary spike in violence in the event of a phased redeployment? Absolutely. I don’t think that — anybody who suggests that we can guarantee success or stability in Iraq at this point is not being realistic — not being honest. I think there are risks in all the options we have available to us. I simply think that the only way to change the dynamic fundamentally on the ground involves us sending a signal to the Iraqi government that we’re not going to be there in perpetuity, sending a signal to the regional powers that we’re not going to be there forever and putting the onus on them.

Q. Tell me about Iran. I saw some sort of hawkish quotes that you gave, I think in 2004, to The Chicago Tribune. [He was quoted then as saying, “My instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran.”]

A. Yeah. You know, they — I have to say they got painted as much more hawkish than they were intended. I mean essentially what is said, which I think would be incontrovertible, is that, you know, Iran’s a developing country. A nuclear weapon is a problem for the future. And that we should preserve our military options. And I think the exact quote at the time was, you know, If there was a way of disabling a nuclear facility without any collateral damage, then that would certainly be an option we’d want to take into account. You know, I don’t think that’s a particularly controversial statement. But the — but those options don’t exist. And I said in the very same article that every assessment that I’ve seen suggests that even if you are predisposed to military action, those options are extraordinarily dangerous….. More to the point, in light of what’s happening in Iraq, I would hope that the administration has learned its lesson. I certainly hope Congress has learned its lesson — that being trigger happy or having a quick trigger finger when it comes to military actions without having exhausted our diplomatic options, and without, you know, I think, having a very clear sense of what outcomes we’re looking for is a recipe for disaster. So I’ve been consistent throughout this process in saying we should talk to Iran. I think we should talk to Iran without conditions….

Q. I think it was the same article — maybe a different one — where you also sounded a little hawkish on Pakistan….[The Tribune paraphrased him on Sept. 25, 2004: “Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses.”]

A. It’s a situation where I was simply saying things that I think, in Washingtonspeak, you use code for….What I said with respect to Pakistan was that, given that they’ve got a proven nuclear arsenal and that there’s been a history of their military not being as cautious as we would like them to be with respect to nuclear proliferation issues, and given the history of A.Q. Khan and what’s happened there, that you know if you had a coup in which Islamic extremists took over the Pakistani government, that would be a significant threat to U.S. security and we would want, again, to keep all our military options open. Now my hope is that we prevent that from happening or that we do everything we can to strengthen the forces of democracy and maintain good relations with Pakistan. Now, it’s a difficult thing because we have a genuine ally in Musharraf. It’s an imperfect partner. And. . . there are aspects of the Pakistani government and its relationship to its own people as well as its approach to dealing with al Qaeda and the Taliban that are real problems. And you know I guess I would probably like to see the administration send clearer signals to Pakistan that we want to work with them, we want to cooperate with them, we want to help them build their economy. We’re willing to put resources into Pakistan to improve the daily life of Pakistanis, which I think will in the long term strengthen Musharraf’s power. But in exchange, we have to be attentive to human rights, women’s rights. And we have to ask them to take issues like terrorism, nuclear proliferation, more seriously than they . . .

Q. How much difference does it make in dealing with Pakistan or Islamic rulers generally that you have a Muslim grandfather? Does that give you maybe less credibility in Alabama perhaps but more in Pakistan?

A. Probably my family background in and of itself may be less relevant, because the truth is my grandfather was Muslim but I never knew him. My father was basically an atheist or agnostic and I didn’t really know him either. But the connection that’s more direct is the four years I spent in Indonesia as a child — in a predominantly Muslim country. And although my stepfather wasn’t a practicing Muslim either, you know, I obviously was immersed in the culture that, you know, in which Islam played a role. I think it does make a difference. I think it makes people feel that I am less likely to engage in stereotypes and that I’m less likely to respond out of fear toward the Muslim world. That I’m willing and able to listen. And most importantly, I think, in our foreign policy, that I’m dealing with people on the basis of mutual dignity and respect. . . . one of the biggest problems with the Bush administration’s . . . foreign policy is a general dismissiveness, a sense that we will do what we please and we expect the world to align itself with whatever decisions that we make. And the degree to which not just the Islamic world . . .finds it to be myopic because it doesn’t recognize all the shifts of power that have taken place around the world, I think is important. But the last thing I’d — the last point I guess I would make about this, you know, my experience growing up in Indonesia or having family in small villages in Africa, I think it makes me much more mindful of the importance of issues like personal security or freedom from corruption or freedom from arbitrary violence. Because I’ve witnessed it in much more direct ways than I think the average American has witnessed it. You know, when I was growing up, and I write about this in my first book, you know, seeing beggars on the streets in front of the homes of generals who, you know, have a monopoly on all wheat imports . . . Right? And seeing the very real consequences of corruption. Or, you know, the fear that my own stepfather experienced when his visa was revoked and he was called back from studying in Hawaii because there’d been a military coup. And understanding that, you know, what we should be importing is not just an electocracy, not just sort of the form of democracy but that there’s — that the substance of electricity and water and freedom from disease and freedom from arbitrary arrest and the host of issues that people every day are struggling with, you know, for me to be attuned to that, I think, would make me a much better president.

