Wednesday, July 18, 2007

D.C., New York Get Biggest Increases in Counterterrorism Aid

D.C., New York Get Biggest Increases in Counterterrorism Aid

By Spencer S. Hsu and Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 19, 2007; A01

The Department of Homeland Security increased counterterrorism funding for Washington and New York City yesterday but warned that doling out more federal cash to the nation's largest urban areas would require the virtual elimination of aid to mid-size cities.

Funding for the District and its Maryland and Virginia suburbs climbed to nearly $62 million, a $15 million increase and the biggest boost among seven urban areas deemed at highest risk of attack. The money is to be used in the next three years to upgrade bomb squads, improve interagency intelligence "fusion centers" and link police databases in a network dubbed "Google for cops," among other projects, officials said.

Local leaders welcomed the addition but said it still does not reflect the scale of the threat to the nation's capital. The amount is still 20 percent less than the region received in 2005.

In awarding a total of $1.7 billion in state and local grants and $1 billion more specifically to improve police and fire department communication, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he expects fresh controversy over whether the money was allocated according to risk or political pressure.

But his announcement was meant to tamp down criticism that erupted last year when DHS reduced aid by 40 percent to the two targets of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. In an interview with Washington Post editors, Chertoff said that DHS allocated more funding this year to the cities considered at the highest risk of attack and also stopped basing grants on such considerations as the location of national monuments, tall buildings and shopping malls -- a much-derided formula whose main creators have resigned.

This year, a simplified calculation focused on population size, economic importance, and the presence of security facilities and "nationally significant critical infrastructure" such as bridges, dams and power plants, he said. Seven high-risk cities received a total of $410 million, or 55 percent of the money set aside for an Urban Area Security Initiative, while 39 other cities shared the remaining $337 million.

But Chertoff warned that he does not consider the annual grants an entitlement, and said high-risk cities should not assume they will continue to receive large amounts. The Overall state and local grants have declined by about $1 billion, or by roughly one-third, since 2004.

Many easy security problems have already been fixed, Chertoff added, but protections in the future will require measures such as tougher requirements for IDs, driver's licenses and passports, as well as tighter international travel restrictions, that businesses and the American public may find hard to swallow.

"My job in the next 18 months is on each of these things to call out the special interests and to say to the public -- through Congress, basically -- 'You guys have to make a choice,' " Chertoff said. "The public can decide if it wants less security or more, but in fairness they ought to understand what the potential consequences are of its choice."

In response to the announcement, Gerald E. Connolly (D), chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors and head of the Washington region's emergency preparedness council, said: "It's better than last year but still falls well short of what the needs of the national capital region are."

Dave Robertson, executive director of the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, said the region is "certainly appreciative of the increase and know we can desperately use the extra $15 million." But, he added, "it is significantly less than what we had hoped for," given a $140 million request.

Some first-time grant winners this year were Norfolk, El Paso and Providence, R.I., which received $8 million, $6 million and $5 million respectively. Houston, San Diego and Phoenix each received an $8 million boost, to $25 million, $16 million and $12 million, respectively.

In New York, funding increased $10 million, to $134 million, yet remained 37 percent below its 2005 peak, prompting renewed complaints from lawmakers. Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.) called the process "indefensible" and said "vulnerabilities exist everywhere, but real threats do not." Like Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg (R), she urged Congress to endorse strictly risk-based funding.

Chertoff responded in the interview that "for the people who say, 'No, you should move more money around the pie,' I want them to tell me what cities to cut. . . . Maybe Congress wants to go down that road and say, 'We're going to put it all in six cities.' I think that would be a mistake."

Chertoff noted that terrorists in last month's failed car-bomb attacks in Britain targeted not just London but also much smaller Glasgow, Scotland. He also cited the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building, the disrupted millennium bomb plot against Los Angeles International Airport, and recent arrests in Atlanta, Chicago, Miami and Trenton, N.J., as examples of terrorist plotting outside of cities attacked on Sept. 11.

"People say, 'Well isn't most of the threat, all the threat in New York?' . . . The answer is no, it's not," Chertoff said. "If we put all the money there, we'd be inviting people to attack second-level cities."

The DHS grants are meant to be used to buy equipment for first responders, improve detection systems, and pay for planning, training and exercises. DHS has been keen to finance fusion centers and an expanded surveillance camera program in New York that is similar to ones in Chicago and Washington.

Separately, DHS and the Commerce Department announced $1 billion in grants yesterday to fix longtime emergency communication problems underscored by troubled responses to the 2001 terrorist attacks and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The District will receive about $12 million; Virginia, $25 million; and Maryland, $23 million.

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), chairman of a House Homeland Security subcommittee on intelligence, called the dispersal of such communications grants "totally unacceptable" and said they should be focused on a few at-risk areas. Other critics noted that the Bush administration had financed these grants by reducing other homeland security grants.

"Scattering these grants around the country . . . may help some jurisdictions buy a few new radios. It may thus make good politics. But it will not cover the targeted investments required for true national interoperability," she said.

DHS officials said that they also expect to award most of $255 million for new transit, ports and catastrophe planning, and that the grants will be financed by supplemental or other budget legislation to be allocated to Washington and other high-risk areas.

Under a separate $509 million awarded yesterday through the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the District will receive $6 million; Maryland, $12 million; and Virginia,$14 million, each an increase of about 50 percent.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/18/AR2007071801507_pf.html

News Briefing on Terrorist Threats: Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend

News Briefing on Terrorist Threats
Homeland Security Advisor Frances Townsend

CQ Transcripts Wire
Tuesday, July 17, 2007; 12:35 PM

TOWNSEND: Good morning, everyone.

Earlier today, the director of national intelligence briefed the president and senior staff on the new national intelligence estimate on the terrorist threat to the homeland.

The DNI has delivered the NIE to Congress and has released the unclassified key judgments, which you should now have.

The Office of the DNI has already briefed the media this morning on the report and the key judgments and so I will not go into much of that detail.

What I would like for you to know is how we are responding to the threat noted in the report.

It is important to understand what the NIE is and what it is not.

The NIE is an intelligence community product that lays out baseline judgments and assessments on a particular topic. While there have been many NIEs and intelligence products over the last six years that focus on the threat faced from Al Qaida and terrorism, this NIE is the first ever focused on the terrorist threat to the U.S. homeland.

It is intended to provide a strategic understanding of the terrorist threat to the homeland over the next three years and to give the intelligence communities baseline judgments in order to help policy-makers develop and prioritize government actions.

That said, it is not a document that specifically focuses on daily tactical threat reporting and the government's operational response. It is a strategic assessment.

Early last week, a classified report was leaked to the press entitled "Al Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West." While I will not discuss the contents of that classified document, it is important to note that the report referenced an important trend in development for decision-makers to action.

Trends develop over time, so the analysis and the facts in the NIE and the classified report were not a surprise to decision-makers and have been the subject of extensive discussion, planning and action over a considerable period of time.

To those responsible for protecting the homeland from Al Qaida and the threat of terrorism, the information in these reports is not new. On the contrary, the NIE reinforces the seriousness of the terrorist threat against the homeland and confirms much of what the president has been saying since September the 11th.

We are facing a persistent terrorist enemy led by Al Qaida that remains driven and intent on attacking the homeland and that continues to adapt and improve its capabilities.

Our greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts since September the 11th have constrained the ability of Al Qaida to attack the U.S. again and have led terrorist groups to view the homeland as a harder target to strike than it was on 9/11.

Our worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have helped disrupt a number of plots against the U.S. At the same time, the NIE notes concern that this level of international cooperation may wane as 9/11 becomes a more distant memory and perceptions of the terrorist threat diverge.

Al Qaida will continue to attempt visually dramatic mass casualty attacks in the homeland. And they will continue to acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials and will not hesitate to use them if they develop sufficient capability.

TOWNSEND: The NIE assesses that Al Qaida will enhance its capabilities to attack the homeland through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups.

Of most concern is that Al Qaida will try to exploit the conflict in Iraq and leverage the contacts and capabilities of Al Qaida in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland.

We will face challenges from the spread of radicalization tied to the global, violent Islamic extremist movement, with the possibility for some within the homeland to become sufficiently radicalized so as to view the use of violence in the homeland as legitimate.

