1. This is a really big week for President Bush because he is meeting with leaders of several countries. Pray for these meetings asking God to help the President with His widsom. Ask God to guide him and all the leaders of the world so they will honor Him and do His will. Here are the meetings on President Bush's schedule:

• May 20, Greek Prime Minister Kostas Karamanlis and Denmark's Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen
• May 23, Afghan President Hamid Karzai
• May 25, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia
• May 26, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas

2. Pray for peace in our world—in Iraq and all the other places where there is hurt and unrest, including Darfur, Sudan and Uzbekistan. President Bush has reminded us to pray for peace this Memorial Day—that's always a good thing to do, but especially this week as there are people who are living with danger and unrest.

3. Saturday, May 21 is Armed Forces Day—a special holiday created just to show our appreciation for every person who has served our nation in the Armed Forces (military service). Pray that every person who bravely serves America through the military will know the appreciation of the nation. Pray for their families—especially their kids—as they have had to get along without their mom or dad or other family member. Ask God to protect all the great people serving the country in this way, that they will do their jobs well and experience the peace and love of God wherever they are.

Following a U.S. Senate Committee’s allegations that President Vladimir Putin’s former Chief of Staff Alexander Voloshin was involved in an illegal oil deal with Saddam Hussein as part of the oil for food program, many officials implicated in the scandal — including nationalist party leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky — spoke out denying the accusations.

Yezhednevny Zhurnal interviewed Sergei Isakov of the Russian Engineering Company — a firm that was also mentioned in the report. Isakov says that his firm was the one getting all that extra oil. As for the Russian names in the report — that was all lies.

S. Isakov: Do you know who heads the presidential apparatus in the United States? I assure you that in Iraq, when I worked there, the majority had no idea who Alexaner Voloshin was. Moreover, informed people knew that the head of the Kremlin administration doesn’t have a lot of sympathy for Iraq and the deals around it. He had nothing to do with any political or business contacts with Iraq, he was never present during meetings with high-placed representatives of Saddam Hussein, when they were in Moscow. I know this as someone who personally accompanied many of them on their visits. The only representative of the administration that the Iraqis met with in Moscow was Sergei Prikhodko, presidential aide for foreign affairs. But he had no choice — that was his job. As for Tarqi Aziz — I don’t just know him, we’re friends.

So there was no reason for me to cite Voloshin in Iraq even in the interests of business or to use his name for influence. Ask our ambassadors who were in Iraq at the time… did anyone call from Voloshin, did anyone send any letters signed by him? There was nothing of the sort.

Where such delicate things as illegal oil deals or UN violations are concerned, it’s not about calling an ambassador or writing letters. But even if it were, who would admit it?

You have to understand that in making their accusations the Americans are citing so-called “high-placed” sources in Iraq. There are only four such sources: Saddam, oil minister Amir Rashid, vice president Taha Yasin Ramadan, and vice-premier Tariq Aziz. As for other high-placed Iraqi officials — they cannot exist even theoretically. Only these four dealt with oil. They are all in prison. We know what Americans are capable of doing with inmates from Abu Ghraib. I’m surprised that these “sources” have still not confessed to assassinating Kennedy in 1963.

Then, if you carefully read the report, you will not find any of these four names in the place that mentions the names and the size of the possible bribes. As for other people who were actually connected to the process — believe me, they simply could not have existed.

What about the specific numbers — so many barrels to the Presidential Administration, so many barrels to LDPR? They couldn’t have just made them up.

All the numbers in the report are true. Everything in the report that has to do with numbers is very accurate.

So the place where it says that the head of the Presidential Administration appropriated 5 million barrels of oil says that Voloshin, whom you don’t know and who was never in Iraq, got nearly $10 million worth of oil?

That’s the thing — he didn’t. The numbers are from our company. We got this oil and other oil. But how the names of Voloshin and Zhirinovsky popped up, I have no idea.

How did you end up in this program and start trading Iraqi oil?

Up until 1997, I was in the board of directors for Vnukov Airlines. We were the only company that had permission to fly to Baghdad. There were a lot of deputies who flew regularly. And not just Vladimir Zhirinovsky, whom I was also friends with, by the way. There were different parties, including, as I believe, even Yabloko who sent their representatives there. I organized all these flights. And I accompanied our politicians not just during their flights, but to the offices of the Iraqi officials.

Moreover, Vnukov Airlines were part of a consortium producing Tu-204 planes. And we even managed to sign a couple of documents agreeing that Iraq Airlines planned to buy these very airplanes after the sanctions were lifted.

The Russian Engineering Company has been working in Iraq since 1999, although in the beginning we were not involved in the “oil for food” program. We did engineering work, and traded too. Volga cars, for example, were shipped into Iraq. And then we applied to the Energy and Fuel Ministry to get included in the program, which required UN accreditation. The ministry examined our documents and sent them over to the Foreign Ministry. The Foreign Ministry sent them over to the UN. This went on for about a year. For a while, we worked through the Rosnefteimpex company, who, as far as I understand, came from Rosneft. Then we got our own accreditation, and I can tell you, were very successful in our work.

I don’t understand. If you are an engineering company, then trading in oil is not your profile. How did you get accredited?

Well, yes, oil wasn’t our business by profile. But we had an oil department. And we had world famous oil traders worker in it…. We had excellent relations with Somo — a state organization specializing in oil sales. We helped them out. For example, at a certain point there’s a ban on shipping Iraqi oil out, but the industry is working. So what do you do with the oil? You don’t just pour it into the gulf. So we shipped it on to our tanker. And then, when the ban is lifted, we ship it out.

And for these services Iraqi oil bosses didn’t grant you any special favors? Didn’t pour in an extra million barrels of oil?

