The probligo with Curtiss XF6-C6 (The Page monoplane). Yeah colour is wrong, it is unfinished, but it flew. 

The Left and Right View of the same news...

Hmm, how did I miss this one…

U.K. Guardian

US intelligence fears Iran duped hawks into Iraq war

· Inquiry into Tehran's role in starting conflict
· Top Pentagon ally Chalabi accused

Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday May 25, 2004
The Guardian

An urgent investigation has been launched in Washington into whether Iran played a role in manipulating the US into the Iraq war by passing on bogus intelligence through Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, it emerged yesterday.
Some intelligence officials now believe that Iran used the hawks in the Pentagon and the White House to get rid of a hostile neighbour, and pave the way for a Shia-ruled Iraq.
According to a US intelligence official, the CIA has hard evidence that Mr Chalabi and his intelligence chief, Aras Karim Habib, passed US secrets to Tehran, and that Mr Habib has been a paid Iranian agent for several years, involved in passing intelligence in both directions.
The CIA has asked the FBI to investigate Mr Chalabi's contacts in the Pentagon to discover how the INC acquired sensitive information that ended up in Iranian hands.
The implications are far-reaching. Mr Chalabi and Mr Habib were the channels for much of the intelligence on Iraqi weapons on which Washington built its case for war.
"It's pretty clear that Iranians had us for breakfast, lunch and dinner," said an intelligence source in Washington yesterday. "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the US for several years through Chalabi."
Larry Johnson, a former senior counter-terrorist official at the state department, said: "When the story ultimately comes out we'll see that Iran has run one of the most masterful intelligence operations in history. They persuaded the US and Britain to dispose of its greatest enemy."
Mr Chalabi has vehemently rejected the allegations as "a lie, a fib and silly". He accused the CIA director, George Tenet, of a smear campaign against himself and Mr Habib.
However, it is clear that the CIA - at loggerheads with Mr Chalabi for more than eight years - believes it has caught him red-handed, and is sticking to its allegations.
"The suggestion that Chalabi is a victim of a smear campaign is outrageous," a US intelligence official said. "It's utter nonsense. He passed very sensitive and classified information to the Iranians. We have rock solid information that he did that."
"As for Aras Karim [Habib] being a paid agent for Iranian intelligence, we have very good reason to believe that is the case," added the intelligence official, who did not want to be named. He said it was unclear how long this INC-Iranian collaboration had been going on, but pointed out that Mr Chalabi had had overt links with Tehran "for a long period of time".
An intelligence source in Washington said the CIA confirmed its long-held suspicions when it discovered that a piece of information from an electronic communications intercept by the National Security Agency had ended up in Iranian hands. The information was so sensitive that its circulation had been restricted to a handful of officials.
"This was 'sensitive compartmented information' - SCI - and it was tracked right back to the Iranians through Aras Habib," the intelligence source said.
Mr Habib, a Shia Kurd who is being sought by Iraqi police since a raid on INC headquarters last week, has been Mr Chalabi's righthand man for more than a decade. He ran a Pentagon-funded intelligence collection programme in the run-up to the invasion and put US officials in touch with Iraqi defectors who made claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Those claims helped make the case for war but have since proved groundless, and US intelligence agencies are now scrambling to determine whether false information was passed to the US with Iranian connivance.
INC representatives in Washington did not return calls seeking comment.
But Laurie Mylroie, a US Iraq analyst and one of the INC's most vocal backers in Washington, dismissed the allegations as the product of a grudge among CIA and state department officials driven by a pro-Sunni, anti-Shia bias.
She said that after the CIA raised questions about Mr Habib's Iranian links, the Pentagon's Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) conducted a lie-detector test on him in 2002, which he passed with "flying colours".
The DIA is also reported to have launched its own inquiry into the INC-Iran link.
An intelligence source in Washington said the FBI investigation into the affair would begin with Mr Chalabi's "handlers" in the Pentagon, who include William Luti, the former head of the office of special plans, and his immediate superior, Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defence for policy.
There is no evidence that they were the source of the leaks. Other INC supporters at the Pentagon may have given away classified information in an attempt to give Mr Chalabi an advantage in the struggle for power surrounding the transfer of sovereignty to an Iraqi government on June 30.
The CIA allegations bring to a head a dispute between the CIA and the Pentagon officials instrumental in promoting Mr Chalabi and his intelligence in the run-up to the war. By calling for an FBI counter-intelligence investigation, the CIA is, in effect, threatening to disgrace senior neo-conservatives in the Pentagon.
"This is people who opposed the war with long knives drawn for people who supported the war," Ms Mylroie said.