The NIE also refers to the homeland threats from Lebanese Hezbollah, the states sponsored and supported by Iran, and the threat from single-issue groups, as well as the challenge of adapting our homeland defensive efforts and tools to detect and disrupt plots in an era of globalization and technological advances.

The NIE notes that Al Qaida and its affiliates have sought safe haven in the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas of Pakistan and replaced senior leaders and operational commanders that have been captured or killed.

Al Qaida continues to attempt to create global terrorist alliances, raise resources and recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for homeland attacks.

Importantly, the NIE assesses that Al Qaida has protected or regenerated three of four key elements in planning an attack on the homeland: a safe haven in Pakistan, operational lieutenants and top leadership.

The NIE found although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the U.S. with ties to Al Qaida's senior leadership since September the 11th, Al Qaida will intensify its efforts to place operatives here in the homeland.

As a result of these factors, the NIE concludes that we are currently in a heightened threat environment.

I hasten to add, we have no credible information pointing to a specific imminent attack or the timing or execution of such an attack.

TOWNSEND: But the warning is clear, and we are taking it seriously.

We should be clear that despite a resurgent Al Qaida threat and some of their capabilities, they are weaker today than they would have been if we had not taken strong action against them over the last five and a half years.

Furthermore, when we discuss Al Qaida's capabilities, we must put it in the context of a stronger, more capable U.S. government.

Because of the president's commitment to our homeland security, we have more and better intelligence, military and law enforcement resources and the capability to confront an enemy who is weaker now than it would have been absent our aggressive effort to confront and defeat them.

So what are doing to confront the threat outlined in the NIE and the near-term threat from Al Qaida?

First, I want to be clear that we will talk about as much as we can, but consistent with our need to protect our most important and effective tools in this fight. This means we can speak of some things in only general terms and others not at all.

Second, to place in context what we are doing, I should explain how this fits into ongoing counterterrorism efforts. Almost six years after September the 11th, we have not been attacked and I am often asked why.

Because the president has made clear that job number one is to protect the American people from an attack. And his strategy for doing this has been clear and unambiguous.

We have gone on the offensive, attacking our enemies and the things that they need to operate and survive. We have strengthened our defenses through a host of homeland security programs, including increasing our intelligence, military and law enforcement resources, ensuring greater information sharing with state and local officials, increasing grant programs, protecting critical infrastructure and strengthening our border security.

At the same time, we have strengthened our government institutions and our laws. We established DHS. We established national security divisions at Justice and the FBI.

TOWNSEND: We have a DNI. We have a National Counterterrorism Center. And we have enacted legal regimes like the Patriot Act.

This is why we now urge Congress to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to update an antiquated law so that it is technologically neutral, so that we can effectively fight a 21st- century enemy.

But there is yet another factor, and it is the most difficult to explain. It is what we do not know.

What is our enemy's calculation? Is it a large, spectacular, mass casualty attack or smaller, multiple explosive devices, like the ones we saw recently in London and Glasgow?

We cannot know the enemy's calculation, nor when it will shift. We prepare for and anticipate both, with the realization that the enemy only has to be right once, while we must be right every day, all the time.

It is important for the American people to know that focusing our government's attention and resources to the threat from Al Qaida is not new and is not a reaction to the NIE or to any other single report.

Our intelligence, military, law enforcement and homeland security communities are constantly evaluating the threat and making determinations on how best to respond.

Three times a day, at the National Counterterrorism Center, our intelligence, military, law enforcement and homeland security communities review current threats and how we are addressing them.

Every day in the field, law enforcement and homeland security officials are working side by side with state and local police and authorities to uncover leads and information to thwart any ongoing terrorist activity.

Every week, senior counterterrorism officials meet here at the White House to discuss the current and strategic threats and to organize efforts to wage the war on terror.

The president's daily briefings, intelligence briefings, routinely include terrorism matters. And he gets counterterrorism and homeland security updates from Cabinet secretaries and agency heads.

In addition to all of that, as we have done during other periods of heightened threat, we have focused additional attention and resources on this.

In this case, the White House assembled relevant principals and deputies earlier this year to preview regional terrorist threats -- for example, in Europe, the Arabian Gulf and North Africa -- as well as on the current and strategic threat from Al Qaida.

As a result of those meetings, the president directed actions to be taken regarding priorities and engagement with our regional allies. The president personally raised his concern over the emerging Al Qaida threat with heads of state in June on the margins of the G-8. And as a result of those discussions, FBI, CIA, DHS have engaged their European counterparts.

In addition, senior interagency officials have met with their counterparts in Italy and Germany already. And a similar meeting is scheduled in Paris later this month.

As a result of the Homeland Security Council principals meeting in May, we established an interagency task force, under the leadership of the National Counterterrorism Center, to develop additional options and measures for acquiring information and disrupting potential terrorist attacks on the homeland.

TOWNSEND: The task force is charged with evaluating new intelligence, and considers measures that may help disrupt the threat.

This group reports to the White House Homeland Security Council deputies and principals committees on a regular basis.

As part of this effort, departments and agencies have been reviewing their current operations and based on intelligence are enhancing where necessary efforts to better respond and address the heightened threat environment. These efforts span across departments and agencies and involve a broad range of activities.

Some of the measures that we have taken will be visible, and others will not.

The visible ones, like the increase in transportation-related security in the wake of the failed attacks in London and the attack on Glasgow Airport, you will see. Others will not be visible, focusing instead on gathering more intelligence and leads.

In addition to our expanded efforts to disrupt tactical plotting, national security and homeland security officials have been focusing for the past several weeks on additional steps that can be taken to constrict Al Qaida's global reach.

To do this, we are strengthening our cooperation with partners in key regions to undermine Al Qaida's attempts to tap into and to coopt regional networks for their own strategic purpose.

For example, we continue to work with President Musharraf and the Pakistani government to capture key Al Qaida operatives and pressure Al Qaida and the Taliban in the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas. Al Qaida has made several attempts to assassinate President Musharraf and the Pakistanis understand the threat that Al Qaida and violent Islamic extremism pose to their country.

We will continue to press them to take action to ensure that no part of Pakistan remains a safe haven for terrorists.

In North Africa we are working with our partners to counter Al Qaida's expansion into the Maghreb, evident in the emergence of Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb. This group has claimed responsibility for recent terrorist bombings in Algeria, including the April 11th and July 11th attacks.

As you know, at the president's direction, I am just back from discussions with our allies in Morocco, Algeria and Libya, to discuss these very concerns.

In the Arabian Gulf, we continue to strengthen efforts to dismantle terrorist cells, stem terrorist financing and undercut the ideology used by Al Qaida and its supporters to justify the murder of innocents.

This year, for example, Saudi Arabia has made an important series of terror finance arrests, and are investigating the brutal murder of a senior Mubaha (ph) officer at the hands of an Al Qaida-related cell. Their investigations are continuing, and we continue to work with them.

On my trip, I met with the Saudis, with whom I consult approximately four times a year. And I also met with the Qataris.

TOWNSEND: In Europe, as I mentioned, we're building up already strong relationships to increase information sharing and counterterrorism cooperation, while building awareness of the nature of the threat and the challenges posed to Europe.

We have also looked at additional ways of disrupting Al Qaida's network. This includes countering Al Qaida's violent message and the group's attempts to exploit grievances and suffering of local groups for its own benefit.

Thwarting the short- and long-term threats to the homeland from Al Qaida and its like-minded adherents requires real and often hard international commitments and action from our partners and allies.

This is why we have not relented in our engagement with foreign counterparts to ensure that we are taking steps to increase information sharing and joint actions to dismantle and discredit terror cells and networks.

We must remember, terrorism is not a threat we face alone. It is a threat faced by our allies around the world, in London, in Bali, Madrid, Riyadh and Islamabad.

We cannot win this war alone. We need our allies to win. They fight the threat just as we do, and just as our heroes on the battlefields around the world are injured and die in the fight, our allies fight and die as well.

I have outlined some of the steps that are being taken to address the heightened threat environment, but this is not just a federal responsibility. This must be a national effort. This means that all parts of our society have a responsibility and a role to play.

State and local officials have a direct responsibility to protect their citizens and we will continue to work with them, as we do on a daily basis, to share information and take collective action to protect the homeland.

