Rumsfeld Speech on Terrorism Generates Controvers,The Defense Department has called on the Associated Press to correct a report that it says mischaracterized a speech by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday. But the AP is standing by the story and many other news organizations ran similar accounts of the speech.


Donald Rumsfeld speaking at the American Legion convention
Secretary Rumsfeld's speech to a veterans group drew parallels between the current conflict with terrorists and the period between World Wars I and II.

"It was a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among western democracies, when those who warned about a coming crisis, the rise of fascism and Nazism, they were ridiculed or ignored," said Donald Rumsfeld.

The secretary said today America faces a new type of fascism that, just as in the 1930s, can not be accommodated or appeased.

"This enemy is serious, lethal and relentless," he said. "But this is still not well recognized or fully understood. It seems that in some quarters, there is more of a focus on dividing our country than acting with unity against the gathering threats."

Rumsfeld asked a series of rhetorical questions, including this one.

"With the growing lethality and increasing availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that somehow, some way, vicious extremists can be appeased," asked Secretary Rumsfeld.

Secretary Rumsfeld specifically criticized the human rights group Amnesty International, as well as media coverage of the war in Iraq, saying it is focused too much on bad news. He said that could damage public support for what he sees as the broader struggle against violent extremism.

"That is important in any long struggle or long war, where any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere," he said.

In his report on the speech, Associated Press reporter Robert Burns, the senior newswire service reporter covering the Pentagon, said Secretary Rumsfeld had "accused critics of the Bush administration's Iraq and counter-terrorism policies of trying to appease" terrorists. A later version of the story noted that Rumsfeld had not specifically mentioned critics of the administration, but quoted the secretary as saying "many" have not learned history's lessons.

The Pentagon issued a statement saying the story "seriously mischaracterized" the secretary's remarks, and calling on the Associated Press to correct the story. On Wednesday, Pentagon Press Secretary Eric Ruff explained just what he thinks was wrong with the report.

"The mischaracterization comes from the reporting that said the secretary was accusing critics of the Bush administration of supporting appeasement or being appeasers," said Eric Ruff. "I'm paraphrasing. And that is not what was said by the secretary."

In response to an email inquiry, spokeswoman Linda Wagner said only that the Associated Press is standing by its story. She provided no other response to the Pentagon criticism and declined a request for an interview.

Other major news organizations also interpreted Secretary Rumsfeld's words as referring to administration critics, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today and CNN.

Democratic Party politicians responded angrily to the secretary's remarks, with some again calling for his resignation.

Secretary Rumsfeld has frequently spoken about what he sees as the high stakes of the war on terrorism, and the central role that the fighting in Iraq has in that broader conflict. President Bush is planning a series of speeches with a similar theme, starting Thursday.

Shuffling the pack, Heikal sees testing times ahead for America and Israel in the "new Middle East","I am optimistic, from a historical standpoint," Mohamed Hassanein Heikal told the Qatar-based pan-Arab satellite television station Al-Jazeera. Heikal was in his element. He rhapsodised in his grand old style of the quintessential Arab nationalist. He demonstrated once again a Messiah-like ability to communicate an uplifting vision for the Arab world.

One reason for hope, according to Heikal, is that the latest round of fighting in Lebanon shattered three myths. "First, it made a mockery of the American-Israeli security alliance in the region. Israel is incapable of fighting American wars by proxy," he told stunned presenter Jumana Numur, "Second, it shattered once and for all the myth of Israeli military invincibility. And, last but not least, it overturned theories about the local political scene in the countries of the region."

The Arab world's foremost political writer said that the region is entering a new "dangerous and extremely complex phase". Heikal's exposé strongly resonated in the Arab world where US foreign policy is loathed. "Lebanon has emerged as the laboratory for the new dynamic forces in the region."

By addressing rising fears about military escalation in the Middle East, Heikal derided the ineffectual response of Arab regimes.

"What I can't understand is that they objected to Israel's aggression in Lebanon but never raised an eyebrow over how to halt the aggression," Heikal explained. "The Arab regimes have many options, and not just waging war." While his criticism concerned Arab regimes in general, he reserved special retribution for the official Egyptian position. "Why didn't Egypt cut off oil and gas supplies to Israel, for instance?" he wondered.

"The war planted landmines in Lebanon -- political and confessional landmines. Lebanon deserves better from the Arabs. I am especially amazed at the Egyptian reaction. What did Egypt do but stand by idly as Lebanon was bombarded?"

Heikal struck a chord in Arab public opinion. He stressed a shift in domestic political, regional and international priorities. In the near term, American foreign policy will be dominated by conjuring up face-saving mechanisms to rectify the international crisis over Israel's savage and fruitless aggression against innocent Lebanese civilian targets.

With deadpan humour, Heikal prophesised an apocalypse of almost incomparable proportions. His prediction may sound quixotic, but it is plausible: "There will be much that Arab public opinion still wants to know. There are so many unanswered questions."

Heikal has always presented his proposals as the right decision for the Arab world, and most of his viewers concur. Perhaps it is the manner in which he outlines his philosophy of genuinely seeking the best interests of the Arab world that convinces.

