Greenspan Endorses McCain
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Greenspan_Endorses_McCain/2008/04/06/85907.html
There is more than a 50 percent chance the United States could go into recession, former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan told El Pais newspaper in an interview published on Sunday.
However, the U.S. has not yet entered recessionary state marked by sharp falls in orders, strong rises in unemployment and intensive weakening of the economy, he said.
"We would have to see signs of this intensification: there are some, but not many yet," he said. "Therefore ... I would not describe the situation we are in as a recession, although the chances that we'll have one are more than 50 percent."
A sharp downturn in the U.S. housing market has led to a full-blown credit crisis that has reverberated throughout the U.S. financial system.
The economy has become increasingly important in the U.S. presidential campaign, topping the list of voters' concerns heading into the November election.
Greenspan, the U.S. Fed chairman from 1987 to 2006, endorsed the Republican presidential candidate John McCain in the interview.
"I'm Republican and I support John McCain, who I know very well and who I respect a lot," he said.
The economies of the United States and the European Union were at a crossroads after a long period of economic growth without inflation, he said.
"This period is going to be much more difficult, from the point of view of monetary policy, than the period during which I was chairman of the Federal Reserve," he said.
Turning to Europe, he pinpointed Spain as having a bigger real estate bubble than the United States, exposing it to the global credit squeeze.
"The real estate bubble in Spain has been bigger than most other European countries, even bigger than the one in the United States," he said. "In that sense, one would have to presume that there is more vulnerability."
Spain has been the fastest-growing major European economy for more than a decade due to a housing boom during which house prices tripled, but the global credit crisis coupled with higher interest rates have put a sharp brake on growth.
He gave a broadly positive overview of other European economies.
Transcript: Sen. John McCain on 'FOX News Sunday'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347033,00.html
WASHINGTON — The following is a partial transcript of the April 6, 2008, edition of "FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace":
"FOX NEWS SUNDAY" HOST CHRIS WALLACE: And hello again from FOX News in Washington. We continue our series "Choosing the President" now with the Republican nominee-to-be, Senator John McCain.
On Friday, we met up with the senator at the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. He was there to speak at ceremonies marking the 40th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALLACE: Senator McCain, welcome back to "FOX News Sunday."
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ: Thank you, Chris. It's nice to be back.
WALLACE: Your advisers say that you are going to campaign in places that Republican presidential candidates usually don't — inner city, rural Alabama, Appalachia. Do you plan to run as a different kind of Republican?
MCCAIN: I believe that the party of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan — that that's a tradition of the Republican Party, that we need to go all over America, and not just the specific places you're talking about, but compete hard in every section of the country — for example, California.
California can no longer be written off, in my view. And that means going to all parts of that state and reaching out to Hispanic voters, independents, others.
I know that you know, Chris, that one of the recent trends which may not have been as understood as well as some other things is that there's this dramatic rise in the independent voter registration, whether it be in my state or all across America.
The independent voter will make an even larger difference, I think, in the 2008 election. So I have to energize our base, get the independents and the old and new, quote, "Reagan Democrats."
WALLACE: I think you might agree that Republicans have too often been portrayed, and perhaps too often acted, as the party of the haves at the expense of the have-nots.
You're here today at the Civil Rights Museum, but it has come to our attention that in 1983 you voted against the federal holiday for Martin Luther King. You voted in 1990 against civil rights legislation.
Isn't it going to be hard to reach out to all those groups given your history and the history of the party?
MCCAIN: Well, let me say in 1983 I was wrong, and I believe that my advocacy for the recognition of Dr. King's birthday in Arizona was something that I'm proud of.
The issue in the early '90s was a little more complicated. I've never believed in quotas, and I don't. There's no doubt about my view on that issue. And that was the implication, at least, of that other vote.
But I was wrong in '83, and all of us make mistakes, and I think nobody recognized that more than Dr. King.
WALLACE: Karl Rove, who now works with FOX News, does maps for us based on the average of recent public polls. You haven't seen these, but you might be interested.
And what they indicate is that traditional Democratic strongholds like Pennsylvania, like Michigan, like Minnesota are up for grabs this year. You talked about California. Is this not going to be a red state, blue state election?
MCCAIN: I don't think so in the traditional way. I think that all of these states, or most of them, are up for grabs.
You've seen a dramatic increase in Hispanic voters in my part of the country, but also many other parts of the country. In the southeast, the greatest population increase has been Hispanic voters.
We probably are going to see voters more activated, African-American voters as well as Hispanic as well as others. And also, it's pretty clear that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have energized the younger voters.
And I believe I have. And I believe I've got to compete on that grounds, too. That's why I go on shows that young people watch.
So I'm not sure that the old red state, blue state scenario that prevailed for the last several elections works. I think most of these states that we have either red or blue are going to be up for grabs.
WALLACE: It's a 50-state battleground.
MCCAIN: I believe so — if not 50, certainly the majority of them.
WALLACE: As a reporter, one of the things I've always noticed about you is you're not very good at hiding your true feelings.
This week you said Barack Obama, quote, "doesn't understand national security, has no background, no experience on these issues." A few weeks ago, you said he's deceiving voters with eloquent but empty rhetoric.
Putting aside your differences on issues, straight talk, is Barack Obama qualified to be president?
MCCAIN: If the voters decide that of America, absolutely. I believe that my talent and my background and my experience, which has led to my judgment, is — I think qualifies me more, obviously, or I wouldn't be seeking the presidency.
Let me just say again that was in response — when I said he was inexperienced and does not have the background — to the charge of this, quote, "100 years in Iraq," and it was obvious when you read the whole quote — and I hope that at some point we could see that — where I was in an exchange with a voter in New Hampshire, a town hall meeting, the kind of exchanges that I enjoy most.
He said, "How long are you going to be there." I said, "It could be 100 years, but it's a matter of U.S. casualties, and we have presence in countries like South Korea, Japan," et cetera, et cetera.
So it's very clear. And Senator Obama and anyone who reads that knows that I didn't think we were in a 100-year war.
WALLACE: But I want to go to the bigger issue...
MCCAIN: Yes, sure.
WALLACE: ... which is that you said Obama doesn't understand national security, has no experience, no background on these issues.
I understand the voters are going to make up their minds. In John McCain's opinion, does someone who has no background in national security — is he fit to be commander in chief?
