For army finances of 2010, the budget of the Department of Army on overseas contingency operations raises up to $663.8 billion. When, in October 2009, the budget was signed by the President Obama, the final budget for the Department of Defense was $680 billion. Extra $37 billion supplemental bill was also passed in 2010, to assist the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The GAO said that serious financial problems of the USA Army had made financial statements in auditable.

Due to prolong defense system problems, payroll systems have affected thousands of soldiers and have left them underpaid while they are serving in the wars against terrorism. But the military is focusing on those who were overpaid, as many of soldiers who are now returning home have been alleged to be indebted by the Army and other military agencies. They are following these soldiers most frequently for debts they don’t even know about.

Government Accountability Office reported that round about 1,300 Army of USA was injured in battles and those soldiers who were either killed or left the army had almost $1.5 million military debts during the Operation of Iraq and Freedom deployment. Within this sum, about 900 injured soldiers had $1.2 million debt and about 400 dead soldiers had $300,000 debts on them. Thus USA conspiracy is to earn cash from their soldiers and has made their life a total mess.

Thus, hundreds of injured soldiers were trailed for accumulation of army debts burdened on them without any of their fault. Take the example of a 25, a retired staff sergeant who had lost his leg on a roadside bomb explosion and he is trying and spending to fend off $2,231 debt on him. The situation is worsening day after day for the USA Army as the US Government Accountability Office could not deliver a review on the financial statements of the 2010 US Government. London civilians are offered the services of findmanandvan.co.uk that range from household to office removals. Findmanandvan.co.uk fulfils all needs and includes every aspect of removal for residential owners as well as business customers.

It was really disturbing to listen to him refer this way about the fellow American soldiers specially because he once stated he wanted to be able to lead the military soldiers. It is quite bedazzling that he has referred to them as being uneducated and that is why they are stuck in Iraq fighting.

It is no clear what the Democratic Party will do about it; will they remain silent and be hypocrites or address it openly with the public and try to find a logical reason – if there is any – on why Kerry expressed himself this way in front of the future leaders of this country.

It was expected that Kerry was going to try to explain the situation by stating that his words were twisted into something that he didn’t mean to say. However there is no confusion among the students that were present and listened to him give his bizarre speech.

One of the students was George Williams, originally from the UK. He stated he was working for a company but had decided to study in the US for a change. He was quite shocked at the remarks made by Kerry because he was referring to the men and women that fight to defend this great country.

The Gathering of Eagles is supposedly a veterans’ ad hoc group who are allowing themselves to be despicably stage-managed by Rove and Move America Forward using fascist tactics to lie about an anti-war group, just like BushCo lied our country into two abominable wars that have cost hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. The actions around this are very similar to the Swift Boaters—who I believe are also involved in this current Reich-wing, Squawking-Head brouhaha.

The Rove backed tools of hatred and misguided propaganda are saying that in the March 17th march on the Pentagon that I am participating in which is sponsored by A.N.S.W.E.R. is planning on desecrating the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, by spitting on it, or throwing paint on it. What a monumental load of Reich-wing horse pucky!

I have participated in dozens of protests: small, medium, and large, in DC—we even held a candlelight vigil in the Vietnam Memorial, and we have never desecrated it. Why would we begin now and why did Rove start this scandalous lie? Recently, there was a lie-filled article floating around the Reich-wing pucky-o-sphere which claimed that I threw paint on Congress on a day when I was 3000 miles away in Los Angeles. Do Reich-wingers ever tell the truth? Is honesty even in their genes? Is the word “fact” in their vocabulary?

The so-called Gathering of Eagles says on their web site: “We will not allow them to spit on Iraqi Veterans again (itals mine).” First of all, it is not “Iraqi” veteran that is like saying “Vietnamese” veteran. It is “Iraq” veteran. Secondly, I have never spat on any veteran. I know no one who has, or who would spit on a veteran. Saying this is just pure propaganda horse pucky and the small minded people that are manipulating proud veterans with these deceptions should be ashamed of themselves. But we know they aren’t. They aren’t even ashamed of killing, torturing, or maiming innocent people. Why should they suddenly be ashamed of or disavow their tactics now? There tactics only become more contemptible as their positions become more indefensible and untenable.