We turned out to be the best who ever worked with Iraqi oil at that point. And, of course, when some extra quotes appeared, we were the first to get them. But there is nothing criminal in that. We were strictly following the rules.

But U.S. senators think otherwise.

I’m telling you — their report is a mix of exact figures, conjectures, and lies.

WASHINGTON - Judicial nominee Priscilla Owen gets the vote she's been awaiting for more than four years, the most immediate beneficiary of a deal worked out by Senate moderates to avoid a debilitating fight over filibusters.

The Senate was voting Tuesday to end debate on Owen, currently a Texas Supreme Court justice, clearing the way for her to gain a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in New Orleans. With the threat of a filibuster by Democrats removed, she was nearly certain then to get the simple majority vote needed to give her the seat that long has eluded her, perhaps as early as Tuesday.

The agreement, crafted over the past several weeks by seven Republicans and seven Democrats, also opened the way for yes-or-no votes on two other of President Bush's judicial picks who have been in nomination limbo for more than two years - William H. Pryor Jr. for the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Janice Rogers Brown for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The agreement, which applies to Supreme Court nominees, said future judicial nominations should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democratic senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.

But of greater import, the deal on the rights of the minority party to filibuster judicial nominees avoids a showdown that could have shaken the traditions of the Senate, weakened the powers of the minority and threatened the comity the Senate needs to function.

And there were other political implications, as well, including the shape of the Supreme Court, the midterm election in 2006, Bush's legislative agenda and the next presidential race, especially the prospects for Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and potential GOP rival Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

"We tried to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice," said McCain, who led the compromise effort with Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.

Frist, who had joined with party conservatives in pressing for an end to judicial filibusters, stressed that he was not a party to the agreement. He said he hoped it would end a "miserable chapter in the history of the Senate," but said that what he called the "constitutional option" was still on the table. He said he "will monitor this agreement closely."

Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who had threatened to bog down Senate business if Republicans took away the filibuster authority, was more receptive, saying the Senate could now get back to work on the needs of the nation. He said he was willing to work with Bush on his agenda, "but he should have a little more humility."

"In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement," Republicans said they would oppose any attempt to make changes in the application of filibuster rules. But Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said the agreement was conditional on Democrats upholding their end of the deal.

The White House said the agreement was a positive development.

"Many of these nominees have waited for quite some time to have an up or down vote and now they are going to get one. That's progress," press secretary Scott McClellan said. [...]

Frist and most other Republicans said judicial nominees deserved a straight up-or-down vote, and accused the Democrats of unprecedented abuse of their filibuster power in blocking 10 circuit court judge nominees in Bush's first term.

Democrats countered that Frist's action would fundamentally undermine minority rights. Equally important, they worried that it would give Bush and his Republican allies free rein to place anyone of their choosing on the Supreme Court if, as expected, there are vacancies in the near future.

Under the terms of the agreement, Democrats said they would allow final confirmation votes for Owen, Brown and Pryor, three nominees all assailed by Democrats for what they say has been their conservative activism. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers.

Apart from the judicial nominees named in the agreement, Reid said Democrats would clear the way for votes on David McKeague, Richard Griffin and Susan Neilson, all named to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The 14 signers, while a small minority of the Senate, hold enough leverage to stop future filibusters or block any attempt to impose new procedures for judicial filibusters.

Dr. James C. Dobson, head of the Focus on the Family, one of the conservative groups that had made an end to judicial filibusters a top priority, said the agreement "represents a complete bailout and a betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats."

WASHINGTON - The US political class breathed a sigh of relief after a bipartisan group of 14 centrist senators announced a compromise over judicial nominees, preventing an unprecedented political crisis in the US Senate.

"The Senate won and the country won," said Republican Senator John McCain, one of the architects of the deal.

"We're here, 14 Republicans and Democrats, seven on each side, to announce that we have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice that would have had, in the view of all 14 of us, lasting impact, damaging impact on the institution," McCain added.

The announcement came after Senate Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist said he would urge members of the Senate on Tuesday to vote for changing Senate rules to limit filibusters, a procedural delaying tactic used by whichever party is in the opposition.

The tactic has lately been used by Democrats to block confirmation of several Republican-nominated judges they consider too conservative.

The judges were nominated by Republican
President George W. Bush during his first term in office.

Filibusters have allowed Democrats to block 10 judges nominated by the president during his first term.

Under the deal, three judicial nominations would be approved by the Senate, while two others would fall victim of a filibuster.

In the future, Democrats promised to resort to filibusters only in extraordinary circumstances, while Republicans now have to resign themselves that the tactic will continue to be used.

Without a deal, the Republicans were threatening the so-called "nuclear option" -- restrict the use of filibusters and trigger a Democrat threat to paralyze all legislative work in the chamber. [...]

WASHINGTON - For the second time in as many weeks, military jets intercepted a plane that violated the capital's restricted air space.

The Transportation Security Administration said the plane was directed to land Monday night in suburban Gaithersburg, Md., north of the District of Columbia, in an incident that forced the Senate to briefly go into recess.

This happened less than two weeks after a private plane was redirected to Frederick, Md., after entering the restricted air space. The pilot of that plane, Hayden L. "Jim" Sheaffer, has had his flying license suspended as an "unacceptable risk to safety," the
Federal Aviation Administration said.

There was no evacation Monday, as there had been on May 11, during the earlier incident.

The Canadian-registered Cessna was intercepted by military jets after it flew into restricted airspace without the required transponder signal, according to Transportation Security Administration spokesman Mark Hatfield.

"There was a Canadian aircraft that had a lightning strike and an electrical failure," said Laura Brown, an FAA spokeswoman. "They were having radio problems.

She said the plane had changed course to steer around some bad weather.

In the earlier case, the government lifted Sheaffer's license because of the May 11 errant flight that led to the scrambling of military aircraft and the panicked evacuation of thousands of people. [...]