The eventual Israeli departure from Lebanon was virtually inevitable. What happens next is of critical concern. "Unfortunately there is no consensus about how to improve matters," he said.

Sometimes a long-term view helps reveal the big picture. Washington is at a loss. Tel-Aviv is too. The policy agenda has been pitched beyond the immediate chaos in the wake of the Israeli brutish aggression against Lebanon.

"Perhaps the most revealing information to emerge from Heikal's encounter is Heikal's continued critical importance as the guru of Arab political dynamics," Mohamed El-Sayed Said, independent analyst at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, told Al-Ahram Weekly.

"Further, Heikal has a tremendous analytical capability. His analysis of the current situation is second to none. He is persistent and systematic. And, even more importantly never rhetorical," Said added.

"Heikal has a wide audience in Egypt and the Arab world. People understand that he has immense historical relevance. He has been the most prominent political writer and commentator in the Arab world since the 1940s. He was a close associate of the late president, Gamal Abdel-Nasser."

"Have no illusions," Heikal warned. "Hizbullah is ready for combat." If these trends are taken to their logical conclusions, a new Middle East is indeed in the making. Meanwhile, the US administration is honing a strategy to begin putting its "vision of a new Middle East" into action.

But how far can it go? Arab regimes cannot rehash the disastrous legacy of President George W Bush in the Middle East. The fragile foundations of the new Middle East envisioned by Bush simply cannot be.

"There is a new Sykes-Picot in the region -- except that Israel and the United States replace Britain and France. There is both chaos and change in the region," Heikal extrapolated. "Lebanon has become both the sacrificial lamb and the bellwether of the region."

The existential angst that has gripped the Arab world since the savage Israeli aggression in Lebanon is indication that there are new popular dynamics that are sidelining official viewpoints. There are signs of societal friction there as well. The most pro-Western regimes in the Arab world will be especially vulnerable.

Islamists will become more self-confident and will project their own ideology onto Western notions such as democracy, freedom and the rule of law.

If one looks at the region through American eyes, the Middle East is split along three axes: totalitarian, anti- American autocracies; friendly regimes attempting to institute democratic reforms (albeit half-heartedly); and a single viable and vibrant democracy, Israel. Nothing can be further from the truth. Yes, the region is replete with dictators who claim that they desire democratisation while retaining their grip on power.

"The contest will be intense, with varying players," Heikal noted. According to Heikal, America and Israel will face an exquisite dilemma in the months, maybe years, to come. "America and Israel know that the Lebanese resistance has achieved so much momentum that it cannot now be defeated through the course of this decade."

The trouble is that improving the conditions of life entails the strengthening of democracy across the region, with serious implications for the region's long-term outlook. Arab regimes now face a dilemma of their own. They have been left in no doubt that "redefining the Middle East" will be easier said than done.

Finally, the dozens of brainstorming sessions and bickering among Arab leaderships embody the kind of "Punch and Judy" politics Heikal insists that Arab leaders must resist.
Caption: Mohamed Hassanein Heikal
C a p t i o n : Mohamed Hassanein Heikal

Mr Ahmadinejad again insisted Iran's programme was peaceful
Iran's president has challenged US President George W Bush to a live TV debate on world affairs.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad accused the US and UK of abusing their "special privileges" and said a debate would let both sides air their views uncensored.

The White House called his suggestion a "diversion" from global concerns over Iran's nuclear programme.

Mr Ahmadinejad was speaking two days before a UN deadline for Iran to halt work on its nuclear programme.

He said Tehran had proposed a framework for further talks but said no-one could stop Iran having a peaceful programme.

"Peaceful nuclear energy is the right of the Iranian nation," he told a news conference.


The debate should be uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

"The Iranian nation has chosen that [course] based upon international regulations, it wants to use it and no-one can stop it."

He said Iran's response to an incentives package, offered by six nations in exchange for a halt to its nuclear programme, was an "exceptional opportunity" to resolve the dispute.

When asked if Iran would halt enrichment, he said any kind of dialogue "should be based upon the certain rights of the Iranian nation".

UN veto

"I suggest holding a live TV debate with Mr George W Bush to talk about world affairs and the ways to solve those issues," Mr Ahmadinejad told reporters.

"The debate should be uncensored in order for the American people to be able to listen to what we say and they should not restrict the American people from hearing the truth."


Iran shows no sign of halting its nuclear work

Iran and many other nations "are against America's practices in managing the world", he said, calling such practices unjust.

He accused both the US and UK of taking advantage of their "special privileges", saying he thought they were the "the origin of all disturbances in the world".

And he also questioned their right to a veto in the UN Security Council. "Isn't it time that international relations are founded on democracy and equal rights of the nations?" he went on.

But he did not rule out talks with the US in future, if certain conditions were met.

Mr Ahmadinejad's challenge to President Bush was dismissed by the White House.

"Talk of a debate is just a diversion from the legitimate concerns that the international community, not just the US, has about Iran's behaviour," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino was quoted by Reuters news agency as saying.

Sanctions

Iran has been given until 31 August to halt uranium enrichment - a possible route to nuclear weapons.

