Propane Tank Bomb Found Near Power Plant - Lewis Co. Wash.

Police are calling a homemade explosive device built out of a five-gallon propane tank in rural Lewis County a possible act of domestic terrorism.

The Lewis County Sheriff’s Office says an employee for Transalta Power Plant found the propane tank with green and yellow wires coming out of it along a set of access tracks leading to the plant five miles northeast of Centralia.

The employee picked it up, put it on his flat bed truck and drove it back to his supervisor who then called 911.
Related Content

The sheriff’s office says the wires appear to be similar to those used in electrical blasting caps.

A Washington State Patrol bomb squad was called in and the blasting cap was removed. The state patrol said it had been activated, but for some reason, the powder inside had not detonated.

Train cars bring coal to the plant for processing. Transalta managers say they have not received any threats, so who is responsible is a mystery.

A Washington State Patrol bomb squad says the blasting cap was activated, but for some reason, the powder inside did not detonate.

Sheriff Steve Mansfield says besides the obvious damage and deaths that could have occurred had the bomb gone off, there is another thing that concerns him about what happened Wednesday.

Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown?

By Stanley Kurtz

The problem of Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers will not go away. Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn were terrorists for the notorious Weather Underground during the turbulent 1960s, turning fugitive when a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally exploded in a New York townhouse. Prior to that, Ayers and his cohorts succeeded in bombing the Pentagon. Ayers and Dohrn remain unrepentant for their terrorist past. Ayers was pictured in a 2001 article for Chicago magazine, stomping on an American flag, and told the New York Times just before 9/11 that the notion of the United States as a just and fair and decent place “makes me want to puke.” Although Obama actually launched his political career at an event at Ayers’s and Dohrn’s home, Obama has dismissed Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.” For his part, Ayers refuses to discuss his relationship with Obama.

Although the press has been notably lax about pursuing the matter, the full story of the Obama-Ayers relationship calls the truth of Obama’s account seriously into question. When Obama made his first run for political office, articles in both the Chicago Defender and the Hyde Park Herald featured among his qualifications his position as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation where Ayers was a founder and guiding force. Obama assumed the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office, and almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers. During Obama’s time as Annenberg board chairman, Ayers’s own education projects received substantial funding. Indeed, during its first year, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge struggled with significant concerns about possible conflicts of interest. With a writ to aid Chicago’s public schools, the Annenberg challenge played a deeply political role in Chicago’s education wars, and as Annenberg board chairman, Obama clearly aligned himself with Ayers’s radical views on education issues. With Obama heading up the board and Ayers heading up the other key operating body of the Annenberg Challenge, the two would necessarily have had a close working relationship for years (therefore “exchanging ideas on a regular basis”). So when Ayers and Dorhn hosted that kickoff for the first Obama campaign, it was not a random happenstance, but merely further evidence of a close and ongoing political partnership. Of course, all of this clearly contradicts Obama’s dismissal of the significance of his relationship with Ayers.

This much we know from the public record, but a large cache of documents housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC), is likely to flesh out the story. That document cache contains the internal files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. The records in question are extensive, consisting of 132 boxes, containing 947 file folders, a total of about 70 linear feet of material. Not only would these files illuminate the working relationship between Obama and Bill Ayers, they would also provide significant insight into a web of ties linking Obama to various radical organizations, including Obama-approved foundation gifts to political allies. Obama’s leadership style and abilities are also sure to be illuminated by the documents in question.

Cover-Up?
Unfortunately, I don’t yet have access to the documents. The Special Collections section of the Richard J. Daley Library agreed to let me read them, but just before I boarded my flight to Chicago, the top library officials mysteriously intervened to bar access. Circumstances strongly suggest the likelihood that Bill Ayers himself may have played a pivotal role in this denial. Ayers has long taught at UIC, where the Chicago Annenberg Challenge offices were housed, rent-free. Ayers likely arranged for the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to be housed in the UIC library, and may well have been consulted during my unsuccessful struggle to gain access to the documents. Let me, then, explain in greater detail what the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) records are, and how I have been blocked from seeing them.

Initially, as I said, library officials said that I could examine the CAC records. I received this permission both over the phone and in writing. The subsequent denial of access came with a series of evolving explanations. Is this a politically motivated cover-up? Although at this stage it is impossible to know, it is hard to avoid the suspicion. I also have some concerns for the security of the documents, although I have no specific evidence that their security is endangered. In any case, given the relative dearth of information about Barack Obama’s political past, there is a powerful public interest in the swift release of these documents.