One fantastic irony is that the only time that I can recall when memorials to fallen Iraq veterans have been desecrated is when Reich-wingers have been the ones doing the vandalizing. The first time was in August of 2005 when Larry Northern mowed over hundreds of crosses at Camp Casey. How do the people who say they honor our fallen heroes feel about this act of violence against these fallen heroes? I know I was appalled and heartbroken that Larry didn’t respect our memorial, our soldiers, and particularly my son.

Another time that a memorial was in January of this year when The Camp Casey Peace Institute put 3000 American flags down Prairie Chapel Road to commemorate the 3000th American soldier killed in Iraq. One woman broke every flag in front of her property (on public land) and left the pieces strewn all over in the bar ditches. Is this respecting our fallen heroes or the American flag? Maybe the Reich-wing suspects that we will desecrate a memorial because they are so good at it?

I wonder how Reich-wingers who bind themselves up in the flag of false patriotism and lift high a cross of self-righteousness feel about two of their symbols being demolished by some of their own ilk. I know there are many falsely patriotic Iraq Memorials around the country that I don’t want my son associated with, but I would never even think of destroying the monument or demanding that Casey’s name be removed from one.

The March to the Pentagon on March 17th will be led by Vietnam Veterans, Iraq Veterans, First Gulf War Veterans, military families and Gold Star Families followed by many other peace and justice groups and individuals. The veterans will be there not to protect a Wall that never should have had to be erected in the first place, but to protect our First Amendment rights to be there; rights that supposedly, Casey and millions of other Americans have died protecting, including the names on the Wall. Rights that all service members swear to uphold. The veterans with us will also be there to make sure that the calamitous Iraq Memorial is not nearly as long as the one that the Eagles think they have to protect.

I believe a Gathering of Vets should surround the Constitution and protect it from further desecration by the Bush Regime. I think a Gathering of Americans should surround the Bill of Rights and refuse to allow BushCo to spit all over that document any longer. I think a Gathering of Patriots should surround the White House and demand that the world’s number one terrorist remove himself and his puppet masters from our house before they do any more damage to our planet and/or to humanity.

Get a clue, buy a vowel, Eagles. You are being played like a banjo by Karl Rove and Move America Forward. You are becoming all irate for absolutely no reason. We are not even going into the memorial. Even if we did we would not desecrate it. How many of your VA benefits to the crooks in the White House have to cut before you finally wake up? They don’t care about you! Don’t let them shovel any more Reich-wing horse pucky down your throats. Refuse to be used. Don’t be minions of, or in league with devils.

Eagles, if you come to DC looking for trouble you won’t find it from me. I honor your service to our country as I deplore George and Dick’s cowardly avoidance of that same service.

The first time I visited DC just six short months after Casey was killed, I placed a picture of him at the base of the Wall next to a picture of Sgt. Mike Mitchell, who was killed in the same battle as Casey on 04/04/04. Two more boys murdered for the Military Industrial Complex. Two more families destroyed for the lies of their leaders. Two more lives wasted.

Before his arrival, rumors were already flowing that every FOB (Forward Operating Base) Commander told General Casey that they already had another “DV” (Distinguished Visitor) to support while Sen. Kerry was in country — or that they would be in the middle of ongoing operations — and hence were unable to support his visit. This rumor was either sparked or confirmed by a post by Matt on Blackfive. (Blackfive, for those who don’t already read it, is an infinitely more interesting military blog than mine).

Hey, I just came from a meeting where they were trying to get some commander, any commander, in the Green Zone, to host Jawn Carri.

Swear to God, the CG is saying, “You can’t tell me you ALL have things going on at that time! Come on!”

So, it appears that JF’nK will be coming to the Palace at the Embassy Annex and sitting around sucking up coffee at the Green Bean while we all try to ignore him.

Me, I’m gonna get a picture with him.

While in Iraq, things didn’t get much better for Senator Kerry. Rumor has it that somebody gave his helicopter flights the designation “Weasel 61.” (Legend has it that when Senator Clinton visited Afghanistan, her bird was assigned “Broomstick 11″ as its code name). Before taking off, supposedly the helicopter pilot jumped out of the front seat while the rotor was turning (an extremely rare event), approached the rear of the bird, and asked Senator Kerry to autograph a copy of the photograph below:

On Saturday night, a colleague emailed me and told me to bring my camera, as Senator Kerry was scheduled to give a press conference here in the Palace. At 2100, he entered a conference room wearing his leather flight jacket. Unfortunately, there was no media there, except for the enlisted soldiers from AFTN (Armed Forces Television Network) who had to be there. His aide looked around, saw that this just wasn’t happening, and quickly escorted Kerry out before I could take a picture.

