The Netherlands on Friday was quick to react to Sheehan's testimony. Dutch Defense Minister Eimert van Middelkoop issued a statement calling the remarks "outrageous and unworthy of a soldier." He went on to say, "I do not want to waste any more words on the matter."Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said the remarks were "disgraceful" and "should never have been made. ... It is way off the mark to talk like that about people and the work they do under very difficult circumstances." He added that he would not take up the matter with Obama because Sheehan is retired. Wim van den Burg, head of the Dutch military union AFMP, called Sheehan's comments "ridiculous" and "out of the realm of fiction."...Committee Chairman Levin said that Sheehan's attempt to connect Dutch military shortcomings to the service of homosexuals in Holland's military "was totally off target." Sheehan was NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic in the mid-1990s.
Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende said the remarks were "disgraceful" and "should never have been made. ... It is way off the mark to talk like that about people and the work they do under very difficult circumstances." He added that he would not take up the matter with Obama because Sheehan is retired.
Wim van den Burg, head of the Dutch military union AFMP, called Sheehan's comments "ridiculous" and "out of the realm of fiction."
...Committee Chairman Levin said that Sheehan's attempt to connect Dutch military shortcomings to the service of homosexuals in Holland's military "was totally off target." Sheehan was NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic in the mid-1990s.
German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg is under pressure following parliamentary testimony relating to the controversial Sept. 4 bombing in Kunduz, Afghanistan. Guttenberg, says a top German general he fired, isn't telling the whole truth....The high expectations were not disappointed. Schneiderhan had prepared himself well for his appearance before the committee. He took one and a half hours to deliver his initial statement, which left few questions unanswered. He could date conversations and meetings to the minute and came across as highly credible. He also accused Guttenberg of lying about the reasons for his and Wichert's dismissals. 'Slanderous' Schneiderhan did not mince words. Staff close to the defense minister claimed that Schneiderhan and Wichert on Nov. 25 denied the existence of reports on the Kunduz air strike beyond the NATO report, which Guttenberg had seen. That version of events was "slanderous" and incorrect, Schneiderhan said. Rather, Schneiderhan said, he and Wichert had given the minister all the available files immediately after Guttenberg had asked about other reports. Wichert, who also addressed the inquiry Thursday, testified that the NATO report which Guttenberg had seen contained "all the facts which were in any way relevant for evaluating the incident." Wichert rejected the accusation that he had been involved in a cover-up. "This is utter nonsense," he told the inquiry on Thursday evening.
...The high expectations were not disappointed. Schneiderhan had prepared himself well for his appearance before the committee. He took one and a half hours to deliver his initial statement, which left few questions unanswered. He could date conversations and meetings to the minute and came across as highly credible. He also accused Guttenberg of lying about the reasons for his and Wichert's dismissals.
'Slanderous'
Schneiderhan did not mince words. Staff close to the defense minister claimed that Schneiderhan and Wichert on Nov. 25 denied the existence of reports on the Kunduz air strike beyond the NATO report, which Guttenberg had seen. That version of events was "slanderous" and incorrect, Schneiderhan said. Rather, Schneiderhan said, he and Wichert had given the minister all the available files immediately after Guttenberg had asked about other reports.
Wichert, who also addressed the inquiry Thursday, testified that the NATO report which Guttenberg had seen contained "all the facts which were in any way relevant for evaluating the incident." Wichert rejected the accusation that he had been involved in a cover-up. "This is utter nonsense," he told the inquiry on Thursday evening.
"If Guttenberg is found to have lied in connection with a central leadership decision, his position as defense minister is no longer viable," Social Democratic Party whip Thomas Opperman told the Berliner Zeitung on Friday. The Greens' spokesman for defense matters, Omid Nouripour, told the ARD television network that Guttenberg should step down if that is proven to be the case. But Nouripour added that he had not yet seen proof in that direction.
"If Guttenberg is found to have lied in connection with a central leadership decision, his position as defense minister is no longer viable," Social Democratic Party whip Thomas Opperman told the Berliner Zeitung on Friday.