Earlier this week, Tehran had offered "serious talks" in response to a package of incentives put forward by the five permanent UN Security Council members and Germany.

Washington has proposed implementing sanctions if Iran fails to meet the deadline, while Russia has said such a move would be premature.

Mr Ahmadinejad said it was "unlikely" the Security Council would take action against Iran, and said "sanctions are not an issue".

"We have said everything in our response. I think the time to use the instrument of the Security Council has expired," he said.

Europe, U.N., won't face Iranian threat
Those who wax indignant at the supposed "unilateral" behavior of the United States in world affairs ought to consider the performance of the United Nations over the past two weeks. It was not a proud fortnight for the bureaucrats ensconced safely from the consequences of inaction in their glass and steel sanctuary on the East River.
First, the United States got Israel to agree to a cease-fire in its battle against Hezbollah with its promises of a bulked up peacekeeping force in southern Lebanon and the disarming of the terrorist organization. The cease-fire was so disadvantageous to the Israeli side that some analysts have concluded that Israel lost the war.

Hezbollah has responded to demands that it lay down its weapons with the curt reply of all schoolyard bullies - "Make me."

The peacekeeping force was to be 30,000 troops strong - 15,000 from the Lebanese army and 15,000 from U.N. members. But the prospect of standing between a fully armed Hezbollah and the Israeli army has led to some reconsideration among the Europeans, particularly the French, who were to have led the international peacekeeping force.

France was expected to make a significant contribution to the force. But President Jacques Chirac, citing a lack of guarantees of safety and rules of engagement for his troops, initially committed only 200.

"Of course one could see this as an opportunity for the EU to act, but the whole run-up to the war shows Europe's weakness in security and defense matters," Jan Joel Andersson, program director at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs,
"When the time comes to take off, great Europe slinks away," said an editorial on the front page of Rome newspaper La Repubblica.

Comments like those and an Italian offer to send thousands of troops to Lebanon wounded French pride. France will now provide 2,000 troops.

But don't expect the United Nations to enforce any of its high-sounding words about disarming the terrorists of Hezbollah.

"The troops are not going there to disarm Hezbollah. Let's be clear on that," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said.

That task, if it is ever going to happen, will fall to Israel, a nation that like the United States understands words mean nothing unless they are backed up by action.

Hezbollah, of course, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the fanatical regime running Iran. Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. To aid that effort, Iran is working on enriching uranium as a step toward building nuclear weapons.

The U.N. Security Council drafted a package of economic incentives offered to Iran in exchange for dropping the nuclear program. Iran was supposed to provide a definitive answer last week. But its reply essentially said, "Thank you for your offer. We'll consider it."

The United States wants to back up the offer with the threat of sanctions. But it appears unlikely the Security Council will go along.

It should be clear to even the most starry-eyed U.N. bureaucrat that the Iranian strategy is to dangle the carrot of negotiations before the West while it works feverishly to manufacture the stick. Once Iran has The Bomb, its interest in negotiating with the West will evaporate, likely along with several Israeli cities.

Iran and its Hezbollah minions represent a threat that the West will have to confront sooner or later. So far, the United Nations and its leading European members have shown no willingness to face that reality.

If the United States eventually has to confront Iran on its own, it won't be for lack of trying to build an effective, multilateral response to the threat.

Nasrallah sorry for scale of war
Nasrallah ordered the capture of the soldiers on 12 July
Hezbollah chief Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said he would not have ordered the capture of two Israeli soldiers if he had known it would lead to such a war.
"Had we known that the kidnapping of the soldiers would have led to this, we would definitely not have done it," he said in an interview on Lebanese TV.

He added that neither side was "heading towards a second round" of fighting.

More than 1,000 Lebanese died in the 34-day conflict which left much of southern Lebanon in ruins.

The Israeli offensive began after two Israeli soldiers were seized during a cross border raid by Hezbollah militants on 12 July.

Annan visit

"We did not think that there was a 1% chance that the kidnapping would lead to a war of this scale and magnitude," Sheikh Nasrallah said.

"Now you ask me if this was 11 July and there was a 1% chance that the kidnapping would lead to a war like the one that has taken place, would you go ahead with the kidnapping?

"I would say no, definitely not, for humanitarian, moral, social, security, military and political reasons.


Many thousands have been left homeless by the offensive
"Neither I, Hezbollah, prisoners in Israeli jails and nor the families of the prisoners would accept it."

Sheikh Nasrallah was speaking on the eve of a visit to Beirut by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to discuss the expanded UN peacekeeping force to be deployed in southern Lebanon.

A force of 15,000 soldiers, 7,000 of them from European Union states, will be deployed to maintain the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah.

The UN hopes to have some of the troops on the ground within a week, although the foreign minister of Finland - which currently holds the EU presidency - has said it will be two to three months before the whole force is deployed.

The force will be led by France until February, at which time Italy will take command.

Speaking in Brussels on Friday, Mr Annan said the plan would only work if the enlarged UN force, called Unifil 2, was "strong, credible and robust".

Mr Annan said the force offered the possibility of a "durable ceasefire and long-term solution" to the Middle East crisis.