Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 14, 2006
WB: Rummy Punch

Billmon:

The chances that Dick Cheney will fire his old boss and ideological comrade in crime are only slightly higher than the chances that Rumsfeld’s removal would lead to even a minor improvement in the situation in Iraq. It’s almost like asking Cheney to fire himself.

To be honest, I think the pair of them would get rid of Junior before they would ever consider stepping down. This absolute determination to hold on to office at all costs may seem bizarre, considering how old and sick these guys are — and how much shit is coming down on their heads every day — but it’s just the way these things work.

Rummy Punch

Comments

The fight is not about Rummy per se. The fight is about the planning for the War On Iran.
Rummy wants fast and vast air attacks (nukes?) and Marines going in to preserve some oil access in the Iranian oil provinces.
The generals don´t care much about the air attack (they do not like nukes but that is a side issue) but they especially do not like THEIR Marines to be put buried into another shithole without the overwhelming, deceicive force they are used to fight with.
Rummy, again, wants only a small force for Iran. The generals want at least 500,000 pieces of canon fudder on the ground. There are no 500,000 available – end of discussion.
That is why Marine Lt. Gen. Gregory Newbold said: “We won’t get fooled again!”

Posted by: b | Apr 14 2006 7:02 utc | 1

For a scenario on how an attack on Iran could play out in Iraq Pat Lang provides this fine (and funny written) word document.

Meanwhile back at the Green Zone they’re down to their last latte and MRE, which means we have to fight our way into the city to resupply them. Won’t that be fun. The Mahdi Army was a handful when it was a scratch force of street kids with whatever hardware they could dig up. Now its said to be 3 to 5 times as large with a lot more weapons and a whole bunch of the little dickens are reported to have been through Revolutionary Guard Training camps in Iran. They will also have the enthusiastic help of most of the Iraqi army and police units stationed in Baghdad. I also strongly suspect that the Mahdi Army has received training and advice from some Shia gentlemen from the Bekka valley. The Sadr family has a lot of friends in Lebanon, it was a Sadr who founded Amal. Now if all of this isn’t bad enough, within a few days of the balloon going up, the first Pasdaran units should start showing up in Bahgdad with very good wire guided antitank missiles.

The generals do know this scenario is real. Therefor the mutiny.

Posted by: b | Apr 14 2006 7:30 utc | 2

great Pat Lang article, b.
The really funny clincher:-
Offer them something like, like,………….like a mulligan.
Nah. It can’t happen. The neonuts are already fucked.

Posted by: DM | Apr 14 2006 8:12 utc | 3

Raw Story has an interesting piece on this:

US outsourcing special operations, intelligence to Iraq terror group, current and former intelligence officials say
The Pentagon is bypassing official US intelligence channels and turning to a dangerous and unruly cast of characters in order to create strife in Iran in preparation for any possible attack, former and current intelligence officials say.
…Although the specifics of what the MEK is being used for remain unclear, a UN official close to the Security Council explained that the newly renamed MEK soldiers are being run instead of military advance teams, committing acts of violence in hopes of staging an insurgency of the Iranian Sunni population.
“We are already at war,” the UN official told RAW STORY.

Posted by: Vin Carreo | Apr 14 2006 8:18 utc | 4

I suppose this is all the upside of the Bush administration. Any back sliding (or fireing) at this point could unravel the whole ball of string, so of course we cant have any of that. Damn the torpedos and full speed ahead — with the bald faced lying, the breathless and incomprehensable incompetency, the cross-eyed jug eared smirk infested speeches and press conferences, and yes most of all the the cast in concrete and frozen for all time intransient stubborness that has become the leaden hallmark of this administration. Which inadvertantly has also become — like everything else they have ever done — their own self prescribed prescription for failure, and in this case, their own self imposed incompasitation. I dread the thought that any housecleaning should take place. Could you imagine the (horrible) collective sigh of relief that would proceed a major shake-up, the bold executive action, a new plan for the war on terror, hey maybe we can win in Iraq, or Holy Shit the president might not be insane after all, its a new day, yadayada. No, we cant have any alteration of revision on this nearly completed masterpiece, so that the picture is as crystal clear as possible, before it collapses in on itself in a neat and consice little heap.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 14 2006 8:22 utc | 5

Seymour Hersh was on NPR yesterday
He made these three points (and several others)
– They will never ever fire Rumsfeld
– They don´t want Jaafari as Iraq prime minister because he would ask the US to leave
– In all the planing for War On Iran there has not been done ANY calculation on how many civilainas would be wacked

Posted by: b | Apr 14 2006 9:02 utc | 6

@anna No, we cant have any alteration of revision on this nearly completed masterpiece, so that the picture is as crystal clear as possible, before it collapses in on itself in a neat and consice little heap.
I agree in principle, but how many lives are we willing to give for that?