The Greens' spokesman for defense matters, Omid Nouripour, told the ARD television network that Guttenberg should step down if that is proven to be the case. But Nouripour added that he had not yet seen proof in that direction.
SPIEGEL ONLINE has discovered that German military commanders and the Defense Ministry made more concerted efforts at covering up the truth after the air strike than was previously known. Confidential documents, which have been obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE, show that the Defense Ministry set up a special working group composed of at least five officials to influence the NATO investigation into the incident. According to the documents, "Group 85," as the task force was known, was charged with creating a "positive image" of the events in Kunduz through a targeted communication strategy in a bid to deflect criticism of the Bundeswehr, Germany's military. The task force was set up on Sept. 9, just five days after the attack, and answered to Peter Wichert, a senior official in the Defense Ministry at the time. Two days later, Wichert took part in an initial videoconference with the group's members. Later, he made sure that the unit gave him regular updates on their work.
According to the documents, "Group 85," as the task force was known, was charged with creating a "positive image" of the events in Kunduz through a targeted communication strategy in a bid to deflect criticism of the Bundeswehr, Germany's military.
The task force was set up on Sept. 9, just five days after the attack, and answered to Peter Wichert, a senior official in the Defense Ministry at the time. Two days later, Wichert took part in an initial videoconference with the group's members. Later, he made sure that the unit gave him regular updates on their work.
Narendra Modi, tipped as a future prime minister, is called to appear before tribunal investigating 2002 Gujarat massacreWith his face gazing from posters celebrating the 600th anniversary of the founding of this historic city, Narendra Modi - chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat - likes to present himself as a man of destiny. Yet slowly but surely history may be catching up with India's most controversial politician. Eight years after perhaps the worst episode of religious violence since Partition, a frenzy of brutality in which hundreds of Muslims were raped and murdered by sword-wielding mobs, the slow-turning wheels of Indian justice have finally stopped outside Mr Modi's door. A special investigation team set up by the country's Supreme Court has summoned him to appear and answer allegations that he should be held responsible for the violence. "He has been summoned to appear from the week starting this Sunday," confirmed the inquiry's head, RK Raghavan. "[As to whether he appears] your guess is as good as mine." No one alleges Mr Modi, a member of the right-wing, Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), personally took part in the wave of killings that engulfed several Gujarati cities in the spring of 2002, an orgy of violence triggered by the deaths of dozens of Hindu activists in a train fire. But it is said that at the very least he did insufficient to stop it, even when he was contacted by those whose lives were fatally threatened. Others say he actively seized on the violence for political reasons and allowed it to burn for several days. He has always denied the allegations.
With his face gazing from posters celebrating the 600th anniversary of the founding of this historic city, Narendra Modi - chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat - likes to present himself as a man of destiny. Yet slowly but surely history may be catching up with India's most controversial politician.
Eight years after perhaps the worst episode of religious violence since Partition, a frenzy of brutality in which hundreds of Muslims were raped and murdered by sword-wielding mobs, the slow-turning wheels of Indian justice have finally stopped outside Mr Modi's door. A special investigation team set up by the country's Supreme Court has summoned him to appear and answer allegations that he should be held responsible for the violence.
"He has been summoned to appear from the week starting this Sunday," confirmed the inquiry's head, RK Raghavan. "[As to whether he appears] your guess is as good as mine."
No one alleges Mr Modi, a member of the right-wing, Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), personally took part in the wave of killings that engulfed several Gujarati cities in the spring of 2002, an orgy of violence triggered by the deaths of dozens of Hindu activists in a train fire. But it is said that at the very least he did insufficient to stop it, even when he was contacted by those whose lives were fatally threatened. Others say he actively seized on the violence for political reasons and allowed it to burn for several days. He has always denied the allegations.
The US and Russia are on the brink of a new nuclear arms reduction deal, having resolved all major issues in talks, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (pictured with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov) said on Friday after talks in Moscow.
US President Barack Obama has hailed a "historic weekend" ahead of a key House of Representatives vote on health reform Sunday. A "yes" vote would bring coverage to 32 million Americans who currently lack health care insurance.