Given that this kind of story sorta floats in the headwaters for some while before washing to us lower peoples, is the raid on Chalabi any great surprise?
So, I thought I would take a sniff at the right wing view of the same story…

Newsmax

WASHINGTON — Iraqi Governing Council member Ahmad Chalabi , once a favored Iraqi exile of the American government, denied accusations Sunday that he passed secrets to Iran -- and challenged CIA director George Tenet to a verbal duel before Congress.
"These charges are being put out by George Tenet. Let him come to Congress. I will come to Congress, and I will lay everything on the table. Let Congress decide," Chalabi said on "Fox News Sunday."
Chalabi claimed that the CIA has been trying to discredit him and that Tenet was behind the accusations of spying for Iran.
Calling the charges absurd, a U.S. intelligence official told Reuters that Chalabi's willingness to testify under oath before Congress "would be viewed as a positive development."
Chalabi admitted to Fox News that his Iraqi National Congress group had met with agents of the Iranian government. He said he met with Iranian representatives some time about one-and-a-half months ago -- adding that all members of the Iraqi Governing Council regularly meet with officials from the Iranian Embassy in Baghdad.
"Indeed we have had many meetings with the Iranian government, but we have passed no secret information, no classified documents to them from the United States," Chalabi said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Last week, Defense officials announced that the Pentagon had stopped monthly payments of about $340,000 to the Iraqi National Congress.
Time magazine reported that the FBI was probing whether U.S. officials illegally transmitted secrets to the INC.
"... we have not had any classified information given to us by the United States," Chalabi said on NBC.
Chalabi also claimed on the Sunday talk shows that the U.S. government had turned against him because he had been vocally opposing many facets of the Coalition Provisional Authority's occupation of Iraq -- after having supported the U.S.-led invasion.
"I have become a person who is calling for complete sovereignty in Iraq," he told ABC.
Also on ABC, Chalabi deflected charges that he misled the U.S. on intelligence concerning weapons of mass destruction before the war with defectors who made overly strong cases. He claimed the INC introduced three defectors to different agencies of the U.S. government.
"It was up to them to analyze this [information], and the responsibility for reporting to the president after analyzing the information is not mine," Chalabi said on ABC.

Iran Admits Close Chalabi Ties, Denies Spy Charges
Iran acknowledged Sunday it had a strong dialogue with Chalabi, but rejected accusations that he passed classified intelligence to Iran. Chalabi's long-standing contacts with Iran have left some in the U.S. government suspicious about his intentions.
His home and offices were raided by Iraqi police backed by American soldiers on Thursday, and Chalabi is now embroiled in a public battle with the U.S.-run occupation authority. He has become a harsh critic of Washington's Iraq policies.
"We had continuous and permanent dialogue with Chalabi and other members of the Iraqi Governing Council," Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said at a press conference. "But spying charges are unfounded and baseless. It's not true at all."
"We didn't receive any confidential information from Chalabi or any other member of the Iraqi Governing Council," Asefi said.
American allegations against Chalabi, he said, were an attempt to shift attention from the scandal surrounding the abuse of Iraqi prisoners and Washington's increasing problems in Iraq.
"To overshadow its increasing problems in Iraq and get rid of pressures resulting from the prisoner abuse scandal ... the U.S. is making false accusations," Asefi said.
"In the past months, Americans have said many lies and failed to come up with evidence for their allegations," he said, apparently referring to U.S. accusations that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction, a charge Washington failed to prove.
Chalabi once was being groomed by the United States as a possible successor to Saddam. However, the U.S. State Department did not share the Pentagon's enthusiasm for him, and Chalabi became a liability after no significant weapons of mass destruction were found in post-war Iraq.
Such weapons were cited by the United States and Britain as the primary justification for the Iraq war, and Chalabi's network of Iraqi exiles in the Iraqi National Congress had provided the Bush administration intelligence reports of their existence.
On Saturday, a senior Iraqi official alleged that Chalabi's security chief, Araz Habib, was wanted by Iraqi and coalition authorities for alleged links to Iran's intelligence service.
Habib, a Shiite Kurd, was being sought under an arrest warrant because "he has relations with the Iranian government" and "works for the Iranian intelligence," the official said in Baghdad on condition of anonymity. Chalabi has defended his aide.

