A handy appendix, suitable for framing, lists the 236 individuals most involved in promoting the imperial ambitions of the US and its short list of allies. If we put four or five on each card we could make a special deck of playing cards to use for quick reference in the field.

This is not your usual left wing off-the-top-of-someone's-head BS. They describe their methods, provide an abundance of references (the references alone being worth the price of a download) and present supporting data in a very scientific manner. This is a joy to behold in a left political arena that seldom sees fit to do their homework much less describe the methods of arriving at their conclusions.

"We believe that by identifying the most important policy advocates and those corporate heads who have the most to gain from a global dominance policy that we can begin to establish the parameters of the individuals involved in the Global Dominance Group (GDG) among the HCPE [higher circle policy elites]. Knowing the general parameters of the GDG will provide an understanding of who had means, opportunity and motive to have initiated a post-9/11 acceleration of neo-conservative military expansion towards the goal of assuming full spectrum military dominance of the world. At the beginning of 2006 the Global Dominance Group's agenda is well established within higher circle policy councils and cunningly operationalized inside the US Government. They work hand in hand with defense contractors promoting deployment of US forces in over 700 bases worldwide."

Eisenhower warned us about these people, but this is not your fathers "military-industrial complex." Eisenhower's complex has been allowed to morph, unmolested over the decades, into a world shattering cabal. Peter and his friends lay out in their paper the visible dimensions of this cabal. There are undoubtedly many more secretive members, such as the leaders of organized crime families and religious groups, but these people are the identifiable agents of the program to destroy our world.

Peter, et al, conclude with a blunt warning:

"Without broad social movements and citizen unrest that threatens the stability of HCPE's socio-economic agendas and corporate profits there will be little if any serious challenge to the GDG."

So, be the first one on your block to have an official "enemies of earth" list. Maybe you can persuade grandma to sell off her stock in some of the war profiteering companies listed along with the names in this study. Or maybe think of something even better to do.

As well as the sanity of a majority of members of Congress.

Up until the eve of Bush's pre-emptive invasion of oil-rich Iran's Islamic neighbor – oil-rich Iraq – Bush et al. repeatedly stressed that "we" wanted to settle – through "diplomatic means, if at all possible" – the international "crisis" triggered by revelations by "Slam-Dunk" Tenet that Iraq had reconstructed its nuclear weapons program.

But, by March 2003, on-the-ground inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency knew – and so reported to the U.N. Security Council – that there was no "indication" whatsoever of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq.


Moreover, polls show that the majority of Americans now know what Tony Blair knew four years ago. Bush was determined to depose Saddam Hussein no matter what the IAEA inspectors found or didn't find.

Why?

Well, most Americans are still puzzled about "why."

But, most Americans now realize that Bush lied to them – that he didn't pre-emptively attack Iraq because he believed Saddam had nukes he planned to give to terrorists.

Of course, congressional leaders knew that all along.

And most members of Congress should have at least suspected when they voted overwhelmingly for the Authorization to Use Military Force Against Iraq that the presumption was false that:

Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations.

So, how to explain the adoption this week – by a vote of 404-4 – of House Concurrent Resolution 341 "condemning the government of Iran for violating its international nuclear nonproliferation obligations and expressing support for efforts to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council."

In particular, what "violations" are they talking about?

Whereas Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated, "It is obvious that if Iran cannot be brought to live up to its international obligations, in fact, the IAEA Statute would indicate that Iran would have to be referred to the U.N. Security Council."

OK, what "international obligations" is Condi talking about?

Well, it's not clear. But, Condi does refer to the IAEA Statute. So, the House assumes she must be referring to the safeguards agreement that Iran concluded with the IAEA way back in 1973.

Whereas on Feb. 4, 2006, the IAEA Board of Governors reported Iran's noncompliance with its IAEA safeguards obligations to the Security Council …

But, the House is mistaken. The IAEA Board didn't report any such thing. In fact, the Board didn't "report" anything.