Q. And your grandfather was Sunni?

A. No, I have no idea because my grandfather, I mean he grew up in traditional Luo culture. But fascinating, how he became Muslim was he actually was a cook for with the British army. And they then took him overseas. He initially converted to Christianity, and so I think was a Christian probably as long as he was a Muslim. And then at some point I think they may have gone to Saudi Arabia, I mean the stories are somewhat vague, he converted to Islam because I think he liked the — he was a very stern character and I think he just liked the idea that somehow, I think in the end Christianity seemed a little soft to him, the whole turn-the-other-cheek thing. So it appealed to his temperament more. I mean this is the story, I never met him, but this is the stories that I get.

Q. He had multiple wives?

A. Oh, yeah. Well, ultimately he only had two.

Q. Simultaneous though?

A. Let me think. You know, actually — no, no, I mean the Luo were polygamists, as were a lot of cultures at that time. So he would have viewed nothing wrong with having multiple wives, but I actually think he ended up having — no, I take — I think he would have had — I’m trying to just remember if they were consecutive or overlapping. His first wife, who was actually my blood grandmother, was — actually my, the woman who I call granny I see is actually a step-granny, so that’s actually his second wife. These things get a little fuzzy.

Q. Tell me about your anti-poverty work in Chicago, to what extent does that actual frustrating experience on the ground, to what extent does that inform your stance on poverty issues?

A. It informs it in a couple of ways. One, it confirms my deep-seated belief that most Americans want the same thing. It basically confirms my deep-seated belief that most people in the world want the same thing, which is shelter, the basics, necessities in life — they want their kids to succeed, they want some dignity and respect. …. It made me probably more modest in understanding that change does not happen quickly, that you have to have sustained effort over time to bring about significant change. It probably makes my views on how to bring that change about more complex than I think the ideological debates would present. Because I actually think that the interaction between government or social institutions and culture in economic development and making people’s lives better is integral. Schools being a great example. I’m a firm believer that we need to put more money into the inner-city schools. I’m also a firm believe that money alone without changes in attitude and how people think about learning, the commitment of parents to pushing their kids and the lifting of sort of anti-intellectualism, that is not unique to the inner city, it actually pervades a lot of America culture….those are all critical factors.
And so one of the interesting things when I think about the power of the presidency, I would see my role not only as somebody who’s pushing broadband into the classroom and higher teacher pay and early childhood education, but also somebody who’s using the bully pulpit to exhort our kids to take more math and science classes, and our parents to turn off the TV sets…..Just to tie it back to your original question, a lot of that comes from that experience.

Q. And your fatherhood initiative, the emphasis on family, I wondered if that was something that actually —

A. Absolutely. Same kind of thing. And I think one of the opportunities for Democrats in this election is to shed some of the constraints that we may have had from talking about what had been deemed family values. I think there’s no reason why that should be cornered by the conservatives. There’s nothing incompatible with talking about those issues and still being a strong supporter of women’s rights and still being a strong supporter of civil liberties and being forward-looking. We’re not going to replicate the 50’s, nor would we want to. But I think creating a life for children that is stable and in which they have reliable, regular adult figure in their lives that they can look up to is important.

Q. What about Darfur?

A. You know, I continue to be frustrated with our inability to act forcefully. The fact is that as long as we are still bogged down in Iraq, we have used up so much political capital and military firepower that it’s very difficult — it curtails the number of options that are available to us. But I would say that we have reached the point where a no-fly zone is probably warranted — if nothing else, just to disable the helicopter strafing or the janjaweed moving in with impunity. But doesn’t solve the long-term problem.
Now, again, this is where us having acted so unilaterally over the last six years is a real impediment to us being able to gather an alliance around a no-fly zone strategy. Because it would be very easy for Sudan to play the Muslim card to say here’s, once again, the U.S. attacking a Muslim country without the support of the world community. And al Qaeda will use it in their propaganda . . .It’s not clear to me that we’re going to get a significant amount of movement out of the Security Council for us to actually get a protective force on the ground . . . And I have to say this is where the Europeans have been very disappointing. For all the problems of the Bush administration, on this issue they’ve been better than anybody else. And it’s distressing to see the European countries that are often critical of our disregard for the underdeveloped world to see the callousness with which they’ve treated this issue.

Q. Talk about that a little bit. I asked Mark [Lippert] how an Obama administration would be different than the Bill Clinton administration, for example. And the thing that he emphasized was soft power and humanitarian efforts to boost our political capital..