Well, there it is…somewhere in there is the truth.

The differences between Guardian and Fox are perhaps slight, but very subtle. In both cases there are key elements of the story attributed to anonymous but key figures. In both cases there are direct quotes from named sources.

Perhaps the biggest difference though is the amount of space that Fox gives to Chalabi himself, and the Iranian government. I can hear the right arguing the truth comes from those involved. I can hear that and my head says “vested interest” for both parties. Chalabi, because of what he has already lost, how much more he can lose, and what he thinks he can gain. The Iran government because they have been caught with honey on their paw.

Nah, there is too much smoke here, and most of it is coming from Fox. There is nothing one can call “mistruth”, there is much which is interpretive.

Most significant difference in my view?

The Guardian starts by stating that the Iranian government passed false intelligence through Chalabi and INC to Washington…

In the Fox article, the Iranian government denies that Chalabi passed intelligence to them.

Nice, subtle, and revealing…

This "under age sex" law does not get any better, despite the fact that the Government has now announced that the proposed change is to be withdrawn from the Bill.

One of the links I have is to Mediawatch, a NZ news and media analysis programme that I listen to frequently (right lads, there's your plug...:) )

On this morning's (Sunday 30 May ) programme the progression of this law change through the media was discussed. The analysis was not at all friendly, but rather than second guess I suggest that you read the transcript when (if) it is published on their site. BTW much of what they have said I agree with and included in my previous post, but that is beside the point for what follows.

In announcing the withdrawal of the proposed provision, Phil Goff gave ( for the very first time that I can recall ) a full and cogent explanation of what the new law was intended to achieve. A bit late in the day, Phil.

I still have a problem with it though, and it is a problem that no one has yet aired in public, at least not from my reading.



If the law had been passed as I understand its proposed form, it would have removed any criminality from sexual intercourse between children where one or both were under the age of 16 and over 12 provided that the age difference was 2 years or less. Given that would have been the law...

A 13 y-o gets pregnant to her 14 y-o "boyfriend" at a beach barbeque on New Years Eve. Under the new law there would be no criminal act involved.

But has anyone given thought to the reaction the parents might have when they find out their daughter is pregnant?

The original act might have been totally consensual and hence not a criminal act under the proposed law.

But do you honestly think that the girl's parents would accept that?

The result would be enormous parental pressure on the girl to say that the intercourse was not consensual.

Following from that, where do we go next?

Non-consensual sex at any age is rape. Is that what we want the 14 y-o boy to be charged with?

Apply the new law? That only removes criminality where the intercourse is consensual. We have the girl saying (under parental "guidance") that the act was not consensual. Do the police now have any discretion on the resulting charges (as they do at the moment with the "bad, incomplete) law?

Charge the girl with perjury and laying a false complaint if her evidence that the intercourse was not consensual is proven wrong?

So, the proposal also seems flawed at its very base, because far from removing potential criminality from consenting partners, it would have had the probability of leading one or both into criminal proceeding as bad if not far worse than the present "police discretion" which if the reports have been true seems to operate reasonably well.

At least the present law, with all its problems and the discretion left to Police without the guidance of law, has been working. There has been no complaint; no lengthy appeals; no emotional pleas of justice not done or injustice done; appearing in the media, to my knowledge.

So can I presume that it does work, even if it is a probligo of sorts?