Rather, the IAEA Board "requested" that Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei "report" to the Security Council the absolutely outrageous and discriminatory demands that the Board had made on several occasions, calling on Iran to – among other things – implement "transparency measures" which "extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, and include such access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual-use equipment, certain military-owned workshops, and research and development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations."

As of this writing, ElBaradei has made no such report and is unlikely to do so before late March. By then, of course, Bush will probably have already launched a pre-emptive attack against Iran.

What will be his authority?

[Congress] calls on all members of the United Nations Security Council … to expeditiously consider and take action in response to any report of Iran's noncompliance in fulfillment of the mandate of the Security Council to respond to and deal with situations bearing on the maintenance of international peace and security.

What Security Council mandate is Congress talking about?

Apparently the same one Bush didn't have when he 'took action' against Iraq.

March madness.

Physicist James Gordon Prather has served as a policy implementing official for national security-related technical matters in the Federal Energy Agency, the Energy Research and Development Administration, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Department of the Army. Dr. Prather also served as legislative assistant for national security affairs to U.S. Sen. Henry Bellmon, R-Okla. -- ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee and member of the Senate Energy Committee and Appropriations Committee. Dr. Prather had earlier worked as a nuclear weapons physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and Sandia National Laboratory in New Mexico.

Iranian and Russian officials held two days of talks in Moscow this week on a Russian proposal to enrich uranium for Iran, seen as a way of ensuring Tehran cannot divert nuclear fuel into bomb making.

Tehran has said it will consider a joint venture with Russia, and possibly others, to enrich uranium for power stations. But it reserves the right to pursue enrichment at home as well.

"The proposed Russian variant of resolving this question, by creating a joint venture to enrich uranium on Russian territory, is fully acceptable and can be used as an instrument to solve this problem," Putin said.

In Tehran, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani described the negotiations with Russia as constructive and positive and said they would continue in Iran later this week.

"The Russian proposal is the kind of proposal that could be completed in the future ... We hope this proposal develops the capacity to solve Iran's nuclear case," the official IRNA news agency quoted him as saying.

Then why does the media keep insisting that Iran is being called before the Security Council for noncompliance?

Could it be that the media is simply executing an agenda that is deliberately designed to deceive?

There was no "referral" and there will be no "punitive action" because there are no violations. "Rather", as Prather ads, "the IAEA Board 'REQUESTED' that Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei report to the Security Council"…"calling on Iran to-among other things-implement 'transparency measures'".

These "transparency measures" have nothing to do with Iran's obligations under the NPT. They are additional demands made at the behest of the Bush administration (through strong-arm tactics with nations on the IAEA Board) that will force Iran to provide access to "individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual-use equipment, certain military owned workshops, and research and development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations".

What does this mean?

It means that the Bush administration, which has already demonstrated its hostile intentions towards Iran, will be able to operate secretly behind its surrogates in the IAEA to locate all of Iran's conventional weapons sites, radar facilities, and military installations so they can easily destroy Iran's defensive capability when the inevitable attack is launched.

Isn't this the same trap that Saddam fell into?

So, why is the IAEA facilitating another war by placating the Bush administration instead of condemning its obvious belligerence?

The IAEA members are well-aware of the propaganda that is currently circulating in the wire-services and newspapers. Why are they playing along?

Do they really believe that war can be averted by capitulation to the superpower?

Iran has not violated the NPT, does not have a nuclear weapons program, and poses no threat to its neighbors or the United States. Never the less, the spurious accusations in the media have precipitated a dramatic shift in public opinion. For more than a decade only 6% of the American people considered Iran the "greatest danger" to the United States. Now (according to a recent Pew Poll) that number has jumped to 27%. Also, the survey showed that "nearly half (47%) said they favored military action, preferably along with European allies, to halt Iran's nuclear program." (Jim Lobe, "Polls: anti-Iran Propaganda Working")

"Military action"? Even while the US is bogged down in an unwinnable war in Iraq?

Can anyone seriously doubt the shocking power of propaganda after seeing these polling results?

The public should not be worried about Iran, rather, it should be concerned about the implications of allowing one nation to arbitrarily repeal internationally-accepted treaties and dictate how the world will be run.