As I mentioned, we need Congress' continued support to ensure that we have the necessary tools and resources to protect the homeland. And this must include passing a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act modernization bill that will make America safer by improving our intelligence capabilities while protecting the privacy interests of Americans.

And to the American people, this means being better informed and more aware, reporting suspicious activities to local authorities, just as a store clerk did in New Jersey, which ultimately helped to unravel the Fort Dix plot in May.

TOWNSEND: We must be clear why the NIE addresses the continuing threat to our homeland from Al Qaida.

We work to disrupt and defeat terrorist plots every day, while anticipating and preparing for future attacks. Our efforts develop as the trends and threats develop, and we will continue to fight this way as long as we are threatened by an enemy who seeks to do us harm.

I am happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Why has the administration continued to say things that the president said -- in 2005, "We have put the enemy on the run and now they spend their days avoiding capture" -- given that they have now regenerated elements of their homeland attack capability and they safe havens in Pakistan?

How can the administration have said these things?

TOWNSEND: Well, they're not inconsistent. Actually, we have kept them on the run. They do seek to avoid capture every single day.

The fact is, look, you're looking at a developing...

QUESTION: That's a very cheery picture about what's going on, given what you see here today. I mean, you may have kept some of them on the run. You've talked about leadership -- taking out the leadership over the years.

TOWNSEND: Two-thirds of Al Qaida's leadership from 9/11 has been captured or killed. It's absolutely right.

QUESTION: And they've regenerated.

TOWNSEND: That's right. And they bring up people who have less operational experience because they want to do us harm. They're intent to do it. And they also have tried to be adaptive, just as we have tried to be adaptive to the techniques that we know that they use.

There should be no question in anybody's mind: Despite our successes, this is an enemy that remains determined. And it remains determined to try and understand if there are vulnerabilities that they may exploit. It requires us to be equally adaptive at capturing or killing them.

QUESTION: There's a report out that of one of two known Al Qaida leadership councils is meeting regularly in Iran. I was wondering if you could confirm that or say that it's not true, or maybe just expand on that a little bit.

And then, secondly, the first bullet does mention that the administration worries that the international corporation will wane. With all that you say that you're doing, why would the administration be worried about that?

TOWNSEND: Well, the NIE highlights a concern that international cooperation may wane as two things: We get more time and distance from the September 11 attack and as views of each country diverge on what the actual threat is.

The threat takes different forms in different places. I mentioned the assassination attempts on Musharraf. In London, it's clearly less sophisticated attacks targeting civilians.

As you see the threat differently, the concern, I think, that the NIE is trying to articulate is that people -- the international cooperation may differ.

We work very hard to make sure that's not true. I was in seven countries over the course of eight days talking to our allies around the world. I will tell you that I'm not, in the near term, concerned about a waning of international cooperation. It's actually as strong as it's ever been.

On your earlier question about this -- I'm sorry, say it again, a (inaudible) council?

QUESTION: Yes, it's -- one of two known Al Qaida leadership councils is apparently meeting regularly in eastern Iran and we're wondering if that is accurate or not.

TOWNSEND: I've not seen the report that you're referring to.

We have heard reports over the years that there are Al Qaida -- senior Al Qaida leadership members in custody in Iran. As you know, Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and Hezbollah and we do not have counterterrorism cooperation from the state of Iran. So it's difficult for me to make a comment on internal Iran matters.

QUESTION: It says this is in the NIE, though, and I think there's only one little reference to Iran in the unclassified version.

TOWNSEND: Right. And you know I'm not going to refer to anything in the classified briefing.

QUESTION: I wonder if you could explain what possible reason there could be for Al Qaida's ability to reconstitute itself, aside from U.S. strength is being diverted in Iraq -- special ops forces and various other military means -- and the U.S. diplomatic abilities, if you will, are compromise in countries that oppose our operation in Iraq. What else could account for Al Qaida's ability to regenerate?

TOWNSEND: Well, there's no question -- I mean, I think there's a tendency to try and suggest that Al Qaida core and Al Qaida in Iraq are two separate things. Let's step back for a minute because I think that is not accurate.

Clearly, what we know is the Al Qaida that attacked us on the September 11th was an Al Qaida that is led by Osama bin Laden and caused the killing of 3,000 Americans. That same Al Qaida headed by bin Laden is the same Al Qaida that Zarqawi, when he becomes the emir of Al Qaida in Iraq, swears by loyalty to. So it's the same organization.

This isn't a question of diverting.

We also know from intelligence -- and the president referenced this when he gave the speech at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy commencement -- we also know that bin Laden communicates to Zarqawi to create a cell inside Iraq that'll be used to plan and plot attacks against the American homeland.

TOWNSEND: And by the way, that wasn't just a one-off; because we also know that they tried to move Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi from Afghanistan to Iraq.

These aren't separate conflicts. These are clearly a single conflict by a single determined enemy who is looking for a safe haven. And if they don't have safe haven in Afghanistan, they look for safe haven someplace else. They'd like to find it -- and bin Laden's been quite clear -- they'd like to find it in Iraq. But if they don't find it in Iraq, they're going to look for some place else, whether that's northern Mali, in the Maghreb, or that's Somalia in West Africa.

QUESTION: So a Senate intelligence report, in May, came out, saying the president was warned before the war in Iraq that if you go in and invade Iraq, you're going to give Al Qaida more opportunities to expand its influence.

Now you were just laying out, a moment ago, how bin Laden was talking to al-Zarqawi, trying to expand his influence in Iraq after the war began.

And now, you're also saying today this report clearly says that Al Qaida is going to try to take advantage of the gains it's made in Iraq to strike the U.S. homeland.

So doesn't this report show that the war in Iraq has made America less safe?

TOWNSEND: Well, let's -- as long as we're going to talk about what the NIE says about Iraq, let me quote it directly.

TOWNSEND: "We assess that Al Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of Al Qaida in Iraq, its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland."

It's not talking about gains in Iraq. What it's talking about is capabilities in Iraq.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... contacts and capabilities.

TOWNSEND: Right, contacts and capabilities.

These are people who have a relationship with Al Qaida core. These are people who are in Iraq attacking us there. And they've made Iraq their end-all, be-all.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: ... says "to energize a broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources and recruit and indoctrinate operatives."

You don't consider those gains for Al Qaida?

TOWNSEND: Well, there's no question that that's their objective. There's no question in any war, whether it's this war or historical wars, that our enemy seeks to take advantage for propaganda purposes of activities on the battlefield and actions on the battlefield.

QUESTION: But the president was warned before the war that that would happen, that Al Qaida would try to use the war for recruitment, to expand its influence.

(CROSSTALK)

TOWNSEND: OK, so -- well, what's the answer to that? So we should leave them and we should not disturb our enemies anywhere in the world because they may use it for propaganda value? I don't think so.

QUESTION: But if the president was warned before the war that this was actually going to help Al Qaida gain influence, now you have a report suggesting maybe it has gained influence from the war in Iraq. Isn't that something that the president ignored?

TOWNSEND: You're assuming this is a zero-sum game, which is what I don't understand.

The fact is, we were harassing them in Afghanistan. We're harassing them in Iraq. We're harassing them in other ways non- militarily around the world. And the answer is, every time you poke the hornet's nest, they are bound to come back and push back on you.

That doesn't suggest to me that we shouldn't be doing it. It suggests -- we hardly need to be warned that they're going to use this for propaganda purposes. They're going to.

QUESTION: But did the tie exist between Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden before we went into Iraq?

TOWNSEND: This is ground long covered, and it's not...

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: Zarqawi and OBL: Did that happen before we went into Iraq?

TOWNSEND: Let me (inaudible).

QUESTION: Two questions.

Following what Ed was just discussing, can we at least acknowledge that Al Qaida has become more battlefield proficient based on what's happening in Iraq, that they are having much more opportunity to test and practice their operational capabilities because of the conflict there?

TOWNSEND: There's no question that every place they seek to fight, when they're fighting, they are honing battlefield capabilities.

Let's step back for a second.

We've seen a recent spate of bombings in Pakistan against the Pakistani military. They're honing their skills there.

We've seen a spate of bombings, car bombings, in Algeria. They're honing their skills there.

Everyplace they fight and they confront government forces they're honing their abilities.

Are they honing their abilities in Iraq? Absolutely, just as they are in other places where they bomb innocent civilians around the world.