MCCAIN: Again, I'm not ducking your question, Chris. You could make an argument maybe that Jack Kennedy was not, quote, "qualified" in 1960 as opposed to Richard Nixon. The voters decided on Jack Kennedy.
So I can't dictate what the voters will decide. All I can do is match my credentials and my knowledge and background up against Senator Obama's or Senator Clinton. That race is not decided yet.
And I will gladly stand not only on that background and experience, but my vision and my ability to lead this country in difficult times.
WALLACE: You gave a major economic speech recently in which you said...
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
MCCAIN: It's not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they're big banks or small borrowers.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: After that, Senator, one columnist compared you to Mr. Potter, the banker in "It's a Wonderful Life."
What would you do to help the thousands of Americans who right now are in the process of losing their homes? Or do you feel, as you said in your speech, that's not the duty of government?
MCCAIN: Look, Americans are hurting right now. Americans are sitting around the kitchen table as we speak trying to keep the American dream, and that is ownership of their own home.
They don't know if they have to get another job. They don't know if — the challenges are enormous right now, and Americans are hurting.
The key to it is not to bail out people who speculated or people who engaged in unsavory practices. The key to it is get the lender and the borrower together. We know how hard that is because of identifying the lender, but there's ways to do it.
The key to it is to support this legislation which is going through the Senate right now which I think will move the ball forward down the field, such as individual deductions for and larger deductions for home loan mortgage payments, the purchase of mortgages which are bad by local authorities, increasing funds for counseling so that people who are in difficulty will better recognize what their options are.
Of course, there's a role for government, but it's not to — it's not to reward greedy speculators. It is not to reward people who misbehave. And it certainly isn't a huge expenditure of taxpayers' dollars which, in the long run, could exacerbate the problems that exist.
On the issue of Bear Stearns, very quickly, every financial expert I know says that if it had failed, it would have rippled throughout the entire financial community and would have caused greater problems which eventually would have come down on the average citizen if our economy continues to decline the way that it's been doing.
So I'm ready to act. And I understand how terrible this is for so many millions of American families. And I understand the challenges and I'm prepared to meet them, and that is limited government intervention.
But where government is required, let's go ahead and do it. We passed a stimulus package. People are going to be getting checks in the month of May. Maybe they'll be able to help boost the economy a little bit. But there's no magic wand here that can be waved.
WALLACE: Let's turn to foreign policy. You acknowledge you were surprised by the recent Iraqi offensive in Basra. In the end, the Iraqi government failed to oust those Shiite militias.
Doesn't that raise serious questions about the continued weakness of the central government in Baghdad?
MCCAIN: Well, actually, when I say I was surprised, our authorities in Iraq were surprised, the State Department — it was about a 48-hour...
WALLACE: Right. The whole government was surprised.
MCCAIN: Yes, about a 48-hour window. It's interesting. We have asked the government time after time to act effectively, that we want this government to act. They acted.
Now, obviously, the results were mixed. Obviously, there were problems. And Maliki, in my view, should have waited until we had concluded the battle of Mosul which is going on as we speak.
They do have control of the port of Basra now. That's one of the major economic areas of Iraq because of the oil that goes through there. It was al-Sadr that declared a cease-fire, not Maliki, and they continue...
WALLACE: It was brokered by the Iranians, who actually may have more clout with both al-Sadr — I mean, let me just ask you the question from this point of view.
General Petraeus is coming to testify in the next couple of days. A lot of talk about the surge and how that's helped damp down the violence — some would say because there was a spike of violence during this Basra battle, maybe al-Sadr's decision to hold the cease- fire is as responsible as the surge is, and if he changes his mind, we're back in the frying pan.
MCCAIN: Well, in respect, I don't think Sadr would have declared the cease-fire if he thought he was winning. Most times in history of military engagements, the winning side doesn't declare the cease-fire.
The second point is that overall, the Iraqi military performed pretty well. Six months ago, it would have — or eight or nine months ago, it would have been unthinkable for Maliki to act this way.
WALLACE: We heard this week that 1,000 soldiers refused to fight or deserted.
MCCAIN: And there were many, many thousands who are fighting there. Compare that with two years ago when the army was basically unable to function in any way effectively.
Look, I didn't particularly like the outcome of this thing, but I am convinced that we now have a government that is governing with some effect and a military that is functioning very effectively. Up in Mosul where some of the best units are, they're functioning well.
I've always said, Chris, this is long and hard and tough. We're paying a huge penalty for four years of a failed strategy that I fought hard against, and I believe this strategy has succeeded and will succeed and can succeed. But it's long and hard and tough.
WALLACE: A couple of final questions I'm going to ask you, sir. You said this week that you have started putting together the list of possibilities for vice president.
Given that you call radical Islam the transcendent challenge of our age, fair to assume that your running mate must have firsthand foreign policy experience?
MCCAIN: I don't know if that's — I think that the person — the first and really major and overwhelming priority is a person who shares my principles, my values, my priorities — as you know, priorities are very important in presidents — and could immediately take my place. That's, I think, the overriding criteria.
WALLACE: So it could be someone who's, in effect, a foreign policy novice.
MCCAIN: Well, it could be someone who has a lot of experience and someone who doesn't on national security issues. And frankly, the process that we're in — you know, it's so early in the process that, honestly, it's — the sole criteria I'm looking at is not that.
It is who can best take my place and carry on the agenda and the vision that I have outlined and will continue to outline during this campaign.
WALLACE: Senator, I wouldn't ask you this question, but it did come out at a congressional hearing this week that you still do not have Secret Service protection.
MCCAIN: Yes.
WALLACE: As we sit here in the National Civil Rights Museum, which was the scene of the Lorraine Motel and the assassination of Martin Luther King...
MCCAIN: Yes.
WALLACE: ... why not?
MCCAIN: Because it inhibits, obviously, my ability to have close contact with people, but we'll be meeting early next week with the Secret Service and working out the modalities for Secret Service protection.
WALLACE: Do you think you'll take on Secret Service protection before the convention?
MCCAIN: Oh, no, we'll be setting it up early next week, so I would imagine...
WALLACE: You'll be taking it next week.
MCCAIN: Not as early as next week taking it, but I'll meet with the Secret Service and we'll set it up, and shortly thereafter we will have Secret Service protection.
WALLACE: So in the next few weeks.
MCCAIN: Sure, if not earlier, yes.
WALLACE: And because...