Iran has an "inalienable right" to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the terms of its treaty agreement. It should reject the attempt to overturn its legally-binding contract, just to appease its enemies in Washington.

Iran is not a pariah or a rogue-nation. It should fight to be treated equally and with justice.

The United States has steadfastly refused to provide Iran with any security-guarantees that it will not attack if so chooses. In fact, Iran was originally duped into negotiating with the EU-3 (Germany, France, England) because it believed that the talks might deliver a non-aggression pact between themselves and the Bush administration. The administration, however, does not believe in treaties and will not "lower itself" to sign agreements with those it feels are its inferiors.

There is nothing Iran can do to forestall the approaching war. The Washington warlords believe they are entitled to the vast oil wealth of the Caspian Basin and will not be deterred by the facts. Iran would be better off ignoring the ineffectual maneuverings of the feckless United Nations, and preparing itself for the struggle ahead.

They also know it's a long shot: Many are running against incumbents in safe Republican districts. Many also face competitive primaries against Democratic opponents with more political experience and access to money.

Among the Democratic vet candidates, 10 have served in either Afghanistan or the current Iraq war, or both. Only one - Maj. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, who is competing for the seat of retiring Republican Henry Hyde - was recruited by the national Democratic Party. Political handicappers give her the best shot at making it to Washington of all the Democratic vets running. Handicappers also mention Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania - an Iraq vet trying to unseat a first-term Republican, Mike Fitzpatrick, in a Democratic-leaning district - as having potential, though fundraising has been slow.

The only other Democratic Iraq war vet with a national political profile, Paul Hackett of Ohio, dropped out of his US Senate race Feb. 14 under pressure from party leaders. They wanted to avoid a costly primary and instead steered Mr. Hackett back to a second try at the House seat he almost won last year. His surprise near-victory in a special election for a presumed safe Republican seat earned him national notice - and may have inspired other Democratic war vets to jump into politics.

Mike Lyon, who launched the Band of Brothers political action committee in December, has found the going tough. He's raised only $40,000 so far.

"If resources continue to flow the same way, not many [will win] - I'm being frank," says Mr. Lyon, who is based in Richmond, Va. "But if we can go out and build awareness about their campaigns and provide resources to level the playing field for the November general [election], then I think a lot of these guys will be competitive. We're still getting the lay of the land."

Analysts agree that the novice candidates have their work cut out for them. They have to develop a full congressional agenda, campaigning ability, and networking skills that show they're ready for prime time. Being a Johnny-one-note against the war isn't enough, say political observers.

"They're running for Congress, not commander in chief," says Amy Walter, a specialist in House races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. "Obviously, Iraq's an important issue, but at the same time, they need be able to talk about healthcare, the economy, gas prices."

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which recruits and helps candidates the party believes can win, has not made a special effort to recruit Iraq war vets, says spokeswoman Sarah Feinberg. "What we have done is to recruit the best possible candidate in every district," she says.

But as the election year unfolds - including Republican-dominated scandals and low presidential popularity - analysts don't rule out the potential for a national wave that could make some usually safe seats competitive. GOP control of the House remains slim, with 230 Republicans, 202 Democrats, 1 independent, and two vacancies.

"The Democrats' best chance of winning a majority is to expand the playing field beyond the three dozen or so [seats] that have been in play in recent years," says Rhodes Cook, an independent political analyst. Candidates with the Iraq credential could end up being "a twofer for the Democrats. Not only do they have the goodwill of the recent Iraq war vet, but [they] also help offset a party weakness, which is being kind of light on defense."

The Republicans have one Iraq war vet running for Congress, Van Taylor of Texas, who is trying to knock off Rep. Chet Edwards (D). Carl Forti, spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee, says 38 Republicans with military experience are running for Congress. When asked if any of the Democratic vets pose a threat to any Republicans, his answer is simple: "Zero."

Still, "being a vet is a good résumé item to have," says Mr. Forti. "It brings a certain level of approval."

