Fire and Fury?

More like Bluster and Blow...

Nuclear bombs

What it is like to experience a nuclear bomb.

Why we need to get rid of them. Some in government agree.

This above all other things will save millions of innocent lives

Obama Announces New U.S.-Russia Nuclear Treaty.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Doing more for world safety and stability

In one diplomatic act than Bush and Cheney did with seven years of bombing:

MOSCOW — President Obama signed an agreement on Monday to cut American and Russian strategic nuclear arsenals by at least one-quarter, a first step in a broader effort intended to reduce the threat of such weapons drastically and to prevent their further spread to unstable regions.

And he didn't even have to peer into Putin's soul...

Wait a minute! That's not a shrimp!

Can't they find it by the glowing crabs? (my bold)

More than 50 years after a 7,600lb (3,500kg) nuclear bomb was dropped in US waters following a mid-air military collision, the question of whether the missing weapon still poses a threat remains.

[snip]

Shortly after midnight on 5 February 1958, Howard Richardson was on a top-secret training flight for the US Strategic Air Command.

It was the height of the Cold War and the young Major Richardson's mission was to practise long-distance flights in his B-47 bomber in case he was ordered to fly from Homestead Air Force Base in Florida to any one of the targets the US had identified in Russia.

[snip]

As he cruised at 38,000 feet over North Carolina and Georgia, his plane was hit by another military aircraft, gouging a huge hole in the wing and knocking an engine almost off its mountings, leaving it hanging at a perilous angle.

[snip]

As he dropped to 20,000 feet, he somehow got the damaged craft under control and levelled out.

He and his co-pilot then made a fateful decision which probably saved both their lives and the lives of countless people on the ground.

[snip]

He managed to direct the B-47 a mile or two off the coast of Savannah and opened the bomb doors, dropping the bomb somewhere into the shallow waters and light sand near Tybee Island.

He then managed a perfectly executed descent from which he and his crew walked away unscathed.

[snip]

Immediately after the crash, a search was set up to find the unexploded nuclear weapon, buried somewhere too close for comfort to the US's second-largest seaport and one of its most beautiful cities.

Numerous other searches have followed, both official and unofficial, and each of them has also proved unsuccessful.

So the bomb remains tucked away on the sea-bed, in an area which is frequently dredged by shrimp fishermen, any one of whom could suddenly find that they have netted something a touch larger and scarier than a crustacean.

How dangerous the bomb is after all these years is a matter of hot debate.

Right. So who will we blame and bomb when this thing finally goes off?

In honor of North Korea, and Pakistan

Steve Bates of The Yellow Something Something (formerly known as The Yellow Doggerel Democrat) referred me to the wonderful Tom Lehrer and his song,"We will all go together when we go." Since I listened to it on YouTube, it has gotten stuck in my brain...

So I thought I'd share.



When you attend a funeral,
It is sad to think that sooner or
Later those you love will do the same for you.
And you may have thought it tragic,
Not to mention other adjec-
Tives, to think of all the weeping they will do.
But don't you worry.
No more ashes, no more sackcloth.
And an armband made of black cloth
Will some day never more adorn a sleeve.
For if the bomb that drops on you
Gets your friends and neighbors too,
There'll be nobody left behind to grieve.

And we will all go together when we go.
What a comforting fact that is to know.
Universal bereavement,
An inspiring achievement,
Yes, we all will go together when we go.

We will all go together when we go.
All suffuse with an incandescent glow.
No one will have the endurance
To collect on his insurance,
Lloyd's of London will be loaded when they go.

Oh we will all fry together when we fry.
We'll be french fried potatoes by and by.
There will be no more misery
When the world is our rotisserie,
Yes, we will all fry together when we fry.

And we will all bake together when we bake.
There'll be nobody present at the wake.
With complete participation
In that grand incineration,
Nearly three billion hunks of well-done steak.

Oh we will all char together when we char.
And let there be no moaning of the bar.
Just sing out a Te Deum
When you see that I.C.B.M.,
And the party will be "come as you are."