Posted by: b | Apr 14 2006 9:05 utc | 7

b,
Less than than in a resurgence of confidence in the administration, that may enable more carnage.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 14 2006 9:26 utc | 8

There is strong opinion that Rumsfeld will NEVER be fired. Billmon and Sy Hersh have gone public with this stance, and there are others.
In favor of of this opinion is the intense Bubble Factor — that these neocons live in self reinforcing realms of Yes Men and carefully filtered factoids and findings, which makes it effortless for them to simply sail straight ahead, what with their being absolutely right about everything they do. Everyone they know always says so.
Billmon and Hersh are right to say that this Revolt of the Retired Generals won’t cut it — that Rumsfeld can canoe these rapids, despite the big brass very publicly pissing on his head.
But that is not what is happening. It’s a power play.
It’s not simply about the Generals, you see. It’s about power. It always is with these neocons.
Our grand experiment in self government is at the breaking point in a crucial Constitutional crisis. In the coming weeks, Bush will either move our military into Iran, on his sole personal authority, or he will be stopped, hindered, put off, delayed, prevented. Somehow.
What will prevent Bush from opening Pandora’s Box in the Middle East, by widening his two lost wars into a truly regional war? It will be the very real threat of losing power.
No, it won’t be we, the people. Feh! Any size or sort of public outcry means nothing to these students of Strauss. Nor do valedictorians or votes in Congress, for these neocons have moved beyond the law, beyond the rules.
They operate only by the law of power. And that is how they will be restrained. It is the only way they will be restrained now.
Above all else, the legs the neocons stand upon, to tower over us all, are a compliant Pentagon, and an industrial complex well fed at the public trough. Ah, yes. The guys Eisenhower warned us about.
The neocons are rapidly losing the backing of the military and of Big Business over this Iran thing. That means a loss of power. It means they won’t be able to swing the big baseball bats they had just a few months ago.
The military knows damn well that if they move as ordered on Iran, they will get run out of the Middle East, or be forced to immediately nuke millions of people to save our permanent bases and the troops on them.
Big Business knows damn well that attacking Iran will bring a truly regional war over there, quickly involving Israel, and that oil will jump to triple digits per barrel, and global business will suffer complete collapse. That’s not a win-win scenario. It’s quite the opposite.
Big Business likes wars that are manageable, that eat up materiel at a profitable pace, resource wars that regurgitate profits for reasonable risks of capital and corpses. But this Iran thing will clearly blow sky high and go nuclear — and how will their CPA’s and fund managers know what is best for the bottom line in that scenario?
Will there be a bottom line anymore? Will there be an Army to sell things to?
So, it isn’t just that Rumsfeld will go, it’s that the whole neocon crew will go, as soon as their power base deserts them. They will become as Ozymandis overnight, if they push this Iran thing much further.
Oh, sabre rattling is all well and good. But as Bush appears to be serious about Iran, his prime backers are abandoning him. It is happening before our eyes. There are a great many defections in the Military and Business cadres.
It doesn’t matter what Congress or the public thinks or says or does about Iran. They cannot affect the power equation now. They’ve been marginalized.
But the Generals, retired and yet to retire, and Big Business, fat n’ happy and yet fearful of the future, are withdrawing their support of the neocons. They are reclaiming the power loaned to these people. They are taking their baseball bats back.
Without these big bats, without the backing of the military and business brigades, these neocon bullies will back down.
Because they will cling to power before even their own dreams of glory and conquest, knowing always that power comes before all else. Power is everything.
To hold on to power, they’ll put Persia on ice.