Finally, the next morning, Senator Kerry ate chow at the Dining Facility. Normally when a Senator/Representative visits, he is joined by a contingent of soldiers/Marines/airmen from his home state. Despite the fact that the MP unit responsible for Green Zone security is an Army Reserve unit from Massachusetts, not a single soldier went to sit with him. (By contrast, Bill O’Reilly, host of that terrible shoutfest on Fox, had over 400 soldiers waiting in line to meet him on Saturday).

Schaudenfraude is the German word for taking pleasure in somebody else’s suffering. I don’t know whether I should feel this or rather pity for Senator Kerry, who looked like a kid on his first day at a new school. I’m not sure what kind of a reception he expected to receive here given his “botched joke” before the election, but I’m debating whether to give him points for having the chutzpah to come to Iraq.

Shargh was one of four publications shut down on Sept. 11 by the Press Supervisory Board, a conservative government watchdog group that monitors Iran’s media. In addition to the cartoon, the board said the newspaper was also guilty of such misdemeanors as interviewing the British and German ambassadors to Tehran; citing the BBC as a reliable source of information; propagating Marxist ideas; publishing an interview with former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon, and carrying reports about premarital sex and children born out of wedlock.

For Shargh’s 300 employees, the closure was not a new experience. Most had previously worked on one of the more than 100 newspapers that were shut down by the government during the last eight years; some have lost their jobs several times. “Shargh was the only truly independent newspaper in the country with a large circulation [of 100,000],” city reporter Samaneh Ghadarkhan told NEWSWEEK. “The closure shows that the government of Mr. Ahmadinejad cannot take any criticism. The fact that the closure has happened on the eve of two important elections [for city councils and the Assembly of Experts, which supervises the actions of Iran's supreme leader] is a sign that they don’t want any voice except for theirs in the country.” There was also concern about the economic effects of the ban on the paper’s 2,000 distribution and sales workers. “The government has a primitive approach to solving its problems vis-à-vis the press,” says Emaddedin Baghi, a human-rights activist whose son-in-law, Mohammad Ghoochani, is the editor of Shargh. “Even if there has been a mistake, why should they punish everyone collectively? It’s like shutting down a factory for the mistake of a worker. What should the rest of the people do? Should they die of hunger?”

Still, for many the talk was less about the fate of the unemployed staffers than the grist that the shutdown provided for their rumor mill. Iranians have always loved conspiracy theories, and the government’s latest crackdown on the media and human-rights activists has fostered plenty of those in recent weeks. The conspiracy theory du jour? That the Islamic regime has reached a convenient agreement with the West whereby Tehran will compromise on its nuclear program in exchange for silence on human-rights abuses and the suppression of freedom of expression. Like most Iranian conspiracy theories, this one speculates that foreigners are behind the events. And like most, it springs up from a hodgepodge of information gleaned by speculators in a country that lacks open forums for debate and analysis. But true or not, the mere fact that the theories exist has an impact all its own. “I don’t have any facts about whether a deal was made or not,” says Emaddedin Baghi, a human-rights activist. “But this is something that you and I can hear on the street everyday. That in itself is important.”

Iranian theories about a deal appear to be based on two recent developments. Last week, for the first time in months, both Iranian and European negotiators expressed satisfaction about the progress made during their nuclear talks. Iranians have allegedly agreed to suspend uranium enrichment for a period of two months, and the Europeans agreed to further discussions rather than carrying out threats to impose sanctions on Tehran. At the same time, both Washington and the West have been uncharacteristically silent on the subject of Tehran’s latest moves against dissenting voices. Just six weeks ago, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that Washington condemned the Iranian government’s severe repression of dissidents after an imprisoned student activist, Akbar Mohammadi, died during a hunger strike in jail. Yet when after another prisoner, Valiollah Feyz Mahdavi, hung himself in prison on Sept. 6, there was no public statement about human-rights abuses in Iran.