Oh we will all burn together when we burn.
There'll be no need to stand and wait your turn.
When it's time for the fallout
And Saint Peter calls us all out,
We'll just drop our agendas and adjourn.

And we will all go together when we go.
Ev'ry Hottenhot and ev'ry Eskimo.
When the air becomes uranious,
And we will all go simultaneous.
Yes we all will go together
When we all go together,
Yes we all will go together when we go.

(edited to match the YouTube version a bit more)

crossposted at SteveAudio

Just in case...

How to survive a nuclear blast.



Apparently getting into an old refrigerator won't save you....

News that makes your hair stand on end

Israel and Iran

Israel won't rule out a military attack on Iran, according to Isaac Ben-Israel of the ruling Kadima party. The former air force general told SPIEGEL that: "If necessary, we will use force."

And:

In order to stop Tehran from developing a nuclear bomb, the Israeli army is preparing itself for a possible military strike on Iran. "We are ready to do whatever is demanded of us," Israeli Air Force Major General Ido Nehushtan tells SPIEGEL in an exclusive interview.

Great. They couldn't get Bush and Cheney to do it, and Lieberman didn't become McCain's VP choice. Now they're going to have to start World War III.. (IV?).. by themselves.

Even our feeble attempts to prove Iran was supplying IED components has been disproved:

WASHINGTON - Last April, top George W Bush administration officials, desperate to exploit any possible crack in the close relationship between Iraq's Nuri al-Maliki government and Iran, launched a new round of charges that Iran had stepped up covert arms assistance to Shi'ite militias.

Secretary of Defense Robert M Gates suggested there was "some sense of an increased level of [Iranian] supply of weapons and support to these groups". And Washington Post reporter Karen DeYoung was told by military officials that the "plentiful, high quality weaponry" the militias were then using in Basra was "recently manufactured in Iran".

But a US military task force had been passing on data to the Multi-National Force Iraq (MNFI) command that told a very different story. The data collected by the task force in the previous six weeks showed that relatively few of the weapons found in Shi'ite militia caches were manufactured in Iran.

According to the data compiled by the task force and made available to an academic research project in July, only 70 weapons believed to have been manufactured in Iran had been found in post-invasion weapons caches between mid-February and the second week in April. And those weapons represented only 17% of the weapons found in caches that had any Iranian weapons in them during that period.

Warnings about the coming quagmire in Afghanistan:

The million dollar question is: Will Obama also play the great game in Afghanistan? Or is he capable of showing the compassion to let go that hapless country and allow it to wander towards a rediscovery of its traditional modes of life?

It is obvious he has to walk through a veritable minefield and reconcile various elements. Indeed, an intra-Afghan dialogue is needed and reconciliation with the Taliban becomes a central issue in such a dialogue. For that to happen, a regional climate needs to be prepared, which primarily involves engaging Pakistan, Russia and Iran and also addressing larger concerns in their relations with the US. Fortunately, Obama possesses the immense moral stature needed to convene a regional summit on Afghanistan.

Least of all, it may become necessary at some point to spell out a timeline on the troop withdrawal. Every challenge also offers an opportunity. The upcoming presidential election in Afghanistan offers an opportunity for Obama to resist the temptation to impose another US proxy in Kabul like President Hamid Karzai. Let Afghan people genuinely choose their leader. Let a new president emerge out of the complex deal-making that is part of the Afghan way of life. It is a difficult decision for Obama to take, but it needs to be taken. It will signify the beginning of a US "withdrawal".

As a recent commentary in the Chinese People's Daily noted, "Since it is absolutely not easy to carry on the war, then, the 'peace' solution poses a wise option … War and peace are horns of a dilemma in Afghanistan at present, and this has once again exposed the helplessness of Western nations in a predicament." The recent Chinese commentaries seem to underscore that the Obama administration runs the real risk of a quagmire in Afghanistan unless a political solution is quickly found.

Closer to home: Keeping track of the death threats since Obama became President-elect:

Since election day, the number of threats against the president-elect, and racial or violent incidents directed at his supporters, have soared. The Secret Service is concerned, calling it the highest number of threats against a President-elect in memory, but the national media until this weekend have largely ignored the disturbing pattern.