Access Approved
When I learned that the CAC records were housed at UIC Library, I phoned and was assured by a reference librarian that, although I have no UIC affiliation, I would be permitted to examine the records. He suggested I phone the Special Collections section of the library and set up an appointment with a special collections librarian. This reference librarian also ran a search for me and discovered that, in addition to the CAC records, one file folder in the UIC Chancellor’s Office of Community Relations archive contains information on CAC from 1995.

I then spoke with a special-collections librarian and was again assured that I would have access to the CAC records. I was told that, while I could not personally make copies of the material, I could identify documents of interest and have copies made by the library, for a fee. I set up an appointment to meet with the special-collections librarian, and she suggested that I e-mail her the information on the CAC-related chancellor’s documents the reference librarian had discovered, and confirm my appointment time. After I did so, this special-collections librarian forwarded my message to a graduate assistant.

The graduate assistant then e-mailed to let me know that, while the CAC collection had been “processed,” the “finding aid” had not yet been put online. (The “finding aid” is a detailed document of over 60 pages specifying the topics covered by each of the 947 folders in the collection, and showing which boxes hold which folders.) Because the finding aid was not yet online, the graduate assistant attached a copy to her e-mail, inviting me to browse it and identify documents of particular interest, so that the library could have some of the CAC material out and ready for me immediately upon my arrival. I wrote back indicating that I would like to see the single CAC-related folder from the chancellor’s archive, and further identifying 14 boxes from the main body of CAC records containing folders of special interest. Having received clear and repeated representations from the UIC library staff that I would be granted access to the CAC records, I arranged a trip to Chicago.

Access Denied
What follows is more detail than some readers may want to know, but it seems important to get it on record. If a body of material potentially damaging to Barack Obama is being improperly embargoed by a library, the details matter. ....

Security breach?

The Transportation Security Administration suffered embarrassment Wednesday over an inspector who climbed carelessly around the outside of nine American Eagle planes parked overnight at O'Hare International Airport. But just hours later, the agency struck back, saying the government employee portrayed as a bumbling Barney Fife was able to expose security lapses by entering seven of the jets. ....

In addition, the airline said actions taken by the security officer that the TSA later acknowledged were inappropriate—hanging onto sensitive equipment mounted on the aircraft fuselages to pull himself up to the doors—could have jeopardized the safety of passengers flying the next morning.

Fortunately, the airline said, "vigilant" American Eagle employees observed the investigator's "unorthodox inspection techniques," and maintenance inspections required under Federal Aviation Administration procedures were carried out.

Nonetheless, a TSA investigation is under way and could result in the security agency taking action against the airline, including fines, said agency spokesman Elio Montenegro ....

MI5 report challenges views on terrorism in Britain

MI5 has concluded that there is no easy way to identify those who become involved in terrorism in Britain, according to a classified internal research document on radicalisation seen by the Guardian.

The sophisticated analysis, based on hundreds of case studies by the security service, says there is no single pathway to violent extremism. ...

The "restricted" MI5 report takes apart many of the common stereotypes about those involved in British terrorism. They are mostly British nationals, not illegal immigrants and, far from being Islamist fundamentalists, most are religious novices. Nor, the analysis says, are they "mad and bad". ....

The main findings include:

• The majority are British nationals and the remainder, with a few exceptions, are here legally. Around half were born in the UK, with others migrating here later in life. Some of these fled traumatic experiences and oppressive regimes and claimed UK asylum, but more came to Britain to study or for family or economic reasons and became radicalised many years after arriving.

• Far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

• The "mad and bad" theory to explain why people turn to terrorism does not stand up, with no more evidence of mental illness or pathological personality traits found among British terrorists than is found in the general population.

• British-based terrorists are as ethnically diverse as the UK Muslim population, with individuals from Pakistani, Middle Eastern and Caucasian backgrounds. MI5 says assumptions cannot be made about suspects based on skin colour, ethnic heritage or nationality.

• Most UK terrorists are male, but women also play an important role. Sometimes they are aware of their husbands', brothers' or sons' activities, but do not object or try to stop them.

• While the majority are in their early to mid-20s when they become radicalised, a small but not insignificant minority first become involved in violent extremism at over the age of 30.

• Far from being lone individuals with no ties, the majority of those over 30 have steady relationships, and most have children. MI5 says this challenges the idea that terrorists are young men driven by sexual frustration and lured to "martyrdom" by the promise of beautiful virgins waiting for them in paradise. It is wrong to assume that someone with a wife and children is less likely to commit acts of terrorism.

• Those involved in British terrorism are not unintelligent or gullible, and nor are they more likely to be well-educated; their educational achievement ranges from total lack of qualifications to degree-level education. However, they are almost all employed in low-grade jobs.

The researchers conclude that the results of their work "challenge many of the stereotypes that are held about who becomes a terrorist and why".