QUESTION: For the citizen watching this and hearing that in Pakistan there is a safe haven, why should that American citizen not say, "Well, why don't we go into Pakistan and deal with it that way?"

TOWNSEND: There's no question, the president's made perfectly clear, if we had actionable targets anywhere in the world, putting aside whether it was Pakistan or anyplace else, we would pursue the targets.

There's a number -- but it's hard for me to say to you, what would the -- what is the target, what is the opportunity, what is the likelihood of success, what is our confidence in the intelligence? You'd have to know all those things for me to accurately, sort of, predict for you. And that's one of those things you're only going to know when all those factors come together.

But there's no question, President Musharraf is taking on extremism. He gave a speech after the seizure of the Red Mosque and said, "We are going to battle extremism in every nook of Pakistan and we are going to -- we are going to rid Pakistan, all of Pakistan, of extremism."

So he's clearly committed to taking it on. In the last -- just this month, they've lost upwards of 80 soldiers in the fight. So there should be no question that Pakistan takes it seriously for their own reasons. And we're working with them to encourage them to deny Pakistan as a safe haven. They don't want Pakistan as a safe haven themselves.

QUESTION: Let me try another approach on the Iraq issue.

To what extent has the war turned Iraq into an unprecedented training ground, breeding ground for terrorists? You didn't have the sophistication with the IEDs and the other things that this war has developed.

TOWNSEND: Well, there's no question that we've watched developing tactics. But they're also being fed -- lest we suggest that Al Qaida in Iraq is the only enemy inside Iraq -- it's not.

We know very well, and you've heard briefings from DOD, about the transfer of advance technology into Iraq to advance some of this by Iran.

TOWNSEND: And so it's -- this is not the -- Al Qaida in Iraq is not the only enemy in Iraq. And interestingly enough, recently, we've seen Sunni tribal groups walk away from Al Qaida in Iraq.

QUESTION: (inaudible) they do emphasize in this report.

TOWNSEND: No, no, that's right. I mentioned that just to put it in context that it's not the only enemy we face in Iraq.

QUESTION: Fran, years ago this administration had said something about the fact that Osama bin Laden wasn't really the major threat anymore. He was just trying to maintain and survive.

Now you're saying that he's feeding into -- we know that he's feeding into the Iraqi intelligence -- I mean, not Iraqi intelligence, but the Iraq Al Qaida, and not only that, but they've pledged allegiance to him.

What is the NIE -- the unscrubbed version of the NIE saying about Osama bin Laden and the threat by Osama bin Laden? Because this administration does not talk about him. They keep talking about Al Qaida as a whole, not about the man who attacked the United States on 9/11 and the threat that he poses now.

TOWNSEND: OK.

First, obviously, what is declassified from the NIE is not a decision I make. And so if you want more out of that NIE, you're talking to the wrong person.

QUESTION: How many pages was the NIE compared to this couple of pages that we got scrubbed? We need to know what is in it about Osama.

TOWNSEND: You've got -- the unclassified judgments are a page and a half, I think.

TOWNSEND: The classified -- to give you a sense, the classified key judgments were about two and a half pages.

But, again, I'm in the awkward position. I can't talk to you about what's classified. And so, you've got -- there was a briefing today by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. I can't talk to you about what's in there.

Let me step back for a second now, and talk to you about...

QUESTION: Can you acknowledge he was in there, in those pages, his presence, what he represents to Al Qaida, the significance to Al Qaida in Iraq and Pakistan? Can you at least make that acknowledgement?

TOWNSEND: You need to talk to the director of national intelligence.

I'm not going to refer to you -- we're not going to do this one question at a time about, well, is Osama bin Laden in there? And the next question will be, is Zawahiri in there?

QUESTION: But you brought him up on that podium, Fran. I mean, essentially, a minute ago.

TOWNSEND: That's right.

QUESTION: And we want to go in as reporters trying to find out what is this man posing to this nation. You're saying we're at a high level and he's still the head.

He's not the head on the run the way you're talking anymore. A couple years ago they said he was on the run, just trying to maintain. Apparently not anymore. He is a threat.

TOWNSEND: There's no question that Al Qaida core, bin Laden and Zawahiri, have worked to regenerate their ability to communicate. This is what the NIE references when it talks about top leadership.

There's no question that bin Laden and Zawahiri continue to be a threat to the security of the American homeland, not to mention the security of innocents around the world.

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that capturing or killing bin Laden continues to be the highest priority for this country. The president is regularly briefed on it, there are enormous resources, military and intelligence, that are devoted to it and will continue to be devoted to it until we're successful.

QUESTION: Has American intelligence improved at all over the few years?

And also you talked about actionable targets. If there are actionable nuclear targets in Iran, would the U.S. go after them?

TOWNSEND: OK. Let's back -- let me start with the last one first.

Obviously, Iran's nuclear capability is not the subject of the NIE. The NIE does not talk about Iran's nuclear capability. So it's just not relevant to this whole discussion, frankly.

QUESTION: But you said there's not actionable targets. If there are actionable targets...

TOWNSEND: We're talking about actionable terrorism targets. If there are actionable terrorism targets, we work against them with our allies. There are no options off the table in actionable intelligence terrorism targets.

Now, what does that mean?

TOWNSEND: And we ought to be clear about what it means.

It means that we work with allies around the world. We will work with our partners to use their capabilities and ours and the most effective tools to address those targets, wherever they are.

QUESTION: How about intelligence? I asked whether our intelligence has improved.

TOWNSEND: Our intelligence has absolutely improved.

We have increased the amount of resources. Obviously, I can't talk about the top line to the intelligence budget because it's classified.

We have increased our intelligence resources, particularly in the area of our collection capability. And I will tell you, it should not go passed unnoticed here, as we talk about the contents of the NIE.

We are in a better position, we have a better feeling and can talk more, particularly about the intelligence threat, the terrorism threat because our intelligence has improved.

We have, far and away, a better sense out of the intelligence community about the threat we face today than we have at any other time in the last six years.

QUESTION: Can you talk a little bit about the internal threat?

The NIE says that the internal Muslim terrorist threat is not as likely to be as severe as it is in Europe. What should Americans who are concerned about the so-called homegrown terrorism take from that?

TOWNSEND: Well, I think it's obvious that we worry about domestic radicalization. We've seen, sort of, like-minded inspired groups, whether it's the JFK plot or the Fort Dix plot. People -- Americans rightly worry about that.

I will tell you that the president was, as you know, at the Washington Islamic Center. Most Muslim Americans worry about it, too, and want to understand what our goals and objectives and how they can assist us. Because it's a threat to them, just as it's a threat to any other American.

This is not -- and the president has said it -- this is not an effort directed at Muslims or against Muslim Americans in this country. It's directed at a very small fraction of violent extremists who believe that the use of violence is a legitimate tactic.

And so we worry about it here. But we've only seen it in a limited sense; not in the larger sense that, I think, our allies, say, in London or Paris have seen.

QUESTION: So you -- well, credit goes to the law enforcement authorities, as far as any attacks have not taken place here in this country.

QUESTION: But also, there are the reports that the U.S. is fighting this war beyond -- outside the U.S.

My question is that now you're confirming that Osama bin Laden, which we have not been talking about in -- for some time, is now alive and he is head of the Al Qaida. I mean, all the -- most of the attacks taking place is under his leadership.

And I'm sure somebody knows where he's hiding. And also, you confirmed that Al Qaidas are now taking safe haven in Pakistan.

The Pakistani government has told the U.S. that they will not allow, under any circumstances, anybody to enter that area where Al Qaida and Osama bin Laden is.

So where do we stand working in the future, catching Osama bin Laden and all those hiding in safe haven in Pakistan?

TOWNSEND: Well, there's no question that when we talk about Pakistan, we're talking about -- and bin Laden -- we're talking about the Federally Administrated Tribal Areas.

As you know, President Musharraf, in an effort to extend the writ of the Pakistani government in a way that has never been before, entered into this agreement with tribal leaders in the area.

It hasn't worked for Pakistan. It hasn't worked for the United States. It's clear that President Musharraf is serious about taking action in the tribal areas. We've seen a whole spate of activity over the course of the last several weeks.