Though hundreds of people have mistakenly flown into Washington's restricted airspace, the FAA rarely revokes a pilot's license for such an offense. In Sheaffer's case, the agency determined Sheaffer "constitutes an unacceptable risk to safety in air commerce."

The agency said no action would be taken against Martin.

Appearing Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show, Sheaffer said he and his wife checked the weather on their home computer before leaving. "When I first saw the helicopter, I knew we were some place we shouldn't have been," he said. He said he turned to a frequency that military authorities had asked him to call but that he could not get through.

The New York Times, in Tuesday's editions, reported that the Department of Homeland Security acknowledged that Sheaffer was instructed to use a frequency that was not available at the time. [...]

A Bush administration proposal would grant the FBI broad authority to track the mail of people in terrorism investigations, The New York Times reported in its Saturday editions.

Citing government officials who spoke on Friday, the newspaper reported that the proposal, to be considered next week in a closed-door Senate Intelligence Committee meeting, would allow the FBI to direct postal officials to turn in names, addresses and other material on the outside of letters sent to or from people connected to foreign intelligence investigations.

But the Postal Service is raising privacy concerns about the plan to carry out such operations, called mail covers, the Times said.

According to a draft of the bill obtained by the Times, the plan would effectively eliminate postal inspectors' discretion in deciding when mail covers are needed, giving sole authority to the FBI, if it decides that the material is "relevant to an authorized investigation to obtain foreign intelligence."

The proposal would not allow the FBI to open mail or review its contents, however. According to the officials who spoke to the Times, that would require a search warrant.

The proposal is part of a larger package that strengthens the FBI's authority to demand business records in intelligence gathering without judicial or grand jury approval, the Times said.

A postal official called the move a "major step." Zoe Strickland, chief privacy officer for the Postal Service, told the Times that "from a privacy perspective, you want to make sure that the right balance is struck between protecting people's mail and aiding law enforcement, and this legislation could impact that balance negatively."

The Times quoted Strickland as saying that the new proposal "removes discretion from the Postal Inspection Service as to how the mail covers are implemented," and that she worries "quite a bit about the balance being struck here, and we're quite mystified as to how this got put in the legislation."

Officials on the Intelligence Committee said the legislation was intended to make the FBI the sole arbiter of when a mail cover should be conducted, after complaints that undue interference from postal inspectors had slowed operations, the Times said.

Four bases with a 'more permanent character' are planned to be built in the North, West, South and Centre of Iraq

US military commanders are planning to pull back their troops from Iraq's towns and cities and redeploy them in four giant bases in a strategy they say is a prelude to eventual withdrawal.

The plan, details of which emerged at the weekend, also foresees a transfer to Iraqi command of more than 100 bases that have been occupied by US-led multinational forces since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

However, the decision to invest in the bases, which will require the construction of more permanent structures such as blast-proof barracks and offices, is seen by some as a sign that the US expects to keep a permanent presence in Iraq.

Politicians opposed to a long-term US presence on Iraqi soil questioned the plan.

"They appear to settling in a for the long run, and that will only give fuel for the terrorists," said a spokesman for the mainstream Sunni Iraqi Islamic party.

A senior US official in Baghdad said yesterday: "It has always been a main plank of our exit strategy to withdraw from the urban areas as and when Iraqi forces are trained up and able to take the strain. It is much better for all concerned that Iraqis police themselves."

Under the plan, for which the official said there was no "hard-and-fast" deadline, US troops would gradually concentrate inside four heavily fortified air bases, from where they would provide "logistical support and quick reaction capability where necessary to Iraqis". The bases would be situated in the north, south, west and centre of the country.

He said the pace of the "troop consolidation" would be dictated by the level of the insurgency and the progress of Iraq's fledgling security structures.

A report in yesterday's Washington Post said the new bases would be constructed around existing airfields to ensure supply lines and troop mobility. It named the four probable locations as: Tallil in the south; Al Asad in the west; Balad in the centre and either Irbil or Qayyarah in the north.

US officers told the paper that the bases would have a more permanent character to them, with more robust buildings and structures than can be seen at most existing bases in Iraq. The new buildings would be constructed to withstand direct mortar fire.

A source at the Iraqi defence ministry said: "We expect these facilities will ultimately be to the benefit of the domestic forces, to be handed over when the US leaves."

WASHINGTON - US President George W. Bush and Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai signed a "strategic partnership" enabling long-term US involvement in Afghanistan's security as well as reconstruction.

Among the key points of the agreement was allowing US military forces operating in Afghanistan to have continued access to the key Bagram Air Base as well as other military facilities as "may be mutually determined."

American access to these facilities was necessary for US forces to "help organize, train, equip, and sustain Afghan security forces" according to the joint declaration of the "US-Afghanistan Strategic Partnership."

"It's a partnership we have been working on for quite a while," Bush told reporters with Karzai by his side after their meeting at the White House.

"It's a partnership that establishes regular, high-level exchange on political, security and economic issues of mutual interest," Bush said.

Since helping to bring down the Taliban in 2001, Washington has remained Karzai's biggest supporter, both in terms of reconstruction aid and its military presence, with 18,000 troops on the ground fighting remnants of the Taliban and their allies.

Karzai has been a key advocate for a permanent security relationship with the United States but had stopped short of calling for full-time American bases, a sensitive topic in the war-shattered country.

In an apparent bid to assuage any concerns, Bush said Monday that under the new pact, the United States would "consult with Afghanistan if it perceives its territorial integrity, independence or security is at risk."

"Of course our troops will respond to US commanders, but our US commanders and our diplomatic mission there is in a consultative relationship with the government," he added.

Most of the US troops in Afghanistan are either based at Bagram airbase north of Kabul or at Kandahar airbase, which the United States uses to launch raids against insurgents still active in the south and east of the country. [...]