An al-Qa'eda "mujahed brother" is paid a monthly wage of 1,000 Pakistani rupees (about £10 at current rates) if a bachelor, 6,500 rupees (£65) if married, with an additional 500 rupees (£5) for every child. Air fares for home leave are paid for by the firm. Tickets cannot be cashed in but are transferable for performing the Haj pilgrimage.

The contract is one of thousands of documents captured by US forces, mostly in Afghanistan and Iraq during the past four years of the "global war on terror", and stored on a Pentagon database known as Harmony.

An initial sample of 28 have been declassified and published by the Combating Terrorism Centre (CTC), part of the US Military Academy at West Point, with the promise of many more to come.

They provide a fascinating glimpse into the workings of Osama bin Laden's organisation. For example, according to the CTC, the material "provides several tools for identifying and exacerbating existing fissures" within al-Qa'eda.

The declassified Harmony papers include documents that set out the internal structure of al-Qa'eda and illuminate disputes over tactics. They also analyse past failures such as the crushing of an Islamist uprising in Syria in 1982, speculate on new regions for jihad and discuss the use of the internet.

Many were clearly written before the September 2001 attacks and the fall of the Taliban. However, some reveal dismay over the loss of al-Qa'eda's bastion in Afghanistan.

One hitherto unknown writer, Abdel-Halim Adl, wrote to a man identified only as "Mukhtar" in June 2002 complaining of Osama bin Laden's stubbornness and "the capture of a large number of brothers". He said: "We will become the laughing stock of the world."

He urges al-Qa'eda to "stop rushing into action and take time out to consider all the fatal and successive disasters that have afflicted us during a period of no more than six months". All too often little is known about the documents - such as when they were written, who read them and how they were obtained.

Nevertheless, West Point academics argue that they add significantly to the body of knowledge about al-Qa'eda. "The overwhelming majority of the documents, to the best of our knowledge, have not been publicly available," said Jarret Brachman, the CTC director of research.

The Harmony database is also the subject of dispute in Congress over demands that tape recordings of Saddam Hussein be fully released.

The most striking Harmony documents so far are those that reveal al-Qa'eda's personnel policies. The "employment contract" lists many requirements of recruits: obedience, secrecy, avoiding all links to other groups, being physically healthy, having integrity on matters of religion and morality and reciting the pledge to al-Qa'eda. This includes: "I pledge by God's creed to become a Muslim soldier to support God's religion, and may God's word be the most supreme."

The contract is of unknown origin but matches a draft of al-Qa'eda "by-laws".

This stipulates extra pay of 700 rupees a month for each additional wife as well as 20,000 rupees for married members to buy furniture, free health care and rehabilitation for the disabled.

The by-laws describe al-Qa'eda's organisation, headed by an "emir" and a "command council", which in turn oversee an "external relations branch" and "executive council", a military committee", a "security committee" and a "political committee".

Similar documents state that the military committee has a special "nuclear weapons" section, but there are no further details on this.

The job descriptions and qualities of al-Qa'eda members are set out in detail.

To qualify as "emir", the leader (presumably bin Laden) should not be "too anxious to be an emir", must have "adequate knowledge to qualify him to carry out the responsibilities" and must have "comprehension of jihad".

The chairman of the military committee must be, among other things, older than 40 and "a university graduate, preferably from a military academy". The head of the personal guards "must not be one from one of the Gulf countries or from Yemen", perhaps reflecting a fear of penetration by intelligence services.

One bundle of documents includes a long series of questions submitted by recruits to bin Laden, usually referred to as Sheikh Abu Abdallah. They range from appeals for news about jihadi action to requests for religious rulings.

It is unclear how much of this formal structure reflects the reality of al-Qa'eda in its heyday and whether any of it has survived the dispersal from Afghanistan.

If al-Qa'eda was once regarded by western intelligence agencies as a "holding company" for Islamic extremist groups, the leadership hiding along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan

is now seen merely as a "franchise". The "core" al-Qa'eda no longer directs operations, but splinters, associates and newly-formed groups adopt the "brand".

Al-Qa'eda, meaning "The Base", has recreated its home in cyberspace, from where propagandists motivate recruits and commanders share tactics.