And keeping track of the racist backlash and the bitter clinging to guns and backward religions. Secret Service, please keep President-elect Obama and his family safe.

And Phil Gramm isn't sorry one bit:

In two recent interviews, Mr. Gramm described the current turmoil as “an incredible trauma,” but said he was proud of his record.

He blamed others for the crisis: Democrats who dropped barriers to borrowing in order to promote homeownership; what he once termed “predatory borrowers” who took out mortgages they could not afford; banks that took on too much risk; and large financial institutions that did not set aside enough capital to cover their bad bets.

But looser regulation played virtually no role, he argued, saying that is simply an emerging myth.

“There is this idea afloat that if you had more regulation you would have fewer mistakes,” he said. “I don’t see any evidence in our history or anybody else’s to substantiate it.” He added, “The markets have worked better than you might have thought.”

So... here comes the old saw about the theory was perfect, the people who implemented it were wrong? Kinda like the song the neocons are singing right now about how Bush effed up the wonderfully good and shiny PNAC agenda?

The Bush administration is spreading freedoms and democracy

By bringing in cholera to Iraqis, poisoning their environment, ruining their infrastructure. Perhaps even building nuclear bases in the country...

By an uptick in violence in Afghanistan.

By breaking the world's economies.

Heckuva job, Georgie!

That's what you've wanted to do all along, right Georgie?

Practicing real diplomacy by pissing off Russia while putting the use of nukes back on the table:

WASHINGTON — In a pointed but mostly symbolic expression of displeasure with Moscow, President Bush on Monday canceled a once-celebrated civilian nuclear cooperation deal with Russia.

Bush had sent the agreement to Congress for approval in May, after a much-heralded signing by the two nations that capped two years of tough negotiations. On Monday, he officially pulled it back, a move announced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"We make this decision with regret," said Rice, in a statement read by spokesman Sean McCormack. "Unfortunately, given the current environment, the time is not right for this agreement."

[snip]

Administration officials determined almost immediately that Russia must suffer some consequences for its bloody use of force in a sovereign, Western-allied neighbor, but wanted to take punitive measures in concert with Europe. They have been frustrated, though, at the lack of similar resolve among allies, who have offered criticism of Russia but little else.

There may be more actions to come from Washington.

The $1 billion economic recovery package for Georgia puts the impoverished Black Sea nation in the top tier of U.S foreign aid recipients. Though it does not include any military aid, U.S. officials have indicated some will probably be added in the future.

The U.S. had been helping the Georgian military modernize and it is likely the U.S. will help the Georgian forces rebuild again after their near-total rout by Russia. That effort could be given more punch _ and will likely be greeted angrily in Moscow _ if Washington agrees to start selling sophisticated anti-aircraft and anti-tank military hardware to Georgia.

Moscow has already accused the U.S. of instigating or even helping Georgia make its ill-fated incursion into South Ossetia.

Strange, isn't it, Georgie. Nobody remembers the Cold War as fondly as you do...

We aren't going to attack Iran because it's strong

But because it's weak?! Gareth Porter for Asia Times:

WASHINGTON - New arguments by analysts close to Israeli thinking in favor of United States strikes against Iran cite evidence of Iranian military weakness in relation to the US and Israel, and even raise doubts that Iran is rushing to obtain such weapons at all.

The new arguments contradict Israel's official argument that it faces an "existential threat" from an Islamic extremist Iranian regime determined to get nuclear weapons. They suggest that Israel, which already has as many as 200 nuclear weapons, views Iran from the position of the dominant power in the region rather than as the weaker state in the relationship.

[snip]


These analysts, all of whom are pushing for a US, rather than an Israeli attack, argue that Iran's power to retaliate for a US attack on its nuclear facilities is quite limited. Equally significant, they also emphasize that Iran is a rational actor that would have to count the high costs of retaliation. That conclusion stands in sharp contrast to the official Israeli line that Iran cannot be deterred because of its alleged apocalyptic Islamic viewpoint on war with Israel.