Karzai, on his first White House visit after winning his country's landmark presidential elections last October, said the "memorandum of understanding" he signed with Bush was for "long-term partnership" to enable Afghanistan "to stand on its own feet."

He said continued US help was vital because parliamentary elections in September would mark the end of the so-called Bonn Process, a UN-backed plan to help rebuild the poor Muslim state after the overthrow of the militant Taliban.

The two leaders also discussed the recently highlighted abuse of Afghan prisoners in US custody, with Karzai saying he was saddened over the cases but added that they were "individual acts." [...]

The key points of the strategic partnership include:

- US military forces operating in Afghanistan will continue to have access to the key Bagram Air Base and its facilities, and facilities at other locations as "may be mutually determined."

- US and coalition forces will "continue to have the freedom of action required to conduct appropriate military operations based on consultations and pre-agreed procedures."

- American access to Bagram base is necessary for US forces to "help organize, train, equip, and sustain Afghan security forces as Afghanistan develops the capacity to undertake this responsibility."

- There will be consultations "with respect to taking appropriate measures in the event that Afghanistan perceives that its territorial integrity, independence, or security is threatened or at risk."

- The pact "is not directed against any third country."

- US to assist the Afghan government in security sector reform, continue counter-terrorism operations with Afghan forces, support coalition assistance to Kabul's counter-narcotics programs.

Comment: "Security sector reform" - Would that be the same kind of "reform" that US agencies conducted in many Latin American countries?

- Continue intelligence sharing, strengthen Afghanistan's ties with
NATO, support border security initiatives.

- Support democratic good governance and the development of civil society based on the rule of law and human rights and encourage broad-based political participation in Afghanistan.

- Support Afghanistan's initiative to restore the country's historic role as a land bridge connecting Central and South Asia and to "shift the pattern of regional relations from rivalry to economic and political cooperation."

- Foster cooperation between Afghanistan and its neighbors and "deter meddling in its internal affairs."

Comment: Meddling in Afghanistan's internal affairs is okay if the US does it, but anyone else better watch out...

- Help develop a legal and institutional framework for a thriving private sector and an environment favorable to international investment in Afghanistan.

Indonesia's president is headed to Washington, hoping his country's giant strides in democracy and tough line on terror would lead to a restoration of strategic military ties despite lingering qualms over Jakarta's rights record.

Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono will spend two days in the United States, meeting President George W. Bush and other officials on his first White House visit since taking the helm of the world's largest Muslim-populated nation last year.

While trade and tsunami relief operations are expected to top the agenda, Yudhoyono is certain to use his visit to push for a normalisation of military relations frozen for 13 years.

Clouding his mission are unrelenting demands for Indonesia to address past human rights abuses and the excesses of its armed forces, particularly during the bloody mayhem of 1999 as East Timor broke away from the archipelago nation.

With Yudhoyono's credibility riding high on a series of West-friendly policies and support growing in Washington for renewed military bonds with the Southeast Asian giant, analysts expect the former general will be successful.

"Indonesia-US relations are moving into a stronger sphere and Yudhoyono would not be making this trip unless he expected to get something out of it," said Robert Broadfoot of the Political and Economic Research Consultancy in Hong Kong.

Earlier this month, Admiral William Fallon, head of the US Pacific Command, expressed optimism his country would soon resume full military cooperation, saying Jakarta had made progress on human rights.

The United States decided in February to resume training members of the Indonesian armed forces. Washington in January also eased an embargo on the supply of US military hardware to help boost tsunami relief efforts.

Restrictions were imposed after Indonesian troops massacred pro-independence protesters in East Timor in 1991. They were tightened in 1999 when the military was blamed for about 1,500 deaths during the territory's separation.

Ties chilled further three years later after the Indonesian army allegedly blocked US investigations into the killing of two American teachers in the insurgency-hit remote eastern province of Papua.

Indonesia, which recently launched reforms to rein in its powerful military, says it needs assistance from the United States to revitalise its overstretched and poorly-equipped armed forces.

Many in Washington argue the United States will benefit from better links, with a better-outfitted Indonesia more able to secure key oil supply routes in the piracy-prone Malacca Strait, seen as vulnerable to a terrorist strike.

They say Indonesia's progress in tackling Al-Qaeda-linked extremists behind attacks including the October 2002 Bali bombings, and the country's successful transition from dictatorship to democracy weigh heavily in its favour.

But right groups oppose the move, saying Indonesia's army still commits abuses and -- after a controversial Indonesian tribunal failed to jail any high ranking Indonesians for East Timor atrocities -- continues to show no remorse.

During a visit to Indonesia earlier this month, US Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick told Yudhoyono that the East Timor atrocities and the probe into deaths of the teachers in Papua were still stumbling blocks.

In an apparent conciliatory move, Indonesia last week granted access to a UN legal team formed to assess Jakarta's efforts to account for abuses during East Timor's separation, despite earlier declaring their mission redundant. [...]

BAGHDAD - A car bomb exploded near a police patrol in central Baghdad, a day after a wave of similar attacks left at least 62 dead and scores wounded nationwide.

US forces meanwhile announced that 428 suspects have been picked up in just over 30 hours during a wide sweep for insurgents in the western surburbs of the capital.

Two died and eight were hurt in the attack on a police patrol car in central Baghdad, an interior ministry official said Tuesday.

"Two charred bodies that are difficult to identify were found at the scene of the attack," the official said, adding that one of those hurt was a policeman.

Initial reports spoke of a suicide bomber, but the official later said a parked car was detonated by remote control.

It was the latest attack in a sharp upsurge of violence in Baghdad and across the country that followed the formation of the new government of Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari in early May.

Many of Monday's attacks appeared to target the majority Shiite community whose representatives won a majority in January's landmark general elections and who now lead the coalition government.