A. Well, look, it’s not just humanitarian efforts. The argument I think we are going to be making in this campaign is that these investments are part of our national security strategy and that if we don’t get a handle on the ungoverned spaces around the world, if we are allowing anarchy and chaos and genocide to fester, if we are seeing the fastest growing populations end up uneducated and without prospects and without hope, and you’ve got millions of young men with caches of weapons ready to be mobilized by whatever hateful ideologies are out there, we’ve got problems. And for us to devote a portion of our security budget and strategy to investing in boreholes and schools and the training of police to obey the rule of law in countries and expanding the education of women and young girls in villages around the world, and giving them access to markets, if we can’t take what, relative to our military hardware and defense budgets, are a pittance and put some resources into these areas, we will not be secure…..Traditionally foreign aid has always been viewed — well, not always — I mean recently it has always been viewed as an afterthought. And I say more recent because George Marshall understood this. And the Marshall Plan was part of a security strategy, it wasn’t simply charity. We have to broaden that conception.

Q. One last question. Cuba. Is the embargo a failure?

A. Well, I think we’ve got a potential opportunity with Castro’s health waning to reopen the debate. We probably shouldn’t be overly optimistic that it’s going to change overnight. And I think it’s important that the United States isn’t too heavy-handed post-Castro in swooping and suggesting that somehow Cuba’s going to change immediately. I do think that it opens up the conversation among not just the United States but among Cubans both in the U.S. and in Cuba about breaking down some of the restrictions on travel and commerce….I don’t think we automatically ease those restrictions simply because Castro has died. What I think is that with Castro’s death there are going to be a new set of players, I think it’s going to be important for us to do an entire reevaluation of our strategy towards Cuba. And I think the aim should be to create a more open relationship….But that is still going to be contingent on having some desire on the part of the Cuban government to initiate that process as well.

N.Y. Times Denial Reopens Wounds of Japan’s Ex-Sex Slaves

2007-03-08T06:04:00.000-05:00

March 8, 2007

Denial Reopens Wounds of Japan’s

Ex-Sex Slaves

By NORIMITSU ONISHI

SYDNEY, Australia, March 7 — Wu Hsiu-mei said she was 23 and working as a maid in a hotel in 1940 when her Taiwanese boss handed her over to Japanese officers. She and some 15 other women were sent to Guangdong Province in southern China to become sex slaves.

Inside a hotel there was a so-called comfort station, managed by a Taiwanese but serving only the Japanese military, Ms. Wu said. Forced to have sex with more than 20 Japanese a day for almost a year, she said, she had multiple abortions and became sterile.

The long festering issue of Japan’s war-era sex slaves gained new prominence last week when Prime Minister Shinzo Abe denied the military’s role in coercing the women into servitude. The denial by Mr. Abe, Japan’s first prime minister born after the war, drew official protests from China, Taiwan, South Korea and the Philippines, some of the countries from which the sex slaves were taken.

The furor highlighted yet again Japan’s unresolved history in a region where it has been ceding influence to China. The controversy has also drawn in the United States, which has strongly resisted entering the history disputes that have roiled East Asia in recent years.

Ms. Wu told her story on Wednesday outside the Japanese Consulate here, where she and two others who had been sex slaves, known euphemistically as comfort women, were protesting Tokyo’s refusal to admit responsibility for the abuse that historians say they and as many as 200,000 other women suffered.

All three — Ms. Wu, who is now 90; a 78-year-old South Korean from Seoul; and an 84-year-old Dutch-Australian from Adelaide — were participating in an international conference for Japan’s former sex slaves here. Now, just days after Mr. Abe’s remarks, the three were united in their fury.

“I was taken away by force by Japanese officers, and a Japanese military doctor forced me to undress to examine me before I was taken away,” said Ms. Wu, who landed here in Sydney on Tuesday night after a daylong flight from Taipei. “How can Abe lie to the world like that?”

Mr. Abe, a nationalist who had built his career partly on playing down Japan’s wartime past, made his comments in response to a confluence of events, beginning with the Democratic victory in the American Congressional elections last fall. That gave impetus to a proposed nonbinding resolution in the House that would call on Japan to unequivocally acknowledge and apologize for its brutal mistreatment of the women.

Even as Mr. Abe’s closest allies pressed him to soften a 1993 government statement that acknowledged the military’s role in forcing the women into sexual slavery, three former victims testified in Congress last month.

On Monday, Mr. Abe said he would preserve the 1993 statement but denied its central admission of the military’s role, saying there had been no “coercion, like the authorities breaking into houses and kidnapping” women.

He said private dealers had coerced the women, adding that the House resolution was “not based on objective facts” and that Japan would not apologize even if it was passed.

The resolution calls for Japan to “formally acknowledge, apologize and accept historical responsibility in a clear and unequivocal manner for its Imperial Armed Forces’ coercion of young women into sexual slavery.”

“Prime Minister Abe is in effect saying that the women are lying,” Representative Mike Honda, the California Democrat who is spearheading the legislation, said in a telephone interview. “I find it hard to believe that he is correct given the evidence uncovered by Japanese historians and the testimony of the comfort women.”