MCCAIN: Well, I think that it's important that as we get more and more visibility that we recognize the inevitable, and so we'll be talking with them early to arrange for, very soon, some Secret Service protection.
WALLACE: Finally, you are also known as someone who doesn't suffer fools gladly. You have written about your, quote — in one of your books — about your legendary temper, and I wonder...
MCCAIN: I shouldn't have written that book.
WALLACE: Well, that's right. But I do wonder — being "John McCain, the maverick" is different than being "John McCain, president of the United States."
Do you think at all — have you thought at all since you have become, in effect, the Republican nominee that if you do become president that you may have to change not your personality, but the way you act, if only because it's so hard for people to come into the Oval Office and say they disagree, say they think you're wrong?
MCCAIN: Chris, I've worked across the aisle more than — I'll match my record of legislative bipartisan achievements with anybody.
You can't scare people or intimidate them if you're going to reach agreement with your colleagues and your contemporaries. And I've worked hard at that, and that's what the American people want.
Second thing is if I lose my capacity for anger, then I shouldn't be president of the United States. When we have corruption in spending that ends up with people in federal prison, I get angry.
When I see greedy people like a guy cashing in millions of dollars on the backs of this Bear Stearns takeover, I get angry.
When I see the waste and corruption in Washington, I get angry. And you know what? The American people are angry, too. Look at the polls. Look at the polls.
They are angry because there is spending and waste and corruption, and government is not responding to their hopes and dreams and aspirations.
So I'll get angry when I see somebody who's corrupt and ends up in federal prison. And yet at the same time, I have a proven record of working across the aisle.
I've known these leaders in the House of Representatives, in the Senate, for more than 30 years. I know how to work with them very, very well, and I will, for the good of the country.
And I believe I can appeal to the better angels of their nature and they'll work with me. I'm confident of it. And the American people want that now.
WALLACE: Senator McCain, thank you so much.
MCCAIN: Thanks, Chris.
WALLACE: Best of luck to you, sir.
MCCAIN: Thanks for having me on.
US Evangelist Gives $6 Million to Israel
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/israel_hagee_6_million/2008/04/06/85898.html
JERUSALEM -- American evangelist John Hagee announced donations of $6 million to Israeli causes on Sunday and said that Israel must remain in control of all of Jerusalem.
Hagee, a Christian Zionist who has been in the spotlight lately for endorsing presidential candidate John McCain and criticizing the Catholic Church, brought hundreds of backers on a solidarity trip to Israel.
Hagee and his group, Christians United for Israel, joined keynote speaker Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of Israel's hard-line opposition Likud Party, at a rally in support of Jerusalem remaining united and under Jewish control.
"Turning part or all of Jerusalem over to the Palestinians would be tantamount to turning it over to the Taliban," Hagee told an audience filled with Americans who waved Israeli flags and cheered.
Palestinians claim the eastern part of the city, captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war, as the capital of their future state.
Hagee said his group was giving $6 million to 16 Israeli causes. Recipients include the Magen David Adom rescue service and a conference center in the West Bank Jewish settlement of Ariel.
The fate of Jewish settlements like Ariel is at the heart of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The support of evangelicals for Israel's continued control of the West Bank endears them to Israeli hard-liners but troubles more dovish activists.
McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, distanced himself last month from Hagee following an uproar over the San Antonio megachurch leader's comments on Catholicism.
Hagee has called the Roman Catholic Church "the great whore" and a "false cult system." He has also suggested that the Catholic church helped shape Adolf Hitler's anti-Semitism.
Hagee has vehemently denied he is anti-Catholic and said his remarks have been mischaracterized.
Bush, Putin Remain Apart On U.S. Missile Defense Plan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,346969,00.html
SOCHI, Russia — President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin failed to overcome sharp differences over a U.S. missile defense system, closing their seven-year relationship Sunday still far apart on an issue that has separated them from the beginning.
"Our fundamental attitude toward the American plan has not changed," Putin said at a news conference with Bush at his vacation house at this Black Sea resort. "We got a lot of way to go," Bush said. Despite the impasse, the two leaders agreed that Moscow and Washington would work together closely in the future on missile defense and other difficult issues.
Bush also conferred with Putin's hand-picked successor, Dmitry Medvedev, but did not claim gaining any insight into his soul, as he had with Putin upon their first encounter. He pronounced Putin's protege "a straightforward fellow" and said he was eager to work with him.
Putin was asked whether he — or Medvedev, the president-elect — would be in charge of Russia's foreign policy after May 7, when Putin steps down as president and is expected to be named prime minister.
Putin said Medvedev would be in charge, and would represent Russia at the Group of Eight meeting of industrial democracies in July in Tokyo. "Mr. Medvedev has been one of the co-authors of Russia's foreign policy," Putin said. "He's completely on top of things."
National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, when asked later whether he thought Putin actually was going to cede authority on Russian foreign policy to Medvedev, said, "My guess is that these two men who have worked very closely together for now almost two decades will have a very collaborative relationship. That seems to be a good thing, not a bad thing."
Hadley, who spoke with reporters aboard Air Force One on the way home to Washington, also said he didn't see any prospect of a breakthrough on missile defense before Bush leaves office next January. "They can leave that to their prospective successors," he said.
At their 28th and presumably final meeting as heads of state, Bush and Putin sought to emphasize their good personal relations, praising each other extensively. But they also both acknowledged remaining strong disagreements, principally missile defense and NATO's eastward expansion.
Russia remains adamantly opposed to the expansion of the alliance into its backyard, an enlargement that Bush has actively championed over Putin's vocal objections.
The Sochi meeting came just days after NATO leaders agreed at a summit in Romania to invite Albania and Croatia to join the alliance. However, the alliance rebuffed U.S. attempts to begin the process of inviting Ukraine and Georgia, both former Soviet republics, to join, although their eventual admission seems likely.
Putin called the U.S. missile plan — which envisions basing tracking radar sites in the Czech Republic and interceptors in Poland — the hardest of US-Russian differences to reconcile. "This is not about language. This is not about diplomatic phrasing or wording. This is about the substance of the issue," he said.
Bush reiterated his insistence that the plan — designed to intercept and destroy approaching ballistic missiles at high altitudes — should not be viewed as a threat to Russia. In a clear reference to Iran, he said the system would help protect Europe from "regimes that could try to hold us hostage."
"I view this as defensive, not offense," Bush said. "And, obviously, we've got a lot of work to convince the experts this defense system is not aimed at Russia."