The bloodiest attack came late Monday when two suicide drivers ploughed into a crowd in the northern town of Tall Afar, killing at least 35 people.

The double attack took place "a few minutes after mortar bombs were fired at two houses in the Muallimin district of Tall Afar," according to Abdel Ghani ali Yahia, an official with the Kurdistan Democratic Party, one of two political factions which control the northern Kurdish provinces.

"Local people gathered at the site to help... and two car bombs then rushed in and exploded," he added.

At least 25 people were also wounded in the attack in Muallimin, a majority Shiite and Turkmen area of Tall Afar, a town 400 kilometres (250 miles) north of the capital.

Another 11 people were killed and 11 wounded, many of them children, when a car bomb exploded outside a Shiite prayer room in Mahmudiyah, a lawless ethnically-mixed town in an area just south of Baghdad dubbed the Triangle of Death.

The attack came against a backdrop of unprecedented tension between the newly-empowered Shiite majority and the Sunni Arab minority which was dominant under ousted dictator
Saddam Hussein.

At lunchtime in Baghdad, at least 11 died and about 100 were hurt when an explosive-ladden mini-van was detonated by remote control outside a popular restaurant in a Shiite district, Iraqi security forces said.

Another five were killed and 19 were hurt when a driver in a pick-up truck blew himself up outside the town hall in the northern Iraqi town of Tuz Khurmatu, south of Kirkuk, police captain Imad Abdallah said.

This attack came shortly after three suicide bombers -- two in cars and one on foot -- attacked a US military compound in Samarra, in the centre of the country. Four US soldiers were slightly wounded, the US military said.

Thousands of US and Iraqi soldiers continued their sweep through Baghdad's western suburbs in the largest such joint military operation to date.

The US military said the raid was aimed at quelling the upsurge in car bomb attacks in the capital, which have averaged almost one a day this month.

The operation, code-named "Squeeze Play", kicked off Sunday night and Monday involved 1,500 US and 2,500 Iraqi soldiers, including 600 commandos from the interior ministry's special Wolf Brigade, US military spokesman Major Webster Wright told reporters.

The hundreds arrested were taken to a special internment camp set up at a former army base near the international airport where they were housed in tents and disused buildings, Wright said.

Those detained included at least two Syrians, two Egyptians and two Yemenis, he said.

By late Monday, two suspected insurgents had been killed and two wounded, while one Iraqi soldier was also hurt in the ongoing operation, he said.

Dozens of car bombs have exploded in the Iraqi capital over the past four weeks, coinciding with the formation of a new Shiite-led government.

There have been nearly as many car bomb attacks in the capital this month as the 25 recorded for the whole of 2004 in Baghdad, according to US military figures.

From late February to mid-May, a total of 126 car bombs exploded or were discovered in the capital, a senior US officer said.

Iraqi authorities have suggested that more than 600 people have died this month nationwide.

Much of Monday's operation was conducted in the town of Abu Ghraib, a few miles (kilometres) west of the capital, where the notorious prison of the same name is located.

Coalition forces had a list of some 400 "targets" they were seeking, including known rebels, weapon caches and car-bomb factories, Wright said.

But he gave no details about any specific finds.

A former detainee talks openly about what he saw and heard, from abuse of prisoners to offensive treatment of the Qu'ran. And it couldn't be further from what the Bush administration is telling us.

In their first article in Newsweek since the magazine received a dressing-down by Scott McClellan, Michael Isikoff and Evan Thomas quote Defense Department spokesman Lawrence Di Rita, who alleges that Guantanamo commanders changed prison rules in response to prisoner complaints about treatment of the Qu'ran. But Di Rita's claims couldn't be further from the experience of Martin Mubanga, a recently freed Guantanamo Bay detainee who spoke to U.S. media for the first time this weekend.

Mubanga, a 32-year-old Londoner who was arrested in Zambia in 2002 and taken to Guantanamo, was released without charge in January 2005, after 33 months in captivity. He says that offensive treatment of the Qu'ran was ongoing, even routine, over the three years he was a prisoner. Mubanga says complaints by inmates about the desecration of the Qu'ran fell upon deaf ears, and often resulted in severe punishment, including pepper-spraying of prisoners.

Laura Flanders' exclusive interview with Martin Mubanga was produced by Christabel Nsiah-Buadi and broadcast on The Laura Flanders Show on Air America Radio on Sunday, May 22. What follows is an edited transcript of the interview.

Laura Flanders: Did Newsweek lie about abuse of the Qu'ran? What did you see?

Martin Mubanga: From my own personal experience and from what I know of what occurs in Guantanamo Bay, this is actually an ongoing thing for the past three years, so we don't need Newsweek to corroborate or substantiate these accusations. We who have been in Guantanamo Bay know that these and other things occur in degradation of our religion.

You described a situation where your cell was searched by six or seven military police and a Qu'ran was thrown to the ground. Can you explain why that was so offensive to you?

In our religion, firstly, the Qu'ran is believed to be the word of God, who we refer to as Allah in our religion. Basically the Qu'ran is supposed to be treated with respect and most people believe that the Qu'ran should be placed in a high place in a house or only taken with respect in a certain condition of purification or ablution. It's never to be placed on a floor, on a dirty floor or to be treated or to be mishandled in any way.

What did those six or seven military police do?

At the time, there was a story going around that I was supposed to be a top-notch fighter, as they said, and they tried to provoke me in many ways to see what I could do. This was one of the methods that was used to see if I would fight and I believe that's why they chose me on this particular occasion and threw the Qu'ran on the floor.

So, they came in, they threw the Qu'ran on the floor, then what happened?