Japanese historians, using the diaries and testimony of military officials as well as official documents from the United States and other countries, have been able to show that the military was directly or indirectly involved in coercing, deceiving, luring and sometimes kidnapping young women throughout Japan’s Asian colonies and occupied territories.

They estimate that up to 200,000 women served in comfort stations that were often an intrinsic part of military operations.

Yet although Mr. Abe admitted coercion by private dealers, some of his closest allies in the governing Liberal Democratic Party have dismissed the women as prostitutes who volunteered to work in the comfort stations. They say no official Japanese government documents show the military’s role in recruiting the women.

According to historians, the military established the stations to boost morale among its troops, but also to prevent rapes of local women and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases among soldiers.

Japan’s deep fear of rampaging soldiers also led it to establish brothels with Japanese prostitutes across Japan for American soldiers during the first months of the postwar occupation, a fact that complicates American involvement in the current debate.

In 1995 a private fund was set up to compensate the women, but many refused to accept any money because they saw the measure as a way for the government to avoid taking direct responsibility. Only 285 women have accepted money from the fund, which will be terminated at the end of this month.

The most direct testimony of the military’s role has come from the women themselves.

“An apology is the most important thing we want — an apology that comes from the government, not only a personal one — because this would give us back our dignity,” said Jan Ruff O’Herne, 84, who testified to a Congressional panel last month.

Ms. Ruff was living with her family in Java, in what was then the Dutch East Indies, when Japan invaded in 1942. She spent the first two years in a prison camp, she said, but Japanese officers arrived one day in 1944. They forced single girls and women to line up and eventually picked 10 of them, including Ms. Ruff, who was 21.

“On the first night, it was a high-ranking officer,” Ms. Ruff said. “It was so well organized. A military doctor came to our house regularly to examine us against venereal diseases, and I tell you, before I was examined the doctor raped me first. That’s how well organized it was.”

In Japan’s colonies, historians say, the military worked closely with, or sometimes completely relied on, local people to obtain women.

In Pyongyang, now the capital of North Korea, Gil Won-ok said, she lined up outside a Japanese military base to look for work in her early teens. A Korean man, she said, approached her with the promise of factory work, but she eventually found herself in a comfort station in northeast China.

After she caught syphilis and developed tumors, Ms. Gil said, a Japanese military doctor removed her uterus.

“I’ve felt dead inside since I was 15,” said Ms. Gil, who was 16 when the war ended.

Like many comfort women, Ms. Gil was unable to bear children and never married, though she did adopt a son. She now lives in a home with three other former comfort women in Seoul.

Ms. Wu married twice, each time hiding her background. Somehow the husbands found out, and the marriages ended unhappily. Her adopted daughter is now angry with Ms. Wu for having spoken in public about her past, she said.

As for Ms. Ruff, she returned to the prison camp in Java after her release from the comfort station. Her parents swore her to silence. A Roman Catholic priest told Ms. Ruff, who had thought of becoming a nun: “My dear child, under these circumstances it is wise that you do not become a nun.”

It was at the camp that she met her future husband, Tom Ruff, one of the British soldiers who had been deployed to guard the camp after Japan’s defeat. She told him her story once before they were married — long before they had two daughters and migrated to Australia.

“But I needed to talk about it,” Ms. Ruff said, sitting at the kitchen table in her daughter Carol’s home here. “I could never talk to my husband about it. I loved Tom and I wanted to marry and I wanted a house. I wanted a family, I wanted children, but I didn’t want sex. He had to be very patient with me. He was a good husband. But because we couldn’t talk about it, it made it all so hard.”

“You could talk to Dad about it,” said her daughter Carol, 55.

“No, this is what I keep saying,” Ms. Ruff said. “I just told him the story once. It was never talked about again. For that generation the story was too big. My mum couldn’t cope with it. My dad couldn’t cope with it. Tom couldn’t cope with it. They just shut it up. But nowadays you’ll get counseling immediately.”

“It’s a wonderful thing,” Carol said.

“You don’t know how hard it was to carry this enormous burden inside you, that you would like to scream out to the world and yet you cannot,” Ms. Ruff said. “But I remember telling Carol, ‘One day I’m going to tell my story, and people will be interested.’ ”

ABC News - CIA Rushing Resources to Bin Laden Hunt

2007-03-06T05:56:00.000-05:00

CIA Rushing Resources to Bin Laden Hunt

March 05, 2007 3:47 PM

Brian Ross Reports:

Armed with fresh intelligence, the CIA is moving additional man power and equipment into Pakistan in the effort to find Osama bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahri, U.S. officials tell ABC News.

"Reports that the trail has gone stone cold are not correct," said one U.S. official. "We are very much increasing our efforts there," the official said.

People familiar with the CIA operation say undercover officers with paramilitary training have been ordered into Pakistan and the area across the border with Afghanistan as part of the ramp-up.

Although never publicly acknowledged, Pakistan has permitted CIA teams to secretly operate inside Pakistan.