And I think it's fair to say, President Musharraf is committed to the fact that he will not permit that to be a safe haven and we will work with him to ensure that that safe haven is denied to them.

QUESTION: And to follow-up quickly, as President Karzai of Afghanistan is coming to meet with President Bush here at Camp David, he has been complaining that...

(AUDIO GAP)

TOWNSEND: I think the president looks forward to getting a sense from President Karzai of his take on it.

QUESTION: Fran, is it a fair reading of the key judgments you've released today that the Federally Administered Tribal Areas that you discussed is in fact the central front in the war on terrorism, to use the president's phrase?

And, if so, tell us how if at all you have renegotiated your own operational arrangements with General Musharraf -- President Musharraf so that we would have greater access in there?

TOWNSEND: OK.

Well, to use the president's phrase, Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.

QUESTION: Is that supported by the key judgments, Fran?

TOWNSEND: There is no question -- based on the statements of bin Laden himself, not to mention others in Al Qaida -- that they regard Iraq as the central front in the war on terror.

The other piece to this -- you asked me about arrangements with President Musharraf. It is no secret there have been a series of very senior-level U.S. government officials to engage with President Musharraf and address this very issue, beginning with the vice president. And obviously there are conversations between the president and President Musharraf. Secretary Gates has been out, Deputy Secretary Negroponte and a raft of senior intelligence officials.

We will continue to work with the Pakistani government to address the threat that comes from the tribal areas. It is a serious one, but it's not only a serious threat to us; it's also a serious threat to the stability of Pakistan.

I'm obviously not going to go into the details of it, because I'm not going to put our people or Pakistani officials at risk. In the last two weeks, they've had nearly 80 killed and I'm not going to do that.

QUESTION: When the report speaks of Al Qaida -- the judgment that Al Qaida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here, is that implicitly saying that there are ongoing efforts to put operatives here? What can you say about that?

TOWNSEND: We assume, because we have to, that they're trying to place operatives here. It's their way of being able -- it's one of their critical enablers.

You heard me talk about what do they need to operate and survive. You need people to launch attacks. And so we assume that they are doing that or they are attempting to do that.

TOWNSEND: I will tell you, that goes a long distance, I should think, in explaining the president's absolute passion for comprehensive immigration reform.

What we want to do is take agents and have them focused on the terrorism threat and the infiltration threat so they're not worrying about illegal migrants who are here coming for economic reasons.

There is huge effort devoted to -- whether it's in the Department of Homeland Security, whether it's by the Transportation Security Agency, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement -- devoted at addressing that threat.

And, frankly, it is frequently cued and enabled by other federal government partners, whether that's the CIA, the FBI and their colleagues in the government.

QUESTION: Can I ask you then as a follow-up, if you assume these things, how much comfort should that lend people that you really don't know what's going on?

TOWNSEND: Well, it's not -- I'm assuming you're not suggesting that I should wait until I know that they've infiltrated somebody.

A lot of the reason we assume it is based on, look, we have thousands of men and women in the intelligence community around the world, 24 hours a day collecting intelligence to help us cue our screening and enforcement efforts.

It's not that we, sort of, have no clue and so we blindly do this. We do it based on better intelligence than we've ever had before, so our efforts are quite focused.

QUESTION: Fran, you've said that we've not been -- in the six years since the September 11th attacks, we've not been attacked. And I'm often asked why.

Are we any closer to finding out who carried out the anthrax attacks that followed those, the September 11th attacks?

TOWNSEND: Obviously, that's an ongoing investigation. I'm sure Director Mueller would be delighted to answer that.

QUESTION: Doesn't that count as a terrorist attack? I mean, that is a subsequent event, right, so it's...

TOWNSEND: It does in my mind.

QUESTION: Is it shorthanding it too much to say that General Musharraf, from his efforts in the tribal areas there against Al Qaida, is the key person, the point man in protecting the United States, and whether he has success there or not is the whole ball game?

TOWNSEND: No, it is not accurate because we work together as a partner. We work jointly, whether it's with his intelligence service, his military, our military. We work together as partners. To suggest that it's kind of all on his shoulders, I just don't think it's fair and I don't think it's accurate.

QUESTION: Does he give us all the operational capability the United States would like to have?

TOWNSEND: You know, it's funny. I'm glad you asked me that because, frequently, when people ask me about our counterterrorism cooperation, our allies around the world, the suggestion is: Do they give you everything you want? That is almost never the case.

And you know what? If I only cooperated with those who gave me 100 percent of what I thought I needed or wanted, I wouldn't have a whole lot of allies around the world.

Every ally is important. Every ally comes to the table in the fight against terrorism through the lens of their own national interest. What did they need to get in the fight? What's the threat to their own internal stability or the security of their own people?

And so we always work to strengthen those alliances. We always work to find more common ground so that we're more closely aligned. But it doesn't mean that we get everything we want. But we also can't walk away from people just because we don't get everything we want when we want it.

QUESTION: What kind of percentage do we get from Musharraf?

TOWNSEND: I'm not going to -- it's really a tempting invitation. I'm not going to do it.

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: Fran, I have a question about your trip to Libya.

TOWNSEND: Sure.

QUESTION: Why were you there and what happened in your exchange with Gadhafi that led to the U.S. sending an ambassador back there after you delivered the letter?

TOWNSEND: What led me to be there is the president sent me.

TOWNSEND: The president asked that I deliver a letter while I was traveling through North Africa. The letter, the contents of the letter is not public. I understand some of it has been made public. We raised -- first of all, we acknowledge, of course, the historic decision to renounce terrorism and to turn back his weapons program.

On the other hand, as with all of our allies around the world, we have issues of concern. We handle them privately and bilaterally, but they include things like making sure that the victims of the La Belle disco bombing and Pan Am 103 get fully compensated, among others. There were other issues of concern.

We will continue to work with the Libyans. I also raised -- as you can imagine, given Al Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and Al Qaida's attempt to extend its reach -- ongoing sort of regular counterterrorism matters that we believe are a common threat both to the Libyans and to us.

The Libyans have agreed to accept an ambassador. But there are more issues, and we need more progress. And I think it's fair to say that both the Libyans are frustrated and we're frustrated because we both want more out of that relationship. But it's going to take time.

I mean, this is a country on whom we had imposed sanctions for a long period of time. I think we have to be patient and have slow and small confidence-building measures, and we're prepared to begin down the path to see that kind of progress.

(AUDIO GAP)

TOWNSEND: I'm not going to go -- I think there's been a readout of some of the things that were contained in the letters. Of course, we are concerned about the Bulgarian nurses. I'm not going to go into details of that private conversation.

QUESTION: Fran, I think a lot of Americans watching this will have two very simple questions. Where is Osama bin Laden and why, nearly six years after the president said we would get him dead or alive, do we not have him? How has he possibly eluded our grasp?

TOWNSEND: Well, there is no question that we have put extraordinary resources against finding him. If I could answer directly with a pinpoint on a map where he was, he wouldn't be there.

The question is...

(AUDIO GAP)

QUESTION: Can you talk about the extraordinary resources?

TOWNSEND: Military, intelligence and law enforcement resources.

QUESTION: Any operations you can share with us?

TOWNSEND: No.

QUESTION: Do you know if Osama bin Laden is still on a dialysis machine. Is he still ill? What? I mean, could you tell us about that? I mean, because it...

TOWNSEND: She thinks I'm a doctor...

(LAUGHTER)

QUESTION: No, seriously, I mean, it might be laughable, but people are finding it hard, six years, this man is sick, moving around from cave to cave and can't be found, with a dialysis machine...

TOWNSEND: Have you ever been to the tribal areas?

I suspect not.

QUESTION: No, I haven't, but I've seen some great pictures from Ken Herman as to the rough terrain over that way, so...

(LAUGHTER)

TOWNSEND: It's not exactly easy. If it were easy, he'd be dead.

QUESTION: But it's not easy for him to travel around with medics and machinery, if he's sick. I mean, is he -- do you know, from your intelligence, if he's still sick? What do you know about it?

TOWNSEND: (OFF-MIKE). Thank you.