Crucially, the research has revealed that those who become terrorists "are a diverse collection of individuals, fitting no single demographic profile, nor do they all follow a typical pathway to violent extremism".

The security service believes the terrorist groups operating in Britain today are different in many important respects both from Islamist extremist activity in other parts of the world and from historical terrorist movements such as the IRA or the Red Army Faction.

The "UK restricted" MI5 "operational briefing note", circulated within the security services in June, warns that, unless they understand the varied backgrounds of those drawn to terrorism in Britain, the security services will fail to counter their activities in the short term and fail to prevent violent radicalisation continuing in the long term.

It also concludes that the research results have important lessons for the government's programme to tackle the spread of violent extremism, underlining the need for "attractive alternatives" to terrorist involvement but also warning that traditional law enforcement tactics could backfire if handled badly or used against people who are not seen as legitimate targets.

The MI5 authors stress that the most pressing current threat is from Islamist extremist groups who justify the use of violence "in defence of Islam", but that there are also violent extremists involved in non-Islamist movements.

They say that they are concerned with those who use violence or actively support the use of violence and not those who simply hold politically extreme views.

The Russian Bear Returns to Africa

....While the web of strategic access and other ties that Russia has been reconstituting and expanding in Africa does not necessarily presage a return to a zero-sum Cold War competition across the continent, the long-term implications of these engagements should nonetheless be of concern to Africans and non-Africans alike, especially when, as U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted last week, “Russia’s behavior over the past week has called into question the entire premise of that dialogue and has profound implications for our security relationship going forward.” Given Africa’s increasingly recognized geopolitical significance as well as the strategic importance of its natural resources to the security of the United States, American policymakers and analysts would do well to be wary of the Russian bear’s return to the Dark Continent.

Russia and Iran – Energy Rules

(Compiler's note: Drill Here, Drill NOW and exercise the other options to create energy as well. Total energy independence IS an achievable goal. rca)

....It’s an epic saga that began decades ago, in the 1970s.

After the 1973 Yom Kippur war, the oil-producing Arab world realized it could band together and use its exports as a weapon to punish the West for supporting Israel. It slowed the oil pumps, constricted supply, drove up the price of oil and thus gasoline, and Americans stood in line at the gas pumps. Suddenly, oil-exporting countries were rich and their ambitions grew.

Iran used its petrodollars to build a formidable military arsenal under the Shah and later, under the Ayatollah, waged a 10-year war with Iraq. Other Gulf countries built their military arsenals, acquired portfolios and their princes lived like playboys.

Although most people aren’t aware of it, the Soviet Union is also a major oil exporter. It used the 1970s oil windfall profits to build up its nuclear and conventional weapons arsenals and conduct an aggressive and expansionist foreign policy. It solidified control of satellite states in Eastern Europe, and became a full-fledged superpower, playing out U.S. –Soviet Cold war competition in the third world.

But oil, like most commodities, is governed by a cyclical wave of price increases and decreases. By the mid 1980s oil prices collapsed, going from a high of nearly $40 a barrel in 1980 to $10 by 1986.

Suddenly, those petro-powers were petro-paupers, especially the Soviet Union. Already overextended from its military buildup, domestic consumer demands and a protracted Afghan war, the Soviet Union nearly collapsed when oil prices plummeted. Ronald Reagan seized the moment to achieve America’s Cold War victory. The lesson? Oil is a weapon – but it is a double-edged sword. An oil exporting country can translate its wealth into political power when oil prices are high; but when prices fall that power evaporates.

Now, with the price of oil bouncing around above $100 a barrel, the petro-powers are once again flush with cash. Iran is reasserting itself in the Gulf, building a nuclear weapons capability and funding Hezbollah and Hamas. Saudi Arabia’s support of madrassas continues and has spawned a generation of Islamic extremists, currently headquartered in the tribal region on the Afghan-Pakistan border but with designs on Pakistan.

The Russians learned the lesson of the 1980s perhaps best of all, and have spent the last decade laying the groundwork for their comeback. They built oil pipelines to carry Russian oil to the Mediterranean for export. They convinced the Europeans that Russian gas was a more reliable energy source than Arab oil and built natural gas pipelines to East and West Europe. They’ve hampered the energy rich nations of Central Asia from competing in Europe by impeding their pipeline efforts. In recent years they’ve built up their financial reserves and their military.

Now, with the price of oil once again at historic highs, and the Europeans dependent on their gas and oil, the Russians are ready to reclaim their Empire. In the winter of 2006 Russia turned off the gas to Ukraine for three days, leaving Ukrainians shivering in the dark, and demonstrating to the rest of Europe that they were just as vulnerable. Last week Russia turned to Georgia - democratic, progressive, and pro-West - as the perfect place to drive the point home. Poised to become the energy corridor from Central Asia to the West, Georgia was hoping for full integration with Europe, including NATO membership. ....