He blamed opposition to the plan to lingering Cold War fears.
The two leaders did issue a joint statement on missile defense as part of a "strategic framework" to guide future relations between Washington and Moscow.
The statement outlined timeworn U.S. and Russian positions but also held out the prospect for future cooperation, perhaps on a joint system. That, said Putin, represents "certain progress."
"If we manage to achieve this kind of level of cooperation on a global missile defense system, this will be the best kind of result for all our preceding efforts," he said.
Bush bristled at a journalist's question that suggested the two leaders were merely "kicking the can down the road" on the vexing issue.
"You can cynically say that it is kicking the can down the road. I don't appreciate that, because this is an important part of my belief that it is necessary to protect ourselves," Bush said.
The two sides also agreed to "develop a legally-binding arrangement following expiration" in December 2009 of the strategic arms limitation treaty (START). Their joint declaration noted the "substantial reductions already carried out" under that pact, which they said was an important step in reducing the number of deployed nuclear warheads.
Bush was reminded of his June 2001 comment after his first meeting with the Russian leaders that he had looked into Putin's eyes, "was able to get a sense of his soul" and found him to be trustworthy. The remark startled even some of Bush's own aides at the time.
"I did find him to be trustworthy, and he was trustworthy," Bush said Sunday. "He looks you in the eye and tells you what's on his mind. He's been very truthful. And to me, that's the only way you can find common ground."
And did he feel the same way in his first meeting on Sunday with the next Russian president?
"I just met the man for 20 minutes," Bush said. Still, Bush said Medvedev "seemed like a very straightforward fellow. My first impressions are very favorable."
"You can write down: I was impressed and looking forward to working with him," he told reporters.
Bush met separately with Medvedev before his news conference with Putin and received a pledge from the incoming president to work to strengthen relations between the two countries.
Over the last eight years, Bush and Putin "did a lot to advance U.S.-Russian relations" and that relationship was "a key factor in international security," Medvedev said. "I would like to do my part to keep up that work," he added.
Bush told Medvedev, "I'm looking forward to getting to know you so we'll be able to work through common problems and find common opportunities."
A bond of sorts formed between Bush and Putin when Putin stood with the United States after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But the era of cooperation quickly began to unravel as Russia opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and as the Russian leader consolidated his power and took steps to roll back democratic advances.
On Sunday, Putin greeted Bush at the door of the guesthouse and escorted him downstairs to a wood-paneled room with tall windows facing the sea. They sat alongside each other in chairs before a fireplace with unlit logs. A crush of cameramen, photographers and reporters crowded the room.
The Russian president said they had started discussing security issues and other matters over dinner on Saturday and were approaching the talks "in a common working manner." Putin put in another plug for the Winter Olympic games that Sochi will host in 2014.
Their introductory remarks were mostly light-hearted. Bush joked about asked to join in a traditional folk dance during the dinner entertainment the previous evening. "I'm only happy that my press corps didn't see me try to dance the dance I was asked to do."
"We have been able to see you're a brilliant dancer," Putin replied good naturedly.
Iran Rejects Nuclear Incentives
http://www.newsmax.com/international/iran_nuclear/2008/04/05/85783.html
TEHRAN, Iran -- Iran rejected recent European overtures to halt its uranium enrichment program in return for incentives and vowed Saturday to continue to expand its nuclear program.
"Iran does not trade its rights in return for incentives," government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham told reporters. "The Islamic Republic of Iran doesn't need incentives from Europe to obtain its rights."
The spokesman, however, said Iran will still talk to Europe about its nuclear program.
"Iran has always stated that the door to dialogue and interaction with the outside world, European or non-European is open," Elham said.
The European Union said last month that it was open for further talks with Iran despite U.N. Security Council's approval of a third round of sanctions over the country's refusal to suspend uranium enrichment.
Six key nations also pledged to enhance a 2006 package of political, security and economic incentives for Iran to halt uranium enrichment.
Those countries are the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.
Iran has repeatedly said its right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was "nonnegotiable."
The U.S., EU, Israel and others suspect Iran's goal is to produce nuclear weapons. Iran insists its program is aimed solely at producing nuclear energy.
Iran says a report released by the U.N. International Atomic Energy Agency in February vindicated Iran's nuclear program and left no justification for any Security Council sanctions.
The 11-page report by IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said all major past issues surrounding Iran's nuclear activities had been fully resolved or are "no longer outstanding at this stage," repeatedly saying the IAEA's findings are consistent with information available to the agency and explanations provided by Iran.
Diplomats in Vienna told The Associated Press on Thursday that Iran has assembled hundreds of advanced machines reflecting a possible intention to speed up uranium enrichment.
One diplomat said more than 300 of the centrifuges have been linked up in two separate units in Iran's underground enrichment plant and a third was being assembled. He said the machines apparently are more advanced than the thousands already running underground.
Elham said the government hoped to offer "good news" to the nation on Iran's "achievements" on April 8, declared as the National Day of Nuclear Technology.
Iran to OPEC: Stop oil sales in dollars
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080406/ap_on_bi_ge/iran_opec;_ylt=AnI5elST8.vxN0wkDZvGhias0NUE
TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is urging OPEC members to form a joint bank and stop pricing oil trades in U.S. dollars.
According to the Iranian government's Web site, Ahmadinejad told OPEC Secretary General Abdalla Salem el-Badri the cartel "should establish a joint bank as well as having joint currency."
Oil is priced in U.S. dollars on the world market, and the currency's depreciation has concerned producers because it has contributed to rising crude prices and eroded the value of their dollar reserves.
Iran has repeatedly urged OPEC members to shift sales away from dollar. But Iran's proposal to trade oil in a basket of currencies is not supported by enough OPEC members, which include staunch U.S. allies such as leading producer Saudi Arabia.
Islamic Revolution Fervor Kept Alive for Iran's Youth
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347048,00.html
NEW YORK — Zahra Saremi took a different sort of vacation this year to celebrate Iranian New Year—touring the bloody battlefields of Iran's long war with Iraq at a week-long camp dedicated to martyrdom and patriotism.
Such tours are a crucial tool for Iran's clerical leaders as they seek to keep alive fervor for the 1979 Islamic Revolution, especially among young people with little or no memory of it.
Saremi and about 100 young men and women lined up at buses one morning in Tehran in late March, heading for the border regions of southwest Iran. About 1 million Iranians are taking the same journey during the three-week Nowruz holidays, which extend until mid-April, in tours organized by the Basij, the volunteer paramilitary wing of Iran's Revolutionary Guards.