So... do these analysts actually think the rest of the world will be standing by stroking their respective chins and saying hmmm? Or do you think the Islamic world would ignite like dried tinder, the world community would recoil with horror, and Israel and the US would be considered rogue nations: armed, dangerous, and insane. The use of nuclear bombs has stayed taboo and untouchable since we dropped the two on Japan and justifiably so.

Why do Bush and Cheney think it's okay to use them now?

Iran will not take such an event lying down:

The head of Iran's Revolutionary Guards said in remarks published late last month that Tehran would impose controls on shipping in the Gulf and the strategic Strait of Hormuz if it was attacked.

Speculation about a possible attack on Iran because of its nuclear program has risen since a report last month said Israel had practiced such a strike.

Vice-Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, said last week the United States would not allow Iran to block the Gulf.

And just what would happen to our military stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq if nukes were to go off next door?

Cheney and Rumsfeld used to play shadow government games together. The neocons have been dreaming of this opportunity for such an action for years.

Can we survive the next 200 days of the Bush administration? Can Iran?

Update:
Bryan of Why Now? offers the end result of attacking Iran:

If your goal is Israel a smoking ruin, the 5th Fleet at the bottom of the Gulf, oil at $300+ per barrel, and tens of thousands of US troops dead, then attacking Iran is a good idea … for a madman.

If the evildoer folks have the bomb

It's because the Bush administration gave it to them.


Dr. Zaius of Zaius Nation explains:

Has everybody forgotten that Bush has already given the secrets of building an atomic bomb not only to Iran, but to every evil empire in the world? I remember when this story first broke. It's lifespan in the news cycle lasted from Friday afternoon to a Saturday morning. Supposedly the story was dropped because it was "unfair" and "too partisan" to run it because of the upcoming election.

A little over a year ago Bush put up a website that contained information that was captured in Iraq. Amongst this treasure trove the administration accidently overlooked part of the information that contained all of the secrets needed to build an atomic bomb. The website was called "Operation Iraqi Freedom Document Portal", which is of course no longer online. The damage is already done, however. Every intelligence agency in the world is constantly watching the White House website like a hawk. There can be no doubt that the nuclear secrets are now practically in the public domain.

And I said no no no

Habits are so hard to break. Like ignoring the wishes of the people and forcing them to accept someone they didn't vote for.

Think Progress:

Despite the defeat of President Pervez Musharraf’s party in the Pakistani parliamentary elections, the Bush administration is still trying to “construct a coalition that will keep Mr. Musharraf in power as president.” Officials admit that Musharraf “remains the administration’s preferred Pakistani leader.”

AP:

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- Pakistan's president will not step down as head of state and intends to serve out his five-year term, his spokesman said, despite a sweeping victory by his opponents in an election that President Bush on Wednesday judged to be fair.

But with the vote count nearly complete, two opposition parties have won enough seats to form a new government, though they will likely fall short of the two-thirds needed to impeach the president.

The result is seen as a major political setback for Musharraf, a key ally of Washington in fighting Taliban and al-Qaida, whose popularity has plummeted over the past year. The victors were secular political parties; Islamic hard-liners fared badly.

Bush, the Pakistani leader's chief foreign backer, declared Wednesday that the elections were a "victory in the war on terror."

"There were elections held that have been judged as being fair, and the people have spoken," Bush said in Ghana during his current trip to Africa.

Let me interrupt the article to point out the supportive threat ... statement Georgie makes:

"It's now time for the newly elected folks to show up and form their government," Bush said. "The question then is 'Will they be friends of the United States?' I certainly hope so.

You called Osama and his band of merry men 'folks', too, George. Just saying...

So Pakistan tries to figure out what to do next:

As the fallout from Pakistan's general elections comes into focus, one enormous question mark has emerged: who will be included in the new government? Some major domestic political players have made hasty, if strategic, retreats from the government-making process and have adopted policies of wait and see.