That didn’t surprise Iranians, who have long considered Western comments on civil liberties to be hypocritical and counterproductive. “I usually don’t like to connect different events to each other,” says Shadi Sadr, an Iranian women’s rights activist. “But a deal between the Iranian government and the West is not unprecedented. Human rights in Iran have always been the victim of lucrative trade deals between Iran and the Western governments.” Nor are the rumormongers likely to be convinced by the European diplomat who told NEWSWEEK emphatically that no deal had been made. In their circles, denials are just another part of the conspiracy.

Imagine an Arab guerrilla army that is never seen by Israeli forces, never publicly celebrates victories or mourns defeats, and merges so successfully into the local population that Western TV networks can’t interview its commanders or fighters. Such was the achievement of Hezbollah’s 33-day war against Israeli troops, who admitted that they rarely saw the enemy until they were shot at.

Israel’s high-tech surveillance and weaponry were no match for Hezbollah’s low-tech network of underground tunnels. Hezbollah’s success in stealth and total battlefield secrecy is an example of what extremists are trying to do worldwide.

In southern Afghanistan, the Taliban have learned to avoid U.S. and NATO surveillance satellites and drones in order to gather up to 400 guerrillas at a time for attacks on Afghan police stations and army posts. They have also learned to disperse before U.S. airpower is unleashed on them, to hide their weapons and merge into the local population.

In North and South Waziristan, the tribal regions along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, an alliance of extremist groups that includes al-Qaeda, Pakistani and Afghan Taliban, Central Asians, and Chechens has won a significant victory against the army of Pakistan. The army, which has lost some 800 soldiers in the past three years, has retreated, dismantled its checkpoints, released al-Qaeda prisoners and is now paying large “compensation” sums to the extremists.

This region, considered “terrorism central” by U.S. commanders in Afghanistan, is now a fully operational al-Qaeda base area offering a wide range of services, facilities, and military and explosives training for extremists around the world planning attacks. Waziristan is now a regional magnet. In the past six months up to 1,000 Uzbeks, escaping the crackdown in Uzbekistan after last year’s massacre by government security forces in the town of Andijan, have found sanctuary with al-Qaeda in Waziristan.

In Iraq, according to a recent Pentagon study, attacks by insurgents jumped to 800 per week in the second quarter of this year — double the number in the first quarter. Iraqi casualties have increased by 50 percent. The organization al-Qaeda in Iraq has spawned an array of new guerrilla tactics, weapons and explosive devices that it is conveying to the Taliban and other groups.

Moreover, efforts by armies to win the local citizens’ hearts and minds and carry out reconstruction projects are also failing as extremists attack “soft” targets, such as teachers, civil servants and police officers, decapitating the local administration and terrorizing the people.

No doubt on all these battlefields Islamic extremists are taking massive casualties — at least a thousand Taliban have been killed by NATO forces in the past six months. But on many fronts there is an inexhaustible supply of recruits for suicide-style warfare.

Western armies, with their Vietnam-era obsession with body counts, are not lessening the number of potential extremists every time they kill them but are actually encouraging more to join, because they have no political strategy to close adjacent borders and put pressure on the neighbors.

Militants from around the Arab world and even Europe are arriving in Iraq to kill Americans. Yet the United States refuses to speak to neighbors Syria and Iran, which facilitate their arrival.

Hundreds of Pakistani Pashtuns are joining the Taliban in their fight against NATO. Yet NATO has adopted a head-in-the-sand attitude, pretending that Afghanistan is a self-contained operational theater without neighbors and so declining to put pressure on Pakistan to close down Taliban bases in Baluchistan and Waziristan.

If this is indeed a long war, as the Bush administration says, then the United States has almost certainly lost the first phase. Guerrillas are learning faster than Western armies, and the West makes appalling strategic mistakes while the extremists make brilliant tactical moves.

As al-Qaeda and its allies prepare to spread their global jihad to Central Asia, the Caucasus and other parts of the Middle East, they will carry with them the accumulated experience and lessons of the past five years. The West and its regional allies are not prepared to match them.

“These are dangerous men, with unparalleled knowledge about terrorist networks and their plans of new attacks,” Bush said. “The security of our nation and the lives of our citizens depend on our ability to learn what these terrorists know.”