They visit the desert scenes where Iranian troops threw themselves in deadly human wave attacks against Iraqi lines in offensives with codenames like "Dawn is Coming" and "Certain Conquest." They hear lectures from military officers, visit the old trenches and bunkers and sleep in military garrisons.
Most importantly, they commemorate martyrs.
"It is like a spiritual tour," said the 21-year-old Saremi, her black, all-encompassing chador flapping in the morning breeze. She has gone once before, two years ago. "I went there to pay tribute to those who fought the enemy and lost their lives to bring peace for us."
Just how far the fervor for the Revolution has ebbed is visible in Tehran's streets, rife with Western influences the revolution once sought to purge. Shops are packed with bootleg DVDs of Western movies and music, and many women now shirk the chadors required in the revolution's early years—instead wearing tight jackets and headscarves that cover only a small part of their hair.
Many among the millions of Iranians born since 1979 just want to put the revolution—and its Islamic clerical rule—behind them.
That has made the Basij even more important for clerical leaders, who want to keep up the drumbeat of slogans re-enforcing the revolution's principles: fierce resistance to the United States and Western culture, adherence to strict Islamic law and reverence for sacrifice.
The Basij is seen by some as the Islamic republic's "hidden army." Their numbers are not known, though the Revolutionary Guards say they are in the millions. Basijis are in nearly every government institution, from post offices to schools—normal employees except for their membership in the force.
Their role has increased under hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is believed to have stepped up state funding for Basij groups. That mirrors the growing prominence of the Basij's patron, the Revolutionary Guards: former and current Guards officers have gained important posts, and Guards-linked companies have received lucrative government contracts for construction and other projects.
The U.S. has branded the Guards' elite Quds Force a terrorist group, accusing it of backing militants in Iraq, and the U.N. has slapped sanctions on Guards-linked firms accused of links to Iran's nuclear program.
At times, the Basij plays its role through force. In 1999, they helped put down student protests that began at Tehran University in rioting that left several people dead. Basijis also are known to stop women in the streets, scolding them to wear Islamic dress.
Far more pervasive, though, are the cultural events that Basijis lead. Student groups organize seminars and films at universities, often about Israeli "massacres" of Palestinians. Basiji theater groups put on plays depicting stories of "revolution and resistance."
There's even a Basiji film company that produces movies about the Iran-Iraq war. One studio boasts a yard full of old tanks and other armor, on the side of the highway from the new Imam Khomeini airport into Tehran.
The battlefield tours resonate because the 1980-1988 war with Iraq, in which at least 1 million people died overall, is an emotional rallying point for Iranians.
Nearly every Iranian family lost a relative in the brutal fighting, and even Iranians with no love for the Islamic revolution express nationalist pride at fending off then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
For Hassan Taheri, a 53-year-old war veteran boarding the same bus as Saremi, the tour is a chance to reconnect with an earlier era. "Years of war, blood and resistance," said Taheri, who was bringing his wife. "Many of my friends never came back from the war. When I go there, I feel I am with them."
But most of those on the tours are young Basijis and their families—and a constant theme is linking the war to the "third generation of the revolution." Those joining Saremi's tour were largely from Tehran's poorer districts, strongholds of support for Ahmadinejad and other hard-liners.
The tours are extensively covered on state-run television, which throughout the holidays shows footage of young people touring battle zones or weeping at martyrs' graves.
They have been organized since 1992 by a Basiji-run agency. The group says 1 million people are participating this year, up from 700,000 last year.
"The willingness to obey shown by the martyrs is what made them successful," one military commander, Gen. Ali Asghar Rajai, told a group of young Basijis taking part in one late March tour, according to the group's news agency.
"Today, that should be the example for all of us to follow," he said.
Over 25,000 Pakistanis Rally Against Anti-Koran Film, Prophet Cartoons
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,347014,00.html
KARACHI, Pakistan — More than 25,000 people rallied Sunday in the largest protest in Pakistan so far against an anti-Koran film made by a Dutch lawmaker, urging their government to expel the Netherlands ambassador.
"They call this freedom of expression, but it's freedom of aggression," keynote speaker Munawwar Hasan, a leader of the main Islamic party Jamat-e-Islami, told the crowd as it chanted "God is great."
The 15-minute film by Geert Wilders, which sets verses from the Muslim holy book against a background of violent images from terror attacks, was released in March. It has sparked weekly protests in Pakistan, usually drawing hundreds of people after prayers on Friday, the Muslim holy day.
But police officer Syed Suleman estimated Sunday's crowd at 25,000, while organizers claimed more than 100,000 people turned out.
Wearing head bands inscribed "We are ready to sacrifice our lives for the sanctity of the prophet," they marched for two kilometers (more than a mile), then gathered on Karachi's main street to listen to speeches.
They also burned an effigy of Wilders as speakers said their government should sever diplomatic ties with Western countries supporting the publishers of cartoons defaming the Prophet Muhammad.
"The Muslim world is on one side, but Muslim rulers like (President Pervez) Musharraf are toeing the Western agenda under the garb of secularism," Hasan said, referring to Musharraf's role in Washington's war on terrorism.
Hasan said this rally, named "The glory of the prophet march," was not against the West in general, but was aimed at creating awareness among Muslims that they need to unite against a war against Islam.
Taliban Leader Arrested in Afghanistan
http://www.newsmax.com/international/afghanistan/2008/04/06/85817.html
KABUL, Afghanistan -- Police say they have arrested a senior Taliban commander in southern Afghanistan.
An Interior Ministry statement says authorities nabbed Abdul Jabar, described as the deputy of another arrested militant leader, Mansoor Dadullah.
The statement says Jabar was detained Saturday in Kandahar, the Taliban's former power base and Afghanistan's most important southern city.
Mansoor Dadullah, the brother of slain Taliban military commander Mullah Dadullah, was detained in February by authorities in Pakistan.
Heston on Free Thought and Freedom
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/heston_free_thought/2008/04/06/85864.html
The following is a speech NRA President Charlton Heston gave at Brandeis University on March 28, 2000.
Thank you for the tenacity you've shown in having me here. I know the University gave you the financial and logistical burden of my visit here, and I appreciate what you've done against those heavy odds. So for me, please give yourselves a big round of applause.