Meanwhile, Washington has moved to mend bridges between embattled President Pervez Musharraf and the opposition camps in order to preserve its interests in the regional "war on terror". Analysts believe that if Islamabad is gripped by further political turmoil, and if Musharraf exits the corridors of power, the US-led operation could flounder.

"We shall prefer to sit in the opposition and would rather provide support for the issues of national interest instead of making any bid to be a part of any set-up," Senator Mushahid Hussain Syed, secretary general of the former ruling Pakistan Muslim League Quaid-i-Azam (PML-Q), told Asia Times Online. "I think there are a lot of issues where any future set-up needs our support, especially in the 'war on terror', and we would provide our support while sitting in the opposition benches."

Most Pakistanis view this vote as a denial of American might:

Washington officially applauded the election process in Pakistan, which it termed transparent, among other praises. At the same time, however, the US has grave concerns that the vulnerability of a new government, or its unwillingness to cooperate with the US, could spell doom for the "war on terror".

"I suggest that political parties should demand that until Musharraf's resignation they would not take the oath in the parliament. Because, if they take the oath, it means they legitimize Musharraf's presidency," said retired Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, who has recently played a major role in organizing Pakistani veterans' groups to demand retired general Musharraf's resignation.

Gul was optimistic that the present vote against Musharraf and his allies was a vote against American domination of the region. He expressed hope that eventually mass support would push Islamabad to abandon all military operations in tribal areas.

"Americans cannot do anything if we stop the operations in tribal areas. If they stop military aid, they are welcome to do so. We don't need military aid. All we need is economic aid and they just cannot afford to stop it. Why? Because all NATO supply lines pass through Pakistan and if they stop economic aid, Pakistan can stop supply lines which would end their regional war on terror theater once and for all. This is the biggest crime of Musharraf - that he could not understand the strategic value of Pakistan in the region and could not exploit it," said Gul.

Amid all this, who is watching ... you know... the nukes? India is freaking out:

NEW DELHI (AFP) — India should be deeply concerned about the possibility of Pakistan's nuclear weapons falling into the hands of extremists, a top official was reported as saying.

"The nature of the dangers which nuclear weapons pose has dramatically intensified with the growing risk that such weapons may be acquired by terrorists..." Prime Minister Manmohan Singh's special envoy Shyam Saran said on Monday

"The mounting concern over the likelihood that in a situation of chaos, Pakistan's nuclear assets may fall into the hands of jihadi elements... underscores how real this danger has become," Saran was quoted as saying by the Press Trust of India at a lecture in New Delhi.

[snip]

The United States and other Western countries have expressed mounting concern over the security of Islamabad's estimated 50 warheads, with Pakistani forces battling a growing insurgency by Al-Qaeda-linked militants.

So what will Musharraf do?:

The remaining question is what will happen to Musharraf. Among those who have come into personal contact with him, there is a sense that he will understand the depth of his current predicament.

"He is an intelligent man. He will know he is not in a position to dictate things," says Mahmood Shah, who helped coordinate Musharraf's policies in the tribal belt as former secretary of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. "Even if he tries to cling to power, it will be very difficult," Mr. Shah continues.

The coming days or weeks will be a test of whether Musharraf's legendary survival instincts have their limits, say others. "He will first try to see if he has any future working with these political parties," says Ikram Sehgal, editor of Defence Journal. "If it is not tenable, he will lay out a plan to say good-bye."

"He knows very well that the Army will not support him" if he challenges the parliament, Mr. Sehgal adds.

Should Musharraf prove confrontational, however, Zardari has said he would not rule out impeachment. This is particularly bad news for Musharraf, since Zardari's PPP has generally been more tolerant of Musharraf than Sharif's PML-N, which has categorically refused to work with Musharraf, partly because Musharraf overthrew Sharif in his 1999 coup.

The process of impeachment is relatively simple, requiring only a two-thirds vote in the general assembly and the Senate. The Senate is still filled with Musharraf's allies, since it is not up for reelection until next year. But senators might be tempted to abandon Musharraf if his situation looks untenable. The Army, however, would be loath to see its former leader humiliated in such a way and could step in to convince Musharraf to go, if it came to that point, says Sehgal.

crossposted at SteveAudio

We know that al-Qaeda wants nukes

So should this be scary?