Pakistan officials say they are aware that CIA teams have increased their presence in northern Waziristan since last September when Pakistan withdrew its troops from the area under a much-criticized "peace deal" with tribal leaders.

Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell testified last week that current intelligence "to the best of our knowledge" puts both bin Laden and al Zawahri in Pakistan. It was the first time a high-ranking U.S. official publicly identified Pakistan as bin Laden's hiding place.

Past intelligence has indicated that bin Laden often changed locations in March, traveling to hiding places in the mountains once the snow cover begins to melt.

WP: Blacks shift to Obama, poll finds

2007-02-28T17:34:00.000-05:00

WP: Blacks shift to Obama, poll finds

African American voters moving away from Sen. Clinton

By Dan Balz and Jon Cohen

The Washington Post

Updated: 6:49 a.m. ET Feb 28, 2007

The opening stages of the campaign for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination have produced a noticeable shift in sentiment among African American voters, who little more than a month ago heavily supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton but now favor the candidacy of Sen. Barack Obama.

Clinton, of New York, continues to lead Obama and other rivals in the Democratic contest, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. But her once-sizable margin over the freshman senator from Illinois was sliced in half during the past month largely because of Obama's growing support among black voters.

In the Republican race, former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who recently made clear his intentions to seek the presidency, has expanded his lead over Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Giuliani holds a 2 to 1 advantage over McCain among Republicans, according to the poll, more than tripling his margin of a month ago.

The principal reason was a shift among white evangelical Protestants, who now clearly favor Giuliani over McCain. Giuliani among this group of Americans despite his support of abortion rights and gay rights, two issues of great importance to religious conservatives. McCain opposes abortion rights.

Among Democrats, Clinton still enjoys many of the advantages of a traditional front-runner. Pitted against Obama and former senator John Edwards of North Carolina, she was seen by Democrats as the candidate with the best experience to be president, as the strongest leader, as having the best chance to get elected, as the closest to voters on the issues and as the candidate who best understands the problems "of people like you." Obama was seen as the most inspirational.

The Post-ABC News poll was completed days after aides to the two leading Democrats engaged in a testy exchange over comments critical of Clinton and her husband, former president Bill Clinton, by Hollywood mogul David Geffen, a former friend and financial backer of the Clintons who hosted a fundraiser for Obama last week in Los Angeles.

Early national polls are not always good predictors for presidential campaigns, but the Post-ABC poll offers clues to the competition ahead.

On the January weekend when she announced her candidacy, Clinton led the Democratic field with 41 percent. Obama was second at 17 percent, Edwards was third at 11 percent and former vice president Al Gore, who has said he has no plans to run, was fourth at 10 percent.

The latest poll put Clinton at 36 percent, Obama at 24 percent, Gore at 14 percent and Edwards at 12 percent. None of the other Democrats running received more than 3 percent. With Gore removed from the field, Clinton would gain ground on Obama, leading the Illinois senator 43 percent to 27 percent. Edwards ran third at 14 percent. The poll was completed the night Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar.

Clinton's and Obama's support among white voters changed little since December, but the changes among black Democrats were dramatic. In December and January Post-ABC News polls, Clinton led Obama among African Americans by 60 percent to 20 percent. In the new poll, Obama held a narrow advantage among blacks, 44 percent to 33 percent. The shift came despite four in five blacks having a favorable impression of the New York senator.

Rising favorability rating
African Americans view Clinton even more positively than they see Obama, but in the time since he launched his campaign, his favorability rating rose significantly among blacks. In the latest poll, 70 percent of African Americans said they had a favorable impression of Obama, compared with 54 percent in December and January.

Overall, Clinton's favorable ratings dipped slightly from January, with 49 percent of Americans having a favorable impression and 48 percent an unfavorable impression. Obama's ratings among all Americans improved over the past month, with 53 percent saying they have a favorable impression and 30 percent saying they have an unfavorable impression.

Her position on the war in Iraq does not appear to be hurting Clinton among Democrats, even though she has faced hostile questioning from some voters about her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to go to war. Some Democrats have demanded that she apologize for the vote, which she has declined to do.

The Post-ABC News poll found that 52 percent of Democrats said her vote was the right thing to do at the time, while 47 percent said it was a mistake. Of those who called it a mistake, however, just 31 percent said she should apologize. Among Democrats who called the war the most important issue in deciding their 2008 candidate preference, Clinton led Obama 40 to 26 percent.

In the Republican contest, McCain once was seen as the early, if fragile front-runner, for his party's nomination, but Giuliani's surge adds a new dimension to the race. In the latest poll, the former New York mayor led among Republicans with 44 percent to McCain's 21 percent. Last month, Giuliani led with 34 percent to McCain's 27 percent.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich ran third in the latest poll with 15 percent, while former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney was fourth with 4 percent. Gingrich has not said he definitely plans to run, and without him, Giuliani's lead would increase even more, to 53 percent compared with McCain's 23 percent.