I remember my son, when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class what his father did for a living. "My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people." Fortunately there've been quite a few of them. There were Prophets from the Old and New Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents, a French cardinal and a couple of geniuses, including Michelangelo.
It's been my good fortune to explore several great men who have made a difference... risen above the ordinary to change the course of human events. So as I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: If my Creator gave me the gift to connect you with the hearts and minds of these great men, then I should use that same gift to reconnect you with something even more important: your own sense of individual purpose.
When he dedicated the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said this about those troubled times: "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure." In many ways, those words ring true again. I believe that today, right here and now, we are again engaged in a great civil war. And this campus is one of many battlegrounds.
The war I'm referring to is cultural rather than military, but there's something very vital at stake. Today the battle is for your hearts and minds, for the freedom to think the way you choose to think, to follow that moral compass that points to what's right.
Let me offer an example. A couple of years ago I was swore in as president of the National Rifle Association. I believe strongly in the Bill of Rights, and its Second Amendment provision to keep and bear arms as one of those rights. I felt I could make a difference – that it was the right thing to do. And that's when the bombshells of the cultural war began to blow up all around me.
To some, I went straight from Moses to the devil. To some, I fell from celluloid saint to cultural sinner, because I felt obligated to defend an individual freedom our Constitution protects.
At first I thought the issue was just about guns. Should law-abiding citizens be able to own them, as the Founding Fathers mandated, or should a Big Brother government be allowed to dismantled the Bill of Rights? Seems simple enough, right?
Well, since then I've learned that the gun debate is a lot more complicated.What I confronted when I became president of the NRA was an overwhelming Orwellian tyranny sweeping this country, a fanatic fervor of politically correct thought and language.
Zealotry is not a pretty sight. It's ugly in the streets of Tel Aviv, where misguided young men strap bombs to their bodies and shatter not only mortar and steel, but also the lives of the innocent.
We used to think we were above all that. Then a federal building in Oklahoma City exploded, and we realized that the very same ugliness can smolder among us.
More and more we are fueled by anger, a fury fed by those who profit from it. Democrats hate Republicans. Gays hate straights.Women hate men. Liberals hate conservatives. Vegetarians hate meat eaters. Gun banners hate gun owners.
Politicians, the media, even the entertainment industry is keenly aware that heated controversy wins votes, snares ratings and keeps the box office humming.They are experts at dangling the bait, and Americans are eager to rise to it. Our culture has replaced the bloody arena fights of ancient Rome with stage fights on TV with Sally, Ricki, Jerry, Jenny and Rosie. Fear of ideas creates more divisions. As a result, we are becoming increasingly fragmented as a people. Our one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all now seems more like the fractured streets of Beirut, echoing with anger.
Back in the midst of another troubled era, as a young actor, I did something that was definitely not fashionable in Hollywood. I marched with Dr. Martin Luther King in 1963 long before it became fashionable in that strange city. It could have cost me my career.
That was a time when a black American couldn't even get a job as a union stage hand.
Those of us in the Civil Rights movement battled the studios over this blatant discrimination, and we won. Now black actors and directors are among the best in our business. I'm proud that some of us helped open those doors. Two years later, as President of the Screen Actors Guild, I walked behind Dr. King, leading the Arts contingent in his March on Washington. That was a proud day.
Now, fast-forward thirty-five years. I recently told an audience that I felt that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or whatever color pride you prefer. For those words, I was called a racist.
I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told another audience that gay rights should be given no greater consideration than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.
I served in World War II, and if you saw "Saving Private Ryan" you have some insight into what a savage conflict that was. But when I told an audience that I thought law-abiding gun owners were being singled out for cultural stereotyping much like Jews were under the Axis powers, I was branded an anti-Semite.
I love this country with all my heart. But when I challenged an audience to resist cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh!
After a couple of years with the culturally correct crosshairs trained on my chest, I must admit it was a whole lot easier being Moses. But I can say this: get involved with a politically unpopular cause and you'll quickly find out who your friends are. I've been blasted from Time Magazine to The Washington Post to the Today Show to the guy down the street. They say "that's enough, Chuck. It may be your opinion, but it's not language authorized for public consumption."
Well, if we'd been enamored with political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys.
1776 wasn't all that long ago, and we've got plenty of good genes left to fire our passion for freedom.
In his book The End of Sanity, Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories regularly foisted on us from every direction..."
"Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong ... and they don't like it."
Let's stroll around your own campus just for a minute, and see if we can find a few examples. One that comes to mind is Freedom Magazine. Last year, I'm told, funding for this conservative campus publication was cut out entirely because members of the student senate didn't care for its message. "Didn't care for its message?"
Now I don't know if the philosophy expressed on those pages was right or wrong. But it deserves to be heard, don't you think? Isn't that what college is all about? Examining a diversity of ideas before you draw conclusions?
I've also been told that here on campus, there's a push for more affirmative action in the admissions process.Well, I'm for affirmative action. I believe it starts in grammar school, survives the growing pains of high school, and reaches fruition during college entrance exams.
And I also believe it should be color-blind. I've fought against racism all my life. So why would I tolerate racism in reverse? Skin color litmus tests hearken back to carpetbaggers and Reconstruction. I believe in level playing fields, and the equality that comes with accomplishment. One standard for all, no more and no less.
But we have to be careful here, because telling us what to think has evolved into telling us what to say. So telling us what to do can't be very far away.
I argue passionately for the freedom to keep an open mind, because in audiences like this one I sense and see America's best and brightest. Brandeis remains a fertile cradle of American academia, and each of you are the best hope we have for a productive, livable, spiritual future.
But I submit that you, and your counterparts in colleges from coast to coast, also appear to be the most socially conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as long as you shrug your shoulders and abide it, then by the standards of your grandfathers, you are cultural cowards.
If you talk about race, it doesn't make you a racist. If you see distinctions between the genders, it doesn't make you a sexist. If you think critically about a given denomination, it doesn't make you anti-religion. If you accept homosexuality but don't celebrate it, it doesn't make you a homophobe.
A free people can use a new revolution every day, and I challenge you to resist the dogma of cultural and social stereotyping. Don't let America's universities serve as incubators for a rampant epidemic of this new brand of McCarthyism. Stand up, speak out, follow your heart, even if it goes against the conventional grain.
Take heart in the fact that others have walked that same path. Jesus. Joan of Arc. Gandhi.