The United States and Europe have spent the last 20 years with ours heads in the sand. After the oil crisis of the 1970s, we should have pushed for energy independence, by whatever means. We are now in a position where a major cornerstone of our economy is dictated from abroad. Unless the U.S. and Europe become energy independent, the Russians can convert their energy domination into both wealth and political power.

The last chapter of this book depends on us. ....

If America can achieve energy independence, this story will have a happy ending. If not, those who wish us ill – the Russians, the Iranians, the Taliban - will write the last chapter however they choose.

Big Russian flotilla led by Admiral Kuznetsov carrier heads for Syrian port

As the West awaits Moscow’s threatened reprisal for the treaty installing American missile interceptors at Redzikowo, on Poland’s Baltic coast – signed in Warsaw Wednesday - the Kremlin is striking back in the Middle East – hence Russian president Dimitry Medvedev’s honeyed words of reassurance to Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert in a call he made to Jerusalem Wednesday, Aug. 20.

At the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Syrian president Bashar Assad told reporters Thursday, Aug. 21, that he is considering a Russian request to deploy missiles in his country in view of Russian-Western tensions over the Georgian conflict, which he said had polarized East and West anew. ....

NC man dies after waiting 22 hours at hospital

RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — A mental patient died after workers at a North Carolina hospital left him in a chair for 22 hours without feeding him or helping him use the bathroom, said federal officials who have threatened to cut off the facility's funding.

The state sent a team Tuesday to help Cherry Hospital in Goldsboro draft new procedures to ensure patients receive proper care.

An investigator's report released Monday found that 50-year-old Steven Sabock died in April after he at one point choked on medication and had been left sitting in a chair for close to a day at the facility about 50 miles southeast of Raleigh. Surveillance video showed hospital staff watching television and playing cards just a few feet away. ....

Russia blocks Georgia's main port city

POTI, Georgia (AP) - Russian forces dug trenches and built fortifications in key areas of Georgia Thursday, but also rolled columns of tanks north toward home, picking and choosing how their nation would comply with the terms of a peace accord.

Although Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has pledged his forces would pull back from Georgia by Friday, his troops appeared to be in no hurry—even settling down in strategic spots. This raised concerns about whether Moscow was aiming for a lengthy occupation of its smaller, pro-Western neighbor. ....

U.S. still naked to EMP threat

(Compiler's note: Knowing now that our DHS has "looked at this issue," as Joe Citizen, I certainly feel safer ....not. rca)

By Chelsea Schilling

Electricity grids down, uncontrolled fires from exploding gas transport systems, no communication to call for help, no water to battle fires: It's all part of a catastrophic scenario some scientists predict could happen under an electromagnetic pulse attack – and the Department of Homeland Security's 83-page emergency plan includes no mention of EMP or how it might respond to such an attack.

When WND contacted the Department of Homeland Security, a representative explained why a course of action was not included in the National Emergency Communications Plan – a strategy that relies heavily on the ability of authorities at all levels of government to communicate using radios, computers and other electronic devices that could be disabled by an EMP attack.

"When we look at the strategic threat picture, when we look at patterns of criminal activity that all levels of government show, when we look at what is ultimately going to involve limited resources, we have to get to a point where we prioritize," DHS spokesman Russ Knocke said. "We prioritize based upon threat vulnerability and consequence. As we speak today, there's nothing in the threat picture that would suggest an imminent EMP attack."

However, Congress has expressed concern regarding the threat of EMP. A top scientist warned the House Armed Services Committee in July that America remains vulnerable to a "catastrophe" from a nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack that could be launched with plausible deniability by hostile rogue nations or terrorists.

William R. Graham, chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack and the former national science adviser to President Reagan, testified before the committee and issued an alarming report on "one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences."

He identified vulnerabilities in the nation's critical infrastructures, "which are essential to both our civilian and military capabilities."

Not taking the steps necessary to reduce the threat in the next three to five years "can both invite and reward attack," Graham told the committee.

Knocke said EMPs are considered in a broad federal playbook released in January for how the federal government will manage incidents of all types called the National Response Framework, or NRF.

The 90-page document includes the following:

• It provides an overview of the roles, responsibilities and jurisdictions of key partners at the local, state and federal levels who implement the framework.
  
• It emphasizes planning structures for effective response.
• It offers tips for individuals and households, such as reducing hazards in and around their homes, preparing emergency supply kits, creating household emergency plans and reducing demands on land-line and cellular communications.

The NRF provides general guidelines for dealing with emergency events. However, the plan includes no mention of how the nation would respond to an EMP attack or widespread electrical and electronics failures that could effectively cut communication lines between each level of emergency responders by disabling computers, satellites, radios, radar receivers and even traffic lights and electronic ignition systems in cars.