Well, as I was saying, there were two on either side of me, holding my wrists as I was kneeling down, and they had me in wristlocks. And one of the three that were searching took my Qu'ran. And instead of replacing it, to its place, he threw that on the floor... Rahul [Ahmed, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, who was returned to Britain on March 9, 2004] from Tipton witnessed this and he was in the cage next to me. And he remonstrated the soldier, the MP who did this, which they ignored. They wanted to see if they could provoke a strong reaction from me. And obviously, I was not able to do anything at that time.

So what happened after that?

If you report it to the bloc MCO, like the commanding officer on the block or to the captain, it's maybe just words. They say that they will look into the matter and discipline will be taken, but you will not be informed of any particular action that has been taken. So you know, even after that, another brother from Saudi [Arabia], who is also a British resident from South London, tried to organize various brothers to take a stance and try to get the general -- at the time who was General Miller -- to have placed at each and every bloc, a notice stating that no MP should touch or search the Qu'ran. This, however was refused point blank by General Miller and the hierarchy in Guantanamo Bay. Subsequently, this brother and other brothers thought that they should do some sort of actions to show their anger and to try and reverse this decision, which resulted in many people being "earthed."

"Earthed" is basically when the minimum of five military policemen dressed in riot gear, with riot shields, would come in and manhandle you and put you to the floor. On occasion, you would be pepper-sprayed, you'd be tied and carried out. In this protest that took place, some brothers would be beaten, for refusing to go to interrogation, for refusing to go to shower and rec or for refusing to come out of their cell for the search and all they asked for in return was that our Qu'ran, the book of our religion, be treated with respect and that it not be searched or touched or desecrated in any way.

What other repercussions were there for detainees who tried to stand up for respectful treatment of the Qu'ran?

The officials or the hierarchies would punish us by shaving our hair or shaving our beards, or even going to the point, there was a particular bloc Qubec Bloc and Romeo Bloc, which is in Camp Three of Delta Camp, where they would give shorts to brothers. In our religion, you are not permitted to pray while your knees are uncovered. There should be a minimum amount of bodily parts that should be covered while praying. And they failed to respect this particular ruling in our religion by giving our brothers shorts to wear for 24 hours. And also on other occasions, you could lose your clothing and your mattress and your bedding for failing to comply with camp rules. And all of this could have been avoided if they showed respect for our religion, its concept and its rulings.

You had plenty of time to figure it out... can you say now, why you think the soldiers were behaving as they were? Were they just bigots? Were they receiving orders? Did they believe that they would get information from you if they pressured you around your religion? How do you make sense of it?

From my personal opinion it's about politics. Bush and those with him in the American government and around the world were just looking for scapegoats and someone to blame. And they had to put someone in the picture. Having gone to the methods, or rather the extremes that they had gone to, they had to be seen to be getting a result.

Would you say that the soldiers themselves were motivated by a hatred of religion, or what?

In my personal opinion, I would say that some of the soldiers were naïve, some of the soldiers were receiving orders and some had hatred for the religion. There were a few who were quite simply following orders and rightly or wrongly they would follow those orders because they saw no alternative other than themselves being remonstrated or reprimanded. You know, there were a few who had a hatred for the Islamic religion and the Islamic way of life and people from the East, and had a general ignorance toward the religion and anything that was not American. I mean, there were quite a few MPs who had the attitude that simply because they were born in America, they were better than everybody else.

Is it possible they genuinely thought that you were in some way responsible for killing Americans? Was that what they said to you, that they thought you were a killer, that they felt you were a high-placed terrorist? Would this explain their behavior?

There were a few MPs who had that opinion of me. I think far more, for my personal experience, that they failed to understand why I was in Cuba. Many MPs would come to me and ask about my story and ask why I was there. Quite a few saw me as being similar to themselves, being from the UK. But they had a very negative attitude toward brothers from the East -- from Saudi, from Yemen, even from Russia and China, brothers who were classified as "Eastern Muslims" or "Muslims from the East."

How has this affected you physically, psychologically?

Well, coming back to the UK, there are things that I still have to get used to and that will take some time. But I am trying to put aside those things which are causing me some pain and are causing me some distress and some discomfort. Basically, I feel it's my duty to speak out about the things that happened to me and happened to other people at this moment in time, in Cuba and around the world.

Do you have physical injuries from your time?

I have slight injury from my time, but I wish to not discuss it, but there are some things that aren't quite right. And I am currently seeking medical assistance for those things

And what about politically? The effect on your political feelings and opinions or attitudes toward the United States, toward your religion, toward this whole so-called war on terrorism?

As far as I am concerned, I have never been against the United States. However, I am not in agreement with Bush and those who are with him. I think it's fair to say that we stand at opposite sides of the fence! I don't feel that they are the right people to be in power. I don't feel that they will bring about any true justice, or that their motives are pure. And I feel that the power should be in someone else's hands; someone more worthy.

Were you a very religious person before you were picked up?

I suppose it would depend on what you would define as being religious, but definitely, my experience in Guantanamo Bay has made me understand my religion more and appreciate my religion more, and made me turn to my faith that much more.

Martin, is there anything else you would like to say to Americans in particular who might be listening to this, trying to make sense of what is being done in their name in Guantanamo, in this week of discussion about Newsweek?

What I would say basically is that, we have to ask ourselves, as individuals, why things are being done and why certain stories are arriving at this moment in time. I think basically that there is more to this story than meets the eye.

You spoke outside the U.S. embassy on Friday; can you describe the scene there? How many people were protesting?

There were a few hundred there protesting. Basically, I feel that the message was clear and the feelings of those who participated were clear. And I feel that there would have been many more except that people are afraid. And people don't want to be in detention without trial, as could be the case here. And even here we have one Muslim brother, Ahmed [Babar Ahmed, a computer programmer who has been accused by the U.S. of using websites to raise funds for the Taliban and other terrorists], who is facing extradition to the United States without any evidence being presented. So I think quite clearly that people are intimidated and are afraid to speak out. But there are some who are willing to put that on the line, as it were.