END

.ETX

Jul 17, 2007 12:17 ET .EOF

Source: CQ Transcriptions

© 2007, Congressional Quarterly Inc., All Rights Reserved

Homeland Security: Bay Area Top Terror Target

NBC11.com

More
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
Karen Bleiler/AFP/Getty Images
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

Homeland Security: Bay Area Top Terror Target

POSTED: 4:59 pm PDT July 18, 2007
UPDATED: 6:43 pm PDT July 18, 2007
On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security designated the Bay Area as one of the six urban regions in the country most at risk for terrorist attacks.The announcement came on the same day Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced who would receive nearly $750 million in anti-terror grants.
Bay Area Named Terror Target
Bay Area authorities will receive $34.1 million in fiscal 2007, which ends Sept. 30.The money has to be spent on things that would prevent terror attacks or prepare to respond to a future attack.The 2007 grant is roughly 20 percent more than the 2006 grant, which was $28.3 million.Prior to 2007, the grants were awarded separately to San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose.This year's grant includes those cities.San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom praised the grant funding."We're pleased the Department of Homeland Security has increased our funding, recognizing the Bay Area's importance as a high-risk region," said Newsom.Newsom said in a statement that this year, the Department of Homeland Security created a tiered system for categorizing urban areas based on highest risk.He said the Bay Area was placed in the top tier, along with New York/New Jersey, Los Angeles/Long Beach, Chicago, Houston and the National Capital Region.Newsom said the top tier group competed for $410.8 million. That is 55 percent of the total amount available for the grant program. An early copy of the national list of grant amounts to the 46 recipient cities was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press:
  • The Los Angeles/Long Beach area will get $72.6 million in 2007, compared to $80.6 million in 2006.
  • The San Francisco Bay area will get $34 million in 2007, compared to $28.3 million in 2006.
  • Anaheim/Santa Ana will get $13.8 million in 2007, compared to $12 million in 2006.
  • Sacramento will get $4.17 million in 2007, compared to $7.4 million in 2006.
  • Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he was concerned about the funding decreases. "We will continue to pressure the federal government to make sure that California's homeland security needs are met," he said in a statement. Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer said she was pleased San Diego and the Bay Area received increases, but disappointed by cuts to Los Angeles and Sacramento. "One minute we have the secretary of Homeland Security saying he has a gut feeling we'll be attacked this summer, and the next minute they are announcing homeland security funding cuts to cities like Los Angeles and Sacramento -- our state capital -- which are potential targets for terrorist attacks," she said. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has repeatedly said cities should not compare one year's award to the next, because the program is designed to provide aid where the need is greatest in order to make the entire country safer from terrorist attacks.

    Feds Give $1 Billion To Fix Post-9/11 Radio Problems

    The government will distribute nearly $1 billion to states and cities to fix communications problems that still hamper police and fire departments six years after the Sept. 11 terror attacks. The biggest state recipients are California with $94 million, Texas with $65 million and New York with $61 million, according to Wednesday's announcement. In certain states, chunks will be specifically set aside for major cities: New York City will get $34.8 million and the Los Angeles/Long Beach area was awarded $22.3 million. Other cities getting specific amounts were: San Francisco Bay area, $14.5 million; Chicago, $16.2 million; Houston, $14.6 million; Jersey City-Newark, $17.5 million; and Washington, $11.9 million. A total of $968 million for interoperable communications grants was announced Wednesday by the heads of the departments of Homeland Security and Commerce, after a review earlier this year found that of 75 major U.S. cities, only six received a top grade in emergency communications. The money, said Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, will answer "the urgent need for firefighters, police and other first responders to be able to communicate effectively with one another." Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the money should get the entire country up to a basic standard of effective emergency communication by 2009 -- but only if the local authorities coordinate with each other and avoid turf fights. "That's not something the federal government can make people do," said Chertoff. "We can put the tools on the table, but the training and the willpower to use the tools has to rest with state and local officials." Congress provided the money in a 2005 bill, seeking to address lingering radio problems exposed when hijacked airliners struck the World Trade Center in New York in 2001. In that chaotic, fast-moving crisis, many firefighters could not hear important radio messages -- including orders to evacuate before the second World Trade Center tower collapsed. Police officers' radios generally worked better, but they had little effective communication with firefighters. Such flaws were evident again in 2005 when Hurricane Katrina knocked out many local rescue workers' communications systems. Since then, Chertoff and others have insisted that agencies need to end any so-called "battle of the badge" rivalries that historically exist between some departments, and, where needed, adopt new technology to handle a natural or man-made disaster. "It's not necessarily the case that everybody's got to run out and buy new equipment," said Chertoff. Rep. Peter King, an occasional critic of Homeland Security's grant decisions, said that in this case "the department is moving in the right direction, but obviously New York still needs more." In January, homeland security officials found that more than 60 percent of the communities studied had the ability to talk to each other during a crisis, but only one in five showed "seamless" use of equipment needed to also communicate with state and federal authorities. Separately Wednesday, Chertoff formally announced grant amounts to 46 U.S. cities considered at highest risk of terror attacks -- a much-scrutinized program that draws cheers and boos every year based on which areas see more money and which see less. Responding to frequent complaints from big cities like New York that contend a greater share should come to them instead of smaller towns, Chertoff hinted that there is more danger lurking in the far corners of the country than people realize. "I think you'd be surprised at the number of comparatively small places where we have people that we are seriously looking at as potential operatives and they're not in cities you think you would find them," he said. "We can't necessarily know whether they would be operational in a big city or if whether they would be operational locally," Chertoff added.

    Lawmaker admits error in Nazi reference

    Lawmaker admits error in Nazi reference

    Ellison facing harsh criticism from those calling for apology
    The Associated Press
    Updated: 2:15 p.m. ET July 18, 2007

    WASHINGTON - The nation's first Muslim congressman said Tuesday that he erred in comparing the Bush administration's response to Sept. 11 to an event that led to Adolf Hitler's consolidation of power in Nazi Germany.

    At an appearance before a group of atheists in Minnesota on July 8, Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., called Sept. 11 "the juggernaut" that led to war, tolerating torture and increased discrimination against religious minorities.

    "It's almost like the Reichstag fire, kind of reminds me of that," he said. "After the Reichstag was burned, they blamed the Communists for it and it put the leader of that country in a position where he could basically have authority to do whatever he wanted."

    Hitler used the 1933 burning of the Reichstag, the German parliament building, to suspend constitutional liberties.

    "In hindsight, I wouldn't have used that reference point," Ellison told The Associated Press in a telephone interview Tuesday. "It was probably inappropriate to use that example, because it's a unique historical event, without really any clear parallels."

    Ellison said he remains harshly critical of the Bush administration.

    "I believe that they have exploited the fears that grew from 9/11, in order to pass legislation and even start wars they could have never gotten away with but for that tragedy," he said.

    Public pressure for an apology
    Ellison said he had gotten a call Tuesday afternoon from the Anti-Defamation League, an international group that opposes anti-Semitism, regarding the Hitler comparison.

    "They told me they understood the point I was trying to make, but they didn't think it was the right way to use that historical example, because they thought any sort of comparison to the modern world we live in in some way diminishes the horror of the Nazi era," Ellison said. "I told them I feel they're right."

    The ADL released a statement Tuesday calling on Ellison to apologize for his comments. The group's national director, Abraham H. Foxman, called the comparison "outrageous and offensive to all Americans."

    "Whatever his views may be on the administration's response to 9/11 and the conduct of the war on terrorism, likening it to Hitler's rise to power and Nazism is odious and demeans the victims of 9/11 and the brave American men and women engaged in the war on terror," Foxman said. "Furthermore, it demonstrates a profound lack of understanding about the horrors that Hitler and his Nazi regime perpetrated."

    The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum also issued a statement Tuesday, saying: "Nazi Germany committed unprecedented crimes against Europe's Jews and others. Invoking the Holocaust to make a point about the United States is unfounded, minimizes the evil of Nazism, and is an offense to its victims."

    URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19823886/

    Steam explosion jolts NYC, killing 1

    Steam explosion jolts NYC, killing 1

    More than dozen injured, some seriously; crowds flee steam, flying rubble
    BREAKING NEWS
    MSNBC staff and news service reports
    Updated: 9:10 p.m. ET July 18, 2007

    NEW YORK - An underground steam pipe explosion tore through a Manhattan street near Grand Central Terminal on Wednesday, swallowing a tow truck and killing one person as hundreds of others ran for cover amid a towering geyser of steam and flying rubble.