The protections apply to all prisoners now being held by the CIA, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept.11 attacks, Abu Zubaydah, and senior al Qaeda leader Ramzi Binalshibh. While the detainees may not be household names, they were top aides to Osama bin Laden, and the veritable “crown jewels” of the military operations that have been conducted in Afghanistan.

Many detainees were given the legal status of “enemy combatant,” which includes both lawful enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants.

Until now, the U.S. government has not officially acknowledged the existence of CIA prisons. The Bush administration has come under harsh criticism for the way it has handled detainees captured in the U.S.-led military campaign to root out al Qaeda terror cells abroad.

In an afternoon address, Bush defended the aim of the secret program without specifically addressing the controversial interrogation techniques that were first reported in November 2005 by ABC News’ chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross. The administration has come under criticism not only for the secret detentions but for the alleged psychological and physical stress they put on prisoners during interrogations.

“Torture” Tactics

“I want to be absolutely clear with our people and the world: The United States does not torture. It’s against our laws and it’s against our values. I have not authorized it, and I will not authorize it,” Bush said in his afternoon address.

“The CIA program has been, and remains, one of the most vital tools in our war against the terrorists,” Bush said.

The statement leaves open the possibility that while the 14 detainees have been moved from CIA to Department of Defense custody, the CIA program to hold and interrogate detainees is still active. “Black sites,” or secret prisons, may still hold high-value al Qaeda prisoners.

Today’s announcement provides a mechanism to move detainees out of CIA custody once interrogators have obtained any “time-sensitive, threat related” information, according to one intelligence source.

Bush said torture is not condoned, but he said that as it became clear that Zubaydah had been trained on how to resist interrogation, the CIA “used an alternative set of procedures,” which he said were “designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution and our treaty obligations.”

Bush did not explain what the “safe and lawful and necessary” procedures were. But “enhanced interrogation techniques” instituted in mid March 2002 were used on the 14 top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to eastern Europe. According to intelligence sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques, which include slapping and scare tactics.

One of the techniques, “water-boarding,” entails pouring water over victims to make them feel as if they were drowning, a maneuver that often results in a confession within a few seconds.

“The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law,” said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

In December 2005, the CIA closed prisons in Poland and Romania because of what was in Human Rights Watch reports. Since then, the locations of the prisons, or “black sites,” have been secret and the government has all but denied their existence.

A Call to Congress

Bush called on Congress to “list the specific recognizable offenses that would be considered crimes under the War Crimes Act so our personnel can know clearly what is prohibited in the handling of terrorist enemies.”

He also asked that Congress “make explicit that by following the standards of the Detainee Treatment Act, our personnel fulfill America’s obligations under Common Article III of the Geneva Conventions.”

Last, he requested that Congress “make it clear that captured terrorists cannot use the Geneva Conventions as grounds to sue our personnel in courts — in U.S. courts.”

The president also criticized the decision of the Supreme Court that hindered previous attempts to prosecute the prisoners. In late June, the Supreme Court decided to block military tribunals for detainees, stating the prisoners were subject to international law and the Geneva Conventions.

“We have a right under the laws of war, and an obligation to the American people, to detain these enemies and stop them,” Bush said in his afternoon address.

The Supreme Court decision was a major rebuke to the Bush administration, as it required the president to first seek the approval of Congress before ordering prisoners to be tried for war crimes.

The decision forced the administration to reconsider the legal battle against the prisoners, and made their future uncertain.

Bush urged Congress to make the legislation a top priority in the next session as the issues are “urgent” and “time is of the essence.”

The Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee met in Chicago on the eve of a larger meeting involving the full 300-member DNC and added a provision to a proposed new delegate selection rule that would deny candidates delegates won in states holding primaries or caucuses outside of the specific date set by the DNC.

Today, the full DNC is expected to adopt the new overall rule pushing New Hampshire’s primary from second to third on the 2008 Presidential nominating calendar, behind Iowa and, now, three days behind a Nevada caucus.

Gov. John Lynch and state Rep. James Splaine, D-Portsmouth, a longtime defender of the New Hampshire primary, issued last-minute letters asking the DNC to reconsider. But it was expected to fall on deaf ears as the DNC is expected to pass the new rule easily. State Democratic Chairman Kathy Sullivan called New Hampshire’s effort today “an uphill battle.”

The DNC’s action can be seen on the cable news network C-SPAN beginning at 11 a.m.