When Republicans were asked to rate Giuliani, McCain and Romney on a series of attributes, Giuliani was seen as the strongest leader, the most inspiring, the candidate with the best chance of winning the general election, the most honest and trustworthy and the one closest to them on the issues. McCain was seen as having the best experience to be president, but only by a narrow margin.

Potential problems for Giuliani
Giuliani faces potential problems because of his views on abortion and gay rights. More than four in 10 Republicans said they were less likely to support him because of those views. More than two in 10 Republicans said there was "no chance" they could vote for him.

With Clinton and Obama as possible barrier-breakers in this presidential campaign, Americans were asked how a candidate's race or gender would affect their vote. What the poll showed is that Americans indicated they were less likely to support a candidate over age 72 or a candidate who is a Mormon than a female or African American candidate.

Those findings could affect McCain, who is 70, and Romney, who is a Mormon. Nearly six in 10 said they would be less likely to vote for someone over age 72, while three in 10 said they would be less likely to support a Mormon.

The Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone Feb. 22-25 among a random sample of 1,082 adults, including an oversample of 86 black respondents. The margin of sampling error for the poll was plus or minus 3 percentage points; it is higher for the sub-samples.

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report

'I Heard a Loud Boom' -- Cheney Discusses Assassination Attempt

2007-02-27T12:01:00.000-05:00

'I Heard a Loud Boom' -- Cheney Discusses Assassination Attempt

Suicide Bomber Strikes U.S. Base Where Cheney Was Staying; Unhurt, Cheney Heads to Kabul

Vice President Dick Cheney arrives at Bagram air base in Afghanistan. (Richard Coolidge)

By JONATHAN KARL

BAGRAM AIR BASE, Afghanistan, Feb. 27, 2007 — A suicide bomber struck at the main entrance to the U.S. air base in Bagram, Afghanistan, today, as Vice President Dick Cheney was visiting.

"I heard a loud boom, and shortly after that the Secret Service came in and told me there had been an attack on the main gate, apparently a suicide bomber," Cheney said to a small group of reporters traveling with him.

At least 10 people were killed including a U.S. soldier. Afghan President Hamid Karzai's office told The Associated Press as many as 23 had been killed.

Immediately after the attack, a red alert sounded throughout the base — a red alert that said the base was under direct attack.

The Secret Service rushed Cheney to a bomb shelter on the air base.

"They moved me for a relatively brief period of time to one of the bomb shelters near the quarters I was staying in," Cheney said.

Cheney said he never considered altering his schedule because of the bombing. About an hour after the explosion, he was aboard an Air Force C-17, flying to Kabul as planned for a meeting with Karzai.

Cheney said he was aware that the Taliban had claimed responsibility for the attack.

"I think they clearly try to find ways to question the authority of the central government, and striking at Bagram with a suicide bomber is one way to do that," he said, adding that such attacks should "never affect our behavior at all."

Bad weather in Afghanistan had forced the vice president to spend the night in Bagram on Monday. He had only planned to be there for a few hours. The overnight stay in Afghanistan makes Cheney the most senior Bush administration official to spend the night in a war zone, a fact that complicated the already intense security surrounding this trip.

Maj. William Mitchell said Cheney was never in danger.

"He wasn't near the site of the explosion," Mitchell said. "He was safely within the base at the time of the explosion."

Old Foes Join in Anger as Train Bombing’s Toll Rises to 66

2007-02-20T06:52:00.001-05:00

February 20, 2007

Old Foes Join in Anger as Train Bombing’s Toll Rises to 66

By SOMINI SENGUPTA

DIWANA, India, Feb. 19 — A day after two homemade bombs killed at least 66 people on a train traveling to Pakistan from India, the governments of both countries on Monday condemned the attack and pledged that it would not deter their aim of reducing longstanding hostilities on the subcontinent.

The office of Manmohan Singh, the Indian prime minister, on Monday morning called the bombing “an act of terror” and promised to apprehend those responsible. Pakistan also denounced the attack, which occurred on the eve of a visit by Khurshid Mehmood Kasuri, the Pakistani foreign minister, to the Indian capital, New Delhi, and two weeks before officials from both countries were to meet for the first time to share information on terrorism-related activities.

The train had ferried more than 600 passengers from Delhi to the India-Pakistan border. The bombs exploded just after midnight Sunday, trapping slumbering passengers aboard the Attari Express in flames. By early Monday, when the bodies were pulled from train, they were so severely burned it was difficult to tell who they were, let alone whether they were Indian or Pakistani.

All told, 66 bodies were taken out of two burned-out compartments; 13 survivors somehow escaped, including an infant and Kamruddin, 60, a small thin man from Multan, Pakistan, who thanked God as an ambulance carried him to an Indian government hospital in New Delhi on Monday. Kamruddin recalled making his way to the door of his coach and having someone pull him out.

Twelve hours later, the two coaches were still smoldering.