Just occasionally, there are events which remind me how fragile the principle of democracy truly is, even in this little country of ours.

The first hint came last year, when "in response to community pressure, and to set right inequities" Parliament began the debate on lowering the drinking age. That debate led eventually to a conscience vote of our representatives, and subsequently the lowering of the legal drinking age from 20 to 18.

The latest, and by far the most serious, began yesterday with a FRONT PAGE article drawing attention to the Crimes Amendment (No 2) Bill which is now being considered by the Law and Order Select Committee.

I can be brief about the matter that has caused all the kerfuffle because it has already been the subject of public outrage, Government retreats, weasel words from the Minister of Justice, and all of the other paraphernalia of a good old political stoush. It is, of course, the "age of sexual consent" debate.

So, if we leave out the emotive subject matter, forget for a moment about the rights and wrongs of children and criminality, what else is left?

Well friends, it is this.

If you take the time to visit the internet outlet of our Parliament - N.Z. Government- you will find all of the access that one needs to "monitor" exactly what is going on within our Parliament.

The next step is to take a look around, and a good place to start is "Bills before Select Committees." A couple of moments reading and we find it... Crimes Amendment (No 2) is before the Law and Order Select Committee. But what is this? Public submissions to the Bill closed on 14 April!

So a bit more digging is required. Finally what I am looking for... in "The Knowledge Basket", quite a way down the list I find the Crimes Amendment (No 2), dated 9 December 2003.

The picture, all things considered, is one of "business as usual".

Then, on Sunday, the Sunday Star Times broke the news. The initial news break.
So the public, or those who can be bothered, have had four months in which to make submissions to this Bill. That is plenty of time, three months if you take out the Christmas / New Year break. That is also not too different from the norm. Or have they? Tucked in the middle of the Star Times article; the Bill received its first reading, the start of the legislative process, in March!!!

This now puts a more concerning air to the way this has developed. Usually, at least I would expect, the time given for public submissions is judged from the expected level of concern. The longest that could have been allowed for this particular Bill is four weeks.

So, there is the first big concern. A Bill that usually makes no more than machinery changes to things like burglary law, the maximum penalty for rape, and such relatively "minor" matters is being used to make a change in a law that has our basic morality at its base.

But let us now take a step back for a moment. There is also a "machinery" that exists prior to the introduction of a Bill to the House. That machinery involves specialist lawyers, law "draughters", executive staff of government departments - all of these people in this instance in the Justice Dept.

It seems, if we can believe the Minister of Justice, that this particular piece of legal stupidity had its genesis in a concern that a child of twelve or thirteen could be found guilty of a criminal charge of underage sex. To commit such an innocent act and then be made a criminal is, apparently, an injustice of enormous proportions. Such a possibility must be expunged immediately from the law books.

Let us accept that for the moment.

Once the Bill has been drafted, the Minister responsible for the Bill has to be properly briefed on its content, its intended effect, and how that effect is going to be achieved through the language of the Bill.

This being the case, was Phil Goff - in all fairness to him - properly advised and briefed on the meaning and impact of this "small" change? Going by his reaction and responses to the Sunday Star Times it would seem that he thought he was...

"We're not condoning sex under 16 but we're saying we recognise it's a reality.

"If we were fastidious about prosecuting we'd be locking up thousands of teenagers and I don't think anybody in society would say that's a good response to the problem."

In most cases I think that a reasonable person could well agree with him. The reality is, however, that this legal nicety of sex with under-age children has occurred nine times last year as far as charges being laid and heard is concerned. All of those instances involved boys over the age of 16 up to 19 years, and girls under 16 years. The vast number of cases that have been reported have ended, again as a reasonable person might expect, with the police and perhaps CYF and other "counselling agencies" having a quiet word with the parents about what their kids should and should not be doing at that age.

So, there is the second big concern. How well was Goff prepared? Was he fully aware of the ramifications of this change to "the age of consent"? Was any consideration given to society's attitude to the existing law by the Department, the advisers, and eventually the Minister? Sadly, it would seem not.