Mr Brachman said he "strongly" believed that some extremist groups, such as al-Qa'eda's branch in Saudi Arabia or Jemaah Islamiya in south-east Asia, still used formal contracts.

Al-Qa'eda's attention to publicity and the potential of the internet are apparent from an early date.

A memo to bin Laden penned by "Abu Huthayfa" in Kandahar in June 2000 stresses the importance of a better propaganda effort. He praises bin Laden as a "star", but complains that al-Qa'eda suffers from "a political vacuum".

He bemoans the lack of information about al-Qa'eda's role in driving the US out of Somalia, the failure to launch the "World Islamic Front against the Jews and Crusaders" and ignorance as to who was behind the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

He says al-Qa'eda should copy the tactics of Hamas in recording a video testament before suicide bombings.

Abu Huthayfa highlights a recurring obsession of the jihadi movement: its failure to win popular support and overthrow any Arab regime.

He notes the "failure of the experiment" in holy war in Libya.

Failure is the central theme of Abu Musab al-Suri, the nom-de-guerre of Mustafa Setmariam Nasar, particularly his detailed analysis of the Islamist uprising in Syria that was crushed by the late Hafez al-Assad in 1982.

This document has been seen on the internet, but CTC researchers say its importance has been underestimated.

They use it to recommend a series of counter-measures, from planting disinformation on the internet to supporting al-Qa'eda's ideological rivals.

Al-Suri, who has Spanish citizenship, is reported to have been arrested in Pakistan last November. He was accused of running a training camp in Afghanistan, experimenting with chemical weapons and setting up sleeper cells in Europe.

The Syrian uprising that he describes was crushed when the Ba'athist regime in Damascus levelled parts of the town of Hama in 1982, killing thousands.

But al-Suri identifies many crippling problems, including: leaders engaged in political infighting rather than the jihad; lack of Islamic instruction for fighters; and dependence on outside financing.

"Despite the heroic acts of the mujahideen they failed miserably," he writes. "Their only accomplishment was to prove their readiness for martyrdom."

The challenge for the US, Britain and its allies is to use al-Qa'eda's own documents to ensure the current generation of jihadis also fails.

Even so, the case appears to be the first time that suspects on U.S. soil, rather than in Europe or the Middle East, have been charged with attempting to directly aid the insurgency in Iraq.

The men are accused of spending more than a year downloading militant videos, taking weapons training, and trying to acquire or build explosives. They could face life in prison if convicted of the most serious charge, conspiracy to kill Americans abroad. They are also charged with providing material support to terrorists.

The defendants are Mohammad Zaki Amawi, 26, a citizen of the United States and Jordan; Marwan Othman el-Hindi, 42, of Toledo, a U.S. citizen; and Wassim I. Mazloum, 24, of Toledo, a permanent legal resident who co-owns a Toledo auto dealership with his brother. In addition to the terrorism counts, Amawi is also charged with twice making verbal threats against Bush, court documents show.

The three were indicted last week, but the document was not unsealed until yesterday. They were arrested over the weekend and pleaded not guilty yesterday in federal courts in Cleveland and Toledo, according to the Associated Press. Attempts to reach their attorneys were unsuccessful.

The indictment and prosecutors allege that the three men discussed how to build and use improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, which have emerged as the biggest threat to U.S. troops battling the insurgency in Iraq. Amawi explicitly stated that he hoped to target the U.S. military with IEDs, according to the government.

"We cannot wait until an attack happens," Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said yesterday at a Washington news conference. "We will continue to use our criminal laws as Congress intended, to charge individuals once they conspire to provide support to terrorism or conspire to kill abroad."

Gonzales did not answer directly when asked whether the government's controversial warrantless surveillance program was used in the case.

While Europe has become a major staging ground for radical extremists seeking to join the fight in Iraq, such cases are almost nonexistent in the United States. The U.S. military in Baghdad has detained one U.S.-Jordanian citizen, Shawqi Omar, who is suspected of being a senior associate of insurgent leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert who heads Rand Corp.'s Washington office, said the Iraq war is the primary focus of Islamic militants, who aggressively use the Internet, e-mail and cell phones to build a global movement.