EMP is a pulse of energy that can be produced from non-nuclear sources, such as electromagnetic bombs, or E-bombs. Some experts claim an electromagnetic pulse shock wave can be produced by a device small enough to fit in a briefcase. But the most threatening and terrifying type of EMP attack could come following a blast from a nuclear weapon 25 to 250 miles above the Earth's surface. Like a swift stroke of lightening, EMP could immediately disrupt and damage all electronic systems and America's electrical infrastructure. A detonation over the middle of the continental U.S. "has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures that support the fabric of U.S. society and the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power," said Graham.

"Several potential adversaries have the capability to attack the United States with a high-altitude nuclear weapon-generated electromagnetic pulse, and others appear to be pursuing efforts to obtain that capability," said Graham. "A determined adversary can achieve an EMP attack capability without having a high level of sophistication. For example, an adversary would not have to have long-range ballistic missiles to conduct an EMP attack against the United States. Such an attack could be launched from a freighter off the U.S. coast using a short- or medium-range missile to loft a nuclear warhead to high altitude. Terrorists sponsored by a rogue state could attempt to execute such an attack without revealing the identity of the perpetrators. Iran, the world's leading sponsor of international terrorism, has practiced launching a mobile ballistic missile from a vessel in the Caspian Sea. Iran has also tested high-altitude explosions of the Shahab-III, a test mode consistent with EMP attack, and described the tests as successful. Iranian military writings explicitly discuss a nuclear EMP attack that would gravely harm the United States. While the commission does not know the intention of Iran in conducting these activities, we are disturbed by the capability that emerges when we connect the dots."

An EMP assault could prove devastating because of the unprecedented cascading failures of major infrastructures that could result. Because of America's heavy reliance on electricity and electronics, the impact would be far worse than on a country less advanced technologically. Graham and the commission see the potential for failure in the financial system, the system of distribution for food and water, medical care and trade and production.

"The recovery of any one of the key national infrastructures is dependent upon the recovery of others," he said. "The longer the outage, the more problematic and uncertain the recovery will be. It is possible for the functional outages to become mutually reinforcing until at some point the degradation of infrastructure could have irreversible effects on the country's ability to support its population."

In an earlier report, the commission even went so far as to suggest, in its opening sentence, that an EMP attack "might result in the defeat of our military forces."

Knocke said DHS is highly concerned about the threat of nuclear attack and other disasters.

"At present, our highest priorities are things like preventing nuke attacks, as well as working with state and locals to build up their capability to prevent and respond to things like IED events or catastrophic natural disasters," he said. "As it relates to what our greatest preoccupation is, we're doing everything we can to try to prevent a nuclear or radiological attack on our soil that would have the most severe impact in terms of loss of life or economic consequence."

When WND asked Knocke if DHS has a specific strategy to deal with an EMP attack, he said, "Not as we speak today. No."

Asked if the department has considered creating a plan to address EMP threat following Congress' concern about such an attack, he replied:

"The risk picture is ever changing. There's nothing in the strategic threat picture today that tells us there's an imminent EMP threat. That could change down the road as whatever circumstances in the world evolve. So, I am not telling you that it might never be among the highest priorities. We've actually looked at this issue, and we've looked at the entire spectrum of issues that we have to contend with when it comes to homeland security. But we have to prioritize. We're not in the business of being all things to all people at all times."

The Murtha Rules: A simple system to win federal money

By Ken Silverstein and Sebastian Jones

Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania has long been one of the biggest porkbarrelers in Congress, and as the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee he is also one of the biggest recipients of lobbyists’ campaign donations. Which is no coincidence.

When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pledged that porkbarreling would be severely curtailed. But that hasn’t come to pass–no surprise given that old-time hacks like Murtha hold such powerful positions on the Appropriations committees.

Murtha basically runs a racket. He helps win taxpayer money for companies that support his campaigns and hire lobbyists he approves of–often his former staffers and in at least one case blood kin. Companies that set up shop in his district do better yet, even if they only set up a smaller satellite office, thereby allowing Murtha to pose as a champion of his constituents as opposed to his political cronies. “There’s been no report of Mr. Murtha’s profiting personally,” the New York Times has written. “But the Murtha operation–which has become a model for other entrepreneurial lawmakers–is a gross example of quid pro quo Washington.”

Murtha’s porkbarreling has been covered extensively here in the past. Consider now another instance of the Murtha rules: the case of Argon ST and its subsidiary, Coherent Systems International.