Jefferson. Lincoln. Martin Luther King. Susan B. Anthony.
I think the germ of disobedience is in our DNA. Who here doesn't feel a certain kinship with the rebellious spirit that tossed that tea into Boston Harbor? It's the same spirit that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit in the back of the bus, that filled our streets with Vietnam War protestors. But let me warn you -- it ain't easy. Dr. King stood on a lot of balconies. The police dogs in Montgomery were vicious. The water cannons in Selma were painful. Modern versions of the same weapons of oppression exist today.
Just a few weeks ago my good friend Wayne LaPierre, head of the National Rifle Association, spoke candidly on national television about the president's gun policies. In return, he was personally and professionally crucified for daring to speak his mind.
During the past eight years, President Clinton has fought hard for every kind of firearm restriction imaginable. Yet at the same time he has, as a matter of policy, refused to vigorously enforce federal gun laws already on the books.
Wayne said that prosecuting felons with firearms is the only proven policy that has cut gun murders --- by half! He watched it work in Richmond, Virginia, under a program called Project Exile. Every felon caught with a firearm there serves a mandatory five years in prison. No plea bargain, no deal. Believe me, not many felons carry firearms in Richmond any more.
The NRA helped fund that project when the Clinton administration wouldn't. So I think Wayne LaPierre spoke the simple truth when he said the president seemed willing to accept a certain amount of firearm-related violence, because enforcement interfered with his personal anti-gun agenda. The words were no more out of Wayne's mouth when the media erupted. For two solid weeks he was demonized, scorned, vilified.
But during those same two weeks, the media was far more interested in reporting what Wayne said than investigating what Clinton did, or failed to do. In fact the President has been miserably lax in enforcing federal gun laws. But it was easier to condemn a good man for making a politically incorrect statement than it was to dig out the facts and exonerate a victim of cultural warfare.
To me, political correctness is just tyranny with manners. The spectacle of Wayne LaPierre's media crucifixion appalled me. Yet at the same time it stiffened my determination to speak out even louder, with all the breath I have, about this cultural cancer that is eating away at our society.
So in closing, let me challenge those good young minds of yours. Dare to consider both sides of any issue. And find the courage to question authority.
Don't always believe everything you hear from a Bill Clinton, or a Dan Rather, a George W. Bush or an Al Gore. Dig deeper than the headlines or the stump speeches or the television news. Don't trust any of us – not a Michael Jordan, or a Dennis Miller, not even Charlton Heston. Because we all have our prejudices, and it's your job to sort through all the rhetoric, weigh and measure each word, and decide on your own.
And then, just as I felt compelled to stand with Dr. King, you'll find yourself compelled to act, too.
When a fatherless kid in a crackhouse finds a stolen gun and shoots a schoolmate, stand up and say giving drug dealers triggerlocks isn't a solution.
When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself, jam the switchboard at the district attorney's office and raise the roof with your outrage.
Or when your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the students graduate with honors, choke the halls of the board of regents in a unified show of disgruntled force.
When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on a playground and gets hauled into court for sexual harassment, descend on that school like avenging angels ... until someone in charge exercises common sense.
And when someone you've elected is seduced by the power of the office and betrays you, muster the collective will to banish them from public life.
Because unless you do these things, freedom as we have known it cannot endure.
So I challenge you to take up the torch that freed exiles, founded religions, defeated tyrants and provoked an armed and roused rabble to break out of bondage and build this country.
There is still some of them in all of us. So don't give up just yet. We're not quite finished with their revolution.
Thank you.
Health Database Was Set Up to Ignore ‘Abortion’
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/05/us/05popline.html?bl&ex=1207627200&en=68723c5e35a1af24&ei=5087%0A
WASHINGTON — Johns Hopkins University said Friday that it had programmed its computers to ignore the word “abortion” in searches of a large, publicly financed database of information on reproductive health after federal officials raised questions about two articles in the database. The dean of the Public Health School lifted the restrictions after learning of them.
A spokesman for the school, Timothy M. Parsons, said the restrictions were enforced starting in February.
Johns Hopkins manages the population database known as Popline with money from the Agency for International Development.
Popline is the world’s largest database on reproductive health, with more than 360,000 records and articles on family planning, fertility and sexually transmitted diseases.
Mr. Parsons said the development agency had expressed concern after finding “two articles about abortion advocacy” in the database. The articles, he said, did not fit database criteria and were removed.
Employees who manage the database instructed their computers to ignore the word “abortion” as a search term.
After learning of the restrictions on Friday, the dean, Dr. Michael J. Klag, said: “I could not disagree more strongly with this decision, and I have directed that the Popline administrators restore ‘abortion’ as a search term immediately. I will also launch an inquiry to determine why this change occurred.”
The school is named for Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, a Hopkins alumnus who has given millions of dollars to the university and the school.
Dr. Klag said the school was “dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of knowledge, and not its restriction.”
Ted Miller, a spokesman for Naral Pro-Choice America, an abortion rights group, said: “The public has a right to know why someone would censor relevant medical information. The Bush administration has politicized science as part of an ideological agenda. So it’s important to know if that occurred here.”
A woman answering telephones at the Agency for International Development said officials were not available because they were at a retreat.
Librarians at the Medical Center of the University of California, San Francisco, expressed concern about the restrictions this week after they had difficulty retrieving articles from Popline.
In an e-mail response on Tuesday, Johns Hopkins told the librarians that “abortion” was no longer a valid search term.
“We recently made all abortion terms stop words,” Debra L. Dickson, a Popline manager, wrote. “As a federally funded project, we decided this was best for now.”
Ms. Dickson suggested that instead of using “abortion,” librarians could use other terms like “fertility control, postconception” or “pregnancy, unwanted.”
Gail L. Sorrough, director of medical library services at the medical center in San Francisco, said it was absurd to restrict searches using “a perfectly good noun such as ‘abortion.’ ”
Under the rule, Popline ignored the word “abortion,” just as it ignores terms like “a” and “the.” Ms. Sorrough and a colleague, Gloria Won, reported their experience on an electronic mailing list, and librarians protested the restrictions.
“We sent this out on a listserv, and it just exploded,” Ms. Sorrough said. “Eliminating this term essentially blocks access to reports in the database and ultimately to information about abortion. Unwanted pregnancy is not a synonym for abortion.”
Items on Popline include articles on “demand for abortion by unmarried teenagers” and federal judges’ abortion rulings.