Let us follow the political progress of a law change again - the introduction of the Bill to the House. Listening to the proceedings of Parliament on the radio one gets the impression that (like so much of what happens there) the matter at hand is of small consequence. They believe that the politics, the playground scrapping, is the House's most fundamental purpose.

Should we forgive the Opposition for missing the detail content of the Bill at this stage? Well, without knowing the very great detail of the process and without consulting the records of proceedings, that is a difficult one to call. As I said earlier, the Crimes Amendment Bill is more often than not routine small matters. Not a lot there to be concerned about.

So, my third concern is not perhaps so big, given what we have already looked at.

Following that little piece of machinery the Bill is referred to the relevant Select Committee. This is where the "work is done" we are always told.

It is here that we find the first real comment from H.M.'s Loyal Opposition.

Tony Riall, published Monday

"National MP and select committee member Tony Ryall said the committee did not have two options to choose from – it was Mr Goff's bill and it was approved by the Cabinet. "The select committee was told by the Ministry of Justice that the changes between 12 and 16-year-olds effectively decriminalised some sexual conducts for underage people and now Mr Goff is trying to backpedal from what he introduced into Parliament."

But, Mr Riall's comment is made, not to the Select Committee, not to initiate public debate, but in response to media reporters asking him the question. That questioning would be taking place well after Sunday Star Times had been on the street.

So here is my next concern, where was H.M.'s Loyal opposition? To be fair to them as well, they are now panting frantically after the bandwagon. It has gone past. The carousel has a full head of steam, and they are frantically trying to catch up.

The picture that is emerging in my head, and which I hope I am conveying to you the reader is that really, everyone went to sleep on this one until the Bill was well and truly embedded in the Select Committee.

Those directly involved will argue forcibly that that is the purpose of these Committees, to thoroughly examine new law and to ensure that bad law is corrected or removed. I agree, that is exactly their purpose.

What I do not think is a good idea is having the Minister in Charge of a Bill, Phil Goff in this case, continuing to justify what might have been a "good" idea with bad reasoning.

The remainder of the Bill, and a companion measure on sex crime sentences have very laudable objectives. Such matters as equating adult female - child male sex with the long standing crime of child rape adult male - female child. Good thinking that man!

The picture that emerges, from all of the local commentators, the politically "independant" gurus, is one of a Minister who has had his mind on things other than his main portfolio. Certainly Mr Goff has in the past displayed near faultless precision in the legislation he has guided through the House.

But, I guess, he is now feeling pretty much like the six or so warders at the AbuGhraib prison...

Oh, how badly has he let down the team.

It has been a while, no question.

There has been Easter, spent in Opo with lawns to mow, rellies to visit and be visited by, and one day for relaxation. Total relaxation it was too.

In the background has been brewing the topic for this "letter" - a matter of internal politics with very interesting ( or should that be "significant" ) international repercussions.

Despite this, there has been very little in the media since the news first broke on 21 April. That little factoid makes interesting speculation in its own right.

Because the reporting has been so sketchy, and commentary thin, there is little to back what I am looking to, but being more fool than angel, here goes...