New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner has often said that the date of the primary will not be dictated by any party rule.

State law says the primary must be held seven days ahead of any “similar election.” Gardner has said that an additional caucus may fit into his broad interpretation that the law requires him to preserve the primary’s traditional impact on national politics, even though party-run caucuses are structured much differently than state-run primaries and may not be “similar.”

As a result, Gardner has strongly indicated he may jump the date of the primary ahead of the Jan. 22, 2008 date set out in the proposed DNC rule, regardless of what that rule says.

The DNC now appears poised to punish candidates who campaign in the Granite State by withholding their delegates if they campaign in a state that holds a primary or caucus on a date other than the one specifically mandated by the DNC.

As reported by the New Hampshire Union Leader, the amendment to the delegate selection rule was first bought up by rules committee member Carol Khare Fowler of South Carolina at the rules panel’s meeting in Washington last month.

After questions were raised, the Fowler plan, which defines campaigning, was set aside at that meeting. But it re-surfaced yesterday, was adopted by the rules committee and will be part of the new overall rule to be considered today.

Gardner has said he will not set the date of the primary until the fall of 2007, after all other states have moved their caucuses and primaries. By that time, candidates will have well-established campaigns in New Hampshire and it is doubtful they will pack up their campaigns and abandon the state once the date is set.

In fact, potential Democratic Presidential candidates New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry have said they will campaign in New Hampshire regardless of potential punishment by the DNC.

“I don’t think candidates are campaigning in New Hampshire to pick up 18 or 19 delegates,” said Sullivan, a rules committee member, said in a telephone interview from Chicago after yesterday’s vote. She said the rules committee voted “under the mistaken impression that New Hampshire actually cares whether we have any delegates or not.”

She said that under the Fowler amendment, “We would probably end up losing all of our pledged delegates, which is 18, but this is not about delegates for us.”

Sullivan also said today’s vote “will be an uphill battle for us. Typically, the full DNC does not reject the recommendations of the rules committee.”

Lynch’s letter to all DNC members reiterated warnings he gave the rules committee members before last month’s meeting.

He said the new rule would “exacerbate the significant problem with frontloading (the nominating calendar), which already makes it difficult for qualified potential candidates to compete. Moreover, by placing Nevada between Iowa and New Hampshire, the DNC will be placing itself on a collision course with the laws of Iowa and New Hampshire, which could result in chaos for the nominating process.”

The national party is adding Nevada to the early mix primarily because its racially and ethnically diverse population stands in contrast to Iowa and New Hampshire’s mostly white makeup.

Lynch wrote, “Our party can strengthen its nominating process and increase diversity. The plan now before you is the wrong way to do it.”

Splaine, who authored the 1975 state law mandating the primary be held a week ahead of any “similar election,” wrote that the law “will be used to protect our lead-off position. It must be. With that in mind, I ask that you consider turning down the recommendations” of the rules committee.”

Raul Castro also said in Friday editions of the island’s Communist Party newspaper that he had mobilized tens of thousands of troops in response to what he called aggressive U.S. acts, including stepped-up radio and television broadcasts to the island, and an $80 million plan to hasten the end of the Castros’ rule.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey declined on Friday to respond specifically to Raul Castro’s comment but said “I don’t think we’re particularly enamored of the first words we heard from ‘Fidel Light.’”

For more than four decades, U.S. policy toward Cuba has been to undermine Cuba’s one-party authoritarian rule through a trade embargo and restrictions on American travel to the Caribbean country. The neighboring countries have been without diplomatic relations since January 1961.

In recent years, the U.S. government has been working on a plan aimed at encouraging a transition to a Western-style democracy and free markets after Fidel Castro is gone, replacing a Communist system that tightly controls the economy and does not tolerate dissent.

The 75-year-old Cuban defense minister said his 80-year-old brother is undergoing a “satisfactory and gradual recovery” from intestinal surgery. The interview in Friday’s newspaper seemed aimed at answering questions at home and abroad about Raul Castro’s whereabouts and activities after his brother granted him provisional power.

“They should be very clear that it is not possible to achieve anything in Cuba with impositions and threats,” the younger Castro said of the U.S. “On the contrary, we have always been disposed to normalize relations on an equal plane.