"People are swimming in these currents, so it's not surprising that some might get swept along in thinking that they should join this fight," he said.

The case joins a growing list of high-profile prosecutions since Sept. 11, 2001, of people living in the United States charged with working to aid terrorists, here or abroad. Some cases, including several in Northern Virginia, yielded convictions and long prison terms, but others produced acquittals or fell apart because of prosecutorial misconduct or other problems.

The case bears similarities to the successful prosecution in 2003 of six people in Portland, Ore., for attempting to help the Taliban fight U.S. forces in Afghanistan. At yesterday's news conference, FBI Deputy Director John Pistole also compared the case to prosecutions of alleged terrorism suspects in New York and California.

"These individuals are often hiding in plain sight in cities like Lackawanna, Lodi, Torrance and now Toledo," he said.

The 13-page indictment alleges that the Toledo suspects recruited others as early as November 2004 to train for holy war against the United States and its allies in Iraq, and that they engaged in activities such as downloading militant videos and attempting to secure chemical explosives.

In one instance, Hindi is accused of trying to persuade a person with "U.S. military background" -- identified only as "the trainer" in court papers -- to help establish a terrorism training center in the Middle East. The trainer apparently posed as a security expert who was helping the suspects learn about weapons and explosives and even traveled to Jordan with Amawi.

U.S. Attorney Gregory White of Cleveland told reporters that the trainer was "not the only source" of information that led to the indictment. Other officials said the trainer worked with the government from the beginning of the case.

At one point, the trainer allegedly talked with Amawi and Mazloum about setting off practice explosives on July 4, 2005, so the bombs would not be noticed; the indictment does not indicate whether the men followed through. The three suspects practiced target shooting and discussed explosives with the trainer, the indictment says. Mazloum also talked about using his Toledo auto business as cover for traveling in and out of Iraq, according to the charges. Amawi is also accused of twice threatening to kill or injure Bush, but no details are provided about the alleged conversations.

Corporate records in Illinois from 1997 show that Hindi has a connection to another man convicted of conspiring to violate U.S. sanctions against Iraq -- Rafil Dhafir, an Iraqi-born physician in Syracuse, N.Y., who was sentenced to 22 years in prison. Hindi is listed as the registered agent and manager of Royal International LLC of Oak Lawn, Ill., and Dhafir and his wife were listed as members of the travel agency's board.

A law enforcement official said there is no known connection between Dhafir and the Toledo case. Dhafir's attorney was not available to comment. A person who answered Hindi's home telephone in Toledo would not comment.

Gonzales said the investigation was separate from, but coordinated with, a probe of KindHearts, a Toledo-based charity whose assets were frozen on Sunday by the Treasury Department for connections to other charities linked to al-Qaeda and the Islamic Resistance Movement, known as Hamas. The indictment alleges that the suspects considered creating a false nonprofit organization to raise money for terrorism.

Bush administration lawyers filed a brief last month asking the justices to throw out Hamdan's case after Congress passed legislation that strictly limits the access that detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have to U.S. federal courts. The government argued that the measure, written by Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and signed into law, immediately ended federal court jurisdiction over detainees' legal efforts, and the Justice Department quickly filed dismissal requests in cases involving hundreds of detainees who were challenging their detentions and the conditions under which they are held.

Graham and Levin disagreed on the meaning of the law after it was enacted. Graham said the courts should decide whether they could continue to hear previously filed complaints, but Levin said the law was meant to apply only to cases filed after it was enacted. The statute allows a detainee to appeal to federal courts only to challenge a determination that he is an "enemy combatant" or to appeal a military trial verdict.

Neal Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who represents Hamdan, said he does not think the law applies to his client.

"We think Congress meant what it said in the act and exempted this very case, which challenges not conditions of his detention or access to DVDs, but challenges the most fundamental question of all: Is this tribunal legal?" Katyal said.

[...] Unless US lawmakers prevent it, Dubai Ports World's acquisition of the British firm which currently manages the ports is to be finalized on March 2.

Ports affected by the deal are in New York; Miami; New Jersey; Baltimore, Maryland; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [...]