Posted by: Antifa | Apr 14 2006 10:48 utc | 9

Antifa,
I agree with your argument and this:

But the Generals, retired and yet to retire, and Big Business, fat n’ happy and yet fearful of the future, are withdrawing their support of the neocons. They are reclaiming the power loaned to these people. They are taking their baseball bats back.

Where is the evidence that Big Bidness is withdrawing their support? By what mechanism will the reins be pulled in on the neocons?
I’d like to believe that what you say will happen, but how?

Posted by: Hamburger | Apr 14 2006 11:15 utc | 10

What I am wondering – to expand my question above somewhat – is: what can we expect along the lines of powers greater than Cheney’s actually defeating – or postponing – the plan for extended war? A recent forum in Harper’s suggests a military coup in the US is unlikely. We know Congress and “the people” are helpless. What or from where will pressure come to stop the invasion and/or bombing of Iran, if, as it seems clear, Bush sees this as his legacy?

Posted by: Hamburger | Apr 14 2006 11:24 utc | 11

Some more context. Not on Rumsfeld but on how to get rid of him.
The Harpers discussion “American Coup d’Etat: Military thinkers discuss the unthinkable”

BACEVICH: Bush’s move was unnecessary if the object of the exercise was to engage in surveillance. It was very useful indeed if the object is to expand executive power.
KOHN: Which is exactly what has been the agenda since the beginning of this administration.
LUTTWAK: Now you’re attributing motives.
BACEVICH: Yes, I am! If you read John Yoo, he suggests that one conscious aim of the project was to eliminate constraints on the chief executive when it comes to matters of national security.
DUNLAP: I will say that even if it was a completely legal project, there is a question of how appropriate it is for the armed forces to be involved in that kind of activity. Since, as I noted before, the American people have much less confidence in those institutions of civilian control than they do in the armed forces, we need to be very careful about what we ask the military to do, even assuming it’s legal.

In 1992 Birg. General Dunlap has written The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012
A bit tin foil stuff with the coup: Four Star General Fired For Organizing Coup Against Neo-Cons?

Posted by: b | Apr 14 2006 11:25 utc | 12

West Point Graduates against the war…and Bush.
From their statement:
There is…considerable evidence that Bush’s plans are fundamentally illegal, from both an international and domestic perspective. If the war is indeed illegal, members of the armed forces have a legal and moral obligation to resist illegal orders, according to their oath of induction.
In 2004, Rummy’s grad speech was already a point of contention, with protests planned then.
Maybe Rummy will never go, but the military hates him so much, he should wear a vest when he’s around them…everyone makes fragging sound like the only option.

Posted by: fauxreal | Apr 14 2006 12:35 utc | 13

the sentiment that the public plays no role in how this transpires, that it is entirely out of our hands, is pure & utter bullshit. period.

Posted by: b real | Apr 14 2006 16:20 utc | 14

You will know when Wall Street has turned on the Bush Administration when corporate media starts reporting the truth without the White House spin. So far this has not happened. Actually, the retired Generals calling for Rumsfeld’s firing may convince the Masters of the Universe that George W is planning for nuclear attacks next door to all those oil fields. Hopefully, knocking a little sense into the money managers and forcing them to reign in an out of control administration.