Inspiration For People on the Go
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/349811.aspx
A young New Media company says if you need some daily inspiration, all you have to do is download it and take it with you.
iAmplifyFaith.com has faith-based audio and video product downloads targeted to adults, teens and children. Faith is just one category in the iAmplify.com lineup of digital downloads. The company's catalog includes fitness, self-help, sports and leisure products.
Founded almost four years ago by brothers Jack and Murray Hidary, iAmplify's company slogan "Amplify Your Life" is upbeat. Users can purchase a download from an online account anywhere anytime from any computer. The downloaded program can also be imported to an iPod or any other portable device. The program can also be burned to a CD or a DVD.
In an e-mail to CBN News, Murray Hidary, iAmplify's CEO, explained his company's business philosophy. "iAmplify is committed to amplifying the lives of our customers and the brands of our partners," he said. "We connect experts and content providers with their audiences on the web and unlike other online publishing platforms, iAmplify has developed tools to find the audiences as well."
Spreading the Good News
The company is now seeking to partner with ministries and churches under its iAmplifyFaith.com division. It is making its digital tools available to ministers and their congregations. Instead of using the time-consuming method of burning sermons to CD's and/or DVD's, according to the company, a church can use iAmplifyFaith.com's web service to deliver weekly sermons and other messages to its members and also to anyone anywhere around the world.
"For iAmplifyFaith and partners, the store player acts as an ambassador for the word of God online, said iAmplify's Senior Vice President Kipp Marcus. "The flash player is easily embedded on any Christian website, church website, or faith blog, providing free or paid downloads that will drive audiences to messages of hope and salvation. The store player can collect donations and tithes for churches and charity organizations, while revolutionizing the way the on-the-go Christian experiences their daily walk," he explained.
A member of a church using iAmplifyFaith.com could subscribe to the service, then their minister's sermon would be delivered to their computer or other portable device on a weekly basis. More importantly, sermons preached several years or even decades ago could also be used to inspire once again. iAmplifyFaith.com can maintain a sermon/message archive as well as other audio and video class material that could be accessed by users through a free or paid subscription.
Three Years in Development
But how is iAmplify.com's service different from all the rest? Marcus explained that after three years of development, his company has the technology to give the content owner complete control with tools that are extremely easy to use. "We provide a platform for the upload and sale of the content as well as the tools to find and grow your audience online, all for no fees upfront," he said. "We also share the information of the people who subscribe to our content partners so that they know who is purchasing the content as well."
Marcus said that some churches who have partnered with iAmplify.com use interns and volunteers to manage their content; it's that easy.
Also, the company does not charge religious organizations upfront for the use of their service.
"iAmplifyFaith strongly believes that sharing revenue, rather than charging an upfront fee like many other service provides, allows churches and pastors to enter into the digital age with little or no risk to the organization," Marcus continued. "We see it as an opportunity for them to fund new growth projects, missions and more with revenue created from their subscriptions and individual projects."
Only Positive Messages
The company says it is committed to bringing only positive messages. But when a user goes to the iAmplify.com Web site, one can't help but notice there is a Vegas category. CBN News asked Marcus if he thought that type of content would be a turn-off for some in the Christian community.
"At iAmplify, we have different channels of content," Marcus answered. "The content teaches people how to play Sudoku, how to knit, how to speak different languages, play sports, how to stop smoking, lower their cholesterol and yes, how to play poker. Poker is a game of skill, like chess or baseball; iAmplify.com does not advocate gambling," he explained. "We are interested in the cross-marketing of our Faith channel to our poker students and have been pleasantly surprised by the initial results. It's a one-way marketing opportunity. However, you will not see us market poker strategy to our faith-based audience."
US cyberwarfare prep includes offense
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080406/ap_on_hi_te/cyberwarfare;_ylt=AvWAycTSgrSbn.Toiohbp0us0NUE
U.S. military officials seeking to boost the nation's cyberwarfare capabilities are looking beyond defending the Internet: They are developing ways to launch virtual attacks on enemies.
But first the military will have to figure out the proper boundaries.
"What do we consider to be an act of war in cyberspace?" asked Lt. Gen. Robert J. Elder Jr., who heads the Air Force's cyberoperations command. "The military is not going to tend to do that (use virtual strike capabilities) until you cross some line that constitutes an act of war."
Elder said initial uses likely would be limited to diverting or killing data packets that threaten the nation's systems, the way the military may intercept a foreign ship carrying arms in international waters.
The remarks came late Friday during a New York chapter meeting of the Association For Intelligence Officers, a nonprofit group for current and former intelligence agents and their supporters.
In an interview afterward, Elder said that in the future, the military might rely upon network warfare to disrupt an enemy's communications system, replacing the need for conventional weapons like bombs.
In any such scenario, Elder said the military would be restricted by the same rules of engagement — such as requirements for a formal declaration of war — that apply to conventional attacks.
Elder said that during the early days of the Iraq war, rudimentary forms of cyberattacks were used by the United States, including electronically jamming Iraqi military systems and using network attacks to hinder Iraqi ground units from communicating with one another.
The military's offensive capabilities have improved since then, he said.
As the military increasingly relies on networks and computer systems to communicate and coordinate conventional operations, the U.S. Air Force is planning to establish by October a Cyber Command for waging a future war that is fought not only by land, sea and air but also in cyberspace.
Hackers with a foreign government or terrorist group potentially could bring down military and civilian Web sites using what's known as a denial-of-service attack — flooding the computer servers with fake traffic such that legitimate visitors can't get through.
Enemies also could look for security vulnerabilities to break into key systems that run power plants, refineries and other infrastructure.
Already, the Chinese government has been suspected of using the Web to break into computers at the Defense Department and other U.S. agencies in what was dubbed Operation Titan Rain. Since 2001, Chinese "hacktivists" have organized attacks on and defaced U.S. Web sites to oppose what they call the imperialism of the United States and Japan.
Elder outlined several defensive initiatives aimed at deterring cyberattacks on the United States.
The military, for instance, needs to demonstrate that its conventional operations still could function even if the network is disrupted. To do that, he said, the military has been identifying "what if" loss scenarios and figuring out the backup capabilities needed to overcome them.
Forensics capabilities also are being developed, he said, to identify who is attacking, even if the attacker tries to hide by spoofing the identity of packets and rerouting them through intermediary computer servers. That way, the United States can make a credible threat of retribution.
No comments:
Post a Comment