“What we do not accept is the arrogant and interventionist policy frequently assumed by the current administration of that country,” he added.

Raul Castro’s comments essentially restated his brother’s longstanding position of favoring normalized diplomatic and trade ties with the United States.

In Washington, U.S. State Department characterized the temporary leadership hand over as a “dynastic succession,” saying it is not acceptable to the United States and would be rejected by the Cuban people over the long run.

“What we want is a transition from the current dictatorship to a democratic government,” Casey said. “And we certainly don’t think that a transition from Fidel to Raul Castro fits that bill.”

In another move likely to be seen as an aggression by Havana, U.S. National Intelligence Director John Negroponte announced Friday he was creating a “mission manager” for Cuba and Venezuela to oversee the American spy community’s efforts to collect and analyze intelligence on the two countries.

And he criticized the U.S. “transition” plan for Cuba, which includes $80 million in government funds for opposition groups supporting democratic change in Cuba. “The bulk of it will be distributed in Miami, as is usually the case,” he said.

Raul Castro has been at his brother’s side since they launched the revolution with a 1953 attack against dictator Fulgencio Batista’s military. As the No. 2 man in government, he’s constitutionally designated to succeed his brother permanently should Fidel Castro die or be permanently incapacitated.

He said he cared about what the Cuban people think, and noted his appearance on state television on Sunday, his brother’s 80th birthday, to greet visiting Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez at the airport. He also appeared in photographs taken that afternoon with his brother and Chavez.

“As a point of fact, I am not used to making frequent appearances in public, except at times when it is required,” the younger Castro said. “I have always been discreet, that is my way, and in passing I will clarify that I am thinking of continuing in that way.”

“It is the view of the intelligence community that a test is a real possibility,” said a senior State Department official.

A senior military official told ABC News that a U.S. intelligence agency has recently observed “suspicious vehicle movement” at a suspected North Korean test site.

The activity includes the unloading of large reels of cable outside P’unggye-yok, an underground facility in northeast North Korea. Cables can be used in nuclear testing to connect an underground test site to outside observation equipment. The intelligence was brought to the attention of the White House last week.

Even before this most recent intelligence, there has been growing concern within the U.S. government that North Korea has been moving toward a nuclear test. North Korea is believed to have enough nuclear material to build as many as a dozen nuclear bombs, but it has never tested one. A successful test would remove any doubt that North Korea is a nuclear power.

“What does he have to lose?” asked one senior military official, referring to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.

On July 4, North Korea conducted seven ballistic missile tests, which provoked international condemnation, including a unanimous United States Security Council resolution condemning its actions. A nuclear test, however, would be seen as a much greater provocation than the missile tests. Only seven other nations in the world have ever conducted nuclear tests.

U.S. officials fear a nuclear test could provoke a nuclear arms race in East Asia, forcing Japan and South Korea to develop their own nuclear weapons.

“A nuclear test is going to be alarming and troubling for everyone and would cause a very strong reaction I think from all of North Korea’s neighbors,” said former National Security Council official Michael Green, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

U.S. officials caution that the intelligence is not conclusive. Last year U.S. spy satellites picked up suspicious activity at suspected test sites in North Korea, leading some to predict an imminent nuclear test, but nothing happened.

Underground nuclear tests are notoriously difficult to detect ahead of time. U.S. intelligence agencies, for example, failed to predict nuclear tests by India and Pakistan in 1998.

Officials say it is possible that North Korea may either be putting on a show for American spy satellites to get attention, or may conduct a nuclear test in an entirely different location.

Some analysts believe Kim Jong Il may feel the only way to be taken seriously is to prove that North Korea is a nuclear power. Officials acknowledge that nobody really knows Kim Jong Il’s intentions, but there is a belief among analysts that he is upset about the recent U.N. resolution condemning his missile tests and upset with the Chinese for supporting that resolution.

“It is the view of most in the community that there is a 50-50 chance North Korea will conduct a nuclear test by the end of the year,” said one analyst.

Asked what the United States would do in response to a nuclear test, a senior U.S. official told ABC News, “We would try to hermetically seal the hermit kingdom.”

The official said the United States would immediately push for sanctions to cut North Korea’s ties to the outside world. Another possible option would be a naval blockade of North Korea.

But it is unclear how effective such efforts would be. North Korea is already the most isolated country in the world.