Part I: The Companies

Argon, a large defense contractor, is designed as an earmark receptacle. Its office locations read like a roll call of the House Appropriations Committee. The company is headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia (the district of Jim Moran, who once pledged to “earmark the shit” out of an appropriations bill and has always worked hard to live up to that high standard), and has offices in: Pennsylvania (Murtha’s district); California (Jerry Lewis’ district); and Florida (Bill Young’s district). It also has major operations in the district of House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer.

In 2007, Argon acquired Coherent Systems, which is located in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, an area represented by Democratic Congressman Patrick Murphy. (“Congressman Murtha has long been a hero of mine,” Murphy said in 2006.) Coherent has offices in Murtha’s district and has six business partners, three of which are located in Murtha’s district and have close ties to the congressman: Kuchera Defense Systems; the Greater Johnstown Cambria County Chamber of Commerce; and the Johnstown Area Regional Industries (JARI), a non-profit business incubator.

Part II: The lobbyists

Argon’s in-house lobbying operation is headed by Gabrielle Carruth, a former Senior Advisor and Appropriations Director for Murtha. The firm has also employed PMA, which was founded in 1989 by Paul Magliocchetti, who once worked for Murtha at the Appropriations Committee, as did PMA employee Julie Giardina. Another PMA lobbyist, Daniel Cunningham, is a golfing buddy of Murtha’s.

KSA, another Argon lobbyist, has had on its staff not only Carmen Scialabba, a long-time senior aide to Murtha, but Robert “Kit” Murtha, the congressman’s brother. Yet another lobbying firm that has worked for Argon is Ervin Technological Associates, whose clients include Kuchera and Lockheed Martin. Officials for the firm include ex-Congressman Joseph McDade (who was acquitted on bribery charges in 1996), and its president, Jim Ervin, who has been described in The Hill as a “powerful force in the defense lobbying world.”

Part III: Money in

Since 2003, Argon employees and the company PAC have donated at least $60,800 to Murtha’s campaigns and Leadership PAC, while Coherent has added $17,800. Coherent’s partners have tossed in even bigger amounts, with Kuchera contributing $74,500 since 2002 and JARI board members and their families giving $79,600 since the mid-1990s. Lobbyists for the companies have also contributed heavily to Murtha. PMA, the congressman’s sixth biggest all-time donor, has subsidized his career to the tune of $112,100.

Part IV: Money out

That’s a lot of campaign money, but the firms have received far more than that in federal contracts and earmarks. Argon and Coherent received a combined $8 million in earmarks in the last defense bill, and the two together have won more than $300 million in federal contracts since 2000.

Meanwhile, Kuchera won $8.2 million in earmarks last time around, and has received nearly $40 million in government contracts since 2000. The bulk of that money has gone to Murtha’s district.

Congress has yet to pass a defense bill for next year but when it gets around to doing that, look for money for Argon, Coherent and Kuchera to be included. With the Murtha rules in effect, that’s all but guaranteed.

Russia Makes New Threats Over U.S.-Poland Missile Deal

Plan Said to Defend Against Regimes Like Iran, but Some See It as Shield for Poland Against Russia
By TOMEK ROLSKI and JONATHAN KARL
MOSCOW, Aug. 20, 2008

Russia's foreign ministry today threatened to go beyond diplomatic protests in response to the signing of a U.S.-Polish deal to base part of an American missile defense system in Poland, which borders part of Russia.

The latest threat came after a top Russian general said Poland would risk a military strike if it allowed the base and as U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dismissed Russia's saber rattling, saying the threats "border on the bizarre."

"When you threaten Poland, you perhaps forget that it is not 1988," Rice said, according to The Associated Press. "It's 2008 and the United States has a ... firm treaty guarantee to defend Poland's territory as if it was the territory of the United States. So it's probably not wise to throw these threats around."

But in addition to the threats, Russia may be making a more concrete move. Norway's defense ministry claims Russia has told it that it plans to cut all military ties with NATO, The Associated Press reports.

The United States insists that the missile defense deal signed with Poland today is meant to protect the West from rogue states like Iran and North Korea. Poland, however, sees this as defense against Russia, a closer, and much more powerful, potential adversary.

Hours before inking the pact with Rice, Poland's President Lech Kaczynski addressed his nation on TV and declared, "No one will ever again tell Poland what to do and what not to do."

He was likely referring to Russia, which invaded Poland in 1939 and asserted control over the Polish government until the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1990.

Kaczynski's defiant speech came a week after Russia angrily warned that allowing U.S. missile interceptors on Polish soil put Poland at risk of a military strike.

"If Poland allows elements of the U.S. missile shield to be placed in its territory it will expose itself to a strike ... and that's a hundred percent sure," threatened deputy head of Russia's General Staff Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn.

Nogovitsyn's comment was particularly menacing, since it came days after Russian forces invaded its neighbor Georgia in a spat over the province of South Ossetia.