Two employees of Pakistan's atomic energy agency have been abducted in the country's restive north-western region abutting the Afghan border, police say.

The technicians went missing on the same day as Pakistan's ambassador to Afghanistan, Tariq Azizuddin, was reportedly abducted in the same region.

[snip]

Pakistan's north-west has witnessed fierce fighting between Islamist militants and government troops.

The pro-Taleban guerrillas declared a unilateral ceasefire last week after months of clashes with troops garrisoned there.

The workers from Pakistan's Atomic Energy Commission were on a mission to map mineral deposits in the mountains when they were kidnapped, police say.

Osama's caliphate is supposed to include Pakistan. And he would like to have the immense power a nuclear bomb would give him. So... is he collecting scientists? Or was this just a random kidnapping?

Uh... if Pakistan falls into the hands of the Taliban

And al-Qaeda, who will control the nukes?

Eli of Multi Medium asks the question. But apparently the White House doesn't want to talk about it.

Just in case anyone was wondering

Here's a headline that may change things:

Experts: No evidence of Iranian nuclear weapons program:
WASHINGTON — Despite President Bush's claims that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons that could trigger "World War III," experts in and out of government say there's no conclusive evidence that Tehran has an active nuclear-weapons program.

Musharraf declares state of emergency

This is not good:

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf has declared emergency rule, state-run TV has said, amid reports that police have surrounded the Supreme Court.

Judges are believed to be inside the building in Islamabad, reports say.

Troops have been deployed inside state-run TV and radio stations, while independent channels have gone off air.

Gen Musharraf is awaiting a Supreme Court ruling on whether he was eligible to run for re-election last month while remaining army chief.

Pakistan has been engulfed in political upheaval in recent months, and the security forces have suffered a series of blows from pro-Taleban militants opposed to Gen Musharraf's support for the US-led "war on terror".

The BBC's Barbara Plett reports from Islamabad that fears have been growing in the government that the Supreme Court ruling could go against Gen Musharraf.

Land and mobile telephone lines are down in Islamabad, reports say.

There has been violent unrest building for months and people have forced Musharraf to reinstate a judge:

[Chief Justice] Chaudhry has in recent years passed several judgements against the government.

President Pervez Musharraf tried to sack him last March, provoking a storm of protests from Pakistan's legal community and opposition parties.

Brief history of Pakistan:

The story of Pakistan is one of remorseless tug and pull between the civilian and military rulers on the one hand, and the liberal and religious forces on the other.

In the process, the country has failed to become either a democracy, a theocracy or a permanent military dictatorship.

The chief casualties have been the rule of law, the state institutions and the process of national integration, with grave consequences for the civil society.

The "Talebanisation" of the north-western region is one manifestation of the prevalent disorder; an unending separatist campaign by nationalists in the south-western Balochistan province is another.

Meanwhile, sectarian and ethnic tensions have kept the two largest provinces - namely Punjab, which is the bread-basket of the country, and Sindh, which is its trading and industrial mainstay - perennially instable.

Obviously Musharraf feels he must clamp down to stop the unrest and the attacks on the military, but this is going to turn Pakistan into a pressure cooker.

And Pakistan has nukes.

Update:

Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf has today declared emergency rule in a desperate bid to shore up his flagging rule, plunging the country into crisis and triggering angry condemnation at home and abroad.

Musharraf suspended the constitution and fired the chief justice, Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhry, who spearheaded a powerful mass movement against him earlier this year. Troops entered the Supreme Court in the late afternoon where Chaudhry and six other judges declared illegal his declaration that he would rule under a provisional constitutional order. Chaudhry was reportedly under house arrest.

Police sealed off the main street in central Islamabad and soldiers entered the state television and radio buildings. Private news networks went off air and mobile phone coverage was intermittent. Musharraf is due to address the nation on state television tonight.

Western allies of Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons, were horrified. The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, said she was 'deeply dismayed' and Whitehall expressed 'grave concern'.