Peace talks between India and Pakistan have crawled along for three years, yielding little more than an accord on transportation links like the Attari Express. The two last stepped close to the brink of war in early 2002. They have fought each other in three wars since independence from British rule in 1947.

“This is an act of sabotage,” Laloo Prasad Yadav, the Indian railroad minister, told reporters in the eastern city of Patna, according to wire service reports. “This is an attempt to derail the improving relationship between India and Pakistan.”

In a statement reported by Reuters, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, said, “We will not allow elements which want to sabotage the ongoing peace process to succeed in their nefarious designs.”

The overnight train, en route from Delhi to the border post at Attari, began service 30 years ago, and after a two-year suspension at a time of acute enmity between India and Pakistan, resumed service in January 2004. From Attari, passengers board a second train, which takes them to Lahore, Pakistan.

The explosions occurred when the train had advanced about a mile from Diwana, a tiny station here surrounded by fields of wheat.

Three other bombs were found in the train’s other coaches, according to police and railroad officials; a police officer at the scene said he saw a suitcase packed with eight to nine bottles filled with an unknown liquid, along with a plastic detonator.

V. K. Duggal, the home secretary, told reporters that sulfur and kerosene had probably been used.

Mr. Yadav, the railroad minister, said Monday evening that one person had been detained in connection with the blasts, according to Reuters, but offered no further details.

Navtej Sarna, a spokesman for the Indian Ministry of External Affairs, told reporters that visas would be issued to Pakistani relatives of those who were feared dead. On Monday afternoon, police officers worked in the sun to identify victims at the main government hospital in Panipat, the nearest city to the site of the explosions, recording the remnants they had found: singed passports, a wallet, a key.

The attack occurred almost exactly five years after a fire on a train killed 59 Hindu pilgrims in Gujarat State, in western India, setting off some of the worst communal carnage in India’s history, in which at least 1,100 people were killed, mostly Muslims. Last July, a series of synchronized bombs went off on commuter trains in Mumbai, India’s largest city, killing about 180 people.

In the attack on Sunday, bombs went off inside two coaches, toward the back of the train, shortly after it left Diwana at 11:53 p.m., two officials at the station said. By the time the first fire trucks arrived, the two coaches were ablaze, and the air smelled of burning plastic and flesh, according to B. D. Ahuja, the fire station officer at Panipat.

Satya Narain Sharma, a firefighter who was among the first to reach the scene at 12:10 a.m. said that when fire crews tried to pry open the first door, it did not budge. Later, they found behind it a pile of bodies, all apparently passengers trying to escape. They found a second door open and began pulling out the dead. Muhammad Wasim Khan said his uncle, Shaffiq Ahmed Khan, from Karachi, was among the dead. Shaffiq Ahmed Khan and his sons, Aarish, 15, and Sammy, 9, had come to visit relatives in Delhi. They stayed for a month and began to make their way home on Sunday night, their bags stuffed with gifts: clothes, fancy soap and packets of Rajanigandha-brand paan masala, a North Indian mouth-freshener. They stuffed their money into their shoes, relatives said, so it would not be taken by the police along the way.

On Sunday night, Muhammad Wasim Khan settled them into the fourth coach from the back, and waved goodbye from the platform. The next afternoon, he found his uncle’s body at the hospital in Panipat. He recognized him by the brown coat he wore, and the money stuffed inside his shoes. His face was burned beyond recognition. The two boys had been admitted to Safdarjung Hospital in New Delhi.

At the Old Delhi railroad station, distraught friends and relatives began gathering before dawn to learn who had been killed and who had escaped alive, but at the emergency assistance booth on Platform 15, officials had little information.

Mohammad Aslam, a bangle manufacturer, who accompanied five of his cousins to the train on Sunday night, said his repeated requests for information were brushed off by station staff members. “They keep saying ‘How can we give you information when we know nothing ourselves?’ ” he said.

He said there had been no security searches before passengers boarded the train. Nodding toward the row of police officers searching people at the entrance to the station, opening suitcases and checking handbags, he said, “None of that was there yesterday.”

Hari Kumar contributed reporting from Panipat and Amelia Gentleman from New Delhi.

Old Foes Join in Anger as Train Bombing’s Toll Rises to 66

2007-02-20T06:52:00.000-05:00

Outside Pressures Broke Korean Deadlock

2007-02-14T07:41:00.000-05:00

February 14, 2007

News Analysis
Outside Pressures Broke Korean Deadlock

By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 — It is hard to imagine that either George W. Bush or Kim Jong-il would have agreed even a year ago to the kind of deal they have now approved. The pact, announced Tuesday, would stop, seal and ultimately disable North Korea’s nuclear facilities, as part of a grand bargain that the administration has previously shunned as overly generous to a repressive country — especially one that has not yet said when or if it will give up its nuclear arsenal.

But in the past few months, the world has changed for both Mr. Bush and Mr. Kim, two men who have made clear how deeply they detest each other. Both are beset by huge problems, and both needed some kind of breakthrough.