"It's Georgia today, Ukraine tomorrow and Poland may be next," Kaczynski said.

Today, Russia's foreign ministry issued a new threat -- implying that Russia was the target of the new missile base and not some "imaginary Iranian danger."

"Russia in this case will have to react, and not only through diplomatic protests," said a statement from the ministry, according to Reuters.

The statement described the missile shield as "one of the instruments in an extremely dangerous bundle of American military projects involving the one-sided development of a global missile shield system."

According to the deal, the United States will construct a military base at Redzikowo on the Baltic coast. There, on an area no larger than the size of a football field, will be 10 silos with missiles ready for possible launch by 2012.

The relatively small missile defense system could be easily overwhelmed by Russia's vast force of long-range missiles, but under the deal the United States also agreed to provide a Patriot missile defense system that could be used to defend Poland against a short-range missile defense threat that could potentially come from Russia.

In today's pact, the United States and Poland agreed to a "mutual commitment" to come to each other's assistance "in case of military or other threats."

Aleksander Szczyglo, defense minister in Poland's previous government, went so far as to call today's signing one of three significant "milestones" since Poland regained full independence in 1989.

"First was NATO membership, then joining the European Union and now a tangible tightening of our alliance with the U.S.," he said.

Russia's renewed assertiveness and its invasion of Georgia has fortified fears that the Kremlin may attempt to regain its spheres of influence and meddle in Polish affairs.

"Russia wants to regain influence over Poland, similar to influence Russia enjoyed during the time of the Warsaw Pact," military analyst Michal Fiszer told ABC News. "Any increase in Polish defense and security goes against those plans."

It would seem that as a member of NATO and the European Union Poland should feel it has enough security guarantees. But many Polish politicians express frustration with Western Europe's approach to Russia as too submissive and vulnerable to Russian oil and gas blackmail.

Only weeks ago, the 18 months of Polish-U.S. missile talks appeared on the verge of collapse. The Poles suspended negotiations after the United States refused to meet their demands and public opinion polls found that 70 percent of Poles were against the missile shield on their territory. Poles began protesting the plan.

All that changed on Aug. 8, when Russian armor rolled into Georgia.

"When Russia performs military operations that are perceived as aggressive and brutal, even relatively far from our borders, people in Poland fear," political analyst Grzegorz Kostrzewa-Zorbas told ABC News.

"The war in Georgia very quickly and suddenly changed the mood of Poles," Kostrzewa-Zorbas said. "In a week, a strong majority emerged supporting the American missile shield in Poland."

Now, 63 percent support American military presence on Polish soil and feel that the closer ties enhance Poland's security.

The American side also had a large shift in opinion.

"The Americans were unwilling to give Poland any anti-missile and air defense system optimized to defend Polish airspace and territory. They did not want to give Poland Patriot missiles," he said. "Now it is different."

Pawel Zaleski, a member of the Polish parliament, told ABC News that it is clear that Russia is trying to "create an area of domination around its borders."

"People in Poland do remember history, and they understand what it means to have such a neighbor returning to his old ways," Zaleski said. "People see the war in Georgia ... so of course it creates an impact on people's thinking."

Marek Ostrowsk, an analyst for the Polityka weekly, told ABC News that Poland traditionally has more confidence in the United States than its European alliances.

"Traditionally and historically, we think America is more reliable than Europe," Ostrowsk said. "In 1918, we regained independence thanks to the U.S. When World War II began in 1939, we were let down by our allies, Britain and France. But the U.S. has never failed us."

Seven Questions: Bernard Lewis on the Two Biggest Myths About Islam

He is one of the world’s foremost scholars of Islam and the Middle East. Bernard Lewis shares his thoughts on Iraq, “Islamofascism,” the roots of terrorism, and the two biggest misperceptions about the Muslim faith. ....

Islamic finance banking window approved in Hong Kong

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority has granted Hong Leong Bank approval to open the city’s first Islamic finance banking window, Finance Asia reports.

This will allow Hong Leong to expand its existing portfolio of Islamic finance products into mainland China, West and North Asian markets from its current base in Malaysia.

Malaysia is trying to establish itself as the Islamic finance hub of the region. Islamic finance is based on Islamic law, or Shar’iah, which prohibits the collection of interest and includes aspects of ethical banking, for example avoiding investments in pork, prostitution or gambling. ....

Russian fighting in Georgia putting area’s nuclear materials stocks in jeopardy for theft

When the breakaway region of Abkhazia split from Georgia in 1993, the world's only known case of enriched uranium going missing was reported after up to 2 kilograms of extremely dangerous material was stolen from the region's I. Vekua Institute of Physics and Technology in Sukhumi, which is not safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Georgian authorities have previously reported they believe some radioactive materials that had been stored there - including highly enriched uranium - have been sold to terrorists, an assertion the local government in Abkhazia has denied.