    New York Police Department spokesman Paul Browne said the explosion was not terrorism.

    "There is no reason to believe whatsoever that this is anything other than a failure of our infrastructure," Mayor Michael Bloomberg said at a news conference at the scene of the blast.

    The mayor said a 24-inch steam pipe installed in 1924 broke, with the explosion most likely caused by the introduction of cold water into the pipe.

    Sixteen people were taken to Bellevue Hospital, including the person who died, said spokesman Stephen Bohlen. He said two seriously injured patients were being treated in the hospital's trauma unit. The remainder suffered minor injuries, he said.

    Two people were in critical condition at New York Weill-Cornell Medical Center, said spokeswoman Emily Berlanstein.

    Initial burst taller than Chrysler Building
    A plume of steam and mud shot from the center of the blast, generating a tremendous roar. The initial burst of steam rose higher than the nearby 77-story Chrysler Building, one of Manhattan's tallest buildings. The air near the site was filled with debris.

    Heiko H. Thieme, an investment banker, had mud splattered on his face, pants and shoes. He said the explosion was like a volcano. "Everybody was a bit confused, everybody obviously thought of 9/11."

    Thousands of commuters evacuated the train terminal, some at a run, after workers yelled for people to get out of the building. A small school bus was abandoned just feet from the spot where the jet of steam spewed from the ground.

    Large crowds of homeward-bound commuters milled in the streets around Grand Central Terminal, nervously sharing information. Inside the station, food vendors hurried to store their carts and yelled to commuters that they had been ordered to evacuate. Commuters pouring into the station began turning around to exit to the street.

    For some time after the explosion, no uniformed police or emergency personnel could be seen at the northern Madison Avenue entrance to Grand Central, a major entry point to the station, according to NBC News' Mark Lukasiewicz. Commuters there relied on cell phones, passersby and Blackberries to decide whether it was safe to enter the station.

    Debbie Tontodonato, 40, a manager for Clear Channel Outdoor, said she thought the rumble from the explosion was thunder.

    "I looked out the window and I saw these huge chunks that I thought were hail," she said. "We panicked, I think everyone thought the worst. Thank God it wasn't. It was like a cattle drive going down the stairs, with everyone pushing. I almost fell down the stairs."

    Streets, subways closed
    Streets were closed in several blocks in all directions. Subway service in the area was suspended.

    The steam cleared around 8 p.m., exposing a crater several feet wide in the street. A red tow truck lay at the bottom of the hole.

    Con Edison spokesman Chris Olert said workers were still trying to determine what caused the blast.

    There were also concerns about what was spewed into the air. Some of the pipes carrying steam through the city are wrapped in asbestos. Olert said asbestos testing was under way.

    Police were wearing gas masks on the street.

    Millions of pounds of steam are pumped beneath New York City streets every hour, heating and cooling thousands of buildings, including the Empire State Building.

    The steam pipes are sometimes prone to rupture, however. In 1989, a gigantic steam explosion ripped through a street, killing three people and sending mud and debris several stories into the air.

    That explosion was caused by a condition known as "water hammer," the result of condensation of water inside a steam pipe.

    URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19837147/

    A Free Press or a Ministry of Truth?

    Paul Craig Roberts
    Lew Rockwell.com
    Wednesday July 18, 2007

    In his novel 1984, George Orwell portrayed a future time in which the explanations of recent events and earlier history are continually changed to meet Big Brother’s latest purpose. Previous explanations disappear down "the memory hole."

    Sound familiar? Any American who pays attention can observe the identical phenomenon occurring in the US today.

    Think about the Bush Regime’s changing explanations for the failed US occupation of Iraq. Shortly after Bush’s May 2003 announcement of "mission accomplished," the mission revealed itself to be very much unaccomplished. Americans were told that the cause of the snafu was a small Sunni insurgency of two or three thousand at the most inspired by "die-hard Baath party remnants. Remember the propagandistic deck of cards identifying the most wanted down to the less wanted? Americans were assured that once Saddam Hussein and his relatives and henchmen were rounded up, our troops would be pelted with the promised flowers instead of roadside bombs.

    When the roundups, trials, and executions failed to fix the problem, the "die-hard" explanation disappeared. A new explanation, with no continuity to the old, took its place.

    The new explanation was that Syria was allowing foreigners to cross its border into Iraq to commit jihad against the American troops. This explanation lasted until it became all too clear, despite the propaganda, that the "foreign fighters" were remarkably well accepted by, and concealed within, the Iraqi communities that were suffering all the collateral damage of the conflict.

    When it came time for the US to create an Iraqi government, it was evident that it would be one dominated by Shi’ites. Then, for a limited time, it was permissible to recognize that the insurgency was popularly based in the Sunnis.

    As the insurgency evolved into what the Iraq Study Group described as a Sunni-Shi’ite civil war with US troops unclear on which side they stood, the Bush Regime and the captive media began blaming Al Qaeda for the escalating violence. Americans were assured by the Ministry of Truth that there wasn’t a civil war, just outsiders stirring up conflict. This enabled Big Brother to deny that there was a civil war and to revive fear of terrorist attacks in the US and UK, the new Oceania.

    The Al Qaeda explanation was soon discarded into the memory hole. The explanation implied that Oceania’s invasion of Iraq had greatly expanded the ranks and strength of Al Qaeda, thus contradicting Big Brother’s claim that his war in Iraq was making Oceanians safe by stamping out terrorism. The Al Qaeda explanation had to depart for another reason as well. Cheney, Israel, and the neocons, the rulers of the new Oceania, plan to attack Iran, and so the insurgency in Iraq is now being blamed on Iran.

    The Ministry of Truth has accommodated the latest explanation, just as it did all others before, without remarking on the funeral of the previous explanation. All of a sudden, a new explanation appears and is repeated until it, too, goes down the memory hole.

    The American and British media work the same way as the Ministry of Truth in Oceania. A day arrives when the "truth" no longer serves the empire or hegemonic power or center of moral purpose in the world, or for short, the regime. When that day arrives, a new explanation appears and is repeated until it, too, is discarded down the memory hole.

    In recent weeks Americans have been fed a series of reports from official sources that Iran is arming both Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban in Afghanistan. Experts, both within the government and without, who have been made more attentive by the Bush Regime’s false charges of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, have disputed the news reports.

    But the reports keep on coming. As I write, the latest story is that the US military "discovered a field of rocket launchers near a US army base south of Baghdad armed with 34 Iranian-made missiles." Can you imagine? The insurgents went to the trouble of lugging powerful missiles within striking distance of a US base and just left them there unfired to be discovered by the Americans. To further serve Cheney’s plan to attack Iran, the media report states: "Earlier this month, US commanders stepped up the charges [against Iran], claiming that senior leaders of Iran’s special forces and of the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah militia have trained Iraqi fighters and provided other support."

    Notice that none of the explanations fed to Americans over the years have ever mentioned, even as a faint possibility, that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq might be the cause of the violence in Iraq.

    Allegedly, the US is a free and open country with a free press and a government accountable to the people. Yet, the information fed to the American people is as thoroughly false as that fed to the citizens of Oceania by Big Brother through the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s famous novel.

    In Orwell’s novel, despite the totalitarian power of the government, nothing happens to people as long as they accept the government’s intrusive monitoring of their lives and do not become interested in truth or facts. In such a world, truth and individuality pass out of human consciousness and become unimportant. Citizens survive by accepting Big Brother’s ever-changing reality.

    This is what the mainstream media in the US and UK are enabling the new Oceania to accomplish. It is pointless to complain about a few Judith Millers here and there at the New York Times, or the obvious warmongers at the Weekly Standard, Fox "News," and Wall Street Journal editorial page. The entire corporate media is behaving as a Ministry of Truth.

    RAF scrambles to intercept Russian bombers

    Richard Beeston
    London Times
    Wednesday July 18, 2007

    RAF fighter jets were scrambled to intercept two Russian strategic bombers heading for British airspace yesterday, as the spirit of the Cold War returned to the North Atlantic once again.

    The incident, described as rare by the RAF, served as a telling metaphor for the stand-off between London and Moscow over the murder of Alexander Litvinenko.

    While the Kremlin hesitated before responding to Britain’s expulsion of four diplomats, the Russian military engaged in some old-fashioned sabre-rattling.