For Mr. Bush, bogged down in Iraq, his authority undercut by the November elections, any chance to show progress in peacefully disarming a country that detonated a nuclear test just four months ago could no longer be passed up. As one senior administration official said over the weekend, the prospect that Mr. Bush might leave Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea more dangerous places than he found them “can’t be very appealing.”

Still, the accord came under fast criticism from right and left that it was both too little and too late.

For years, Mr. Bush’s administration has been paralyzed by an ideological war, between those who wanted to bring down North Korea and those who thought it was worth one more try to lure the country out of isolation. In embracing this deal, Mr. Bush sided with those who have counseled engagement, notably his secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and her chief negotiator, Christopher R. Hill. Mr. Bush took the leap in the hope that in a few months, he will be able to declare that North Korea can no longer produce fuel for new nuclear weapons, even if it has not yet turned over its old ones.

For Mr. Kim, the nuclear explosion — more of a fizzle — that he set off in the mountains not far from the Chinese border in October turned out to be a strategic mistake. The Chinese, who spent six decades protecting the Kim family dynasty, responded by cutting off his military aid, and helping Washington crack down on the banks that financed the Cognac-and-Mercedes lifestyle of the North Korean leadership.

“As a political statement, their test was a red flare for everyone,” said Robert Gallucci, who under President Clinton was the chief negotiator of the 1994 agreement with North Korea, which collapsed four years ago. “It gave President Bush and the Chinese some leverage.”

Mr. Gallucci and other nuclear experts agree that the hardest bargaining with world’s most reclusive, often paranoid, government remains ahead.

Over the next year, under the pact, the North must not only disable its nuclear reactors and reprocessing facilities, it must lead inspectors to its weapons and a suspected second nuclear weapons program. And to get to the next phase of the agreement, the one that gives “disarmament” meaning, North Korea will have to be persuaded to give away the country’s crown jewels: the weapons that make the world pay attention to it.

But before the administration faces off against Mr. Kim in Pyongyang, it will have to confront the many critics of the deal here at home. As the White House took credit on Tuesday for what it called a “first step,” it found itself pilloried by conservatives who attacked the administration for folding in negotiations with a charter member of what Mr. Bush called the “axis of evil,” and for replicating key elements of Mr. Clinton’s agreement with North Korea.

At the same time, Mr. Bush’s advisers were being confronted by barbs from veterans of the Clinton administration, who argued that the same deal struck Tuesday had been within reach several years and a half-dozen weapons ago, had only Mr. Bush chosen to negotiate with the North rather than fixate on upending its government.

In fact, elements of the new decision closely resemble the Clinton deal, called the Agreed Framework. As it did in that accord, the North agrees to “freeze” its operations at Yongbyon, its main nuclear facility, and to allow inspections there. And like that agreement, the new one envisions the North’s ultimately giving up all of its nuclear material.

In two respects, however, the new accord is different: North Korea does not receive the incentives the West has offered — in this case, about a year’s supply of heavy fuel oil and other aid — until it “disables” its equipment at Yongbyon and declares where it has hidden its bombs, nuclear fuel and other nuclear facilities. And the deal is not only with Washington, but with Beijing, Moscow, Seoul and Tokyo.

“We’re building a set of relationships,” Ms. Rice argued Tuesday, saying that the deal would not have been possible if she and President Bush had not been able to swing the Chinese over to their side. Mr. Bush has told colleagues that he believes the turning point came in his own blunt conversations with President Hu Jintao of China, in which, the American president has said, he explained in stark terms that a nuclear North Korea was more China’s problem than America’s.

But the administration was clearly taken aback on Tuesday by the harshness of the critique from the right, led by its recently departed United Nations ambassador, John R. Bolton, who charged that the deal “undercuts the sanctions resolution” against the North that he pushed through the Security Council four months ago.

Democrats, in contrast, were caught between enjoying watching Mr. Bush change course and declaring that the agreement amounted to disarmament-lite. “It gives the illusion of moving more rapidly to disarmament, but it doesn’t really require anything to happen in the second phase,” said Joel Wit, who was the coordinator of the 1994 agreement.

The Bush administration is counting on the lure of future benefits to the North — fuel oil, the peace treaty ending the Korean War it has long craved, an end to other sanctions — to force Mr. Kim to disclose where his nuclear weapons and fuel are stored.

Mr. Bush’s big worry now is that Mr. Kim is playing the administration for time. Many experts think he is betting that by the time the first big deliveries of oil and aid are depleted, America will be distracted by a presidential election.

But Mr. Bush could also end up with a diplomatic triumph, one he needs desperately. To get there, he appears to have changed course. Asked in 2004 about North Korea, he said, “I don’t think you give timelines to dictators and tyrants.”

Now he appears to have concluded that sometimes the United States has to negotiate with dictators and odious rulers, because the other options — military force, sanctions or watching an unpredictable nation gain a nuclear arsenal — seem even worse.