There are now fears that the organised criminal gangs that are rife in the region, or even Russian troops themselves, say the Georgians, could exploit the confusion of the current conflict to loot other stocks, officals have told Bellona Web.

Also of security concern and more general environmental worry is Georgia’s unknown quantity of radioisotope thermoelectric generators, or RTGs – remotely stationed strontium 90 powered energy stations, which served as navigation beacons.

The Soviet-era nuclear authority Minatom populated remote and coastal areas with these radioactive generators and lost track of thousands of them when the Soviet Union fell.

In the late 90s, Georgian shepherds began turning up with radiation poisoning after warming themselves nears the highly radioactive units, according to Bellona research.

The units are also routinely dismantled for their strontium 90 cores or scrap metal – an eventuality that will likely become reality as the region’s current military crisis with Moscow depends and spreads poverty, Georgian interior ministry and radiation safety authorities told Bellona Web in interviews Monday. ....

US and British security services are worried that terrorist organisations could purchase weapons grade uranium in the bustling black market Region of South Ossetia – an eventuality currently compounded by the tense and deadly struggle between Tblisi and Moscow for predominance in the region - and mix it with a detonator as basic as fertiliser to make a deadly device, British defence officials told the Telegraph.

While an estimated 15 kilograms of uranium is needed to make a nuclear bomb just a small amount is needed for an unconventional device – or dirty bomb, which disperses radioactivity over a limited area by using conventional explosives.

No nuke bombs to come, but terrorist weapons likely

"There is no fear of a nuclear bomb coming out of this region but the bigger danger is that a small amount of uranium combined with conventional explosive terrorists could make a dirty bomb that would make an area the size of a square mile unusable for 30 or 40 years," said a Defence Department source in an interview with Bellona Web and the Telegraph.

"The economic impact would be catastrophic."....

Six Questions About the Anthrax Attacks That the Public Should Demand

(Compiler's note: The questions and the discussion prove to a long but most interesting read. rca)

By Tom Engelhardt

The media's already losing interest on the anthrax story, but there are plenty of simple questions that really deserve answers. ....

....Here are my top six questions about the case:

1. Why wasn't the Bush administration's War on Terror modus operandi applied to the anthrax case?....

2. Why wasn't the U.S. military sent in?....

3. Once the anthrax threat was identified as coming from U.S. military labs, why did the administration, the FBI, and the media assume that only a single individual was responsible?....

4. What of those military labs? Why does their history continue to play little or no part in the story of the anthrax attacks?....

5. Were the anthrax attacks the less important ones of 2001? ....

6. Who is winning the Global War on Terror?....

.... The media's already losing interest on the anthrax story, but there are plenty of simple questions that really deserve answers.

More recently, Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com has done superb work on the anthrax story. In 2007, he wrote a striking column, "The unresolved story of ABC News' false Saddam-anthrax reports," on some crucially bad reporting by Brian Ross and ABC, and he followed up after Ivins's suicide with a piece, ("Journalists, their lying sources, and the anthrax investigation,") that has more unsettling questions about the anthrax case than any other 16 pieces I've seen. It's a must read. Jay Rosen, at his always interesting PressThink blog, took up Greenwald's challenge to Brian Ross and ABC on its reporting and pressed the point home in two recent posts, here and here.

Finally, Elisa D. Harris, a senior research scholar at the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, had a fine, thoughtful op-ed last week in the New York Times, "The Killers in the Lab" ("Our efforts to fight biological weapons are making us less safe"), which laid out in an impressive way the expansion of U.S. bio-weapons research since 2001.]

Iraq deal sets a pullback

By Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Robert Burns

BAGHDAD — Iraqi and U.S. negotiators have completed a draft security agreement that would see American troops leave Iraqi cities as soon as June 30, Iraqi and American officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday.

In Washington, a senior military official said the deal is acceptable to the U.S. side, subject to formal approval by President Bush. It also requires final acceptance by Iraqi leaders, but some members of Iraq's Cabinet oppose some provisions.

Also completed is a companion draft document, known as a strategic framework agreement, spelling out in broad terms the political, security and economic relationships between Iraq and the United States, the senior military official said. The official discussed the draft accords on condition that he not be identified by name because the deals have not been publicly announced and are not final.

In addition to spelling out that U.S. troops would move out of Iraqi cities by next summer, the Iraqi government has pushed for a specific date — most likely the end of 2011 — by which all U.S. forces would depart the country. In the meantime, the U.S. troops would be positioned on bases in other parts of the country to make them less visible while positioned to assist Iraqi forces as needed. ....