Posted by: Jim S | Apr 14 2006 17:02 utc | 15

Don’t forget that the Military holds key trump cards in this game. It wasn’t Donald Duck who flew the planes into the bldgs. on 911.
1) They were allowed to fly into bldgs. ‘cuz NORAD gave the stand down order – and that “D” doesn’t stand for Disney. They could only give the order ‘cuz it came from the “top level” of the White House. Recall the story David Ray Griffin tells of how furious the FBI agents @LAX were when they heard about this.
2) Clowns who couldn’t fly Cessna’s didn’t pilot them. The military did – remotely. Via equipment installed in their noses the day before. In the case of the plane that flew out of Newark, the SF lawyer who went to grad school w/Wolfie where they’d kick around ideas for a coup in their evening hrs., met a guy who was there when the equipment was installed. He’s pieced together the real story & is trying to litigate it. Sorry, but I’ve forgotten his name.
That said, forcing Rumbo’s resignation is just the beginning. Cheney can send someone else over there to carry on. The movement has to be about more than that.
Moving along…
Where is the evidence that Big Bidness is withdrawing their support? By what mechanism will the reins be pulled in on the neocons?
Give Bidness time. Financial guys can make the money unavailable – lots of stories about how the country is broke. Talking to other countries to bring about statements that they will not buy USgov bonds, if they invade Iran…etc. You guys know more about the levers on these mechanisms than I do. Business press might start featuring articles to bring AIPAC to sanity, as there are plenty of influential Jews on Wall Street. If AIPAC backs down, Congress might start speaking out… or if AIPAC is delegitimized by being shown to be pressuring Congress to do something so suicidal…
More calls from the civilian sector for Rumbo to resign on his own, could be forthcoming in the wake of this art. by highly respected author, Fred Kaplan.
It’s an odd thought, but a military coup in this country right now would probably have a moderating influence. Not that an actual coup is pending; still less is one desirable. But we are witnessing the rumblings of an officers’ revolt, and things could get ugly if it were to take hold and roar.
The revolt is a reluctant one, aimed specifically at the personage of Donald Rumsfeld and the way he is conducting the war in Iraq.
It is startling to hear, in private conversations, how widely and deeply the U.S. officer corps despises this secretary of defense. The joke in some Pentagon circles is that if Rumsfeld were meeting with the service chiefs and commanders and a group of terrorists barged into the room and kidnapped him, not a single general would lift a finger to help him.

He[Zinni] acknowledged other reasons many generals have declined to follow Shinseki, et al. into dissent. Some have no problem with the war or the way it has been conducted. Many others take very seriously the principle of civilian control; they firmly believe it is not their place to disagree with the president and his duly appointed secretary of defense—certainly not to do so in public, especially while the nation is at war. As a matter of principle, we should be glad that they feel this way. There are plenty of lessons from books, movies, and history that support this view as well: Seven Days in May (a charismatic general mounts a coup to keep the president from signing a nuclear-test-ban treaty with the Soviets), Dr. Strangelove (a loony general launches a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union without presidential authority), and the true-life tale of Gen. Douglas MacArthur (heroic commander of Korean War troops publicly advocates going beyond the 38th parallel and invading Communist China, forcing President Harry Truman to recall him).
MacArthur’s legacy in particular has kept even the boldest generals deeply reluctant to criticize civilian leaders over the decades. Rumsfeld’s arrogance, his “casualness and swagger” as Gen. Newbold put it—which have caused so many strategic blunders, so much death and disaster—have started to tip some officers over the edge. They may prove a good influence in the short run. But if Rumsfeld resists their encroachments and fights back, the whole hierarchy of command could implode as officers feel compelled not merely to stay silent but to choose one side or the other. And if the rebel officers win, they might find they like the taste of bureaucratic victory—and feel less constrained to renew the internecine combat when other, less momentous disputes arise in the future.
Both paths are cluttered with drear and danger. Does President Bush know this is going on? If he does, he would do the nation—and the Constitution—a big favor if he launched a different sort of pre-emptive attack and got rid of Rumsfeld now.

Posted by: jj | Apr 14 2006 17:43 utc | 16

Another reason to fire Rumsfeld
Salon: What Rumsfeld knew

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was personally involved in the late 2002 interrogation of a high-value al-Qaida detainee known in intelligence circles as “the 20th hijacker.” He also communicated weekly with the man in charge of the interrogation, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, the controversial commander of the Guantánamo Bay detention center.
During the same period, detainee Mohammed al-Kahtani suffered from what Army investigators have called “degrading and abusive” treatment by soldiers who were following the interrogation plan Rumsfeld had approved. Kahtani was forced to stand naked in front of a female interrogator, was accused of being a homosexual, and was forced to wear women’s underwear and to perform “dog tricks” on a leash. He received 18-to-20-hour interrogations during 48 of 54 days.