____________________________________________________________

ABC NEWS 21/04/04

Austin: Can I ask you first of all, you’ve only just heard the news, I know, on “A.M.” this morning but the former Chief of Indonesia’s military forces, Gen. Wiranto, looks like he’s been voted by the Golkar Party to stand for the Presidency. That’s quite a significant move. Can I ask you first of all your reaction to it and how that will be regarded?
Downer: Actually, to tell you the truth I’d been assuming that Akbar Tandjung would be their candidate, so as it turns out they’ve gone for Gen. Wiranto. I guess that what it does is it reflects a view in some parts of Indonesia that they need to get back to strength and decisiveness in government and they would see Gen. Wiranto as a former head of the Indonesian military as that type of a person, but, look, -
Austin: Not for his embracing of peaceful military tactics and human rights?
Downer: Well, as we know, there are all sorts of allegations about him in relation to East Timor but I know Gen. Wiranto, not surprisingly, because during the course of 1999 it was Gen. Wiranto I spoke to on a number of occasions about our concerns of evolving violence in East Timor. Now, he always used to say to me that, well, you know, and I would make it clear to him that we had information that this was happening and he would always say, well, he’ll see what he can do about it, and he’ll do his best –
Austin: Did he keep his commitments to you?
Downer: Well, you know what happened in East Timor. What efforts did Gen. Wiranto make to try to stop it, to what extent was he involved, to what extent did he know what was happening, but not exercise command or could not exercise command. Those are issues that will be debated till the end of time, but just to make the point about Gen. Wiranto as a presidential candidate, we’ve been strong advocates and supporters of Indonesian democracy, spent about $15 million helping the Indonesians in their recent Parliamentary elections. It’s not for us to blurt out – doesn’t matter what we say in Australia – but to blurt out throughout Indonesia what we think about their candidates, they’ve got to make their own judgements.
Austin: Our advice is unwanted, particularly more so in the case of Gen. Wiranto?
Downer: Yes, that’s right. Well, if we started attacking Gen. Wiranto now that might turn out to be a bit of an election winner for him, so we just won’t comment. Megawati, President Megawati, is the incumbent. She’s going to have a tough job. Bambang Yudhoyono who’s the former coordinating Minister for Security who we’ve had a lot to do with and who was in Australia recently, he is a strong candidate, General. Wiranto will be a strong candidate and Amien Rais.
Austin: He’s likely to be a popular president, isn’t he. He’s seen as a strong man who in a sense installs a bit of dignity to Indonesia?
Downer: Gen. Wiranto? Well, I’m not going to get into commenting on that. Obviously, I’m not going to comment on the candidates beyond what I’ve said. I’ll tell you who they are, and I can tell you a bit about them but I won’t express any opinion about them. We’ll just leave that to the Indonesian people."
____________________________________________________________

So there is part of the story, and a reasonable analysis, from Australia. Our Minister Of Foreign Affairs Phil Goff was very circumspect and even less forthcoming than Downer.

The situation in Indonesia is that the Party which has a strong hold on the Parliamentary elections has selected as its Presidential candidate a General (Wiranto) who to this part of the world has a reputation that ranks alongside, or even further up the scale of war criminals than, Ariel Sharon. "Further up"? Remember that Wiranto has already been indicted by East Timor for war crimes, that he is on "Passport watch" by the US as an "undesirable" entrant.


That being the case, how much credence can be placed upon reports such as these -
________________________________________________________________
Malaysian Today

JAKARTA: The United States can work with former military chief Wiranto if he wins the Indonesian presidency despite his indictment for crimes against humanity, US ambassador Ralph Boyce said yesterday.
“We can work with anybody that comes out of a free (election) process,” Boyce told reporters.
“We’re not involved in selecting individual candidates, supporting or opposing individual candidates... it’s the election process that we care deeply about and it seems to be going very well.” Officials of the Golkar party founded by former dictator Suharto on Wednesday picked Wiranto as their candidate for the July 5 presidential election, sparking dismay among rights activists.
Golkar has claimed victory in the April 5 parliamentary election.
__________________________________________________________________

So, this will be an interesting news source over the next few weeks...

Jakarta News (English version)
______________________________________________________________

Added to the list of links is another - from one of my favourite radio programs. Perceptive ( I think) and with a wide range of comment. Take a look sometime...

http://www.mediawatch.co.nz
______________________________________________________________

There was a bulletin board which I inhabited, based around one of my pasttimes, which included a board called the "Trash Can". Sadly it is no longer ( well not at the moment) but it has ressurrected in the past.

Over the three or so years that I have been posting there, the contributors have come and gone but in recent times there have been perhaps no more than ten active members in the 'Can. Of those, probably seven are ex- US Forces, very right wing, and in many respects very defensive of everything American.

Here is hoping that it does its Lazarus act for the fourth or fifth time because there are one or two things I would dearly love to post there... very evil grin ... including an item from the UK (the Guardian) to the effect that President George Bush has been making a practice of having paid actors stand in for real journalists.

I am going to try and extract that from where it is - now that subscribed news pages are becoming the norm rather than exception.