    Two Tu95 “Bear” bombers were dispatched from their base on the Kola Peninsula in the Arctic Circle and headed towards British airspace.

    Russian military aircraft based near the northern port city of Murmansk fly patrols off the Norwegian coast regularly, but the RAF said that it was highly unusual for them to stray as far south as Scotland.

    Two Tornado fighters, part of the RAF’s Quick Reaction Alert, took off from RAF Leeming, in Yorkshire, to confront the Russian aircraft, after they were shadowed by two F16s from the Royal Norwegian Air Force, The Times has learnt.

    “The Russians turned back before they reached British airspace,” an RAF spokesman said.

    There was no evidence to suggest that the incident was connected with the diplomatic row over the extradition of Andrei Lugovoy, the main suspect in the murder of Litvinenko. Studies at the Russian Academy of Sciences, criticised the British reaction but urged the Kremlin not to escalate the conflict. “Why does one former KGB officer killing another deserve this attention?” he asked.

    In London, Yuri Fedotov, the Russian Ambassador to London, said that Russia would soon respond against Britain and admitted that relations were strained.

    “The response will follow. It takes time. We are serious people,” he said. “It is really hard to be optimistic today. I hope in the long run our relations will be restarted – reloaded, so to say – but that is not the best moment of the history of our bilateral relations.”

    Bad News for the Architects of the North American Union — Public Opinion Is Turning Against Globalization

    Larry Greenley
    JBS
    Wednesday July 18, 2007

    ARTICLE SYNOPSIS:

    An article ("New Populism Is Spurring Democrats on the Economy") in the July 16 New York Times points out how Democrats are more and more telling voters that their wage and job loss woes are due to immigration, free trade agreements, and globalization in general.

    Follow this link to the original source: "A New Populism Spurs Democrats on the Economy"

    COMMENTARY:

    An article ("A New Populism Is Spurring Democrats on the Economy") in the July 16 New York Times points out how Democrats are more and more telling voters that their wage and job loss woes are due to immigration, free trade agreements, and globalization in general. The Times article states:

    Clearly influenced by some of their most successful candidates in last year's Congressional elections, Democrats are talking more and more about the anemic growth in American wages and the negative effects of trade and a globalized economy on American jobs and communities. They deplore what they call a growing gap between the middle class, which is struggling to adjust to a changing job market, and the affluent elites who have prospered in the new economy.... Democratic leaders say that unless Congress restores the confidence of the middle class, it will be hard to sell Americans on more trade or even an immigration overhaul.

    A good example of just how outspoken some Democrats are on these issues is Rep. Steve Kagen, who was elected to the House last November from the 8th District of Wisconsin, a Republican stronghold in recent decades. In a recent column in one of the main newspapers in his district, Rep. Kagen stated:

    As your newly elected congressman, I have been listening to people throughout our district, and everywhere I go, folks are asking me where I stand on immigration.

    There has never been any doubt in my mind that we need a new and tough immigration policy — a national policy that stands on these three essentials: 1) secure our borders, 2) obey our laws, and 3) no amnesty or cutting in line — period.

    Every nation has the right to enforce its borders, because a nation ceases to exist when it cannot define and control its borders....

    Our borders have been rapidly disappearing, starting with the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement. But it doesn't have to be this way....

    Several recent presidents sold us a policy of "invisible borders" — a fool's gold policy that erased our borders with Canada and Mexico, and what followed was not only the disappearance of our borders, but our jobs as well.

    This unacceptable sales job even has a name — the North American Union, which would guarantee the end of the United States of America. I'm absolutely opposed to it.

    There you have it. One of the newly-elected House Democrats making exactly the kinds of points about trade agreements and open borders causing job losses, that the Times article says Democrats across the country are making. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that Rep. Kagen specifically designates "the North American Free Trade Agreement" and "the North American Union" as major problems.

    While these views by the Democrats could be minimized as merely political posturing, it is especially noteworthy that organizations as philosophically different as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), which promotes open borders, free trade agreements, and globalization, and the John Birch Society (JBS), which opposes open borders, the establishment's free trade agenda, and globalization, have recently published articles connecting wage and job losses with immigration and free trade agreements.

    For example, the CFR's Foreign Affairs magazine recently published, "A New Deal for Globalization," in its July/August 2007 issue, which stated:

    Over the last several years, a striking new feature of the U.S. economy has emerged: real income growth has been extremely skewed, with relatively few high earners doing well while incomes for most workers have stagnated or, in many cases, fallen.... Public support for engagement with the world economy is strongly linked to labor-market performance, and for most workers labor-market performance has been poor....

    The authors refer to several polls which show that over the past six to seven years the majority of Americans has switched from supporting trade agreements to opposing them, and that only 35% of Americans with a college degree or higher now say they benefit from the global economy. As a result, the authors are so convinced that the globalization agenda is stalled due to a massive shift in public opinion that they propose a radical redistribution of income for Americans through changing dramatically how Social Security and Medicare are financed.

    At virtually the same time as the Foreign Affairs article appeared, the JBS published a "Jobs" issue of its magazine, The New American, titled "Transformation of American Jobs," which stated:

    The bottom line of all this discussion of job losses, immigration, technology, international organizations, and Congress is this: key votes by Congress over the past few decades on immigration, trade agreements, taxes, and regulations have favored international organizations, foreign nations, foreign citizens, and multinational corporations over average American citizens. Congressional action has played a powerful role in the de-industrialization of the United States and has set up our services industry for future job losses in the tens of millions through both offshoring and GATS concessions under the WTO.

    (Click here and here and here for additional articles from the "Jobs" issue of The New American.)

    The point is that American public opinion is swinging toward rejection of open borders, free trade agreements, and globalization in general on the basis of widespread wage and job losses. This helps explain why the Bush-Kennedy amnesty juggernaut was stopped in its tracks in the Senate in late June.

    All of which is extremely good news for opponents of the North American Union.

    Ron Paul On MSNBC's Tucker July 17, 2007

    You tube
    Wednesday July 18, 2007

    Ron Paul appears on MSNBC's Tucker Carlson show to discuss the Bush administration's failure to catch Osama bin Laden and what he'd do differently as President.


    Government may detain opponents by labeling them "crazy"

    Press Esc
    Tuesday July 17, 2007

    Rights groups fear that the UK authorities will abuse the new Mental Health Act to detain people against their will just because they are perceived as awkward or because their religious or cultural beliefs are not regarded as acceptable by the government of the day, Britain's premier medical journal Lancet reported today.

    The revised bill, which became law on 4 July this year, introduced community treatment orders (CTOs), which allows the government powers to force people with a history of mental illness to forcibly treated.

    But patients' rights groups have pointed out that the government could use these powers to commit human-rights abuses, especially if CTOs are issued too widely.

    Human Rights Lawyers have cast doubts about the bill's compliance with the Human Rights Act.

    "In particular the Bill fails to provide for exclusions from the wide definition of mental disorder and fails to restrict the imposition of community treatment orders to a small and tightly defined group of patients - and is likely to be challenged under the Human Rights Act", Fiona Woolf, Law Society President, said. "The Law Society will continue to campaign for a new Mental Health Act that is both humane and effective."

    The bill was also criticised as a missed opportunity to to achieve a modern and humane new Mental Health Act.

    "It has failed to heed the evidence about the risks of significant over-use of community treatment orders and the excessive powers the Bill gives to clinicians," Andy Bell of the Mental Health Alliance said. "And it treats people with mental health problems as second class citizens by allowing treatment to be imposed on those who are able to make rational decisions for themselves."

    Minority groups have also voiced their concerns that CTOs will be used to discriminate against them.

    "The law already disproportionately impacts people from black and minority ethnic communities," Marcel Vige, chair of the National Black and Minority Ethnic Mental Health Network, said. "We are disappointed that the Government has chosen to press ahead with the Bill in its current form despite evidence that it is likely to make the situation far worse. The Commission for Racial Equality has stated unequivocally its belief that the Government has failed in its duty to properly assess the degree to which the legislation will have differential impacts on different ethnic groups."

    But the government's mental health czar criticised the opponents of the bill.

    “That was never the intention, but that suspicion ran deep and it was not helped by the people who ran the campaign against the Bill who kept accusing the government of having these devious motives”, Louis Appleby said.