These disclosures are contained in a Dec. 20, 2005, Army inspector general’s report on Miller’s conduct, which was obtained this week by Salon through the Freedom of Information Act. The 391-page document — which has long passages blacked out by the government — concludes that Miller should not be punished for his oversight role in detainee operations, a fact that was reported last month by Time magazine. But the never-before-released full report also includes the transcripts of interviews with high-ranking military officials that shed new light on the role that Rumsfeld and Miller played in the harsh treatment of Kahtani, who had met with Osama bin Laden on several occasions and received terrorist training in al-Qaida camps.
In a sworn statement to the inspector general, Schmidt described Rumsfeld as “personally involved” in the interrogation and said that the defense secretary was “talking weekly” with Miller. Schmidt said he concluded that Rumsfeld did not specifically prescribe the more “creative” interrogation methods used on Kahtani. But he added that the open-ended policies Rumsfeld approved, and that the apparent lack of supervision of day-to-day interrogations permitted the abusive conduct to take place. “Where is the throttle on this stuff?” asked Schmidt, an Air Force fighter pilot, who said in his interview under oath with the inspector general that he had concerns about the length and repetition of the harsh interrogation methods. “There were no limits.”

Posted by: b | Apr 14 2006 17:51 utc | 17

Russia will get an oil spike from the Iran strike, but what’s China’s payoff? And are our assets in place to counter the forces that will try to rouse the Muslim street after an Iran strike?

Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 14 2006 17:53 utc | 18

thanks for the post jj. any more news on 9/11 is much appreciated

Posted by: annie | Apr 14 2006 17:59 utc | 19

Pravda-on-the-Potomac has finally come out & said Rumbo should be replaced ‘cuz he has not credibility domestically. But by the usual suspects – co-founder of Committee on the Present Danger, NeoNut AIPAC-Joey L., or McCain, or Chuck Hagel who rigged his own election to the House of Peacocks.link
But I want to give credit for this find which isn’t on buzzflash or americablog, to my new must read blog link (I gave this link rather than the permalink to the precise article, so Barflies would note their first post on econ. on their way down.)

Posted by: jj | Apr 14 2006 18:18 utc | 20

Oops – should say “no cred-” 🙂

Posted by: jj | Apr 14 2006 18:19 utc | 21

I’ve got almost nothing but questions. It does seem to me, though, that there are lots of people in this world that you could trust with nukes, but religious fanatics of any faith aren’t on that list.

Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 14 2006 18:28 utc | 22

Maybe the Generals think that Cheney is on his way out, too, via Fitzgerald indictment.

Posted by: Anonymous | Apr 14 2006 18:43 utc | 23

Null name, you’re forgetting that Iran said they’d cease enrichment activities if xUS would assure them they wouldn’t be invaded. Hence, ball in xUS court.

Posted by: jj | Apr 14 2006 18:49 utc | 24

Hey, as long as they want to cling, their lives should be made as miserable as possible.

Posted by: Scorpio | Apr 14 2006 19:18 utc | 25

One other benifit to having rummy “twist in the wind” is that the generals lament also totally delegitimizes the notion that criticism of the leadership (or the war) = traitor/unpatriotic/aid&comfortto theenemy meme, big time. So twist rummy, twist, and if you like twist and shout!

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 14 2006 19:35 utc | 26

This thing with the generals has been boiling since 2003 or earlier.
I can’t remember any criticism of a defense secretary this fierce by the retired military sice I’ve been following the news.
Yeah, AM, I like it:
Twist and shout.