Kinda like Abu Ghraib?

Where the low ranking officers get punished but not the people who were responsible for the action itself?

Washington, DC (AHN) - The U.S. Air Force plans to relieve four officers of duty after an incident where six nuclear-armed cruise missiles were lost. The missiles were flown across the the country in a B-52 bomber.

More than 60 Air Force personnel have had their nuclear security clearances taken away because of the incident. Defense Department officials say procedures for handling such missiles were not followed.

The cruise missiles were supposed to be carrying dummy warheads and were to have been transferred from North Dakota's Minot Air Force Base to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

Six of the missiles, though, had nuclear warheads with more than 50 times the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. The missiles also reportedly sat in the plane for hours before the mistake was discovered.

Or are these officers being punished only because the story was leaked to the press? Have the higher-ups answered the question as to WHY they were being shifted in the first place against international law? Does this have anything to do with Cheney and Iran?

Can Pakistan survive Musharraf?

The world is watching with bated breath:



Pakistan's Supreme Court is in conflict with the Pakistan government:

Islamabad, Pakistan (AHN) - The government of Pakistan was ordered by the country's Supreme Court to release at least 100 opposition workers who were arrested at the weekend to stop protests against President Pervez Musharraf, officials said on Friday.

Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry gave the order after summoning officials to the high court. Chaudhry is well known opposition icon since Musharraf failed to sack him in March.

The activists ordered released were seized after threatening to hold demonstrations against Musharraf's plans to be re-elected as president for another five years in a poll on Oct. 6.

Javed Hashmi, the acting chief of exiled former premier Nawaz Sharif's Pakistan Muslim League party, and several key leaders of hard-line Islamic parties is expected to be freed a senior police office, who was present during the special hearing, said on Friday.

The police officer said the detainees were taken into custody for the maintenance of public order. The move was highly condemned by the United States, a well know Musharraf ally, stating that such arrest were extremely uncalled for and disturbing. The European Union and Canada also expressed concern.

The government justified such move claiming that the opposition had threatened institutions including the Supreme Court and the Election Commission.

During Musharraf's filing of nomination for the presidential election on Thursday Pakistani authorities clamped tight security on the capital blocking all roads into the capital.

Yet Musharraf has obtained 'permission' to keep his uniform:

Pakistan's Supreme Court says President Pervez Musharraf can stand for election next week despite still being head of the country's army.

It dismissed a number of legal challenges to his right to hold both posts at the same time.

Gen Musharraf registered for the forthcoming ballot on Thursday.

The main opposition alliance say it will boycott the poll. The president is chosen by the national parliament and the four provincial assemblies.

Friday's verdict is a serious blow to opposition parties, especially as the Supreme Court has handed down a number of key verdicts against the government in recent years.

And Musharraf's opponents wait eagerly in the wings:

By announcing her return to the country a month in advance, Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto seems to be taking one last chance with the government.

For a year she has been talking to the country's military ruler, President Pervez Musharraf, to work out a formula for free and fair elections and the return of democracy to the country.

But talks have stalled.

On Friday, her Pakistan People's Party (PPP) announced that she would return to the country on 18 October, deal or no deal.

Even though the end result might be forced and immediate deportation like what Sharif experienced.

Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and the Taliban grow stronger:

Islamabad, Pakistan (AHN) - A soldier was killed, while 12 others were wounded after a roadside bomb hit a Pakistani security force convoy on Friday in the northwestern region.

Major General Waheed Arshad, Chief Military Spokesman said the convoy was travelling between the towns of Tank and Dera Ismail Khan when they it was attacked.

If Pakistan explodes, the nukes will be up for grabs. Just so you know....

Questions need to be asked

About the B-52 with nukes.



Larry Johnson of TPM Cafe:

Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?

His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes. That is something else.

Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can’t think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers. What the hell is going on? Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don’t know, but it is a question worth asking.

Is anyone in Congress going to stop this seemingly inevitable war with Iran? Anyone brave enough to say no to Bush and Cheney and the Neocon agenda? Anyone?