Laura Flanders is author of Bushwomen: Tales of a Cynical Species. For more upbeat, progressive talk about the issues that matter, tune into the Laura Flanders Show every weekend evening between 7-10pm EST on Air America Radio.

NEW DELHI - Bombs that ripped through two Indian cinemas this week may have been the work of a militant group, Indian police said on Tuesday but declined to speculate who might be behind the attacks.

As investigations into the blasts deepened, life returned to normal and people began streaming back to cinemas after Sunday's bombings of Delhi theaters as they screened a Hindi-language film condemned by some Sikh religious leaders as insulting.

Theatres across the country have stopped showing the controversial film, but there has been no anger on the streets over the blasts that killed one person and wounded dozens.

"We have assigned the job to the special cell which deals with terrorist attacks because explosions are not the handiwork of normal criminals," said Ravi Pawar, Delhi police spokesman.

"At the moment, we have kept all options open. We have to get some leads whereby we can pinpoint a particular organization."

Police were on guard in cinemas and authorities in the country's movie capital, Bombay, said they planned to provide security for the film's hero, Sunny Deol, and director Rahul Rawail.

The blasts revived memories of the Sikh separatist movement, which reached its peak in the 1980s when militants bombed buses and markets in northern India, especially in the capital New Delhi and Punjab.

The Indian Express newspaper said plastic explosives were used in Sunday's blasts, suggesting they could be the handiwork of Kashmiri militants. But police refused to confirm the report. [...]

India's defence minister has said the weekend cinema blasts in New Delhi that killed one person and injured 49 appeared to be the "handiwork of terrorists" as police moved away from initial theories the bombs were planted by Sikhs angry with the film being shown.

"It appears to be the work of terrorists. But details will emerge only after the investigations," Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee told reporters in the eastern port city of Kolkata.

No group has claimed responsibility for the blasts in the heart of the capital's shopping district late Sunday. [...]

But police said they were now exploring whether Islamic guerrillas opposed to New Delhi's rule in Indian Kashmir could have planted the bombs. [...]

"Terrorists strike occasionally to make their presence felt," Mukherjee said late Monday, adding the bombers could have staged the weekend blasts to send a message to the government.

The blasts occurred on the first anniversary of the Congress-led coalition government taking power after ousting the Hindu nationalists.

"Terrorists struck in Kashmir last year when the (Congress-led) United Progressive Alliance came to power," Mukherjee pointed out.

Suspected Islamic militants have often been blamed by Indian authorities for carrying out armed attacks, not only in Kashmir, but elsewhere in India.

The explosions had stirred recollections of the spate of bombings that shook New Delhi when the Sikh guerrilla campaign for an independent homeland was at its height in the 1980s. The militancy waned in the early 1990s.

PARIS — The OECD cut its forecast for 2005 economic growth in the industrialized world to 2.6 per cent from 2.9 per cent today, blaming a slower-than-expected recovery in Japan and another false start in Europe.

In a twice-yearly report, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development also lowered its Canadian forecast from 3.5 per cent growth to 2.8 per cent for 2005.

"The marked appreciation of the Canadian dollar has continued to restrain activity. The economy may now be operating slightly below potential, although most economic fundamentals have remained sound," the organization said in its report.

"Uncertainties about the impact of the currency appreciation on activity have warranted a pause in monetary policy tightening, but further increases in interest rates will be needed from the second half of 2005 onwards."

The report comes one day before the Bank of Canada meets to sets interest rate policy.

The OECD raised its U.S. growth forecast to 3.6 per cent from the 3.3 per cent it predicted in November.

But the Paris-based club of developed countries slashed its euro-area growth forecast to 1.2 per cent from 1.9 per cent and lowered its expectations for Japanese growth to 1.5 per cent from 2.1 per cent.

High oil prices and the stronger euro were only partly to blame for the wilting of the recovery in the 12-member euro zone in the second half of 2004, said OECD chief economist Jean-Philippe Cotis.

"As time passes, it is becoming increasingly evident that circumstantial arguments ... are not sufficient to explain the string of aborted recoveries in Continental Europe," Cotis said.

As a result, he said, future growth prospects "differ widely" among regions, "ranging from solid in Asia to back on trend in the United States, and weak and uncertain in Europe."

Germany, Italy and other European states need to reform their economies and improve their poor resilience to external shocks, Cotis said. The euro zone's forecast return to a 1.7 per cent growth rate by the final quarter of 2005 was based on an assumption that there would be no more nasty surprises from exchange rates or oil prices, the OECD said.

The report comes a day after the head of the European Central Bank delivered a newly pessimistic view of the euro-zone economy. Addressing the European Parliament, Jean-Claude Trichet said he saw ``no clear signs as yet of a broadening or strengthening of the growth dynamic."

The Frankfurt-based ECB, which sets interest rates for the euro area, lowered its 2005 growth forecast earlier this year to 1.6 per cent from 1.9 per cent, and many economists expect it to do so again soon.

By contrast, the U.S. economy is on course for a soft landing, the OECD said, forecasting a growth rate of 3.4 per cent for the second quarter, compared with the 3.2 per cent it had predicted six months ago. The report predicted a 3.3 per cent expansion in 2006 after this year's 3.6 per cent and last year's 4.4 per cent.

But it warned that inflationary pressures could still lead to a ``harder landing than projected" and called on the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates to avoid overheating. Higher oil prices and labor costs are already feeding through into core inflation, the OECD said.

After a downturn in the second half of 2004, Japan is on track for growth of between 1.5 per cent and two per cent over the next two years, the OECD also said, predicting that rising wages and employment will end a recent bout of deflation. But it warned that ``a delayed pickup in world trade or a significant appreciation of the yen" could undermine progress.