Posted by: Groucho | Apr 14 2006 20:03 utc | 27

The idea that the American public can stop this Iran invasion is at variance with experience and reality. It’s like saying a herd of cattle can move the fences.
They can, of course, if they stampede. But contented cows don’t stampede — they eat grass and give milk. And the American public is content. Latest polls show 48% feel that hitting Iran is good TV.
The national government rests upon three legs — Congress, Big Business, and the Military.
This roundelay is a closed system, and it works on scads of money, as follows:
Business gives money to Congresscritters so they can run big media campaigns to get more votes than another critter just like themselves. Who wins is beside the point — the point is you can’t win unless you got many millions of private, donated dollars to pay for your campaign. Those dollars came with private deals.
Those private deals are for the Congresscritter to pitch in and keep government monies flowing to Business in the form of Pentagon contracts, and tax breaks, looser regulations on everything they do, less or no supervision, lower taxes, offshoring, outsourcing, legalized union busting, wide open immigration to keep wages low — and so on.
With 51% of discretionary government spending going out through the Pentagon, there is an Amazon River of taxpayer money coming out of the national government, all approved by Business-financed Congresscritters and all run through the Pentagon.
Short version — a million dollars in political contributions will reliably get you fifty million in government contracts.
Nowhere in this process is the public consulted, nor is there any place where their wishes are noted. They are only allowed to vote on critters so alike as to be clones, put up there by Business contributors, and the few big corporate media giants tell the public what to think. About everything.
And the public eats grass and gives milk.
American government is of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation. People are to be handled, not counted. Herded, not courted. Corporations have them by their testicles, if it came to it, and they will fall in line when told to do so.
The antidote to this closed system is a wide open, free press, beholden to no investor but its own employees. Such non-profit press trusts, owned by the many instead of the few, are our way out of this closed system. They are the voice of the people, yes, but more important they publish facts and truth. Not Business and Pentagonese, not truthiness.
The people could always stampede. Like that works. The biggest protests in history, worldwide, were before the Iraq war, and they were ignored by this closed system, and ridiculed by the press.
Short of burning down the White House, and leveling the Pentagon so that no stone rests upon another stone, the public will be handled and herded no matter what amount of marching they do.
Let’s b real. The public is disconnected from this process. They are not players, they are cattle.
If this invasion of Iran is stopped, it will be by Big Business and the Military, the only players in this game. The Government won’t fold; the other players have to quit the table.
And they will do it for their own self preservation. Not for the people.

Posted by: Antifa | Apr 14 2006 20:21 utc | 28

Bush said today on Rummy:
“He has my full support and deepest appreciation.”
Hmm – “Heck of a job” comes to mind, so maybe he is gone.
Who would take that lousy job? McCain? Lieberman?
Who will tie himself to a failed Presidency?

Posted by: b | Apr 14 2006 20:51 utc | 29

How similar is this Iran thing to Hitler opening up a second front with Russia? Wasn’t that over the objections of his military staff?

Posted by: Pee Dee | Apr 14 2006 21:16 utc | 30

@Pee Dee:

Not very, really. Both the fronts opened by Hitler were against enemies directly connected by land which could, given the opportunity, attack Germany. And, of course, the Germans didn’t have weapons which could destroy the world many times over. Besides, if you’re a sociopath contemplating genocide, you don’t see “Iraq” and “Iran”, you see “big hot sandy area with brown-skinned people I can bomb.”

Speaking of destroying the world, though, this page on the subject is mildly amusing, in a mad science sort of way.

Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Apr 14 2006 22:08 utc | 31

I said in an up comment: The fight is about the planning for the War On Iran.
Digby agrees twice .
Can the Generals change the plot? Don´t know, lots depends on the media, but they are trying hard.

Posted by: b | Apr 14 2006 23:12 utc | 32

Greg Palast has an opinion on Rummy, and its music to my ears.

Posted by: anna missed | Apr 15 2006 4:52 utc | 33

WaP: Bush Speaks Out for Rumsfeld

The president’s decision to interject himself so forcefully stands in contrast to his mild reaction to recent reports of dissatisfaction with Treasury Secretary John W. Snow and reflected a calculation by Bush and his advisers that attacks on Rumsfeld by prominent former military commanders strike at the heart of his presidency. As Bush’s choice to run the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Rumsfeld serves as his proxy, and most of the judgments that have come under fire were shared by the president and Vice President Cheney as well.

The grievances aired by half a dozen retired flag officers in recent days resonated with many military veterans. “I admire those who have stepped forward, and I agree with the arguments they are making,” retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul K. Van Riper said in an interview yesterday. “I count myself in the same camp.”
Van Riper, a lifelong Republican who voted for Bush in 2000 but did not vote in the 2004 election, said Rumsfeld has failed in a number of ways, including “disastrous” war planning and execution and fostering a poor command climate.

General No. 7

Posted by: b | Apr 15 2006 8:31 utc | 34

Richard Holbrooke Behind the Military RevoltThat first White House reaction will not be the end of the story. If more angry generals emerge — and they will — if some of them are on active duty, as seems probable; if the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan does not turn around (and there is little reason to think it will, alas), then this storm will continue until finally it consumes not only Donald Rumsfeld. The only question is: Will it come so late that there is no longer any hope of salvaging something in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Posted by: b | Apr 16 2006 9:46 utc | 35