Answering questions about the risks entailed by allowing US ports to be managed by a Middle Eastern company, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld praised the United Arab Emirates as a reliable ally in the war on terror, "a very, very solid partner in our workings in the Gulf."

But Democratic Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey said he believed the Senate would be able to muster the 67 votes needed to override a Bush veto.

The administration's endorsement of the UAE deal put it at odds with a nearly unified bloc of Democratic and Republican lawmakers, who held a succession of press conferences and statements Tuesday condemning the deal. Many criticized what they describe as the UAE's spotty record on combating terror.

Even erstwhile staunch Bush allies complained that the administration did not consult with lawmakers before allowing the sale to proceed.

"This White House did nothing to communicate with Congress about this deal," Republican Representative Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record) told CNN television on Tuesday. "We're not going to allow this to happen." [...]

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a staunch Republican, said the contract raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland."

"The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the administration conducts a more extensive review," Frist said in a statement, adding that the deal could have "a major impact on America's security."

And the most powerful Republican in the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, wrote to the White House calling for an "immediate moratorium" delaying the contract.

The US business community also has joined the debate: the Miami, Florida-based Continental Stevedoring and Terminals Inc. -- an affiliate of P and O -- complained in a court filing that the takeover would force it to become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and "may endanger the national security of the United States."

The sale - expected to be finalized in early March - would put Dubai Ports in charge of major shipping operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia. "If there was any chance that this transaction would jeopardize the security of the United States, it would not go forward," Bush said.

"It sends a terrible signal to friends around the world that it's OK for a company from one country to manage the port, but not a country that plays by the rules and has got a good track record from another part of the world," Bush said.

To assuage concerns, the administration disclosed some assurances it had negotiated with Dubai Ports. It required mandatory participation in U.S. security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials; roughly 33 other port companies participate in these voluntarily. The Coast Guard also said Tuesday it was nearly finished inspecting Dubai Ports' facilities in the United States.

A senior Homeland Security official, Stewart Baker, said this was the first-ever sale involving U.S. port operations to a state-owned company. "In that sense this is a new layer of controls," he said. Baker added that U.S. intelligence agencies were consulted "very early on to actually look at vulnerabilities and threats."

Bush sought to quiet a political storm that has united Republican governors and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee with liberal Democrats, including New York's two senators, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Charles Schumer.

Frist said Tuesday, before Bush's comments, that he would introduce legislation to put the sale on hold if the White House did not delay the takeover. He said the deal raised "serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., asked the president for a moratorium on the sale until it could be studied further. "We must not allow the possibility of compromising our national security due to lack of review or oversight by the federal government," Hastert said.

Maryland's Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, during a tour of Baltimore's port on Tuesday, called the deal an "overly secretive process at the federal level."

Bush took the rare step of calling reporters to his conference room on Air Force One after returning from a speech in Colorado. He also stopped to talk before television cameras after he returned to the White House.

"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction," the president said. "But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."

A senior executive from Dubai Ports World pledged the company would agree to whatever security precautions the U.S. government demanded to salvage the deal. Chief operating officer Edward "Ted" H. Bilkey promised Dubai Ports "will fully cooperate in putting into place whatever is necessary to protect the terminals."

Bilkey traveled to Washington in an effort to defuse the growing controversy.

Bush said that protesting lawmakers should understand his approval of the deal was final.

"They ought to listen to what I have to say about this," the president said. "They'll look at the facts and understand the consequences of what they're going to do. But if they pass a law, I'll deal with it with a veto."

Bush, who has never vetoed a bill as president, said on the White House South Lawn, "This is a company that has played by the rules, has been cooperative with the United States, from a country that's an ally on the war on terror, and it would send a terrible signal to friends and allies not to let this transaction go through."

Lawmakers from both parties have noted that some of the Sept. 11 hijackers used the United Arab Emirates as an operational and financial base. In addition, critics contend the UAE was an important transfer point for shipments of smuggled nuclear components sent to Iran, North Korea and Libya by a Pakistani scientist.