The OECD forecast Japanese growth of 1.7 per cent in 2006 — below the 2.3 per cent it predicted last November — after this year's 1.5 per cent and a 2.6 per cent expansion in 2004.

ROME - War is now the leading cause of world hunger, outstripping weather and natural disasters, according to a United Nations report released Monday.

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) says more than 35 per cent of food emergencies between 1992 and 2003 were the result of conflict and economic problems.

That compares to 15 per cent from 1986 to 1991.

Hunger hot spots

The report was presented in Rome Monday at a meeting of the Committee on World Food Security.

It says there are now 36 hunger hot spots in the world, 23 of them in Africa.

Angola was the worst-hit. It has had an almost permanent food emergency since 1986, most of it caused by war.

"Armed conflicts are now the leading cause of world hunger with the effects of HIV/AIDS and climate change not far behind," the FAO says.

The report warned that the UN goal of reducing the world's hungry by half by the year 2015, is almost certain to be missed if current trends continue.

BEIJING, May 24 -- French opposition to the European Union constitution rose to 53 percent, a French Ipsos survey showed on Monday.

The main reason behind the resistance is the French people think opposition to this treaty will not bring any disastrous consequences to their country.

The survey also shows that 71 percent French people have already made their voting decision. Analysts say there is increasingly small possibility for the situation to change during the French referendum on the 29th of this month.

According to a previous Ipsos poll published on May 16th, 51 percent French opposed the EU constitution treaty. There have been eight polls showing French opposition starting early this month.

Georgian opposition Labor Party Leader Shalva Natelashvili claims the Hungarian-born U.S. billionaire George Soros is the real president of the country, while Mikhail Saakashvili is only an appointed governor, Interfax news agency reported.

Soros, the head of the Development Foundation in his name, has been actively supporting democratic movements in Eastern Europe and his foundation has succeeded in precipitating changes in Serbia, Georgia and Ukraine. Several post-Soviet states have even declared him a persona non grata.

The statement against Georgia’s president was made by Natelashvili ahead of Soros’ visit to Tbilisi, which is due to take place before the end of May. He also said that Georgian Laborites have prepared a “surprise” for Soros, who, in their opinion, was the sponsor of the “Rose revolution” in the fall of 2003.

“We will not throw eggs at him and smear his face with cream, like it is done in other countries, but we have a more civilized surprise for him,” Natelashvili said, adding that it will be “refined”, “unexpected, but quite unpleasant”.

BUENOS AIRES — Hugo Chavez stood dockside as 900 dairy cows plodded onto a ship bound for Venezuela. Then the Venezuelan president raced across the Argentine capital for the opening of a gas station, where leftists mobbed him like a celebrity, chanting his name and releasing balloons.

You'd think Chavez was running for something, more than 5,000 kilometres from home.

And in a way, he is.

Across Latin America, the fiery Chavez is courting a growing bloc of moderate leftist presidents, doling out oil deals and — to Washington's dismay — urging less dependence on the United States and greater unity among Latin American nations.

The Venezuelan leader's no-nonsense style, his criticism of the United States and his advocacy of revolutionary changes to benefit the poor have made him a hero to many in Latin America's resurgent left.

Chavez, 50, seems to be positioning himself as Washington's chief detractor in Latin America, a role long played by Cuba's Fidel Castro, Chavez's 78-year-old role model. And while few Latin leaders are willing to go along with Chavez's harsh anti-U.S. rhetoric, fewer still are willing to criticize him.

"Venezuela has the right to be a sovereign country, to make its own decisions," Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva said. Responding to criticism from Washington, he added: "We won't accept defamations against friends.''

Across the region, left-leaning political leaders have voiced support for Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution" aimed at bringing down a decades-old oligarchy and helping the poor. The Venezuelan president frequently invokes independence hero Simon Bolivar when he speaks of a more politically integrated South America.

Evo Morales, a leader in Bolivia's urban Indian slums, calls himself a "follower" of Chavez.

Chavez drew ovations when he showed up at the March 1 inauguration of Uruguay's first leftist president, Tabare Vazquez.

Even former Ecuadorean president Abdala Bucaram invoked Chavez when he tried to return from exile and make a comeback last month.

"I've come to Ecuador to copy Chavez's style with a great Bolivarian revolution," Bucaram said to cheers. His comeback fizzled, and renewed unrest forced him to flee the country.

Chavez, whose nation is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter and a top supplier to the United States, has the money to deal.

He has signed oil agreements with Argentina and Brazil, pursuing a joint venture called Petrosur for collective oil projects. At regional summits, he greets his counterparts with bear hugs and calls them hermanos — brothers. He talks up regional projects, such as a pan-Latin television news channel with a leftist bent.

After a recent Latin American tour, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice refrained from pointed comments about Chavez but urged Latin Americans to resist what she called the growth of antidemocratic populism in the region. The statement was widely seen as a reference to Chavez.

Michael Shifter, at the Washington think-tank Inter-American Dialogue, said the United States is concerned about Chavez's "broader hemispheric project.''

"He has a lot of ambition and a lot of money, and the United States is interested in stability in the region," Shifter said. "They see a potential for Chavez trying to fuel an agenda opposed to the U.S. on every issue.''

As Washington increasingly voices concern about Chavez, he has taken to calling Rice "the imperial lady," and uses "Mr. Danger" to refer to U.S. President George W. Bush.

On Sunday, he said Venezuela might break diplomatic ties with Washington if the United States doesn't extradite a Cuban exile wanted for a 1976 airplane bombing.

Chavez also said Venezuela is interested in beginning talks with Iran on the possibility of developing nuclear energy as an alternative power source, a plan that could draw more concern in Washington.

"We are interested too, we must start working on that area ... the nuclear area. We could, along with Brazil,