They say a port operator complicit in smuggling or terrorism could manipulate manifests and other records to frustrate Homeland Security's already limited scrutiny of shipping containers and slip contraband past U.S. Customs inspectors.

Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., and Democrat Schumer said Tuesday they will introduce emergency legislation to suspend the ports deal. King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, said the government "cannot consider approving this contract until a much more thorough investigation takes place on this security matter."

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said they would introduce a "joint resolution of disapproval" when they returned to Washington next week. Collins heads the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Harman is the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.

Bush's veto threat didn't stop local efforts to block the deal. New Jersey's governor, Jon S. Corzine, said Tuesday the state will file lawsuits in federal and state courts opposing the agreement. Corzine, a Democrat, cited a "deep, deep feeling that this is the wrong direction for our nation to take."

A company at the Port of Miami, a subsidiary of Eller & Company Inc., sued last week to block the deal in a Florida state court. It said that under the sale, it will become an "involuntary partner" with Dubai's government and it may seek more than $10 million in damages.

Frist said Congress should have veto authority over such foreign sales, which are reviewed by a secretive U.S. panel that considers security risks of foreign companies buying or investing in American industry. The panel includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld described the United Arab Emirates as a close ally. "It's a country that's been involved in the global war on terror with us," Rumsfeld said. He added that the United States and the UAE "have very close military-to-miltary relations, as well as political and economic relations."

Separately, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said port security would not be threatened. "This is not a question about port security," Gonzales said. "This is a question about port operation."

The furor centers around the $6.8 billion acquisition by Dubai Ports World, owned by one of the United Arab Emirates, of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. P&O had been running operations at shipping terminals in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, and Philadelphia.

Citing what they say are fears of lax security, politicians from both parties called on President George W. Bush to cancel the deal and several began drafting legislation to block it. The issue was also increasingly being aired on conservative talk radio stations and in Internet blogs.

"I find some of the rhetoric being used against this deal shameful and irresponsible. There is bigotry coming out here," said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute.

He said politicians were exploiting fears left over from September 11 to gain advantage in a congressional election year.

"Bush is vulnerable so the Democrats jump on it. The Republicans feel vulnerable so they jump on it. The slogan is, if it's Arab, it's bad. Hammer away," Zogby said.

According to some industry analysts, the change in management would have no real effect on security, which would still be carried out by American workers to international standards. The UAE, whose government owns Dubai Ports World, is an international financial hub and close U.S. ally.

"The Emirates have been very pro-active partners in helping our security. They have a solid track record of cooperation," said Peter Tirschwell, publisher of the Journal of Commerce.

Rabiah Ahmed of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said members of her organization also believed anti-Arab bigotry was driving the debate.

"The perception in the Arab-American community is that this is related to anti-Arab sentiment," she said.

Despite the UAE's close ties to the United States, some critics say lax controls allowed some of the September 11 hijackers to exploit its banking sector to transfer funds to support the attacks. Others have suggested its commercial links with Iran are a cause for worry.

"It is obviously an emotional, political and security issue, but I don't see xenophobia involved in this," said Peter Brookes of the conservative Heritage Foundation.

CHINESE PRECEDENT

The opposition was reminiscent of a similar controversy last year when China National Offshore Oil Company Ltd. tried to purchase Unocal, a U.S. oil services company. The Chinese company ultimately withdrew its offer in the face of fierce political opposition.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham said Americans were not against foreign acquisitions as such but were suspicious when they involved security infrastructure.

"Americans right now want free trade, but when it comes to national security issues, we want to maintain the infrastructure ourselves," he told Fox News Sunday.

"I don't think now is the time to outsource major port security to a foreign-based company," he said.

Daniel Griswold of the libertarian Cato Institute said opposition to the Emirates acquisition had more merit than the opposition to the Chinese energy bid.

"Here, there are legitimate questions of port security. Experts have long warned us that U.S. ports could be an entry point for weapons of mass destruction and we can only search one container in every 20 that come in," he said.

But Griswold conceded anti-Arab feelings were also playing a role. "It's obviously part of the mix and there's also some misunderstanding and a lot of political grandstanding going on," he said.